House of Commons

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 25 February 2026

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Members will be aware of comments in the media regarding the arrest of Lord Mandelson. To prevent any inaccurate speculation, I would like to confirm that upon receipt of information, I felt it was relevant to pass this on to the Metropolitan police in good faith, as is my duty and responsibility. It is regrettable that this rapidly ended up in the media. As this is a live investigation, Members will understand that it would not be appropriate to make any further comment, and I caution Members from doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the effectiveness of their relationship with the UK Government.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

The UK Government are working closely with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland. Since taking office, we have provided the Scottish Government with a record budget settlement, reversing austerity and years of underfunding and ensuring that communities get the support they deserve. I met the Deputy First Minister earlier this month. Labour, as the party of devolution, is already delivering an extra £11 billion for the Scottish Government’s budget, £120 million of investment for Grangemouth and a defence dividend for Rosyth and Faslane.

[Ms Minns]

One example of what might politely be called ineffective relations between the Scottish and UK Governments concerns bovine electronic identification, where instead of agreeing to adopt the same radio frequency as the rest of the UK and Europe, the Scottish Government have chosen to use a high-frequency spectrum. The implications for the UK’s largest auction mart, in my constituency, will be a doubling of costs, as it has to invest in two types of scanner. Will the Secretary of State press the Office for the Internal Market to look in detail at how auction houses and hauliers such as those in my constituency will be placed at a competitive disadvantage thanks to the SNP Government?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend raises an important point for not just her constituents but many others. Although animal health is a devolved responsibility, I am troubled—although not altogether surprised—to learn that the Scottish Government have chosen to diverge from the approach taken across the rest of the UK and indeed in Europe, with all the consequent difficulties she describes. The Office for the Internal Market produced a report on this issue in 2025 and recognised that some businesses, such as larger livestock auctions, could face higher costs if the system were not managed well. My hon. Friend can none the less be assured that the UK Government at least remain committed to seamless trade within the United Kingdom.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I begin by paying tribute to the former Scottish Cabinet Secretary Jeane Freeman, who sadly passed away this month. I dealt extensively with Jeane in the implementation of the Scotland Act 2016 and always found her very professional and personable. I also hope that the Secretary of State’s visit to New Zealand was particularly successful, although it did seem an extremely long way to go just to avoid Anas Sarwar.

The Secretary of State may be aware that there is a very successful HIV testing programme in England in HIV testing week. Could he make representations to the Scottish Government so that not only is there an HIV testing week in Scotland, but, radically, it is the same week as in England, so that it could benefit from national focus?

[Mr Alexander]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the characteristic grace and generosity with which he asked his question. I can assure him that it was a long-planned trip to establish relations, which, frankly, should have been established some time ago by the Government in which he served. We are none the less very proud of our defence relationship with New Zealand, and I look forward to being with Anas in Paisley on Friday.

On the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I commend him for his advocacy over many years. The UK Government recently launched an HIV action plan for England with the aim of ending new HIV transmissions by the end of the decade, and our recent HIV testing week has helped to build public knowledge and understanding so that we can reconnect thousands with the healthcare they need, reduce stigma and, crucially, identify undiagnosed cases. While healthcare is a devolved matter for the Scottish Government, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we support any initiatives that ensure that people across the United Kingdom get the testing they need.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Transport in Scotland is devolved, but Labour’s new electric vehicle tax is not. Scotland is home to the largest constituencies by area in the UK. This will mean that many rural Scots, who already pay more for electricity at home, will pay more tax despite having less access to charging infrastructure. Can the Secretary of State say what discussions have been had with the Scottish Government on the impact of this tax and whether the Government will work with the Scottish Government to improve charging access and create a mandatory community benefit scheme for those who see the turbines of the green revolution from their windows, but not a fair reflection in their bills?

[Mr Alexander]

Many of us know, from the experience of family, friends and others, about the difficulty of many charging stations across Scotland, which causes the range anxiety of which the hon. Lady speaks, particularly in rural areas. The new electric vehicle excise duty introduces a fairer approach to sharing the costs generated by all vehicle drivers through wear and tear on roads and congestion.

As a former Transport Secretary, I know that, as we transition to electric vehicles, it is necessary to look at the appropriate taxation of electric vehicles. While those living in rural areas tend to drive more than those who live in urban areas, EV drivers are also more likely to have a dedicated home charger, which allows access to the lowest charging costs, thereby ensuring that EVs remain the cheaper, greener choice. None the less, I assure the hon. Lady that we talk to the Scottish Government on a range of issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the comments from other colleagues about the sad loss of Jeane Freeman.

This has been a difficult few weeks—sorry, another difficult few weeks for Scottish Labour. For the benefit of the House, given that Scottish Labour’s senior politicians have no faith in this Government, will the Secretary of State outline the major policy differences between them?

[Mr Alexander]

First, as I should have done in response to the question from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), I associate myself with his remarks in relation to the late Jeane Freeman. She was a public servant of distinction who served in both the Scottish Cabinet and the Scottish Parliament for a number of years.

The SNP spokesperson talked about this being a difficult few weeks; the terrible truth is that we have had a difficult couple of decades under the SNP. Whether it is the SNP’s failure to build ferries in relation to transport, falling education standards, or its inability to get a grip on waiting times, the real issue of concern to Scotland is avoiding a third decade of SNP failure.

[Stephen Gethins]

Unsurprisingly, the Secretary of State has not been able to tell me that there are any differences, because the sad truth is that when it comes to every issue, the Prime Minister’s most loyal supporters are in Scottish Labour. When it came to raising tax on small and medium-sized enterprises—no problem; when it came to scrapping the winter fuel allowance—no problem; when it came to the two-child benefit cap, they even kicked people out of the party—no problem. But when it comes to their own jobs, then there is a problem. Does the Secretary of State understand why Labour is falling so far and so fast?

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman talks about sad truths; the sad truth is that one in seven young Scots between the ages of 16 and 24 are not in employment, education or training. The Scottish Government, in which he served, also uphold another sad truth: it is hard to think of a single area of Scottish public life over the past 19 years where we have seen an improvement. Scottish schools used to be the envy of the world, but the hon. Gentleman’s Government have delivered falling standards. The Scottish national health service, with brilliant staff, contrasts very badly with the level of progress on waiting lists that is being made by colleagues down here. Whether it is because of being weak on defence, inadequate on further education colleges, or generally just a secret and inadequate Government, there is a whole lot of change coming in May, I hope.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Veterans Commissioner on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

I thank the hon. Member for his consistent and thoughtful engagement on the Bill. The Government are committed to delivering truth and accountability for those who were bereaved or seriously injured during the troubles, which is why we introduced the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in October. The previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 delivered no real support to veterans in legacy processes. The troubles Bill will put in place deliverable protections, designed in line with our human rights obligations and in consultation with veterans, including those from Scotland. I can confirm that the Scottish Veterans Commissioner met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in December.

[Robin Swann]

First, may I join the commemoration of Jeane Freeman, having served with her during her period as Scottish Health Secretary?

The question I asked was actually about whether the Secretary of State for Scotland had met the Scottish Veterans Commissioner in respect of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. That legislation will have a dramatic effect on veterans across the United Kingdom, no matter where they served, and it would be best if the Scotland Office also knew about its impact.

[Kirsty McNeill]

I would be delighted to meet the Scottish Veterans Commissioner but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Northern Ireland Office leads on such matters. We should put on the record that we owe a huge debt to the quarter of a million Northern Ireland veterans who served with honour to bring about peace in Northern Ireland. It is the Government’s firm view that no veteran who properly carried out their duty should be forced to face an endless cycle of legal uncertainty.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Labour promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who served our country. Therefore, can the Minister set out what support the new veterans strategy will provide for the around 10,000 veterans in Glasgow?

[Kirsty McNeill]

This Government are firmly committed to those who have served receiving the support, respect and recognition that they deserve. Our new veterans strategy, underpinned by our commitment to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law, includes £50 million for Valour—the first ever UK-wide Government approach to veterans support. For veterans in Glasgow and across Scotland, that means clearer pathways to services, better advocacy and a system that understands and recognises their unique experiences.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support jobs in the defence manufacturing sector in Scotland.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support jobs in the defence manufacturing sector in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

Scotland is at the heart of keeping the UK secure at home and strong abroad. As has been referenced already, just last week I visited Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, working to strengthen our defence partnerships and increase export opportunities for the Scottish defence industry. That defence dividend has already delivered record orders worth £10 billion for the Clyde shipyards, new investments of £340 million in Rosyth and £250 million in Faslane, and a contract of £453 million for Leonardo in Edinburgh.

[Joani Reid]

This Government’s increase in defence spending is delivering £2 billion a year for Scotland as well as 12,000 jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to my constituents is an SNP Government who are playing student politics with defence and will not use their existing powers to back Scottish industry, young people and our national security?

[Mr Alexander]

Not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. The UK Labour Government have committed to the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, totalling £270 billion in this Parliament alone. In contrast, the SNP-led Scottish Government’s position on public funding for defence is risking jobs, skills and investment in Scotland. Despite record funding provided by the UK Government, they are weak on defence and dismal on further education. Scotland deserves better than a third decade of a failed SNP Government.

[Kevin Bonavia]

Labour’s defence industrial strategy will strengthen our security across the whole United Kingdom and deliver an unprecedented growth deal for Scotland that includes £250 million of UK-wide investment and £182 million for skills. For me, this is personal. My grandfather worked in the Glasgow shipyards, part of a proud tradition that has served the whole UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a strong Scottish defence sector delivered by a UK Labour Government strengthens all of us?

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My own grandfather worked as an engineer in Glasgow, so I appreciate the proud heritage of which he speaks. The Government’s defence industrial strategy will deliver a record boost for Scotland’s economy, creating highly skilled jobs for years to come. Alas, when the SNP-led Scottish Government stepped back, it took the UK Labour Government to step in and give young people the welding skills that they needed. As we mark the fourth anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the security challenges facing NATO are clear for almost all of us to see, yet the Scottish Government remain committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Many of my constituents work in the Leonardo factory, which the Secretary of State mentioned. They contribute hugely to this economy, but they are concerned about the contradiction between what the UK Government say and what the Scottish Government say about defence spending. Can he detail exactly how the Government will support them going forward?

[Mr Alexander]

I had the chance to visit the Leonardo facility with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in recent weeks and saw for myself the transformation it had witnessed since it was originally Ferranti, with the strong support of the UK Government behind it. The hon. Member raises a really important question. The defence prime companies in Scotland cannot get Scottish Government civil servants even to explain the policy that the First Minister announced last September. That is imperilling investment, apprenticeships and jobs in Scotland. Scotland deserves better.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that increased defence orders in Scotland have the potential to strengthen the defence industry and the industrial base across the whole of the United Kingdom, and will he make an assessment of the opportunities that that presents, in particular for Northern Ireland companies?

[Mr Alexander]

I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. With that biggest sustained increase in defence expenditure since the cold war—not simply in Scotland, where defence supports about 12,000 Scottish jobs, but in Northern Ireland, Wales and England—there are real opportunities for a defence dividend. That is why the defence industrial strategy is UK-wide and why, notwithstanding the Scottish Government’s weakness on defence and economic support, we remain committed to that strategy.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the energy profits levy on the oil and gas sector in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

First, I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservatives who brought in the energy profits levy in 2022. Oil and gas will be a central part of the energy mix in the UK for decades to come, but it is also right to recognise that there is a transition that needs to be managed and there was an abject failure by the previous Government to manage that transition. The Chancellor confirmed at the Budget that we are ending the EPL on 31 March 2030.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is clear that the Secretary of State is totally uninterested in the reality of what is happening in the industry because of the EPL. A thousand jobs a month are being lost as a direct result of the Government’s decision, all the while we are importing more at a higher cost with high emissions, jobs are being lost, investments are being turned away and our energy security is being undermined. At the same time, despite what the Secretary of State says, bills are going up for my constituents. Why will he not rectify that and sort out the problem for the whole country?

[Mr Alexander]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had a chance to listen to what was on the radio this morning about bills and the progress being made. [Interruption.] Well, let us introduce some facts to the debate. This trend in the North sea did not emerge yesterday; it is a mature basin where there was a 75% reduction in production between 1999 and 2024. We have been a net importer since 2003, and we lost more than 70,000 jobs from the basin in the last 10 years of the Conservatives being in power.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the remarks about Jeane Freeman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while oil and gas will play a vital role in the UK for decades to come, we have great opportunities for Scottish businesses in renewables, including at the Methil yard in my constituency, which is ideally placed to deliver renewables infrastructure as well as vital defence contracts such as Programme Euston?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I had the opportunity to visit the Navantia yard in Methil just a couple of weeks ago. It is just over a year ago that we as a Labour Government stepped in to secure the future of both the Methil and Arnish yards. Since then, Navantia has announced a further £12 million of investment in the Methil site, which is just another example of what is possible when a UK Labour Government and industry work together for Scotland’s benefit.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Mr Speaker,

“I would have preferred that Europe could make do with green energy, but the reality is different, and I fundamentally believe that it is better for Europe to get gas from Denmark than from countries outside our continent.”

Those are the words of the Danish Energy Minister—a Minister in a Government looking to extend licences in that country. The Danes can see what is blindingly obvious: we will continue to have a demand for oil and gas for many years, and it is better that we use our own to support our own economy, support our own workers and support the existing industry that will invest in the future. Who does the Secretary of State agree with—the Danish Energy Minister, the head of GB Energy, Scottish Renewables, the trade unions and everyone else, or his colleague the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero?

[Mr Alexander]

It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that it was actually a Conservative Government who introduced the EPL. We have been clear that the EPL will come to an end in 2030. It is also worth pointing out that oil and gas in the North sea is sold into global markets, and that we lost a third of the jobs in the North sea under the Government in which he served. I am happy to listen to other voices, but the last voice that would I listen to is that of the Scottish Conservative party.

[Andrew Bowie]

The Secretary of State talks about global markets. Supporting the Scottish oil and gas industry supports 90 times more jobs than imports. Supporting the oil and gas industry yields 150 times more income tax and national insurance revenue than imports. Supporting the Scottish oil and gas industry delivers 400 times more oil and gas company taxes than imports, and supporting the Scottish oil and gas industry has a gross value added of £96 million for the UK, compared with zero from imports. Everyone else understands it. Will the Secretary of State please explain to everyone in the country what on earth the Government are playing at?

[Mr Alexander]

There is an aching gap the width of the North sea between what the hon. Member says and what the Conservatives did. The reality is that for all his conversations and protestations now about supporting Scottish oil and gas industry workers, under his Government, we lost a third of the North sea’s workforce. They failed time and again to come up with a plan. It falls to Labour once again to clean up their mess.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support Scottish football fans travelling to the FIFA world cup 2026.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

My hon. Friend and I both know that the tartan army will be out in full force supporting Scotland’s FIFA world cup campaign this summer. The UK Government are working with partners in the host countries and the Scottish Football Association to provide guidance to supporters on travel, security and consular assistance. We are determined to help everyone have a fantastic and safe world cup, hopefully beyond the group stages.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Despite fears of trade tariffs, I have checked and the price of a pint of beer in Boston, Massachusetts, where Scotland is due to play its first game, is about $8. That is a bargain, because the SNP wants to charge its fans £750 a pint to have a drink with the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who, unusually, is not in his seat today. I am always open to a pint with the Opposition, but would the Secretary of State rather have a beer in Boston with the tartan army or a pint of bitter with the SNP?

[Mr Alexander]

I commend my hon. Friend for his question. I am not sure that I’ll be coming down the road to have a pint with the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) any time soon. Come to think of it, I would walk 500 miles to avoid having a beer and a blether with him.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I am quite surprised at that last question, because one of the things that Scotland qualifying for the world cup brings is a unity to the nation. We are all looking forward to Scotland competing for the first time since 1998. We will all get selfies—it will be us with the tartan army. Does the Secretary of State think that there is any chance that we will get a photograph with the Prime Minister and Anas Sarwar?

[Mr Alexander]

I respectfully point out that we qualified under a Labour Government this time, and the last time, when I was there in the Stade de France, there was a UK Labour Government.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

6. What discussions he has had with the First Minister of Scotland on support for the Scottish hospitality sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

Scotland’s hospitality businesses, at the heart of our high streets and communities, are the engines of Scotland’s economy. The UK Government have helped businesses across the country by stabilising public finances, focusing on driving economic growth and putting more money in people’s pockets. In Scotland, of course, key levers such as rates, business development, skills and planning are devolved to the Scottish Government. Perhaps hon. Members on the SNP Benches can explain why the Scottish Government have failed so miserably to support Scotland’s hospitality sector in the way that it deserves.

[John Lamont]

Last week, I met Nick and Trish who own Burts Hotel in Melrose. Like many other people, they explained the immense pressure that they are under as a result of the Minister’s Government’s jobs tax and the SNP Government’s eye-watering hike in business rates. Does she think the Government’s increase in employer national insurance has helped or hindered the hospitality sector?

[Kirsty McNeill]

Our changes to employer national insurance were part of raising the revenue needed for the changes in public services from which his constituents and mine will benefit due to the record settlement for the Scottish Government. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that protestations of fealty to the hospitality sector would ring more true had 7,000 pubs not shut under the Conservatives.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Any support for Scottish hospitality businesses is welcome; however, the recent Scottish Budget simply tinkers around the edges, with many businesses still in line for a 400% tax hike. Does my hon. Friend agree that a fundamental overhaul and redesign of the current system is required so that we can deliver stronger economic growth in Scotland?

[Kirsty McNeill]

My hon. Friend is, as usual, quite right. Scottish businesses are facing eye-watering rate hikes, while the SNP Government tinker around the edges of a fundamentally broken system. Meanwhile, Anas Sarwar has been clear: Scottish Labour would revive our high streets with a fundamental overhaul of business rates. Right now, jobs and businesses are at risk, and we want to reset the balance between our local businesses and the online giants.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Given that the Secretary of State still expects us to believe that the Prime Minister has faith in Anas Sarwar’s judgment, it is quite clear that the Labour party can still have a laugh—although it does seem to have an aversion to having fun. Why else would it be waging a war against Scottish pubs? Just like Scottish Labour’s election campaign, the sector in Scotland is hanging by a thread. Last year, one pub in Scotland closed every single week. But it is not just pubs: cafés, restaurants and chip shops all face the same. Will he and his Scottish Labour colleagues join Russell Findlay and the Scottish Conservatives in our call for pubs and hospitality businesses to be exempt from business rates rises this year, and will he do what he can to ensure that his Government stand up for Scottish hospitality? That would surely be something to raise a glass to.

[Kirsty McNeill]

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman heard me about the Conservatives’ record: 7,000 pubs lost under their watch. A package of support has, of course, been presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for pubs in England, meaning that there is already extra money for the Scottish Government to spend in this area. I encourage Scottish Government Ministers to step up support for the hospitality sector using the Barnett consequentials that this Government have already provided.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the Speaker of the Parliament of Fiji and the President of the European Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 February.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Four years into Putin’s barbaric assault, the courage of Ukrainians burns bright. We are extending sanctuary to Ukrainians in their time of need and providing the weapons and aid to support them in their fight for a just peace. We are degrading Russia’s economy and planning for a ceasefire that protects Ukraine’s sovereignty. That support will never falter. Yesterday I recommitted to President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people that we stand with them in the fight for freedom, democracy and the values that we all hold dear.

Let me also congratulate Team GB for their superb performance in the winter Olympics. They are brilliant ambassadors for our country, and I know that ParalympicsGB will also do us proud. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Edward Argar]

May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister in respect of Team GB and Ukraine?

A great former Prime Minister once said,

“You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.”

Like the leader of my party today, she was a leader of principle and backbone, but we know this current Government are no stranger to the U-turn. Given that, can I gently tempt the Prime Minister to add one more to the current tally and help get Britain working again by backing the fantastic shops and businesses in Melton Mowbray town centre and in high streets across my constituency and beyond to succeed and grow by scrapping the Government’s business rate changes, which will hit so many of them hard in April?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good to see the right hon. Member in good form, particularly—if I may say so—after his health scare, which he and I have discussed a number of times.

The right hon. Gentleman discusses a former leader of his party. He was the former Health Minister who presided over record waiting lists; he was the former Prisons Minister who left the prisons overcrowded; and he was the former economy Minister under Liz Truss. We are picking up the mess and turning it around.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Q2. I very much welcome the fact that our Labour Government have recognised the state of Palestine. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week as chair of the UN Security Council, setting out the UK’s commitment to increasing humanitarian access to Gaza and advancing a two-state solution. Does the Prime Minister agree that protecting civilians, upholding international law and supporting Palestinian-led governance are essential for a lasting peace?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, because the ceasefire in Gaza remains fragile, and protecting Israeli and Palestinian civilians is critical to the next phase of the peace plan. I am proud of our commitment to a two-state solution, and we will be hosting the peacebuilding conference in March to build lasting peace and security for both Palestine and Israel. Hamas must decommission their weapons and destroy their terrorist infrastructure and can have no future role in running Gaza. While aid flows have increased, the level of need is still dire. The Israeli Government must stop blocking supplies and preventing the work of international non-governmental organisations. That is unconscionable, and it is costing Palestinian lives.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

May I associate the Conservative party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Ukraine and Team GB?

Before the Prime Minister and I became MPs, parties of every colour increased the cost of going to university. The system is now at breaking point for graduates. I believe that student loans have become a debt trap. It is time for all of us to do something about it. Will he cut interest rates on student loans?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say I was glad to learn that the Leader of the Opposition has finally admitted that the Conservatives scammed the country on this— and that applies to everything that they did in government. We inherited their broken student loans system. We have already introduced maintenance grants, which they scrapped, to improve the situation and we will look at ways to make it fairer. We will do other things within the economy to help students. [Interruption.] What other things, Conservative Members ask? There was some news this morning, at 7 am, that energy bills are coming down by £117 for millions of families and young people struggling. That is guaranteed money off bills in April, driven by the action that this Labour Government have taken. We have promised to cut the cost of living—we are cutting the cost of living.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Prime Minister if he would cut interest rates on student loans—no answer. For the record, energy bills are still higher than when he came into office. He keeps talking about the last Government. In case he has not noticed, my party is under new leadership—a lot of people wish his was too, including his own Back Benchers.

Let us talk again about student loans and student fees, even, because to win the Labour leadership, with Labour Together, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. In opposition, the Education Secretary said:

“Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government.”

I wonder what happened to those people? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether graduates are paying more or less under Labour?

[The Prime Minister]

Many in her party are under new leadership, Mr Speaker—they are sitting on the Reform Bench. The only change the Leader of the Opposition has brought to her party is to make it smaller. She talks about interest rates on loans. Not only have energy prices come down this morning, but since we were last debating across the Dispatch Box, inflation has fallen as well, which has a huge impact on interest rates. It has fallen to 3% and the Bank of England says that it will keep on falling. That is only happening because of the decisions that we made at the Budget, opposed by the Conservatives. They talk about the cost of living: this Government are taking action. Under the Conservatives’ watch, inflation was 11%, which crippled students’ finances as their low rates went up.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am amazed that while we are trying to talk about student loans, the Prime Minister has the cheek to talk about my party being smaller. His party is smaller too, including one MP who was arrested for child sex offences. Perhaps before he gets on his high horse, he should ask why his Back Benchers are saying that they are being called “the paedo defenders party”. [Interruption.] I did not say it—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Okay—let’s have less.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I know that they do not like it—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Does the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) want to leave at this stage?

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

Just understand: it is very important that I hear the questions because I may have to make a judgment. I do not need any more shouting.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I know that Labour Members do not like it, but I have not said anything that is not true, have I? Perhaps they should get off their high horse and stop making stupid jokes.

Why don’t we talk about student loans? Policies that may have been fine for 2012, with low interest rates, are not fine for 2026. The fact is that graduates are paying more, not less. On Monday, the Schools Minister was asked on the BBC why Labour froze the repayment thresholds. She said that the Government have “huge pressures”. Those pressures have been created by the Prime Minister’s taxes and borrowing to pay for more welfare. Why is the Prime Minister taking from students to give to “Benefits Street”?

[The Prime Minister]

What a nerve! Under the Conservative Government, student loan thresholds were frozen for 10 years. They broke the system—they did it with the bloke over there, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), when they were in coalition together—and we are fixing it.

The right hon. Lady used to say, just a few weeks ago, that she was going to focus on the economy to the exclusion of everything else, so I am doing her a favour by bringing us back to the economy. [Interruption.] Yes, desperate to talk about the economy. We have taken £117 off energy bills, and inflation is going down. The other thing that was confirmed on Friday was that borrowing is coming down, and we have the biggest surplus on record. That means that we have got the economy back under control, and we are fixing the public finances. I know that the party of Liz Truss does not understand any of this, but the Leader of the Opposition should welcome those changes when she next stands up.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister says that the Government are fixing the student loans system. How? He was not even talking about this until I raised it. The fact is that those policies—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. What I said earlier goes for the row of Benches over there as well. I expect a standard of a Chair of a Select Committee, not for them to shout somebody down.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not need any backchat.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is only talking about student loans now because I raised them. He says that the Government are fixing the problem, but the fact is that he is not. Why is it that I am willing to ditch old Conservative policies that do not work, but he wants to keep them? He is not going to do anything about it at all. On Monday, the Government voted to increase benefits yet again. The fact is that the Prime Minister is taking money out of the pockets of graduates and giving it to people who are not working. It is not fair.

It is not just that the Prime Minister is saddling graduates with debt. Yesterday, the Bank of England, where the Chancellor used to work—in customer services—said that the Prime Minister’s policies are fuelling youth unemployment. That is not coming from us; that is from the Bank of England. For the first time ever, youth unemployment is now higher here than it is in the EU. While he blames everyone else, our young people cannot get jobs; they are losing hope and even leaving the country. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to deal with that?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady says that she is ditching failed Tory policies. That is a very long list—14 years of it—and it starts with the word, “Sorry”. When she says that word, we will take her seriously.

The right hon. Lady talks about the Bank of England. The Bank of England has reduced interest rates six times. We have seen a fall in energy bills. Inflation is coming down. Borrowing is coming down. She has not welcomed any of that. I know that she wanted to talk about the economy—she did not want to talk about anything other than the economy—so perhaps she will welcome the surge in retail sales as well. People are spending more on our high streets because of the action that we took. Wages were boosted for millions of workers—opposed by the Conservatives. Free breakfast clubs—opposed by the Conservatives. Free childcare—opposed by the Conservatives. On every measure that we are taking to improve the economy, what do they do? They oppose it.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is desperate to talk about the last Government so that he can distract from the mess that he is making now. The fact is that he is the Prime Minister today. This is a man who got legislation in to fix his own pension—just his, no one else’s. He will not sort out student loans for other people. He has no plan to get young people into work. He has no plan to help graduates to get out of the debt trap. [Interruption.] Labour Members can complain as much as they like, but these are facts. There are 411 Labour MPs, and not a single one of them has any imagination. We are the ones doing all the thinking.

The Prime Minister has already made 15 U-turns. Will he make another one next week at the spring statement to fix the student loans system?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member wants me to talk about this Government. Bills are down £117 under this Government. Inflation is down under this Government. Surplus is up, at a record. Resales—[Interruption.] She will not welcome the economic news, but the business community is welcoming the plan. Business confidence is up. The FTSE is at a record high. The president of the British Chamber of Commerce has said that this is the year our economy could turn around. The right hon. Member’s miserable strategy of talking down the economy is not working because Labour has a plan for Britain.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The economy will only turn around this year if the Prime Minister stops being the leader. Perhaps his party can do something about that. He wants us to welcome the economic news; I am sorry, but I am not going to welcome the fact that youth unemployment is at its highest ever. I am not going to welcome the fact that unemployment has increased every single month under this Labour Government. He is not doing anything about student loans because he is not governing, and he is not governing because he cannot govern. He is distracted by Labour scandal after Labour scandal. Even today, there is an inquiry into the inquiries Minister! That is all his party has offered since it came in.

The defining moment of this man’s premiership will not be breakfast clubs; it will be the sight of the man he appointed ambassador to Washington just last year getting arrested. No wonder Labour Members are calling themselves all sorts of things. He needs to stop moaning about us, and start fixing his useless Government. Why should the country have to put up with three more years of this?

[The Prime Minister]

Yet again, the right hon. Member has shown why she is so utterly irrelevant—carping from the sidelines and trying to talk down the economy. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hello? Please, I want to hear the questions, and so do your constituents.

[The Prime Minister]

All the right hon. Member does is carp from the sidelines, talk the economy down and talk the country down. In the meantime, because of our work, what is happening? Energy bills are down, as announced this morning. Inflation—down. Borrowing—down. What is up? Retail spending is up. Investment is up. Business confidence is up. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Q3. Residents in Stanley in my constituency are very excited about having their say on how to spend the £20 million of Pride in Place funding that Stanley South has received as one of the 250 most deprived neighbourhoods in the country. There are other villages and areas in North Durham that are too small to qualify for Pride in Place at the moment, but that are also urgently in need of investment—for instance, Grange Villa, New Kyo and the Avenues area of Chester-le-Street. Will the Prime Minister consider an additional wave of Pride in Place funding to target smaller, more concentrated areas of deprivation?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how meaningful Pride in Place investment is to my hon. Friend’s constituents. We are backing communities with the funding and powers they need to invest in their priorities: unleashing jobs, growth and opportunity. In answer to his question, I can confirm that the next wave of Pride in Place will invest in an additional 169 neighbourhoods, focusing on smaller areas and looking closely at deprivation. We are reversing the austerity that ripped the heart out of our high streets and our communities, and giving local people a real say over how money is spent.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I join the Prime Minister in congratulating Team GB on our most successful winter Olympics ever. I also join him in solidarity with our Ukrainian allies and friends after four years of them resisting Vladimir Putin’s war machine.

The former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has raised deeply shocking concerns that Jeffrey Epstein may have used British airports, and even RAF bases, to traffic young women and girls in and out of our country. This is appalling. The Prime Minister knows that I agree with Gordon Brown that there needs to be a full public inquiry into all this. If he does not agree with Gordon Brown, will he at the very least commit to releasing the flight logs and related documents—or will he wait for the House to force the Government to do that?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it is important to appreciate that there is obviously a police investigation going on, and I think it is right—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this—that that has to go wherever the evidence takes it. We have to let that investigation run its course before deciding what next action needs to be taken.

[Ed Davey]

I think we all agree that police investigations should take priority, but that does not rule out a public inquiry, and it certainly does not rule out releasing the flight logs, which I think really should be released.

On a different note, it has been revealed that a trustee of William Blake House, a care home for adults with profound disabilities, embezzled £1 million. There are very few homes in the country that offer this sort of care, and now it faces closure. As a father of a disabled son, I can tell the Prime Minister that this situation is one of my worst nightmares, and it is one of the worst nightmares of many parents with disabled adult children. The families of the residents have put forward a rescue plan to take over William Blake House and run it themselves. It will require His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to resolve the debt issue and the Charity Commission to appoint an independent board, so will the Prime Minister meet the families and back their plan?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this case, which is obviously a cause of considerable concern. Of course, I will make sure that the relevant meeting is put in place for all the individuals who need it.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Q4. Given the recent challenges to the Equality Act 2010, will the Prime Minister commit to protecting laws that prevent discrimination at work and in society, make sure that women are not fired for being pregnant, and ensure that everyone is treated fairly, regardless of their sex, race or disability?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of the Equality Act, which was passed by the last Labour Government; we will always fight for working people. Compare that to Reform, who want to go back to the dark days, when people could be discriminated against because of who they are—ripping up protections for workers and renters, and ending the right of grieving parents to take a few days off work if the worst should ever happen to their child.

I also have to raise this: a death threat against my hon. Friend, the brilliant Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), was shared by Reform’s deputy council leader in Lancashire. It said that she “should be shot”. When death threats were made against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I stood at this Dispatch Box and condemned them outright. If he has any decency or backbone, he will stand up, apologise, condemn the comments, and sack the individual in his party. Will he do so?

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

At the age of 14, Michel Mandarin was forcibly removed from his home, the coral atoll of Île du Coin, dumped on the quayside in Mauritius, and forced to live on food scraps out of bins. He has resettled on those islands, yet he now faces a removal order from yet another Labour Government. Maybe twice in one lifetime, he is going to be asked to leave his homeland. Can I ask the Prime Minister this? This Government are full of human rights lawyers, within and without; why do the opinions and human rights of indigenous Chagossians not matter to him at all?

[The Prime Minister]

So the hon. Gentleman has neither the decency nor the backbone to condemn a death threat against a Member of this House, whichever party they are in. He does not have the decency or the backbone to condemn it and sack the individual. That just shows that his party has nothing to offer the country but grievance and division. Look at its candidate in Gorton and Denton—a man who says that anyone who is not white cannot be English. No wonder he has been endorsed by Tommy Robinson. That does not represent our country, and anybody who wants to stand against that hatred and division should vote Labour on Thursday—tomorrow—in Gorton and Denton.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q5. Can the Prime Minister update the House on how the Government are tackling the misuse of illegal drugs, and will he reassure parents in my constituency of Rugby and throughout the country that Labour will continue to disagree with the views and the voices of those who think that it is a good idea to legalise class A drugs like heroin and crack cocaine?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. We are working relentlessly to tackle the supply of illegal drugs, and expanding police powers to test more suspects on arrest. The Green party’s policy is not just irresponsible but reprehensible— a policy of legalising cocaine, heroin, ketamine and the date-rape drug GHB, a drug that we know is used to spike the drinks of women. While we are making that an offence, the Green party’s proposals would shatter lives, increase antisocial behaviour, and see drug use running rife. I have to say, as the father of a 17-and-a-half-year-old son, that the idea that the argument is being made by the Greens that when he turns 18, in just a few months, it would be lawful to provide him with heroin and crack cocaine is absolutely disgusting.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q6. The Prime Minister recently stated:“we will not allow the powerful to treat justice as optional.” He was talking about Epstein’s enablers, but one of my constituents, who uses the pseudonym “Isabella”, has asked me to ask the Prime Minister whether his words also apply to those who assisted Britain’s Epstein, Mohammed al-Fayed, a monster who, with others, abused her and hundreds of other women and girls in a human trafficking scandal that the Met, unlike the French authorities, is still refusing to treat as such. Will the Prime Minister ensure that sufficient resources are committed to fully investigating this multi-perpetrator, multi-jurisdictional, multi-decade trafficking outrage, and will he meet Isabella and her fellow victims, in order to understand the terrible scale of this shocking crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that really important case on behalf of really important victims, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with those victims. Every report of a sexual offence should be treated seriously, every victim should be treated with dignity, and every investigation should be conducted professionally. The safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is meeting the victims, and if the hon. Gentleman gives me the full details, I will make sure that his constituent is part of and included in those meetings.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Q9. We have all heard the horrific news that a man entered Manchester Central mosque last night in this, the holy month of Ramadan, carrying weapons including a hammer, a knife and an axe. Violent and Islamophobic attacks against the Muslim community are becoming far too frequent in our country. Prime Minister, is it not the case that every single politician in this place, and I mean every politician, especially that lot over there—[Interruption.] They may nod their heads, but this morning we could have woken up to news of a horrific terrorist attack, in which innocent Muslim worshippers were killed only for being Muslim. Prime Minister, is it not the case that every single politician in this place, and every single journalist, has a responsibility to stop fanning the flames of hatred against the Muslim community?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important case. Let me tell him that I share his deep concern, and the deep concern of the community, over the incident at Manchester Central mosque—particularly as it took place during the holy month of Ramadan—and that we will not, and must not, relent in the fight against anti-Muslim hatred. We must not.

I remember visiting Peacehaven mosque in the wake of the awful attack there, and when I did, I committed £40 million to protecting mosques and community centres. It is a shame that we have to do that, but we do have to do it, and we are establishing a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and to support victims. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we will fight hatred and protect freedom of worship in this country.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Q7. Bicester is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country, but the town will be cut in two when rail services start between Oxford and Cambridge and the London Road level crossing closes. Campaigners were ignored by the Conservative Administration for over a decade, but today we are in touching distance of a solution. East West Rail has a detailed plan for an underpass, the Rail Minister is fully engaged, we have financial support from the county council, and thousands of local residents have pledged a pound to go underground. Can the Prime Minister now confirm that the Government will back the plan and keep London Road open?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman shares our support for East West Rail, which is a vital project that will deliver better journeys and tens of thousands of jobs, and unlock up to 100,000 new homes. I agree that access to Bicester Village must be maintained—my children say that as well—and I think the company has put forward two options for replacing the crossing. I reassure him and his constituents that they will have the opportunity to express their views on what would work for them during the upcoming consultation.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Q10. The regeneration of Belper mills—a large site with buildings, including grade I listed ones dating from the start of the industrial revolution, at the heart of the east midlands’ only UNESCO world heritage site—took a significant step forward last week, when planning permission for its redevelopment and conservation was finally granted. The Government want to provide more housing—rightly so—and sites like this, though very challenging, provide a very important opportunity to support that aspiration and share our national story. Can the Prime Minister tell me what support the Government are giving to regenerate at-risk listed buildings, and whether we are delivering support to train construction workers in heritage building techniques? May I ask him to take a personal interest in Belper mills, because it is an internationally significant site?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because restoring Belper mills is not just about delivering the housing that his constituents want, but about restoring an iconic world heritage site in the east midlands. We are investing over £1.2 billion in skills, supporting apprenticeships—including courses focused on heritage construction—recruiting 60,000 more construction workers, and backing new technical excellence colleges, so that we have the workforce to build the homes the country needs.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Q8. In January last year, Somerset received around 2,000 pothole reports. This January, there were nearly 7,000—a 250% increase. I recently stood on the Fosse Way in my constituency, where one resident had blown a tyre and another was checking the damage under his car. Families and small businesses are paying the price. Rural counties like Somerset have some of the largest rural networks in the country, yet the funding does not reflect that reality. Will the Prime Minister commit to fairer funding for rural areas so that we can properly maintain and resurface our roads, rather than constantly patching them up?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important it is that we fix the crumbling roads that we inherited from the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman’s county council will receive over £225 million as part of our £7.3 billion investment to tackle potholes. We are also implementing tough new standards so that councils have to prove that they are fixing the roads properly, and delivering £78 billion for councils to ensure that they can deliver excellent local services.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Q11. In 2024, 2.64 million animals were used in medical experiments in the UK. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I think it is important to note that an estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials, even though they have passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Innovative non-animal research methods are increasingly available and provide viable alternatives. I very much welcome our “Replacing animals in science” strategy, but for this to be meaningful, a robust implementation timeline must be set. I ask the Prime Minister to consider leading the way by introducing an immediate ban on the use of dogs in these often-horrific experiments.

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank my hon. Friend for her dedicated work on this issue? We are committed to phasing out animal testing wherever possible. Last year’s strategy, backed by £75 million, will accelerate new alternative testing methods. Alongside banning puppy farming and introducing stronger standards for zoos, we are ensuring that the UK is a world leader in animal welfare.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

In 2014, a man in my constituency was ambushed, violently beaten with a pickaxe handle and left lying in the street with serious injuries. At the time of the conviction, the judge called it a “brutal attack”. Many constituents have contacted me to express their concern that the perpetrator of this attack is still a sitting Labour councillor in Keighley and was recently pictured celebrating an election with convicted crack cocaine and heroin dealers. Prime Minister, on behalf of all victims of serious crime, will you, as the leader of the Labour party, ensure that Councillor Mohsin Hussain is not permitted to stand in the local elections this May?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this matter. I will look into it straightaway and give him a full answer. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Fenton-Glynn, you are getting carried away with some other colleagues behind you—Mr Davies and others—but please!

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

Q13. Prime Minister, I need your help. Today, alongside leading trade bodies, including UKHospitality, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Startup Coalition, I am launching the TNT charter—trust and transparency in business energy—to blow up the status quo and support SME access to fair contracts, clearer pricing and stronger accountability. I know that the Prime Minister recognises this as an issue, so can I ask him to deploy powers to bring greater transparency, fairness and competition to the wild west that is commercial energy?

[The Prime Minister]

We inherited the highest industrial energy costs in Europe because of the failed policy of the Conservative party. Our British industry supercharger is cutting bills for major industries, but my hon. Friend is right to champion SMEs as well. I can confirm that we will appoint Ofgem to regulate and stamp out exploitation by third-party intermediaries, helping to reduce bills, and I will make sure that she gets a meeting with Ministers to discuss the issues that she has raised with me.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Even the embarrassingly loyal Scottish Labour party seems to have lost confidence in the Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister, “Please don’t let that put you off coming and campaigning in Scotland on your Government’s record,” but can he tell us why it is that those who were so close to him have abandoned him, given the Government’s record?

[The Prime Minister]

I remember when SNP Members used to sit down here on the Front Bench, did they not, before the election, and now they sit up there, because we won the general election in 2024 with a landslide majority.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q14. From this April, Springside special school in Rochdale will open its first ever free breakfast club. That is a big change enabled by this Labour Government, and one that the headteacher, Mrs Fierro, said will make a big change to all the parents and children at her school. However, Rochdale’s growing popularity and growing population mean it desperately needs a new secondary school. Will the Prime Minister arrange for me to have a meeting with the Department for Education to get our secondary school over the line to help all children in mainstream and in SEND get more provision?

[The Prime Minister]

We are determined to halve the disadvantage gap and give all children the best start in life. I am delighted to see that a free breakfast club is opening in his constituency of Rochdale. Our actions will lift over half a million children out of poverty, and the Conservatives’ policy is to say they would plunge them straight back into poverty, which is disgraceful. Through our actions to reform the SEND system, we will create an inclusive system so that every child can go as far as their ability and talents will take them.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, you will recall that, some months ago, I asked the Prime Minister why, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, he did not bring charges against Mohammed Fayed for rape and assault, and the Prime Minister replied that this did not cross his desk. I understand that the Met police delivered two dossiers to the Crown Prosecution Service, so if the Prime Minister did not see them, who did, and could he tell the House when he expects the Metropolitan police to bring charges against those who aided and abetted Fayed?

[The Prime Minister]

I stand by my answer. Hundreds of thousands of files are submitted to the prosecution service every year. It is important that the investigation is going on. I cannot tell the right hon. Member when the decision will be made or what the decision will be, as he well knows, but it is important that every allegation is properly investigated and properly dealt with according to the law.

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

Q15. Four years after Russia’s illegal invasion, Britain backs Ukraine’s fight for freedom—the same freedoms that Labour forged NATO to defend. But while Ukraine fights to join NATO, the Green party wants to break it up, so does the Prime Minister agree that, as war continues and as Russia broadens its attacks across Europe, those who attack NATO are betraying our security and, to coin a phrase, are becoming Putin’s useful idiots?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering, and yesterday I chaired the call of the coalition of the willing and announced new sanctions to weaken Putin’s war machine. The Greens, by contrast, want to pull out of NATO and negotiate with Putin on our nuclear deterrent, and Reform is still parroting Kremlin talking points after its leader in Wales was jailed for taking Russian bribes. Both of them are weak on NATO and soft on Putin.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Points of order come after urgent questions and statements. We are not going to change the policy of the House.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

12:41

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

(Urgent Question): To ask His Majesty’s Government to give us an update on the situation with regard to the Diego Garcia American military base and the British Indian Ocean Territory, especially in light of the recent comments of the American President.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

His Majesty’s Government’s objective has been, and continues to be, to secure the long-term effective operation of the military base on Diego Garcia. It is a base that is critical for our national security and helping to keep the British people safe. It is a key strategic military asset for both the United Kingdom and the United States. It has enabled our shared security for nearly 60 years.

When we came into government, it was clear that our ability to maintain our interest and control in the base was under threat, so this Government had to take action to protect our military advantage and to stop our adversaries gaining a hold in such a strategically important part of the world. Refusing to act could have exposed one of our most valuable military assets to China, so, as any responsible Government would, we negotiated a deal to protect our interests.

This Government inherited a situation where the operation of the base was in immediate jeopardy, and negotiations on a transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius were well advanced by the previous Government. The deal delivers on our objective of maintaining the secure, effective operation of this vital military base. It would allow us to operate this joint UK-US base as we have always done.

This House knows that the Government worked tirelessly with the United States in developing and testing the treaty to ensure that it met our shared security needs. That is why it was supported by two Administrations and why Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth, and indeed President Trump himself, came out so strongly in favour when the treaty was signed in May last year. I can assure this House that nothing in the treaty has changed since the US Administration gave their original endorsement of the deal, and we continue to work with Mauritius and the United States.

The UK Government have great sympathy for the Chagossian community. They feel a deep emotional connection with these islands. We have been clear in our regrets for the manner in which Chagossians were forcibly removed from the islands in the ’60s and ’70s. We are working to resume a programme of heritage visits for members of the community.

We will continue to work with both Mauritius and the United States on the agreement. As the Prime Minister has said, we have very close relations with the United States. That relationship matters profoundly not just to our security, but to the prosperity and stability on which people here at home depend.

[Nigel Farage]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the situation in America has changed, as you know. The British Government went around America and said a whole load of things, such as that it was legally necessary to give away the Chagos Islands, which of course was not true.

“DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!”

Capital letters from the American President—he likes capital letters in his posts. All the other arguments have been well rehearsed: the fact that it could cost us up to £50 billion; and the fact that the Chagossians were not just badly treated then, but are being badly treated now. They have resettled Île du Coin and have eviction notices from this Government.

But I can tell the House this from my trip to the Maldives at the weekend—something I had not realised, and I do not know whether the Government know it either. It is the Maldives that has the historical links with the Chagos Islands, in terms of trade and archaeology. In fact, all the French did was rename the islands from the Maldivian language. There is no basis—historically or culturally, in any way—for Mauritius to have a claim on the islands.

The Maldives is upset for two reasons. There has been great stability in the region for decades. If the treaty goes through, we will finish up with a turf war in the region between India and China. Indeed, that has already started. I wish to inform the Government that, in my opinion, we are just a few days away from the Maldives issuing a counterclaim in the International Court of Justice to say that if anybody has the right to the sovereignty of those islands, it is the Maldives and not Mauritius. I urge the Government to pause all of this.

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member suggests that we have gone around the American Government. I have set out already in my response the extensive talks that we have had on this question with both Secretaries and, indeed, the President of the United States in recent months. There is no question of us going around the US Government.

The hon. Member says, “Well, what has changed?” Clearly, the view of the US President may well have changed, but the treaty has not. We have discussed the treaty in great detail in this House. The treaty emerges from talks initiated by the previous Government and completed—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I might find the chuntering on the Conservative Benches more plausible had I not been a Foreign Office diplomat during the period when, for 11 rounds, they were negotiating this deal. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches now wish to distance themselves from the 11 rounds they conducted, but let us at least—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One of us is sitting down, Minister, and it is not going to be me. An urgent question has been granted and other Members want to hear it. I want to hear it, I expect them to hear it, and I expect them to hear it in silence.

[Mr Falconer]

Returning to the substance of the hon. Member’s question, I would just like to remind him that if he turned up with a selfie stick to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, which is a similarly sensitive military base, he would be turned away. I do not understand his surprise, or that of those who travelled with him, that when you sought over the weekend to film a video on a sensitive military site under the control of the UK—[Interruption.] It is part of the British Indian Overseas Territory, as you know. I encourage the hon. Member, and indeed every member of the public, to check British travel advice—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Minister, you keep saying “you”. I am absolutely not responsible for, or was involved in, that filming. Please, I am being drawn into something that I do not wish to be drawn into at this stage.

[Mr Falconer]

Mr Speaker, I can only apologise. I would not seek to draw you into such a flagrant incident of ignoring travel advice.

The treaty is as it was signed. It is going through both Houses of Parliament. We are discussing it with our American colleagues. The fact that the hon. Member sought to take a selfie video on the islands does not change any of those facts.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Could the Minister please assure the House that international law will apply to Diego Garcia, by way of either the ownership or the use of Diego Garcia, either by our military or by the Americans?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. Of course, the UK Government abide by international law and will continue to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Labour’s Chagos surrender is a shameful, unnecessary and reckless deal that will leave Britain weaker, poorer and less secure. This is not a legal necessity but a political choice made by a floundering Prime Minister, and it is British taxpayers who will be left to pay the price. No other Government would pay £35 billion to hand over their own sovereign territory and make their country less secure in the process. At a time when families are being squeezed, Ministers are asking them to subsidise another country’s budget, potentially funding tax cuts in Mauritius while taxes rise here at home. That is indefensible. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no payments will be made under the treaty of the so-called strategic partnership unless and until ratification is fully complete?

This is also a national security crisis. Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically vital military bases in the world, yet Ministers are pressing ahead before resolving the binding 1966 UK-US treaty, before addressing concerns raised by President Trump, and without guaranteeing that the lease can never collapse or be legally challenged. On the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, will the Minister confirm that article 298 provides an opt-out from compulsory dispute settlement for military activities, meaning that this is a political choice, not an unavoidable legal trap?

Will the Government suspend the Bill until the legal position with the US is settled and any amendments have been scrutinised under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Will the Minister confirm whether the Pelindaba treaty would apply if Mauritius were to take sovereignty, and if so, what iron-clad safeguards protect our nuclear deterrent?

Finally, what of the British Chagossians, some of whom are now on the islands? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no forced removal and that their rights will be protected in full? British sovereignty is not for sale, and this House should not be bounced into surrendering it.

[Mr Falconer]

As I have said, I would find the Conservatives’ position more plausible had they not held 11 rounds of these negotiations. The attempt by Conservative and Reform Members to act as though there was no issue to be addressed, and as though the reason they started 11 rounds of negotiations was some sort of lack of focus—[Interruption.] If there was no issue to address, I am not sure why right hon. and hon. Members in the previous Government began the negotiations. I can assure the House that the treaty will go through the full parliamentary process in the usual way, and we are discussing these questions with the Americans in the usual way.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Risking the accusation of creeping, Mr Speaker, may I say that it is a great pity that you are not in charge of these negotiations? The deal we have come to, or are coming to, is inexplicable both in principle and in relation to the costs to my constituents. I very much doubt that at the time of the next general election, most Labour candidates, or indeed our manifesto, will point to the yearly cost of £100 million and us giving up ownership of these islands.

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows it off by heart, but I will just remind him of page 120 of the Labour manifesto, which states:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”

We have not even consulted the Chagossians. Will my hon. Friend not reconsider?

[Mr Falconer]

I would not like to accept the connection being made between the British Indian Ocean Territory and Gibraltar and the Falklands. We are four-square behind the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falklands, which have chosen repeatedly to remain British, and long may that continue. We are abiding by our manifesto commitments. The issues around the continued operation of the base have been discussed many times in this Chamber, and they are being scrutinised in both Chambers as the treaty goes through the full process that Parliament would expect, and that will continue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I am acutely aware that this urgent question comes in the aftermath of the attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton to land on the Chagos archipelago last week, and although I might admire the hon. Member’s audacity, I am deeply concerned that his actions trivialise what is indeed a deeply serious situation and potentially render the genuine grievances and injustices felt by the Chagossians as a political backdrop to his social media feed.

However, I must also acknowledge that the hon. Member’s platform has been created only because of the vacuum created by this Government, because the wheels have undoubtedly fallen off their negotiations. They have failed to secure the support and consent of Chagossians, and they now seem to have lost the support of the President of the United States too. While either one of those things might be considered unfortunate, the combination of the two looks deeply careless.

What is the status of the negotiations right now? What is the latest position of the United States? Will the Government also take on our very long-standing concerns about the rights of Chagossians? There is clearly not widespread consent here. Will they take on the points that we have made in amendment after amendment and recognise that Chagossians have the right to self-determine their own future? Will he also accept our concerns about the finances to ensure that Britain is not left as a leaseholder of these islands if a deal goes ahead without a sitting tenant?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member refers to amendments to the Bill, and I am sure that he will understand why I will leave that to the Minister responsible for conducting the Bill through the House. On his question about the status of the negotiations, as I said, this is going through Parliament in the normal way. We are pausing for discussions with the United States, and those discussions continue.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I know that the hon. Member for Clacton has a number of additional jobs in combination with his responsibilities as an MP, but I had not realised, until his recent adventure, that small boat captain was among them. Maybe, as a former Royal Marine, I could help him with his navigation. Could my hon. Friend the Minister remind the hon. Member for Clacton what the penalty is for taking a trip to the British Indian Ocean Territory without a permit?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend paints the hon. Member for Clacton as a captain, but I will decline the opportunity to be the sheriff on this occasion.

[Nigel Farage]

Stop the boats!

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman says “Stop the boats”, but he did take a private jet to get there, which is not quite consistent with the small boat rhetoric we usually hear from his party.

I want to be clear that there has been an attempt to land—indeed, a successful one—on part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and it was not an area fit for human habitation. British travel advice is very clear that one should not travel to that area. This House has discussed the sensitivity of this base and these islands on many occasions. I encourage everybody listening at home to attend to our travel advice, which is there for a reason.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As always, this argument depends not on gimmicks but on a detailed examination of the law. On 22 May, the Government made it clear in an answer that they were bound by the international law of the sea. However, in answer to a written question on 12 February, they said that article 298 of UNCLOS—an opt-out—still applies, so the law remains the same as in 2003 and 2020. This specific question was asked by the Opposition spokesperson, and we now want an answer. This is desperately important, because this opt-out is vital for the Falklands and for Gibraltar.

[Mr Falconer]

The Father of the House will appreciate that I am probably not in a position to give him the full detail that he would like on the provision of UNCLOS 298. I am sure that this issue can be dealt with in the passage of the Bill, outside of the context of an urgent question.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Can I ask the Minister to engage in a short thought experiment? If senior members of the Labour party, at the time they were in opposition, had gone to lobby a foreign Government against the best interests of the British security services, what would have been the reaction of the right-wing media and Opposition parties who have made this their pet project?

[Mr Falconer]

It is very good question. When I was a diplomat, we usually understood that British politicians would not seek to undermine the British Government overseas—we could argue in this place but, broadly, we would try to keep our disputes on our own islands rather than going elsewhere to prosecute them—so I am surprised to see the vigour with which those on the Opposition Benches are seeking to undermine the process we have been engaged in.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Government pause any steps in this matter until the judicial review proceedings that are being brought on behalf of the Chagossian people have been resolved one way or another in the High Court?

[Mr Falconer]

I am endeavouring to answer the urgent elements of the question and leave the questions about the treaty and its passage through the two Houses to that process, as that is my understanding of how best to deal with urgent questions. I will leave the question about the judicial review, which I understand is not urgent but is related to the passage of the treaty through the two Houses, to the Minister responsible to respond in the usual way. [Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We need to lower the temperature—and everyone can be seated. The Minister can answer each question in full if he wishes to do so.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I have been doing the maths on the Reform leader’s weekend. He spent 23 hours in the air in his private jet—perhaps run by “Man of the People Airways”—and 12 hours on the ground. That is a day and a half or so when he could have been delivering leaflets and knocking doors for the Gorton and Denton by-election. Does the Minister share my concern that the Reform candidate is missing out on the active support of the hon. Member for Clacton and instead has to fall back on the support and endorsement of Tommy Robinson—AKA Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?

[Mr Falconer]

I will leave the questions about how the hon. Member for Clacton spends his time to him. It was not a serious contribution to the debate on Diego Garcia and the British Indian Ocean Territory for him to travel there at the weekend. I am sure that I and many of my colleagues will be in Gorton and Denton in the coming days.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is slightly bizarre to hear the hon. Member for Clacton appear to make the argument that the Maldives should own Diego Garcia.

On the question from my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, putting aside the wider Bill, as the Minister does not wish to discuss it, does article 298 of UNCLOS exempt military bases—very simply, yes or no? The Minister is a diplomat, so he knows the answer.

[Mr Falconer]

The reason why I do not really want to talk about the Bill is that it is not my Bill, it is quite detailed and it is going through both Chambers of Parliament. I am very happy to ensure that the relevant Minister writes and provides the answer to the issue.

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

I agree with the hon. Member for Clacton about the need for proper scrutiny of the vast sums of taxpayers’ money that the Government propose to send to Mauritius, yet I am puzzled that he would travel all the way to the British Indian Ocean Territory without a permit, given that Diego Garcia is a military base. The former leader of Reform UK in Wales is spending time staring at a security fence after pleading guilty to eight counts of bribery; does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Clacton must be curious to know what it is to stare at a security fence?

[Mr Falconer]

I suspect that is a question for the hon. Member for Clacton. The record of the former Reform leader in Wales is well known and understood but, having declined to comment on the Bill, I will have to decline to comment on the goings on of the Reform party.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Reports suggest that Foreign Office officials have been instructed to act as if the treaty is in full operation. That is important, because we may be days, or even hours, away from military action against Iran. The key question is whether the US has to inform the UK and then Mauritius about wanting to use the base as a site for military operations. If it does, have the American Government approached the UK about such use?

[Mr Falconer]

For a reason that is long and well established in this House, I will not be drawn on hypotheticals or ongoing military operations, but I reassure the House and the hon. Member that the treaty is in force only once it has passed Parliament in the usual way.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

The surrender of British sovereign territory began under my former party and has been made only worse by this Labour Government. It is a damning indictment of the two old parties. The Minister represents the neighbouring town to mine and, when he is not jet-setting, he presumably walks the same streets and talks to the same people. How can he, hand on heart, say that his constituents should spend up to £50 billion on this policy at a time when taxes and bills are rising and everyone in this country feels hard up?

[Mr Falconer]

I am appalled by the right hon. Member: Newark may well be a market town but Lincoln is a city, and has been for a very long time, so I invite him to withdraw that remark. [Laughter.] I do not receive a great deal of correspondence from constituents in Lincoln on this question. Mostly, my constituents prioritise Britain’s national security. They understand, through our extensive history in Scampton, Waddington and Cranwell, the important part that Lincolnshire plays in the UK’s national security, and they would expect me and the rest of the Government’s Ministers to prioritise that at all times.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I think the vast majority of Members of this House can agree that the arguments for giving away our Chagos islands have been threadbare at best, which leads one to believe that there must be sensitive elements to the deal. It was, then, interesting to read what the former FCDO special adviser Ben Judah wrote:

“Once you’ve been briefed, even partially, on what it”—

that is, the base on Diego Garcia—

“does the information gives you vertigo. Both now, and in government, communicating the details to the public would be violating the Official Secrets Acts.”

Given that this deal is going to cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds, does the Minister not believe that it should be incumbent on the Government to declassify some of the information so that we here in Parliament and the British public know what we are paying for?

[Mr Falconer]

No. We will not declassify what we do at RAF Waddington, and we will not declassify what we do in defence of the realm. It is not a serious proposition. There are obviously mechanisms, through Parliament, by which secret material can be considered through the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to use those mechanisms.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I think we are getting to the crux of this issue. The Minister was in the Foreign Office when the negotiations were taking place. He should know that the Île du Coin in the Peros Banhos atoll, where Misley Mandarin, the first minister appointed by the Chagossian people, is currently situated, is nowhere near Diego Garcia. It is over 120 miles away from the military base. It poses no threat. The people on those islands pose no threat to security or to the military base at Diego Garcia. This is a sham. This Government and the last Government have been denying the truth, which is that the Chagossian people are British and should be given the same rights of self-determination that the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians and all British overseas territories rightly deserve.

[Mr Falconer]

I am rather old-fashioned. The territory to which the hon. Gentleman refers is within the British Indian Ocean Territory. The law that applies there applies to the whole of the territory. The travel advice—I am not sure the hon. Member for Clacton acquainted himself with it before he travelled—is clear on all the islands. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was making a point about geographic distance, but the sovereignty and the law applies none the less.

On the question of Chagossian representation, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is considerable disagreement within that community, and that the prime minister to whom he refers is not internationally recognised.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I genuinely have respect for the Minister, as he knows, but I am very confused as to the Government’s position. He will know from his time in the Foreign Office that one of the principal issues to which he refers is the fact that the previous US Administration was not comfortable with the disputed status of this territory under international law, but it is now clear that the current President of the United States has no such concerns or qualms. Given those circumstances, why are we continuing to burn capital with the current Administration, rather than saying, “Let’s put this whole thing on hold and look for a solution that might work better for both the United States Government and the interests of the United Kingdom”?

[Mr Falconer]

To be clear about the current position, there was support from the US Administration for this treaty, which has not changed. There clearly has been a statement from the President of the United States more recently that is very significant, and, as I told the House, we are now discussing those concerns with the United States directly. We have a process going through Parliament in relation to the treaty. We will bring that back to Parliament at the appropriate time. We are pausing for discussions with our American counterparts.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Whatever Members across this House might say, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has done a service to us in raising this matter today, because this is a dodgy deal founded on a bogus basis, as I shall explain. When this was introduced to the House, we were told that the Government were doing so on the basis that they would be sanctioned internationally, and, in particular, they described the most proximate and potentially serious as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In the answer to a subsequent written question, I discovered that, far from that, the stance on article 298 remains unchanged from prior declarations of 2003 and 2020. That means we can opt out. There was no obligation and no necessity.

I use these words cautiously because I know and like the Minister and I know and like the Secretary of State for Defence, but it seems to me that this House was inadvertently misled in the original statement, as is proven by subsequent answers to written questions. Will the Minister clarify that urgently, because it is a very serious parliamentary matter and a matter of national significance?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Member is a Lincolnshire colleague, so I do not like to disagree with him, including on the value of the weekend trip taken by the hon. Member for Clacton. On the question of article 298, I can hear the strength of views across the House. As I understand it, this is a particularly complex and contentious area of law. I hear the House’s desire for further clarification from the Government, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will be very happy to write—

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

You are the relevant Minister!

[Mr Falconer]

I am not the relevant Minister. I am the Minister for the Middle East, as hon. Member knows.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

To continue on this theme, it was only a few months ago that this House was told that if we did not approve this treaty, there would within weeks be binding international judgments against us. What international tribunal was ever capable of ruling on a military base? What tribunal were the Government talking about? We know that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has no jurisdiction on military bases or sovereignty, so what on earth were the Government trying to persuade this House about?

[Mr Falconer]

Again, there is this desire to suggest that there was no issue, that the 11 rounds of negotiation started by the previous Government were done for no reason and that there was no substance behind our concerns. I quote from US Secretary Hegseth:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests… We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”

We were engaged with a real problem, and we were seeking a real solution. If Members would like more on the particulars around article 298, which I have heard the concerns about and committed to write on, we are very happy to provide it, but this is not a new argument about this treaty.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

How much political capital are this Government prepared to burn through with a highly transactional White House in order to secure more helpful language on the Chagos islands?

[Mr Falconer]

This Government will seek to pursue Britain’s national interests. As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are sometimes going to disagree with our friends and allies in public, but we will seek to resolve those issues in private. The principles driving the decisions of the Ministers of this Government will be Britain’s interests and our national security.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I would suggest that in future the appropriate Minister, who can actually respond to our questions, is sent to the House. Here is another straightforward question for him: have the Government declined to give the US permission to use Diego Garcia and other UK bases, including Fairford, to launch strikes on Iran?

[Mr Falconer]

If those were disparaging comments about my preparedness, I would encourage the hon. Member to listen to my previous answers, in which I said that I will not be drawn on operational questions for reasons—[Interruption.] The question was about whether a specific RAF base is being used. Would Conservative Members have been drawn on that? I think not.

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

We have been saying for months that to give away the Chagos islands and pay for the privilege is complete and utter madness. Having rammed this through, we are now told that the Government are taking a “pause for thought”. Can the Minister explain why the Government signed off this disastrous and disastrously expensive handover agreement without having thought about it first?

[Mr Falconer]

It is interesting that the hon. Member started her question by referring to months. Going back years to when she was a special adviser in the previous Government and talks were being conducted, there was clearly recognition in the Conservative Government that there was a real issue to be addressed. You pursued talks. You took them into—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. That was two yous in one go, Minister. Have another go.

[Mr Falconer]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I am failing again. The hon. Member will appreciate the scepticism on the Government Benches given that the Conservative Government started this process, two American Administrations recognised that there was a real issue to be addressed, and this American Administration supported the steps we had taken in May.

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

I will push back slightly on what the Minister is saying. As we know, the discussion between the UK and the Government of Mauritius around the sovereignty of the Chagos islands started in January 2009 under the previous Labour Government. That was confirmed to me by the Minister for the Overseas Territories, so he might want to bear that in mind.

The question I want to ask is about Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser who, prior to being National Security Adviser was the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territories—and still is today. Prior to being appointed on 6 September, he conducted meetings with the FCDO. He confirmed that he had already seen the deal prior to being in post and was then given a hard copy of the deal when he reached Port Louis. When did he attend Port Louis? Was it prior to his appointment as the PM’s special envoy? What security clearance did he have when he saw the Chagos deal for the first time?

[Mr Falconer]

On the first question, as I understand it the talks first started under the Conservative Government, but I am very happy to check the Foreign Office records and come back on that question. Whether they were started in 2009 or in 2010, that was quite a long period afterwards during which the Conservative Government were in charge and this strength of feeling was not demonstrated. Indeed, other hon. Members did not raise these issues in their time in office—[Interruption.] The suggestion, if I may say so, from the Conservatives that they were vociferously against this decision—they just took 11 occasions to work that out—does not feel very plausible to me. The hon. Member asked specific questions about Jonathan Powell’s work—[Interruption.] I thought I answered the first set of questions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will move on to the final question. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. If he were a goalkeeper, he would be exhausted at this stage. Maybe he has kept the ball out of the net—we will see how that goes.

The Minister will forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but it was my understanding that the leasing of the base at massive cost to the working person in this country was to secure national interests and safety. I therefore cannot grasp why the Government are possibly working against our greatest ally in the US of A and sending an internationally resounding message that our base cannot be used if it is deemed necessary. Will the Minister please outline what discussions have been held in the past number of days to correct any belief that we do not stand fully with our American allies?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member usually thanks me for my tone; I will reflect on that afterwards. He asked me about sensitive security discussions between the United States and the United Kingdom; I am not really in a position to be drawn. We do discuss questions of middle east security with the United States. The Foreign Secretary set out clearly at the Security Council the malign influence that Iran—I think that is what the hon. Member was referring to—has played in the region and our efforts to ensure that it does not get a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic solution is the most desirable one, and that is what we are working towards.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You or your advisers will be aware of a letter that I and my colleagues have sent to Mr Speaker about this issue, particularly pertaining to the apparent discrepancy between answers given in the House on 22 May and those to a written question on 12 February. The Minister said that he was not able to answer that, although in my long experience of this place Ministers have been bound by collective responsibility and therefore answer for the whole Government. The Minister said that he wants an answer to be given on that point. I give notice that I will give the Government time for consideration and then on Monday morning I will apply for an urgent question specifically on the discrepancies in the information given to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Father of the House is no doubt hugely respected across the whole House. He knows that we do not discuss urgent questions publicly—let alone on the Floor of the House—so that was a slight error on his part. He also knows that the Chair is not responsible for the content of the responses provided by Ministers—if only we were—but he has most robustly got his point on the record.

[James Cartlidge]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is concern, among Opposition Members at least, that we heard repeatedly from the Minister that he was not the correct Minister to respond to the questions we asked. Our understanding procedurally is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and that in coming before Parliament they are here to be held to account.

The key question, which refers to the previous point of order, is about the fact that last May the Secretary of State for Defence said that Diego Garcia would be weeks away from a legal ruling unless the treaty was agreed to. Opposition Members are concerned that that is not correct and that he may have inadvertently misled the House, because article 298 of UNCLOS provides an opt-out for binding rulings in relation to “military activities”. Surely we should have a Minister in front of us who can answer our fundamental legal questions on the treaty.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for which Minister the Government put forward to respond to an urgent question. The Minister may wish to respond at this point.

[Mr Falconer]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg the forgiveness of the House. As the House knows, I am the middle east Minister. On this occasion I am the duty Minister, so I am here to answer any question that I can. Where greater precision can be provided in writing—rather than risk providing the House with anything other than the fullest possible answers—I think that is appropriate.

As it happens, the Minister responsible for the Bill is travelling back to the UK today. I am sure he would have been more than delighted to answer the urgent question but was not in a position to do so. I want to ensure that the House gets precise answers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might not be satisfied with the response, but that was a response none the less. We will not continue the debate.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February I asked a named day question about the role of Jonathan Powell in the Chagos islands deal, which was due for answer on 12 February. As of now, 25 February, it has still not been responded to by the Government. How can I best encourage the Government to produce timely and accurate answers to named day written questions on this subject?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench, including Ministers, heard that. It is not good enough when Members put in for bits of information and table written questions and the responses do not come back in a timely fashion. I see those on the Treasury Bench and the Ministers nodding. One can assume that a response will be forthcoming very quickly. The hon. Member has got his point on the record. We do not want to continue the debate.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

13:25

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

(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the impact of the UK’s electronic travel authorisation rules on British citizens who are also dual nationals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

I thank the hon. Member for her urgent question. The introduction of electronic travel authorisations—ETAs, as they are known—is part of plans to modernise and digitise the UK’s border and immigration system by providing a much clearer picture of who intends to travel to the UK for short periods. ETAs will enable a more targeted approach to border control, strengthening security and ensuring a smoother travel experience.

From today, carriers will check that eligible passengers hold an ETA before travelling to the UK and will deny boarding to those who do not hold the correct permissions. British citizens, including those who hold dual nationality, do not need and are not eligible for an ETA. They must travel with a valid British passport or another passport endorsed with a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode, known as a COE.

Since the outset of the scheme, the Home Office has embedded clear messaging for dual nationals across the ETA communications campaign and published comprehensive guidance on gov.uk setting out clearly what dual citizens need to do. Since 2024, we have provided explicit written and spoken guidance to people who naturalise or register as British citizens, including through their application and at citizenship ceremonies. Since the start of the year, we have also emailed people who have registered or naturalised in the last 10 years where we hold usable contact details.

In order to support British nationals overseas—particularly those who have not held a passport for some time or have never held one—the Home Office has put in place temporary mitigating measures, which include issuing temporary operational guidance to carriers confirming that they may at their discretion accept an expired UK passport issued in 1989 or later alongside a valid non-visa national third country passport. Carriers may also choose to accept alternative evidence and can contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which may be able to confirm British citizenship for those with a digital record on the UK’s immigration and passport system.

It is not the intention of the ETA scheme to penalise our citizens who choose to live abroad. That is why we have given as much time as possible to allow passengers in such a position to make the necessary arrangements and why we have now put in place additional short-term measures to assist our nationals when travelling to the UK.

I finish by noting that the approach we have taken is comparable to that taken by many of our closest international partners, including the USA, Canada and Australia, who have already introduced similar systems—for example, the electronic system for travel authorisation for visitors to the United States—and we expect the EU to launch its own version. We are doing these checks to ensure that illegal migrants and foreign criminals cannot set foot here through our ports and borders by screening them before they travel. I am delivering a more secure, modern border.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I begin by declaring my interests as a British dual national and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights. From today, British citizens are at risk of being prevented from returning to their own country because of the Government’s mishandling of the electronic travel authorisation scheme. British dual nationals cannot apply for an ETA, and they do not have a visa, so unless they hold a valid British passport they must produce a certificate of entitlement costing £589 simply to prove they are British, compared to £16 for a tourist. Carriers face £2,000 fines, so it is no good that that is left to their discretion. The result is chaos for law-abiding British citizens, and families will be separated.

Communication has been wholly inadequate. Putting guidance on a website is not a communications strategy. I understand that the people who recently naturalised were not warned in their grant letters or at their ceremonies, and there have been no clear messages at the border. When Canada introduced a similar scheme, it delayed enforcement and created a low-cost, temporary authorisation—and it worked. Why has this Government refused to adopt the same common-sense approach?

I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government postpone enforcement to prevent British citizens from being wrongly denied boarding? Will the Government introduce a low-cost, one-off travel authorisation, like Canada did, for dual nationals whose citizenship can easily be verified? Will the Government ensure urgent help through consulates, high commissions and the UK Visas and Immigration helpline? These are British citizens who have followed the rules. They deserve better than confusion, silence and a £589 bill simply to come home.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for her response to my answer. I am clear that there has been no mishandling from the Home Office on this important issue. As I said in my speech, this has been on the Government website since 2024. We have also spent significant sums of money on getting the message out there, including through the relevant media and through communications to those who have naturalised over the last decade. Communications, as we all know in this place, can be difficult and some people can be missed. I have worked as hard as I can to get the message out there, including on Australian television.

The hon. Lady is right in saying that there is no eligibility for an ETA. That is due to the Home Secretary’s power to grant an ETA deriving from the immigration rules, which do not apply to British citizens. A passport costs £100. The turnaround times that we are seeing after the increase in demand are well within the expected limits, taking four weeks for those applying from outside the country, with the average at around nine days. That is fast. They can also apply for an emergency travel document in extreme circumstances and the turnaround times for that can be as quick as two days. There are also transitional methods in place, such as using expired passports that were issued after 1989. There has been significant communication and advice to carriers, including my meeting many of them to ensure that they fully understand the new measures in place. The carrier support line is also active, through which anyone encountering issues can make contact.

It is important that we introduce these measures. They are modernising, they are making our border more secure and they are very much in line with what other nations are doing. I have sympathy for those who may be encountering issues. On Monday next week, I will hold drop-in sessions that all Members of Parliament with specific cases—I do not want to go into too much detail on the Floor of the House—can visit.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I was contacted in the early hours of this morning by two constituents who became proud British citizens in December. They did not have time to apply for British passports—they are from other EU countries with passports from there—because they were off on an extended honeymoon in south-east Asia. They now feel that they cannot get back into the UK from their honeymoon. They are absolutely stranded. I can pass on the details of the case to the Minister’s officials, but what would he advise? My constituents need to get back into this country as soon as possible. They should not have to pay a fortune for the privilege.

[Mike Tapp]

My suggestion at this point is that my hon. Friend’s constituents visit the Government website and call the support line to see what advice can be offered. I cannot go into specific details right now about that case, but if she comes to my drop-in session on Monday, where there will also be officials, we can deal with that. I am also happy to speak after this urgent question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response.

The ETA scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government to secure and modernise Britain’s borders. Under the previous system, someone holding a passport from a non-visa nation could enter the UK for six months with minimal formality. That left the Home Office unable to distinguish between a genuine British citizen travelling on a foreign passport and someone who had simply overstayed.

The changes strengthen our borders, and I am afraid that the Liberal Democrat suggestion that three years’ notice is somehow insufficient is not serious policymaking. Most immigration and border changes take effect within months. Tax changes happen within a single Budget cycle. A three-year transition for a documentation requirement is not unreasonable.

The change does not remove rights. It does not strip anyone of citizenship. It concerns the evidence required when travelling. People have known since 2023 that change was coming, so this is not a radical change. Citizenship carries rights, but it also carries responsibilities. Maintaining appropriate documentation is one of them. If the Liberal Democrats wish to argue for weaker evidential standards at the border, they should do so plainly. What they should not do is pretend that three years’ notice is somehow an injustice.

Turning to practical questions, the Minister has set out the contingency plans to support dual nationals. Will he confirm that consular services within the Foreign Office will be properly resourced to support individuals? Will he also commit to improving the communications plan, which has been insufficient? I note that ahead of today there has been no communication on the Minister’s Twitter account, when normally he is so busy creating videos that he believes may or may not go viral.

I understand that some airlines are accepting expired British passports issued since 1989, but will the Minister confirm whether that will become a consistent approach across all airlines? That is the minimum expectation that the Government should put in place. Finally, will he also confirm what specific efforts have been made to ensure that those serving under the King’s Colour, if deployed abroad, will have no issues coming home? The Conservatives support robust improvements to ensure that we have enforceable borders.

[Mike Tapp]

Agreement across the House on much of this is welcome, despite the mess that we inherited from the previous Government on immigration.

On the question of consular services, yes, they are in place but they are limited. They are for the most extreme cases such as bereavements and funerals or urgent medical care. On the use of social media, this morning I posted a tweet on X, which I am surprised that the hon. Member is not monitoring; I suggest she puts me on alerts. On the advice to airlines around the passports issued after 1989, that is the advice that has been issued but we cannot control exactly what each carrier does. It is important that members of our military—I speak as a proud veteran—are served correctly by the Government, and of course they will have no issues returning to the country.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that I wrote to the Home Secretary in a letter co-signed by 30 Labour MPs raising serious concerns about the new rules and how they will impact British dual nationals. The reality is that British citizens will be left stranded abroad and many will be priced out of returning home, adding them to a growing list of people who are effectively classed as second-class citizens. The Minister will also know that hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by these ill-thought-out, rushed reforms that lack any parliamentary scrutiny. I gently ask the Minister to please pause the rules to allow for meaningful consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny and to please remove the outrageous £589 charge for the certificate of entitlement.

[Mike Tapp]

I reject some of the framing. This has been public knowledge since 2023, it has been on the Government website since 2024 and we have spent significant funds on media. Communication is always difficult, and if this were extended for another year there would still be people who might not know about it. Travelling to this country on a British passport if someone is a British citizen, is not controversial. We have built in transitional arrangements to make it easier for anybody who has missed the messaging to come back to the country. This has not been rushed. There are many nations around the world that have an equivalent scheme, which ensures a more secure and modern border.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this urgent question. The Government’s lack of planning and haphazard communications over these changes are totally unacceptable. Countless dual British nationals have found themselves in heartbreaking circumstances, unable to visit family members or attend weddings or funerals, or having to stump up huge sums of money and face long waits just to get back home.

Take Nick from my constituency. He found out about these regulations by chance. Had he not found out in good time, his two daughters—dual nationals—would have faced the real prospect of being stranded in France. That is a dangerous situation for someone’s children to be in. More urgently, his niece and nephew, aged just two and four, were born in Canada. They are British by descent. They do not currently have UK passports and have not yet registered with the UK passport system. These rules are literally tearing families apart. The Minister’s solution is a drop-in event a week after the fact—that is not good enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse a grace period for families like Nick’s? If the Minister refuses to take steps to introduce a transition or grace period, will he compensate those who are losing out?

[Mike Tapp]

I find the framing of this absolutely absurd—it is nonsense. There have been years in planning from the officials and Ministers. As I said, this has been in the public domain for some years. For those looking to travel for emergencies, there are emergency travel documents, and I urge them to explore that through the Government website to see if they are eligible. It is great that the hon. Member’s constituent found out in good time. That says to me that the communications in that instance did work. On the specifics of that case, I ask him to visit the drop-in with officials on Monday and we can go into that further. We should all be very proud to hold a British passport.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says this has not been mishandled, but I am sure even he would accept there are elements that could have been done better. One of those is to do with babies. I have two constituents—a three-month-old little boy stuck in Italy, and a little girl stuck in Uruguay who was born in Whipps Cross hospital in Walthamstow—whose mothers have dual citizenship and who both want to be back in the United Kingdom within the next month. If they come home with their families, under the current policy they face being turned away or separated from their mothers on arrival. Alternatively, families who have just taken on the biggest cost of all—having a baby—will have to find hundreds of pounds to pay for a certificate that will take months to arrive. In those circumstances, will the Minister at least accept there should be a waiver on the fees for babies so that they can come back home to their country?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point on babies. There is no exemption at this time; I am happy to meet and talk about that further. At the moment, the average turnaround time is nine days, so the four weeks should not be a problem. If there are any problems, please do approach me. We will not separate any families at the border.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I cannot be the only Member of this House with constituents who are dual nationals for whom the information and data requirements are making it difficult to get hold of passports overseas. In the light of those difficulties, might the Minister consider an interim measure, perhaps allowing those individuals to use an electronic travel authorisation for a limited amount of time, while they sort out getting hold of the passports?

[Mike Tapp]

We cannot open ETAs to British citizens for the reasons I explained in my statement. The turnaround time on these applications is good; we are looking at within four weeks and, on average, nine days, but as I have said to many Members, please do bring that specific case to the drop-in.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

My constituent Steve Bainbridge is a dual UK-Greek national. He has raised his experience of a delay in receiving his UK passport forcing him to have to use his Greek passport to attend his daughter’s wedding in the UK. He also highlighted bureaucratic issues faced by women travelling from Greece, such as with their maiden name having to be displayed in their passport and Greek documents using a different alphabet from British ones. Will the Minister outline how, if someone’s UK passport is delayed, they can avoid having to pay several hundred pounds and facing the bureaucratic issues that Steve has highlighted?

[Mike Tapp]

I would urge a meeting on Monday to go through the details of this, rather than trying to break it down in the glare of the public eye.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The Minister put the changes on the gov.uk website. Why did not he do something original, like maybe writing to people with dual nationalities across the UK? He would not have got to everybody, but there would be records in the Home Office of everybody who has been naturalised in the UK, just as there will be files relating to citizenship and immigration. Why did he not get in touch with them directly? Is this not just a result of Brexit chaos catching up with British nationals? We now have people with dual nationality paying a Brexit border tax; where does this chaos end? With chaos in holiday airports across Europe, and limits on residence in the EU, has Brexit not been absolutely fantastic for this country?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I will ignore the rant about Brexit—we are well past that. Whenever anyone in this House, in the Gallery or at home seeks to travel, the first place they should go is the Government website, to receive travel advice. We do not hold a database of dual-national citizens, so it is difficult to reach them directly. However, we did send emails and messages out to all those naturalised over the last decade, and spent significant funds on media—and I went on Australian TV to get the message out there.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

After 40 years in the UK, it was the proudest moment of Petra Gartzen’s life when she obtained British citizenship. She is on holiday in Spain, and was shocked to discover that she will not be able to re-enter with her normal German travel document, because she is a dual national. Up until now, she has never needed a British passport or a certificate of entitlement, and she is ineligible for an ETA. She has done the right thing and applied for a British passport from Spain, which is a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare in itself. What would the Minister suggest that she does if the passport does not turn up in time for her flight home on 6 March?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; it is important, and well done to her for standing up so well for her constituents. Again, I ask that she drops into my session on Monday—civil servants will be there as well—and we can ensure that the right advice is issued, but at this point that there is information on the Government website, and a phone number to call for these sorts of incidents.

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

I am going to take the unusual step of thanking two journalists—Lisa O’Carroll of The Guardian, and whoever writes for the BBC website—because they wrote about all this last week. That is relevant, because I have three constituents who would not have known about this, had it not been for the media coverage, and this is a really serious matter for some of them. One is in their 90s, and has had a number of strokes. Their daughter’s passport ran out last month and she, as a dual national, felt that she could not return to see her own parent. That is a family disaster for them. I take the view that one of the absolute constitutional rights of British citizenship is the right to return to your own country and not to be intimidated out of doing so. I do not particularly demand a reply from the Minister today—I have written to the Home Secretary—but will he consider allowing a simple grace period of six months. So that people can get across this, and do not have their family life disrupted?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question about his three constituents. I will let him in on a little secret: perhaps that media coverage is a result of the Home Office’s efforts to get this information out there as widely as we possibly can. There is no intimidation here. This is about a secure border and modernising. Equivalent nations around the world are doing exactly the same. On the individual circumstances he mentions, I cannot answer today, but let us get together on Monday and go through them.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On behalf of my constituent David, I want to ask: has the ETA regime created a de facto UK passport requirement for British citizens? I also want to ask a question on behalf of my constituent Dolores, whose son, Tommy Roberts, an aspiring Royal Marine, was murdered in Bournemouth, aged 21, by somebody I will not name in this Parliament, who should not have been in this country. I thank the Minister for Border Security and Asylum for meeting me recently about this matter. We are not past Brexit, because that murder was possible as a result of a lack of intelligence sharing. Will the Minister share how, through these changes, the Home Office is taking action to stop illegal migrants and foreign criminals coming into our country?

[Mike Tapp]

My sympathy goes to my hon. Friend’s constituent. These changes make a more secure border. They mean that we can check whether foreign criminals are coming into the country, and if they are, we can stop them, which makes us all safer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. As always, these problems have resulted because of a realisation that the small print does not really work. Many of my constituents take flights from Dublin because they can be more cost-effective, but the need to have a British passport can be incredibly cost-prohibitive. I am trying to be helpful and positive, so will the Minister and the Home Office give consideration to providing for an ID card that could be accessed online, on production of a birth certificate, and could be provided free of charge, or at a minimal cost?

[Mike Tapp]

We are modernising across the board. I will not make any new announcements in response to this urgent question, but the modernisation of the border includes digitisation, which will impact all of us positively.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Helen Hayes to ask the final question.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

In 2018, in the Windrush scandal, many of my constituents suffered the detriment of being denied access to their own country. A part of the learning from that scandal is that people do not always read information that is in the public domain, and they do not always have a hotline to Home Office messaging. One of my constituents is in Australia and was due to come back, but his father has been placed on end of life care, so he has had to extend his visit. Another constituent, who was due to travel next week, only found out about the new requirements this week, and it is too late for her to apply for a passport. The scale of the cases raised today implies that there is a problem. What assurance can the Minister give my constituents that this is not another Windrush scandal in the making, whereby British citizens end up being denied access to their own country?

[Mike Tapp]

I take the lessons from the Windrush scandal extremely seriously. I meet the Windrush commissioner on a regular basis to ensure that we fix those wrongs, and that they never, ever happen again. I reject my hon. Friend’s framing. People can apply for a passport, a certificate of entitlement or an emergency travel document, and there is a phone line that they can contact. If she would like to meet on Monday to go through the specifics of the cases she mentioned, then I am happy to do so.

Grenfell Tower Annual Report

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

11:30

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

I start by acknowledging the presence in the Gallery of survivors and relatives of those who died at Grenfell Tower. They have the deepest sympathies of the whole House, and our most profound respect. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed 72 innocent lives, was a terrible moment in British history. We will not forget what happened that night. We must make sure that nothing like it can ever happen again.

The Government accepted all the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s findings, and committed to implementing all 58 recommendations. Everyone deserves a safe, decent home. This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability. Today I can report that we are on target to complete 70% of the inquiry’s recommendations by the end of the year. Since the inquiry published its final report, we have completed 10 recommendations from phase 2, and two outstanding phase 1 recommendations. Today, I will set out the progress that we have made on reforming the construction industry, strengthening fire and rescue services, and improving support for vulnerable people. We will complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. We are also publishing the construction products reform White Paper, building on the proposals we set out in December for a new single construction regulator. Our work goes beyond the inquiry recommendations, because we are determined to secure lasting change across the whole system.

Last summer, we ensured that the Building Safety Regulator had the leadership it needs to do its job well. Lord Roe reformed the London Fire Brigade and is bringing the same determination to making the BSR work. Over time, the BSR will evolve into the regulator the inquiry recommended. We are consulting on that today. We will replace fragmented regulation with clear accountability. Everyone will understand their role and the standards that are expected of them. We have already made changes to get our own house in order. Fire policy now sits within my Department, ensuring that oversight of housing, building safety and fire is properly joined up in Government.

The construction products reform White Paper sets out ambitious plans for modernising the rules. We will make sure that products are safe, and will ensure that everyone meets their responsibilities. These reforms will mean sensible regulation, fit for the future, and confidence in the safety of our homes. We will make sure that people working in construction have the skills that they need. We support the building professions, and there will be rigorous expectations relating to competence and ethics. We have also published a formal statement setting out the path to proper professional regulation of fire engineering.

One of the clearest lessons from the inquiry was the need for better fire and rescue services. I am grateful to the National Fire Chiefs Council and the London Fire Brigade for their work on improving fire and rescue standards. A new national college of fire and rescue will ensure that these improvements continue.

Protecting people means making sure that those most at risk are never left behind. New regulations requiring emergency evacuation plans for high-rise buildings will come into force on 6 April. These will mean that vulnerable people have a plan for safe evacuation in the event of a fire.

Making sure that everyone has a safe home also means tackling wider problems in social housing. Grenfell shone a light on so many wrongs that we are now putting right. Under Awaab’s law, landlords must make urgent repairs where there are serious threats to health. People have more power to hold landlords to account, and we are giving them better access to information, so they can have more involvement in how their home is managed.

Speeding up remediation is one of my highest priorities. Work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material cladding—the same type as on Grenfell Tower—has finished on 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings, with work on most of the rest well under way. We are working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove other types of unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and are monitoring thousands of high-rise residential buildings to make sure that they are making progress.

We have also strengthened local resilience and emergency preparations. All five local resilience forum trailblazers have been funded, and the four chief resilience officers have been appointed. We are also setting up a national system for local areas to learn from each other, so that the lessons of Grenfell lead to lasting improvements in crisis response.

It is only right that we are transparent about how we address the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s carefully considered recommendations. We will continue to inform Parliament each quarter about progress on those recommendations. Alongside this statement, I am publishing our annual report on gov.uk. We will continue with these reports until every recommendation is complete. The Government’s new public dashboards for inquiry recommendations will continue to be updated quarterly.

Throughout this work, the Government have acted on the inquiry’s findings to address the culture that allowed failure to happen, yet we recognise that for many, something is still missing. For the bereaved, survivors and the wider Grenfell community, the need for justice is deeply felt, including decisions on criminal charges. The Metropolitan police investigation, which is independent of Government, is one of the largest and most complex in the force’s history, but I know that the slow progress is painful for those who have already waited too long for the justice that they deserve.

Nothing can erase the grief suffered by the Grenfell community. Their loss, strength and determination to change things for the better guide all that we do. Failures of government under successive Administrations made this tragedy possible. That brings an enduring duty to honour the memory of the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives. As part of that duty, I can inform the House that we are introducing legislation to provide the spending authority required to support the memorial commission and the community in building and maintaining a lasting and dignified memorial.

I know that there is still much that we need to do, but there has been real progress. The foundations for lasting change are in place: a reformed regulatory system, empowered residents, accountable landlords, stronger professions and greater transparency. Our objective is clear, and we remain true to it: never again. Never again should people go to bed unsure that their home is safe. Never again should public institutions fail in their duty to protect. Never again should the voices of residents be ignored.

The actions that we are taking honour those who died at Grenfell, support those who survived and serve our shared obligation to make every home a place of safety, dignity and trust. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

14:02

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and join him in welcoming survivors from Grenfell who are with us today.

The events that took place on 14 June 2017 were an avoidable national tragedy that should not have robbed 72 people of their lives, and they must never be repeated. It is right that in consultation with the survivors, the bereaved and those directly impacted, a fitting and lasting memorial is put in place to remember the 72 lives lost that day and the wider Grenfell community. We welcome the new legislation that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon.

It is right that we remember the victims, and I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the opportunity to do that while he updates the House. The victims must be at the heart of how we remember Grenfell, and the Government must work with them in as sensitive a manner as humanly possible. We will support and scrutinise how the Government proceed with the memorial to ensure that the victims are at the heart of what he has decided. We believe that this matter should be cross-party, as it goes beyond party politics and it is simply the right thing to do.

The inquiry’s findings—decades of systematic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response last year was to accept all 58 recommendations, which is a step forward, and we welcome the commitment to action. I am glad to hear today that action on a few of those recommendations has already taken place.

The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long-overdue reforms. While we welcome the formation of a single construction regulator, can the Secretary of State confidently state that he believes it will be more effective and help to safely build the homes that we need? Can he confirm that we will not be left with the potential delays that we have seen under the Building Safety Regulator?

When we were in government, we took decisive action to initiate this public inquiry immediately after the tragedy to learn the lessons and prevent it from ever happening again. We strengthened the regulatory regime and implemented the inquiry’s recommendations following the report from the first phase. It was welcome that this Government also accepted the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State publish a detailed plan on how all the recommendations are being implemented and their status? He gave us the update that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. Will he update us with a road map for when the rest will be completed?

All building owners must step up, do the right thing and fix their buildings without delay, or face the consequences of their inaction. Those who intentionally cut corners on building safety must be held to account. The Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service should continue to pursue criminal charges against the small number of developers and contractors who knowingly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for greed and financial gain.

The Secretary of State has promised to complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. Will he lay out key dates for when key parts of that will be achieved? Will he update us on what stage he is at with the Grenfell site itself and future plans for it? How is he working with the victims’ families to support them?

Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines, but criminal charges where the evidence allows. We will support and scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are putting forward to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), want to get this right.

Grenfell must be a watershed with a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. Let me make clear the commitment of the Conservatives to work with the Secretary of State and the Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and welcome the tone that he has adopted. It is quite right that we should all work cross-party on this matter to speed up the outcomes that we are all looking for and that we work together in a way that shows respect to the families and those who lost their lives in this tragedy.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the single construction regulator. The BSR became a stand-alone body, separate from the Health and Safety Executive, on 26 January. Work is progressing on bringing into the BSR all the other aspects that will allow it to function in due course as the single construction regulator, which the inquiry identified as such an important part of fixing the building safety system. Lord Roe is overseeing rapid improvement in the performance of the BSR even as I speak.

The hon. Gentleman asked about remediation. It is welcome that 91% of high-rise residential or public buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have been remediated, but we recognise that there is further to go. Further acceleration plans are available, and I am happy to write to him if he would like access to that information.

Similarly, the hon. Gentleman asked about key dates in implementing further recommendations. We will continue to publish quarterly reports so that the whole House can scrutinise the progress that the Government are making with these recommendations. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), and I are meeting regularly with the families and affected groups to ensure that we hear their concerns directly and can feed them straight into the system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—take your time.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

As we approach the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy, bereaved survivors in the community are still rightly advocating for truth, justice and change on behalf of the 72 people who lost their lives in an entirely preventable fire. I pay tribute to all those who have joined us again in the Gallery today and those who are watching this statement. I know that the whole House will agree with the Secretary of State that criminal accountability cannot come soon enough. In the meantime, I welcome this annual report and the progress being made in many areas, from building safety to social housing management.

We know that, too often, lessons have not been learned from public inquiries and the implementation of recommendations has not been transparent and accountable. I would welcome an update from the Secretary of State on the proposal for an oversight mechanism to ensure that recommendations are actually implemented.

When it comes to the performance of Kensington and Chelsea council, many residents are highly sceptical about progress given that, according to the independent regulator, it has a seriously failing housing department and, according to the local government ombudsman, the third worst record on complaints. On the Lancaster West estate itself, there is uncertainty over the budget for completing the promised works. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will remain under close central Government scrutiny and that he will do all he can to broker a solution so that residents of Lancaster West—the people who least deserve to suffer—do not wait years more for their own safe and healthy homes?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on being such a powerful voice for his constituents and all those who have suffered and died as a result of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. He has rightly earned respect from Members across the House for the dignified way in which he has carried out his role as a representative for the community.

The Government are very keen to make sure that we learn the lessons and implement the report. We will continue to publish quarterly reports to update the whole House, and indeed members of the public, on the progress that we are making. Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism to make sure that the recommendations of this and other inquiries do not just sit on shelves, but get implemented and inform improvement in the way that we deliver public services, including, in this important case, fire safety.

I had the opportunity to visit the Lancaster West estate with my hon. Friend. The Government have made £25 million available to allow work to continue on upgrading and improving the estate. He will be aware that we have concerns about the council’s delivery capacity and cost control. I am in contact with the leader of the council about those concerns in the hope and expectation that we can address them together, but the interests of the residents of the estate must come first for all of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Liberal Democrats’ thoughts, like those of everyone in the House, are primarily on the 72 tragic losses of life that occurred in the Grenfell disaster. I welcome the spirit of cross-party discussion that the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), have set out. I endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

I welcome many of the recommendations and the actions being taken by the Government. In passing, I note that they apply to chartered architects. I have begun the training now required of all architects as a result of the Grenfell report—I declare an interest as a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects—which brings home, in a salutary way, the failure of the professions, successive Governments, industry and regulation on a tragic and horrendous scale.

One of the key recommendations in Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report, set out in the typically neutral language of a High Court judge, is a request for the Government to reconsider

“whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest”.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick raised similar questions on the construction product testing system. The White Paper says:

“Unethical manufacturers were able to exploit systemic weaknesses with appalling consequences”.

The follow-up Morrell-Day report on construction product testing highlighted that there were conflicts of interest. The White Paper also mentions “virtually absent” enforcement. Those are all shocking parts of this tragedy.

My first question is therefore whether that decision has been taken. We would go further and say that commercial interests have no place in building control inspection and product testing. My second question—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know that this is a very sensitive issue, but the hon. Member has two minutes and he is now over by 35 seconds. Timing is everything, so will he please ask his next question quickly?

[Gideon Amos]

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. My second question is about those excluded from the building safety fund. Tens of thousands of families are in buildings under 11 metres or living with products that might last an hour in a fire under PAS 9980—that is the wrong standard. We need all highly flammable materials and all buildings that have fire safety risks to be remediated. I ask the Secretary of State to address that question.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for his questions and for his commitment, shared by the whole House, that we need to resolve the problems that led to the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. He asked about building control. We set up the independent panel under the chairmanship of Dame Judith Hackitt last year. That looks at decisions that may need to move into the public sector. The panel is due to report shortly, so I will not anticipate the findings that we can expect.

The hon. Member asked about the construction products White Paper, which was published today. I hope that he will take the opportunity to consider what it includes. I am sure that he will let me or the Minister for building safety know his thoughts on it. On remediation for buildings under 11 metres, it is important that we prioritise buildings based on safety risk, and that is what we are doing. We will of course keep that under review. There is a commitment to fund by exception those buildings under 11 metres where the risk is assessed to be high.

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

In 109 days, on 14 June, the community and many of us will come together to remember the 72 people who tragically lost their lives. Almost nine years on, the Government’s acceptance of the 58 recommendations is an acceptance that the tragedy at Grenfell should not have happened. That tragedy was born out of systemic failure. I stand here today wearing my green heart to recognise the fact that the community had to come together in the aftermath of that fire. That fire happened because no one listened to them—no one believed them. I commend them on their ongoing campaign to get full justice, including criminal justice.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee had the Grenfell community before us, we heard about the valid concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) highlighted about the national oversight mechanism. It cannot be right that the Government will mark their own work on that. The community wants full transparency.

I also thank the Secretary of State for outlining the fact that the Government will lay papers with regard to the spending authority for the memorial. If we are really to allow the community to have a lasting and fitting tribute, it is important that the memorial is built and designed with them, working with the memorial commission. Most importantly, can he confirm that the funding has been ringfenced and there will be no issues when the funding is discussed?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and comments. She raises perhaps the most important point in all this, which is that no one listened to the voices of the people living in Grenfell Tower when they raised their concerns. That must never happen again. That is why the Government are seeking to strengthen the voice of tenants in social housing. Awaab’s law is one example of the way that has been achieved. It is gratifying that that, too, was done with cross-party consensus and support.

On the memorial, the Minister with responsibility for fire safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), will introduce the legislation to the House this afternoon. We expect it to proceed at speed through both Houses, so that it can support the commission and the community in funding and securing a lasting memorial that will remind us all for evermore of what when wrong and why it must never happen again.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is very surprising to those of us who are not experts on this matter to hear the Secretary of State say that the police are undertaking such a vast and complex investigation, because the circumstances of this uniquely terrible tragedy do not seem terribly complicated at all. Why is the police inquiry taking so long? Will he at least assure the House, and the country at large, that there is a dedicated unit within the police that is determined to bring this matter before the courts?

[Steve Reed]

In fact, the police are investigating an incredibly complex set of circumstances. That is why one of the biggest teams in the Met’s history is focused on getting to the bottom of this and of whether there is a need to pursue any prosecutions. It is one of the biggest and most complex police investigations ever—rightly, because we need to follow culpability, find those responsible and bring them to justice. The victims deserve that justice, but so do the survivors and relatives, so that they can at long last have closure on this tragedy, which has affected their lives. The Government will ensure that we provide the Met with the resources they require to fund the team sizes necessary to deliver that justice.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I pass Grenfell on my way home every evening, and I see the green heart move lower and lower as the building is dismantled. I wonder what will happen when the building is gone. I think about the survivors, the families and the 72 lives lost. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but after nine years, nobody has been arrested—somebody should have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and I are often told about people who should have been arrested. The police need to arrest somebody and begin the process so that the community can begin to heal. Will the Minister push the Met to move faster?

[Steve Reed]

It is emotional to see the tower coming down slowly, brick by brick, but it is important for the community, and for all concerned about what happened, to know that the memorial commission is working with the community to secure a design for the memorial, which will be a lasting testament to what happened on that fateful night, and will honour the memory of those who lost their lives and their loved ones. My hon. Friend is quite right: nine years is a painfully long time to wait for justice. It is important, in such a complex investigation, that the police are given the time and resources they need to investigate properly, but we will of course encourage them to do that work as quickly as they can reasonably be expected to. We all expect them to bring to justice those who bear culpability for the deaths that night.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I welcome the funding that the Secretary of State has announced to support the memorial commission. We have a shortage of skilled builders, plumbers, electricians and other construction workers in this country. Is he confident that we have a sufficiently trained workforce to carry out all the remedial works in the timescale that he has outlined? If not, what additional steps can the Government take to ensure that the works are completed on time?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to that concern, which we all share. In the most recent Budget, the Chancellor announced £600 million to fund skills training in the construction sector, so that we have the skills available not just to carry out work on the Grenfell site and remedial work on other sites affected by unsafe cladding, but to ensure that we can build homes to the higher safety standards now required right across the country.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

The tragedy at Grenfell exposed the scale and devastating consequences of the building safety crisis in this country. We have heard today that survivors and families are still waiting for truth and justice. Sadly, that crisis is still unfolding: as we neared Christmas, over 350 households in the Stratford Halo in my constituency were forced to leave their homes because of serious structural safety concerns. They were told to leave immediately, and did not know when they could return—it was terrifying for them. What will the construction reform White Paper do to strengthen standards for safe and secure homes, so that residents like those in the Stratford Halo never again have to be evacuated from their homes because their buildings are too unsafe to live in, and to ensure that developers are held to account?

[Steve Reed]

I am aware of what happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency recently, and how worrying it has been not just for the people living there, but for people right across the country. Just as with what happened at Grenfell, it attests to the fact that the building safety regulations and system in this country were inadequate to meet the public’s expectation, which is rightly that their homes should be safe. We have today published the construction products reform White Paper, which I hope she will take the opportunity to look at. It outlines some of the changes that we will make to products themselves. We will also continue to work on other aspects of building. The independent panel on building control, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, is due to report shortly and will make further important proposals on how to improve the system.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Nothing can ever undo the harm caused at Grenfell. I was in Parliament on that day, swearing in, when we saw everything that had unfolded. Nobody in my city of Aberdeen can ever get over the Piper Alpha disaster of 1988, but the resulting safety case produced by the Cullen inquiry meant that we had a much safer North sea and such a tragedy could never happen again, which brought people some solace. Will the Minister join me in urging stakeholders in Scotland to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on fire safety guidance, as we update the Scottish building standards to ensure that that guidance is as good as possible and all those working in that area can comply with it?

[Steve Reed]

I am happy to support the hon. Lady’s call for all affected stakeholders to feed in their views to the inquiry, be they in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The legacy of Grenfell and other tragedies, such as the one she refers to, should be greater safety from fire for everybody.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Government are on target to implement the inquiry’s recommendations. Nearly nine years on from this awful tragedy, the families and survivors need truth and justice. Leaseholders in Battersea have been facing astronomical service charges, as well as costs for fire safety remediation works. In one case, leaseholders in a building below 11 metres in height are expected to pay approximately £8,000 a week for waking watches—that is shocking and unacceptable. What support and protections are in place for leaseholders? I believe that case is exceptional, so will he meet me and the leaseholders to find a resolution?

[Steve Reed]

I would be happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the fire safety Minister so that they can discuss her concerns in detail, but she is quite right to point to the very severe concerns about leasehold charges. That is why the Government published a consultation last year on the costs for major works and other costs that fall on leaseholders, and we are due to publish our findings and our response to that consultation later this year.

Post Office Green Paper

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before we begin the next statement, I remind the Front Benchers that there are time limits on each of their statements. In particular, the Liberal Democrats tend to be running over.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I know—not the present Front-Bench spokeswoman, but they have been all afternoon. Please keep within time limits.

14:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the results of the “Future of Post Office” Green Paper. We published the Green Paper in July, starting a national conversation about the future of the Post Office, an institution that has served every community in every corner of the United Kingdom for generations. More than 2,500 people took the time to respond to the consultation, including postmasters, small businesses, service providers, community groups and members of the public. We also held dedicated discussion groups with postmasters and citizens across the country. I therefore start by thanking every respondent; their views provided a wealth of insight, and have been carefully considered.

I am pleased to announce that we are publishing the Government response to the consultation today. Our response must echo the clear call we heard from respondents. They told us that they want a strong and convenient post office network, built around permanent, full-time and full-service branches that offer a wide range of essential postal, banking and Government services. They want a Post Office that is reliable, modern and transparent, and that puts postmasters at the heart of decision making. As such, I can confirm today that the Government will keep the minimum network size of 11,500 branches and will retain all six geographical access criteria, ensuring that communities across the UK continue to have local and reliable access to postal services, including rural and remote areas.

Alongside maintaining the network requirements, we are introducing a new requirement that at least 50% of the network must be full-time and full-service branches. This requirement sets 50% as an absolute minimum, and we expect the Post Office to continue to operate substantially above it. We are setting this requirement to ensure that the full-time, full-service branches remain the backbone of the network for the foreseeable future, as those are the branches that deliver the greatest social value and the strongest customer service. At the same time, we are not blind to the challenges facing the Post Office, and have built in an evidence-based process so that we know when it is the right time for Government to look at the post office network again.

However, stability requires investment. That is why over the next two years, the Government will provide up to £483 million to support the transformation of the Post Office, on top of network subsidy funding to support the costs of delivering Government policy, which will be £70 million in financial year 2026-27. This investment funding will modernise branches across the country. It will support new in-branch technology and the delivery of new products and services that will make sure the Post Office can do what its customers need it to do, while keeping its identity and its role at the centre of so many UK high streets. The funding will also enable a major technology transformation programme within the next five years that will transition operations away from Fujitsu and ultimately replace the Horizon system. Postmasters must be able to trust the technology that they use; it should make their jobs easier and help them spend their time doing what they do best, which is serving their local communities. The days of the Post Office relying on outdated systems must end, and this programme lays the ground for a modern, resilient and fit-for-purpose organisation.

The consultation reinforces the importance of the Post Office for post, of course, but also for banking and access to Government services. I would like to address some specific points about each of those areas. First, on postage, respondents told us that they value the Post Office as a multi-carrier parcel hub and want more choice and convenience in how parcels are sent and received. We will support the Post Office’s efforts to innovate in this space while ensuring that essential services remain accessible.

Secondly, on banking, the public were clear that the Post Office plays a critical role in ensuring communities have access to cash and in-person banking. Being able to access essential banking services such as cash withdrawals and deposits is valuable to many Post Office customers, in particular small businesses, and respondents expressed an appetite to increase their offer. Last month, the Government held discussions between the Post Office and the banking sector to explore where they may be able to work together on a commercial and voluntary basis to better meet the needs of individuals and businesses. Those discussions were based around areas of mutual interest such as banking services, financial inclusion, modernisation, and the importance of continuing to improve financial crime safeguards. Those conversations are ongoing.

Finally, on Government services, colleagues will know that many services have moved online. However, respondents told us strongly that vulnerable, digitally excluded and rural customers continue to rely on the Post Office for in-person services. In that spirit, we have established a cross-Government group to look at developing a common physical front door for Government services, expanded assisted digital support, and new propositions such as prescription collection and identity verification.

At the heart of the Green Paper and of today’s Government response is the need to strengthen the relationship between the Post Office and postmasters. The Horizon scandal was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in modern British history, and while the Government remain focused on delivering redress to victims as rapidly as possible, we must also ensure that the culture that enabled those wrongs can never return. The Post Office has already taken steps to rebuild trust, including the postmaster panel, a new consultative council, embedding postmasters in key teams at the Post Office’s head office, and the election of postmaster non-executive directors to the board.

However, we agree with respondents that more is needed. As such, I can confirm today that the Post Office will develop a culture strategy with measurable objectives that covers employees, postmasters, strategic partners and customers. The Government expect that plan to be in place by this summer. To ensure that these reforms genuinely meet the needs of postmasters, the Government have commissioned an independent external evaluation of the initiatives the Post Office has implemented to strengthen postmaster engagement, which will report later this year.

Our long-term goal is a Post Office that is financially sustainable, adaptable to changing markets and less reliant on Government funding, but this transition must be responsible and realistic. Respondents were clear that stability comes first, particularly while the Horizon inquiry continues. That is why the Government will provide £37 million of funding to the Post Office in the next financial year to support with the costs of administering redress and responding to the inquiry. While the Green Paper explored long-term governance ideas such as mutualisation or a charter model, the Government will not make any decisions on structural reform until after the final report of Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry. In the meantime, we will work with the Post Office to ensure that the organisation demonstrates financial discipline, generates a trading profit by 2030, and continues to reduce reliance on taxpayer subsidy while protecting access for communities that depend on it.

This Green Paper process and the thousands of responses we received show the enduring importance of the Post Office to the life of this country. The Government’s response sets a clear direction: we are maintaining a strong and accessible network, backing postmasters through major investment and cultural reform, modernising services for a digital age, and setting the Post Office on a path towards long-term financial and operational stability. The Post Office must be modern, resilient and trusted, shaped by the communities it serves and built around the people who run it. With today’s response, we take a major step towards that future.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

14:39

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and—I do not often say these words—I warmly welcome the decision that he has announced. It seems that the Government have abandoned the risk, posed by their earlier proposals, that they would shutter thousands of local post offices, especially in rural areas. It is a great relief to those in villages and high streets that the Government have listened to the people who engaged with the consultation and the 180,000 who signed our petition, and have heard the calls from the readers of The Mail on Sunday, the Express, The Daily Telegraph and other media outlets, all of whom were outraged by the possibility that the Government would close their much-valued local post offices.

By keeping the minimum network size at 11,500 branches, as it was throughout the 14 years we were in government, and by retaining all the geographical access criteria, the Minister has avoided a U-turn. In fact, I would describe what he has done as avoiding a chasm that was opening up in the road in front of him, and avoiding it niftily. The campaign that we led showed how important it is to voice the concerns of the vulnerable, those who are digitally excluded and the small businesses that rely so much on our precious post office network. May I add my thanks for the hard work of every postmaster and postmistress in Britain who keeps that network going?

However, it is not all sweetness and light for me today. The post office network, like so many retailers, faces a tax hike—in this case, a hike of £45 million—because of the national insurance increase. Many post offices are also seeing increases of more than 100% in their business rates. The chairman of Post Office Ltd, Nigel Railton, made it clear that it was precisely because of the rising costs resulting from the changes in national insurance and the national living wage that the business needed a fresh start. We cannot claim to support the backbone of the network while breaking its back with tax hikes. The Conservatives have always stood up for our nation’s high streets, and we would introduce a permanent 100% business rate relief for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses whose premises are under the rateable value threshold of £110,000.

I have a few questions for the Minister. He announced a requirement for at least 50% of the network to be full-time and full-service. I believe that the number today is 79%. Is that not a downgrade, and what does he expect from the other 29%? Will he confirm that no small rural branches will be consolidated and replaced by city-centre hubs under the guise of this new 50% full-service requirement? Will he please expand on the minimum service that he would expect those smaller branches to deliver?

The Minister committed himself to a technology transformation programme to replace the Horizon system within the next five years. I heard about the first two years of funding, but will he give us some details about how the current system will be maintained after those first two years? He mentioned the importance of the post office network, given the number of banks that are closing branches all over the country. Has a new, specific agreement been made with the banks to provide additional support for post office branches in areas where banks are closing? What update can he give the House about the discussions with Fujitsu and its financial contribution towards Post Office redress?

The Minister has clearly been forced to listen. He has been forced to do a pre-U-turn on the proposals to reduce the size of our precious post office network. He has been forced to admit that our high streets deserve better than the managed decline that was a risk under those earlier proposals, and this is a victory for all our constituents.

[Blair McDougall]

I think that if I am praised much more from the Opposition Benches, I will be drummed out of the Brownies.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s response to my statement. I believe that there is consensus across the House on the important role that post offices play in our communities, and particularly in our high streets and remote villages. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming the campaigning of Mail and Express readers, who have voiced very clearly the importance of post offices to their communities. In my capacity as both postal services Minister and small business Minister, I also echo her words about the essential function of post offices in providing a place for small businesses to drop off their takings.

The hon. Lady referred to the costs faced by the Post Office, which is a point well taken. The Government are putting £483 million into the transformation of the Post Office to ensure that it has a financially sustainable future as a business on our high streets and in our villages. She asked specifically about support for the IT transformation. Of the more than £500 million that the Government have committed to transformation, including the money already spent before the Green Paper, £136 million is committed to technology and to replacing the Horizon system, which is a major priority for us. However, that transformation investment—beyond what we are putting into IT—will also enable the Post Office to do new things. The debate about the Post Office often concentrates on the idea of its being the last place to do things, but, having talked to the management of Post Office Ltd, I am greatly encouraged by their wish for it to be the first place that people think of in connection with cash and other high street services.

The hon. Lady asked about the additional 50% trigger, and, entirely fairly, raised the question of what it would mean for rural areas. The criteria for access to the full set of services that a branch provides are being maintained, so those protections are still there. This is very much an additional protection, rather than an alternative to the protections that were already there for rural post offices. For example, “drop and collect branches” that do not offer the full service are included in the 11,500 criterion, but are not included in the access criteria. This is about protecting access to as full a range of services as possible.

Finally, let me respond to the hon. Lady’s question about Fujitsu. When I met Fujitsu representatives shortly before the end of last year, I made very clear our belief that—as they have said themselves—they have a moral responsibility to contribute substantially to the costs of redress. They have said that they wish to wait until Sir Wyn’s inquiry before making a decision on that, but we will continue to have those discussions.

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

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. May I raise two specific issues relating to post offices in my constituency?

First, Mosborough post office, a fairly small but growing business, is on the margins of viability. Will the Minister think again about how small post offices in communities that rely on them can be supported? Secondly, the Lloyds bank branch in Woodhouse—the last bank there—has closed. Woodhouse is an old mining community. We thought it was an ideal place for a banking hub, and we had someone willing to run it: Richard Trinder, the sub-postmaster at Handsworth post office. However, the plan was turned down because the banks were not prepared to fund it The Minister mentioned discussions with the banks and the Post Office about a voluntary agreement. Will he have a look at what he might do to enforce such agreements, and change the criteria for banking hubs when they could be vital to local communities?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend has made some important points, particularly about the smaller post offices which, as he says, are often the ones that struggle and may be less able to invest directly to tackle some of their problems. The money that we are putting into network transformation is important because it can enable those that may be struggling at the moment to become viable businesses. Just before the end of last year, Treasury Ministers and I chaired a banking roundtable. As my hon. Friend says, we are talking about a voluntary relationship, but all the banks recognise the critical importance of the post offices and of access to banking services for their customers, especially in the light of recent high street bank closures. That recognition is, obviously, shared by the Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I promise to set a good example for colleagues by keeping my response brief.

As the Minister has laid out, the responses to the consultation underscored the importance of post offices as community hubs that provide vital services, not least to NHS patients through the delivery of important medical correspondence. Some 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office, and 4,000 of these branches are open seven days a week. That is an increasingly important statistic, given the rapid closure of high street services such as banks over the past decade. The Minister has said that at least 50% of the network must be full-time and full-service branches. Many people rely on the post office to provide vital services, so can the Minister confirm that we will not see a reduction in the number of full-time branches and that he will ensure that opening hours continue to meet the needs of working people?

The Minister also referred to the important community banking service that post offices provide, but he did not provide specific assurances to the House about other services provided by the Post Office, such as Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services and Passport Office services. He mentioned expanded digital services, but these will not help many of our constituents who live in remote areas with poor broadband access or difficult phone service access. Can he provide a commitment that the Post Office will continue to provide physical services for people who will have difficulty accessing DVLA and passport services digitally? Can he confirm that these will remain in post office branches beyond March 2026, and will he commit to multi-year contracts, in particular with the DVLA?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming today’s statement. On the additional protection that we are bringing in, I reassure her that in addition to maintaining the network of 11,500 post offices, the access criteria stipulate that 99% of the UK population must be within three miles of a post office outlet, 90% must be within one mile, 99% of those living in deprived urban areas must be within one mile, 95% of the total urban population must be within one mile, and 95% of the total rural population must be within three miles. Then we have the additional protection, particularly in rural areas, that 95% of the population in every postcode district must be within six miles of a post office. They will all be maintained, which should reassure her.

The hon. Lady makes a point about ensuring that post office hours match people’s lives, which is something that postmasters are doing already. I visited a post office in Acton that stays open at weekends and till 11 pm, so that other retailers, such as grocers, can come and put in their takings.

Finally, we recognise the importance of post offices for vulnerable people and those who, for whatever reason, might struggle with the choices that many other people are making about accessing Government services online. That is one of the key reasons why we are keeping the network at the level it is at the moment. As I mentioned in my statement, we are also doing work across Government to look at the idea of a single front door for face-to-face Government services and the role that the Post Office can play in that. We are looking to enhance the role that the Post Office plays.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement of £483 million to invest in our post offices around the country, and I join the Minister in thanking our postmasters and postal staff, particularly those at the Southbourne Grove, Malmesbury Park, Hengistbury Head and Sea Road post offices in my constituency. What happens at Royal Mail affects our postal services—it is unavoidable—so I am concerned about the adoption of the optimised delivery network in Bournemouth and more broadly. The Minister and I were recently at a meeting with the Post Office in which we had a private discussion about its future. Does he agree that the work of the Government in this area is key to building pride in our communities, tackling antisocial behaviour and having a diverse mix of offer on our high streets? That is the only way in which we will truly regenerate our high streets in Bournemouth and across the country.

[Blair McDougall]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for campaigning for his own high streets, and particularly for his local post office network. He is absolutely right to say that our response recognises the importance of post offices as anchors in high streets—they help drive footfall. The community hub model that the Post Office is piloting is an example of how we can build on that and expand post offices’ role as anchors in high streets, but he is right: this has to be seen across the wider effort that we are undertaking to make high streets somewhere people choose to go, to make them more attractive and to make them places where people choose to shop. High streets and high street businesses are not just part of the community; they are where our communities are made.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Kingswinford is the largest town centre in my constituency, but it has been without a post office since the Midcounties Co-operative closed the store in which the post office was located. That loss has become even more significant since Lloyds bank announced this month that it was closing the only bank in the town centre. The Minister has spoken about retaining a minimum post office network, but what will the Government do to help re-open post offices in town centres that do not currently have a post office, such as Kingswinford?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point: it can be really devastating when a post office closes, particularly in a small community. There will always be churn within the network—there will be businesses that succeed or fail as post offices. Our job is to make sure that the overall criteria are there and that the overall level of access is there for people.

The hon. Gentleman asks what we can do to bring businesses and post offices back to areas such as Kingswinford. The transformation investment that we are putting in is so important, because that is what makes the overall business profitable, but it also enables the Post Office to give a better deal to postmasters, which makes it a more attractive business to open in communities like his.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

High streets in towns like Long Eaton have come under growing strain in recent years, not least because of widespread bank closures, but around one in five people is still not using online banking—a group that disproportionately includes older and disabled residents. I am fighting hard for the establishment of a banking hub in Long Eaton. Given the clear need for accessible financial services, what role does the Minister envisage for post offices in supporting the regeneration of high streets in Erewash, and what support is he providing to strengthen the Post Office’s financial services?

[Blair McDougall]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigns that he runs in defence of his local high streets. Just before the end of the year, we brought together Post Office Ltd and the high street banks to begin a discussion about the future of banking and financial services within the Post Office and the role that it plays, not just in ensuring that people have access to banking services but in bringing footfall to local high streets. The revenue that the Post Office receives from the financial services and banking side of its business has doubled over a period in which its revenue from delivering letters has declined, so we are absolutely clear about the importance of the Post Office’s banking services to the future of local high streets.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I have a particular interest in this matter, because the world’s oldest post office is in Sanquhar, in my constituency, which has operated continuously since 1712, despite some scares in recent years. The Minister would be very welcome to visit it. I urge him to get some urgency into the discussion with the banks, because there is significant confusion between the banking hub legislation and rules and the role of the Post Office. For example, in Sanquhar, although the Bank of Scotland has provided a banking adviser to come to the community following the closure of its branch, it will not allow that person to meet people within the post office. Likewise, in Moffat, where we had a bank closure, the post office will not operate a vital cash machine that is required in that community. Will the Minister increase his efforts to get the banks and post offices together to get a co-ordinated approach?

[Blair McDougall]

I was going to make a cruel joke about the right hon. Member remembering the opening of that post office, but I am too fond of him to do that. He pays tribute to it, and I would gladly visit, perhaps on the way back to my constituency from Parliament one weekend. I have relatives in his part of the world, so perhaps I can double up on my reasons to visit.

As I have mentioned, we absolutely understand the centrality of banking services to the sustainability of the Post Office. We had that roundtable, and even though the banking framework has just been renewed, we have already started conversations on this. Ultimately, those will be conversations between two commercial entities, but we are facilitating them, because we recognise their importance.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Last year, I ran a community campaign to save Westbourne post office, which mobilised thousands, and the post office was kept open. I also put pressure on Post Office Ltd to reopen a full service post office in Bournemouth town centre after the WH Smith closed, and one is opening in May. Residents should not have to fight so hard for their post offices. They provide a vital lifeline, especially for older and more vulnerable residents, allowing them to access government services, and for our local businesses, as we have heard. How will the Minister ensure that post offices remain a fixture on our high streets, and play a crucial role in revitalising our high streets and town centres?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is a constant campaigner on behalf of local post offices, and I am not surprised that she had that victory. I look forward to visiting her constituency, and she can perhaps introduce me to the local postmasters while I am there.

I have mentioned the transformation programme that we are funding, and while there will always be churn in the network, with some businesses closing and some opening, that should be part of a natural cycle, rather than because of business distress. The transformation programme is about making sure that there is good postmaster remuneration, so that businesses succeed, and I will continue to work with my hon. Friend to make sure that the post offices in her constituency—and everywhere—thrive.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to retaining the minimum network size of 11,500 post office branches. The Minister will know that I have campaigned extensively on this issue, not least because I do not have a single bank branch in my entire constituency. There is a particular need for post offices in rural areas where other service provision is limited. What support will be given to rural villages like Kelsall and Threapwood, where the post offices are closing? Despite every effort, there has been no possibility of reopening a branch in those villages.

[Blair McDougall]

I remember responding to a debate in which the hon. Member campaigned vociferously on behalf of post offices in her constituency, and I think today is tribute to the campaigning done by her and by other Members on these issues. I remember her telling me that her constituency not only does not have a post office, but does not have a McDonald’s, which is extraordinary. Again, we are maintaining the access criterion that means that the Post Office has to maintain accessibility for people in rural areas, but ultimately it is by making businesses profitable and making the remuneration for postmasters attractive that we will achieve what she seeks to achieve.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

In a previous statement, I learned that the directly managed post office in Wester Hailes in Edinburgh South West was to close. It was a really concerning time for the community, but Mohammed Arshad and his sons Aamir and Adam stepped up and absorbed the service into their shop, Plaza News. Residents now have longer opening hours in which to access services, and they can do their banking, pay bills and get their passport checked. It is the most British of places; people queue to send their parcel via Royal Mail, Parcelforce, DPD or, if they are feeling brave, Evri, while browsing wool, knitting needles and knitting patterns in the aisle. It is a fantastic place. While news of the transition was concerning, particularly when it first broke, I really think that the community has ended up in a better place. Can the Minister reassure Mohammed and his sons that what has been announced today will enable them to serve their community more, rather than less?

[Blair McDougall]

I am very happy to reassure Mohammed and his sons about that, and to thank them for the work that they do for the community. My hon. Friend mentions the post office staying open for longer; that is typical of postmasters, who are not just running a business, but have a really clear sense that they are serving their community. That is why getting this right, and succeeding with the vision that we have set out in this Green Paper, is so important.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome the statement, and I welcomed the opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss these issues. A lot of people are talking about either reopening post offices—indeed, the Post Office want to see them reopen—or avoiding closure, and he knows that it all comes down to remuneration. As he will have heard, a post office operator needs to sell at least 450 stamps every hour just to achieve the national minimum wage level of remuneration. That clearly is the reason why in Porthleven and Newlyn, where the Post Office want to reopen post offices, no one is interested in taking on those services. What can the Government do to ensure that the remuneration is sufficient to ensure that the network targets he has outlined can be achieved?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Member for taking the time to meet me to make the case for post offices in his area, which he did with some passion. From conversations not just with him and other hon. Members, but with postmasters, I am left in no doubt about the importance of ensuring that the Post Office improves renumeration for post offices, because that is how we will ensure that the network thrives and survives. We are putting half a billion pounds into network transformation, so that all the businesses, including those in hon. Members’ constituencies, are sustainable.

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

I welcome the statement, and the Government’s response in the Green Paper, particularly the commitment to 11,500 branches—branches will be focused on high streets—and the focus on accessibility. In the light of that, does the Minister agree that it is ridiculous that the Uxbridge post office branch is set to close in May? Today, we found out that TG Jones, the current operator, has withdrawn from the contract for a future branch, and has ended its search for a replacement. Will he join me in urging Hillingdon council to pull its finger out, stop blaming others, and do all that it can to secure a new site, using its own assets if necessary, and in urging the Post Office to ensure that we maintain a post office in Uxbridge town centre?

[Blair McDougall]

I will perhaps use more parliamentary language than my hon. Friend did, but I absolutely would encourage everyone to work together to ensure that his constituents have access to postal services. I recognise that, while there is obviously good news today about maintaining the overall size of the post office network and the access criteria, that is little comfort for those in a community where there is such churn in post office services. I will very happily work with him on the issue that he raises.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

In rural areas, the loss of post offices is an issue, but it is also an issue in cities, particularly when the local transport network does not necessarily link people with the post office. My community is still reeling from Spar closing the post offices in its shops. Will the Minister give us some comfort by saying that he believes that the remuneration package being offered will not just keep postmasters in the job, but encourage new postmasters to take up the job, particularly given that, as has been stated, we face another round of Bank of Scotland closures?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about the impact of the closure of a post office on an area. As I have said, we are maintaining the overall network, but there are still areas where there are issues. The Government obviously do not directly set the remuneration, but we are supporting the Post Office in ensuring, through its transformation, that it is profitable enough to make running a post office business more attractive. Ultimately, that is the long-term answer to the issues in her constituency, and all hon. Members’ constituencies.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, in which he referred to post offices being multi-carrier parcel hubs. One such carrier is Evri, and I visited its depot in my constituency of Hemel Hempstead last week with the GMB London region rep Danni Egan. I met dedicated couriers who were doing vital and often undervalued work. How do the Government plan to support private couriers, and companies that are willing to work alongside trade unions to ensure that these workers, too, get better pay and conditions?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is always a doughty fighter for the rights of working people. The employment rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), just disappeared from the Chamber, but was here a moment ago; she has brought through important changes to make sure that when it comes to people’s working environment, there is a floor of decency. Ofcom is looking at other private parcel couriers and the service that they provide, and I will certainly work with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) on these issues.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Following an exemplary local campaign and petition, it is a relief to record that the Post Office has just reversed its decision not to reopen the post office in Lyndhurst, often referred to as the capital of the New Forest. Can the Minister explain whether there is any overall Government plan to co-ordinate the disappearance of banks with the emergence of banking hubs and the expectation that post offices will take on some banking responsibilities? Would it be a possible source of income for post offices if they could charge the banks in exchange for undertaking to take in cheques on accounts held with those banks? At the moment, I believe it is very hit and miss which banks allow people to pay their checks into a post office, and which do not.

[Blair McDougall]

Most banks do provide services, although I know there have recently been issues around Lloyds and the availability of cheque-cashing. I am really pleased to hear that the Lyndhurst branch has been saved, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and campaigners on that. The banking framework is an increasingly important part of post offices’ income, and at the heart of that is the relationship whereby the post office is paid for providing services that have disappeared because of a lack of high-street bank branches. That is very important to the financial stability and future of the Post Office.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

One of the key services that the Post Office supports in North Norfolk is our bank hubs. These are crucial to our market towns, which have lost high-street banks, and to those living in nearby villages. However, I am frustrated about the number of banks that fail to provide crucial services in these hubs. I note the Minister’s comments about the voluntary and commercial basis of participation, but has he considered reviewing the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, with a view to widening the requirement to include access to banking services? That would be of huge help to my rural residents and businesses.

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I have only been a Minister for four months, but I have already learned that it is not a great idea to trespass too far into Treasury Ministers’ territory; however, I will certainly discuss the point that he raises with colleagues there, and obviously our overall strategy is to make sure that there is access to financial services through the post office in as wide a range of communities as possible.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and welcome his commitment to maintaining a minimum network size of 11,500 branches and all six geographical access criteria. Currently, 79% of the network is a full service branch, so why have the Government set the new 50% requirement, which is so much lower than that? Is that to allow the Post Office to downsize by stealth?

[Blair McDougall]

No, it is not, because all six of the criteria remain, and they will guarantee access to the fuller range of services that the Post Office provides. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I do not think it will have surprised any of us to hear the Minister talk about the response from our communities, who say how much they value services in a physical post office. My constituents in High Lane and around the Fiveways in Hazel Grove still mourn the loss of their post office branch, but when I talked with Post Office Ltd and local retailers after the closures, they said that it was just not viable to offer those services, as the remuneration, and the business model, just did not fit in with their needs. The Minister talked about the desire to reduce the reliance on Government funding, and about looking at additional services, like prescription collection. Will he say a little more about where he sees the business model going for the Post Office, so that we can ensure that running a post office or delivering post office services is viable, and so that my constituents get the services that they need, where they need them?

[Blair McDougall]

Obviously the business model of the Post Office is a matter for the Post Office, but it would say to me that it is about continuing that central role of banking and financial services through the Post Office, and about experimenting with new models like the hub of the high street, where post offices can partner with other organisations that perhaps do not want the full expense of their own high street presence but can use the vast network of the Post Office. Finally, it is about the technological transformation that we are funding, which will improve the customer experience and improve the renumeration for sub-postmasters.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement today that they are going to maintain 11,500 branches, but in my constituency, outreach services that were only available maybe for an hour or two each week anyway in Cockshutt, Clee, Weston Rhyn, Knockin, West Felton and Ruyton XI Towns have all been lost because of the retirement of a single postmistress in Trefonen. The current criteria have not protected those services, and the distance criteria are not incredibly helpful when there is no public transport that can be relied on, and for a business it is an incredible waste of time to have to get in the car and drive three or maybe six miles to another post office to post something. What can the Minister say to my constituents who are faced with long journeys to get to post offices? What likelihood is there of a post office reopening in their area, and how will that help them deal with these access problems of public transport and efficiency when they are running their businesses?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point, and an hon. Friend asked earlier whether this is part of a wider need to regenerate high streets. It is also true that it has to be part of a wider strategy to support rural businesses like the ones the hon. Lady mentions. I have spoken many times about what we are going to do to improve postmaster remuneration through the transformation investment that we are putting in. Perhaps before I sit down and we move on to the next debate, I can also say some words of encouragement: there is a new generation of postmasters coming through, and not only is it a fantastic business opportunity for people, but it is an extraordinary opportunity to serve their community and become a key and valued figure, particularly within communities like the hon. Lady’s.

Bills Presented

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)

Secretary Steve Reed, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Lisa Nandy, Matthew Pennycock, Samantha Dixon and James Murray, presented a Bill to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the commemoration of the victims of the fire at Grenfell Tower; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 388) with explanatory notes (Bill 388-EN).

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary David Lammy, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Darren Jones, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Anna Turley, Sarah Sackman, Alex Davies-Jones and Jake Richards, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to criminal courts in England and Wales; to make provision about the leadership of tribunals; to amend section 1 of the Children Act 1989 to remove the presumption relating to the involvement of parents in the life of a child; and for connected purposes.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Object.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Are you trying to object, Sir Roger? Marvellous.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 389) with explanatory notes (Bill 389-EN).

Chalk Streams (UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site)

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

15:18

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as a serial UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site.

My Bill concerns a rare natural resource of universal value. We in the UK are custodians of 85% of the world’s chalk streams, our equivalent of the Great Barrier Reef. They are timeless jewels of our natural heritage, yet we are allowing them to be drained dry and to have raw sewage dumped on them by water companies that put profit before people and the planet. My Bill would ensure that we finally give chalk streams the same reverence and protections that we give to our greatest cathedrals or monuments. Our streams and rivers are just as much a part of our national identity and international significance.

A number of these rare and beautiful ecosystems run through my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, including Hobson’s brook and the Rivers Cam, Granta, Shep, Rhee, Mel, Wilbraham and Orwell. They stretch far beyond my constituency, from east Devon through the North Wessex Downs and the Chilterns, up to the Norfolk coast, with a southern spur through the South Downs and into Kent, and a north-eastern block in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

There is nothing more British than standing beside a sparkling river with kids paddling and playing Pooh sticks. As the world around us changes, such scenes have brought joy to generations before us and should bring joy to many generations to come, but our responsibility is far greater still. Article 4 of the UNESCO convention places a duty on our Government to ensure the identification and protection for all humanity of our natural heritage, of which chalk streams are the national jewel. This is a huge opportunity for the Government to advance their Pride in Place programme—pride locally, nationally and internationally.

We are here today in one of our world heritage sites, the Palace of Westminster. We are proud to have 32 world heritage sites in the UK, yet only four are natural world heritage sites. My Bill requires the Government to remedy that and to nominate the network of chalk streams as a serial natural world heritage site. The whole process necessarily takes a few years, but as I shall explain, the goal is clear, the justification is strong and the work must start now. To approve a site for natural world heritage status, UNESCO must be satisfied that it is of outstanding universal value. In David Attenborough’s words in his BBC series “Wild Isles”, they are

“one of the rarest habitats on Earth”,

supporting extraordinary richness and diversity of life, with more plant species than any other type of river in the UK, providing a critical habitat for rare species, such as water voles, white-clawed crayfish, brown trout and a unique chalk stream subspecies of the Atlantic salmon, alongside many specialised invertebrates.

There are only 260 chalk streams worldwide. Their number is small due to the unique conditions and alchemy needed to form them. They exist only where water filters slowly through chalk aquifers and emerges at springs crystal clear, mineral rich and at a near constant temperature throughout the year. Or rather, that is what used to happen. Today, our chalk streams are in a perilous state. Climate change is one of the greatest threats to our nature and wildlife. Extreme droughts are exacerbating the damage already being done. We are letting our streams be drained dry because of untrammelled growth and allowing water companies and agricultural run-off to create a chemical cocktail of sewage and slurry. Wildlife is suffering. The chalk stream Atlantic salmon is close to extinction in some rivers and rising temperatures threaten the survival of trout. That is why this House should make a clear commitment to restoring and conserving these rivers.

The Government have themselves recognised the value of chalk streams, and a Minister once observed that,

“If our chalk streams were buildings, they would be UNESCO heritage sites.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 2269.]

Exactly so. UNESCO designation will help to galvanize protection, public engagement and investment in their recovery. The nomination process will take time. Inclusion on the UK’s tentative list is the first step. For that, further research and monitoring, conservation planning and preparation of the case for nomination are needed. A fundamental requirement is the engagement of local government and stakeholders, and networking among them across the broad geographic span of the chalk streams.

In fact, that work has already begun in many communities where they treasure the value of a healthy chalk stream for their physical and mental health and recreation. They are monitoring water quality, acting as stewards in cleaning and maintaining them, and fighting for their survival. These armies of volunteers and civil society groups are incredibly capable and connected, and include the Wildlife Trusts, the national Catchment Based Approach chalk stream restoration group, WildFish and River Action UK. In my constituency—here with us in the Gallery—there are the Cam Valley Forum, the Cam Catchment Partnership, the friends of the River Shep, the Granta and Fulbourn Fen, and the Cambridgeshire climate and nature forum.

We need to see the Government step up and follow through on their assertions about their commitment to chalk stream conservation, because commitment to protection at the national level is an essential prerequisite for nominating a site for world heritage status. The UK has maintained certain legal protections. However, of the 200-plus chalk streams, only 11 are designated as sites of special scientific interest and only four as special areas for conservation. Much more needs to be done to ramp up the action to stop the sewage dumping and the abstraction that we have talked about. That is why I am joining many voices in calling for the listing of chalk streams, alongside ancient woodland, as irreplaceable habitat, which they certainly are, in the national planning policy framework, in line with the Government’s concession and promise during debate in this Chamber to

“make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 407.]

We should also be ringfencing substantial financing from the water restoration fund.

As a nation that prides itself on its love of nature and is preparing to celebrate the 100th birthday of nature’s greatest advocate, Sir David Attenborough, we have a responsibility to act. It is a global responsibility handed to us by the rocks beneath our feet. Let us embrace it and celebrate it. Let us be the global custodians of our very own equivalent of the Galapagos Islands, the Great Barrier Reef and the rainforest. This Bill would start the journey to secure UNESCO recognition for one of the rarest habitats on Earth. We hold 85% of the world’s chalk streams. With that privilege comes responsibility. Let us rise to it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Pippa Heylings, Dr Roz Savage, Victoria Collins, Charlotte Cane, Liz Jarvis, Dr Danny Chambers, Vikki Slade, Alex Brewer, Olly Glover, Simon Hoare, Carla Denyer and Chris Hinchliff present the Bill.

Pippa Heylings accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 387).

Ukraine

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: oral evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 9 February, on The situation in Ukraine, HC 1694, and oral evidence from the joint meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Ukrainian Committee on Foreign Policy and Inter-Parliamentary Cooperation on 25 November and 20 May 2025, HC 916.]

15:29

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

Yesterday marked a milestone that none of us wanted to see: four years of Putin’s war on Ukraine; four years of his brutal full-scale invasion of that sovereign nation, a proud country that has fought back against Putin’s attacks and—let us not forget—suffered 12 years under the pain of occupation. This week we stand with the families mourning loved ones, the troops fighting on the frontline and the millions displaced from home, yearning for the opportunity to return.

Four years ago today, a dozen Ukrainian border guards on Snake island—a tiny, isolated island in the middle of the Black sea—were surrounded by Russian sea and air forces. When the Russians radioed to demand their surrender, the Ukrainians told the ship’s command to get lost—in fact, they told them so in stronger terms that I cannot repeat in the House this afternoon. That defiance has driven Ukrainian resistance to Russia every day of the conflict since.

That defiance burned fiercely in Kyiv last month when I met emergency workers, military chiefs, Ukrainian Ministers and President Zelensky himself, because Ukrainians—civilians and military alike—are still fighting with the same courage and determination that inspired the world in February 2022.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I am sorry that this intervention is so early, but I just wanted to reflect that I was in Kyiv at the same time as the Secretary of State, and I thank him for his visit. We were there at the same time to see the apartment block where emergency responders were hit with a double-tap strike—that is, they had gone to respond and to rescue those affected, and then they too were hit. The Secretary of State is aware of the desperate need for air defence missiles and the lack of Patriots going in. I know he will address this. Can he say whether that is being raised with the utmost urgency? We need to defend Ukraine’s skies.

[John Healey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his visit to Kyiv. The fact that Members across the House have been regularly to Ukraine lifts the morale of the Ukrainian people and reminds them that the UK stands with them as strongly now as four years ago.

The hon. Gentleman is right. The night before I arrived in Kyiv, 90 Shahed drones had hit the city, 21 of which had been targeted directly at residential accommodation. The block that he and I both visited, which had had its side ripped open by one of the drone strikes, had been hit twice, an hour and a half apart, deliberately, so that the emergency workers who had gone in to help those suffering after the first strike were then hit and, in one case, killed by the second. This is an indication of cynical and illegal tactics and the war crimes that Putin is committing in Ukraine. It reminds us that we must redouble our determination to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

I will move on to the question of air defence later, but the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is quite right: he and I were both told, when out in Kyiv last month, that it is President Zelenksy’s first priority. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, when I chaired the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at NATO headquarters two weeks ago, I announced that Britain was committing an extra £500 million package of air defence systems and missiles in order to meet the urgent need that he and I both saw that day.

President Putin postures as a strongman. He wants the world to believe that Russia has unstoppable momentum on the battlefield, that the Ukrainians have no choice but to concede on his terms, and that we, as Ukraine’s western allies, have grown weary. But he is wrong, wrong, wrong. This was a war that Putin thought he would win in a week, but four years on, he has achieved none of his strategic aims. Instead, he has inflicted terrible suffering on his own people, as well as Ukraine’s. He is failing.

Of course, Ukrainian troops are certainly under pressure on the frontline, but Russia has now been fighting in Ukraine for longer than the Soviet Union fought Germany during the second world war, its forces are advancing more slowly than those in the battle of the Somme, and nearly one and a quarter million Russians have been injured or killed. The average casualty rate for Russian troops is now 1,000 each day, every day, and the average life expectancy of a conscript deployed to the Russian frontline is now less than five days.

Putin is desperate to avoid a second Russian mobilisation, and because of that he is turning to more desperate measures to plug the gaps. He is increasingly heavily reliant on foreign fighters. He has already called on 17,000 North Koreans, who are fighting for him on his frontline, and he is now preying on thousands of men from Latin America, central Asia and Africa, sending them to their deaths on his frontline.

But Putin’s war machine continues to be degraded, and his war economy continues to be damaged. In Russia, 40% of Government spending now goes on the military. Manufacturing is falling at its fastest rate, oil revenues are plunging and food prices are soaring. Make no mistake: Putin is under pressure. He targets Ukrainian cities, civilians and energy supplies and, during the coldest winter for a decade, he has killed Ukrainian children in their beds, destroyed hospital wards and plunged entire cities into darkness.

For 2026, the Government’s mission—Britain’s mission—for Ukraine is simple: support the fight today, secure the peace tomorrow, and step up the pressure on Putin.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I do not know whether President Putin follows these debates, but I would like him to know that the Secretary of State speaks for our entire nation. We are completely united on this. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that we are equally robust on not having any ceasefire on the basis that currently unoccupied territory is ceded? That would be an absolute disaster and would simply encouraged Putin to go further. It is very important that our adversaries know that the House is completely united on this.

[John Healey]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As Father of the House, he is able to speak for the House and for all sides, and he speaks for our nation.

On supporting Ukraine’s fight today, spending on military assistance is at its highest ever level this year. Two weeks ago, I convened and chaired the 33rd meeting of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group, alongside the German Defence Minister, Boris Pistorius. We worked to make the meeting a big UDCG with big commitments for 2026. For the UK’s part, I announced a new package, worth half a billion pounds, of urgent air defence support, which, as I said to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), is President Zelensky’s top priority. In total, the UDCG raised nearly $40 billion in new pledges of aid for Ukraine. The Ukrainians there called it the best UDCG yet. It also sent the clear message to Moscow that we are more united and more determined than ever to support Ukraine.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has been a steadfast champion of this country’s support for Ukraine, alongside his predecessors—the country is indeed united. Will he pay tribute to those in our defence industry, including in my constituency, who have been manufacturing the Storm Shadow missiles that have been used on the frontline in Ukraine, and to all the other support they will give in future?

[John Healey]

I will indeed. We are proud of our British defence industry. It equips our armed forces, it has helped to equip the Ukrainians and it has helped to provide the essential aid to keep the Ukrainians in the fight for the last four years, and my hon. Friend’s constituents who work at MBDA in Stevenage are playing a really important part in that. Ukraine reminds us of a deep lesson that we had overlooked for too long, which is that when a country is forced to fight or faced with conflict, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. We take great pride, on all sides of the House, in the great innovation of British industry and in what its workers are able to do.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) mentioning Storm Shadow reminds me of the fact that, particularly in the early days of the conflict, there was resistance, often from the other side of the Atlantic, to supplying Ukraine with some of the longer-range missile systems that are necessary to inflict pain on Russia in its centre. Now that President Trump’s contribution has been reduced to supplying weapons that the Europeans have to pay for before they can go to Ukraine, do we have greater freedom to supply longer-range, more effective weapons to Ukraine, or are we still somewhat beholden to the wishes of people on the other side of the Atlantic?

[John Healey]

The principle on which we have donated British-made weapons to Ukraine has been consistently for the defence of Ukraine. That is how Ukraine has been using them, and using them effectively.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I appreciate the tone of the Secretary of State’s speech and offer him my wholehearted support. Will he say a little more about the valuable work under way in our tech industry on defence technology and how he is modernising procurement to encourage those vital companies to come forward?

[John Healey]

I know that my hon. Friend has some advanced defence tech firms in his patch. There are things we can do in this country that are valuable to Ukraine, and I will come on to a particular joint programme we have with Ukraine in a moment, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that the Ukrainians have the most creative, combat-experienced defence industry and armed forces in the world at present, and we also have a great deal to learn. It is important that we are able to welcome Ukrainian firms that wish to set up new factories and plants in the United Kingdom. I know that the shadow Defence Secretary has welcomed such a Ukrainian company into his constituency—it is set to open this week, I hope.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

On the subject of tech, the Defence Secretary may be aware of NP Aerospace of Coventry, which, among other things, manufactures body armour. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Ministry of Defence is at the moment purchasing body armour that is fitted to the female form—not for the British Army but for Ukraine. That is perfectly fine, but will he ensure that the British Army, too, puts out a statement of requirement for body armour for women, since it would be inappropriate if, at some point in the future, British servicewomen found themselves serving side by side with Ukrainian servicewomen without having the high-tech body armour that the Ukrainian servicewomen have? Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to declare an interest as the father of two servicewomen.

[John Healey]

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s two daughters for serving this country. Secondly, I hope that he was able to visit that Coventry firm’s exhibition in this House yesterday to see for himself what it produces. Thirdly, I hope he agrees—I think he does, by his intervention—that first and foremost our duty is to support Ukraine, but I am very conscious of his broader point. We procure for Ukraine and we learn lessons. We need to ensure that our own forces are equally well equipped for the future.

On securing the peace for tomorrow, we all welcome the US leading the push for peace, and no one welcomes those efforts more than Ukraine. When the peace comes, which we all hope to see this year, Britain will be ready to help secure that peace for the long term. I am proud to serve in a British Cabinet under a Prime Minister who was the very first world leader to commit troops on the ground in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. Following the Paris summit that he co-chaired last month, the work of the coalition of the willing is more advanced now than ever. Yesterday, he chaired a meeting of 36 coalition leaders, who confirmed that Ukraine can go into 2026 confident in the knowledge that when the war ends it will have security guarantees, a big prosperity agreement and a path to EU membership.

The coalition of the willing’s multinational force for Ukraine will deploy when peace is agreed to secure Ukraine’s skies and seas and to regenerate its armed forces for the future. Both the British Army and the Royal Air Force are now conducting exercises in preparation, and I have already accelerated £200 million to ensure that our forces have the kit they need to deploy.

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

When will this House see the force structure of the British component of Multinational Force Ukraine so that we can properly scrutinise it?

[John Healey]

The detail of the structure and the deployment will become clear and depend on the context and detail of the peace agreement. In the context of a decision to deploy, the Prime Minister has said that the House will have the chance to debate and vote on that deployment, and I suspect that we will be able to set out the detail at that point. The hon. Member and other experts in the House will then have the chance to examine and debate it and, I trust, give it their approval so that any British forces will be deployed into Ukraine in the context of a peace deal with all-party support.

There is no more serious a decision for any Defence Secretary or any Government than committing our armed forces on operations, but I want to be the Defence Secretary who deploys British troops to Ukraine, because that will mean that we will have a negotiated peace and that the war will finally be over. Britain has been united for Ukraine from day one. The House, as the Father of the House said, has been united for Ukraine from day one.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall this week is called “Voices from Ukraine”. It is a collaboration between my constituent, the sculptor Stephen Duncan, and celebrated Ukrainian sculptors Oles Sydoruk, who is serving on the frontline in Ukraine, and Borys Krylov. It is an extremely moving set of meditations on both the horror of the conflict and the resilience of Ukrainian people and their identity, which Putin is so viciously seeking to erase. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those talented and courageous artists in recognising the value of the arts and culture in how societies come to terms with difficult conflicts and trauma, and encourage all hon. Members across the House to go and view that important work this week?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is to be applauded for having sponsored the exhibition. I am delighted that she could tell the House about it this afternoon. I pay tribute to her and to the artists for what they are doing and how they are conveying the experience of their countrymen and women to wider audiences.

I will go one better: because the debate started rather earlier than we might have expected, I will join my hon. Friend at the exhibition before it finishes at 5 o’clock this afternoon, and I encourage all other hon. Members from both sides of the House to do the same.

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that wider question, because I speak as Defence Secretary but also with pride about the warmth, the welcome and the solidarity of the British people. Four years ago, British people started to open their homes to Ukrainians, and Britain welcomed 170,000 Ukrainians into our own homes. Many are still with those same families. Community, charity, faith and trade union groups have all raised funds or collected supplies, and often driven those supplies out to Ukraine. Our defence industrial links, which several hon. Members from all sides have raised this afternoon, continue to deepen, and we will soon start to jointly produce, in the UK, the new Ukrainian Octopus interceptor drones.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

A number of Members have drawn attention to manufacturers in their constituencies. I pay tribute to Chess Dynamics in my constituency of Horsham, which designs and builds world-leading tracking devices—they are absolutely state of the art.

I too was in Ukraine last year and, in addition to our support, I was struck by the solidarity of the Ukrainian people and their commitment to the war—despite comments to the contrary. Does the Minister agree that, ironically, in trying to destroy Ukraine, Putin has achieved the building of a fantastic new national identity?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right, first, about the outstanding firm in his Horsham constituency and, secondly, about the impact of Putin on Ukraine. It has not built a new sense of national identity because that was strong before Putin’s invasion—as I said, Ukrainians have suffered and fought occupation by Russian forces for 12 years—but it has deeply strengthened that identity and the determination that Ukraine will remain a sovereign nation in future. Whatever briefings Putin gets in the Kremlin, he is being misled to think that he is winning. He is failing, and it is our job, with other allies, to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

Part of that is the military aid that this country has been providing to Ukraine, but it is also action on other fronts. The Government have frozen nearly £30 billion of Russian assets in the UK and imposed over 3,000 sanctions on Russian individuals, organisations and ships, including a package of 300 new sanctions announced yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. We know that Russia’s vast shadow fleet bankrolls much of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, and sanctions by the UK and our partners have already forced around 200 ships to anchor out of use. We have seen the impact on Russian oil reserves, which fell by a quarter last year, but we need to do more and shift up a gear, with our militaries playing a greater role. That work has begun.

The UK has already supported both the US and France in conducting maritime interceptions. At the Munich Security Conference, I chaired a meeting of the joint expeditionary force nations, with Defence Ministers brought together to discuss conducting further operations against shadow shipping vessels. Today, I confirm that the MOD is now leading a new joint operational taskforce to advance those plans.

After four years, weariness with the war would be understandable, but in Britain our solidarity endures. It is a solidarity grounded both in deep respect for Ukrainian courage and in clear recognition that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine. The British people understand that the cost of conflict always outweighs the price of preventing war. Four years ago, Putin’s invasion sent inflation into double digits; indeed, our energy prices are still 40% higher and our food prices are still 30% higher, as we all daily pay the price of this war.

The British people also know that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will not stop in Ukraine. They see the Ukrainians fighting for the same values that past generations in Britain have fought for: the right of a free people to decide their own country’s future. Like the Father of the House, I am proud that Britain remains united for Ukraine, I am proud that President Zelensky calls us one of his very closest allies and I am proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine, started under the previous Government and stepped up further under ours.

Let me end where I began, by paying tribute to the people of Ukraine. Four years ago, we all remember those expert commentators largely being in agreement: Kyiv would be captured, Zelensky would flee, the Ukrainian command would collapse and a pro-Russian regime would be installed while the world watched on. If this war has taught us anything, it is never to underestimate the will of the Ukrainian people. They remain outnumbered and outmatched in every domain, and yet they have recently retaken territory, they continue to strike deep into Russia and, in some parts of the frontline, over 25 Russians have been killed for every Ukrainian life lost.

After four years of this brutal Russian aggression, of unbreakable Ukrainian courage and of enduring solidarity with those who stand with them, this must be the year that peace is agreed. Our UK promise to Ukraine is this: we will keep up the pressure on Putin; we will stand by and support the Ukrainian armed forces; and when peace comes, we will help secure it and ensure that it lasts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

15:55

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

This is a critical time for Ukraine. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the UK must continue to proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Four years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict—the innocent civilians, the families of brave servicemen and women, the Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, all those who have suffered life-changing injuries and those who have lost their homes.

At the start of this conflict, the then Conservative Government led by Boris Johnson, with cross-party support in this House, rallied the world behind Ukraine. We supplied weapons, provided humanitarian aid, championed their cause and opened our homes to those fleeing Putin’s brutality. We must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, supported by an axis of authoritarian states seeking to extinguish democracy on our continent. Russia’s increasing reliance on Iranian drones and weaponry underlines that this conflict is no longer confined to one border; it is part of a wider alignment of regimes determined to undermine the rules-based international order. We must remain united in defending shared values and the principle that aggressors should never succeed. It is crucial that there is a clear united front in support of Ukraine.

Recent Russian attacks including those on Kyiv, which last year also damaged a British Council building, underline why the UK and our allies must urgently deliver the military support that Ukraine needs. Putin still aims to subjugate Ukraine; the Euro-Atlantic alliance must ensure that he fears the consequences. Russia’s response to recent ceasefire proposals shows why the west must remain resolute. Britain and our allies must continue maximum pressure on the Kremlin while supporting Ukraine on the battlefield. As always, it is ultimately for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation to decide its own future. Any settlement must secure justice and lasting peace for its people. Territorial concessions would reward aggression. Putin has shown repeatedly that he is not serious about peace, and Britain must lead the way on sanctions and international pressure.

I am fortunate to have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice, first in 2021 during my time as a Foreign Minister and again in 2023 with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I look forward to returning again soon. I am conscious that not just Front-Bench colleagues but many colleagues from across this House and the other place have travelled to Ukraine, and it is such a strong and clear symbol of our unwavering support. For me personally, each visit has left a deep and lasting impression. I remember standing alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea platform in 2021, reaffirming the UK’s unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, when I returned to Ukraine in 2023, it was a different country—a country living with the daily realities of war. I met parliamentarians, civil society leaders and local officials, many of whom had lost loved ones, yet their resolve was, and still is, undiminished. That spirt—defiant, democratic and determined—must guide our response in this House.

One of the gravest crimes committed during this war is the abduction and forcible deportation of Ukrainian children, which I know hon. Members from across the House take incredibly seriously. Thousands of children have been taken from their families and communities, transferred to Russia, or Russian-occupied territory, stripped of their identity, subjected to so-called re-education and, in many cases, illegally adopted. This is not an unintended consequence of war; it is a deliberate policy designed to erase Ukraine’s future. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants in response to these crimes, but words and warrants alone are not enough. In summing up, will the Minister set out what concrete steps the Government are taking, with allies and international partners, to secure the return of those children, and to ensure that those responsible are pursued without delay or hesitation?

[John Healey]

I am really impressed and pleased that the right hon. Lady has laid such stress on Putin’s abduction of Ukrainian children and his attempt to brainwash them, about which there are strong sentiments from Members of all parties. Will she recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) is in Ukraine at the moment, and has just been presented with the Ukrainian Order of Merit for her work on exactly this concern?

[Wendy Morton]

If I am honest, I did not appreciate that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had just received that award and that recognition, but it is absolutely fitting. It demonstrates to the people who badmouth hon. Members and say that we do nothing that there are many good people in this place. She deserves that honour. I know many other hon. Members are very committed to Ukraine; a number of them are in Ukraine or on their way back. Some of them may even be heading to this Chamber—only time will tell. It is unusual for a shadow Minister to take an intervention from the Secretary of State, but I am pleased that he brought this important matter to our attention.

Starting under the last Conservative Government, the UK’s support has been world-leading. It has given £3 billion per year in military aid since 2024, £12 billion in total, including humanitarian assistance, and advanced weapons, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 tanks. Operation Interflex has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil. We hosted the 2023 Ukraine recovery conference, raising over $60 billion towards reconstruction. The 100-year partnership, negotiations on which commenced under the Conservative Government, demonstrates our shared commitment to enduring co-operation on trade, security, education, science and culture.

We know that sanctions work. We also know that Russia’s economy is under severe strain. That pressure must continue, including targeted pressure on refineries in China, Turkey and India that are buying Russian oil. Mobilising frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine’s war effort is crucial. The £2.26 billion UK loan from immobilised Russian assets is welcome, but more must be done, and needs to be done immediately. What further progress has been made on unlocking additional Russian assets, and why has more decisive action not yet been taken? The UK should lead on innovative, legal solutions with our allies and the City of London, to make more resources available to Ukraine right now.

Like us, the United States has been deeply invested in this conflict. American security is tied to Ukraine’s survival, and US military support has been indispensable. How are the Government ensuring close co-ordination with the US and other NATO allies on military aid, sanctions, and strategic support?

[Dr Murrison]

It appears that we are being teed up for some sort of deployment to Ukraine at some point in the future. Does my right hon. Friend recall that in a similar debate on 3 March 2025, the Prime Minister said that he was working with the US to provide

“security guarantees that are worthy of the name—that is, one that has a forward-leaning European element, but a US backstop and US backing”?—[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 41.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be utter folly to deploy British troops without those US guarantees?

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend speaks with not just eloquence, but so much experience. We should all listen to colleagues who bring that expertise and knowledge to this place. I absolutely agree; it would be madness to do that. That point further demonstrates the importance of working really closely with our allies as we continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours and its fight.

We must confront the growing threat posed by Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, which the Secretary of State mentioned. These vessels are not only a sanctions loophole, but a direct security threat to our shores and those of our allies. Reports of ship-to-ship transfers, insurance evasion and deceptive practices are deeply concerning. If Russia can bypass the oil price cap through this illicit network, the effectiveness of our sanctions regime will be undermined. I hope that later today, the Minister can outline what further action the Government are taking, alongside partners in the G7 and NATO, to crack down on the shadow fleet, tighten enforcement in UK waters and financial markets, and ensure that British insurers, ports and service providers are not inadvertently enabling sanctions evasion.

As we mark the fourth anniversary of this brutal invasion, our task is clear. We must provide Ukraine with the tools to defend itself, maintain crippling pressure on Putin and ensure that peace is built on justice, not concessions. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. If we stand firm, we strengthen our own security; if we hesitate, we embolden aggressors everywhere. I am in no doubt that this House will speak with clarity this afternoon. However, the test for the Government is whether their actions will match the scale of the words, and I really hope that the Minister will give us that assurance. Britain’s support is not symbolic; it is concrete—it is military aid, humanitarian help, sanctions enforcement and diplomatic leadership. We must continue to lead with purpose. Ukraine’s struggle is our struggle, and we will stand with it until victory is secured on Ukraine’s terms.

16:07

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

May I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his excellent opening speech? It gave us all the details. I also pay tribute to the Opposition, although on this one thing, they are not the opposition. I am so proud that we have all stayed together, right the way through, and there is nothing between us. Our support is not symbolic; we do what we do because we love these people, and we love Ukraine. As I said at the beginning of all this, Ukraine is fighting our war, because if Russia gets through Ukraine, it will be in Europe, and then here.

In this solemn debate, we remember all those whose lives have been shattered by war. Yesterday marked four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It was a brutal escalation of a conflict that has brought immense suffering to millions, and that continues to threaten the foundations of international law, human dignity and, according to some, the start of world war three.

Yesterday I met Iryna Dovgan, a Ukrainian woman whose quiet courage speaks louder than any statistic. During Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea, she was detained, brutally abused and ultimately forced to flee her home in Donetsk. Only now, years later, has she finally received reparations. That support has transformed her life, enabling her to access vital medical treatment and begin rebuilding what was taken from her, yet her case is the exception, not the rule. She begged us last night to ensure that reparations get to the women and children who have been so terribly, terribly abused, and that they do not have to wait for years.

Thousands of Ukrainians have endured similar horrors, first in 2014 and again since the full-scale invasion began four years ago. Since 24 February 2022, communities across Ukraine have been scarred by violence. Homes have been destroyed; families hav been separated; and civilians have been subjected to torture, sexual violence and unlawful detention. Towns once full of life have been reduced to rubble. Children have been uprooted from their families and taken across the border—they are speaking Russian now; it is just horrendous what is going on—but people are working on that, and some children have been rescued. The human cost, not only in lives lost, but in futures stolen, is staggering.

People in my constituency—and, I am sure, in all hon. Members’ constituencies—from churches to veterans groups, are banding together to do their bit for Ukraine. For example, No Duff UK, a veteran-led organisation, is deploying volunteer teams to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground. Its work truly demonstrates the love we have for our brothers and sisters in Ukraine.

Our Government and our Parliament also demonstrate iron-clad support for Ukraine. Only yesterday, the Government announced a significant package of 300 new sanctions, aimed at cutting off the Kremlin’s revenue and weakening its capacity to wage this illegal war, including measures targeting Russia’s energy sector and key oil infrastructure. Those steps are welcome, but sanctions must be adequately enforced, co-ordinated and relentless. If they are not effective, they do not deter aggression, but embolden it, yet the UK lacks a clear strategy for ensuring that frozen Russian assets serve that purpose. I am pleased about what has been said in the debate today. Billions could remain immobilised for years, losing value, while sufferers wait without support—something that Iryna spoke about last night.

Working with our European partners, we should move decisively to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets, including up to £30 billion held in the UK, and direct them towards humanitarian, financial and military support for Ukraine. We must ensure that UK-held funds linked to sanctioned individuals, including proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club and recovered assets from oligarch Petr Aven, are released swiftly and directed towards Ukrainian survivors. We must ensure that Ukrainian people receive justice. If we are serious about justice—and I know we are—we have to make sure that our word is kept and our actions deliver justice and peace for those people, who we are all so proud of and owe so much to. I am sure that they appreciate it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

16:13

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Four years ago yesterday, Vladimir Putin launched his deadly full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Four years on, we face a solemn reminder of the death and destruction that has ensued. An estimated 1.8 million soldiers have been killed or wounded, or have gone missing, on both sides. Up to 325,000 Russian troops and as many as 140,000 Ukrainians have been killed. The United Nations has recorded at least 15,000 civilian deaths and more than 40,000 people injured, including at least 763 children, but it says that the toll is likely much higher. That is why the Liberal Democrats are absolutely clear in their support for Ukraine.

In the face of Putin’s aggression and Donald Trump’s unreliability, Europe must send an unambiguous signal: national sovereignty is not negotiable, and we will not stand idly by at this time. We will not accept that might is right. We will not allow Ukraine to be sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. We all want peace and a just and lasting settlement, but we must be clear that Vladimir Putin has no interest in peace; he remains hellbent on the subjugation of Ukraine. Although we welcome diplomatic efforts, we remain deeply concerned about the specifics of any American security guarantees. The unfortunate truth is that President Trump is unreliable, unpredictable and, to be frank, disdainful of the rule of law. That means that Europe must step up. The UK and France have committed to a potential military deployment to Ukraine, should a peace deal be agreed.

The Liberal Democrats support that commitment in principle, but Parliament must have a vote on any deployment of UK personnel—I welcomed the Prime Minister’s very clear statement on that—because democratic oversight is essential. The Government must also be transparent about timescales and ensure that our armed forces have the resources to support such a mission. It is great to hear from the Secretary of State today about the £200 million of funding that he has accelerated for that purpose. Crucially, we must have clarity at the right time about the terms of engagement for those forces, if and when that deployment takes place.

Supporting Ukraine long term is not just about political will; it is about practical capability. Any peace settlement must focus on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and creating sustainable conditions for a lasting peace. It must not be a deal that effectively rewards Russian aggression. The UK must ensure that Ukraine’s interests—not Putin’s territorial ambitions nor Donald Trump’s desire for a grubby carve-up—remain at the heart of negotiations.

We must remain absolutely focused on cutting off the resources that fuel Putin’s war machine. Too many of those who comment on this conflict fail fully to understand its historical and cultural context. To speak of it as a conflict that Putin will just stop on fair terms is a failure to grasp the fact that his war in Ukraine is now central to sustaining his mafia state and his role as its kingpin. To speak of major territorial concessions by Ukraine is to ask it to give into a bullying neighbour that has spent not 12 but hundreds of years repeatedly attempting to control it and deny its right to exist as a nation. Any agreement requires a deep understanding of those countries that has been entirely absent from the rhetoric in the United States and is too often absent from commentary in this country.

We are keen to support the practical steps taken by our Government. The decision to ban UK maritime services for Russian liquefied natural gas was particularly welcome. The Liberal Democrats had been calling for that for some months, so it was great to finally see it come to fruition, but the implementation has been slow. Since 2022, UK-owned or insured LNG carriers have transported £45 billion-worth of Russian products. No British money should be supporting Russia’s war. The Government must move at pace to enforce the ban, and it must go further—I welcome any updates on that from Ministers. We have also called for the oil price cap to be lowered to $30 per barrel, with stricter enforcement.

We must confront the reality that Russia is actively circumventing sanctions through third countries. Georgia has increasingly been used as a back-door route for sanctioned goods and financial flows into Russia’s economy, undermining the pressure we and our allies are trying to apply. The UK should be prepared to sanction those facilitating that evasion, starting with Bidzina Ivanishvili, Georgia’s oligarchic de facto leader, whose influence has steered the country away from its Euro-Atlantic path and towards Moscow’s orbit. We must also proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in full. The IRGC is not only destabilising the middle east; it is directly supporting Putin’s war machine, including through the provision and production of drones used to terrorise Ukrainian cities. It was also revealed to the Defence Committee that

“Russia can only maintain this war because China is…bankrolling it”,

and that some sources suggest that up to 60% of the funding comes from China. The Government must increase pressure on Beijing to stop funding Putin’s deadly war.

Then there is the £2.5 billion pounds from Roman Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea football club. That money should have helped suffering Ukrainian civilians over a year ago, and could have supported efforts to rescue at least some of the 20,000 children abducted by Russian forces. The Liberal Democrats called urgently for those funds to be delivered. We welcome the fact that the Government are now threatening legal action, but it should not have taken this long.

It seems that everyone now agrees that we must urgently unlock frozen Russian assets. The UK has frozen £30 billion-worth under our sanctions regime, but it sits idle in British accounts while Ukraine desperately needs $120 billion next year alone to resist Russia. So what exactly is blocking it? The legal frameworks exist, but the political will—so far, at least—is lacking. The Prime Minister must personally step in to drive that forward, because we are watching Ukraine’s defences being stretched to breaking point while we sit on the very resources that could help it. The Ukrainian people are fighting for us; the least we can do is unlock the money to help them win. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has introduced a Bill to seize those frozen assets and direct the proceeds to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. Putin must be punished, not rewarded. A recent Government report showed that UK imports from Russia had reached £1.7 billion by June last year, up 21% on the previous year. Perhaps Ministers can tell us what steps the Government are taking to restrict this profitable trade for the Kremlin.

The international community, including this Government and the previous Government, have rightly condemned Russia on the international stage. Through its illegal invasion, cyber-attacks, energy coercion and interference in democratic processes, the Kremlin has demonstrated consistent disregard for international law. The UK Government must maintain an unequivocal position opposing Russia’s readmission to the G7, and must work with allies to ensure that this stance is upheld across all multilateral bodies.

I want to return to the human cost. Over 20,000 Ukrainian children have been abducted since the full-scale invasion began. As a parent with two small children at home, I find it very hard not to put myself in the place of those Ukrainian families, torn apart by concern for their missing children who have been cruelly snatched away as part of Putin’s wider agenda of extinguishing Ukrainian culture and identity. These mass abductions constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, and any update from Ministers on what we are doing to help recover those children would be very welcome. I really welcome the award given to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter); she has been a dogged campaigner on this issue, and I cannot think of anybody more worthy of that recognition. President Putin must be held accountable, and the outstanding International Criminal Court arrest warrant against him must be implemented. This country and the Government must pick up the mantle of tracking down and rescuing those children, to bring them home to their families where they belong.

Reports from Russia paint a sobering picture of what four years of war has meant. For Russia, it has meant a fundamentally deformed economy, legal system and society. Courts clear soldiers of murder and rape because they have signed military contracts, recruiting has become desperately difficult despite enormous spending, and an entire generation of young Russian men has been wiped out by this war to fulfil Putin’s ambitions.

For Ukraine, these four years have meant something else entirely. They have meant extraordinary courage in the face of impossible odds; they have meant soldiers who began fighting in muddy trenches with artillery now finding themselves in a war dominated by drones, a conflict that has evolved faster than anyone imagined; and they have meant watching Russia systematically destroy the very things that keep people alive through the winter. Just last month, Russian missiles tore through power stations across the country, and hundreds of thousands of people in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia woke up to find themselves without electricity or heating as temperatures dropped to minus 20°C. This is the coldest winter Ukraine has seen in a decade, and Putin’s strategy is clear: if his army cannot break Ukraine’s will, he will try to freeze its people into submission.

Because of the courage of the Ukrainian people—and, I am very proud to say, the support of allies such as Britain—Russia no longer poses a risk of conquering Kyiv. Ukraine pushed the Russians back in Kharkiv and Kherson, against an adversary with much greater resources, although Russia remains on the frontline. Ukraine should not have to face Putin’s aggression alone; Britain must continue to lead in Europe, standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in not just words but deeds, and with enforceable security guarantees rather than empty promises. That means cutting off Putin’s revenue streams completely and seizing frozen assets. It means democratic oversight of troop deployments; it means ensuring that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is non-negotiable in any peace settlement; and it means doing everything we possibly can to get those stolen children back to their families.

Four years on, the protection of Ukraine’s sovereignty must remain central to Britain’s priorities, because if we fail Ukraine, we fail the international order, and if we fail the international order, we invite aggression everywhere.

16:23

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon’s debate. I wholly welcome the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and by Members from across the House, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), and the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton).

This is a debate we would rather not be having, but the actions of the Kremlin have led us to this place and to the untold death, injury, suffering and displacement of millions of Ukrainians. Up to 2 million people have been killed or injured or are missing on both sides, 3.7 million Ukrainians have been displaced internally, and there are close to 6 million refugees—men, women and children ripped from their homes, their work, their schools, their families and their very way of life. All that has happened at the hands of a Russian aggressor whose intransigence towards this conflict means that it will continue into its fifth year, despite the catastrophic losses that the Russians themselves have experienced.

There is no doubt that the invasion of Ukraine was a defining moment of our time, although in many ways it was inevitable, given Putin’s rhetoric and actions over the last 25 years. However, the arrogance and the hubris of Russia also resulted in a vast overestimation of its might and a failure to account for the gallantry of the Ukrainian forces, as well as the robust leadership of President Zelensky and the stout resistance and resilience of the civilian population. Far from taking Kyiv in two weeks, Putin has resorted to terrorising the citizens of Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities from a distance with frequent deadly air raids. The comments made earlier about air defence, and the Government’s actions in that regard, are therefore to be welcomed.

There are so many enduring and stark images from this conflict, but two of them stand out for me, the first being the evacuations on the platforms of Lviv railway station. Ukrainians were forced to flee for their lives, never knowing whether they would return. A significant contingent—nearly 400—made passage to North Lanarkshire, and many of them still reside in the High Coats area of Coatbridge in my constituency, joining a long legacy of successful settlement in North Lanarkshire over the years by people fleeing crisis and danger from across the globe.

[Matt Rodda]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will say something about the important work of Ukrainian community centres around Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In my community, they have been stalwart in supporting their colleagues back in Ukraine, sending aid and raising funds, and also maintaining Ukrainian culture through the Ukrainian language libraries and other facilities that have kept families in touch with their own culture while they are living in Britain.

[Frank McNally]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. In the High Coats area, the way in which the Ukrainian community are supporting those who are fighting on the frontline is admirable. In Coatbridge, the Ukrainian population have celebrated their national holiday, organised kids’ clubs, and formed a tenants’ association and walking groups. There is now a flourishing community of Ukrainians who are celebrating their own culture and thinking about how they can contribute and what they can offer to the wider community.

Sadly, that open celebration of their culture by Ukrainians in Coatbridge stands in stark contrast to the experience of Ukrainians thousands of miles away in Ukraine, where the Russian occupying forces have sought to erase Ukrainian culture and identity in the territories that have been devastated by those forces over the past four years—by the boundless terror, kidnap and murder that we have seen, and the monstrous stealing and indoctrination of thousands of children, which has already been mentioned. The first person to draw my attention to the scale of that was my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who, as the Defence Secretary mentioned, is at this moment in Ukraine receiving the Order of Merit, and deservedly so.

The other defining image that I recall from the early days of the war followed the liberation of Bucha, particularly when President Zelensky walked through what had been left after the brutal massacre and war crimes perpetrated by Russian forces, for which there must be full accountability. Despite Bucha—and, indeed, Mykolaiv, Mariupol and Kharkiv—the Ukrainians fight on. It is, of course, vital for our own security, as well as being our moral obligation, that we continue to have their backs. I greatly welcome the Government’s action on defence spending across the UK, and it is important that we build on that. Defence spending is worth £2 billion a year to Scotland and supports 12,000 jobs, from the Clyde and Rosyth to Coatbridge and Bellshill and across the country.

In addition to implementing the strongest possible sanctions, we must continue to support those Ukrainians who have settled here and built a life over the course of the past four years. For many it has not been by choice, but our communities have become their home, and we must always keep that at the forefront of our minds. However long this war has left to run, we must remain resolute in supporting the Ukrainians to find a just peace that satisfies their terms and ensures that the depredations of Putin’s regime are ended in Ukraine and never visited upon anywhere else in Europe.

16:30

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

May I first join the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), in thanking the Secretary of State for Defence for the power of his words, and for the manner in which he has spoken for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not just for the Government? I do not think there is a Member of the House who would quarrel with anything he said, and the message that has to go out from this place is that we stand united with Ukraine.

There is a danger. In 2014 the Russians annexed Crimea. At the time, Russia was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and it was compelled to withdraw. In 2018 the Parliamentary Assembly, of which the Father of the House and I were both members at the time, voted almost overwhelmingly to re-admit the Russian Federation. The Baltic states, Georgia, Moldova and the United Kingdom fought that through the night—literally—in an unprecedented display of parliamentary unity, but we lost. We were beaten hands down. The following day, the Russian delegation was back in the Hemicycle in Strasbourg. I do not think it is stretching it too far to say that the message that we sent out was profoundly wrong and almost certainly influenced Putin’s belief that he could probably invade Ukraine with impunity.

It has been said over and over again, and absolutely rightly, that Ukraine is fighting for our democracy. If Putin were allowed to win, it would not stop there. Next would be Georgia, Moldova and then possibly the Baltic states. If that were to happen, NATO would be involved and we would probably have world war three, so the stakes are rather high. It behoves all of us to stand as firmly as we can, and to send out the message that “for as long as it takes” means for as long as it takes.

I want to follow on from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally), and to concentrate a bit of time on the diaspora—the expat Ukrainians living throughout Europe, and particularly in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that thousands of Ukrainians are yearning for the opportunity to return home. I am sure that is true, and he also went on to say that he hopes that there will be peace this year. Again, I do not suppose that anybody in the House or across the United Kingdom does not want the bloodshed to stop.

Ukraine has already sacrificed the largest part of a generation of its finest young men and women in armed conflict, as well as all the civilians who have suffered. Again, that includes the thousands of children, who have been referred to many times in this House, who have been abducted and are now being indoctrinated somewhere within the neo-Soviet Union. They have to be repatriated.

The Father of the House made the point, absolutely rightly, that peace cannot mean peace at any price if we are to honour the dead and those who have sacrificed so much in Ukraine in fighting for their democracy and their country, as well as for ours. Although the Secretary of State was right to say that there are thousands of Ukrainians yearning for the opportunity to return home, when that will actually be possible is a moot point. If there is a peace—and, please God, there will be soon—and on a sound basis, there will still be a phenomenal amount of reconstruction, in the centre and the east of Ukraine in particular, to be carried out before anybody has homes to return to. Depending on the nature of the deal, there will be people who either will not be able to return home because it is still occupied, or whose homes will have been so destroyed that physically there will be nowhere for them to go.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the reconstruction that will follow the peace, and one of those areas will be mine clearance. It is estimated that about a quarter of Ukrainian land is now mined, which means that Ukrainian farmers are literally farming on the front line. We should not underestimate how many decades it will take to clear the land of mines. Will he join me in both welcoming the funding from the Government to the HALO Trust for the work under way and paying tribute to the Ukrainian farmers?

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to pay tribute to the farmers and to highlight the phenomenal difficulty of clearing mines. The HALO Trust has experience of that around the world, and it will take years, not months.

For all those reasons, I say to the Minister—I was going to say my hon. Friend—that this is a sensitive issue, but there are scores of Ukrainians living in the United Kingdom who regard the UK as home, because they have to: they have no choice. My wife and I have five young people whom we now regard as grandchildren, two in one family and three in another, ranging from teenaged down to the cot. Last weekend, a young lady—young in my terms—came to my surgery. She has a 16-year-old daughter who wants to go to college. Like so many other young Ukrainians of that age, she is now between a rock and a hard place, because she does not know how long she will be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom.

There are also professional people who cannot work here and would like to return home, but who need to be enabled to establish a proper professional life in the United Kingdom. I will give the Minister one example: Dr Olena Hubska, now a personal friend of ours, who is the mother of two of those children. She is a fully qualified dentist and has 16 years in practice as a hospital doctor, but the General Dental Council will not allow her to practise here, despite the fact that the country is crying out for dentists. I am told there are some 200 others like her with such qualifications. That is nonsense. Every school holiday, Olena returns to Kharkiv, where her mother is living in a bombed-out flat, so that she can treat children and frontline soldiers who otherwise cannot get dental care, but she is not allowed to practise here.

I do not want to put the Minister on the spot today, but I say to him that we must sort out the longer-term future for these people, who are not even classed as refugees—they are stateless and have no actual status in this country. We have generously, initially, made them welcome, but we have now reached the point where we have to take some decisions for the longer term. I would like the Minister to go back to his colleagues in the Department and the Secretary of State to take this to Cabinet, to say that we really have to recognise that, however sensitive the immigration issue is—as I of course understand—there is a group of people living in this country, contributing to our way of life now, culturally, as has been said earlier, who have to be regularised. They must have a pathway to settlement so that the young people can go to school and on to college, and can qualify and build lives here.

President Zelensky wants his people to return home, and we want them to be able to return home, but for the moment and for the foreseeable future that is not possible. So please, Minister, take that message away and see what can be done, working with the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, to now regularise the position in the interests not just of them, but of the United Kingdom as well.

16:41

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate, and I associate myself with the remarks of everyone who has spoken in the Chamber so far, not least in making the point that there continues to be cross-party agreement for resolute support behind Ukraine, and there is still, I believe, resolute support for the Ukrainian people from the British people.

I join the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) in paying tribute to Ukrainians in our communities who have come over from Ukraine, including those in the Hemel Hempstead branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, who marched through the town centre at the weekend to mark the fourth anniversary of the war and who continue to contribute outstandingly to our town.

But I want to focus my remarks on some specific points about an area of work that I am trying to get colleagues to support: increasing the amount of small vehicles and drones and supplies going out to help the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military; and the work being done by a number of UK charities and individuals in this endeavour. As Members will have heard me say before, I went out in the spring of 2024, driving with a convoy of vehicles with an Estonian-based charity, but with vehicles joining from the UK, all the way through the channel tunnel and Germany to the Polish border and then overnight to Kyiv. It was an incredible honour to be part of that, because I come from a humanitarian background—I have worked for charities including Oxfam in the past—and I support the need for the vital work that humanitarian aid organisations do day in, day out. But I have also always believed, back from when I first had the opportunity to go to Kosovo, that we should not be shy about the need for military support as well, and I felt that I personally wanted to contribute to that by being part of this convoy.

The organisation involved in that convoy was Help99. It is one of a number around Europe that contributes in this way. Some of them deliver purely humanitarian aid, such as delivering fire trucks. Fire Aid, an organisation supported by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is doing brilliant work. There is an organisation taking out former ambulances to be used out there. Other organisations working there include Pick Ups For Peace, UK4UA.org, and Surrey Stands With Ukraine. I will not list them all, but I had the opportunity to invite a number of them to Parliament last year for an event, with about 60 individuals representing 30 such organisations. I pay tribute to the incredible work they are doing day in, day out. They are putting their own lives at risk to go not just to the Polish border, but, as I said, into Ukraine—often beyond Kyiv and into the west of the country.

There are a couple of points I want to make about how we might be able to support those efforts more, first on what the UK Government could be doing to supply more vehicles that are on the Government estate but are reaching their end of life and could be used with relatively little cost to the UK taxpayer. I will just take a moment to step back and say why these vehicles matter. The £4.5 billion we will providing this year alone is testament to the fact that we need hard power going into Ukraine—no one is arguing otherwise—but small vehicles have an important contribution to make. They help soldiers to go from A to B with ease, and they help to get supplies in. Some have been turned into makeshift ambulances, because of course the Russians would target anything that was white with a red cross on it. They are vital things that soldiers need.

Network Rail may have vehicles such as Land Rovers on its estate that could easily be written off and donated. To that end, I have written to a number of Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Home Office, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the Department for Transport to ask if surplus and end-of-life vehicles could be donated. With the police’s new powers to seize off-road vehicles driven in an antisocial way, instead of those vehicles being crushed—as satisfying as that is to a lot of us, I am sure—I have also argued that they could instead be donated. We have quad bikes, dirt bikes and scramblers that Ukrainian soldiers could find quite helpful in the forests.

Unfortunately, some of the responses to my letters have shown that there is perhaps a need for a single accountable body that could better co-ordinate this effort. I do not count the MOD in that regard. It has set out some of the excellent work it is already doing, but maybe some of the other Departments could work better together to get some vehicles donated. That includes His Majesty’s Treasury. These are public assets and there is a decision that needs to be made to write them off. That is creating some of the bottlenecks and delays that I have encountered. As I say, I think this is a relatively small cost to the taxpayer overall, so it is worth doing.

My second point is about support for the charities themselves. Ahead of this debate, I sent a message to the group I brought together last year to ask if they had specific suggestions that they would like me to raise today, so here are just a few. The organisation Surrey Stands With Ukraine asked whether there could be some form of list of recognised and approved UK humanitarian charities, which could then be used by those organisations to ask for donations from the public or private sector. For example, if there was a list that said, “These organisations have a track record of delivering to Ukraine in an effective way,” they might be able get some form of letter that they could then take to their local NHS trust to say, “We are a serious outfit, we have the right intentions, and we have approvals and checks. If you have old ambulances you don’t need, can we have them?” They could take it to food companies and supermarkets to help speed up the donation of food for humanitarian convoys and so on.

Another point related to travelling across the channel, whether by ferry or via the tunnel, and whether the Government could have discussions with the private operators of the channel tunnel and the ferry companies to encourage them to offer a discount or even waive the fee on the cost of getting vehicles over the channel. In a convoy of 20 vehicles the cost adds up to a not insignificant amount of money.

Related to that, the organisations have also asked if more can be done to remove customs red tape, not just at the UK border but all the way through to Ukraine. I have encountered this myself, with a ridiculous amount of time spent waiting at the Polish border because a minor piece of paperwork was missing. Really, the Polish authorities should be doing more to enable these vehicles to be driven over the border with more ease. I wonder whether there is more we can do to have some of those discussions.

The final point I will make on this front is around drone nets. As we know, drones are a constant threat from the Russians. A number of organisations are bringing over old fishing nets—I pay cross-party tribute to the Scottish Government, who announced a few days ago a donation of upwards of 200,000 Scottish fishing nets—which is a small thing, but it helps to protect cities on the western front from Russian drone incursions. I have also seen pictures of nets over highways to protect convoys of vehicles.

Those are some practical suggestions. As I said earlier, no one—certainly not those organisations—is suggesting that these interventions alone will be enough to push the Russians back. In fact, it would be remiss of me not to say that the organisations have said almost the opposite: they wanted me to make the point that as vital as their work is, it is incredibly important that we continue to provide the hard power and military aid. I am proud that our Government are doing that, but it is really a message to the whole of the west. I want to reference the point that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made about the need for long-range missiles, too.

I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will reflect on some of the points I have covered. I will make one final plea on behalf of these organisations: they would love an opportunity to meet the Minister or his officials to discuss some of the challenges they are facing and the practical ways we can help to increase the support we are giving to Ukraine.

16:51

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Today we pause to reflect on the last four years since the full invasion of Ukraine, on the lives lost and forever changed. We not only mark the immense suffering caused, but reaffirm our solidarity with the Ukrainian people.

In my constituency—and no doubt in many others across the country—solidarity has gone beyond words. Families fleeing the war have become part of our communities; they have become neighbours, colleagues, classmates and friends. Their resilience and determination to continue living their lives have enriched our towns and villages, even as their hearts remain tied to loved ones in Ukraine. I give the example of Elaina, a dental professor now working as a dental nurse in Bradford on Avon, as there are difficulties with the recognition of her qualifications—something that Ministers might like to address.

Our region has also played a direct role in supporting Ukraine’s defence. Ukrainian troops have trained on Salisbury plain alongside British forces to prepare to defend their country and their freedom. In Melksham, down the road from my office, workers at local business Avon Protection have manufactured vital protective equipment, sending over thousands of gas masks— a small, local part of an extraordinary international effort. I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for his help with the funds needed to make this happen.

I must also recognise the power of voices raised in opposition to war and pleading for peace. Ukrainian campaigners in communities up and down the country have continually spoken out for justice and accountability. I also stand with the members of the Free Russian community in the UK, like the members of the Russian Democratic Society whom I met in London last weekend at a demonstration outside the Russian embassy, who show great courage in standing up against Putin’s aggression and repression, often at immense personal cost.

This anniversary is a moment of remembrance, but it is also a call to action. This is not a distant war of the past, but one raging as we speak. The people of this country stand firmly with Ukraine, and I hope the Government will continue to do all they can to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. We must stand firm in these increasingly difficult times against tyranny and defend the principles of democracy, sovereignty and peace. Ukraine’s fight is not distant; it is felt on the streets of our constituencies and in the corridors of this place. Members might like to join me tonight in Portcullis House at 7.30 pm to hear members of the Lviv National Philharmonic Orchestra play in recognition of the fourth anniversary of the invasion.

16:54

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The contributions to the debate from right hon. and hon. Members have been a powerful reminder of the unity that exists across the House and, indeed, throughout our country, in steadfast support of the Ukrainian people.

In April 2025, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine, alongside fellow members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and seeing at first hand the courage and determination of Ukraine’s leadership, armed forces and citizens has stuck with me. It has reinforced the importance of our continuing to stand by Ukraine, and made me even more grateful for our armed forces, who every day stand ready to protect all of us.

When we think of war, our minds often turn first to the battlefield. Yet war’s cruelty extends far beyond the frontline and its impacts can reach into homes and families. One example of that is the horrific impact of the conflict on Ukrainian children, whose treatment by Russian forces has been abhorrent, reflecting the same brutality and disregard for humanity that has characterised the invasion from the outset.

Children have been killed, injured and displaced by the war, and at the same time, as other Members have noted, Russia has deported at least, but likely far more than, 20,000 Ukrainian children to Russia. Every day, Ukrainian parents face the unthinkable reality of their children being taken from them. Although the exact numbers are disputed, we know that the true figure is likely far higher than reported, and that alone should concern us all.

I pay tribute to Save Ukraine, representatives of which I met during my visit, and the other organisations that are working tirelessly to locate and rescue the children abducted by Russian forces. They have brought hundreds home and deserve our deepest admiration and thanks. But for every child returned, many more remain missing. We must confront the grim reality that many of those children are subjected to indoctrination, and pressured to abandon their identity, their culture, and even their own families. Addressing the crisis demands determined international support, and the UK must stand ready to play its part.

While the war is being fought on the battlefield in Ukraine, there are lessons that we here in the UK must learn from the conflict. The war has shown us that although high-intensity, attritional conflict has not gone away, the character of war is changing. Four years on, it is a grinding struggle of endurance, fought not only with artillery and armour but with technology that is reshaping how force is applied.

One lesson is unmistakeable: the rise of drones and autonomous systems. These unmanned systems are now central to the battlefield. They are relatively cheap, widely available and capable of inflicting serious damage. They have lowered the barrier to air power and given small units unprecedented reach. Future wars will almost certainly feature drones as a core component of operations, so we must ask whether we are adapting quickly enough.

We need to learn not only how to use the systems, but how to defend against them, as illustrated starkly by recent reporting on exercises in Estonia. A small team operating unmanned systems was reportedly able to destroy multiple armoured vehicles in a matter of hours. That is the reality of modern warfare: low cost and high impact. We must ensure that our armed forces are prepared for that reality—equipped, trained and funded to meet it.

Thankfully, Ukraine has adapted with remarkable speed and courage. The use of drones and semi-autonomous systems, integrated cyber and electronic operations, and flexible, resilient supply chains have all been decisive. At the same time, the war has reminded us that some fundamentals never change. Logistics matter, supply lines matter and endurance matters. Armies still need ammunition, equipment and the ability to sustain operations over time.

Ukrainian forces have shown how innovation, rapid decision making and co-ordination across land, sea, air and cyber can offset the abilities of a larger opponent. They have taken the fight to Russian forces in ways that few predicted at the start of the invasion. The lesson is clear: modern warfare is not just about numbers. It is about adaptability, resilience and the ability to evolve faster than an adversary. As we rightly admire Ukraine’s heroism, we must ask ourselves a serious question. Are our own armed forces equipped, organised and funded to meet that same test? Adaptation requires investment, and that is a conversation that must involve not only the Ministry of Defence but the Treasury.

I want to talk briefly about one more aspect of the war in Ukraine and the lessons that we can take from it. From the moment that Russian tanks illegally crossed the border from Crimea into Ukraine, Britain and His Majesty’s Government have stood four-square behind our friends in Kyiv. We have provided financial support, trained Ukrainian troops, and convened international partners. We ought to be proud of the support that we—both the previous and current Government—have given to Ukraine.

As this war marks its fourth year since the full-scale invasion, we must not let our unity and support be worn down by Russia. A lasting and just peace must be the aim, and I support efforts to end the war as quickly as possible, but as President Zelensky has said, we know that appeasement is not the answer, and that Putin is an irrational actor who will see only weakness if the west was to give in to his demands. We learned that lesson before, and we must remember it today.

We must continue to strengthen the international coalition in support of Ukraine, and we must not allow it to be worn down. As we stand resolute in our support, alongside our partners, I urge the Government to continue to work with allies, in particular the United States, and reiterate how valuable they are to the collective stance that we are taking against tyranny in the form of Putin.

Ukraine’s courage has shown us both the brutality of aggression and the strength of a nation determined to defend its freedom. Our duty is now clear. We must continue to stand firm with Ukraine, resist the temptation of complacency and ensure that Britain is fully prepared for the realities of modern conflict. That means sustained support for Kyiv, renewed resolve among our allies, and serious investment in our armed forces. It is not enough to be the coalition of the willing. We must be the coalition of the prepared—prepared to deter, prepared to defend, and prepared to lead.

17:02

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

Last night, I joined the Minister for the Armed Forces and the former leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), at Trafalgar Square for a rally for Ukraine. It was a really moving event. Hosts from across the UK and Ukrainian families—including children, mothers, wives and other relatives—were all gathered in Trafalgar Square, where on 8 May 1945, Brits welcomed victory in Europe. Today I will set out why we in the UK need to see Ukraine reach a victory in Europe.

As I thank the Ukrainian people for their courage and determination, I want to talk about what we are not doing right here in the UK; for instance, we could go so much further on economic sanctions on Russia. But first, I want to address comments that former Prime Minister Boris Johnson made on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”. He said there was

“no logical reason that I can see why we shouldn’t send peaceful ground forces there to show our support, our constitutional support, for a free, independent Ukraine.”

We do not have peaceful ground forces in the British Army; we have warfighters, because warfighters make the best peacekeepers, but be in no doubt that there is no distinction between a warfighter and a peacekeeper. The notion of peaceful ground forces is really for the birds. Rather, we need to double down on what we are doing currently, which is proving successful in keeping the Russians at bay. First, there is what we are doing through economic sanctions. Urals crude—Russia’s main grade of crude oil—now trades at a 25% to 30% discount compared with our Brent crude, and exports of it are at their lowest since 2020. In January, year-on-year oil and gas budget receipts for the Kremlin halved to just under 400 billion roubles. The British Government announced in October last year that they would ban all imports of Russian-origin crude oil products refined in third countries. Alongside that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

“We will hold to account all those enabling”

Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Minister for Europe and North America has appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we talked about sanctions. The work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office does on identifying entities to sanction is good, but it could go so much further. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air has found that refineries in countries like India, Turkey and Brunei continue to use Russian crude oil, which continues to be exported to Europe and the UK. That said, the EU imposed a complete ban on imports from third countries on 21 January.

The ban on direct imports, which came into force in the UK in 2022, has had a so-called refining loophole that enabled the import of £4 billion of jet fuel and other oil products made at refineries in India and Turkey, which run partially on Russian crude. The research centre estimates that £1.6 billion-worth of products imported from those refineries would have been made with imported Russian oil. Our constituents will hear those figures on the one hand, then look, on the other hand, at the £3 billion of taxpayers’ money that we are rightly giving to Ukraine every year at the moment, and will not be able to reconcile the two; nor should they. We have to properly sanction the Russian Federation. Finally, we must thank the Ukrainians for their courage and determination.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member join me in recognising recent opinion polling that has shown that the UK population remains steadfast in its support for the people of Ukraine? Part of that is about local associations of Ukrainians, like those in Glasgow, who promote Ukrainian culture and remind us all of the contribution that they are making to our country.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. That Ukrainian culture was on full display last night, at the Trafalgar Square rally.

At the moment, we sometimes talk down NATO, and certainly its European parts. We should not, because in NATO we have the strongest military alliance that the world has ever seen. Putin should be in no doubt about the intent of NATO states to fulfil their NATO obligations, including to such members as Estonia and Latvia, which have Russian minority populations.

At the rally yesterday evening, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green reminded us of a quote from Churchill:

“Give us the tools and we will finish the job”.

He said that in 1941 to the British people, and indeed to allies across the water. That very much applies today. We need to think about how we can give Ukraine the tools that it needs to finish the job. More than that, we need to deprive Russia of tools, so that it can no longer wage this war of aggression against a people who want what we in this country have, and sometimes take for granted: democracy and liberty.

17:09

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

As he marked the fourth anniversary of the conflict in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal invasion, President Zelensky said that Putin “has already started” world war three. He went on:

“The question is how much territory he will be able to seize and how to stop him…Russia wants to impose on the world a different way of life and change the lives people have chosen for themselves.”

It is humbling to address the House as we enter the fifth year of this conflict—seemingly a conflict without end; peace talks are faltering and at an impasse. The last four years of conflict in Ukraine have been savage, unrelenting and at a level of total war that we have been fortunate enough to become unacquainted with in this country during of our lifetime. The toll that has taken on the civilian population has been horrific: there have been over 15,000 Ukrainian civilian deaths, thousands more displaced, and an entire population whose lives have been put on hold, forever changed. We have seen lives lost, families devastated and future hopes and dreams shattered, yet Ukraine has held firm against the Russian onslaught. It did in 2022 as it does today.

The Government have remained steadfast in their support for Ukraine, and that same support was extended when they were in opposition. When we were in government, we stood four-square behind Ukraine from the very start, and we were the first nation to openly back the Ukrainian forces with weapons. This House has been united in its support, and that support has been vital. Not only is it there to protect Ukrainian sovereignty in the face of such flagrant disregard for international law, but it represents the FLOT—the forward line of own troops—for the defence of Europe.

We have all seen the changes that this war has brought: a new cold war—maybe even a phoney war—and a generational leap in the nature of warfare in just four years that has catapulted drones from a nerdy hobby to a horrific “Black Mirror” reimagining of modern warfare.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about drones. A couple of weeks ago, I was at the Munich security conference, where I had the privilege of hearing President Zelensky speak. He said that in January, Ukraine was attacked by more than 6,000 Shahed drones, which are made in Iran, or in Russia based on Iranian design. Does he agree that the sheer scale of bombardment that Ukraine faces from those drones, and from countries that also wish our country ill, is just one reason why the United Kingdom is right to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly concur. The Iranians, in particular, are global leaders in exporting terror, backing, as they do, the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas. Their provision of the Shahed drone to Russia and the bombardment that the Ukrainians face lead to a terrible toll and are a terrible result.

Anyone who has seen any of the innumerable videos of first-person-view drone footage of soldiers being stalked and killed by drones cannot fail to appreciate the new reality of modern warfare. On the point made by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), the last year alone has seen Russia increase its use of drones by 200%. Such a capability sea change cannot be overstated.

Four years into Putin’s three-day special military operation, Russia has sustained a staggering 1.2 million casualties, 325,000 of them fatalities. That is fast approaching the number of soldiers that we lost in the entirety of the second world war. The majority of casualties—reportedly 70% to 80%—are now caused by drones. It is reported that Russia can no longer recruit new soldiers at the rate that they are being lost, and in the past fortnight, Ukraine has liberated 300 square kilometres in its southern counter-offensive.

We are four years into this conflict, and the remarkable bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces remains undiminished. Yes, we have supported them with matériel, intelligence, rapid procurement and funding, but the human sacrifice required to win, or crucially not lose, a war of sovereignty and survival is something that we perhaps do not address enough. Fifty-five thousand Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since 2022—the equivalent of more than two thirds of our regular Army. From the contributions this afternoon, it is clear that Members on both sides of this House want an end to this conflict, and an end on Ukraine’s terms—one that does not see them acquiesce to the Russian threat that it has given so much to keep at bay.

In the broader context of European security, what comes next? There are significant lessons to be learned from the conflict in Ukraine. No war has been as visually documented at such close quarters as this. The Lessons Exploitation Centre at the Land Warfare Centre will have been busy shaping our future tactics. An example of that is the recently released outcome of NATO’s Exercise Hedgehog 2025 in Estonia, in which a team of just 10, training against experienced Ukrainian drone operators, were able to render two battalions combat-ineffective in just half a day. We are through the looking glass.

Last Saturday, the Defence Secretary wrote a piece for The Telegraph in which he explicitly stated:

“I want to be the Defence Secretary who deploys British troops to Ukraine–because this will mean that the war is finally over.”

But to quote Winston Churchill, that will simply be

“the end of the beginning.”

The Minister does not need me to tell him that the ceasefire will simply facilitate a reconstitution of Russian forces. To use an old adage, Russia will trade space for time. When it returns to its barracks in the Leningrad military district, it will be based only a few minutes from the Estonian border. Pskov, home of the 76th Guards Air Assault Division and the 2nd Spetsnaz Brigade, is just 35 km away.

The NATO Forward Land Forces already man the line in Estonia via Operation Cabrit—one of our ongoing commitments. The battlegroup deployed there serves as a deterrent to further Russian expansionism and belligerence. No longer just a strategic tripwire, it is now a force equipped with a capability in Project Asgard that presents a lethal recce-strike system—a force whose very presence provides Estonia with the security of the NATO umbrella; a force so vital that its ongoing presence is apparently written into Estonia’s defence strategy.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. While we want the war in Ukraine to end and, of course, for Britain to play a leading role in that, including, if appropriate, the provision of troops, does he not share my fear, when we zoom out and look at the geopolitical context, that putting the troops in Estonia in Ukraine stops us from guarding other areas on the eastern flank, and—to use military terminology—fixes most of our forces there when they might be needed elsewhere?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I hope he has not stolen a look at my speech, as I am about to come on to just that point, but I agree with him. There is potentially a trade-off to be made between putting troops on the ground in Ukraine and in the High North. There is a possibility that doing both those things to the sufficient level that we require may prove too much of a challenge.

We are committed in Estonia, just as we are to be committed in Ukraine. It has been reported that our commitment to a post-ceasefire force would be around 7,500 troops. That is smaller than our peak commitment in Afghanistan, but that reflects the difference in posture. While 7,500 does not sound like a lot—only circa 10% of the current Army—it does not reflect the fact that three times that number is needed to sustain the deployment. By the time of a second six-month rotation through Ukraine, we would have 7,500 who have just returned from the first tour, the second 7,500 currently doing the job and the next 7,500 training to go. That is 22,000-odd from a field army of, say, 40,000, meaning that over half the Army will be committed to manning the eastern flank deterrence line.

It was reported in The Telegraph yesterday that multiple members of the coalition of the willing have privately conceded that their contributions to the post-ceasefire peacekeeping mission depend on permission from Vladimir Putin. Could the Minister in his summing-up confirm whether every country in the coalition of the willing has committed to deploying troops to the peacekeeping mission in Ukraine alongside us?

If we include the aforementioned battlegroup in Estonia, that is another 3,000 troops operating on the same cycle. If we factor in ongoing commitments, such as NATO’s Allied Reaction Force special operations component, which we lead for the next year, the Falkland Islands Roulement Infantry Company and the Resident Infantry Battalion in Dhekelia, as well as the process of retraining and rearming for the plethora of planned new capabilities, the number of personnel quickly adds up under the stacked readiness of multiple commitments. With the Prime Minister announcing our commitment to Operation Firecrest this year with the carrier strike group, as well as the expanded Royal Marines commitment in Norway, suddenly our armed forces are on the cusp of looking overstretched, and doubly so in the event that anything else comes into scope or goes hot.

I highlight these challenges to draw out the complexity of the broader strategic issue. The only way this level of operational commitment will be feasible is if, like our European allies, we properly fund defence. That is why we have called on the Government to go faster and spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament to ensure that they can deliver the 62 recommendations in the strategic defence review that they have already pledged to deliver. But the defence investment plan itself is six months late, strongly suggesting that the plan as it stands is unaffordable. Can the Minister confirm that the plan will finally be published before the Easter recess? It is imperative that the plan addresses the growing capability gaps as the warfare spiral develops in eastern Europe.

In conclusion,

“I believe we are on a collision course with a Russia that is on a war footing, that is replenishing its lost equipment and that is re-arming fast… Putin will only take us seriously when he sees our factories producing at wartime rates. And that’s why I believe so strongly in the need to rebuild our own national arsenal and reconnect society with its Armed Forces… The urgency could not be clearer. Just ask yourself: If you knew now that our soldiers would be involved in large-scale combat operations in 2027, what would you be doing differently—and why are you not doing it?”

Those are not my words, but the words of the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roly Walker. He said them yesterday. As we mark the fourth anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s needless and tragic war, I am sure everyone in this House would agree with me when I say that I hope we are not here to mark a fifth. Slava Ukraini.

17:19

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Any contribution to this debate must surely start with a tribute to the remarkable courage of the Ukrainian people. Four years ago, at the start of Vladimir Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many people expected Russian tanks to be on the streets of Kyiv within days. They did not come because brave Ukrainian troops held them back. Today, four years later, there are still no tanks on the streets in Kyiv and Ukraine is not broken. Ukraine still holds around 80% of its territory and the Russian troops move at glacial speed, with an astonishing and tragic number of Russian dead: young men sent to fight for an imperialist autocrat, whose self-indulgent dream has become his nightmare, stopped by the resistance of the Ukrainian people and their extraordinary resilience, innovation and sacrifice.

We have heard already about that sacrifice. Ukrainians have suffered more than half a million military casualties, at least 15,000 civilians have been killed and millions have been forced from their homes. Towns and cities have been relentlessly bombarded, and hospitals and schools targeted. The line that Ukraine has held for four years is the line that separates all of us in Europe, including here in the UK, from a brutal authoritarian dictatorship and a threat to our liberal democracy. Putin wants to destroy that liberal democracy because it threatens him.

Britain has stepped up. I am proud to sit on these Benches and look around at the cross-party consensus that means Ukraine is not alone in its fight. We stand with Ukraine. As Putin seeks to reduce Ukraine to a dependent and weakened state, we must be absolutely clear: sovereignty is not a bargaining chip and any peace must be shaped by the Ukrainians themselves. I urge the Government to continue to work closely with our allies to ensure that Ukraine is not strong-armed into an unjust and unstable peace.

The war has given rise to Europe’s largest displacement crisis since the second world war. Some 7 million Ukrainians now live abroad as refugees, with a further 5 million displaced within their own country. I say to the 700-odd Ukrainians in my constituency of Esher and Walton: you are very welcome and we are proud to have you. I pay tribute to residents in my constituency who have generously opened up their homes, and to Elmbridge borough council and our local charities, including the brilliant Elmbridge CAN, that have housed families and helped them to integrate.

Ukrainians are making Esher and Walton richer. They teach in our schools, including at Walton Leigh; they are chefs, carers and nurses; and Father Ruslan Kurdiumov is the parish priest at St Erconwald’s Catholic church in Walton. Among them are Tetyana and Lena, who once ran their own tourist company in Kyiv. When war broke out four years ago, they put their children in cars and drove across Europe to stay with host families in my constituency. Today, they are rebuilding their lives, running a gardening business and studying garden design, while one of their husbands continues to fight on the frontline. One of their boys is at Esher college, having excelled in his GCSEs. We are lucky to have them with us.

Another Lena, living in Thames Ditton, has three children, two at secondary school and one at university. She told me:

“We are deeply grateful to the UK for the safety, support, protection and kindness we have received. We are doing everything we can to rebuild stable, productive lives, working, paying taxes, learning the language and our children are growing up in British schools. We want to not only rebuild our lives but also to give back to the country that helped us in our most difficult times. The greatest challenge we face today is uncertainty about our future. If we were required to return because the war is considered ‘over’, my greatest fear would be for my children. They have already integrated here. They have friends, education, routines and a sense of emotional stability again after displacement and trauma. Forcing them to start over for a second time would be a profound psychological strain. For many families the end of active war does not mean life is safe or normal. Homes have been destroyed, communities damaged. Some people simply have nowhere to go back to.”

The 24-month visa is welcome, but it still leaves many families living with uncertainty. We Liberal Democrats are calling for an automatic visa extension, a clear route to long-term status, trauma-informed education for children and real stability for families who are already contributing so much to our communities.

Another of my constituents, Graham, offered his home to a Ukrainian guest, Kristina Hotsyk. She is desperate to reunite with her parents, but the reintroduction of biometric requirements, forcing people to travel to cities under nightly attack, is making that process extremely dangerous. I urge the Government to address this issue as soon as possible.

Let me turn to the aid situation. It is reassuring that the Government have decided to protect the overseas aid spend for Ukraine this year, but while that is welcome, the increase is modest. At a moment when global aid flows are collapsing, it will not do as much as we would like. At the same time, the Government have decided to slash overseas aid, meaning that it will become harder for us to sustain aid flows to Ukraine in the coming years. That is a strategic mistake, because overseas aid is not charity; it is an investment in our own security.

A stable Ukraine deters Russian aggression across Europe, sends a clear message that borders cannot be redrawn by force and raises the cost of future wars. Poverty and hardship in any country send people into the arms of those who offer a populist, easy message. Aid stabilises societies and prevents crises from spiralling into conflict, displacement and insecurity that ultimately reach our shores.

Ukraine shows what continuous, serious aid flows can achieve. Our support has helped to keep a country under siege functioning. It has strengthened civilian morale and reinforced a frontline state standing between Europe and authoritarian expansion. That is what properly funded aid looks like. I hope the Government do not throw away the progress that they have made and reverse course on the aid cuts as soon as possible.

The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to take bolder action. First, we must scale up our military and bring forward plans to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence as quickly as possible, instead of waiting until the next decade. Our armed forces have been hollowed out, such that we now have the lowest troop numbers in more than 200 years, while stockpiles have become depleted. That weakens support for Ukraine and makes us feel less safe here at home. Let me be clear that defence must not come at the expense of development; it is a false and dangerous narrative to pitch the one against the other. As the US general and former Secretary of Defence, Jim Mattis, said:

“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition”.

Secondly, we must hit the Russian war machine where it hurts. More than £30 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets sit in the UK alone. The Liberal Democrats have introduced legislation for those to be seized and redirected to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction, and I urge the Government to put it into law as soon as possible. We should also work with G7 partners to lower the oil price cap, cutting directly into Putin’s war profits.

Thirdly, accountability matters. The war crimes that we have seen in this tragic conflict, from the attacks on humanitarian convoys and the missile strikes on churches and children’s playgrounds to the abduction of an estimated 35,000 Ukrainian children, have shocked the conscience of the world. I went to see the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva and saw the records of soldiers and the work that it is doing to reunite families and children and identify the missing so that their families can have closure. I applaud its quiet work.

International law must be upheld, and war criminals like Putin must not be allowed to act with impunity. The rules-based order is under attack—a climate that makes the work of vital international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and NATO even more important. Putin would like nothing more than for the UN and NATO to collapse, so we must protect them. I urge the Government to continue their full-throated support for those vital entities and resist pressure from the United States to ignore or defy them.

Today, four years on, we are proud to still stand with Ukraine. Let us not allow Ukraine to be forced into a settlement that rewards aggression and leaves all of us less safe, because the Ukrainian people are fighting not just their war, but our war. They deserve nothing less than our full and unwavering commitment.

I will end with a poem written by a Ukrainian constituent, Nikita Balakin. He is nine and is at Cleves school in Oatlands. It reads:

“Mum, me and one suitcase

Three of us only

I left my cat, I left my dog

And all my dreams behind in the fog

I was just five but looked like more

Because I knew the world of war

New country, language, school and friends.

Thanks to everyone who helps.

I started to smile and play the games

And I can start to hope again.

I want the world to see my joy

PEACE is the biggest dream of a Ukrainian boy!”

17:29

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

It gives me great pleasure to be one of the last speakers in such a unifying debate, in which Members on all sides of the House can agree on the same thing. I associate myself with the remarks of all those who have already spoken.

This country should be immensely proud of the support that we have given to Ukraine in its hour of need. The Kremlin has thrown international law on to the bonfire, but the Ukrainian people are defending their land bravely against a brutal invasion. We have seen scenes of trench warfare and civilians being evacuated on trains or sheltering from air raids in underground stations—things we thought we had left in the last century. However, far from collapsing in days, as Putin believed, the Ukrainians have shamed the Russian army at every turn.

Without British support, things might have been very different. The full list of military capabilities that the UK has given the Ukrainian defence effort is eye-opening. We must commend our world-class armed forces, who have trained more than 62,000 Ukrainian personnel— a number fast approaching the size of the entire British Army. We have given thousands of anti-tank missiles, artillery units and armoured vehicles, specialist air defence systems, radar systems, long-range cruise missiles, more than 10,000 drones, search and rescue helicopters, electronic warfare equipment, night vision, body armour and medical essentials—a lifeline worth more than £21 billion.

Thanks to the hard work of the Pickwell Foundation, my constituency has sheltered more than 230 Ukrainian evacuees, as have countless communities across the country, as we have heard today.

I visited Kyiv last year with the Defence Committee. A poignant moment for me personally was when our delegation paid our respects at the Wall of Remembrance of the Fallen for Ukraine. Just seeing the multitude of photos on that wall brings home how many families have lost a loved one.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend everyone who has spoken. Four years ago, the Russians entered Bucha. They murdered and raped. They packed 200 civilians—men, women and children—into a basement, and then they killed them all. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those murderers—those Russian scoundrels and thugs who killed, raped and destroyed people’s lives—must see retribution and be held accountable, and that we in Westminster should play our role to ensure that those people are brought to justice and put in jail for the rest of their lives?

[Ian Roome]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that those people should be held accountable for the crimes they have committed. I am sure the Minister will take note of that.

On that same trip to Kyiv, we met many Ukrainian parliamentarians, including the Ukrainian Veterans Minister. That role is new to the Ukrainians. It was a great pleasure that they wanted to learn from how the UK supports the welfare and rehabilitation of veterans returning from combat. That Ukrainian Minister has met organisations such as the Royal British Legion to see how we support our veterans, to take that learning back to Ukraine.

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

I apologise for coming to the debate so late and intervening so quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have just returned from Ukraine, along with a few colleagues. We were able to attend the memorial marking four years since the invasion and to commemorate the deaths there. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. We felt the attacks in Odessa and Kyiv that people lived through every day, and the horrific endurance that the Ukrainian people are having to show. They appreciate all the things the UK has done that the hon. Gentleman talked about. We spoke to a member of staff for veterans yesterday about the fact that Ukraine has followed a UK approach and created hubs for veterans across the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must continue to work with the Ukrainians so that we can learn from each other?

[Ian Roome]

I certainly do. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling us about his visit. It is great that we can share learning as well as military capabilities.

The past four years must serve as a lesson for us in the UK. The frontlines have seen the invention of fibre-optic drones and cyber-sabotage, and the emergence of artillery targeting apps and rapid procurement portals. We in the UK and Europe must contend with Russian activities in the grey zone. Ukrainians have suffered a terrible winter, as the Russians have bombarded critical energy infrastructure. Last year, President Zelensky told us:

“Russia’s tactics are to murder people and terrorise them with the cold.”

We must pay attention.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the tactics that Putin is using at the moment. Temperatures in Ukraine have dropped to minus 20°C, which has had profound consequences for everyone there. Not only are people freezing to death, which has a huge effect on the frontline, but military veterans with prosthetics are unable to recharge their limbs. There has been a 21% jump in damaged or destroyed energy infrastructure since last year, and the World Bank reports that it would cost £1 billion to rebuild it. Does he agree that the Government must urgently seize billions in Russian assets and use the proceeds to help Ukraine rebuild its infrastructure?

[Ian Roome]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that poignant point, with which I totally agree.

We in the UK are relearning the strategic importance of warfighting, of deterrence, readiness and resilience at home, and of sticking with European allies that we could have taken for granted. It is important that UK civil society understands the hardship faced by the Ukrainian people. If Russia succeeds in using force to redraw borders, it threatens the collective security of the entire European continent and of NATO, and threatens the safety of the UK. Facing down tyrants is in this country’s DNA. Ukraine will fight on, and we must back it. There is no stronger defence than showing that we are as good as our word.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

17:37

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), who always speaks knowledgably on defence matters—and not just because of his own service—as he has done again today.

I must apologise to the House for missing the initial speeches in this debate, which I would not usually do. I offer the small excuse that I have been travelling for 17 hours and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), have just returned—hotfoot, as it were—from Kyiv. Under those unusual circumstances, I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker, for allowing me to sum up for the Conservatives and to report back to the House on what we learned from our trip to Ukraine.

In my role as shadow Armed Forces Minister, I was one of around 20 UK MPs to visit Ukraine. This was, I believe, the largest delegation we have ever sent, and it included MPs from all the main parties in the House of Commons—although there was no MP from Reform. I regret in all sincerity that, yet again, when we are debating foreign policy and defence in this House, the Reform Benches are empty. As the son of a D-day veteran, I have always believed that the first duty of Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm, so those who aspire to form a Government should at least be bothered to turn up and talk about it.

I also pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who, while we were there, was presented with President Zelensky’s Order of Merit for the brilliant campaigning she has undertaken on behalf of Ukrainian children who have been captured and forcibly adopted by Russian families, or—in some cases, with older children—put into military training camps for the Russian army, which is totally and utterly contrary to the Geneva convention. We in this House know that she has been a stalwart campaigner on the issue, but so now does the President of Ukraine. We honour her for the honour that she has done us.

I would also like to mention—because if I did not mention him, I will never hear the end of it—the former Member of Parliament for Filton and Bradley Stoke, Jack Lopresti, who served in Afghanistan as a reservist and who has recently joined the Ukrainian army. He is serving as a specialist in communications and information warfare. Good luck and Godspeed, Jack, in all that you do.

Our main purpose in going to Ukraine was to attend the official ceremony of the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which we did in Maidan Square yesterday morning. The ceremony was also attended by President Zelensky and his wife; by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Union; and by several other European Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers, including our own Foreign Secretary, who had a platoon of British MPs to support her in her duty. We all laid a small commemorative lamp and paid our respects. In some ways, it is the Ukrainian equivalent of our ceremony at the Cenotaph in November, and I can report to the House that it was carried out with equal solemnity and respect.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I was with him in Kyiv on that occasion, and managed to exchange a few words with President Zelensky to point out that the British delegation was there. He made it very clear that he was very pleased to see us there, and that we were very welcome. It was an honour to give him our support.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it was great to have him as a colleague on that visit. He brought his great knowledge of defence and foreign affairs to our trip. I can also report to the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness exchanged some humorous words with President Zelensky, but they are probably best left to posterity.

We visited at a very difficult time. As well as being in Kyiv, we initially visited Odesa via Moldova, which was under drone and missile attack for part of the time we were there. We visited Chernobyl, which I am pleased to report was not under drone or missile attack, although it was attacked by Russian drones some months ago, incredibly irresponsibly. We then moved on to Kyiv, which again was under bombardment for part of our time there. We had burner phones—I do not think I am giving away any secrets by saying that—and they put an app on them that goes off if there is an air raid warning. When that happens, it is quite sobering, but there is also an all-clear, and with typical Ukrainian humour and defiance, when they play the all-clear, it is followed by the words, “May the Force be with you.”

We had multiple meetings while we were there. As the House knows, people come and go on these delegations, but between us we were there for the best part of a week. We met senior staff from the Office of the President, who gave us an up-to-date briefing on the state of the ceasefire negotiations. We met a dozen Ukrainian MPs from the UK friendship group, and we had an intelligence briefing from the Ukrainian military.

We visited several bombed-out residential apartments, including, I am sad to say, one on Kyiv’s left bank, which has suffered particularly heavily as it is an industrial area and a logistics centre where there is a large amount of working-class housing—a bit like the east end of London in some ways. We visited one apartment where, tragically, 23 innocent people were killed, including several children, in a Russian strike. We think that it was aimed at the railway marshalling yards nearby, but because this was a drone it was not as accurate as a hypersonic missile, and those people were tragically murdered. We also attended a veterans’ rehabilitation centre. As the Secretary of State, who is with us, will know, when I was the Veterans Minister I had a bit to do with that, and I am proud of the fact that we managed to provide the Genium prosthetic for our wounded. We saw the Ukrainian equivalent of a rehabilitation centre, and I understand that this is one area in which Britain has been able to provide some advice and expertise, which was clearly warmly welcomed during our visit.

We attended the official opening of the Ukrainian Parliament, the Rada. I am pleased to report to the House that its Speaker, who is a big man in every sense, acknowledged all the international delegations one by one, but the loudest applause was for the Polish delegation and the British delegation. It was probably impossible to tell between the two, but I think that the MPs in the Rada were under no illusion about who had backed them to the hilt.

It was a difficult time, and at all those different meetings three themes emerged consistently. We were asked to report them to the House, so I will perform that solemn, duty now.

First, our interlocutors were clear about the fact that although we were formally celebrating—or, I should say, commemorating—the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine was originally invaded by Russia in 2014. It has been at war with Russia not for four years but for 12, which, to put it into perspective, is longer than the first and the second world wars put together. I think that Ukraine’s resistance for over a decade, in the face of the most brutal attacks from a larger and more powerful neighbour, deserves the respect and admiration of every single Member of this House and every single citizen in this country. The Ukrainians are fighting for us. They are fighting for the same values: for freedom, democracy, and the right to decide their own destiny. Their fight is our fight. We spoke a great deal to people about morale, and I think it is realistic. There are many in Ukraine who long for peace, for very understandable reasons, but they were all clear on one thing, namely that they would not accept peace at any price. Too much blood has been shed by the youth of Ukraine for them to accept a purely unilateral solution proposed by Russia. That theme emerged many times.

The second theme concerned sanctions. Most of the Ukrainians whom we spoke to in those meetings were understandably keen for an extension of sanctions by the western democracies, not least with regard to frozen Russian assets, a subject that we have debated in the House on numerous occasions. Many Ukrainians feel that now really is the time for the western democracies to bite the bullet and use those $300 billion or so of frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. However, they also made had a particular point about the shadow fleet, and here I ask for the Minister’s special attention.

The sale of hydrocarbons, whether oil or gas, ultimately props up the Russian economy, which allows Putin to spend about 40% of Russia’s budget on its military and to recruit mercenaries to fight in the Russian armed forces. In some cases, mercenaries are being offered up to $38,000 as a signing-on fee to fight in the Russian armed forces, but according to Ukrainian intelligence officers—they said we could say this—the average life expectancy of those mercenaries is four months.

The Ukrainians would like to see much greater sanctioning of the shadow fleet. The Minister knows that some of those vessels are uninsured, but many are insured and, moreover, many are insured by syndicates at Lloyd’s of London. Surely there is more that we could do to cramp the activities of the shadow fleet by working with Lloyd’s and other insurers to make sure that those ships cannot have insurance, which would make it difficult for them to visit at least some of their destination points. I make a particular point of that, because I am trying to do justice to the Ukrainians, who raised this issue with us again and again and again. They are really hard over on this, and I hope the Minister can say something in his summing up.

[Richard Foord]

The insurance industry is largely located in London. The British Government have talked about a maritime services ban, and about a timeline that might bring such insurance to an end in this calendar year. Does the right hon. Gentleman see any reason why a maritime services ban cannot come into effect until the end of this year?

[Mr Francois]

I am not an insurance expert and would not claim to be, but surely there is more that we can do. It is not a state secret that Lloyd’s of London is a world leader in maritime insurance, and surely there is more that can be done here. We promised—all of us—that we would relay this back to the House. Minister, over to you.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It was also clear in our meetings that the Ukrainians are very pleased with the interception of two or three shadow fleet tankers. I wonder why we cannot be far more proactive about uninsured or unseaworthy boats that should not be at sea and that have illegal crews. There are many legal pretexts on which we could intervene with these ships in international waters to add to the cost and risk of Russia’s oil and gas exports, thereby reducing its foreign exchange earnings.

[Mr Francois]

As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. The sale of hydrocarbons, including to China and India, is effectively Putin’s windpipe. Some people now refer to Russia as “China’s gas station”. If we could do more against those ships, it would be important for Ukrainian morale. We were told time and again that when the Ukrainians hear that a shadow fleet vessel has been impounded or captured, it raises their morale. This is something that we could do, in difficult circumstances, to raise their morale even further. Between us, my hon. Friend and I have made the point, and hopefully the Minister can follow up on it.

The third theme that I want to stress before I finish is that we were thanked again and again for Britain’s support militarily, diplomatically and economically, and for our humanitarian aid. Wherever we went, people said, “Thank you.” I think it is true to say that the previous Government gave real leadership in Europe on this and I think it is true to say that the current Government have continued in the same vein, but the House should know that people from the Office of the President downwards went out of their way to thank us for everything that Britain, and indeed this House, has done.

The Speaker of the Rada gave us a sombre warning. He said: “No one knows the Russians better than us. If we fall, you and your friends are next.” It is important that this House appreciates that. I do not want to spoil the non-partisan spirit of this debate, but there are lessons for us in the United Kingdom not just about the overall level of defence spending, but about the long-delayed defence investment plan. I say to the Secretary of State for Defence that we desperately need that document. We cannot wait much longer, and we have waited since the autumn, so the ball is in the Secretary of State’s court. It would be good for Ukrainian morale to see Britain committing to a long-term equipment programme.

[Graham Stuart]

I entirely agree with every word my right hon. Friend has said. Perhaps an area where we—the previous Government or this one—have not succeeded is in sufficiently sharing, or narrating and telling the story of, the threat to our UK citizens of suffering the barbarity that the Ukrainians are suffering daily, which would help the Secretary of State and others make the case, in an extremely tough fiscal environment, for the resourcing not only to support Ukraine, but to arm ourselves. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it would be good to hear about that from the Minister, because there is still a disconnect between the way my constituents see the world and the way that I, fresh back from Ukraine, see it?

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is quite right. The Ukrainians were—and I use this word deliberately—warning us. They have been at war for 12 years, and they were warning us not to be complacent, but to learn from their suffering about the need never to take freedom for granted. The Secretary of State has heard me use these words before, so I crave his indulgence, but the Roman military strategist Vegetius said:

“Si vis pacem, para bellum”—

he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it. We heard those words again in Ukraine.

To conclude, on the Monday evening before the ceremony in Maidan Square the following day, we were entertained at a reception at the British embassy. I hope the Minister will understand the spirit in which this is said, but there was a slightly humorous moment when the chargé d’affaires thanked the British delegation for ignoring Foreign Office advice not to travel to Ukraine to be at the reception. I thank the Minister for his letter also advising us not to go. I am terribly sorry, but we exercised Nelson’s eye, and we went anyway.

In all seriousness, it was a wonderful evening, and we were entertained by several people from what the Ukrainians call the cultural forces of Ukraine, including, very memorably, a group of Ukrainian soldiers singing a cappella. They were brilliant, and there were genuine shouts of “more” and “encore” at the end. They encored with Frank Sinatra’s “My Way”. For those who know the song, there are the wonderful lines where Sinatra sings:

To say the things he truly feels

And not the words of one who kneels.

The Ukrainians have not knelt. They have not knelt in the face of terrorism. They have not knelt in the face of barbarism, including the use of highly accurate cruise missiles to deliberately attack children’s hospitals. They have not knelt in the face of genocide at places such as Bucha. They have stood up, and this House—every man jack of us—stands with them. Slava Ukraini!

17:59

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate, particularly those who have recently returned from Ukraine, bringing powerful testimony. I have visited Ukraine three times since the start of what was rightly described as this phase of Russia’s illegal invasion, and I have had similar experiences; they have shown me the tenacity and courage of Ukrainians, which should inspire not only this country, but the whole world. I do not feel any surprise about that, because I have known Ukrainians for 30 years, often through their ties with south Wales. Cardiff, in my constituency, was twinned with Luhansk. It was Welsh people who helped found the industries in the Donbas and Donetsk. We have a Sebastopol in the south Wales valleys because of British and French troops fighting in the Crimean war in 1855.

We have very powerful Ukrainian communities locally—many Members have said that they do, too—and it was an honour in recent weeks to join my constituents who have reached out with their homes and their hearts to Ukrainians, as have the constituents of so many Members across this House. Just the other night, we celebrated the contribution of Ukrainian women through an incredible piece of theatre around motanka dolls, which, as some will know, are a very important part of Ukrainian culture.

Of course, women and girls and civilians have suffered terribly at the hands of Russia’s barbaric attacks, and we must show our continued support and solidarity every single day. I am glad that we have seen that support on both sides of the House. I do not want to sound a discordant note, because there is much unity in this House today and among most of the British people, but as the shadow Minister said, yet again we see one party absent, and absence speaks volumes. That is before we get on to their spouting of Kremlin narratives, or the activities of their former leader in Wales—and we need to speak about that, because it is a very serious issue, especially when we see the unity in the rest of this House. But I am very glad that we have signalled once again that we will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for years to come.

[Mr Francois]

We would all be intrigued to know who Reform’s defence spokesperson is, so if the Minister picks up any hints about that, perhaps he could give me a ring.

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, that speaks volumes about where those Members of this House stand, but that is for them to explain.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On the subject of Ukrainians living in the valleys, I was visiting some Ukrainians who are on the Homes for Ukraine scheme in Dawlish in my constituency, and I met a senior Ukrainian naval officer who was extremely grateful and very relieved that his family were safe and secure in Dawlish. I thank the Government for extending the Homes for Ukraine permission scheme by two years last summer, and I thank them again for this week enabling those on the scheme to apply for a visa extension within 90 days of the end of the visa, as opposed 28 days, as it was. That is a big relief to the Ukrainians in my constituency, and indeed to Ukrainian officers. What does the Minister think about the future for people from Ukraine who are in the UK?

[Stephen Doughty]

People from Ukraine are very welcome here, as has been shown by communities up and down the country, and indeed by many Members today, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the important change that we made this week; it was a point raised by many in the debate.

[David Taylor]

The Minister noted the absence of Reform from this debate. I also note the absence of the Green party. Perhaps they are too busy spreading sectarian hate up in Gorton and Denton, or undermining NATO at every corner. Does he agree?

[Stephen Doughty]

It speaks volumes, and it is not the first time. Frankly, the Greens’ comments on defence and NATO in the last few weeks have been shocking, and I said the other day that they should make those comments to people in Ukraine or the Baltics. Those were absolutely extraordinary comments, but they speak for themselves.

I, too, have made a long journey to be here. I have come directly from the United Nations Security Council, where yesterday I had the honour of chairing the session on Ukraine, and of speaking to the United Nations General Assembly. We joined Ukraine and more than 107 countries in voting for a resolution reaffirming support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. It was a powerful show of global support, but I also had to listen again and again to the abject lies of the Russian representatives. We all have a job to do in this place, in our communities and in international forums—whether the UN, the Council of Europe, which was mentioned, or the OSCE—to speak the truth and expose Russian lies, including in countries around the world where Russia is spreading disinformation and division.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend will know, our hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has done a lot of work on the stolen children. She said that the Minister had mentioned the issue in New York, and she was very touched by that. Does he agree that the work she has been doing, in the face of a horrendous situation, is fantastic?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely do. Like so many Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). She has just sent me a picture of her award from President Zelensky. She absolutely deserves that. She has spoken powerfully on these issues. That is why I wanted to communicate what she and so many others have been saying, and, most importantly, to give a voice to the Ukrainian children—I have met them through her work—who escaped that heinous activity. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for all the work that she has done. She has travelled to Ukraine on a number of occasions, and she always speaks up on these issues powerfully.

I was very clear at the United Nations that we need to keep up the pressure on Russia to engage meaningfully in the peace process. I was also clear about what peace requires: a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire; a settlement resulting in a secure, sovereign and independent Ukraine; stolen children and prisoners of war returned; and, crucially, justice for the crimes committed by Russia, including horrific sexual violence against men, women and children, as reported by the United Nations. As I said in New York, that is what every Ukrainian deserves, and what the world deserves.

As was pointed out, while I was in New York, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was demonstrating our solidarity with Ukraine on the ground in Kyiv. She announced: £30 million in additional funding to strengthen Ukrainian energy resilience and support recovery, taking total UK support to £21.8 billion since the start of the war; £25 million to help repair damaged energy infrastructure, and support the men, women and children whose lives continue to be uprooted by Russia’s aggression; and £5 million to support crucial justice and accountability for victims of alleged Russian war crimes.

The Foreign Secretary also announced our largest Russia sanctions package since 2022, with nearly 300 new sanctions against Russia, targeting its key revenue streams, critical military goods supply chains, and systems that have been set up, as has been pointed out, to undermine existing sanctions. There are now over 1,200 sanctions against individuals, entities and ships in the shadow fleet, which has been mentioned. Those sanctions are working. Russia’s federal oil and gas revenues fell 50% in the 12 months from January last year. Western sanctions have denied Russia access to at least $450 billion since February 2022, which is more than two years-worth of funding for its war machine against Ukraine.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response, and for his words of encouragement for us MPs, and for those outside who are watching. Earlier, I referred to Bucha, where the war crimes were unbelievable. I am very keen to ensure accountability and justice in the process, as we all are. What are the UK Government and the Minister—I know he is committed to this—doing to ensure that the evidential base is gathered to catch the people who carried out those crimes and make them accountable? They will be accountable in the next world; let us make sure that they are accountable in this, as well.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. A key part of the funding that the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday was for that, but there is also the work that we have done to support the judicial system and investigations in Ukraine, our work at the International Criminal Court, the work we are doing around a special tribunal on the crime of aggression, and the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. There are many different ways in which we will seek justice and accountability.

The hon. Gentleman references Bucha; I have heard of some most horrific things happening there, in particular regarding the treatment and killings of priests and religious figures. I spoke about that yesterday at the United Nations. There is a very serious situation in the temporarily occupied territories as regards freedom of religion and attacks on religious figures. I spoke about that with our colleagues in the United States while I was in Washington DC, just before I was at the United Nations.

[Mr Francois]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way again once briefly, but then I will respond to the points made in the debate.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry to hammer the nail on the point about insurance; I do not expect the Minister to make policy on the hoof, but so many of the Ukrainians we spoke to were so hard over on the point about insurance in London for the shadow fleet. Could the Minister at least give the House a commitment now that he will go away and work with ministerial colleagues to see what more can be done in this area? So many Ukrainians are asking for exactly that.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a very important point. I have had many conversations with the insurance industry over the past year and a half, and we continue to look at all the ways to choke off the energy revenues to Russia. I am not going to pre-announce decisions that we might make, but we have been very clear about what we see as the track on this. A substantial number of measures were announced yesterday, including on illicit oil trading networks, which were at the heart of some of the sanctions we announced. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to catch up; I am happy to offer further briefings on that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will respond to the points that were made in the debate, but I will happily come back to the hon. Gentleman if we have time at the end.

Many Members raised issues around the deportation of children, which, having met some of those children, is a personal passion of mine. The work of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has been mentioned already. I held a meeting yesterday in New York with a number of European and other countries, including Canada, as well as Mariana Betsa, the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister, to discuss our work together on this issue specifically. We are working closely with the United States, the EU, Canada, as chair of the coalition, and of course with Ukraine directly.

We have committed more than £2.8 million to support efforts to facilitate return and reintegration. Since September, the pilot tracing mechanism that we have been working on with Ukraine has identified more than 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated within temporarily occupied territories. We are working with a number of non-governmental organisations and others on this matter, too. I can assure the House that we continue to see this as a major priority. We are most focused on the measures that work and can actually identify, trace, return, reintegrate and support those who have been affected. We also sanctioned 11 more perpetrators of Russia’s heinous policy in this area in September.

On overall financial support, I remind the House that we have committed up to £21.8 billion for Ukraine—that is £13 billion in military support, which the Defence Secretary spoke about, including our £2.26 billion ERA loan contribution, and up to £5.3 billion in non-military support, as well as export finance cover via UK Export Finance, which has been crucial for reconstruction and defence projects. We are continuing to get that money out of the door and to the Ukrainians. We will continue to look at all the ways in which we can enhance our programmes. I have worked particularly with our fantastic teams who work on the official development assistance budget for Ukraine to ensure that we are focusing in on support for the energy system and the long-term reconstruction work that will be needed.

Members have raised points about Russian sovereign assets. We were always clear that we would move in parallel with international partners on this, and, in the light of the EU decision, which some people will be aware of, we will nevertheless continue to work with the G7 and the EU to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs and that Russia will ultimately pay for the damage it has caused. We welcome the agreement of the European Council to provide this new €90 billion loan, and the Prime Minister has welcomed the steps that could allow the UK to take part in that loan to Ukraine, too. We will explore all opportunities to get Ukraine what it needs.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way; had I got here a little earlier, I would have tried to make my own speech.

We brought back three home truths from Ukraine. First, we were asked so often, “Why do all these rich western European countries only give us enough to continue fighting but not enough to win?” Unless we change that, we are just offering a recipe for a continuing war.

Secondly, Members should have no doubt that the Ukrainian Government are resolved to carry on fighting in the absence of an acceptable peace settlement. If that means planning for the next two or three years, that is what they are talking about. They are not talking about collapsing at all, and that will never happen—I make that forecast.

Finally, Ukrainians are grateful for the coalition of the willing initiative, but they are very disappointed that the United Kingdom and France were the only two countries to sign the memorandum at the end of that meeting. Nothing has really happened since. They are also very concerned about the lack of war readiness among NATO forces. Given how utterly transformed Ukrainian forces are in terms of their capability to fight the Russians, what are we doing to transform our armed forces so that, with limited manpower, like the Ukrainians, we can hold back a Russian advance and ultimately protect NATO?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been clear, as has the Defence Secretary, about our commitments on military and non-military support, which endure and will continue to endure. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. As was brought up several times in the debate, we are also ensuring that we are learning. This is a two-way process and we are learning from Ukraine as well.

On the preparation for our own defences, just three weeks ago I went to Latvia to see the incredible work we do in the Baltics. I saw the incredible work of the drone coalition, not only to support Ukraine with the Octopus drones, but in learning for ourselves the tactics and techniques that are being used. I assure the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and other Members that that work is going on.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way, but I want to respond to some more points first, including on the moneys from the sale of Chelsea football club. Let me be clear to the House again: the Government are giving Mr Abramovich the last chance to do the right thing and donate the £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea FC to support the people of Ukraine, as was committed to back in 2022. The House will know that in December we issued the licence that permits the transfer of the funding into a new foundation. We have strived to find a way forward with Mr Abramovich. We would have preferred for him to have taken that action, with the co-operation of him and his company Fordstam. We are now urging him to honour that commitment, but if he fails to act quickly, we are fully prepared to go to court to enforce it if necessary. We are working with international partners to ensure that proceeds reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible.

A number of Members mentioned refined oil products, wider maritime services and an LNG ban. We have announced our intention to ban imports of oil products refined in third countries from Russian-origin crude oil. I very much recognise the points that were raised. We also intend to introduce a maritime services ban on liquefied natural gas, phased in over 2026 in lockstep with the EU, which will restrict Russia’s ability to export.

Members raised the issue of imports and exports to the UK. I have some updated figures, which we can provide, but the most recent data shows that UK imports from and exports to Russia dropped by 99.6% and 87.6% respectively, compared with 2021, so there has been a substantial change.

On the wider Russian energy sector, along with the designation we made yesterday, we have designated Russia’s four largest oil majors: Gazprom Neft and PJSC Surgutneftegas on 10 January, and Rosneft and Lukoil on 15 October. That is already having a clear impact. Chinese state oil majors are reportedly suspending purchases, Indian refiners are reportedly pausing new orders, and Russia’s federal oil and gas revenues fell 50% year on year in January 2026. This is having a material impact on Russia’s ability to wage war.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. While we were in Ukraine we also met the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who had led a delegation of physiotherapists who were working with the Ukrainians.

Another ask that we perhaps did not expect to hear was that, as far as the Ukrainians were concerned, there were not enough British businesses coming out to do business—not so much to do good, but to do business and to integrate our trade. They felt that there was greater commercial engagement from other countries than from the UK, which they saw as a particularly good ally. Could the Minister say whether, through the Department for Business and Trade, we can do more, such as taking more trade delegations, and really lean in to support trade in both directions?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, on which our trade envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), is doing excellent work. We are looking at all opportunities to engage UK businesses in a range of sectors. Again, it is a two-way process. Our partnership with Ukraine is for 100 years. This is not just about the support that we offer Ukraine now; it is about the opportunities for the future in a peaceful, secure and sovereign Ukraine. I think the UK and Ukraine working together are going to be a powerful force in the world to come.

Ukrainians in the UK were mentioned on a number of occasions. We are very proud of what people across this country have done to support Ukrainians. Over 300,000 Ukrainians and their families have been supported. Ukrainians living in the UK can now apply to stay for an additional 18 months, and as of yesterday Ukrainians wishing to extend their stay in the UK will be able to apply up to 90 days before their current permission expires, which is treble the current 28 days. We will continue to listen to Ukrainian communities and give families a greater sense of security about their future.

Members asked questions about the multinational force. I am not, for obvious reasons, going to get into details on this, because it would be irresponsible to share operational details prematurely, but we are very clear that this will be a visible and tangible international support for Ukraine’s return to peace. It will regenerate Ukraine’s land forces and establish and maintain safe skies, safe seas and strong borders. It is not just about the contribution we will make directly to that, which the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister have spoken about; it is about training and equipping Ukraine’s armed forces, as we have done for so long.

We will continue to support a range of other projects in humanitarian energy stabilisation, reform, recovery and reconstruction. We are working through British International Investment, and we are using every channel, every sinew and every way that we can to stand with Ukraine—not just through words but in practical terms.

Many very helpful points were made by Members today. We will continue to offer briefings to Members of the House and, as ever, my door remains open for those who have specific concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) and others raised some particular concerns that I am happy to take away. I am also happy to offer briefings with officials on the specific technical topics that were raised.

[Richard Foord]

My specific concern is about the maritime services ban for the transport of Russian liquefied natural gas. It was announced by the Foreign Secretary last November, but it is not due to come into effect until the end of this calendar year. It is looking like it will take more than a whole year. Can the Minister explain why it needs to take so long?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I set out a moment ago, it is our intention to introduce the ban, and we are working at pace. The hon. Member will appreciate that these are extremely complicated measures, both legally and in terms of the procedures that need to be in place. It also requires a substantial amount of international co-ordination to have effect and to not have loopholes. We have to work very closely with other partners on this.

I can assure the hon. Member that I am personally working very hard to accelerate the ban as fast as we can. We need to do everything we can to choke off the revenues that are fuelling the war machine, and it is a personal mission of mine to do that. I am very happy to give him further briefings on this matter outside the Chamber.

Let me conclude by reiterating that Ukraine’s victory is essential not only for Ukraine but for Europe’s future and the future of this country. A secure, independent Ukraine strengthens Europe and Britain. It reinforces the message we took to the United Nations yesterday that borders cannot be changed by force and that democratic nations will stand together against authoritarian pressure and barbarism. As Ukraine enters its fifth year of this phase of the invasion, we will continue alongside international partners to sustain the support that Ukraine needs today.

I pay tribute to the incredible work of our teams at the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, particularly the team in Kyiv and at our new office in Lviv, and the country-based staff. They are enduring the same as Ukrainians in terms of blackouts, attacks and winter conditions, yet they do their work with dedication and absolute professionalism. The spirit that is exemplified in this House today is being exemplified on the ground by them. I am delighted that Members here have been able to meet them.

I end by again paying tribute to the Ukrainian people. I say to those fighting on the frontlines, to the families that are separated and to the civilians who are enduring hardship with extraordinary dignity, we will continue to stand with you and support you every step of the way, because we know that your struggle is a reminder of what is at stake: freedom, self-determination and a rules-based order that protects us all. We will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I also want to pay my tribute to the Ukrainian people and the many Ukrainians who live in my constituency of Sussex Weald.

Estimates (Backbench Business Committee Recommendation)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 152J, as amended by the Order of 2 February relating to Estimates day debates),

That this House agrees with the Report of the Backbench Business Committee of 24 February:

That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for the financial year 2025-26: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Ministry of Defence; and Department for Business and Trade.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to.

Admiral Casino on Westow Hill

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

18:25

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

Twenty-four hour gambling centres target the most vulnerable in our communities, fuel antisocial behaviour and damage the character and identity of a local area. They also harm local businesses and contribute to the decline of our high streets. That is why I am proud to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Beckenham and Penge, including Crystal Palace and Anerley, and the local Labour councillors Ruth McGregor and Ryan Thomson, who stand firmly against the application to open a 24-hour gambling casino on Westow Hill in Crystal Palace. The petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Conservative-run council to ensure that Admiral Casino on Westow Hill in Crystal Palace is not granted a 24-hour licence.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Beckenham and Penge,

Declares that a 24-hours licence for Admiral Casino on Westow Hill in Crystal Palace would damage the character of the area, fuel anti-social behaviour and increase gambling harms for vulnerable people.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Croydon Council to ensure that Admiral Casino on Westow Hill in Crystal Palace is not granted a 24-hours licence.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003165]

Bayeux Tapestry Exhibition

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

18:27

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

No other work of art is as entwined with our island’s story as the Bayeux tapestry, which quite literally wove my constituency of Hastings, Rye and the villages into our national history. The tapestry’s return home after spending nearly 1,000 years across the channel is a triumph for Britain, and it is testament to this Labour Government’s success in strengthening our relations with our closest European neighbours.

This loan is a symbol of our shared history with our friends in France. I pay tribute to all those involved in arranging it, and in particular to Antoine Verney, the director of the Bayeux Tapestry Museum who sadly passed away earlier this month. I also thank everyone involved on both sides of the channel, including the British Museum and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

William the Conqueror’s landing on our Sussex shore is a story familiar to every schoolchild in Britain. The date 1066 is etched into our national consciousness, and the battle of Hastings was a defining moment in British history that continues to shape who we are today. While historians—and, indeed, sometimes Members of the House—may disagree on exactly where the battle took place, a millennium later the clash between the Saxons and the Normans still resonates across our land. In fact, Hastings and the surrounding area—I see other hon. Members who represent it here in the Chamber—is known as “1066 country”, so inseparable is our identity from the events immortalised in the Bayeux tapestry.

Many streets in Hastings bear names referencing Saxon, Norman, William and Harold, and even our local hospital is aptly named the Conquest hospital. Yet although we have often found ourselves at the centre of historic events, we have not always felt the benefits.

Across Hastings, Rye and the villages, over 60% of young people leave school without a level 4—the equivalent of grade C—or above in English and maths GCSE. The Sutton Trust has said that we are in the bottom 10 places nationally for social mobility, and our life expectancy is below the national average. We may be a similar distance from London as Brighton, but our train takes twice as long. Our infrastructure has suffered from 14 years of neglect and our roads are riddled with potholes. All that is symbolic of how we have too often been forgotten by Westminster, Whitehall and London cultural circles.

The Bayeux tapestry exhibition at the British Museum will be the exhibition of a generation, and I want children from 1066 country to see it and feel pride in knowing that the story it tells began in the place they call home. When I go into our local schools, our young people are proud to be from Hastings. They must not be priced out of a ticket and a chance to celebrate the legacy of our town on the national stage.

I urge the British Museum to guarantee places for schoolchildren from Hastings and the surrounding area, and to support the cost of travel so that access is not determined by how well off our local schools are. My challenge to the British Museum is for it to live up to its name and to truly be the museum of Britain, ensuring that young people from Hastings and 1066 country get to visit. I, like my colleagues, have had constructive discussions with the museum and I stand ready to work with it and local schools to make that happen.

This Labour Government have rightly set the expectation that London museums must work harder to be genuinely national institutions by opening up opportunities for young people from every part of our country. What better way to do that and to celebrate the return of the Bayeux tapestry than by ensuring that the people of Hastings and 1066 country are truly part of this national moment? That is why I have asked the British Museum to reserve at least 1,066 tickets for local residents.

I thank the historian Dan Snow and David Dimbleby, who is a nearby resident, for supporting me in the campaign. They, too, know that local children being able to see the exhibition for themselves could inspire the next generation of historians. Our area helped make this piece of history; it must now fully share in its legacy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady. The only subject that I excelled in at school was history, but I am sure that the hon. Lady exceeded me by far. She has a love of history, as do I after all these years. Does she agree that seeing the Bayeux tapestry, that incredible piece of history, will be an inspiration for children, helping them to understand the rich history of this wonderful nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Just thinking about it, I am having flashbacks to third year history. Does she further agree that we must ensure that schools from all the nations are able to bring children, and that perhaps funding pots to help schools with the costs should be considered? I congratulate the hon. Lady, who has done well.

[Helena Dollimore]

The hon. Member is right that schoolchildren must be able to access the exhibition. They should not be put off by the price of a ticket to the exhibition or a train ticket—or even a flight in his case. It is really important. I speak as someone who went to local state schools and was lucky enough to go on and study history at university. Who knows who we could inspire by allowing schoolchildren to see the exhibition?

We want schoolchildren to see the exhibition, but we also want to encourage visitors to the exhibition in north London to take a further step back in time and visit 1066 country, the place where it all happened. I am urging many of our transport providers to make sure that we can make it easier for tourists to visit 1066 country during this important moment, and that includes urging Southeastern to look at how it can make it quicker for tourists to visit our area by train. This also extends to visitors from abroad, and that is why I have been campaigning to bring back international trains to Ashford International, to encourage our European neighbours across the channel to visit us in 1066 country and in Hastings and Rye, and to make that visit easier. Hopefully, this time they will be armed with buckets and spades rather than bows and arrows, and they will certainly receive a much warmer welcome than they did in 1066.

Not only is 1066 country rich in history, but it is rich in landscape, heritage and culture. We might be tucked away on the south coast, but we punch well above our weight in our visitor and tourist experience. From Hastings museum to Hastings castle, Hastings contemporary gallery, Rye heritage centre, Camber Sands, Rye harbour nature reserve, Hastings country park and many more, we have so much to offer people wanting to visit. With next year marking the 1,000th anniversary of the birth of William the Conqueror, we will celebrate this Year of the Normans with special events across Hastings, Rye and the villages.

I would like to see one of the many replicas of the Bayeux tapestry put on display in Hastings. I cannot think of any better place to be named the UK’s town of culture, which Hastings hopes to be named next year.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her speech. She has spoken so eloquently about the importance of history and the role of the Normans in Sussex history—our own local history—but also in our country’s history. It has been a poignant speech, and I thank her for mentioning the copy at Reading museum, which was woven in Victorian times using similar stitches. The original tapestry was, in fact, made in England and then exported to Normandy. Perhaps she would ask some of her residents to come to Reading museum to look at the wider impact of the Norman conquest across the country. In fact, due to William the Conqueror’s son, we had a wonderful abbey built in Reading, and it led to the growth of our town. That story is echoed across many communities in this country.

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank my hon. Friend. Indeed, we have many replicas of the tapestry. There is the one he mentioned in Reading museum. There is also one that Hastings borough council has in storage, and I am urging it to take it out of storage and put it on show in time for the big moment later this year. I am also aware that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) will speak later about another one that is under way.

As I have said, much of our area relies on the tourist economy, which supports one in five jobs in our region. We have a wealth of small, fantastic independent pubs, restaurants and hotels, which work exceptionally hard to give our visitors a warm welcome. This has to be a big moment for them, when they too feel the benefits. Although there may be other beautiful places in the UK that we compete with, this is a one-in-the-eye for them and our big chance to showcase everything that Hastings, Rye and the villages have to offer. The return of the Bayeux tapestry will be a national moment that belongs to the whole country, but it must have a special place for the people of 1066 country, where this story began.

18:37

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing the debate. For those—perhaps our constituents—who do not know the etiquette of the House, an Adjournment debate is typically a debate for a single Member, so it is gracious of her to make time for me to speak briefly in this debate on something that we have worked on together. I want to thank her for the work that she has done to date.

When we talk about the Bayeux tapestry, we are talking about history that is deeply interwoven in the culture and history of my constituency of Bexhill and Battle. William landed in Pevensey, which is in the west of the constituency. People can visit the ruins of Pevensey castle there, and we have a museum in Pevensey that exhibits the important local history from that perspective. Almost pinpointing the middle of my constituency is Battle abbey, which is perhaps the biggest tourist attraction in my constituency and is visited by thousands of people every year. It was built by William as penance for the bloodshed and violence that local people had experienced as part of the battle of Hastings. As the hon. Member indicated, there is some dispute about whether the battle took place there. As the Member for Bexhill and Battle, I will plant my flag firmly on the argument that it took place where Battle abbey is built. Every year there is a re-enactment of the battle, which is increasingly popular. It had one of its best ever years last year, and it is a major tourist attraction.

Both the ruins of Pevensey castle and Battle abbey are important English Heritage sites. I thank them for meeting me recently to talk about the opportunities that the Bayeux tapestry presents and for all the work they do all year round on those sites and other important historical sites in my constituency.

The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye did an excellent job of going into the detail of all the different things that we want to gain from the exhibit visiting the UK, so I will just re-emphasise a couple of really important points. Of course, the exhibition will benefit many different places, but we should expect the greatest attention and effort to be put into 1066 country to ensure its success.

First, we must ensure that the benefits of the visit are felt outside London. As the hon. Lady said, the visit is being organised by the British Museum, so while it is important that London gets its share of the tourism spend that will come with the tapestry’s visit, that spend is vitally needed in our constituencies. The British Museum and other organisations must set up a clear programme to ensure that visits to the tapestry secure visits to our constituencies, and vice versa, so that people who would normally have just visited the historical sites in 1066 country will be encouraged to visit the exhibition of the tapestry.

Secondly, how often do schoolchildren get to feel that their local history is as important as this? The tapestry is a major exhibit and its visit is a major historical event, so it is really important that local schoolchildren get to visit the tapestry, and that the exhibition is made affordable and accessible to them. There will be opportunities for schoolchildren from across the country to visit the exhibition, but let us ensure that the programme is really supportive of our local schoolchildren.

To finish, I will mention a fantastic community project, the La Mora tapestry project, that demonstrates that our history is an ongoing part of our local culture, not something newly discovered. Christina Greene and her team are replicating elements of the tapestry that relate to the La Mora, the ship in which William sailed. For some time now, residents in my constituency have been able to visit Battle library and take time to carefully stitch parts of the replica tapestry, under the watchful eye of Christina, who ensures they are using the right techniques. They have done an amazing job researching wools, so the wools that they use are the same or as close as we can get to the wools that were originally used. Even more incredibly, she noticed, as I am sure other historians will have done, the absence of the female voice in the historical documents, including the tapestry, which tells a very male-centric story. William’s wife, the queen, is thought to be a major player and to have helped to commission the boat, so new bits of the story are being added to the tapestry that focus on her role, which is great for the schoolgirls who come to take part in the sewing of the tapestry.

The tapestry is already part of our history locally, and we make day-to-day use of it culturally and historically. Let us ensure that the Bayeux tapestry’s visit helps to weave some new stories, projects and ideas. It is great opportunity to do that. I really want the Government to work with the British Museum, which is co-operating and with which we are having more productive discussions, but the efforts of the Minister to keep that all on track would be greatly appreciated.

18:42

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) not only on securing this debate, but on her lovely speech. I noticed that she did a little bit of lobbying for Hastings to become the town of culture, and I am sure my officials noted that.

This will be the first time since the Bayeux tapestry left the UK over 900 years ago that it returns. It is a very important moment. I was reflecting that perhaps the modern battle is between the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye on where the battle actually took place. Perhaps there will be a tapestry made of that particular battle in the years to come. The tapestry coming to the UK is more than a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity—it is a once-in-a-millennium opportunity. We must celebrate that and get the most out of it, as hon. Members have said.

I start by paying tribute, as my hon. Friend did, to the director of the Bayeux Museum, Monsieur Antoine Verney, who sadly passed away just two weeks ago, and extend our heartfelt sympathies to his family and to his colleagues. His contribution over the years to promoting knowledge of the tapestry and sharing it widely, including with colleagues in the British Museum, is a lasting legacy that we must honour and build upon when the tapestry arrives here this year.

I extend my gratitude, on behalf of the UK Government, to our friends on the French side, who are doing so much to enable the loan, including President Macron, of course, and the Minister of Culture, Rachida Dati. Their role in supporting this loan has been crucial to making it happen.

I also pay tribute to the hard work and commitment of the UK Government’s envoy on the tapestry, Lord Ricketts, and his French counterpart, Philippe Bélaval. I thank all the people who are making this loan possible, including the French Ambassador to the UK, the President of the Normandy region, the Mayors of Bayeux, Rouen, and Caen, as well as senior figures in the regional cultural authority and, of course, colleagues at the British Museum.

The Bayeux tapestry will be on display at the British Museum from September 2026 through to July 2027. I thank the British Museum for working so hard to enable this exhibition, and for its generosity in loaning the Sutton Hoo treasures, the Lewis chess pieces and more than 220 drawings by Renaissance masters from its collection to museums in Caen and Rouen in Normandy for displays in 2027 to coincide with the celebration of the year of the Normans, marking 1,000 years since the birth of William the Conqueror. I am not sure if the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) remembers the birth of William the Conqueror.

[Jim Shannon]

It wasn’t far away!

[Ian Murray]

It is an enormous task to deliver such a historic exhibition, but doing so in such a short timeframe is a particular challenge. Usually, exhibitions at our major museums take three to five years to plan, but the British Museum is rising to the challenge of putting this exhibition on in a little over one year, as well as developing a national programme of education and engagement to spread knowledge of the tapestry and the Norman conquest throughout the country. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye made about deprivation and educational attainment in her constituency, I think we should use this as a platform and foundation on which to build, for children, children of the future, and the inspired historians we may be able to get as a result of this.

The tapestry is unique, and care of it is underpinned by expertise on both sides of the channel. Concern has been expressed in some quarters about whether the tapestry will be able to travel safely. I am pleased to say that the British Museum is working closely with its French counterparts, and is bringing its world-leading expertise to bear to ensure that the tapestry can travel here safely for this unprecedented loan and be seen by as many people as possible. That is key.

I understand that many areas of the country claim close links with the Norman conquest, so many Members of this House would claim a special interest in this area, including those from where the Bayeux tapestry seems likely to have been made, Canterbury. The north of England also has historic connections to the Norman conquest—they are not necessarily exactly positive—due to the harrying of the north carried out by William the Conqueror. We can all agree that the battle of Hastings, depicted on the tapestry, is of critical importance to the history of us all.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye on her tenacious campaigning for her constituents, particularly in the educational field, and seeking to ensure that schoolchildren in her constituency and neighbouring constituencies are able to see the exhibition and understand the significance of the area that they live in to the history of our country. I have been assured by the British Museum that schools in her area will receive priority booking, reflecting the salience of the area to the events of 1066, and the huge local interest. I understand that she, together with the British Museum, is working with Southeastern Railway to offer at least 1,066 tickets, at heavily reduced rates, to London to schools in 1066 country.

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank the Minister for his commitment to helping the children of Hastings to get to see this exhibition. Does he recognise that schools that are not as well off need help getting children to the British Museum in north London, whether by coach or train? They simply do not have the spare funds. Anything that he can do, in discussion with the museum, donors and other supporters of access to the arts, would be much appreciated.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend raises the key principle behind what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I do, in the Department and right across the country. I am an Edinburgh MP, but I remember studying the Bayeux tapestry in primary school some 40 years ago—I know that hon. Members will find that hard to believe.

To get children and schoolchildren really interested in this exhibition, we have to ensure that they can get to London, and that the educational programme spreads out across the country. We also have to ensure that those who want to see the tapestry can see it, because the legacy has to be for younger people and those others who have an interest in it. I know that all this would not have been achieved without the hard work of my hon. Friend on behalf of her constituents and their children.

The exhibition will be free to all under-16s with a paying adult, wherever they are from. More broadly, the museum is developing plans for family activities, including an open family festival, three to five days of activities across all school holidays for the duration of the exhibition, and a finale family festival. There will also be exclusive school mornings, in which there will be free access to see the tapestry for schools during term time. On top of that, the museum is planning on rolling out a variety of exciting digital content that children across the whole country will be able to enjoy, whether they are in a history lesson at school or at home with their friends and family.

The British Museum is developing an ambitious national programme of education and engagement to raise awareness of the importance of the tapestry and the Norman conquest to the history of the whole country and its heritage, culture and language. Indeed, as we know, Norman French is still used in some parliamentary procedures, such as the granting of Royal Assent. The museum’s national programme will involve more than 100 sites that have developed content that demonstrates the far-reaching consequences of the Norman conquest. That includes working with English Heritage, the British Library, the National Archives and Norfolk Museums Service. The aim is to ensure that as many people as possible will be able to take part in and engage with the loan of the tapestry to the British Museum, wherever they are in the country.

The museum is working with a range of stakeholders in the Hastings and Battle area to ensure that the local community is engaged with the exhibition. I will take away the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye about making sure not just that people can get to London, but that tourists and others can go to 1066 country to see what is there. That will improve the tourist economy and the experience of the tapestry being here.

More generally, 2027 marks 1,000 years since the birth of William the Conqueror. The region of Normandy is marking that with a wide-ranging series of activities, including on an international level. That will involve Scandinavia, where the Normans originally came from, and areas that their influence reached, such as Ireland, Sicily and the south of Italy, and, of course, our country. This is a unique opportunity to deepen and engage the public in the UK-France relationship. That will happen alongside wider work on the Year of the Normans and the strength of our cultural partnerships, such as those between the British Film Institute and the French Centre National du Cinéma, and between the national heritage bodies of both countries.

Furthermore, in 2027, the Grand Départs of both the Tour de France and the Tour de Frances Femmes will be in the UK, with one being in Edinburgh. That is another demonstration of the close links between the UK and France. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned potholes in her constituency—I hope ours are filled in by the time the cyclists come to Edinburgh. That is a challenge for the local authority in Scotland.

In this increasingly polarised and divided world, the links that culture and sport can create are more important than ever, especially with our close neighbours, with whom we share so much history. However, I wish no luck whatsoever to the French rugby union team, which is coming to Murrayfield a week on Saturday for the six nations. Those cultural and sporting links are important to us all.

Of course, the battle of Hastings is not the only historic event represented in the tapestry. It starts by showing Harold swearing a solemn oath in Normandy in 1064 after being shipwrecked there. The oath is widely assumed to be in support of William’s claim to the throne of England. The tapestry then shows King Edward the Confessor’s funeral at Westminster Abbey, after which Harold claims the throne. It then depicts ships being built in Normandy, as William prepares an invasion after Harold is crowned King of England, before moving on to events in England before the battle, but after William and his army landed at Pevensey Bay in East Sussex, where William ordered a castle to be built.

The battle of Hastings itself is then depicted. At one point, William raises his helmet to show his troops that he is still alive. That is followed by the famous scene that seems to show King Harold being killed by an arrow in his eye. The tapestry gives an account of how William the Conqueror came to power in England. As it was likely to have been made on the orders of William’s half-brother, Bishop Odo, it is obviously an account written—or rather, embroidered—by the victors.

This is a national event, so many other Members of the House will have a keen interest in the tapestry coming here and in the legacy of the Normans, as it is felt throughout the United Kingdom. That said, the Hastings and Battle area, and 1066 country more generally, has a fantastic tourist offer that will never be more relevant than this year and the next. I encourage the British Museum to strengthen its work with the 1066 country tourism board. I should note that the British Museum will host a briefing in Parliament on Wednesday 22 April to update all parliamentarians on the loan, the exhibition and the museum’s national programme of education and engagement. I encourage all interested colleagues to attend that, and to engage with the museum and with Lord Ricketts in the other place.

I very much look forward to seeing the tapestry in the British Museum. I hope that as many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye as possible are able to see it, in particular schoolchildren, so that they can learn about the history of this country through this exceptional work and be inspired for the future. I urge visitors to the exhibition to follow their visit by going to see where it all happened in 1066 country, so that they see not only the tapestry, but the places themselves. I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

18:53

House adjourned.

Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Roger Gale

† Argar, Edward (Melton and Syston) (Con)

† Burgon, Richard (Leeds East) (Lab)

† Cocking, Lewis (Broxbourne) (Con)

† Collier, Jacob (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)

† Costigan, Deirdre (Ealing Southall) (Lab)

† Cox, Pam (Colchester) (Lab)

† Dixon, Anna (Shipley) (Lab)

† Forster, Mr Will (Woking) (LD)

† Franklin, Zöe (Guildford) (LD)

† Kane, Mike (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)

† Kirkham, Jayne (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)

† McGovern, Alison (Minister for Local Government and Homelessness)

† Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

† Smith, Sarah (Hyndburn) (Lab)

† Snowden, Mr Andrew (Fylde) (Con)

† Uppal, Harpreet (Huddersfield) (Lab)

† West, Catherine (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)

Sara Elkhawad, Jodie Willcox, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 25 February 2026

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

14:30

[The Chair]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The usual house rules apply: phones should be switched off, please; there should be no hot drinks in the Committee Room; and if anybody who feels that spring is arriving is bold enough to want to take their jacket off, they may do so.

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The draft order was laid before the House on 14 January and, if approved by this House and the other place, will implement a proposal submitted by Elmbridge borough council, Mole Valley district council and Surrey county council for two new unitary councils—East Surrey council and West Surrey council—on a geography covering the entirety of the county of Surrey.

As I have said in the House before, we need to set local authorities on a clear path to financial sustainability. Local government reorganisation is a vital part of that journey. Having layers of councils is both ineffective and inefficient. Reorganisation is not a bureaucratic exercise or tinkering with lines on a map. With one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and reconnect people to opportunity. Residents will see more preventive care and will benefit from more financially stable councils, with combined services delivering for a larger population providing efficiencies and better value. That is why reorganisation—with stronger local councils equipped to generate economic growth, improve public services and empower communities—is a vital part of our change.

I thank colleagues in this place and councils across the country for working with the Government on this process. To this end, on 5 February 2025, councils in the 21 areas of England that still have two-tier local government, including Surrey, were invited to submit proposals for unitarisation. Two proposals for reorganisation in Surrey were taken to consultation: one for two unitary councils and one for three. Following the close of the consultation, on 28 October 2025 I announced the Secretary of State’s decision to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the two-unitaries proposal.

In reaching that decision, we considered the proposals carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information. In our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better met the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believed that it performed better against the second criterion, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services residents rely on, as well as to investing in their futures.

If Parliament approves the draft order, there will be two unitary councils for Surrey from 1 April 2027. To deliver the new unitary councils, the order requires elections to be held in May 2026 for the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils, which will assume their full powers on 1 April 2027. These elections will replace the scheduled county council and some district council elections. The elections will be on the basis of East Surrey having 36 two-member wards and West Surrey having 45 two-member wards. Subsequent elections to the unitary councils will be in 2031 and every four years thereafter. We expect the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to review the wards in time for the 2031 elections. Implementing this proposal and establishing these new unitary authorities will help deliver our vision of having stronger local councils in charge of all local services and controlling local economic powers, to improve local public services and help grow economies.

Before I outline the content of the draft order, I want to bring attention to related issues in Surrey: the level of unsupported debt in Woking, and devolution for Surrey. The Government recognise that Woking borough council holds significant and exceptional unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking council, reflecting historical capital practices at the council and the value for money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. This is a first tranche of support, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point, including following greater certainty on the rationalisation of assets in Woking. Any support will need to consider what further action can be taken locally to reduce debt and ensure value for money for the national and local taxpayer. We are committed to providing the new unitary with interim financial support, such as capitalisation support, until this process is complete.

On devolution for Surrey, there is a plan that we are taking forward. On 12 February, we set out our intention to deliver a new wave of foundation strategic authorities across England as the next step forward in the Government’s devolution agenda. In Surrey, the Government are working with partners, which will include the new unitary authorities, to establish a foundation strategic authority for the area. This will ensure that relevant functions held at the county level, such as transport and adult skills, can continue to be delivered on that geographic footprint where possible.

We have also proposed that a spatial development strategy should be produced for the Surrey geography, which would be a function held by the foundation strategic authority. The establishment of a strategic authority will be subject to the relevant statutory tests being met, and to local consent. The Government will also ensure that fire and rescue functions continue to be governed on the same geography.

We prepared the draft order having considered the information in the proposals and the representations invited from all the councils concerned on specific matters. The order provides that, on 1 April 2027, the county of Surrey and the districts of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking will be abolished. The councils of those districts and county will be wound up and dissolved. In their place, the functions will be transferred to the two new unitary authorities, East Surrey council and West Surrey council.

The draft order also covers electoral matters, which I have set out, and provides for appropriate transitional arrangements. On transitional arrangements, it places a duty on the existing councils to co-operate with each other, the shadow authorities and the shadow executives, and to create joint committees for East Surrey and West Surrey, which will be dissolved after the first meeting of their respective shadow authorities.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Minister referenced £500 million of debt repayment support off the back of Woking’s unsupported debt. That rings a bell with me; my neighbouring authority in Blackpool has £500 million of debt, while my Fylde borough council carries no debt. How much do the Government think they will pay in debt support as they look at the other councils going through this process, and have they budgeted an amount for that? Will the debt be paid off before the new authority is created, or will it be transferred to it?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is very important. Dealing with the significant debt that local authorities have built up for a range of reasons is extremely important. He will be aware that we have dealt with the special educational needs and disabilities issue in recent days. He raises his point in the context of reorganisation, and those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is very important that we get this issue right, and I look forward to discussing with him the details of the case he mentioned on many occasions, I am sure, as we move forward with Lancashire reorganisation.

I am pleased that Surrey leaders, members and officers have already commenced and implemented on a voluntary basis some of the transitional arrangements in the draft order to support delivery of the two new unitary councils. As such, the required joint committees have been set up and the implementation team agreed, and work is under way on the required implementation plan.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the Surrey councils and everyone involved in this process for their continued hard work and collaboration for local government reorganisation in Surrey. I know that this is not easy, and I reiterate my commitment to continue to support councils through the process. As part of that, we have confirmed £63 million in new funding for all 21 areas going through reorganisation, including Surrey, to help make the change.

In conclusion, through the draft order we are seeking to replace the existing local government structures in Surrey with two new unitary councils that will be financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality public services to residents. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

14:39

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.

I am sure we all recognise that when the proceedings in Committee Room 11 of the House of Commons are recorded in the annals of history, it will be noted that this was the afternoon when Surrey died, not with a bang but with a whimper, inside this very room. We are all here to abolish Surrey. There may be some in the room who felt a great enthusiasm to do that many years ago, but it is positive that we are here with what has, for a long time, been a locally led proposal for reorganisation.

I have some questions for the Minister, although I will be clear that because this is a locally led proposal that delivers benefits in the views of local leaders, the Opposition will not oppose the draft order. It is clearly disappointing that of the 31 local authorities that had their elections cancelled, we have only Surrey and its districts proceeding with local government reorganisation today. Although the draft order is very much focused on the reorganisation of the existing local authorities, there is no clarity whatsoever about the promised mayor and their responsibilities, and how they will interact with the new authorities. I have heard the frustration of many local leaders that the overall package, while acceptable, falls well short of the minimum that they were led to expect as a result of wider English local government reorganisation.

I hope the Minister will address these points in her response. She touched on the Government’s proposals to address the SEND deficit. Surrey, being a very large county with a high population of children with special educational needs and disabilities, carries a total deficit—sorry, a total debt—of around £350 million. A short time ago, the Government set out to the House that they would seek to pay off 90% of SEND deficits. Thus far, Surrey has been offered £100 million against a £350 million deficit. Clearly, that would bake in a structural problem of £250 million for the successor authorities, and it is very substantially less than the 90% that was promised before the House. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out what discussions and agreements she may have reached with her fellow Ministers in the Department for Education, given that that is one of the most critical financial challenges that will face the new authorities.

While we recognise that the draft order is specifically about Surrey, given that it sits as part of the wider devolution priority programme, it would be helpful for all of us to understand how close other local authority areas are to signing the agreements that underpin it. It would be helpful to get a sense of whether Surrey will be the only one to go through the reorganisation process. Despite the relentless pressure placed on a number of other areas, some leaders, particularly in response to what has been said about the cancellation of elections, have already withdrawn their local authorities entirely from engagement with the programme. Will this be the sole reorganisation in the programme or is it the first of many? If it is the first, when might we see some of the others?

It would be helpful for the Committee to understand what guidance the Department is providing, in the spirit of financial sustainability that the Minister spoke of, on the new higher-value property tax. Surrey is one of the areas with a higher proportion of properties that fall for consideration within that tax. We know that it is a Treasury tax that has no benefit to the local authority that collects it, but it would be helpful to understand what guidance, if any, the Department is providing to local authorities, as they engage on the very quick process of getting set up, so that they understand what they need to tell households about what the process will be and how appeals will be handled, and so that they understand their duties and responsibilities.

The Minister mentioned the additional £63 million that was announced to assist various local authorities across the country. While we know that that was very substantially less than they were promised they would receive, it would be helpful to know what guidance, if any, has been issued on the purpose of that funding. It seems very similar to the amount that those councils whose elections were to be cancelled would have spent on organising and running the elections in their areas. Clearly, many of their leaders will want to know whether this is additional funding that they can deploy towards reorganisation or simply the usual electoral grant that is provided for the running of elections that were going to be cancelled in those areas.

In summary, the Opposition will not press for a Division. We recognise that the draft order implements the will of elected leaders in Surrey, and it is very much in the spirit of our own approach to devolution. However, I must say to the Minister, as we sit here with proposals before us for only one of the authorities announced in the devolution priority programme, and with so many areas of our country feeling so let down, that this falls very far short of what was promised even to Surrey, never mind the rest of our local leaders. It would be helpful to have a clear assurance and a timeline for how the Government propose to remedy that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Chair]

Order. As is custom and practice, I shall call the Minister to respond at the end of the debate. Bear in mind that Members may intervene more than once, and on any occasion. If no Government Back Benchers wish to contribute, I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

14:46

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Roger; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks and echo her thanks to all those across Surrey who have been involved in the transitional work, whether they are officers or elected members.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that local government reorganisation is needed to make it easier for people to interact with their councils; how many of us have listened to the understandable frustration of residents who want to complain about the bin collections and the potholes, only to find they have two separate councils to contact? It is also, more seriously, the only realistic way to address the significant financial issues that councils across the country face after years of Conservative underfunding of local government.

Nowhere is the difficult reality of council finances clearer than in Surrey, where previous Conservative administrations presided over Woking’s reaching £2.5 billion of debt and Spelthorne’s reaching £1.05 billion.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Forgive me, but we have to point out that the Liberal Democrats were part of the coalition that started austerity in 2010.

[Zöe Franklin]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I was referencing specifically the debt of Woking and Spelthorne, which were under Conservative administrations.

As I was saying, we understand why the Government decided to push Surrey to go first with reorganisation. However, we and local government colleagues in Surrey are deeply concerned by the speed at which the process has been pushed through, and the lack of meaningful consultation with residents.

The decision to push ahead with a two-council model was taken in spite of residents saying quite clearly, in response to a survey, that they would prefer a three-council model, and the district councils setting out clearly that that would not be significantly more expensive and would, in fact, better represent communities and place. Local government reorganisation and devolution should be about strengthening local communities. I know that the Government want to do that—they set it out very clearly when this was originally announced by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—and yet I am afraid to say that the decision to have two councils and the double-speed process seem to be more about central cost savings than the people of Surrey.

Of course, central cost savings are not enough to rebalance Surrey’s finances. Even with an unprecedented bailout for Woking, for which we are grateful—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will mention it—the new West Surrey council, created by the draft order, is likely to start life with somewhere between £3 billion and £4.5 billion of unresolved debt, not to mention a potentially significant structural funding gap. East Surrey may face lower unresolved debt, but it will equally have a potentially significant funding gap. Ultimately, who pays the price for that? Residents, through both council tax and, potentially, the services they receive. I want to emphasise that it is vital that the Government provide sustained and adequate funding to ensure that reorganisation strengthens councils rather than destabilising them.

Turning specifically to the draft order, although Surrey’s reorganisation is the first in the Government’s devolution programme, it is not the first county to ever go through this process, so it is interesting that the Government have diverged from the precedents set in previous examples such as Cheshire and Cumbria. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister to what extent her Department considered those previous local government reorganisation precedents when deciding on the Surrey joint committee model. What specific factors led to it diverging from those precedents, or was the decision primarily shaped by central Government’s evolving policy on reorganisation?

On the formation of the two new councils, I am sure the Minister will agree that clear, vision-led leadership that puts local people first and seeks to work collaboratively and effectively with officers and political leaders involved in the creation of those authorities is absolutely crucial to a smooth transition. Article 15 of the draft order requires the formation of an implementation team led by the county council’s chief executive. Will the Minister advise what statutory or practical considerations led to the decision that that leadership must sit with the county council’s chief executive, rather than a mutually or jointly appointed lead?

What representations did the Minister’s Department seek from councils across Surrey to shape its thinking, and can that information be shared with Surrey MPs and existing council leaders? I am also interested to understand from the Minister whether there were specific risks that the Department was seeking to mitigate by mandating county-level leadership for the implementation team, particularly given the scale of service disaggregation required.

While reorganisation in Surrey is designed to create single-tier local government through the formation of East Surrey and West Surrey councils, I am glad that the draft order allows for the retention of parish councils. As the MP for Guildford, I have seen the very clear benefit of that hyper-local tier of local councils, which provide passionate, publicly accountable community leadership and deliver high-quality services and innovative ideas alongside local people.

It has therefore been disappointing that, as far as I know, there has been very limited assistance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the formation of new town and parish councils to cover the areas that do not already have them. I understand that the draft order makes provision for community boards, but I am sceptical that they would provide a similar level of community benefit or accountability that parish or town councils do, so I am very interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Speaking of accountability, will the Minister provide some clarity on the council vacancies that will arise after 30 September this year? My reading of the draft order is that no by-elections can take place after this date, unless the number of councillors on the district or county council they are a member of drops below a third of the total number of councillors—for example, in Guildford, that would be 16 councillors. Given that the new councils will not form formally until 1 April 2027, surely if significant numbers of vacancies arise, that will leave residents technically without full representation. Does the Minister believe that is democratically appropriate?

Before I close, I have two last queries to raise with the Minister. First, will she set out the timeline of the remaining steps for the draft order to come into place formally, including the date she expects it to come into force? Secondly—I recognise that this is something the Minister may wish to take away and write to me on—can she advise what considerations have been made to review the Surrey Act 1985 in the light of the changes taking place through the draft order and the associated reorganisation of Surrey into East Surrey and West Surrey?

In conclusion, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise the need for reorganisation. We do not oppose the draft order, but we urge the Minister and the Department to work closely with colleagues and officers across all tiers of local government in Surrey to ensure that they have the necessary funding and transition support so that local people see improvements to services where they are needed and council set-ups that put the needs of residents at the centre in both culture and service delivery and that are financially resilient for the future.

14:54

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

When creating new unitary councils, it is important that we take communities with us, and community identity is really important. I have raised concerns about this whole devolution and unitarisation process and how we take all the communities within the shire councils across the country with us.

On Surrey in particular, will the Minister, in her summing up, reflect on a comment made in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)? He called for the new proposed unitary authority covering his constituency to be named West Surrey and South Middlesex, rather than simply West Surrey, to ensure that we get that historical county representation and take communities with us.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the campaign of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne for the new council to be named West Surrey and South Middlesex. As I understand it, that name is also championed by—this shows my age—popular household name Russell Grant. Does my hon. Friend agree that alongside the questions we are debating about the financial sustainability of the new unitary authorities, their governance and the services they provide, it is absolutely vital that we ensure they have an identity that those who live in those areas can relate to?

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely agree. I do not think the Government have spent much time considering that fundamental flaw and how we take communities with us by getting that identity right.

The people of Spelthorne feel strongly about their historical ties to Middlesex, and I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns. Creating big new super-unitary councils by shoving multiple areas together does not make people feel included, because no one wants to end up like Birmingham. It is really important that we take communities with us.

14:56

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Surrey is the first local authority to undergo local government reorganisation under this Government’s new plan because of the catastrophic failures of local Conservative councils: Woking borough council, Surrey county council and a raft of others have significant issues. The Minister has already highlighted that the Government have agreed to an unprecedented and historic write-off of £500 million for one local authority, Woking borough council. The Government have never written off debts for one local authority on its own before, yet they are now doing so on such a large scale. The Government have said that that is the first tranche of an unprecedented debt write-off.

Moreover, the Minister has confirmed to me that the Government will provide interim financial support to the new West Surrey council, including capitalisation support and commercial support and advice to deal with the historical legacy of assets. Local authorities should keep the streets clean and maintain our parks, but they were acting like bank and property empires. Why are the Government happy for a new council, West Surrey council, to start off effectively bankrupt without the Government support that is so needed? Currently, Spelthorne borough council and Woking borough council are in intervention, with Government commissioners in post. Will those commissioners remain in situ after those councils have been abolished, or will they be transferred to West Surrey council? When will that decision be made, if the Minister cannot make it today?

My next point concerns articles 46 and 48 of the draft order and the cancelling of elections, particularly last year, for Surrey county council. The Government have decided to reschedule the elections that were previously going to be cancelled, due to their potentially unlawful nature. Can the Minister tell us what advice she and the Government have had on whether cancelling Surrey county council’s elections last year was also unlawful, before we make a decision today on formalising these provisions?

Finally, schedules 1 and 2 are about the new wards for East Surrey and West Surrey councils. I believe those wards were established for Surrey county council under the Local Government Boundary Commission for England but never implemented. Is that the case? The Minister said she assumes the Local Government Boundary Commission will review those wards before the next scheduled set of elections. Does she believe there is time for the new councils to establish themselves, to understand what council size is needed, then to undertake an 18-month review? Does she genuinely believe there is enough time for the Government to do that?

14:59

[Alison McGovern]

I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate, and I also thank the Members, particularly those from Surrey, who have engaged with me on this subject in recent months—I really appreciate their time and effort. I will try my best to respond to the points that have been made but, as the hon. Member for Guildford rightly expressed, I may need to write to her and others with more detail, particularly where they have requested specific guidance or advice that has been given previously; I think it is easier for members of the Committee if I provide that to her directly.

I will turn to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. He mentioned devolution, and I answered his question in my opening speech when I said that the next step is a foundation strategic authority. Today we are dealing with reorganisation, and the Government believe that it is right to ensure the firm foundations of the unitary authorities before we proceed, but we are determined none the less to move forward with devolution for England.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the SEND deficit; I was interested in the specific figures he mentioned, as I do not believe that any firm numbers have been confirmed yet. I am in daily contact with DFE Ministers and others, so I am sure we can correspond on that matter.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister take a brief intervention?

[Alison McGovern]

I can, if my hon. Friend really wants to intervene. [Laughter.]

[Anna Dixon]

No—I withdraw.

[Alison McGovern]

I will happily correspond with any Members interested in that subject, but nothing has been confirmed yet. Let us try to make progress on that; it is very important for all local authorities.

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner asked whether this will be the sole reorganisation, and the answer is no. We are making progress on the next waves of reorganisation, and there will be more for the Government to say on that very shortly. He also asked for guidance on the new high-value council tax surcharge that we have introduced, as well as the £63 million extra in capability funding. We have been in consultation and collaboration with councils and the Local Government Association on both those matters, as we have been throughout all of reorganisation. I will happily provide the hon. Gentleman with more detail on that, if he wishes.

The hon. Member for Guildford asked about precedents from other reorganisations. Of course, we take into account what has happened previously, and the criteria against which decisions are judged are set out in the invitation letter. She asked about the county council leadership, and I can write to her with details of that process, if she would like. She also asked some detailed questions on risks and the technicalities of vacancies and by-elections, and I will again write to her with the precise details.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne asked about the name and our fellow Member’s campaign. Following oral questions, I will engage with the Member concerned, so he need have no fear—we will be listening to his points.

Finally, the hon. Member for Woking asked about the situation that he rightly described as incredibly serious—it is much more serious for any council to have got into that position than the attention that it is often given would suggest. I will write to him on the next steps with the commissioners, how it affects the whole best value process and the background of that. He also asked about the specifics of cancelling elections last year. I do not think that has any relevance, but I will write to him to confirm that, as I think he asked a specific point about advice.

I say to Surrey Members, through the Committee, that there are significant financial challenges here, and I do not underestimate how important it is to get this right to ensure that services can continue to be delivered for residents. I look forward to working together with Surrey Members to get those decisions right, so that we all get this process to the best place it can be.

The Government’s ambition is to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform to make stronger local councils that are empowered across local services and equipped to get economic growth going, improve services and empower communities. The draft order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey, and it will help ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver for residents. These are the benefits that the draft order can bestow on the people and businesses of Surrey, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[The Chair]

Before I put the Question, I have been discussing with m’learned friend, the Clerk, the situation that arises. The Minister has, as ever, entirely courteously and properly indicated that she will respond in writing to some of the questions that have been asked, and it is not my place to interfere with the process at all. However, while the draft order relates to Surrey, it is clear that there are potentially wider implications that might be of interest. I gently suggest that, if she chose, at the very least, to copy the two Opposition Front Benchers into her letters, that would probably be hugely appreciated.

[Alison McGovern]

As you might expect, Sir Roger, I entirely agree with your suggestion, and I would be very happy to do so.

[The Chair]

As ever, courteous—thank you very much indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026.

15:06

Committee rose.

Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026 Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Emma Lewell

† Caliskan, Nesil (Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household)

† Charters, Mr Luke (York Outer) (Lab)

Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Davies, Gareth (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)

† Dearden, Kate (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade)

† Griffiths, Alison (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)

† Hamilton, Paulette (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)

Jogee, Adam (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)

† Mak, Alan (Havant) (Con)

† Opher, Dr Simon (Stroud) (Lab)

† Paul, Rebecca (Reigate) (Con)

† Reynolds, Mr Joshua (Maidenhead) (LD)

† Riddell-Carpenter, Jenny (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)

† Robertson, Dave (Lichfield) (Lab)

† Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)

† Stringer, Graham (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)

† Yasin, Mohammad (Bedford) (Lab)

Emma Elson, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 25 February 2026

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026

14:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.

[Kate Dearden]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The instruments were laid before the House on 26 January and relate to the alternative dispute resolution chapter in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which received Royal Assent in May 2024. The Act repeals the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 and replaces them with a strengthened framework in chapter 4 of part 4 of the Act.

In most instances, disputes between businesses and consumers can be resolved without the need for any formal action, but when consumers and the trader cannot come to a solution, ADR is an effective means of securing redress for the consumer without resorting to litigation. All ADR providers are independent third parties, offering dispute resolution that is usually less confrontational for the consumers and businesses involved, but not all ADR providers have the same accreditations and standards, so consumers can experience inconsistent quality.

For ADR to be effective, it must be of high quality and meet certain standards. The Act aims to strengthen the quality of ADR available to consumers by introducing a mandatory accreditation framework for ADR providers for consumer contract disputes. That will provide a robust set of accreditation criteria to assess an ADR provider’s expertise, transparency, independence and accessibility before being accredited, and ongoing monitoring and review to ensure that accredited ADR providers continue to meet those high standards.

The Act includes the power to revoke, suspend or limit accreditation, or impose further conditions if a provider is found to be non-compliant. The intention of mandating accreditation of ADR providers is to strengthen the ADR framework in the UK. The Government believe that the changes will help to deliver a trustworthy, timely and fair service that consumers and businesses can trust to resolve consumer disputes, with improved oversight to monitor standards and ensure consistency.

Section 307 of the Act allows certain ADR functions to be conferred on another person. The regulations confer on the Chartered Trading Standards Institute responsibility for managing the provision of ADR in consumer contract disputes in non-regulated sectors, including the functions of accreditation, monitoring and reporting on the operation and effectiveness of ADR provision. That includes upholding the standards of ADR providers in the UK through powers to compel or sanction ADR providers to improve performance in the event that they do not meet their obligations.

The regulations also require the CTSI to prepare quarterly and annual reports for the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. The reports will contain information and metrics on the performance of the CTSI, ADR providers and the ADR landscape in the UK to ensure accountability and transparency, and to enable the Secretary of State to maintain oversight of the operation of the system of accreditation and the provision and quality of ADR carried out in the UK. The decision to confer these functions on the CTSI has been taken in recognition of its authority, track record and expertise in that area, including its long-standing and constructive relationships with ADR providers.

Separately, the regulations make amendments to primary and secondary legislation in consequence of chapter four of part 4 of the Act coming into force and the 2015 regulations. Those consequential changes deal with redundant references to the 2015 ADR regulations and, in some cases, replace them with a reference to chapter 4 of part 4 of the Act. They do not materially change the policy or the effect of the underlying law, but simply keep the statute book up to date in the usual way.

The intention of both sets of regulations, as I hope I have made clear, is to support and strengthen the ADR framework in the UK, putting it on a stronger footing that provides a consistent, trustworthy, timely and fair service that consumers and businesses can trust to resolve disputes amicably, with improved oversight to monitor service standards. I invite hon. Members to support the instruments, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

14:35

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. Alternative dispute resolution is intended to provide a low-cost, efficient alternative for resolving disputes between consumers and businesses. I thank the Minister for setting out what these regulations seek to achieve.

The regulations follow various pieces of work that were carried out by both Conservative and Labour Governments over many years, with the overall goal of securing a fair deal for consumers and a fair operating environment for businesses. Although the Opposition of course remain supportive of the goals of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, we in this place should always be mindful of the adverse impacts of introducing any kind of red tape on British businesses, no matter how well-intentioned it might be.

As the Committee would expect from the official Opposition, we have a few questions to probe some of the elements in these measures. First, will the Minister set out the current status of the ADR provider sector, and how the Government see the sector changing as a direct result of the regulations? More specifically, how many ADR providers are there in the UK, and how many of those are currently unaccredited and would therefore be impacted by these measures? Do the Government expect the number of ADR providers to reduce as a result of the requirements? If so, what impact does the Minister believe that that reduction will have on consumers and businesses that use those services?

Finally, what is the Government’s view of the impact the regulations will have on those who operate ADR businesses? The explanatory memorandum to the regulations states that the Government expect there to be no impact on businesses, and that

“the instrument does not impose regulatory obligations”.

However, that is exactly what is being done today, so that looks like an error. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether that is an error, and explained the language in the explanatory memorandum for the benefit of the Committee.

14:38

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and his support for the Act and the regulations we are considering. The regulations place the CTSI on a statutory footing. I alluded in my introductory remarks to the role of the Secretary of State and the accreditation determinations, monitoring, enforcement and information sharing under the Act, as well as the mandatory and accreditation requirements.

In terms of exempt ADR providers, to avoid duplicated regulatory provision, the Act exempts ADR provision under several ombudsmen and equivalent schemes, which are already regulated under other legislation. Those are either statutory bodies performing statutory functions or redress schemes regulated by other bodies under other legislation. If a sector already has its own dispute resolution system, these new ADR rules will not apply and that avoids doubling up regulations and ensures that businesses follow only one set of rules, with no confusion about who is responsible.

There are also some statutory bodies that, to an extent, carry out ADR and it is not considered appropriate to regulate them as their remit does not cover consumer contracts as defined in chapter 4 of part 4 of the 2024 Act.

I am happy to follow up the hon. Member’s point about the specifics on the statistics afterwards if he requires any further information. On the effect of schedule 25 listing exempt ADR providers, that is quite clear, but again, if he would like further information on how we are avoiding duplication, I am happy to provide it as there is a power to add further exemptions in future, which might be used where it is more appropriate to regulate ADR elsewhere.

The important point about the legislation is that it will ensure that ADR is much easier for consumers and businesses. That is really important to reflect on. What ADR can provide in terms of support and streamlining for businesses and consumers is significant, and will offer a cheaper and faster alternative for consumers and businesses seeking to resolve disputes, compared with making a claim to the courts. This framework gives the flexibility to update those standards over time. That is important and provides a foundation for considering further reforms if required.

[Gareth Davies]

I totally understand that the Minister might not have the information to hand right now, so will she commit to writing to me?

[Kate Dearden]

Yes, I am happy to provide that follow-up information.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT DIGITAL MARKETS, COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS ACT 2024 (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026—(Kate Dearden.)

14:39

Committee rose.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 25 February 2026

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

Student Loan Repayment Plans

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered student loan repayment plans.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Students across the country have been protesting the unfairness of the student loan system—a system that millions of young people believe is rigged against them and in urgent need of reform. On that I suspect there will be broad agreement—at least I hope so. But this system did not appear by accident. It was designed in 2012, expanded thereafter and defended for over a decade by people who now criticise it.

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

I was not intending to intervene, but I am afraid what the hon. Member said is not correct. Tuition fees were first introduced by the Conservative Government in the early 1990s and then by the Labour Government in 1998, with top-up fees in 2004. Will he accept that and then proceed?

[Jas Athwal]

I will expand on this as I go on, because I think everybody is involved, and I shall distribute responsibility fairly across the board.

Since 2012, around 5.8 million people have taken out plan 2 loans. They were told that university was the gateway to opportunity, that it would pay for itself and that repayments would be manageable. Instead, many now feel that they signed up at 18 years of age with no financial advice and no lived experience to a 30-year financial commitment where the rules can be changed unilaterally, arbitrarily and without consultation.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Graduates are making massive repayments—9% of their earnings. As he says, they will be paying this debt off for decades, and having to do that is breaking a whole generation. As a society, it is time we had a serious discussion about cancelling student debt, which would provide immediate relief to young people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should instead fund higher education through progressive taxation?

[Jas Athwal]

I think the whole system needs to be reformed. Tinkering around the edges is not going to cut it any more; we are looking for a much fairer system.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have spoken to the students’ unions at York St John University and the University of York, as well as many graduates, who have told me that a student loan does not even cover the cost of living in our city because housing is so expensive—not only does it put people in debt for the future, but it does not even meet the need now. I believe progressive taxation is the way forward, so that the more someone earns, the more they can pay back into the system, to invest in education, which benefits us all.

[Jas Athwal]

I agree that we need to reform this system and look at other ways of doing it. That is the ethos of my ask today: for the Minister to go away and really think about this. I do not want to look at the whole process in this debate, but I want to ensure the Minister is aware of the feeling in this room that we must look at the whole system.

Let us remember how we got here, because I have been reminded of a bit of history. The Conservative party trebled tuition fees to £9,000 in 2012, and the Liberal Democrats, having pledged to oppose any increase, walked through the Lobby to make it happen. This system was not inevitable; it was legislated for. Let me be clear: I do believe that those who benefit from education should contribute to its cost, but fairly, and those who earn more should repay more, fairly. That principle of fairness needs to be the golden thread going through the whole system.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I am on plan 2, which is a dog’s dinner of a system. Like me, is my hon. Friend not surprised that the architects of this Frankenstein’s mess are not even here for the debate? Our generation is picking up the cost of their mess.

[Jas Athwal]

I agree with my hon. Friend; we must be clear where the blame lies. It is not fair that a system created by one party and enabled by another is now presided over by my own party, who will clear up the mess. The system burdens millions, such as my hon. Friend, with balances they may never clear. It follows the letter of the principle while violating its spirit. Many believe that the plan 2 loans system is predatory, regressive and kills graduates’ ambitions with stressful spiralling interest.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I have enjoyed the perks of being an elder millennial, graduating in 2004 as a plan 1 student. The retrospective changing of the threshold, burdening plan 2 students with debt, is unbelievable, as is linking interest to the retail price index not the consumer prices index, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has discredited. Does my hon. Friend agree that addressing fundamental fairness means changing those structural factors that came in after people signed up to the agreements?

[Jas Athwal]

I will later make the point about the structural imbalance that needs to be corrected. This situation is not just stressful for students; it should also concern the Treasury. Under plan 2 loans, graduates repay 9% of income above £28,470 this tax year. From April, that threshold rises to £29,385. Interest accrues from the moment the first payment is made to a university, long before students have graduated.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by a constituent who graduated in 2021 and has already accrued more than £6,000 of interest on her initial debt of £41,000. I was one of the lucky ones: as the first in my low-income family to go to university, I had tuition and maintenance paid. That was a great opportunity and leveller and, without it, I do not think I would be here now. Does the hon. Member agree that students and graduates have been at the mercy of arbitrary decision making for far too long, and that everyone deserves the right to pursue higher education, regardless of their class or generation?

[Jas Athwal]

I absolutely agree. This is so important, which is why we are here to look at the system.

Interest accrues from the moment the first payment is made, and it is linked to RPI, with the current maximum rate of 6.2%. Here is the stark reality: in 2024-25, plan 2 loans accrued £12.6 billion in interest, while borrowers repaid just £2.8 billion. In a single year, interest added to balances was more than four times the amount repaid. That is not a slogan but official data.

When graduates open their statements and see their balances rising, despite working hard and repaying every month, their anger is not ideological—it is rational. Students finishing university in 2024 entered repayment with an average debt of £53,000. That is the price tag now attached to aspiration. That burden falls unevenly, as those from wealthier families often avoid large maintenance borrowing and high earners quickly clear balances and reduce interest exposure. But the vast majority of middle earners—our nurses, teachers, engineers and small business employees—repay for decades, and most will never clear the balance.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this issue disproportionately affects women and those who have caring responsibilities? I have a constituent who was successfully paying down her student loan. She took a few years off to have children, and when she came back to the employed world, her bill was bigger than when she left university, so the starting point was higher. She knows that she will be paying it off until she retires. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an unacceptable situation to be in?

[Jas Athwal]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I wholeheartedly agree that the system is rigged against working women who take time out to have children, so we need to make it fairer.

A graduate constituent of mine told me that she was the first woman in her entire lineage to go to university and get a degree, but she feels that that proud moment in her family’s history has been taken away from her by the regret that she has accrued a huge debt. The issue is not an isolated to Ilford South. As we hear from hon. Members across the Chamber, all across the country a whole generation feels bled dry by a system that keeps taking from them.

Another constituent told me that he left university with £64,000 of debt. Four years of repayment later, he now owes more than £99,000. This is not shared sacrifice, but a structural imbalance. We often speak of aspiration, but aspiration cannot thrive under compound interest designed in Whitehall. The repayment threshold sits only a few thousand pounds above the full-time minimum wage. Repayments begin early, just as graduates are finding their feet. People face income tax, national insurance, pension contributions, council tax and rent or, for those who are fortunate enough, a mortgage—and then we add 9%. For many, this does not feel like a loan; it functions as a long-term graduate tax, but without the honesty of calling it one.

From April 2027, the repayment threshold is scheduled to be frozen for three years. Freezing thresholds during wage growth means that more income falls into repayment. It increases lifetime contributions and tightens the squeeze on those who are already stretched. Yes, it improves Treasury forecasts, but is that really the motivation? Fairness is not measured only by spreadsheets. Outstanding student loan balances are projected to reach £500 billion in today’s prices by the mid-2040s.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such a powerful speech. Does he share my concern that one of the other consequences of these changes might be that fewer young people decide to go to university? That would obviously be to their detriment, but it would also be to the detriment of society in more general terms.

[Jas Athwal]

I agree, and I will make that point shortly. This is not only a graduate issue, but a fiscal time bomb. In 2024-25, write-offs recorded in Department for Education accounts rose to £310 million, up from £121 million the year before. The longer this system continues without reform, the more unstable it becomes for borrowers and Governments alike, and then where is the ambition? Every pound earned above the threshold attracts a 9% deduction, on top of existing taxes. The marginal deduction rate that many middle earners face is far higher than the headline rate suggests. Perception shapes behaviour. If progression feels like it is punished, and if promotion feels like a heavy deduction rather than a reward, morale suffers.

This generation did what we asked of them—they studied, trained and qualified—but many feel let down and misled. So what must change? Not the principle of contribution, because their education has to be paid for, but the fairness of the design. The Minister and the Government urgently need to reconsider the following, and I hope hon. Friends will add to this list: first, whether freezing thresholds is justified in a cost of living crisis; secondly, whether to raise the threshold to alleviate hardship and make the system fairer; thirdly, whether RPI remains an appropriate benchmark for interest calculations; and fourthly, whether a 9% repayment rate disproportionately affects middle earners and should be reduced.

Perhaps it should be a combination of all of the above, because tinkering at the edges will not suffice. Neither will knee-jerk reactions: some of the proposals I have heard, such as cutting the interest rate without addressing the structural flaws, offers only headlines, not solutions. Those who designed the system cannot now pretend they bear no responsibility for its consequences, when they had 12 years to get it right. Equally, suggesting we cut certain courses, as some have suggested, simply because the graduates on those courses repay less, confuses economic return with social value.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. On the point about some courses being preferable to others, does he agree that it is vital that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have access to the creative industries and are able to pursue careers in those industries if they want to, and that it is shameful to suggest that those courses are somehow worth less than others?

[Jas Athwal]

I wholeheartedly agree. Some of those suggestions have made me cringe. University enriches our society, expands horizons and fuels innovation, and today’s young people deserve to have the same choices as those who now seek to restrict them. It is our duty to reform a flawed system that is unfairly trapping millions of young people in debt. Student loans were presented as an investment; for too many, they now feel like a sentence.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and he has set out comprehensively the issues that we look to the Government to examine. Does he agree that the Government have begun to take very welcome steps in reforming student finance, in particular the changes to the plan 5 loan system? We are looking for the same consideration when it comes to plan 2 loans.

[Jas Athwal]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree that the Government need to be applauded for doing a lot of things right, but we are asking them to go further. For many, especially those on plan 2, their loan feels like a sentence—a sentence that lasts 30 years, a sentence that previous generations never faced on this scale, and a sentence that shapes life decisions, from postgraduate study to starting a family.

We cannot build a confident, dynamic economy on graduates’ unrest—once quiet, but now hard to ignore. We cannot speak of opportunity while allowing aspiration to accumulate compound interest. We say that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the greatest burden, so let us ensure that that principle applies here. Graduates are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness and consistency. This House should listen and act now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. As Members can see, this is a very popular debate, so there will be a two-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions.

09:48

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate. The current student loans regime has transformed halls of residence into a student “Hotel California”, where folks can check out—they can graduate—but can never leave. They can pay exactly what is asked of them month on month, yet end up with a total bill that gets bigger year on year.

It was the prospect of a greater bill burden that fired me up, as a student in 2010, to stand in Parliament Square and oppose some of the changes that were coming through, but the effect of those reforms has been compounded by two key changes on the watches of subsequent Governments. The first is the Conservatives’ unilateral removal of maintenance grants, which forced students to borrow even more to live. Indeed, the proportion of students taking out only a tuition fee loan, and no maintenance loan, is the highest in a decade. That means either that the student population is now skewed towards those who are more privileged, which calls into question its inclusion, or that less well-off students are going without the maintenance support that they need and deserve. Either outcome would be a shameful reality.

The second key change, which the hon. Member for Ilford South highlighted, is the freezing of the repayment threshold—a student stealth tax that will make it even more difficult for students to live going forward. That is why I call on the Government to revisit the freezing of the threshold and to reinstate maintenance grants for students.

09:51

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for his powerful opening speech and for securing the debate. I declare an interest as a mum of two students who are currently in higher education.

I want to acknowledge the strength of feeling among graduates with plan 2 loans and the material impact that current loan terms and the planned freeze in the repayment threshold are having on them. The generation of graduates with plan 2 loans studied between September 2012 and July 2023. They are the same generation who have found themselves increasingly locked out of the housing market, unable to put down roots in their community, and squeezed by the cost of living and the cost of renting in particular. Plan 2 loans add unfairly to those cost pressures.

If the promise of education is that if you work hard, do well and get a good degree, then that degree will be a passport to increased earnings and a good standard of living, that promise is not being fulfilled for far too many in the plan 2 generation. I believe there is an urgent need to look at the value for money of student loans. We need to do that for the plan 2 generation, but also for the generation of young people who are considering university. We need to recognise that students from the lowest-income backgrounds are most likely to be deterred by the perception that university is not good value for money because of the impact of the loans.

I share concerns about unilateral changes in payment terms; that does not meet the standard of fairness that we would expect from any other lender. I share concerns that loans are linked to a measure of inflation that the Government do not use as the basis for other calculations.

However, in short, the solutions are not straightforward. The Education Committee is currently undertaking work on the funding of higher education institutions, and its headline conclusion is that they are very fragile. The proposals made by the Leader of the Opposition this week are entirely untenable, and I reject in particular her war on arts degrees, which will always have an important place in our education landscape.

09:53

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare an interest: I have two children at university who both have student loans.

I am proud to represent part of the city of Chester, home to the University of Chester, which is a fantastic asset to our city and region. Young people are today’s innovators and tomorrow’s entrepreneurs—our future high-skilled workforce, our teachers, doctors and nurses—and the foundations that we set today, and the start that we give them, are an investment in the future of our country and economy. That is why the student finance system matters so much.

Many young people in Chester South and Eddisbury are struggling under the weight of student finance. I cannot go into all the emails I have received, but one young constituent from a low-income family told me that she had no choice but to take out a loan to pursue her dream of working in education. She does not expect to clear that loan in her lifetime, and she says that because of the threshold freeze, she will simply pay more each month without ever making a meaningful dent in it.

By freezing the plan 2 repayment threshold until 2027, the Chancellor has chosen to increase the burden on young graduates at a time when the economic odds are already stacked against them. That is why we need a new deal for young people, as the Conservatives have set out: reducing interest rates on plan 2 loans so that balances never rise faster than RPI, ensuring that students and taxpayers are not burdened by low-value courses, and increasing apprenticeship funding to expand high-quality vocational routes, such as those offered at the excellent Reaseheath college in my constituency. If we are serious about growth, opportunity and intergenerational fairness, we must ensure that the system designed to invest in young people does not instead hold them back.

09:59

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this important debate.

The debate is timely, as I have recently been working on a case for my constituent Melissa, who has come to Parliament today to hear the debate. When I posted on social media about Melissa’s case, with her permission, it caught a wave of people in similar situations. I have now been contacted by more than 700 individuals, all with similar horror stories about the level of debt they have on plan 2.

Melissa left university with a debt of £37,000 and has been paying off her loan every month since 2022, yet despite four years of payments, the amount she owes has increased by tens of thousands, to £60,000. Melissa’s case is by no means the worst example that I have received. Another constituent, Lucy, left university with nearly £28,000 to pay back, and her debt now stands at a huge £54,000. Chloe—one of our brightest science, technology, engineering and maths students—attended Newcastle University to study physics, and then went straight into full-time employment, starting to pay off her student loans immediately. Despite that, the amount she owes has increased by £14,000.

Education is a right, not a privilege. It is not okay that we are pricing people out of education. Quite frankly, the amount of interest being charged every year is a scandal and a rip-off. What will the Government do to help to eliminate student debt? Considering the thresholds is all very well, but I think we should just abolish tuition fees altogether, to boost social mobility and benefit society.

09:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for setting the scene. Two minutes—my goodness! How can I get everything into two minutes?

I think of the many graduates who work at Asda— a job they land because there are no full-time entry-level graduate jobs for them. I am aware that student loan repayments are not done in the same way in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom; Northern Ireland borrowers primarily use plan 1, whereas England has a different system. However, cost of living difficulties mean that borrowers find themselves with problems even if they have what once would have been classified as good jobs.

Because of the time limit, I will give only one example: a junior doctor who, despite getting all As at GCSE and A-level, could not get into Queen’s medical school in Belfast, but was accepted by Edinburgh medical school. That meant a compulsory additional degree within the degree, and an extra year. This clever young lady is now home and working in the trust, and she sent me a copy of her payslip, showing her crippling student loan repayment. She also sent me a copy of her student loan debt—and my breath left my body. This year, she will finish her foundation year 2, and she is not guaranteed a position, so she takes all the on-call hours and locum hours and lives her life worried about her patients and about her debt. She is 25 years of age, living in her sister’s spare room, working 70 hours a week, with a debt of £100,000. Something is wrong with this system. I ask the Minister to consider that.

Our student fees are £4,500, plus maintenance. We need to look at this system. It penalises home students and forces young people to leave their local areas for places that do not have free student accommodation, where they have to pay for someone else’s mortgage over the next 26 years of their lives while paying their own mortgage. No working person should begin their financial journey mired in debt because their local university could not take them and they had to move to a new part of the country and pay for life there. We can do better than that. I look to the Minister to make sure that he does.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to one and a half minutes.

09:59

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate, which at its core is about fairness. In my Sheffield Central constituency, which is home to two major universities, I regularly meet with students and graduates, whether in surgeries or through meetings with student officers. One core theme that they have relayed to me is that they feel anxious and frustrated, and they rightly ask why the system is stacked against them.

I will read a few examples that constituents have given me. One said:

“I started university in 2012 and since graduating have had a salary of between £30,000-£40,000 for much of that time. Despite this, since graduating my loan has increased from ~£45,000 to nearly £80,000”.

Another said:

“I borrowed £76,829. I repay £3,700 every year. But my interest rises by £7,000. Paying it off within 30 years is impossible. It makes me wish I hadn’t gone.”

When education makes young people regret participation, something is profoundly wrong.

We are told that the system is progressive because repayments are income contingent, but if we look closer, higher earners clear their debt quickly, escape decades of interest and move on. The thought of such staggering debt will likely put off working-class students from going to university. That is not progressive; it is regressive, and it will entrench inequality rather than reduce it. I say to the Minister: we must cap interest on all student loans at CPI and restore fair repayment thresholds.

10:00

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing this debate.

I would like to use my limited time to tell the stories of two of my constituents. One of them is Rebecca, a health worker who is an NHS band 6 employee. For those unfamiliar with NHS pay bands, as I am, that is between £38,600 and £46,600 a year. She has raised concerns about the impact that her student loan repayments are having on her finances and day-to-day life. She says:

“It feels like a lifelong debt that’s impossible to reduce…Looking at the bigger picture is even more frustrating. Between 2019 and 2025, almost £18,000 in interest has been added to my loan, despite the fact that I’ve been working and making repayments the entire time. It feels like I’m being penalised for staying in steady employment rather than making real progress on the debt…I worry that this system will discourage people from training for essential professions like healthcare.”

Another constituent, Alexandra, works at Culham Campus, a site for fusion energy research and many other industries. She says that,

“completing a PhD was absolutely necessary to pursue my career in essential scientific research…As they stand, those who choose to embark on a PhD are disadvantaged further by committing to 3-6 years of time in which they will be unable to pay off student loans due to PhD stipends falling under the repayment limit, I am likely to pay significantly more towards my student loan than was originally billed before it is written off purely because as an undergraduate I came from a low income family and I received the full subsistence and fee loans.”

10:02

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this important debate.

We have a fundamental question to answer: is our higher education system set up to give young people, regardless of background, a fair chance? In a constituency such as Bournemouth West, part of an area with three universities and tens of thousands of students, I have seen at first hand how multiple changes to higher education funding consistently fall on students from low-income backgrounds—constraining them not by ability but by financial anxiety.

We know that plan 2 loans have interest rates that mean balances balloon, and some students will never pay them back, and that graduates feel that they were mis-sold, but we have not yet discussed the impact that this is having on the job market. It is distorting behaviour, with graduate applicants asking for salaries below the repayment threshold to not trigger deductions. That is not how we should be shaping an ambitious economy in the modern world.

In letters and emails from students, they ask for three things: that there be no further real-terms freezes to the repayment threshold, that interest rates be linked to CPI, and that there be a more progressive pay structure. Young people are calling for a fair and predictable settlement that reflects the contribution that they will make to our economy and society for decades to come. The least we can offer them is that clarity.

If we truly believe that every young person, regardless of background, should be able to pursue higher education, we need to build financial architecture that does not undermine but supports that ambition.

10:03

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I have heard from many young constituents who are frankly pretty despondent right now. They have endured a global pandemic. They are grappling with the cost of living crisis, a housing crisis and difficulties in securing entry-level jobs. On top of that, they carry the incredible burden of large student loans, made ever larger by high interest rates and a frozen repayment threshold, leaving many feeling they will never be free of it. We need to acknowledge that an entire generation of graduates on plan 2 student loans have essentially been mis-sold their loans. One constituent told me about their son who, despite repaying his loan for five years, has seen his balance increased by 33%. How can that possibly be justified?

The cumulative impact of successive changes to the terms and conditions of student loans in England has fundamentally undermined confidence in the system. The threshold has been moved around haphazardly by successive Governments, being regularly frozen, including by the current Government. Many students were told that this was manageable debt, but in reality it has developed into something totally different from the graduate contribution system it was intended to be. The repayment threshold was supposed to rise with earnings. The previous Conservative Government’s decision to freeze it was a needless move to take money away from graduates. It is a stealth tax.

According to the money-saving expert Martin Lewis, the most direct thing that would help all students would be not to freeze the repayment threshold. Will the Minister look at that as a matter of urgency? Student loans also impact the ability to get a mortgage because they are used for affordability calculations. There must be an immediate reversal of the repayment threshold freeze, and RPI should no longer be used to calculate interest.

10:05

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this debate.

The University of Nottingham is on my doorstep, so many graduates who make their home in Beeston and Bramcote in my constituency. One of my constituents said:

“My salary is never going to go up at the same rate as the interest, you have to pay back huge amounts every month to match the interest being charged.”

Another said that they took out a loan of £37,000 and yet,

“since graduating 8 years ago, I have paid back just £600 and accrued £18,000 in interest. Because until a year ago, my salary did not meet the repayment threshold. This means that I currently owe £55,000. Bearing in mind, I have been working the whole time since graduating.”

She said to me, “It is ludicrous,” and I agree.

Students should never end up in a position where their monthly repayments are significantly less than the interest they accrue. The inequalities in the system are stark. Borrowers only repay student loans while they are earning, but the interest will accrue nevertheless. That puts an unfair penalty on those who work part time, take breaks for maternity or are carers. The message from my constituents in Broxtowe is loud and clear: “This simply isn’t fair.” I call upon the Government to make urgent reforms.

10:07

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

At the start of this debate, there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing as to who is to blame for this problem—was it the Conservatives, or the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition? I do not think that is the point. The point is that there is a problem, and we now have a Government who have the ability to deal with it.

The second point—this word has been used time and again in this debate—is about whether the system is “fair”. I know the Chancellor believes that the arrangements in place are reasonable and fair, and I think that is wrong. It is not fair that people take out loans and then find that the terms of those loans are changed. It is not fair that, as people earn more money, the terms of the loans are changed. No building society would charge someone more for their mortgage if they got a bit richer; they enter into an agreement and the terms are there. The third point is that it is not fair that, in some cases, because of the freezing of thresholds, many people who are on low incomes are now dragged into the system of repayment, and pay up to 9%.

A number of things have been suggested. The first is that thresholds should not be frozen, but should increase with inflation. The second is that interest rates should be clear and linked to CPI. The third is that repayment should be set at a reasonable level of 5%—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order.

10:08

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I declare an interest: I have three sons who have huge debts from their time in education. I would be surprised if more than one of them pays off their debt in full, but that would be in line with the roughly one third of all students who fully repay their loans. Does that not tell us on its own that the system is not working? Would any bank be in business if only one third of its customers repaid their loans? We have a system of loans that most people will not be able to repay. Should that not tell us something about the balance not being right?

I want to make a broader point about how we can also improve the system for the benefit of the whole country. We should consider whether those who serve our public services should have their loans repaid by the state while they continue in the service of it. After all, if the justification for repayment of loans is that the individual has benefited financially from their university education, should there not also be an argument that if the state is benefiting from that individual’s education by the service they provide, the state should also bear some responsibility for the repayment? I appreciate that that would be a significant rewiring of the system, but I have no doubt that it would help with recruitment and retention, particularly in the NHS. It may even stem the tide of doctors and nurses leaving these shores to work elsewhere, and it would be a way for us to say, “As a thank you for your public service, we will help repay the loans.”

Of course, as we have heard, the immediate challenge is to end the retrospective moving of the goalposts and the punitive interest rates for people who, do not forget, are trying to save for a home, start a family or even save for retirement. Under this system, that is impossible.

10:10

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Fundamentally, I think it is right that graduates contribute to their education. I did so via a plan 1 loan and a subsequent postgraduate loan, too. For all its faults, that system ensured that universities could accommodate record numbers of people like me, who were the first in their family to go to university. But we are now at a point where people who pay an additional 9% of their income above a certain threshold question why the amount seems to only ever increase. The introduction of plan 2 loans and the trebling of tuition fees to £9,000 created a system where those who had to rely on it were essentially paying a graduate tax in all but name, while those who could afford to pay the tuition fees up front were able to avoid that burden altogether.

At the time that the loans were introduced, I argued that a graduate tax would be a much more progressive way of funding university: it would resolve that inherent unfairness of a graduate tax for some but not for all. However, the transition to such a system now would be costly and difficult, and would do nothing for those graduates who now have record amounts of debt. That is why the time is right to have the conversation about debt, interest, repayment thresholds and loan terms. Although tinkering with those things is definitely easier than wholesale replacement, they all come with costs, which have to be part of any conversation. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that now is the time for a genuine, thorough discussion in Government about the need to support graduates in such a position.

10:11

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing this crucial debate. I want to start by saying, on the record, that I do not agree with tuition fees, and I do not support the decision to raise them. If there is still an MP in this House who voted to bring in tuition fees in the first place, they should be deeply ashamed of themselves for pulling up the drawbridge behind them.

As someone whose entire undergraduate degree cost less than what a current student can expect to pay for a year, it is only right that I advocate for current and future students. Like so many, I have had a number of constituents on plan 2 student loans contact me to say that they have been working ever since they left university, and have consistently made payments to their loan, yet they have not once seen their total loan decrease; in fact, they have increased by substantial amounts. That is happening to so many young people. Many of us have staff in that situation.

Some are calling it a graduate tax, and others are even using that phrase to assert the fairness of this loan system, but that is, frankly, an insult to graduates who are already paying taxes on their income. The terms of the plan 2 student loan make it more comparable to something that a loan shark would offer. It is not a graduate tax, and it is just not fair. As for the decision to freeze the repayment threshold, it is a one-sided breach of contractual terms. We need a more equitable approach to higher education funding overall.

10:13

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing the debate. This is an issue of intergenerational inequality, of which we should all be ashamed. My university cohort and I graduated without debt. We entered a housing market that was accessible and over time we accumulated assets, property, pensions, savings and security. I served 40 years in the NHS, until that was interrupted by an astonishing election result. Now, the landscape has changed. I see the difference in my own family. My two older children studied under plan 1; their repayment terms were short and less onerous. My youngest fell under plan 2 and she has a huge debt, which is growing despite the fact that she is paying it off.

This debate is about aspiration, which, as my hon. Friend said, simply cannot compete with compound interest. It is about whether young people begin adult life with opportunity, or decades of liability. Let us sort this out. Let us increase the repayment thresholds, ensure that interest does not outpace realistic repayment capacity, explore tax-deductible repayments similar to pensions, and improve transparency so that students fully understand what they are signing up for. Education should expand opportunity, not entrench intergenerational unfairness. That is a reality we must confront, and a duty we must uphold, as we deal with this utterly iniquitous system.

10:14

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

It is a pleasure, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this debate. I was a beneficiary of free higher education under Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, but I must begin with the stark reality that today’s graduates face. The average debt on graduation in England is around £53,000, and many leave owing £70,000, £80,000 or even £100,000, with postgraduate borrowing included. That is a mortgage-sized burden placed on young adults before they have saved a deposit, started a family or built financial security, and even before repayment thresholds and interest are factored in.

We were warned: plan 2 and plan 5 are not just loans, but lifetime surcharges, and that is because of cumulative political choices: the introduction of fees in 1998, variable fees in 2004, the loan book sale, the high-fee and high-interest plan 2, and now plan 5’s lower thresholds. Higher education is a public good, yet we have built a system that assumes that every degree guarantees high earnings and prices them accordingly, despite the fact that many do not enjoy those earnings. We must rethink, and be honest that a system built over 28 years is now failing.

10:16

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this debate.

The system just is not fair; it does not make any sense and it does not set people up well for life. Realistically, a person makes a decision about whether to go to university when they are about 16 or 17 years old. We would not let banks lend money to 16 and 17-year-olds on these terms—we would think it wrong; people cannot enter into those contracts until they are 18—but when someone makes the decision to apply to university, unless they are from a very wealthy background, they are essentially signing up to a huge amount of ongoing debt.

Young people quite rightly aspire to own homes, start families and have the same sort of life and pension savings that the generations before them had, and I do not see how that is unreasonable. Yet we are allowing a system to persist in which many of them are paying 9% of their income, on top of the tax they already pay, spiralling house prices and the incredibly high requirements for childcare, if they wish to have a family. Of course, Labour has rightly helped with many of those problems, but the student loans system remains a barrier to opportunity.

We should have great aspirations for our young people. Education is a right, and should not be a privilege, but those privileged enough to have parents who can pay for their fees up front have a massive benefit over everyone else. That is wrong and it needs to change.

10:17

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

It is an uncomfortable truth that England now has the most expensive public university system in the world. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has told us that, while the taxpayer underwrites 45% of its cost, students and graduates cover 55%, which represents a profound shift in how we fund higher education in this country. A formative moment for me and for many others was watching the Liberal Democrats entering into coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 and not abolishing tuition fees, but in fact trebling them. We were told that that was progressive, but to a generation of young people, it felt like a gross betrayal.

It is fair to say that graduates have a graduate premium, with earnings potentially a third higher than for non-graduates, but averages conceal as much as they reveal. The IFS has shown that those in the middle earnings distribution repay the highest share of their lifetime earnings. As hon. Members have said, many people have no prospect of paying off their loans at all. That is not a progressive system, particularly when we are asking them to think about saving for a home, starting a family and contributing to society.

We need to think about the public good that higher education is, and the fantastic contribution that graduates make to our society and economy. We need to look again at the structure and the thresholds, particularly the threshold freezes, and ask whether those in the middle are carrying too much of the burden and whether the balance between the contributions of the taxpayer and of the graduate has drifted too far.

10:19

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for raising such an important debate. I declare an interest as the mother of a daughter who still has a student loan.

I was the first in my family, male or female, to go to university, and when I went, it was an opportunity confined to just one in 20 young people. Today, that number is more like one in two. The design of the loans and repayment plans are the creation of the previous Government, and is one of many legacy issues that have been left for this Government to clean up. Students who are alarmed at having made payments and yet finding themselves even further in debt, are victims of the Conservative’s appalling management of the economy, which led to a RPI well above 12% in 2022. Opposition claims that they would now cap rates ring hollow, given they did little about them when they were in power.

As this Government get the economy and inflation under control, the interest rate will come down. It is right that the Government keep the impact of loans on students and young people under review. Students should not feel the burden of their families’ financial position. Wealth inequalities in society should not lead to inequalities of outcomes for students.

10:20

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate.

Young people who work hard, gain qualifications and enter the workforce deserve a system that supports their ability to build secure and fulfilling lives. One constituent recently told me about the impact of the system on his family’s future. He is a young, working professional raising a daughter with his wife, and they are doing everything they can to provide security and opportunity for her. This year alone he has paid £852 towards his loan, but during the same period more than £2,300 of interest was added—nearly three times what he managed to pay down. He began university nearly a decade ago and the balance at the start of his repayment was £54,683. Today, despite working and making regular loan repayments, that balance has grown to £76,040—an almost 40% rise over the last 10 years. For a young parent trying to build a stable foundation for their child, the situation feels like running up a down escalator: always working hard, but never getting closer to the top.

Will the Minister think not just about incremental changes to the system, but fundamental, broad reform? That could include a graduate tax and, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said, thinking about a balance between the taxpayer and the graduate repayments. I know the Minister will think about those carefully and I look forward to hearing his response.

10:22

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate. One Salford graduate who borrowed just over £41,000 graduated in 2018 owing more than £47,000 because interest had accrued while they were still studying. After eight years of repayments and nearly £20,000 paid back, their balance is now significantly higher than it was when they graduated.

Another graduate told me they owed £59,000 in 2020; that has now increased to more than £75,000, despite steady monthly repayments. That is not how people understand a loan to function and many borrowers were never properly warned that Governments could retrospectively alter key repayment terms.

The requests from campaigners are reasonable: reverse the repayment threshold freeze, tackle the unfair interest rate metrics and protect against retrospective changes. Those are not radical requests; they restore trust. We must understand that the marketisation of higher education has failed. We must reform the loans system, but we must ensure that our ultimate goal is more ambitious. We should abolish tuition fees and replace them with a sustainable, publicly funded model for higher education and university research, providing long-term stability for institutions and genuine opportunities for students, regardless of background.

10:23

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate.

The system that the current Government have inherited, after years of failure on the issue by the previous Government, is complex, ineffective and simply unfair. What was supposed to be a system that enabled fair contributions to the cost of higher education has become a long-term financial burden that is quietly eroding living standards. Freezing the repayment threshold for plan 2 borrowers has quietly increased the real cost of payments year after year, pulling more people into making repayments and extending the burden far beyond what was expected.

Changing the terms of a repayment after a contract has been agreed is fundamentally wrong. Using RPI as the measure to calculate interest—a measure the OBR says should be discouraged, as it is not a good measure of inflation—is completely wrong. Linking rates to CPI rather than RPI and removing the additional 3% margin could restore credibility and better reflect economic reality. Student loans were supposed to be an income-contingent contribution towards higher education, not a perpetual liability. Today’s graduates are being asked to accept not only a system that we did not face ourselves, but one in which the terms can be changed after they have been signed up to.

This debate is not about walking away from supporting our universities. It is about building a country where talent thrives and choosing to become a nurse or a teacher is not quietly penalised by decades of repayments. It is about restoring balance. It is about designing a system that is progressive and sustainable—one that protects universities, supports students and reflects our values as a country. It is about fairness.

10:25

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I want to thank my constituents Matthew, Courtenay, Frances, Giovanni and Veronica, who have contacted me recently about this, and parents such as Joanne who are worried about generational inequality.

There are, to my mind, two problems with the plan 2 loan system. The first is psychological. It is incredibly depressing for people to see the amount that they owe continually increasing, despite making payments that can constitute hundreds of pounds each month. The second, more important one is financial. Under plan 1, as my earnings grew, I was making increasingly large monthly payments towards my student loan, but I knew that this was a temporary situation and I would eventually be debt-free. For those on plan 2 loans, it is not anything like so temporary, primarily due to the size of the principal and the higher rate of interest it attracts.

That has a real impact, because the economic circumstances students are graduating into today are a world apart from those of their predecessors, who enjoyed free higher education. Today’s graduates face higher housing costs and a reduced graduate wage premium compared with previous generations. Those factors combine with high monthly repayments to reduce disposable income and leave young workers in stasis, living at home with their parents or in shared rental accommodation, perhaps partnered and wanting to start a family but unable to afford to do so.

We have inherited this broken system, but we have the opportunity and responsibility to fix it, making changes to increase the monthly disposable income of graduates by raising the repayment threshold or staggering the percentage of income above the threshold that is repaid, and looking at the interest rate paid falling at a minimum to RPI or, ideally, to CPI, given that the Government are phasing out RPI.

10:25

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The ambition for two thirds of young people to benefit from higher level education, where it is an apprenticeship, technical or academic qualifications, is about ensuring that young people have opportunities. Of course we want a fair system of student finance, but the answer should not be taking away choices. The Conservative plans to cut 100,000 university places—to decide what students are and are not allowed to study—is wrong, and it is being proposed by many who benefited from going to university.

The coalition Government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats tripled university fees and introduced plan 2 loans. I have been contacted by many graduates such as Adam, who told me he borrowed £37,500 and has repaid over £20,000, but because of interest now owes over £1,000 more than he borrowed in the first place. I am pleased that the Education Secretary has said she will look at these loans.

I am also pleased that, unlike the Conservatives, who made and dropped pledges on apprenticeships and presided over a reduction in their number by almost a third in the decade before the last election, this Government are investing £725 million to help deliver 50,000 more quality apprenticeships. For the most disadvantaged students who want to go to university, this Government are reintroducing maintenance grants, enabling opportunity and choice, not cutting them off and telling 100,000 students that they cannot have the choices that were open to us.

10:25

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am so proud to have the University of Nottingham campus in my constituency. I believe that higher education in the UK is one of our greatest assets and also one of our greatest exports, and we must remember that, despite all the concerns about the student loan system.

The student loan system is not a good system. It is a complete mess, and it risks undermining public trust in these institutions. It will not surprise Members that I have been contacted by numerous graduates about this issue, who have made some fantastic points about not just interest rates but the impact on women, the impact on social mobility and the psychological impact.

I want to leave with the Minister the three questions most commonly asked in my inbox. First, how can successive Governments justify changing repayment thresholds and interest structures when individuals took out loans under materially different expectations? That does not happen with commercial loans. Secondly, if the majority of plan 2 borrowers are projected never to clear their balance, what is the policy rationale for maintaining interest rates above inflation or Government borrowing costs? Finally, what assessment has been made of the impact of current student loan terms on home ownership, pensions and having children, and how on earth does that impact align with our goals on economic growth?

10:29

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

As has been said, this is an issue of generational unfairness. My wife and I had plan 1 loans. At that stage, in our early 30s, having paid off our loan, we felt we could start career progression, work our way up the housing ladder and have a family. However, what I have seen in my postbag is correspondence from constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford who do not feel that that is the case for them and feel that the system now works against them.

If we had time, I would read out the case studies of Jessica, James, Gurkamal and Stuart, and also the comments from parents, such as Adebimpe, Emma and Nicola, outlining the experiences of their children, whose loans are growing and who, unlike those of us who had plan 1 loans, are having to pay huge amounts in interest, rather than paying off the loan itself.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this debate. I echo what he said about the key things that we need to hear from the Minister today: about the level of interest, the thresholds and how we can resolve the 9% repayment rates, and about how we can make the system closer to what I experienced and fairer for those studying today, those considering studying or those who have just been through the system.

10:31

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair today, Ms Lewell, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) on securing this debate.

As we have heard, there are many graduates in this country who make loan payments every month and yet they see their loan balances grow. They are young professionals whose loan statements bear no resemblance to the deal they thought they were signing up to. At the same time, there are students who cannot afford to eat and university finances are precarious across the sector. The systems feel broken, so this debate really matters, and those listening deserve a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong and a credible path forward. Let me try to give both.

When the plan 2 system was designed, graduates were promised something specific: that they would repay only when earning above a certain threshold, that the threshold would rise with earnings, and that whatever remained after 30 years would be written off—a mechanism to share the cost of higher education between the individual and the state. A higher interest rate for higher earners was a deliberate feature—a progressive measure. Those graduates earning the most would contribute more, to make the system sustainable for those who could not. For many graduates at the time, that deal, however imperfect, felt manageable.

However, there is a problem: successive Governments have treated those promises as suggestions. In 2016, the threshold was frozen when it was supposed to rise, not because the economy required that, but because it was a convenient way to extract more from graduates without the political difficulty of imposing a tax rise. The threshold jumped significantly in 2022, but it was then frozen again, then raised again. Now the Government have given in to the same temptation, budgeting to freeze it for three more years. What graduates have experienced is not a coherent system operating as originally designed, but a set of rules that keep getting rewritten by whoever needs to balance the books that year. That is a core injustice.

To that political failure, though, we must add an economic failure. In the early years of this decade, inflation ran at levels that few foresaw when the system was designed in 2012. RPI, the basis for the interest rate, exceeded 13%. There was a cap on interest rates during that period, which in principle was welcome, but it was implemented too late, and the cap was set too high to make a meaningful difference for most borrowers. Meanwhile, graduates’ starting salaries barely moved in real terms. Interest-linked to a discredited inflation measure running hot, while earnings stood still—that combination has been toxic and the system had no mechanism to correct it.

Although plan 2 graduates suffered from the accumulation of damage caused by those political and economic circumstances, the last Government introduced plan 5. Plan 5 graduates face a lower repayment threshold and a 40-year repayment period before write-off—terms that in many respects are harder than those faced by their predecessors. I hope we do not lose sight of the plan 2 or plan 5 cohort in this debate, because any serious reform of the system must address both.

Before I move on to what can be done about loan repayments, I want to say something briefly about students who are struggling right now. The abolition of maintenance grants after the coalition ended in 2015 loaded the highest debt on to the students least able to bear it. Those from the poorest backgrounds now graduate with significantly more debt, not from their fees but from the additional maintenance borrowing. The level of support has fallen 10% in real terms from its peak. Students skip meals, work hours that damage their studies, and are unable to participate fully in the education that they are notionally receiving. The Government have reintroduced £1,000 grants for maintenance for certain subjects, but the full reintroduction of meaningful maintenance grants for the most disadvantaged students must be a priority.

The most urgent action on repayments requires no review, but a decision: reverse the threshold freeze over the next three years and tie it to earnings, as graduates were originally promised. I hope the Minister can give graduates that commitment today.

For the structural reform that the system genuinely needs, we need to go beyond any single parameter. We need to design interest and repayment structures that are genuinely progressive across the income distribution, including by ditching the discredited link to RPI. We must build a system that also works for people studying flexibly and later in life, not just for 18-year-olds on three or four-year degrees. We are seeing more move to modular courses, so the system needs to be able to cater for that.

Structural reform is needed, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cross-party royal commission on graduate finance reform. I anticipate that some will see that as a delay, but I do not think it is. We need action on the threshold action now, but the commission needs to address a different, harder question: how do we build a system that future Governments cannot quietly dismantle the moment that fiscal pressure mounts? Every change made retrospectively to the terms has broken a promise to people who made life decisions based on them. Cross-party consensus with independent oversight of key parameters is the only protection against that happening again.

I would like to directly address the suggestion made explicitly by the official Opposition that the answer to fiscal pressure in the student finance system is to have drastically fewer students, and to cut courses, close departments and focus support on degrees whose graduates earn enough to repay quickly. That gets the diagnosis backwards. The graduate earnings premium has declined in Britian, not because we have too many graduates but because we have too few skilled jobs. Many of our peers in the OECD have expanded graduate numbers while maintaining or even raising the earnings premium. We should be asking why those countries have generated skilled professional jobs in a way that Britain has failed to do.

Cutting student numbers accepts that failure as permanent, but that is a counsel of despair. It also fails on its own terms. Setting aside the inherent value of the creative arts—many have made that point—that sector contributes enormously to the economy and enriches all our lives. Arts and humanities courses are also cheaper to deliver, and help to support expensive, lab-based science, technology, engineering and mathematics provision. Cutting 100,000 arts places would not simply reduce the loan book; it would undermine the financial model of the very STEM courses that the Conservatives claim to prioritise.

[Mr Charters]

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, does he agree that the architects of plan 2 need to say one simple word—sorry?

[Ian Sollom]

I am not personally an architect of plan 2, but the former leader of my party did say sorry, and my party was appropriately punished at the 2015 general election.

The decline in the graduate earnings premium is, at its root, a story about economic underperformance, and that points towards the solution. Universities are not simply places that people go to acquire qualifications; they are also research engines, regional anchors, training grounds for public services and drivers of the innovation that creates the skilled employment that graduates need. The answer to graduates being squeezed is not fewer graduates; it is more skilled jobs generated by the research, commercialisation and civic investment that universities are well positioned to deliver. We face a choice: managed decline, fewer students, fewer courses, talent lost and regions left behind; or transformation—treating universities like the national assets that they are. Graduates and the country deserve better. I hope that the Minister can signal in his response that the Government are making a start on that.

10:40

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this important debate and highlighting one of the major challenges facing many young people in this country today: student loan repayments. Despite my youthful looks, I can clarify that I am on the last year of plan 1 loans, so this issue does not directly affect me. I have many contemporaries in that situation, though, and I think I understand it well.

When growing numbers of graduates are leaving university with mountains of debt and graduate recruitment is at a record low, there is an urgent need to address a system that is failing graduates. The hon. Member for Ilford South asked for broad agreement on that point. Although I did not agree with everything in his remarks, I think he has broad support across the House that the system as currently designed is not working. This issue affects a huge proportion of young people, given that over 50% of them now go to university. Combine that with a 30-year lifespan, and it becomes a generational problem.

Perhaps by coincidence, rather than design, this debate coincides with the announcement made by His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition of a new deal for young people. I acknowledge that it is partly responsive, but it has helped to bring the issue to the top of the news agenda. This debate could not be timelier. For young people, particularly those on plan 2 loans, there is not a moment to lose.

[Sarah Russell]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to plan 2 loans but plan 3 loans were also brought in by his Government. Plan 3 loans are for those with postgraduate qualifications—people who are definitely making an economic contribution to our society—and now kick in from when they earn £21,000. Does he agree that that was the wrong thing for his Government to do?

[Jack Rankin]

I do not want to talk about each plan individually, but this does need to be looked at in the round, as the hon. Lady is quite right to say.

Returning to the hon. Member for Ilford South, I am glad that he recognised—which some of his colleagues did not—that the beneficiaries of student loans should be asked to contribute. He called for fairness. I agree with him that, as it stands, the balance is not quite right. To my mind—the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke to this—the main issue that we have seen is the breach of the promise on thresholds being frozen and on interest rates being increased. I acknowledge that we did that in government, but it has happened most recently in the recent Budgets. That is morally indefensible.

The hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who I do not think are in their places anymore, made similar contributions from a left-wing point of view. I gently suggest that the mechanisms for mass debt cancellations, or even more, what they call “progressive taxation”, is not where we need to be. I am afraid I consider that to be the politics of the magic money tree. When we look at what is happening, one of the things that graduates are upset about is the unreasonable marginal rates of tax that they face as graduates when the student loan is included. More so-called “progressive” marginal rates of income tax would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I am aware that many a Conservative ex-Minister has stood at the shadow Dispatch Box and criticised the Government for things they themselves were doing in the recent past, so I say this with some self-awareness, but I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) that the Liberal Democrats have to be careful on this issue—the faces on the Government Benches when the Liberal Democrats made some of their remarks were quite the picture.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who I believe is the Chair of the Education Committee, made a fair point about the balance in education between economic outcomes and the broader social good of education. I agree with her that the case for education is broader than just economic, but I suggest that there is a balance. We have to be careful about whether it is progressive to send working-class children on university courses that will laden them with debt, but not provide them with the economic outcomes that they might need. There is a balance there to tread.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) talked about the nuance here, between the oppressive interest rates and the 30-year repayment threshold.

[Kevin Bonavia]

The hon. Member made the point about working-class people thinking about whether to go to university and be loaded with debt. Why should they have that worry when people who have far more family income do not have to make that choice?

[Jack Rankin]

I am not sure that I recognise that statement. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I was not born in the parliamentary seat of Windsor. I grew up in Ashton-under-Lyne and was the kind of child the hon. Member probably has in mind. My passion at school was history but I did maths and physics at university. That was partly an economic choice that gave me opportunities that my parents and people I went to school with could not have dreamed of. That was a sensible decision I made for me and my family. Dismissing that as a relevant factor is not progressive.

[Natasha Irons]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jack Rankin]

I will, but I am aware of time.

[Natasha Irons]

On that point about making an economic choice, we are talking about the creative industries, which are worth hundreds of billions of pounds to our economy. Ensuring we have a diverse voice and qualified people in those jobs and having access to those skills is really important. I was a working-class child who ended up working at Channel 4 because of my degree. We should not ask working-class children to make those distinctions so early on in their careers; we should give them the opportunity to experience those careers as they move forward.

[Jack Rankin]

I agree, but would gently say that we want to ensure that people take the highest-quality creative courses imaginable, which we can honestly say will have economic benefits for them. That is the nuance and balance.

Because of the time, I will move on to my substantive remarks, though hon. Members having two minutes and 90 seconds to contribute does not do justice to the strength of feeling across the House. There is obviously broad unhappiness from those of all political colours and world views, and I wonder whether more time could be found to debate the matter on the Floor of the House.

The measures announced by the Chancellor in the autumn Budget are the most punitive yet for threshold and interest freezes. The freezing of repayment thresholds from April 2027 will cost the average graduate a further £300 a year by 2030, in an environment where rents are through the roof, job opportunities are few and the tax burden is at an all-time high. I gently say to the Minister that although we do have to balance the system so it is fiscally sustainable, this was done not to pay for education but to balance the books more broadly, which is unfair.

As I acknowledged earlier, it is unfair to change the rules post the fact for students who entered into the loan system in good faith when they were 18. Many graduates regard that as the behaviour of a loan shark rather than what they want to see from Government.

This week the Conservative party announced a new deal for young people, which rests on three pillars. The first is to reform the unfair student loans system. We would abolish real interest on plan 2 loans, ensuring that balances never rise faster than inflation. That responds to many of the criticisms in this debate.

The second pillar is more controversial. The fact is that university is not for everyone, nor should it be. One of the best ways to escape the debt pile is to avoid it. A university degree in today’s economy no longer guarantees work, sadly evidenced by the 700,000 graduates currently on benefits. That is why we would lift the funding cap for apprenticeships from 18 to 21-year-olds.

The third pillar is that we would make work pay through our new jobs bonus, where the first £5,000 of national insurance paid by any British citizen starting their first job would be placed in a personal savings account in their name. That money could go towards a deposit, starting a business or building a family.

Together with our plan to scrap stamp duty, that will help young people achieve home ownership and financial independence. Taken together, it represents the most ambitious policy package for young people in years and would re-enfranchise the lost generation. Fixing the voting system should be a priority for this Government. It is about fairness, repairing the intergenerational compact and ensuring that young people who play by the rules are rewarded for their aspiration and not taxed on it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

10:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing today’s important debate on student loan repayments.

I would like to take a moment to collectively celebrate higher education and the transformational impact it can have for so many young people. We are right now in the peak UCAS application season. Although there are debates in this place about the merits and limitations of the current student finance system, I would not want any of these debates to put off those who have talents that university can accelerate and amplify. I acknowledge the interest shown in this debate on an issue that the Government will be looking at—I want to be clear about that up front. I recognise that many Members wanted to contribute, share personal stories and extend the arguments, but, because of time limits, we have not been able to hear the full breadth of the debate today. However, I doubt this will be the last time that Parliament considers this. The Minister for Skills in the other place, Baroness Smith, and I are alert to the issues.

I want to start by establishing some facts about the history of the plan 2 student loan system.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

As a plan 2 graduate myself, before the Minister proceeds will he put on the record an acceptance that, with the misstep on the tuition fee repayment level, the cat is out of the bag? We need to deal with it in this Parliament. I urge him to reject the tedious, time-wasting suggestions from the Lib Dems and get on and deal with it with Labour values.

[Josh MacAlister]

I can confirm, as the Secretary of State for Education said earlier this week, this is an issue that we will, of course, look at. The plan 2 system was introduced in 2012 by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in coalition. At the time, my party raised concerns about the design of that student loan package. When it was introduced, the threshold for repayment was only £21,000. Having said they would increase the threshold, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats then froze it. They froze it in 2012, its first year; they froze it in 2013, in 2014 and in 2015: four years of Liberal Democrat and Conservative freezes to thresholds. The Conservatives then froze it in 2016. They froze it in 2017 and then again in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. In total, there was a decade’s worth of freezes by parties who designed the model that they now stand here criticising. There is one phrase for that: crocodile tears.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The Minister talks about the history of the student loan, and it is helpful for us all to understand that, but at the moment the students on plan 2 face a freeze—the very thing, along with previous Governments, that the Minister is criticising. It seems bizarre that he is criticising something on the one hand when he has taken action to do the same thing himself.

[Josh MacAlister]

That is a very timely intervention, because when we were elected we recognised the pressures and acted. In this Parliament, the Government are lifting the plan 2 repayment threshold to £29,385, ending a four-year freeze. We have acted to ensure that the threshold rises to above average graduate salaries, because that was the right thing to do, despite the fiscal pressures we faced. Due to the enormous pressures on budgets and the need for fairness across the education system, especially in further education, and to support the long-term sustainability of the student loan system, we announced at Budget 2025 that the Government will freeze plans for repayment thresholds at £29,385 for three years from April 2027. I note that, even with that freeze, a borrower earning £30,000 will repay around £4 a month and the average plan 2 borrower will repay about £8 more a month.

The freeze will generate £5.9 billion—money that this Government are investing back into young people. We are making improvements to the education system, and the threshold freeze contributes to that. The improvements are happening both in higher education and in the wider skills landscape. We will be investing £1.2 billion more in skills training per year by 2028-29, ensuring that we develop and nurture the skills that many young people who do not go to university need for the future. We are supporting colleges, apprenticeships and technical training, areas that have too long been neglected by other parties, with record funding. I see the benefits of much of that in my constituency, where many young people choose to pursue education through vocational and technical routes. We are setting up technical excellence colleges, ripping out the red tape from the apprenticeship system, and ensuring that more foundation apprenticeships get young people into trades and careers that give them a brighter future.

Politics is about choices. When a Government come in and all public services are in a mess, they have to work through their priorities. Just this week, we have announced generational changes to the special educational needs system. Just today, the Government are announcing major changes to ensure that people can see timely justice in the courts. We are also making changes to improve the student finance system. First, from January 2027, the lifelong learning entitlement will enable learners to use student loans more flexibly than ever before. Secondly, from the 2028-29 academic year, we will introduce targeted, means-tested grants, which, again, were scrapped by the previous Government. Thirdly, to support students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, we are future-proofing our maintenance loan offer, with loans for living costs increasing in line with forecast inflation every academic year.

This Government recognise the strength of feeling on the student loan system, particularly plan 2, and we will always look at issues that are important to the public. We will continue to keep this system under review.

[Sarah Russell]

The Minister has spoken very well about plan 2, and we are grateful that he will be looking at it, but so far as I can tell, plan 3 thresholds have remained frozen for postgrads at £21,000 since their inception. That is deeply unjust. Will he commit to looking at plan 3 as well as plan 2?

[Josh MacAlister]

As the Secretary of State said earlier this week, we will look at these issues.

Across the board, we are acting as a Government to support people with the cost of living: investing in free childcare, freezing rail fares, cutting energy bills—there is welcome news on that today—and introducing measures on rights at work and protections for renters. We understand the pressures facing young professionals and young graduates. As the Secretary of State has made very clear, we will of course look at this system in the round and at how it can be improved. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.

10:59

[Jas Athwal]

I thank hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I will add just one point, which is that IFS calculations suggest that a graduate would need to earn £63,000 a year just to keep a £50,000 loan from growing. That is an astronomical figure just to stop the interest from growing. All I would say to the Minister is that being in government gives us the ability to fix what is wrong. The graduate loan system is not working, so my humble request is that we please fix it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered student loan repayment plans.

Diesel Vehicles: Defeat Devices

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of defeat devices in diesel vehicles.

It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

It was over a decade ago that the automotive industry, and indeed the world, was rocked by dieselgate, the Volkswagen emissions scandal. The public were horrified to learn about how the trusted German car giant Volkswagen—the one that gave us the “Herbie” kids film franchise and those iconic circular badges that were so beloved of the Beastie Boys—had knowingly faked vehicle emissions tests via defeat devices. Those devices are software designed to alter a vehicle’s performance, falsify results and limit emissions during the regulatory testing period, only to switch to their true polluting selves when they are driven on open roads.

VW’s range of diesel compact cars had been marketed as a green alternative to petrol, but it was found that it had been knowingly cooking the books to the point that the US Environmental Protection Agency found VW’s top people guilty of conspiracy to defraud customers. Confidence was shattered, share prices nosedived, reputational damage was done, vehicles were recalled, fines were paid, heads rolled at the managerial level, and the once-encouraged diesel became discredited—its fate in London was finally sealed by the ultra low emission zone.

We were assured that lessons would be learned, yet despite the outlawing of defeat devices, the problem seems to be wider than originally thought. “Dieselgate 2: The Sequel” is proceeding very slowly through the courts. I think there are several cases. Multiple models and manufacturers are accused of the same thing: spewing out dangerous and excessive emissions due to cheat technology. Companies have been knowingly deceiving drivers. It feels a bit like match fixing to those of us of a certain age—Bruce Grobbelaar comes to mind. Consumers have been conned once again into believing that they were driving greener, cleaner diesel cars. Results have been rigged. It feels almost as if I cannot go on the internet now without some sort of pop-up advert rearing its head—“Have you driven a Mercedes, a Ford, a Nissan, a Renault, a Citroën or a Peugeot between X and Y years? If so, click here to see how much compensation you could get.” It is all a little bit like ambulance chasing, is it not?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for bringing us this debate. She is right to say that this does not just happen in England; it happens across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Vehicles registered in Northern Ireland in 2015 were among those fitted with illegal software during the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Enforcement action uncovered diesel lorries operating in Northern Ireland with illegal emissions-cheating hardware deliberately disabling pollution controls. For 17 years, our MOT system in Northern Ireland failed to test diesel emissions properly, allowing such vehicles to operate undetected for too long while damaging air quality and undermining trust in regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done to close regulatory gaps, strengthen enforcement and ensure that defeat devices are fully eliminated from all our roads throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman makes such an excellent point as he always does. It is an honour to be intervened on by him. As he said, this was done with intent all over the British Isles, in all our nations. He mentioned the VW scandal. As I say, there could be worse round the corner. Despite the outlawing of these defeat devices, VW could just be the tip of a very murky iceberg. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is not just about the men in white coats in the laboratory getting their technical results. This is not a fringe issue: it affects all our constituents and has real life consequences. Air pollution is one of our most pressing environmental challenges. Noxious nitrogen oxide emissions can cause respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and childhood asthma—even premature deaths, which have been quantified.

In London, the city where we are now and where I am an MP, the devastating human impact was tragically illustrated by the desperately sad case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah: dead at just nine years old. Hers was the first ever case in which the cause of death on the certificate was “pollution”. The family had lived by the south circular; the north circular is in my seat. Ella’s mum, Rosamund, has been such a tireless campaigner in pushing for Ella’s law. Mums for Lungs has also done great work, while Parent Power had a breakfast event this morning on the other side of the building.

Clean air is not a “nice to have”, but an essential. We would not force a kid to drink dirty water, yet we expect them to breathe toxic air. Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emission zone in this city has helped to clean London of dirty diesel, but we know that children in vulnerable communities are the most susceptible.

These cars were bought in good faith. Remember Gordon Brown’s 2001 Budget: in those days, buying a diesel vehicle was incentivised. It was seen as environmentally superior to petrol because of the miles per gallon; in those days, people were not looking at NOx, but more at carbon dioxide. In that year’s Budget, I think, the road tax—and certain things for company fleets—actually encouraged diesel.

The VW scandal was a genuine scandal, just like the others I have seen since I have been here such as the contaminated blood and Post Office scandals. In its aftermath, the market share of diesels in this country has fallen from 50% in 2014 to just 5% now. But the bigger dieselgate 2 is on the horizon. If defeat devices have dishonestly been fitted to vehicles and emitted pollutants at levels way beyond what is legal and what consumers were led to believe, that leaves huge holes in Government enforcement and regulatory credibility. This will have been poisoning people.

I have a range of questions for the Minister. Although these vehicles are not being sold new any more, figures from Mums for Lungs show that 7.5 million diesel cars—a quarter of all UK cars—are still on our roads. They are responsible for 30% of total NOx emissions. There are also the vans, buses, the HGVS—if we add all those up, we see that action must occur.

In autumn 2024, the Department for Transport confirmed that it is investigating the possible use of defeat device trickery by several manufacturers. Rather than delve into the lengthy legal proceedings today, I want to raise questions about that Government inquiry, which is at best sketchy and is bound up in public health and consumer protection. It all seems to be shrouded in secrecy. There is the prospect, here, of illegally high emissions and asthma being in the equation, so every moment the results are delayed puts more children’s lungs at risk. At a time when everyone wants growth, Mums for Lungs has calculated that the UK economy is losing: action on dieselgate is expected to cost our economy £36 billion in the next 14 years. There are many reasons why we should address this issue.

I am asking the Minister—my good, hon. Friend—to step up a gear. The sheer number of potential claimants in dieselgate 2—1.8 million cars, potentially—dwarfs the settlement that eventually came out of VWgate; that 2022 settlement compensated only 91,000 consumers. This latest issue affects every constituency in the nation—including yours, Ms Lewell.

I have some questions: what is the status of the Department’s investigation? What is the timeline for its commencement? Where is it now? When will it conclude? What teeth does it have—i.e. what are the enforcement powers that the Department is prepared to deploy in cases of non-compliance? The Environment Act 2021 strengthened the Government’s ability to require manufacturers to recall vehicles where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they do not meet applicable environmental standards. Is the Department prepared to use those powers when appropriate? Where does the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency fit into that process? What happens to vehicles currently on UK roads if they are found to be emitting unlawfully high levels of pollutants? Will the Government consider requiring their temporary suspension from use until they are brought into compliance? Could they have a little bit of tinkering and be okay?

According to one report from an international climate think-tank, excess emissions may already lead to 16,000 premature deaths in the UK and 30,000 new cases of childhood asthma. Overnight, Mums for Lungs sent me a whole load of new figures that I have not entirely processed, but which I can pass on to the Minister. If manufacturers are found to have breached the rules, who bears the financial burden of remedial action? Surely not the consumers who bought these vehicles in good faith. They thought that they were doing the right thing and believed that they were compliant. How do the Government intend to safeguard public health in the interim?

In 2016, the Tory Government launched an inquiry into the use of defeat devices by VW, but ultimately, they did not prosecute. The Transport Committee at the time expressed concerns about the Department for Transport’s “ambivalence” towards VW’s use of defeat devices. It described the Department as being

“too slow to assess the use of its powers”.

In other words, it was asleep at the wheel. This Minister is different from that former Minister, and I am sure that he will not repeat the mistakes of the last Tory Government.

There is now a second chance. The DFT should clearly prioritise the interests of the public and consumers in its current investigation. A decade after we were duped over diesel in the first emissions scandal, the public should not be left wondering whether enforcement powers will be used if wrongdoing is found. Court proceedings can take forever, but we must have assurances of urgency, transparency and consequence in the Government’s investigation, which is within their control.

Communities deserve clean air and consumers deserve honesty and protection. I am no Jeremy Clarkson. I cycle more than I drive, but I do both, and I take public transport every weekday. I find that it is difficult to know what is best and it can be bewildering—what is up or down and what is happening. The goalposts are constantly changing. What is it that is demonised? First it was petrol, then it was diesel. Now they have both been overtaken by electric, which is what we should all be using. I am pleased to see the roll-out of the Enviro400 and Enviro500 buses in London. However, for the average consumer it can be bewildering when the advice keeps changing and it can then feel a bit punitive.

Environmental standards must mean what they say. If they are breached there must be proportionate and decisive action. For far too long, motor manufacturers in the UK have victimised the public. They have misled consumers about pollution emitted by diesel engines, and they have put millions of citizens at risk simply because they live or work near roads. VW recovered its reputation to some extent. Certainly, on the Nextdoor app, people are still complaining that its badges are being nicked from the front of their cars. Whoever is doing that, can they stop? It is completely unnecessary to remove the circular VW logo.

These companies should come clean and make things right with those who they have harmed. The Government should do everything in their power to ensure that the public are in the driving seat. We should not have to wait for dieselgate 3.

11:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you, Ms Lewell—my favourite sand dancer—chairing the debate this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this debate on defeat devices in diesel vehicles. This is an important subject that rightly attracts scrutiny from Parliament, the public and campaigners. I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend set out in her parliamentary questions and recent public commentary, which reflect the strength of feeling about this issue and the need for transparency and accountability from both manufacturers and regulators. Those concerns are entirely legitimate, and I welcome the opportunity to set out clearly how they align with the Government’s determination to uphold emissions standards and to ensure that the public can have full confidence in the environmental performance of vehicles on our roads.

I begin by reaffirming this Government’s commitment to delivering greener, cleaner transport and to reducing harmful emissions that affect communities across the country. Road transport emissions have significant implications for public health. We continue to take firm, evidence-based action wherever practices risk undermining public trust or air quality. Alongside our compliance and enforcement work, we are delivering wider measures to cut harmful emissions, including by supporting the transition to zero-emission vehicles, as my hon. Friend referenced.

We have consistently said that prohibited defeat devices are illegal, are misleading for drivers and can have negative impacts on the public. My Department has considerably strengthened its oversight of vehicle emissions in recent years. Since 2016, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s vehicle market surveillance unit has carried out increasingly rigorous emissions testing programmes using both laboratory and real-world methods to identify suspicious performance. The DVSA actively investigates potential non-compliance, and where its assessments identify issues, manufacturers are required to take corrective action in line with DVSA’s published enforcement policy.

This Government are undertaking a targeted and comprehensive programme of assessments, which formally commenced in early 2025, to assess a range of Euro 5 and Euro 6 diesel cars and vans produced between 2010 and 2018. As my hon. Friend would probably expect, we are focusing on vehicles with the greatest potential to cause harm, and our remediation actions are designed to reduce real-world emissions as quickly and effectively as possible. Although those models are no longer entering the market, they remain on our roads and the public quite rightly expect them to meet the standards set out at approval. I think, at present, there are 110 individual vehicle models that are under active investigation. That reflects the scale and complexity of the challenge.

To be absolutely clear, every vehicle model within scope will undergo a full assessment, and manufacturers are now working to firm, defined deadlines. The DVSA has completed assessments on a number of models and is now reviewing detailed submissions from manufacturers, with further assessments underway. We will conclude the process as soon as evidence allows, to ensure that any findings are robust, fair and accountable. Where non-compliance is identified, manufacturers will be required to take corrective action and enforcement will escalate where deadlines are not met. That approach is intended to achieve real-world improvements in air quality swiftly and fairly.

The Government have also strengthened the enforcement framework available to regulators. Since 2018, it has been an offence to place vehicles containing prohibited defeat systems on the market. My Department is equipped to require swift corrective action to address non-compliance. We are also considering whether we need to go further and build on our existing powers under assimilated EU law to require compulsory environmental recalls to deliver the intended outcomes.

Let me be clear: if non-compliance is confirmed, the DVSA will require manufacturers to take whatever remedial action is necessary, at no cost to consumers. Where any serious risk is evidenced, that remedial action must be taken without delay.

On transparency, I fully recognise the public interest in understanding the outcomes of this work, and manufacturer-specific findings will be published once investigations are complete and decisions are final. That approach is entirely consistent with other market surveillance activity. Waiting until that point is important to ensure that due process is followed, to avoid prejudicing live investigations and to maintain the integrity of any future enforcement action.

[Dr Huq]

I like what I have heard so far because, up to now, this has all been a bit mysterious. I wonder if it might be a good idea for me to meet the Minister. As a London MP, I have experience with ULEZ—we have a riding school in my seat, and an exemption was made for a horsebox. As I have experience of what happens in London, it would be good to talk this through, but it is impossible in a debate like this. Would the Minister meet me at some point?

[Simon Lightwood]

How could I refuse? Of course I will meet my hon. Friend.

Publishing incomplete or provisional findings would risk misleading consumers and compromising the quality of the technical assessments underway, as my hon. Friend will appreciate. To support transparency, I am pleased to say that the Department will shortly publish its dedicated gov.uk landing page. That will bring together all the emissions compliance publications, and once investigations are concluded, the final outcomes of the programme will be added to that page for full public access.

The programme has been developed in close collaboration with the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the UK Health Security Agency. That ensures that our approach draws on the full breadth of Government expertise. That collective effort means that our response is co-ordinated and informed by those who play a direct role in delivering cleaner, safer vehicles.

We are closely following the Pan-NOx group litigation concerning alleged defeat devices. Once the court hands down its judgment, we will consider carefully any implications, including whether changes are needed to our policy framework or enforcement approach. Internationally, we continue to work closely with regulators in EU member states, which helps us to anticipate emerging issues, align on best practice and ensure that manufacturers face a coherent regulatory environment across markets. It reinforces our ability to act decisively where cross-border issues arise, recognising that emissions compliance is a global challenge.

To conclude, a great deal has been achieved, and more is underway. The Government are delivering a thorough and proportionate programme designed to address potential non-compliance swiftly, transparently and in line with our legal duties. Our shared objective is clear: deliver cleaner air, protect public health, uphold public confidence and ensure that the vehicles on our roads meet the standards that the public expect and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

11:22

Sitting suspended.

Minister for Men and Boys

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[DEREK TWIGG in the Chair]

14:30

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a Minister for Men and Boys.

This is about men and women, not men or women. It is about boys and girls, not boys or girls. It is crucial to set that out from the start. John Gray was clear in his book, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”. We all intrinsically know and feel that there are inherent differences in the way men and women deal with problems and have problems. Tony Blair spotted that women were struggling, and in May 1997 brought in a Minister for women to look across Government to try to sort out the problems facing women and girls.

From a Conservative perspective, this is ideologically difficult because we broadly do not like to segregate people by splitting them into groups, but one thing that unites us is the obvious fact that there cannot be one without the other. We currently have a Minister for women and girls; we do not have a Minister for men and boys. During my six years in Parliament, I have looked at these topics. I started with the position that I did not want to see such a Minister, but all the data and metrics coming forward show that boys and men are broadly falling behind. I have come to the conclusion that without a Minister for men and boys, working with a Minister for women and girls, they will continue to do so.

I will canter through some of the evidence. Let us start with health, my background. The most alarming stat is that suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50—three times more common in men than in women. Between the ages of 15 and 19, for every girl who takes her own life, three and a half boys do likewise. What about cancers? Prostate cancer is the commonest cancer in men, and more than two thirds of liver disease deaths are of men. That is a fourfold increase in death rates from liver disease over the past 40 years.

Some might say that the Government are covering these issues in the men’s health strategy, which is partly true, but let us take something more tricky. I have done a lot of work on steroid abuse and image and performance-enhancing drugs. According to the Priory Group’s research, 10 years ago about 50,000 people were using such drugs. Now, 500,000 to 1 million people are using them to improve their musculature and the way they look. That use is heavily male dominated—so much so that at injection sites where people go illegally to use drugs, about 80% of needle exchange usage is related to steroid abuse. One in 10 gym-goers suffers from bigorexia—wanting to get more muscular. Those are inherently men-related problems.

When I raise that with Government, I am first pointed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport because it is sport-related, and UK Anti-Doping, but that covers elite sport, and not anything else. The Department of Health and Social Care says that it is a sport problem, an education problem, a Home Office problem or a justice problem. Therein lies the difficulty.

To widen this further, let us move on to education. The Centre for Social Justice’s “Lost Boys” research shows that at GCSE, boys achieve on average half a grade lower than girls in every subject. At A-level, girls outperform boys on average by over a grade and a half across their best three subjects. Female students outnumber male students by three to two for university admissions. House of Commons Library research shows that in spring term 2024, boys were more than 1.5 times more likely to be suspended than girls, and more than twice as likely to be excluded from school.

Let us translate that into employment, which falls under the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business and Trade. Statistics this month from the Office for National Statistics show that there are one million working-age men, aged 16-64, without jobs—the highest since October 2014. The unemployment rate for men is at 5.8%. The last time it was that high was in June 2015. The UK unemployment rate for young males aged between 18 and 24 hit 17% in the three months to December 2025; that surpassed the covid peak that we had, and is the highest rate since 2014. According to the Library, when it comes to young people not in education, employment or training—very topical—historically, young women were more likely to be out of work and education. However, the gap narrowed from 2010 and, since 2016, it has swapped over, with generally more young men being NEET than young women.

What impact does that have on the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice? Some 96% of our prisoners are male; only 4% are female. The CSJ report shows that men make up 90% of hospital admissions for knife assaults. In 2022-23, boys accounted for 87% of homicide victims among people aged 16 to 24, and nine in 10 victims of teenage violence were male. Nine in 10 of our boys in custody said they had been excluded from school. I have not even mentioned the online world, which is covered by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There are many stats that I could mention, but they all point to the fact that these are cross-departmental issues and, more importantly, cross-societal issues.

I want to touch on the culture for men and boys. Many, many people are starting to raise the alarm about what is happening to young boys and men, from celebrities such as Gareth Southgate and David Gandy to think-tanks like the Centre for Social Justice, Equimundo and the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys, and charities including Movember. Why is this happening? My analysis is that, over the past 20 or 30 years, we have been fantastic at championing what women should be, what positive role models should be and what they look like in society. That has been fantastic, and they have had great success from doing that. But, at the same time, we seem to have slightly diminished what it is to be a good man. It used to be a gentleman: someone who was polite, held doors and looked after their other half. Now, men are a little more unsure about that.

If we add in the term “toxic masculinity”, we really have a problem. We do not often hear about toxic femininity. On the one side, we have told women exactly where they should be, what they should do and what they can achieve; on the other, we have taken away the good role model for men, and then potentially demonised them by calling them toxic. No wonder men and boys are struggling to find their way in the world. I often ask the question, “What is a good man in the modern world?” I am yet to find a good answer. Research shows that, when young boys or young men are asked, “Who is your role model?”, they will not give an answer and, if they do, the role models are few and far between. How scary for society that we are not getting the role models for young men to look up to or aspire to be.

What evidence is there to back this up? The CSJ men in culture survey in 2025 was really helpful. It showed that 46%--almost half—agreed with the statement that modern dads are often treated as ineffectual or incompetent in popular culture. Some 76% agreed that today’s teenagers lack proper role models across popular culture. When Members are out and about, they can test that by asking, “Who do men look up to, and why?”, and see if they get an answer. It is actually a little worse than that. The “Lost Boys” report, also by the CSJ, cites Civitas polling that found that 41% of sixth form boys and girls have been taught, in school lessons, that boys are a problem for society. The Government are trying to deal with this, and they are well intended in what they are trying to do.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent speech. On boys being seen as a problem in society, does he agree that if we are worried about boys being receptive to messages such as those that come from Andrew Tate, we need to ask what we are putting boys through that could make them fertile soil for such messages?

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point, and I will come on to Andrew Tate. That is my worry, and I have been raising concerns both in this House and outside about the dangers of labelling what young men could be. Only this week, the British Medical Journal published a paper on the topic of the Government’s misogyny plans and lessons, which said that while it is

“well intentioned, the UK government’s strategy to counter misogyny may inadvertently alienate vulnerable young men”.

It went on to say:

“The government’s strategy overlooks the causes that draw young men and boys towards online misogyny. Although the government purportedly aims to tackle the ‘root causes’ of misogynistic abuse, its argument relies on circular logic by claiming that misogyny itself is the cause of abuse.”

Here lies the problem, because I have also been concerned about the assessment of the impact of the likes of Andrew Tate. We all know that he is misogynistic, but what is missed in the media debate is why so many young boys were drawn to him in the first place. He was a world champion kickboxer and he stands up for the masculine traits of being strong, forthright and protective, but he used them to manipulate his position—and young people—to create an empire with a criminal nature behind it.

Unless we get at the root causes of what is going on, I fear that we will make the problem worse rather than better. A good example of that is the #MeToo movement. It was a fantastic movement in 2017, which did so much to uncover the horrendous sexual harassment and sexual assaults that went on. But it has had an impact: surveys in 2019 by the Harvard Business Review found that 19% of men said that they would be

“reluctant to hire attractive women”.

It also found that 21% were

“reluctant to hire women for jobs involving close interpersonal interactions with men”—

for example, those involving travel—and 27% would avoid

“one-on-one meetings with female colleagues”.

That is because they are good men, and they were worried about the impact of how they could have been perceived. That is what happens when we do not have positive role models and a positive place in society for men and boys.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Talking about positive role models, in preparation for this debate I looked at the number of people in teacher training who were male. Although the numbers are going up, the proportion of men is going marginally down. I had the advantage—as did my children—of having teachers who were positive role models. What does the hon. Gentleman say about making sure that young people have teachers who are positive role models?

[Dr Evans]

I am really pleased to take that intervention, because the hon. Lady hits on a crucial point. When people are asked about role models, they may often identify their father, teacher, brother or football coach— a male figure in their life who they aspire to. If the number of male role models is falling, that is a concern, and that links to encouraging men and placing them into that profession. That would be one of the merits of having a men and boys Minister: they could look at exactly that issue and make sure that we are not siloed on that basis.

To turn to a more up-to-date view of where society is, an article in Psychology Today in 2023 reported on Pew research that indicated that

“over 60% of young men are currently single”

and that

“sexual intimacy is at a 30-year low across genders.”

The article cited multiple reasons for those findings such as pressure, financial issues and changes in lifestyle choices for men, but it also cited changes in women making more choices about where they want to go. That can leave men feeling lost, isolated and lonely. This is another prime example of men not knowing where they fit in society. As we have touched on, if we get this wrong, the likes of Andrew Tate will fill this space as a way forward, and I am incredibly concerned that that leads young men down a path that we will struggle to get them back from.

Given all the evidence—and there is much, much more that I am sure we will hear about in the debate—and the worsening metrics, I simply ask this: will the Government consider a men and boys Minister? In that context, could the Minister set out why we need a women and girls Minister? To finish where I started, this is about men and women, not men or women.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. If speeches are kept to around seven minutes, we will get everyone in.

14:45

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for setting the scene incredibly well. He and I are often in debates together. This time, he leads and I follow; it is usually the other way round. I thank him for the information that he shared. We always try to be careful in our focus, but this is really important. He mentioned a couple of things I will refer to in Northern Ireland that I believe are critical.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. I know that she has been to Northern Ireland on a couple of occasions and has had a chance to interact with the relevant Minister. That will be one of my asks of her, in relation to how we move forward.

I stand in support of this proposal. I want to take this opportunity to represent the men and young boys back home—I represent everybody back home, but this debate is focused on a Minister for men and boys. I wish to see everyone treated equally: I want to make it clear that my support for this proposal does not in any way diminish or overlook the challenges faced by women and girls, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth also made clear. It is almost like we are always trying to excuse ourselves, but we just want to make sure that everybody understands where we are coming from. However, it is important to acknowledge the different circumstances, and I am pleased that we can use this debate to do just that.

I have often highlighted the statistics back home in relation to the reported underachievement of working-class Protestant men in Northern Ireland. In my constituency of Strangford and the neighbouring constituency of Belfast East, their underachievement is quite significant. Data for 2018-19 showed that just shy of 38% of Protestant working-class boys eligible for free school meals achieved the benchmark of five GCSEs, compared with 46.7% of Catholic boys. It is an issue. I highlighted it in my previous jobs at the Assembly and at Ards and North Down borough council—Ards borough council, as it was then. Dundonald high school, Movilla high school and Glastry college, where I used to be on the board of governors, are examples of schools that have taken direct action to try to address the issues.

Some people will not have the ability—I say this very carefully—to achieve educational standards. Let us be honest: some people are quite happy to go and work on the farm or work in their dad’s business. That is what some of the young boys round my way have done. They will achieve; they will not fall shy of achieving. It will just be a different type of achievement. But in this day and age, educational standards are so important, and we have to encourage those who do not do that to get involved.

The King’s Trust does fantastic work back home and is involved with the regional colleges. We see advantages from that, but we still have a stubbornly high number of young Protestant males who underachieve, and it indicates a clear gap associated with community background and disadvantage. These patterns have been noted over many years. Bodies such as the Community Relations Council and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland have highlighted the underachievement of Protestant working-class boys as a persistent issue that has not significantly improved. In the meetings that the Minister has had with the Education Minister back home, was there a discussion of how, collectively and together, we can share ideas and do things better?

I am thankful for the Minister taking an interest and visiting Northern Ireland: it shows that she is a lady who wants to bring about change, and I appreciate that. The former Education Minister Robert Halfon was very effective at addressing this issue here in this Chamber, on the mainland; I remember some of his engagement ideas. Has the Minister had the opportunity to see some of his good work? The issue is directly connected to the case for a Minister for men and boys. Decisive action is needed to address the stats, understand the underlying causes and implement measures to improve outcomes.

I also want to discuss a very important topic in relation to men’s health in Northern Ireland. It is the very same issue that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned. In 2023, 221 deaths by suicide were registered in Northern Ireland, of which 77% were males: men make up most of the deaths by suicide. I remember that when I became an MP in 2010, we had had a spate of suicides in Ballynahinch. It shows how society is not coping with things: there were half a dozen young boys from Ballynahinch. Mairisine Stanfield, a minister of the Presbyterian Church, started a hub in Ballynahinch and the whole community came together collectively and tried to address that. Similar things are happening elsewhere. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for males under 50 in Northern Ireland, so it is not always young people, but Northern Ireland spends less per person on mental health than any other UK nation, despite the high need.

I will keep to my time, Mr Twigg, as you asked. Appointing a dedicated Minister for men and boys would be a vital step towards tackling the mental health crisis affecting men across Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister again how we can work better to address that. Young men, particularly those from Protestant communities, face high rates of underachievement, social isolation and pressures that often go unnoticed. A Minister focused on their needs could co-ordinate targeted support, break down the stigma and ensure that their voices are heard in policy decisions. This is about improving and saving lives. I ask that we do all we can to achieve that in the near future.

I will make one final comment. Sometimes, in a crowd of people, there is one person who laughs the loudest and is the most outgoing of all. You might say to yourself, “You know something? That guy’s got no problems.” But when he goes home, that is when the problems start: as my mother used to say, he would hang his fiddle on the door. On the outside he is bright and breezy, but when he goes home he just disappears into his shell. That is why young men need to be helped.

I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth again for enabling us to speak about the issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and from other hon. Members.

14:52

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate and for his excellent speech. Although we represent different parties, and although I believe he heckled me the last time I spoke in the Chamber, there is a great deal of unity on the issue. Perhaps this is a moment when men and boys and their needs are being recognised. We need to seize that moment. I declare an interest: I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues with the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies).

Men and women are different. They are different by birth and by nature, but also by socialisation. That is not to deny that there are many different ways of being male and being female. Indeed, in my own home, I am a man who is inclined to being emotional. I like musical theatre and baking, and I am married to a wonderful woman who likes mechanics and rugby. We have a happy and rich marriage. I do not think that we should stereotype men and women, but they are different, and we do have different socialisation. Gender inequality is real, and gender inequality hurts everyone differently. It is wrong to ignore the gendered aspects of challenges that limit any human being from fulfilling their potential. It was wrong when society did that for far too long to women and girls, and it is wrong that we continue to ignore some of the gendered issues that affect men and boys.

I represent a constituency, Bishop Auckland, where I see boys who have too often felt left behind. There is underachievement at every stage of education, there is a lack of emotional support and there is a system that too often blames boys rather than backing them. I was pleased to lead a debate last year on the educational disadvantage that keenly affects northern and particularly north-eastern working-class boys. I made the point that we only have to go back as far as the 1970s to see girls underachieving in the education curriculum. There was rightly a big public outcry and specific gendered strategies were developed, such as getting more girls into science and technology. That was the right thing to do.

Today, however, we see that girls are outperforming boys at every educational stage. The north-east has the lowest GCSE attainment nationally, and only 60% of boys are school-ready before they start early-years education, compared with 75% of girls. Boys go on to score half a grade lower on average at GCSE. They account for 70% of permanent exclusions and 95% of youth custody. In the area that I represent, one in seven young men is not in education, employment or training, which is nearly double the rate for young women. Structural inequality means that working-class boys start behind and stay behind.

I am pleased that the Government are making great strides in their strategy on violence against women and girls, which is timely and important. It is also important that boys and men be partners in that strategy, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 2 million men every year are victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse or stalking, representing 37% of the victims of that type of behaviour.

I was similarly pleased to see the Health Secretary launching a men’s health strategy on International Men’s Day. That was urgently needed, and it is great that it has been brought forward. I appreciate the comments that have been made in this debate about men’s mental health, which is a particular challenge in my community. Mental health challenges are driven by issues such as loneliness, but a common cause, which I see in my surgeries all the time, is men being denied access to their children. Through no fault of their own and with no accusation of wrongdoing, they are simply not able to enjoy a family life. That means children missing out on fathers, and fathers missing out on the company of children.

[Tessa Munt]

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it is an area of interest to me. I have been a long-term supporter of Families Need Fathers, although not necessarily Fathers4Justice, which pinged off out of that. I tried to work out exactly how many times judges have allowed child arrangements orders to be given to fathers, but no data is kept. If we do not have data about how many children live with which parent—or about where there are shared parental orders, which in my view have to be the route forward, except in exceptional circumstances—how can we possibly know what is happening?

[Sam Rushworth]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. We need a separate debate on that issue, and a much wider investigation.

I am pleased that online safety is also having its moment. Online safety is so important for our children, but it is also important for adults. I am particularly concerned by violent pornography. It harms women and girls, and it harms men and boys. It harms adults as much as it harms children. We need to take it much more seriously.

I have listed a few aspects of life that I believe are gendered and need a particular gendered approach: men’s health, education, work, fatherhood, safety. I do not know whether a men’s Minister is the answer— I certainly would not want to set men and women up in competition, because I think they are equal partners in addressing these challenges—but at the very least the Government need a men’s champion to ensure that we mainstream these issues, as we have been doing for decades. We have talked about gender mainstreaming, which has meant women and girls, but it also needs to mean men and boys, through different aspects of government, whether that is in relation to health, to education, to employment or to family law. We need to look at this together, for all our sakes.

15:00

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this important debate.

Men are often told that we do not talk enough about our feelings and that we bury our heads in the sand, and too often in this House and across Whitehall there is a tendency to overlook the challenges faced by men and boys. We rightly and frequently hear about the importance of protecting the rights of women and girls, and that is obviously very important, but equality must mean fairness for everybody across the United Kingdom. If we want to build a nation that everybody is proud to be part of, we must be prepared to confront the challenges facing men. We have a Minister for Women and Equalities and a Select Committee scrutinising that brief, while the civil service employs diversity and inclusion managers to promote the interests of seemingly any group other than men and boys. I am not claiming that that is done on purpose, but it needs to change.

This is not about diminishing the progress made in advancing opportunities for women and girls, but we must acknowledge that in several key areas, such as education, employment, justice and health, men face profound challenges that are simply not spoken about enough or dealt with. In education, the disparity starts early: only about 60% of boys are deemed to be school ready, compared with 75% of girls. The gap does not disappear, but persists through secondary education and beyond. Some 45,000 fewer men go to university and 18,000 fewer young men have started apprenticeships since 2017. At the same time, boys are more than twice as likely as girls to be permanently excluded from school.

Alongside the statistics, an unhelpful narrative has developed that boys are a problem to society and that they need to be managed. That does nothing to raise aspiration or instil pride and responsibility in young men. We see the issue even in working life. The number of young men unemployed for more than a year now stands at more than 107,000—the highest level since 2015, in part thanks to the economic decisions of the current Government, sadly. As we all know, long-term unemployment has serious social consequences. As has been mentioned, we have a male prison population of more than 90,000 and we have thousands of young men sleeping rough on any given night. That is not the life that any of us in this place would want for our sons, brothers or friends.

Finally, we cannot ignore the realities of men’s health. Men are more likely to become alcoholics or have addictions than women. Physically, men are more likely to be overweight, to suffer from cardiovascular disease and to die earlier than women from a range of conditions, including cancer. Most worrying of all is the fact that in England and Wales suicide is about three times more common among men than among women, and the gap continues to widen. This is the elephant in the room that we are simply not talking about enough. These outcomes demand serious and sustained attention.

[Sam Rushworth]

I thank the hon. Member for also raising the issue of male suicide. I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but in my constituency, ManHealth, which ran men’s support groups, has lost its funding and the groups are no longer meeting. Does the hon. Member agree that we probably need dedicated funding streams looking specifically at male mental health and support groups?

[Mr Bedford]

I could not agree more. I think that, at times, Departments work in silos. Strategy is not often cross-departmental and decisions made in one Department mat have a massive impact on another, so I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Member makes.

As I said, these outcomes demand serious and sustained attention. I do see the merits of a Minister for men and boys, but I do not believe that the answer lies in creating another bureaucratic post that politicians can hide behind. When a group appears to be struggling, Whitehall groupthink leads to a new title, a new office or, God forbid, yet another quango, but symbolism does not deliver. We need real systemic and cultural change across Whitehall to improve outcomes for men, just like we do for women. Only then will we truly be able to improve the lives of not just men and boys, but everybody.

15:04

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate and for his ongoing commitment to tackling the challenges facing men and boys.

Let me begin with the reality in my constituency. As has been said, some of the inequalities that we see today are baked in before school starts. One in three boys in Ipswich starts school without the foundation skills that they need to succeed. Those young boys are full of potential, yet they struggle early with reading, numeracy and social and emotional development—issues only exacerbated by the pandemic. At the very start of their lives, they are already facing a steep uphill climb that threatens to define not only their entire educational journey but their life chances.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that parents of men and boys are navigating a truly wild west? Although it is brilliant that the Government are committed to helping teachers to spot and navigate misogyny in schools, the fact is that parents are the ones at the coalface, especially in the early years. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking those parents who work really hard every day to raise kind, confident and compassionate boys who we are very proud of?

[Jack Abbott]

I am delighted to do that. I know that my hon. Friend is a great mum to her little children. I will come to the really important issues that she highlights later in my speech.

As has been said, we need co-ordinated, well-funded action across Departments, across Government and across our country. We must confront the real challenges in educational attainment. By the age of five, children are assessed against the early years foundation stage framework. A good level of development involves meeting milestones in communication, literacy and mathematics. That foundation is essential for primary success, GCSEs and, eventually, securing stable employment. If a child is behind at five and is struggling to communicate or manage emotions, they are far more likely to fall even further behind. That gap affects their confidence and shapes what they believe, whether they feel that university or a high-skilled apprenticeship is within reach, and whether they feel equipped to navigate the world of work.

In 2024, a Suffolk county council report showed that only 62% of boys—less than two thirds—achieve a good level of development by the age of five, compared with 79% of girls. Boys are more likely to start school struggling with the skills that underpin all later learning. Although it is important to note that girls absolutely face their own challenges, we must provide targeted interventions so that every child can thrive.

As a child progresses, the gaps continue. By key stage 2, boys from disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately represented among those failing to reach the expected standards. In Suffolk, that manifests in a worrying 14.6% rate of persistent absenteeism in secondary schools. When boys disengage from the classroom, they lose the sense of belonging and the structure that school provides, which often leads to a cycle of isolation. In Ipswich, the deprivation gap has hit nearly two years: people from lower income backgrounds at GCSE are nearly two years behind their peers. But it all starts in early years: by the time they enter reception, at the age of four, they are already six months behind.

We need a strategy that understands how class, place and gender can collide to hold our young people back. The solutions lie in practical, evidence-based action. Early intervention, targeted literacy support, mentoring for at-risk boys and mental health initiatives are all vital, but we must act decisively. The Government have already taken steps to address the root causes of disengagement, starting with the men’s health strategy, released towards the end of last year. It is not just a policy document; it is the first strategy to recognise that a boy’s physical health and mental resilience are the primary drivers of his ability to concentrate in a classroom. By tackling health inequalities early, we can ensure that young boys’ underdiagnosed anxiety or physical development delays do not become lifelong barriers to their education.

Similarly, our expanded early years provision and family hubs are transforming school readiness. In Ipswich, they will act as a vital one-stop shop, providing parents with speech and language therapy and parental support before a child reaches his first day at school. For a young boy who might otherwise start reception unable to communicate his needs, leading to frustration, such hubs provide early intervention that can prevent a cycle of exclusion. These measures offer some sort of stability. They ensure that school readiness is a reality, not a slogan, by supporting the home environment and the child simultaneously. They demonstrate precisely why the solution lies in ensuring that policies are co-ordinated, well-resourced and effectively delivered in communities such as Ipswich.

It has been said, rightly, by Members across the Chamber that boys in themselves are not the problem, but we have to recognise and be honest with ourselves about the dangers they are facing at the moment, particularly online. Andrew Tate was mentioned just a moment ago. I am loath to repeat his name too often, but we have to remember that he has been charged by not just our country’s Crown Prosecution Service, but authorities in many other countries around the world. He is charged with rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking. I know how many young boys at the moment look to him as some sort of—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Members should not speak about live court cases.

[Jack Abbott]

Allegedly—I think I did say that, and I apologise if I did not use that word, Mr Twigg, but that is what our Crown prosecutors have charged him with. It is terrifying that many young boys look at someone like him as a potential role model. I do not believe that there are no role models out there—the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned people such as Gareth Southgate. There are many footballers and the wonderful actors we saw at the BAFTAs, but why not start at home?

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) spoke about the role of parents. A new Labour Group for Men and Boys has been established in partnership with The Dad Shift and Movember and vital campaigners on these issues. One of its latest campaigns is on paternity leave in this country, which is the worst in Europe—just two weeks at half the minimum wage, or nothing if someone is self-employed. We have to recognise that to develop strong children into strong men later in life, they need role models at home. That is about equal parenting and making sure that men are present in their child’s life at the earliest possible stage. Statistics show that if they are there as decent, active and present role models in a child’s early development, they will be later in life as well.

Measures such as those I have described are how we will ensure that boys in Ipswich do not just survive school and their education, but thrive and go on to live fulfilling, secure and productive lives.

15:11

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this very important debate. The question is: do we need a Minister for men and boys? I would say that ideally we do not, but we already have a Minister for women—in fact, we have the Women and Equalities Committee. We have to ask ourselves why we need these things especially for women. Is perhaps because, as a society, we feel that women are discriminated against? I think they probably are—we all know that and all agree with that. That is one of the reasons I sat on the Women and Equalities Committee in the last Parliament. But what about men? What about men and boys? What about young boys? What about white working-class young boys?

Boys and young men have historically been very useful to our society, especially when we needed coal mined, steel made in mills in the north, or factories filled with labourers to do back-breaking hard work. Young men and boys were also very useful when it came to fighting wars. They were dragged away from their towns and villages to be killed on a foreign battlefield. Even now, we send young lads to foreign fields, and they come back—at least some of them do—missing legs or arms. Even worse, some come back in a coffin, and we all say, “What a great young man he was. What a lot of great friends he had. He was a comrade. He was brave,” and so on, and in a few days we forget about him, and we leave the family to pick up the pieces and live a lifetime of grief. But these days, a lot of young men have no idea what they will do with their lives when they leave school. The pits and the coalmines have gone. Industry has declined. Net zero is killing once thriving industries in the north and the midlands—industries that took young men straight from school into the workplace, where they would spend 30 or 40 years.

Meanwhile the lawmakers in this place—some idiotic lawmakers sometimes—do not have a clue about what young men and boys are going through. Instead, they talk about white privilege, and they tell boys that they need to go on courses to not be misogynistic. That is absolutely shameful. We take all the opportunities away from young men and boys and then tell them that they are to blame for the way women are tret in this country. That is nonsense. The Centre for Social Justice tells us that boys and men are increasingly falling behind in education, employment and social wellbeing—a phenomenon often called a hidden crisis. Well, it is not a hidden crisis; it is out there in plain sight. Girls consistently outperform boys at school. We have rising loneliness, a lack of opportunities and a lack of positive role models for young men, especially in working-class communities.

Who is to blame for all this? I think this place is to blame—I truly do. We have produced a benefits system that does not encourage the family unit any more. Sometimes it is more profitable to be a single parent at home—it is mainly women, if we are honest. A lot of these women are left to bring up boys on their own, with no male role model in the house. These young boys then go to infant school and primary school, where we hardly ever see a male teacher any more. In some of the schools I visit, there is not a single male teacher. The first proper role model that some of these young lads see is when they get to senior school. It is absolutely shocking. Is it any wonder that our young men are confused and do not have any direction? In fact, some of the only interactions these young men have are with the local bobby, when they have been in trouble on the street.

It was different for me in my day. I grew up listening to my dad’s alarm clock going off every morning at 5 o’clock. He would get up and go and do a shift down the pit. Then, a few years later, he would get me up, and I would go down the pit with my dad. He was my role model. Every single lad in our village had a role model, because of the family unit. My dad was my role model, and for many other kids in the village, their dads were theirs.

I strongly believe that this place has broken our society, and it never takes any responsibility. We have MPs in this place, including the Prime Minister—I want to have a go now—telling young boys that they must watch BBC programmes like “Adolescence” because of the way women are treated. We are blaming young boys for the way women are treated. I would say, yes, let them watch this programme, but make girls watch it as well. As a society, we should all be watching these things. We need a Minister for young men and boys to put right the wrongs created in this place.

[The Minister for Equalities (Olivia Bailey)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interesting speech. His party has recently announced that it would like to scrap the Department for women and equalities, so how does his statement sit with that commitment? He also wants to scrap the Equality Act 2010. Does he recognise that the Act actually protects men and boys from discrimination on the basis of their sex?

[Lee Anderson]

I think we could make the Equality Act much better. We do not have to have an Equality Act in this country. On the Minister’s first point, in this country we should not really need a Minister for women, and we should not really need a Minister for men. We should probably have a Minister for people—as simple as that. Why are we discriminating? Why are we separating the two? We are all human beings. We are all people.

I talk about young men having no direction, and I want to talk about one particular group. Young men in the care system go through foster care and care homes from four or five years old. Some of them lead terrible lives. They are pushed from pillar to post. I know, because I worked in a hostel for homeless young people before I came to this place. I saw at first hand these kids coming to us at 16 years old—young men and girls. Like I say, they had been pushed from pillar to post, had no positive role model in their lives and had been in trouble with the police. As a society, we completely let down these young men. Where did they go when they left the hostel? I’ll tell you where they went: mainly to prison. We could do very little with them in the two years that we had them, because they had had a lifetime of upset, with their parents and grandparents abandoning them.

I always say that it would have been cheaper to take these young kids, at four and five, out of the care system and give them a proper education. Put them in a boarding school, give them the best training possible, and break the poverty cycle. Give them a career and a chance in life, but we do not. We put them through the care system, and then sometimes through the penal system. Every single one of the girls who left the hostel was pregnant. Do we know why that is? I’ll tell you why: it was the only way they could get a house—a council house—and a regular supply of benefits. What a terrible thing we are doing in this country. This place has created a society in which young people are failing, and we have the cheek to sit here, scratching our heads, wondering how we can put it right.

[Maya Ellis]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the things that has caused a lack of male role models is the lack of third spaces and youth centres? The disinvestment in youth services, which I think averaged about 70% per local authority under the previous Government, has led to a lot of the reduction in role models in the third spaces and youth areas, and in youth funding, and that this Government have reinvested in that.

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She may have a point about care centres and whatever, but I go back. It is the family unit and the lack of male family role models that have caused this problem. We have to decide: do we want the state to provide role models for children, or do we want the family, friends, neighbours and schools to provide the male role models? I think it should be the family.

15:20

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate. My goodness, where do I start? I think this debate is an incredibly good jumping off point. This is something that comes through in all our constituencies on a daily basis, and Lagan Valley is no different.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Northern Ireland may be a slight outlier, in that we are a post conflict society. People of my generation grew up with a culture centred around strong men, for want of a better phrase. We also had very strong women, and I am one of them, but unfortunately I am here with you all today.

There is a societal question about how we grip this issue. I am a very outspoken advocate and champion for women and girls, but I am learning as I go that we cannot exclude men and boys from these conversations. I am heartened to hear a real acknowledgment of that today, right across the political spectrum. It was lovely and refreshing to hear someone say that women are women and men are men. That is actually really heartening, because what that looks like to one individual will be very different from how it looks to another—people have outlined their own situations, which is lovely.

That does not exclude people from the LGBT community either. Actually, whenever we look at some of the reporting around sexual violence, domestic violence and abuse, we have uncovered that, particularly in Northern Ireland, there is an issue with same-sex relationships. Gay men and women in particular feel that they have no voice whatsoever and have been really afraid to come forward, because they have felt that no one would believe them and that they did not have a place to go. On this journey, we are learning all the time that what is right for one person will be different for another, but we should never lose sight of the fact that there is a specific issue around men and boys.

It is funny that the former right hon. Member for Harlow was mentioned earlier, because, in my previous life, I worked in business, and one of the things I was very passionate about was apprenticeships. Members right across the House have spoken today about the deindustrialisation of Britain and the lack of pathways for care-experienced young people who may potentially come into the justice system. The old phrase, “It costs more to do jail than Yale”, comes to mind. As other Members have said, if we ignore these issues in the early years, we are just saving up problems for later down the line, when it is much more difficult in a person’s life and much more costly to the state—if we want to put it in those blunt terms.

The issue of apprenticeships is close to my heart, even now. I know we are still navigating our way through the apprenticeship levy, and what it means in some of the new industries that we are trying to promote to give our young people opportunities, but we have to be honest and ask whether there has been a move away from wanting to discuss the roles that young men and boys may have traditionally gone into. I say that as somebody who worked in manufacturing, and I have spent an awful lot of my time trying to encourage women and girls into manufacturing and science, technology, engineering and maths industries.

I think it is okay to say to men and boys, “If you want to do work on the tools, you can do that. We will support you.” No one has mentioned it in this debate, but in my constituency we have a large history of people going into the armed forces. If men and boys want to do that and get a trade—and if women and girls want to do that, because a lot of women close to me have served—that is completely fine. There is nothing wrong in saying that to men and boys. I do not think that is reinforcing an unhealthy gender stereotype; it is simply allowing people permission to do what they want and what they feel is right.

Family access and contact is a big issue that is close to my heart—Members have specifically raised that in this debate. I am deeply concerned about some of the issues that our men and boys face in the family court system. I do not know how we resolve that. It will not be done at the stroke of a pen or by legislation, but I am seriously concerned about how we deal with that issue, going forward.

At the weekend, in my Lagan Valley constituency, I attended an event through the Resurgam Trust in Lisburn. It was well attended by men from right across the community, but representatives of the trust said to me privately that they struggle to get people there. However, they got people there, which is the most important thing. We cannot let go of those men and boys when they step forward.

Is a Ministry for men and boys the answer? I am not sure, but I certainly do not want to dismiss it out of hand. It is worth considering. No matter our views, there is a perception out there: “If we have a Minister for women and girls, why do we not have one for men and boys?” I understand the logic in that argument, and I am not going to dismiss it.

Do I think we need to keep having these conversations? Absolutely. I think it would be to everyone’s detriment not to continue having them. I commend the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for securing this debate, and commend everyone for contributing in really good faith. I look forward to the contributions of the Government and Opposition Front Benchers.

15:26

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

It is good to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg, and I am sorry that I did not have the chance to say that in my earlier intervention. I commend the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate.

When I looked at it, I was amazed at how many different topics might come into scope of this debate, and many of them have been mentioned already. Following all I have heard today, I suspect that we probably do need a Minister for men and boys to make sure there is some focus, because when there is a Minister, people tend to sit up and pay attention to what is going on. I know the Prime Minister said, in response to the focus on “Adolescence”, that he did not want such a Minister, but I think it would not be a bad thing, even if for a trial period of three or five years.

I will briefly summarise. I have already mentioned the data on teacher training, but there are all sorts of other areas that particularly concern men and boys. There is, as far as I can tell, no data on child arrangements orders, referred to by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), so we do not know what is happening. Shared parenting has to be a really good thing, with the requisite exclusions where it is not safe. Paternity leave was introduced in 1999 and paternity pay in 2003, but again there are very few public statistics, and the statistics that exist are not comparable, so we cannot see in which direction we are going. We have isolated islands of data that are not particularly helpful.

From 2010 to 2015, I was part of the Administration that introduced shared parental leave and pay under the Children and Families Act 2014. I am glad that the Government reviewed parental leave and pay last year, but as far as I can see, it opened in July and closed in August, when loads of people are on holiday, so I do not know how much of a response there was. Is the Minister able to enlighten us on when the outcome of that consultation might be published? I cannot see any information on that, but she may correct me.

Given my life experience, through the various groups I have worked with over time, I want to put a flag in the ground on another serious problem: men as victims of domestic violence perpetrated by women. It is definitely not cool and definitely difficult for men to report. They do not think they are going to be believed—there is that fear of not being believed.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member may be aware of a Netflix series, “The Diplomat”, in which a very strong woman had an altercation with her husband. The comedy of the scene was that she beat him several times with the security guards looking on. That was glossed over and seen as part of being a strong woman, but it is the kind of problem that we have when we talk about men being victims of domestic violence, which is still normalised in modern society these days. Does the hon. Member agree that that is the kind of thing we need to watch out for?

[Tessa Munt]

We need to do more than watch out; that is completely unacceptable. I know so many men who have been the victims of domestic abuse. That is shockingly bad.

[Sam Rushworth]

I believe I am correct in saying that we do not disaggregate domestic abuse figures by gender. What is reported as domestic abuse is often assumed to mean violence against women, but it is actually just domestic abuse. That can include abuse against men, who are included in those statistics. Will the hon. Member speak about that?

[Tessa Munt]

I absolutely agree. That goes back to the business of data. We need to have the data, and I ask the Minister to look at that issue as well. I have made several points about data and statistics. If we do not know what is going on, we cannot possibly make an intelligent assumption about anything.

Another area—to criticise my own gender—is that of children so often being used as a weapon against men. Again, this is something that I have seen in the groups in which I have been involved and in my work in the past: the use of children, most often—though not always—by women is a shocking indictment. We have not got to grips with that, and we absolutely need to.

I have listened to all the comments about education, and I want to make a quick observation about macho male culture. The President of the United States seems to typify what people might think of as an alpha male leader. His version of masculinity seems to see dominance, subordination of others and aggression as desirable and socially valued traits. His politics has been explicitly endorsed by Andrew Tate—I can hardly bring myself to say his name—but in that context, I thank Gareth Southgate. He raised the alarm in his public lecture that young men definitely do not have positive role models, which makes them vulnerable to the influence of online personalities who promote negative ideologies about women and the world generally. The world is not against men and boys, in my view, and people saying that that is the case is unhelpful. That is why we should laud the efforts of Gareth Southgate to rebalance that.

I will quickly comment on prostate cancer. One in eight men gets prostate cancer, and black men are twice as likely to get it as those of other colours, so screening for men with the relevant genetic variants is good—but that is for a very small group. Last weekend, I was pleased to be at Wells town hall in my constituency, where the Cheddar Rotary and the Wells Lions club, and a whole group of fantastic health professionals spent the day testing 320 men. The misfortune was that about 38 of them could not turn up, for one reason or another, but it is brilliant when that sort of stuff happens in our communities. That is a start, but we need Government to step up on prostate cancer.

I want to talk very briefly about male suicide. Some 14 men a day take their own lives. Again, there are some amazing things that happen. The all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues, co-chaired by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), identified that many men view suicide as a rational solution to life’s events that they cannot solve any longer, whether that is relationship breakdown or financial pressures. Rather than viewing suicide as a clinical condition and a health issue, they see it as a life problem.

Here, I pay tribute to the late Derek Mead, who provides a room at the cattle market at Junction 24 on the M5 where health checks for farmers are available. There is also a lady called Susie Wilkinson in my constituency, who is part of the Farming Community Network. Those are people who support people in the community.

I will write to the Minister with several things that my party has asked for to promote mental health. There are so many things. There should be an MOT at key points in men’s lives, and in people’s lives generally. In conclusion I think that we probably need to have a Minister for men and boys in the short term.

15:36

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate.

I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues. It is a huge pleasure to work with the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys in that role, advancing the wellbeing, safety and happiness of men and boys across the country. The fact that I have the opportunity to work with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) makes it even more thrilling. It is wonderful to work cross-party on something that matters in all our communities, which has been highlighted this afternoon.

It is only when all of us—men and boys, women and girls—are happy, leading by example, and creating a fair, safe and equal society where everybody has the opportunity to prosper, that some of the deep, ingrained issues in our constituencies and daily lives will be fixed. It was a pleasure to hear some of the speeches and comments from Members on both sides of the House, who have passionately and rightly spoken up about the great work in their constituencies and their experiences. It has been a really insightful conversation this afternoon.

It is a sad fact that, as we have heard today, 14 men die by suicide every day—more than 5,000 a year in England and Wales. Families and loved ones are affected, and those men are deeply cared about. The fact that suicide continues to be the largest killer of men under 50 in the UK is a huge cause for concern. The first men’s health strategy for England is extremely welcome, and I will say more on that shortly. The initiatives on the stigma surrounding mental health, particularly for men, are vital, but I was pleased to see support for emergency service workers in the policing reform White Paper, which is welcomed by Samaritans. That is a key step forward, and it will partly help with the issue.

In my constituency role and shadow ministerial roles, I have met some amazing organisations that do so much for men and boys. The charitable area is often the first point of contact for men and boys. Women often have moments, friendships and other things in their lives where there is a natural conversation point. For men, it is very often a health issue that they reach out about—if they do at all—so it is vital that we fund and support those areas. There are organisations such as Movember, MAN v FAT—I will say more on that shortly—the wonderful Men’s Sheds, which I and many of us have in our constituencies, and there is the work of Samaritans. Where there are suicide hotspots and other issues in Sussex, that work really matters. I was delighted, like many of us, to win a Movember award for being a men’s health champion, which now sits proudly in my office. I am delighted to see so many other people winning those.

Hon. Members have rightly spoken about talking of masculinity in a positive way. Positive role models are important, but I wonder why we need an adjective around masculinity. I thank everybody who has taken on points about culture this afternoon.

I said I would return to the men’s health strategy, tackling HIV, prostate cancer and health equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth opened the debate fantastically well; I am proud to call him a friend. His work on this really matters. It is now standard that we have an International Men’s Day debate and fringe events at our party conferences. Those have been as well attended as the Conservative women’s organisation events I am involved in. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, as I am sure we all do, that it should never be a choice of either/or. It was important that he opened the debate by spelling out why that matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) talked about the key, which is outcomes. Co-ordinated action is a key message from today’s debate. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) expressed strong views and values, many of them sounding very Conservative. I am not sure she would be delighted to hear that. The point about family courts and family breakdown is important, as well as being there for kids and being challenging. Men often want to be there for family, but the process holds them back. It is difficult for men to put their heads above the parapet. Many men want and need to be involved in their children’s lives. The hon. Lady was right to spell that out, having heard from her constituents.

I said I would talk about MAN v FAT. I enjoyed meeting Richard Crick, its director, some time ago. That is an amazing, inclusive programme, which coaches and supports men in their health. He and I, like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and many others, are Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys champions. I have never felt so championing—it is amazing. I am delighted to be mentioned in the same breath as Gareth Southgate and Lawrence Dallaglio. Gareth Southgate’s LinkedIn posts are amazing, offering the best time on social media. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth thought I was interested in this just because of his work with David Gandy, but I promise I am interested in the whole gamut. That shows the breadth and importance of role models across all sections of society.

I know the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) feels this strongly. Perhaps this Parliament is doing the wrong thing; how about it always trying to do the right thing? In this area, working with role models and more widely, there is an opportunity for all of us. The hon. Member is right that there is a blame game. Where are the role models? Let us have a look at that.

Single men on apps, how does that work? We know of incel culture and the challenges around those who are lost and lonely. We know that loneliness can tip into mental health conditions, so it is right to look at social media. The leader of my party is talking about the under-16 challenge. It is right that we properly address the issue of white working-class boys. Too many young people are being left disillusioned and left behind. That is a fact; let us get on with doing something about it, for example, dealing with online safety and the harms around young children. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland rightly talked about pornography.

We have heard today about men as victims of domestic violence from the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I do not believe in using the words domestic abuse and I do not like the term domestic violence. I call it criminality in the home. It does not matter who instigates it; we should deal with it. If it were on the front lawn or down the street, we would deal with it, no matter who is the perpetrator. We need to continue in that vein with that cross-party approach.

My question to the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in her place, is: what is the Government’s position on the culture of men and boys? We have heard about the thought-provoking approach of Gareth Southgate and others. Do the Government believe that masculinity needs an adjective? Mothers of young boys, and indeed this mother of young girls, want all our young people to be supported. Crucially, whether they be feminine or masculine, they need to be happy, particularly our young boys in their masculinity.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, my co-chair in the all-party parliamentary group, mentioned the boy problem. He spoke about excellent role models. One we work with is the amazing Mark Brooks OBE, who is the director of the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys. The hon. Member rightly talked about partnership and fatherhood, and made some typically thoughtful comments.

[Jim Shannon]

Everybody has referred to role models. Young boys look towards a man for a better role model, but we should recognise that a mother can also be a role model in the way she shapes us. When I was a wee boy, I was privileged to have a number of ladies from Ballywalter to guide me. Sometimes the ladies in the house—the mothers, the aunties, the friends—can very much be a role model as well.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and that is why I take such an interest in this area.

The feeling of hopelessness and anger is being exploited, which creates myriad challenges that make the most vulnerable even more vulnerable. We must step up on education, employment, health and aspiration. All of that is impacting hope. Some people in particular sectors, such as farming, are more isolated. It is not okay that our men are not thriving. Hope and confidence need to be in every community. This is truly a cross-party issue.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind her to leave a minute or two at the end for Dr Evans to wind up.

15:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

It is always an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for opening the debate and for his commitment to tackling the issues facing many men and boys. I thank him and other hon. Members, whose thoughtful and varied contributions have led to a worthwhile debate and showed the range of challenges men encounter in today’s world, including problems with their health, their work, their family life or harmful influences online.

Specific ministerial positions and titles are, of course, a matter for the Prime Minister, so I am sure hon. Members will forgive me for not commenting on that in detail, but I assure them that not having the word “men” in our titles does not prevent me or any of my colleagues from working hard to support men and boys across our country. Indeed, two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending a thought-provoking debate on educational outcomes for boys, where I was able to share some of what the Government are doing about the challenges facing boys in schools.

[Lee Anderson]

It is great that the Minister is doing work with young boys, but does she agree that boys can be boys and girls can be girls, especially growing up through school? Does she think it is helpful that boys are told they can go to school in dresses?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I think it is important that we support children to have a happy, healthy and enjoyable childhood.

As a mum of two boys, I am well aware of the challenges facing our boys in schools, and as an Equalities Minister, I am pleased to be able to work with colleagues across Government to take action on those issues. The Equality Act 2010 requires the interests of both and women to be considered when all Ministers make decisions and when officials implement policies. We are committed to supporting men and boys in all areas where they face disadvantage, recognising that too many are really struggling with the challenges in our society today.

[Dr Evans]

I appreciate that the Government recognise the issues, but we do have a women and girls Minister. Why do we need a women and girls Minister when we do not have a men and boys Minister?

[Olivia Bailey]

I will come on to discuss that issue in more detail. Some of the issues that the Minister for Women and Equalities would cover include our commitment to tackling violence against women and girls or inequality in the workplace. I will come on to talk in more detail about the things the Government are doing for men and boys.

As I said, we are committed to supporting men and boys in all areas where they face disadvantage, recognising that too many are struggling with the challenges in our society today. That is why the Prime Minister has asked the Deputy Prime Minister to lead work across Government to improve outcomes for men and boys. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been set up to support Ministers in this work, which includes a specific focus on convening and co-ordinating work across Departments so that we can ensure a joined-up approach that delivers meaningful and measurable change. The Prime Minister has also committed to holding a national summit on men and boys later this year to bring together key sector partners, and we will share more details on that in due course.

The hon. Members for Hinckley and Bosworth and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) spoke about the distinct issues that men face in our healthcare system. That is something the Government are acutely aware of, and last year we published England’s first ever men’s health strategy, reflecting many of the concerns rightly raised by speakers today. Drawn up in partnership with men themselves, experts, men’s groups, charities and campaigners, the strategy directly addresses some of the health challenges and disadvantages that men face. It sets out how we are improving men’s access to health services and enabling men to make healthier choices. It also outlines how to tackle the biggest health problems affecting men of all ages, including mental health and suicide, respiratory illness, prostate cancer and heart disease. We are now focused on implementing the commitments set out in the strategy, including how partnerships and stakeholders can support and champion the strategy and its implementation.

On mental health specifically, Members have made thoughtful contributions today, and I thank them for sharing powerful stories. I particularly liked the anecdote told by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about his mother and “hanging a fiddle on the door”. I thought that was a powerful example of what we are talking about.

Around three in four of the people who died by suicide in 2024 were men, with 25% of incidents being among middle-aged men alone. We are determined to tackle this inequality. Our men’s health strategy includes investment in community-based health and suicide prevention programmes and a new partnership with the Premier League to ensure men know where to go for mental health support. We have also announced the suicide prevention pathfinders programme for middle-aged men. This programme, co-designed with experts and men with lived experience, will tackle the barriers men face in seeking support.

More widely, the Government have already taken significant steps to improve NHS mental health services, including hiring almost 7,000 extra mental health workers since July 2024. And thanks to an increase in NHS talking therapies, more adults with anxiety and depression are getting back into work.

I also want to highlight the work the Government are doing to support boys and young men, in particular. My hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Ipswich and the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) raised the challenges they face growing up in today’s society. In particular, comments were made about the importance of school readiness; as I am also the Minister for Early Education, I am determined that we address that issue, as we drive towards record numbers of our children being ready for school.

All children and young people should have every opportunity to succeed across every phase of education. Disadvantaged boys and young men face some of the steepest barriers to success. Over £28 million has been committed to drive standards in reading and writing, particularly for those who need the most support, including boys who underperform in English. That is alongside the National Year of Reading in 2026. The campaign is aimed at everyone, because the decline in reading enjoyment is an issue across all sectors of society. However, there is a focus on boys aged 10 to 16, parents from disadvantaged communities, and other priority groups.

A number of Members spoke about the importance of boys having positive male role models. I agree entirely about the importance of that, but we do need to be careful not to stray into criticising what types of families can bring up brilliant boys. The hon. Member for Strangford rightly said that women can be brilliant role models too. I want to be really clear from the Dispatch Box that single mums can bring up brilliant boys, just as my wife and I can bring up brilliant boys.

[Tessa Munt]

Does the Minister believe that men can bring up children really well as well?

[Olivia Bailey]

I absolutely do, and I thank the hon. Member for that important intervention.

Role models begin in schools, which is why it is important that we address the under-representation of men across the education workforce. Although this is broadly in line with international trends, we want to see more male teachers in our classrooms and in other education settings. To attract more men into teaching and address barriers, we ensure that men are featured regularly in the teacher recruitment marketing campaign “Every Lesson Shapes a Life”, with men in the focal role in its last two TV campaigns. The campaign to promote early years careers has also produced new adverts specifically to target men.

Outside of education, too many young men today are struggling with loneliness, and we know the devastating consequences that that can have for both their mental health and our communities. Our plans for improving social connection and reducing loneliness are embedded across Government policy, including through the national youth strategy and the men’s health strategy. The Government are also investing more than £300,000 to help Rugby League Cares give boys and young men a renewed sense of community, purpose and belonging.

A number of other comments were made in the debate. I am conscious of time, but the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire talked about homelessness and the criminal justice system. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich talked about the role of family hubs, and today I was in a fantastic family hub in Camden, where staff talked to me about the work they are doing with fathers, which is really exciting and a key part of our work moving forward.

The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked for an update on the parental leave review. The review will run for approximately 18 months, but I will be happy to follow up in writing if she would like further details.

[Mims Davies]

The Minister has rightly outlined strategies and different strands across Government. Could she set out whether there those strategies are driving at any particular outcomes, including around young offenders and other areas, so that we can track whether they are having the desired outcomes in our constituencies?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention. I point back to the work the Deputy Prime Minister is doing, as well as to the summit the Prime Minister will be doing later this year.

In conclusion, I thank again all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s important debate. Whether as role models, allies or mentors, men can inspire and encourage us all. As we celebrate the wonderful contributions that men and boys make to their families, schools, communities and workplaces, we must work together to help them tackle the challenges they face in life. It is clear that Members across the House share our goal of making sure that men and boys are given the support they need.

15:57

[Dr Evans]

I think it was the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) who asked, “Where to start?”. Well, today has been a jolly good place, with cross-party support. She also talked about a journey; a journey starts with the first footstep, and we have certainly had that today.

I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for pointing out that this is not a hidden problem, and we can no longer pretend that it is. This is something that must be talked about, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt)—and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) talked specifically about the work, education and data that will drive that. I think that that is imperative. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also raised the Union aspect, which it is hugely important to consider, because this problem goes across all four countries.

I also thank both chairs of the APPG, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), for what they do and for driving this topic forward not just in this Chamber, but outside it.

To conclude, if men truly are from Mars, and women truly are from Venus, I believe that this House and this Government have a duty to support, translate and govern the whole solar system—not just one planet.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a Minister for Men and Boys.

Energy Developers Levy

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a levy on energy developers.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. On the Suffolk coast, communities and nature are facing a stack of separate, fast-moving nationally significant infrastructure projects. Those are new generation, multiple offshore wind grid connecters, major transmission reinforcement, multi-purpose interconnectors and Europe’s largest energy project, Sizewell C. As we speak, we have six NSIPs being built or seeking consent in a small, 10-mile radius of my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. Each has been planned separately, but the impacts are felt cumulatively.

I find it absurd that our planning system still examines proposals project by project, and developers are not required by law to co-ordinate. My community is expected to host multiple billion-pound schemes simultaneously, without any statutory tools or funding to force or enforce co-ordination between developers. I need to say that, since I have been raising the profile of this problem, Ofgem has been leading co-ordination meetings with those NSIPs, but Ofgem’s role is only to chair those meetings. There is no statutory obligation to make them happen, and they have come about only because of increased pressure about the need for better co-ordination.

Some improvements have happened because of those meetings, and that is welcome, but we need to go much further. Co-ordination between NSIPs, when they operate in the same area, should be enshrined in law. That is precisely why I tabled new clause 33 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which would have placed a legal duty on energy developers in the same area to share information, co-ordinate and co-operate on design and construction, and take responsible steps to reduce cumulative impacts.

As I have said before, the failure we are experiencing in Suffolk Coastal is because the previous Conservative Government totally vacated the leadership space when it came to our country’s energy and biodiversity planning. Energy developers filled that void. The Conservative Government sat back and allowed developers to take the lead and introduce proposals for totally unsuitable landscapes, all because it was cheaper than developing on brownfield sites. We have been left with a series of unco-ordinated whack-a-mole projects on the Suffolk coast. There is no brownfield-first strategy, no shared corridor strategy, no binding requirement to co-ordinate construction schedules, no mechanism to prevent the same land being dug up twice and no requirement to look at, or assess, the cumulative impact on nature and the environment.

It is not just me saying this. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report, “Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos”, highlighted the need for more strategic co-ordination in environmental impact assessments. It warned of “unnecessary costs and delays” from that “project-by-project approach”. The environmental impacts are assessed separately rather than cumulatively at habitat or seascape scale. In other words, communities in Suffolk Coastal are experiencing a national problem playing out locally, and that is exactly why I am calling for legislation to fix it.

The Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), agrees that it is completely crazy when construction is not co-ordinated. He sees the real need to apply that to not just energy companies but utilities digging up roads and pavements for repairs, or maintenance of gas, electricity and water, and construction projects. The Minister for Energy has previously acknowledged, publicly in debates and privately to me in meetings, that he agrees with me. He believes it is a source of deep regret that the previous Government did not do more to properly co-ordinate the huge build-out of new and important infrastructure. He has challenged me before that the statutory co-ordination I am seeking requires investment. That is a fair challenge. My response is a proposal to meet that challenge by setting out my proposed energy infrastructure co-ordination levy.

In simple terms, that is a levy payable by energy NSIP applicants, designed to fund cumulative planning, shared mitigation and co-ordinated delivery in host communities. It would apply to all energy NSIPs across generation, transmission and interconnectors. The payment would be triggered in two stages: a small amount when the application is accepted for examination, and the main payment when the development consent order is granted.

The levy would be calculated using a hybrid model reflecting real impact drivers: a base rate per gigawatt capacity; a base rate per kilometre of onshore cable; a base rate per substation or converter station; and a cap and a floor to ensure proportionality. That aligns cost with scale and disruption, not simply capital expenditure. Crucially, the funds will be ringfenced locally—that is really important.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I really appreciate the hon. Member’s having secured this important debate, as we have issues very similar to Suffolk Coastal’s in Caerfyrddin and west Wales in general. A levy is really important for cumulative planning and mitigation. I would also add that there are tangible benefits for our communities, such as public transport and affordable homes. Those are things that we do not have in rural communities, but which a levy could support. Does the hon. Member agree that that is the way forward—not the piecemeal dribs and drabs that companies are offering us?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, but I agree that the whack-a-mole strategy, which I have talked about, needs far better strategic oversight.

A dedicated energy co-ordination fund for affected host areas would be established and delivered through a locally accountable team. That is important, because all too often developers are headquartered elsewhere; they do not live in the areas with the repeated traffic disruption and the cumulative land take. Local institutions— the local council, for instance—must have the capacity to co-ordinate what developers currently are not required to.

The fund would support four priorities: shared modelling and evidence; design co-ordination, such as corridor planning and joint construction scheduling; strategic mitigation for nature, such as landscape-scale habitat restoration and long-term management funding; and the community impact reduction—stronger traffic enforcement and transparent liaison, for example.

Alongside that, there should be a statutory co-ordination board, independently chaired, that could set binding co-ordination objectives that applicants would have to respond to in their DCO documentation. Some may argue that the existing DCO obligations already address that issue; I tell Members explicitly that they do not. There is no statutory requirement for co-ordination between NSIPs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to her beforehand; she is certainly making a name for herself in this place for being assiduous and hard working. Does she agree that the consumer cannot afford greater cost-of-living increases through energy prices and that any levy cannot simply be handed on to the consumer, bearing in mind that energy costs are still a third higher than they were five years ago?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the hon. Member for his well-timed intervention; I have that heard said before and was just coming to that issue. I suspect that the Minister may have similar concerns. As the hon. Member points out, there may be concerns that a levy would increase consumer bills. That grates on me given that the National Grid reported an adjusted operating profit of £2.29 billion for the six months ending 30 September last year.

Let us be clear. This is not about asking bill payers to shoulder more of the burden; it is about asking developers, when they are developing multibillion-pound investments and returning substantial profits, to absorb a proportionate cost and ensure co-ordination.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Member has really come to the nub of the matter: the energy companies that are building and installing the renewable capacity are making a lot of money out of it. In my constituency, there are turbines whose owners are being paid for not generating anything, while we have the highest levels of fuel poverty in the country. Does that not speak to the fact that we need wholesale reform of the way the energy market is regulated?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; I am sure that the Minister will address that issue, which has long been talked about.

I was discussing the incredible profits that the energy developers are making. For me, this issue is about simple fairness: those creating the disruption and generating the return should fund the systems to manage the cumulative impact. More importantly—most importantly, perhaps—what I am suggesting would not lead to higher bills. Proper co-ordination would reduce bills: reduce the duplication, prevent redesign and avoid the need for repeated construction and legal conflict. Proper co-ordination saves money. This is not anti-growth, but smarter and inclusive growth.

Suffolk Coastal must not become the unmanaged frontier of energy development. So many in my constituency are pro-net zero, pro-investment and pro-growth, but we are asking the Government to be pro-co-ordination. What we have now is a fragmented planning system and eroding trust in the energy transition that we all support. If we are serious about delivering clean energy power at pace, we must treat host communities as partners, not afterthoughts, in that transition. We must do more to bring communities with us.

I am asking two things of the Minister today: first, a meeting with officials to examine this proposal; and secondly, a departmental feasibility study into the merits of an energy infrastructure co-ordination levy and how that could support both growth and nature recovery. The Government have already consulted on mandatory community benefits for low carbon energy infrastructure. The question now is whether we go further—by creating a clear levy model that funds meaningful co-ordination between clustered projects, such as those on the Suffolk coast; that builds local accountability and capacity; and that provides independent oversight, delivering tangible community and environmental mitigation. Communities such as mine are not asking for less ambition. We ask simply for better co-ordination when projects are approved.

If we get this issue right, we can deliver the green revolution in a way that communities support, nature benefits from and the country can be proud of.

16:11

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to join this debate under your chairship, Mr Twigg; I know that you take a great interest in these issues. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was right: my hon. Friend is making a name for herself as a hard worker in this space. Our meetings about this issue have been genuinely really helpful and insightful for me—and her as well, I hope. She is right to flag these issues.

I should also say at the outset that I genuinely welcome the tone that my hon. Friend has taken since she has become MP for Suffolk Coastal. In this place at this time, it is very easy to take the view that the easy answer is simply to say that we should not build anything anywhere ever again and let the country continue to slide further and further backwards; many on the Opposition Benches, who of course are not here at all, would say that.

My hon. Friend concluded her speech by saying something worth repeating: many in her community and across the country are pro the energy transition—they are pro-investment, pro-growth and pro-building the infrastructure—but they rightly want to know that that will be well planned and benefit their community. It is entirely legitimate for communities to ask for that and to be concerned when it does not happen. Given that spirit, she has raised this debate in the right way.

I want to pick up on a couple of things and also go back to why the infrastructure is so important in the first place. We sometimes lose sight of why it is so important for us to build energy infrastructure—in particular, much of the transmission infrastructure that is in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She said that the previous Government had not done that work, and I will come back to that.

It is worth remembering that since this Government came to power we have sought to tackle the energy trilemma: how we bring down bills and make the cost of living more affordable—today’s decision on the price cap is an important statement of how seriously we take that mission; how we deliver our long-term energy security in an uncertain world and how we move away from the volatility of fossil fuels, which have cost us so dearly in recent years; and how we build infrastructure that sets the country up for the future. This is about connecting not just renewable energy but the demand projects that will stimulate economic growth across the country. If we do not do these things, all we will do is harm that economic growth. Those decisions are incredibly important.

[Mr Carmichael]

I urge the Minister to learn from the experience of Shetland and Sullom Voe, 50 years ago. We took the most important step on North sea oil and gas coming ashore in Shetland, but on our terms: there was a genuine funding stream coming to the community. If we give the whip hand to the corporates, they will always use it to their benefit.

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point; a generation of lobbyists should look back at the history books of Shetland Islands council at the time, because it is an extraordinary story of how it seized the opportunity of what it knew then would be decades North sea oil and gas and has still benefited from it.

I was also going to come to the right hon. Gentleman’s other point, around the Viking wind farm, which I have seen in the Shetlands myself. The scale of it is extraordinary, but the community benefits are not where they should be and the community is not feeling enough of the benefit of it. It is important that we do everything we can to reduce the constraints on wind, so that local communities benefit directly from it and the country as a whole benefits from cheaper power on the grid, bringing down bills.

Let me turn to some of the actions that we have taken since we came into government. We have set up Great British Energy—a really important moment for us to say, for the first time in 70 years, that we want the public to have some ownership stake in our energy future. We have delivered the most significant programme of investment in home-grown clean energy in our history. Just a few weeks ago, we published the local power plan, the biggest shift of wealth and power in the energy space in British history, to make sure that energy projects are not just built by developers, but owned by local communities that have a real stake in their energy future. We also published the warm homes plan, so that we can have the biggest upgrade to homes in British history.

Any infrastructure, in the energy space or elsewhere, brings local impacts, and there is no point in anyone pretending that those impacts do not upset local people. That is why we have an extremely rigorous planning system, why we take great care over decisions that are made and why, at times, there is great frustration about the length of time it takes for planning decisions. However, that is because the public rightly have a voice in that process, and important determinations should take time. We should always remember the fundamental outcome: since the poorest in our society have paid the price from our exposure to fossil fuels, the infrastructure we are building today is imperative, and it is important that we move faster than ever before.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and I have talked about cumulative impact before, and I have said repeatedly in the House that it is a serious issue. All nationally significant infrastructure projects must take account of cumulative impact, including the range of those cumulative impacts—not just the number of projects in a particular place, but the impact on other local services and other bits of infrastructure. They must submit a local impact report, which makes the examining authority aware of what those potential impacts are. That process must demonstrate that the applicant has taken seriously the concerns of local communities. If they have not, that will count against them. Consultation cannot be an exercise to tick a box; there must be some demonstrable engagement with that process. Local communities have a voice in that process through early consultations, but they can also register through the Planning Inspectorate in the pre-examination stage. All those various issues are taken into consideration.

Let me also speak to the broader point about how we plan the future energy system. My hon. Friend made a correct observation: while the previous Government now want to run a mile from all the renewable energy projects that they developed, which we would support— I think I am the only person still cheerleading the previous Government’s drive for renewable energy, because they certainly are not—they did not design and co-ordinate the system such that we were not building unnecessary grid to connect all those projects. My hon. Friend’s constituency is a good example of where better co-ordination at a strategic level would have got the same outputs from the system, but with much less local impact.

We are taking forward a number of things—this is where we get into the acronym soup that is the energy world. First, and most importantly, the National Energy System Operator will design the first ever strategic spatial energy plan, or SSEP, which will be published by the end of next year. This is an important opportunity for us to design the future of our energy system holistically: to take into account what can be built where and what the future energy system looks like for our needs, not now, but in the future. As a result of that planning, we can design the most efficient network and transmission system that goes with it. The centralised strategic network plan, which will be the holistic design of the network, will follow that. This is something that we should have done 15 or 20 years ago, but we start from where we are now, and we are determined that the future of our energy system will be much more strategically planned and aligned.

That plan will take into account local impacts and views, and the regional energy plans in particular will take a much more granular and local look, engaging with local authorities and others to make sure that those plans really take into account both local needs and local opportunities. Those will be designed for Scotland, Wales and nine English regions, and we will bring together various people to share their views on how the plans should meet local priorities. I want to be really clear about the scale of that work. The reason why the Government are taking longer than perhaps we would like is that that is the best way to plan long into the future what the system will look like, and to give communities a real opportunity to shape it at an early stage. That is important for the planning of the system and for community benefits, which other Members have raised.

It is really important that we fundamentally recognise that communities who host energy infrastructure are doing a service for the country. Infrastructure has to be built somewhere. There is not some third place that would let us say, “Well, we are in favour of this, but please don’t build it in my area.” At some point, it has to go somewhere; as a Government, we are done with dither and delay and we are going to build things again, but communities should get a benefit from that infrastructure being built. We are committed to making sure that communities who host infrastructure will benefit. As my hon. Friend said, we have consulted on whether community benefits should be made mandatory—at the moment, they are voluntary and a patchwork across the country, and they have different degrees of impact on communities, even where the funding is being delivered—and we will respond to that consultation soon.

In the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we have also outlined the very first community benefits and bill discounts for people close to transmission infrastructure, recognising that often they have been left behind in terms of community benefits, as pylons and transmission wires flow through communities. That scheme will be up and running soon. It will directly deliver money off bills for those people living within 500 metres of new transmission infrastructure, but also millions of pounds of investment in communities next to significant pieces of transmission infrastructure such as substations. The grid is critical for the future of the country, and those who host grid infrastructure should get some benefit from that. In July last year, we also published guidance on voluntary community benefits to make sure that they are as robust as they can be.

My hon. Friend mentioned a levy, and I am happy to meet her to discuss that further. I pay tribute to the fact that, having identified a problem, instead of just bringing that problem to the House—I do not want to criticise other hon. Members here—she has worked on a solution. I am happy to engage with it and to look at it further.

There are two things that I want to say clearly. First, the affordability crisis is this Government’s No. 1 objective. It is driving decisions right across Government. It is what has led to a 7% reduction in bills from the next price cap period, which was announced today. Every single penny that might find its way on to bills has to be scrutinised very carefully. I am initially hesitant at the idea of an additional levy. Although my hon. Friend made the point that these energy companies are making significant profits, and I would not disagree with her on the scale of some of those profits, we should also be aware that, unless the Government are going to take a power to cap those profits, it is likely that the cost of a levy and the costs of the projects themselves would simply be passed on. Consumers, at the end of the day, would pay for it. I will look into her suggestion further, because every penny on bills makes a difference.

Finally, on section 106 agreements, in addition to community benefits arrangements locally, developers are already required to mitigate specific local impacts through 106 agreements. They are legally binding agreements that are paid to local authorities. With section 106 agreements and community benefits together, we think work is being done to invest in and enhance communities, but I am happy to look at what my hon. Friend has proposed in more detail.

To conclude, I reiterate two things. First, my thanks not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, but to right hon. and hon. Members across the House who made serious points and suggestions on how not to turn away from necessary investment, but to ensure that communities genuinely benefit from it. They are absolutely right to champion their local community and to ensure that everyone benefits from the energy transition. Secondly, we should not for a moment think that building that infrastructure is optional, or that it can all be done somewhere else. There are those in this House who believe that we can simply go backwards to deliver energy security and affordability without a serious and credible plan to do so, but simply tying communities to fossil fuels for longer is not a serious proposition.

I reiterate what I said at the beginning. My hon. Friend rightly made the case that all the polling that we have seen points to the country being in favour of the energy transition. Every piece of research points to the importance of tackling the climate crisis, which is not a future threat, but a very present reality. Infrastructure, which for too long has been held up in this country, is necessary to do that. It is necessary to get clean power, cheaper power, to people’s homes and businesses, and to bring down bills, but it is also absolutely necessary to unlock the economic growth that this country needs. There is no shortcut to doing that. We have to build the infrastructure that the country has been crying out for, for many years.

I thank hon. Members for their participation in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. I am happy to meet her to discuss the issues further. As I said at the beginning, we take seriously the role that communities play. We thank them for putting up with disruption when infrastructure is built, and for hosting that infrastructure on behalf of the country. We want to ensure that they benefit from it.

Question put and agreed to.

16:26

Sitting suspended.

UK-German Relations

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK-German relations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I requested that this debate take place today because tomorrow the German Bundestag will have its first reading in ratifying the Kensington treaty. That treaty is an important step in rebuilding our relationship with Germany after the post-Brexit negativity from the previous Government. The relationship has a long and difficult history but in times of increased international pressure it is more important than ever. In that regard, it is a pleasure to welcome the German ambassador Susanne Baumann as well as Anne Finger Harries and her team to the debate.

My personal connections with Germany date back to a childhood pen friend from Essen, who I began writing to over 50 years ago—we are still in touch. Later, when I was in my 20s, I went to Germany to train as an electrical engineer with AG Telefunken, working in the Frankfurt area. Like many others, I took advantage of an opportunity to live and work in Germany that is not available to young people today because of the folly of Brexit. Today, there are around 6,780 people from Germany studying in the UK and 2,074 Brits studying in Germany. However, they are students, not workers with freedom of movement, so it is a different scenario nowadays.

Across the United Kingdom there are twinning agreements between German and British towns and cities, not least in my own constituency, which is paired with the town of Recklinghausen in Nordrhein-Westfalen in Germany. That partnership will celebrate its 70th anniversary this year. Naturally, relationships of this sort have their ups and downs; in recent history, Brexit stands out. That decision and the way it was conducted severely damaged people-to-people trust; it has weakened longstanding partnerships in private, public and economic affairs and made cross-border trade much more difficult, particularly trade conducted by small and medium-sized enterprises. It will, in my view, take a long time to mend the damage caused by Brexit. It is also a reminder that trust, once lost, is slow and difficult to rebuild.

Across British society, there is a wish for a closer relationship with the EU and with Germany. Recent polling shows that close to 60% of Britons believe that it was a mistake to leave the European Union, and shows that the majority of voters want to rejoin the EU. Despite increased travel restrictions, more than 70 million trips were made by Britons to Europe, close to 1 million of which were made to Germany.

In Parliament, the work of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany brings together politicians and stakeholders from both countries. To do that effectively, we work closely with our counterpart in the German Bundestag: the German-British friendship group. That allows us to bring politicians from both countries together to discuss shared priorities and projects and organise parallel debates such as this one. In that regard, I look forward to the UK parliamentary delegation’s visit to Germany, which is planned for May.

The momentum towards a closer Europe that is felt among Britons and in Parliament is also driven forward by this Labour Government. From our first day in office, we have worked on rebuilding our relationship with our European partners, be that through rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme, which gives young people across the UK and EU the opportunity to study and train on either side of the channel, or through the range of bilateral and multilateral agreements that this Government have signed and which lay out the road maps to further collaboration.

For example, the signing of the Trinity House agreement in October 2024 represents the most significant deepening of bilateral defence ties with Germany in decades. It signifies our commitment to European defence and especially to working in close accord with Germany. We are strengthening joint defence capabilities through a range of measures, such as committing to collaboration on big defence projects in, for example, aerospace. That was underlined by the first state visit by a German President in 27 years last December. President Steinmeier visited following the signing of the Kensington treaty, which defines six main areas of co-operation. They are all of paramount importance, but in this speech I want to focus on defence and economic co-operation. In the light of international instability, these seem to be the most pressing areas for this relationship.

Last week’s Munich security conference showed the strength of and commitment to a shared European defence. As the Prime Minister outlined in his keynote speech, in a crisis such as the current one, we have to stand together. We are doing that through agreements such as the Trinity House agreement and the Kensington treaty.

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

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. One of the most important areas for UK-German security co-operation is in tackling the full range of threats that Russia exposes us to as Europeans. It is very clear from discussions with German colleagues and others that we need a better doctrine on that and one that includes sharing information, attributing the attacks that are happening weekly across Europe and deterring them through a co-ordinated response. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can work on that bilaterally and through the triad with France, and use the lessons we learn to improve our partnership working across Europe as a whole?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I totally concur with my hon. Friend, who has had a distinguished military career in the RAF.

As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent horrors, there is growing awareness in the UK that we need to be able to defend ourselves and that it is not enough to contract our security out to the United States. This means that there is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. Partnership with Europe, but specifically with Germany, is delivering on that growing awareness.

Through the coalition of the willing, Germany, Great Britain and France have a wish to drive forward the defence of Ukraine, and yesterday we commemorated the fourth year since the start of the war. Utilising the DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—initiative, the UK and Germany, along with other NATO allies, are bolstering NATO’s eastern flank and building an alliance ready to defend itself. Our shared values and the ideas defining that relationship are not universal and the knowledge that they might need to be defended by force has driven that paradigm shift. In Germany, we have a partner on whom we can rely, come what may. That is why the Kensington treaty is so important. It sets in stone the indispensability of this relationship and how we can further develop co-operation between our two countries.

I come now to the subject of economic co-operation. The other important aspect of this relationship is our trading and economic partnership. Germany is the UK’s second largest trading partner, closely following the United States. Trade to Germany accounts for 8.1% of total British trade, and after the low of Brexit, bilateral trade is improving, with a 1.4% increase in trade last year. The German Chamber of Commerce and Industry has more than 1,600 German member companies operating in the UK. They include industry giants such as BMW, Bosch and Deutsche Bank. About 160 of my constituents work in the German company Krempel, which is located very close to my constituency. German companies bring £50 billion of foreign direct investment into the UK, while British companies invested over £40 billion in Germany last year alone. That important relationship can be seen in much of our day-to-day life. For instance, the 94 new state-of-the-art Piccadilly line trains are produced by Siemens Mobility in East Yorkshire. That is a great example of our partnership in action, combining German engineering with British craftsmanship.

The numbers convey a larger picture: the flow of products and ideas; the connection between small family-run businesses in both countries; the co-operation of industry that employs tens of thousands; and a synergy that is not only mutually beneficial but actively combines the greatest parts of our two countries.

In conclusion, the Kensington treaty is more than a diplomatic document; it is a recognition of what we already know: Britain and Germany are bound together by history, values and commerce, and a shared vision of a stable and prosperous Europe. From the twinning of our towns to the trains on our underground, from our students crossing the channel to our soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder, this relationship is alive in the daily fabric of both our nations. Brexit was a serious setback, and we should not pretend otherwise, but it did not sever the ties that matter most, and this Government are working hard to rebuild what was damaged.

16:41

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is such a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this debate and to others who have supported it. As he says, it is taking place during a very important week: of the ratification in the Bundestag of the Kensington treaty.

I associate myself with many of my hon. Friend’s remarks, particularly those on town twinning, because the link between my city of Oxford and Bonn has been incredibly strong. It has gone from strength to strength, and it has involved local politicians, including myself. We have enduring friendships—including across party lines—between our two countries. It has included young football players from the council estate that I call my home, Rose Hill; in Bonn, they very much enjoyed the football, the friendship, and the Haribo factory visit.

I want to underline three areas where the collaboration between our two countries is particularly important, given the current circumstances. First, I underline what my hon. Friend said about industrial linkages. In my constituency, we see just how important they are. My hon. Friend mentioned BMW, which runs the Cowley Mini plant. That is a source of immense pride for my local community, provides good-quality jobs and supports a huge supply chain associated with those direct roles. It is an incredibly productive plant, and it is important that, wherever possible, we reduce barriers to joint working between our two countries when it comes to the kind of amazing advanced manufacturing taking place in Cowley.

I am encouraged by the fact that UK Ministers have spoken with their German counterparts about the European Commission’s “Made in Europe” plans. I hope that we can go further on that. The European Union’s desire to ensure that there is economic security is understandable, but it is important that that does not lead to a reduction in trade between the UK and EU—indeed, we need to increase trade. I have been encouraged by what I have heard in that regard, including on automotives and making sure that the UK is not cut out of those processes. I urge the Government to press ahead on that and the other measures that they have announced on energy costs, for example, which are important for a lot of the manufacturing in places such as BMW Cowley.

Secondly, I want to underline some points that are germane to those mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). He talked about the fact that both our countries are currently experiencing exactly the same kinds of hybrid threats. This week of all weeks, four years after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, we are seeing similar patterns of foreign interference, including sabotage and online disinformation, often sponsored by Russia. The Representation of the People Bill is now progressing through the UK Parliament and we have Philip Rycroft’s review of foreign interference. It will be important that there is collaboration between our two countries in that regard so that we can learn together.

I am aware of what happened in the run up to the German election. This is not a partisan point, because I understand that some of the sabotage was directed at trying to discredit the Green party there. There were also attacks on critical infrastructure with unclear attribution—as there so often is in these cases. As we are in these difficult waters, we need to see collaboration between democracies such as the UK and Germany on such matters.

Article 17 of the Kensington treaty is especially relevant here:

“The Parties shall cooperate on strategies for strengthening the resilience of their democracies in order to build resilient societies which are able to contribute to their countries’ security and to withstand the increasing attempts of interference and manipulation.”

I also welcome the treaty talking about deepening co-operation against all forms of hate crime, which, again, disturbingly, we are seeing in both of our nations.

Finally, I underline the welcome mention in the 11th lighthouse project under the Kensington treaty of working together on conflict prevention and committing both of our countries to strengthen joint work on the women, peace and security agenda. That will require engagement across our Governments, not just in our Foreign Ministries, where I know that there are very strong relationships, but in our Ministries of Defence. It would be helpful to understand more about what is being done in that regard. I thoroughly hope that the strong relationship between the UK and Germany can only become stronger in the years to come, and it is such a pleasure to speak in this debate.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I am going to call the Front Benchers no later than 5.10 pm, so could Members keep their speeches to around five minutes?

16:47

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg—it is the third time today. I thank the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for setting the scene incredibly well. I am also pleased to see the Minister in his place. He has, if I may say so, been a very busy boy today in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, and it is always a genuine pleasure to see him in his place.

Germany is a high-value market for Northern Ireland, with bilateral trade generating over £1.1 billion in 2023. That being the case, the Northern Ireland Economy Minister frequently visits Berlin to promote sectors such as cyber-security, fintech, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing—all sectors that Northern Ireland excels in. As our biggest EU trading partnership, relations are imperative to our local economy. The Minister probably knows this already, but building upon that is really important for us.

I got to know Germany personally through my time as a part-time soldier in the Royal Artillery. That gave me an opportunity to go to Germany every second year and meet its people. I was always impressed by the people, who were always friendly and amenable. Germany was incredibly clean. It was back in the time of the iron curtain, which will age me—some people will ask what that was. However, that was the Germany that I knew and got to love.

Indeed, Invest NI, which is a branch of the Northern Ireland Executive, has maintained a presence in Germany for over 25 years to facilitate trade. Recent successes include Belfast-based Joulen securing a £4 million AI contract with German energy firm SonneNext. The links are clearly there, but it is equally clear that more can and should be achieved through them.

As people would expect, I am going to heavily promote Northern Ireland. It is an investor’s dream with low business costs and rates, greater connectivity, a highly skilled workforce and a great work ethic. It is little wonder that so many US firms are beginning to establish themselves in Northern Ireland. It is my feeling that our relationship with Germany can provide greater benefits to both the Germans and ourselves. The July 2025 UK-Germany treaty on friendship and bilateral co-operation provides a new framework for deeper partnership, particularly in defence and aerospace. As many Members will be aware, Northern Ireland’s aerospace and defence industry, which employs some 9,000 people, can benefit from the treaty’s emphasis on long-term industrial and security co-operation. That is something that we can build on. We can increase that because the threat in the world is high, and it is necessary that we do so.

Machinery and transport equipment is the largest export category, valued at approximately £252.9 million in 2024. That includes power-generating machinery and specialised industrial equipment. The contacts and the connection between Northern Ireland and Germany are strong, and they can be stronger. Our highly skilled, precision-focused engineers are able to deliver more, and it is essential that we keep on top of cutting-edge technology and training for staff.

The Minister may well highlight that the Northern Ireland Economy Minister is aware of the need to enhance the German relationship, but much can and must be done here at Westminster, the foundation of which needs to be funding for apprenticeships. That is my ask of the Minister: the funding for apprenticeships to keep Northern Ireland’s reputation for highly-skilled workers going, growing and strong.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Preston for this opportunity to speak on the need for a mutually beneficial relationship with Germany that we can all benefit from. I agree that we need that, but foundationally we need to ensure that we have the skills and the ability to attract investment. I very much look forward to greater apprenticeship investment to help us to realise our potential. Our young people in Northern Ireland have a future and an opportunity, and I think the Minister is the very person to deliver that.

16:51

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I have been passionate about strengthening ties between the UK and Germany for most of my adult life, ever since I spent two years living in West Berlin in the mid-1980s—vor der Wende—before the wall came down. I lived in Kreuzberg, a neighbourhood that at that time was surrounded on three sides by the wall. It was an exhilarating, sometimes surreal, experience. It was a vibrant city, but also a cold war frontline, never far from the wall or the watchtowers beyond.

I remember having dinner at a neighbour’s flat on the evening of a 1 May street party that turned into a riot of car burning and looting sparked by a boycott of the national census. When we saw the sky suddenly light up, we thought at first that the riots had set a local supermarket ablaze. Then we realised it was East Berlin, and they were celebrating May day with fireworks, completely oblivious to what was happening just a couple of kilometres away. They were very different times.

Another memory I have from that time, which may seem a little bit odd—although perhaps not for an English politics geek, whose country lacks a written constitution—is discovering Germany’s proud basic law, the Grundgesetz, and learning about the role that Britain had played in bringing that into being. Germany is deep in my heart, as it is in the hearts of so many of my fellow citizens.

I have the pleasure of representing the constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, and Fulham is under the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which has long been twinned with the Berlin borough of Neukölln. I was very impressed, when we visited Neukölln, to see that it actually had the Hammersmith and Fulham crest in concrete at the front of their town hall, which shows a level of respect and seriousness towards local government that we can perhaps learn from.

Despite our strong relationship with Germany, we allowed something so precious to be damaged. After Brexit, the UK dropped from being Germany’s third most important trading partner to ninth, and German school exchanges to the UK fell by more than 80%. Our relationship did not break, but it was badly strained. We have to be honest about that, and be honest about the pain that we caused, not just to ourselves, but to the German side of our friendship.

That is why I am so moved by the enormous strides we are now making to restore and deepen our partnership with practical steps, as my colleagues have set out, that will benefit all our citizens. We are living in disturbing times. All of us recognise that—today perhaps more than any other day, after four years of the Ukraine war. The United States is retreating from Europe, Russia is a growing threat and the hard right is gaining ground, driving division across our continent, so I am glad that Britain and Germany have chosen to respond by moving closer together, not just in words but in deeds.

We have, as has been mentioned, the Trinity House agreements signed in October 2024, laying the foundation of establishing defence co-operation as a central pillar of our relationship. Under it, we have extraordinary things, such as British and German forces now operating together from Scotland to counter Russian submarines, flying jointly in maritime patrol aircraft, joint plans, including for purchase of advanced torpedoes, and growing real-time intelligence sharing. Very importantly, we are also ramping up cyber-security efforts to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate and heartfelt speech about his relationship with Germany. In the cold world of national security, one important area for collaboration is cyber-security, and perhaps also AI, quantum and other areas. That is something that European democracies should have a shared approach towards, because these areas have typically been owned by our American allies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK and Germany need to work together to shape offensive cyber-operations and encourage fresh thinking about middle powers and how we seek to counter the Russian threat?

[Ben Coleman]

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend puts it much better than I could. Cyber-security is an absolutely key pillar of the Trinity House agreement, and AI, quantum and semiconductor investment should be things that Germany and Britain work on together, side by side, to defend our joint security and also contribute to the security of our common European home.

We had the Trinity House agreement, and then, last July, we had the good news of the Kensington treaty, signed by Chancellor Merz and the Prime Minister and, as we have heard, ratified in the Bundestag this week— a great moment. That landmark document is not just about defence but about foreign policy, the economy, innovation, energy, agriculture, education and science. It includes 17 concrete priority projects—not words, but deeds. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned the E3, the trilateral grouping of France, Britain and Germany, which the treaty also sets out to reinvigorate.

Beyond defence, I am glad to note that we are committed to developing offshore energy connections. Anyone who enjoys travelling to Germany, as I do, will also be delighted by the news that we are trying to build a direct rail connection between London and Germany in the next 10 years, which is terrific.

Of course, we also have the wider context, which has been referred to. The UK Government determined, from their first day, to reset the Brexit-damaged relationship with the European Union, and are making real progress in doing so. Germany has been absolutely central to that progress.

But the warmth of our friendship goes deeper than any treaty, as President Steinmeier showed when he visited us last December, making, as has been noted, the first state visit to Britain by a German Head of State in nearly three decades. His visit to the ruins of Coventry cathedral was a gesture of reconciliation that I think moved many of us deeply. I had the privilege of telling him personally how much his supportive words meant to us.

I cannot finish without noting that the spirit of partnership is embodied here in London by Ambassador Susanne Baumann and her team, who, I am delighted to say, are here with us today. She has thrown herself into her role with tremendous energy and commitment, building new relationships across our public life so speedily and with, I think we would all agree, warmth, intelligence and genuine dedication. I think our country is proud that we can count her as a friend.

To conclude, look at what we have achieved together in just one year; imagine what more we could do together. The task ahead is clear: if I may say so, Vorsprung durch Freundschaft—to work as friends with ambition and pace to protect and strengthen our two great countries, our proud democracies and our common European home.

16:48

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) on securing this important and timely debate. It is really good to have the Minister here covering another part of the world for a change, which I am sure he will appreciate.

Britain and Germany share one of Europe’s most significant bilateral relationships. It is grounded in common democratic values, strong economic ties and a shared commitment to European—and indeed global—security. That bilateral relationship continues to deepen, not only through NATO—I know, Mr Twigg, that you are very much at the forefront of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on behalf of our country, and that you will be working with your German counterparts in that regard—but also through other means: trade, research collaboration, climate policy and people to people connections.

Millions travel, study or work between our two countries every year. My personal relationship with Germany began 30-something years ago with a school exchange, and I still see that exchange partner, now my friend, every year in London or Hamburg. Hamburg is a city that has a strong history of Anglo-German relationships, whether through trade, the Navy or, more latterly, the Beatles.

We are now in a much more uncertain time, as other hon. Members have already suggested. In dangerous times, we need to come together more than ever. Germany and Britain have been doing that, but we need to commit that to words, so we can carry out the deeds we have talked about today.

The Kensington treaty is the most comprehensive of its kind between our two countries since the second world war, and I am proud that the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz came to my Stevenage constituency later in the day on which they signed the treaty to visit Airbus Defence and Space UK headquarters. They did so for a good reason. At the heart of the treaty—one of its many priorities—is defence co-operation, and they could see that in Stevenage, where they saw the SATCOM military satellite communications system that is being built for the German armed forces. That highlights how Germany is choosing this country to deliver world-leading geo-satellite capability, demonstrating trust in our specialist strengths in space technology.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

One of the high points of UK-German industrial relations was the Eurofighter Typhoon, so it is with great sadness that a young aircraft spotter, who enjoyed seeing Panavia developing something special like Eurofighter, is now observing the future combat air system and the global combat air programme growing apart. Rather than reflecting on that as a failure, could it not be an opportunity for collaboration, using a shared platform and shared Wingman success?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I hear my hon. Friend, who makes a salient argument. We have seen how some of our European neighbours, Germany and France, perhaps collaborate in a different way, and we will see whether that works out. I hope that the Minister will speak to his friends in the Ministry of Defence and the wider Government to offer to co-operate on more projects, such as the successful Eurofighter Typhoon project.

That is a powerful example of our industrial collaboration. Airbus, as the largest shareholder in the Eurofighter consortium—46%—and with its manufacturing in Germany, is only one piece of a much wider UK-German industrial ecosystem that spans aerospace, defence, energy, engineering and pharmaceuticals. I could go on.

We must look to the future as well. There are substantial opportunities in both space and air defence where British and German co-operation can meet shared capability needs and strengthen both our countries’ resilience. We need that more than ever, as other hon. Members have alluded to, given the threats that we face from Russia, China and beyond. More broadly, the ratification of the Kensington treaty gives us a clear framework to go further—from supply chain resilience to joint research and development, from green technology to defence innovation and from cyber-security to energy co-operation. Although I have not talked about it today, it also brings people together, and that is the most important bilateral relationship that any two countries can have.

For constituents such as mine in Stevenage and others across this country, these partnerships bring investment, skilled jobs and long-term industrial certainty, while contributing meaningfully to European security and global stability. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) stole the words I was going to use, which I thought of when I was thinking about “Vorsprung durch Technik” and those adverts we saw as kids. Really, it is Vorsprung durch Freundschaft und Partnerschaft.

17:04

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this important debate.

I want to make a few comments about the relationship between Watford and Mainz, Germany. There was a twinning relationship between our town and Mainz for many years, which had a successful history, with parties going to visit Germany from the UK and vice versa and all the benefits of that cultural and political exchange. Sadly, that relationship died when the local authority abandoned the twinning relationship some years ago, which was a great tragedy. Not content with that situation, however, dedicated people within my local Labour party and our sister party in Mainz, the SPD, fostered relations and restarted the exchange, with visits taking place between our two towns again.

That has had great effect: we have received delegations from the SPD in Mainz many times now, and we have exchanged culture and experience. We have taken them to the football and the capital, and we have explained to them in great detail the history of the brewing industry in Watford, which has been convivially enjoyed. There have been reciprocal visits to Mainz, which were incredible. It was great to learn about the history of that city and what happened, for example, during its experience of bombing in the second world war and the incredible job that was done to rebuild it as it looked before. We are lucky enough to have a representative from there in the Public Gallery today—welcome; it is great to see you.

I have personal experience of the exchange. I particularly enjoyed a trip through a vineyard on a tractor-drawn cart, where I had a bit of the wares created on that particular farm—that is, if my memory serves me correctly, which it probably does not. At Christmas we had the pleasure of hosting the MP for Mainz from the Bundestag, Daniel Baldy. We were able to show him how Parliament works and give him a tour, which was extremely beneficial.

Why do we do all that? The benefits are clear. Lots of Members have mentioned the trade, industry and scientific benefits that have been derived from the relationship, but there are human benefits as well. They include empathy, understanding, friendship and lessons learned—not just in industry and the economy, but in education around how we can improve our education system, and in politics around how we campaign politically and govern differently; hopefully they can bring benefits to all of us. I hope to make a return visit to Mainz in the near future.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

The two Opposition spokespeople have about five minutes each.

17:07

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this important and timely debate.

The Liberal Democrats believe that we are stronger, safer and more prosperous when we build serious, long-term partnerships with our European allies and colleagues. UK-German relations are a litmus test of our wider relationship with Europe. In an age of instability, we face an unpredictable US Administration, as we have already heard, and we have seen rising interference from the likes of China and continued Russian aggression. In that environment, defence and economic security become even more inseparable than they already were. That is why a closer and more pragmatic, productive and co-operative relationship with Germany is strategically imperative to us all.

Germany is Europe’s largest economy and one of the EU’s most influential states. Trade between the UK and Germany accounts for about 8.5% of UK trade, and supports nearly half a million jobs. I am lucky to have the UK headquarters of multiple offshoots of German companies in my Surrey Heath constituency, such as Stihl, the German manufacturer of chainsaws. My wife’s job is one of those nearly half a million jobs that I mentioned, working as she does for BMW in the neighbouring constituency of North East Hampshire. That is not intended to be a declaration of interest—it is merely a statement of fact—but I am very grateful to BMW for the electric Mini, which I am lucky enough to occasionally be allowed to drive.

The Kensington treaty, signed in July 2025, established a comprehensive framework for UK-German co-operation across defence, trade, climate, education and science, and that is undoubtedly the right direction of travel. However, a treaty is only as meaningful as its delivery.

Let me first turn to defence. At the Munich security conference, the Prime Minister called for deeper economic and security co-operation between the UK and the EU, and for a stronger expression of European hard power. At a time of heightened geopolitical tension, nobody can doubt that strengthening co-operation with Europe is firmly in Britain’s national interest. Securing full participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe fund would undoubtedly support UK defence manufacturers and strengthen collective rearmament. Our partnership with Germany should support Ukraine’s recovery and deepen collaboration through the Trinity House agreement, with joint exercises, industrial co-ordination and capability development. If Britain wants influence over Europe’s defence architecture, it must be present where capability priorities are shaped.

On the economy, in 2015 the UK was Germany’s fifth largest trading partner, but by 2022 we had sadly fallen to 11th, reflecting the growing trade frictions between our two economies. In 2025, the Financial Times reported that German car manufacturer BMW had paused its £600 million investment in electric vehicles in Oxford. When advanced manufacturing decisions are finely balanced, as they so often are, added trade friction and regulatory divergence make the United Kingdom a less certain destination for investment.

The British Chamber of Commerce in Germany echoed those sentiments by warning that post-Brexit paperwork and border delays are pushing UK firms away from their largest export markets, with some customers turning to EU-based suppliers instead. If we are serious about restoring competitiveness, we must build trust and reduce those trade barriers. A bespoke EU-UK customs union might just stand a chance of easing some of those rules of origin burdens, lowering border costs and providing manufacturers with the certainty that they need.

Finally on cultural exchange—a topic that has frequently been raised in this debate—the Kensington treaty recognises that relationships are built not only by Governments but by young people and communities. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned town twinning. Not wanting to be left out of the excitement, I am very pleased to say that my Surrey Heath constituency is twinned with Bietigheim-Bissingen in Germany, and that our main popular shopping street is named Bietigheim Way, in reference to the historical connections between our two parts of the world. A UK-Germany youth summit and cross-border volunteering partnerships are absolutely critical, but so many of these programmes are vital for building long-term trust between our communities.

Three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds voted to remain in the European Union in 2016, yet they are bearing many of the mobility costs that Brexit has imposed. They lost the freedom to study and work easily across Europe, including by participating in Erasmus, so we fundamentally welcome the UK rejoining the Erasmus scheme as a step towards rebuilding educational co-operation with Germany and across the rest of the EU. We are also calling for negotiations on a reciprocal EU youth mobility scheme with an age limit of 35, no visa fees and visas extended to three years to further and deepen that co-operation.

I again thank the hon. Member for Preston and other hon. Members for invoking the spirit of the UK-German relationship so effectively. We fundamentally believe that a closer relationship with Germany will strengthen our defence, support our economy and deepen cultural exchange.

17:14

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), on securing this important debate.

As we are going down the line of declaring interests or key products that we own, I too am a loyal customer of BMW and own one now. I realise that we will probably get some nasty emails from all the “buy British” campaigners, since we have declared our love for German cars. To pick up on the contribution of the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on town twinning, I reassure her that it is okay to have Tory friends occasionally; if Labour party T-shirts are to be believed, you are just not allowed to kiss us. In the debate generally, that clear love for Germany, the relationships that people built up and the places that they enjoyed visiting really came across. I note that, as a proud Brexiteer, I am heavily outnumbered in this Chamber, although I was grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he has now legged it—who is usually my Brexiteer bodyguard in Westminster Hall debates. Perhaps we will save that one for discussion over a litre or two of Weissbier.

Few bilateral relationships matter more to Britain’s security, prosperity and global standing than our partnership with Germany. This is a year of particular significance, as has been noted, but also marks 80 years since Britain founded North Rhine-Westphalia after the second world war, today Germany’s most populous state. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, was pleased to meet the North Rhine-Westphalia International Affairs Minister in Munich earlier this month, along with the German Foreign Minister.

We Conservatives recognise that a confident Britain needs a confident, outward-looking Germany as a partner, and that a strong Germany and a strong Britain can be an anchor of stability at a time of global volatility. From a party political perspective, we are naturally pleased to see our sister party, the CDU/CSU, return to Government. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary attended the Munich security conference, where she met German counterparts from our sister party to reaffirm the depth of the UK-German relationship and our shared determination to strengthen European and transatlantic security.

Germany is now markedly stepping up its role in European and global security. The new federal Government have put significant resource behind defence and support for Ukraine. Germany’s 2026 budget includes a commitment to provide in excess of €11 billion in support to Ukraine, which is extremely welcome and will make a material difference on the ground. Politically, Berlin has taken steps to alter long-standing fiscal constraints so that it can fund the rearmament. The medium-term fiscal plan and recent constitutional adjustments reflect a willingness to unlock resources for defence in a way not seen for decades.

The way in which Germany is funding its defence rise is, of course, specific to its fiscal situation and the way it manages its economy and spending, which is different from the UK. That, however, raises some simple but urgent questions for our own Government as part of that relationship. If one of our closest allies can set a date and a credible trajectory for higher defence spending, why has the UK not done the same? Germany has been explicit about its political timetable for increasing defence spending. By contrast, here at home we are still waiting for the defence investment plan, which the Government told us was due last autumn and has now been repeatedly delayed.

In my constituency, I have a great defence manufacturing capability in BAE Systems, and I would like to see much more defence industrial collaboration across the board with Germany, made possible by the defence investment plan. With NATO allies, industry leaders and even senior military figures noting the strategic importance of clear spending pathways, can the Minister finally say when the defence investment plan will be published, and how it will ensure we meet our NATO ambitions?

The Conservatives in Government laid the foundations for the deepening of UK-German co-operation, in particular on defence: the 2024 defence declaration, the Trinity House arrangements on defence and industrial co-operation, and the long-range precision missiles are of significance. Will the Government publish a clear timetable for delivering against those commitments and the commitments set out in the 2025 Kensington treaty? What progress has been made to date, and what should we expect to see in the coming weeks and months?

Britain and Germany can together anchor European security in an unpredictable world. The Opposition want that partnership to flourish and will support steps that deepen it, but we will also insist that the British Government match their own rhetoric with credible resource plans. Only then will a strong Germany and a strong UK translate ambition into the hard capabilities required.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to allow a minute or so at the end for Sir Mark to wind up.

17:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing the debate and for the contributions from other hon. Friends, hon. and gallant Friends and hon. Members. I am grateful to see the German ambassador and so many friends from Germany here to see the debate.

I am not the Minister for Germany. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is on his feet in the Chamber at the moment and would have been only too glad to have attended this debate. I am pleased that it gives me the opportunity to reflect, as many others have with great warmth, on my personal and constituency relationship with Germany.

As someone who has done a fair bit of Parliament over the course of the day, I reflect that this debate reflects that warmth in which Germany is held across the House, regardless of political party. I know that the proceedings of this House are not always easily understandable to our foreign friends, but I hope all those watching in Germany can see the deep affection with which they are held here. I personally feel that affection. Throughout my time at university I lived with a young man called Johannes from Frankfurt. I am incredibly proud to represent a city that has a deep twinning relationship and is home to Siemens Energy and Siemens Mobility. If their representatives are watching, they are welcome to keep the full extent of their investments in Lincoln. They employ more than 2,100 people locally and have invested around £100 million in sites across Lincoln since 2010. Lincoln’s experience is obviously matched by many constituencies across the country.

My city, along with many places in the UK, has benefited from shared British-German industrial expertise in a deep partnership. As MP for a city that considers itself the home of the Royal Air Force, I agree very much with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) about the depth of the industrial partnership we have had over a range of areas, not least aviation. The Royal Air Force has particularly enjoyed that deep partnership on Eurofighter Typhoons.

I will not recap in great detail the important points colleagues have made. It is unusual as a Minister to be reminded so often of the many contributions that the Government have already made on these questions. I agree, unusually, with the shadow Minister that we built on foundations of deep friendship from the previous Government. The Kensington treaty is a landmark in an unpredictable time for world politics. The British-German partnership is ever more important and is key to advancing our shared values and interests. We were so pleased to take relations to a new level with the Kensington treaty signed last July. We consider it a modern and ambitious framework for the decades ahead. It touches on things that matter to both countries: keeping people safe, growing our economies, managing migration, backing education and clean energy, and building links between our communities.

I would say a little more about Lincoln’s twinning arrangements, but I suspect that the enthusiasm for twinning arrangements has been well heard. I would also like to touch on the science and technology partnership elements. I am so pleased that we have enabled visa-free school trips. I hear from hon. Members across the House of the value that they have taken in their visits and those we continue to enjoy.

There is an important expansion of our work in the North sea, the strengthened defence ties touched on in this debate. A direct rail link is much desired and I am pleased that planning has begun. Those are practical, tangible steps that show the real-world impact of this partnership. We will continue to build on those foundations. The state visit in December was a hugely important and welcome moment; I was grateful to hear so many hon. Members touch on the significance of it for them and their constituencies.

The situation in Europe today, particularly given the war in Ukraine—which is being debated in the other Chamber as we speak—underlines the importance of the partnership. Growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks, cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and coercive pressure on our allies are issues that the UK and Germany face equally. We were pleased that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were able to lead the UK delegation to the Munich security conference last week. They met their German counterparts to discuss those issues and we stand united in our efforts to tackle them. Together with Germany and France, as driving forces behind the coalition of the willing, we are committed to supporting Ukraine. We will provide military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance for as long as necessary. We have worked together to impose sweeping sanctions, ban Russian oil, cut Moscow off from key technologies and co-ordinate the most comprehensive package of economic and punitive measures that Russia has ever faced.

There is much more to be done, but we will do it together. The Trinity House agreement referenced in the debate was signed by the Secretary of State for Defence and increases our defence and security co-operation with Germany. Chancellor Merz recently confirmed that Germany is on a path to building the strongest army in Europe. Our partnership means the UK plays a central role in equipping Germany’s military, and supporting European security and British businesses. I am pleased that, thanks to the Trinity House agreement, the German company Rheinmetall is already investing in a new artillery gun barrel factory, which will create 400 jobs in Telford.

There is much else I could touch on across the full range of contributions that have been made. I hope all those watching overseas will see the depth of partnership right across all of the key agendas that face this Government and our partners in Germany. I will return briefly to the shadow Minister’s questions about the defence investment plan. It is a priority; it will strengthen our security and grow the economy, and Defence Ministers will be returning to Parliament in due course.

In conclusion, in an era of instability we must look to our friends. The United Kingdom and Germany will continue to work together to tackle the global challenges we face. We will keep building on the Kensington treaty and strengthening the bonds between our countries and our people. It is a partnership that keeps us safe and delivers for our friends and people on both sides.

17:27

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I thank all my colleagues in the Chamber for showing such warmth and affection for our relationship with Germany. It is 10 years since the Brexit referendum. The discussion that was taking place in this country at that time was very damaging to Britain and to our economy. Our relationship not just with the EU, but with Europe more generally, is improving step by step. The Government have done an excellent job in promoting that relationship. It is nice to have so many colleagues speaking positively about our relationship with Germany and Europe more generally. I wish we had not had that experience 10 years ago, because we could be building on what was an excellent relationship that should not have been stopped, rather than trying to pick it up again now.

I thank you, Mr Twigg, for chairing this debate, and I thank my colleagues, the German ambassador and her team for attending.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK-German relations.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

Wednesday 25 February 2026

Post Office Green Paper: Government Response

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

The Post Office is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic fabric, supporting communities, small businesses and local high streets. Last year, the Government published a Green Paper to open a national conversation about how to secure a modern, trusted and financially resilient Post Office for the future.

Today, we are publishing the Government’s response to that consultation. More than 2,500 people contributed their views, including postmasters, businesses, community organisations and members of the public. Their responses provided invaluable insight and have shaped the Government’s decisions.

The message from the public was clear. People want a strong and convenient network, built around permanent, full-time, full-service branches offering a wide range of postal, banking and Government services. In response, the Government will retain the minimum network size of 11,500 branches and all six geographical access criteria. We will also introduce a new requirement that at least 50% of the network must be full-time, full-service branches—the sites that deliver the highest social value and strongest service to customers. This requirement sets 50% as an absolute minimum, and we expect the Post Office to continue operating substantially above it. We are setting this requirement to ensure that full-time, full-service branches remain the backbone of the network for the foreseeable future, as these are the branches that deliver the greatest social value and the strongest customer service.

Government will continue to provide funding to the Post Office to support with the delivery of these policy requirements, via the network subsidy. Pending the completion of the subsidy referral process, Government plans to provide up to £180 million in network subsidy funding over the next three financial years.

Long-term stability also requires keeping with the times, which is why investing to modernise the network remains a Government priority. Government intend to provide up to £483.4 million over the next two financial years to support transformation across the network, pending the completion of subsidy referral processes. This will modernise branches, fund new equipment in branches to improve the customer experience, expand parcel locker provision, and enable the technology transformation to transition operations away from Fujitsu and ultimately move away from the Horizon system.

To continue protecting the network, Government plan to support the Post Office financially on a number of issues that the Post Office is not in a position to fund on its own. This includes plans to provide the Post Office with up to £37.4 million in funding to fund its remediation unit, which is responsible for delivering redress to postmasters affected by the Horizon IT system and other operational failures, and to fund the company’s response to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry. Government also intend to provide funding of up to £104 million to the Post Office so that it can pay its IR35 tax liability and associated corporation tax to HMRC. This funding is subject to the completion of the subsidy referral process.

Consultation responses emphasised the importance of the Post Office as a parcel hub, and we welcome the Post Office’s continued innovation in this area. On banking, people were clear that the Post Office’s role in ensuring access to cash and in-person services remains essential. Banking framework 4 will increase remuneration for postmasters, and Government will continue to work with the banking sector to strengthen provision further. On 21 January, Government held joint discussions between the Post Office and the banking sector to explore where continued collaboration, on a commercial and voluntary basis, would allow all parties to better meet the needs of individuals and businesses. Attendees agreed to give an update on discussions in six months.

Consultation responses also highlighted continued reliance on face-to-face access to Government services. We see real potential in exploring how these services could be improved and a cross-government group has been established to take this forward.

Strengthening the relationship between the Post Office and postmasters remains central. While meaningful steps have already been taken, including enhanced engagement structures, the Government expect the Post Office to develop a unified culture strategy—covering employees, postmasters, strategic partners and customers—by summer 2026. An independent evaluation of recent initiatives will report later this year.

Our long-term ambition is a financially sustainable Post Office that remains a trusted presence in communities across the UK. Decisions on long-term governance models will be taken only after the conclusion of the Horizon IT inquiry. In the meantime, the Government will work with the Post Office to ensure financial discipline, progress towards positive trading profit by 2030, and protection of access for the communities that rely on it.

This response sets a clear direction: a stable, modern and resilient Post Office, fit for the future and shaped by the people it serves.

[HCWS1360]

UK-EU Competition Co-operation Agreement

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)]

I am pleased to announce that today in Brussels the United Kingdom and the European Union have signed the UK-EU competition co-operation agreement.

This is the first supplementary agreement to the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement signed since the TCA came into force in 2021, and it demonstrates our shared commitment to strengthening co-operation between the UK and the EU for our mutual benefit.

The agreement will strengthen co-operation between our respective competition authorities, supporting more effective enforcement of competition law to address harms, protect consumers and promote fair and dynamic markets.

It will facilitate enhanced dialogue and operational co-operation between the Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission and the national competition authorities of EU member states. In particular, it will support more effective co-ordination on similar or parallel cases, including through co-operation and information sharing in investigations into cross-border anti-competitive practices. The agreement will strengthen co-operation between our respective competition authorities, supporting more effective enforcement of competition law to address harms, protect consumers and promote fair and dynamic markets; strengthening the conditions for sustainable economic growth by promoting effective competition and innovation that delivers long term benefits for businesses and consumers.

This Government’s central mission is to deliver economic growth. Effective competition in dynamic markets drives investment, innovation, productivity and, ultimately, growth. As set out in the industrial strategy, strengthening competition and refining the competition regime are essential to achieving this mission, with a commitment to

“unlock the full potential of competition to increase market dynamism and growth”.

In our strategic steer to the CMA, the Government emphasised the importance of considering actions taken by competition and consumer protection agencies internationally, and, where appropriate, ensuring that parallel regulatory action is timely, coherent and avoids unnecessary duplication. This agreement will be an important tool in supporting these objectives.

The agreement will be formally laid before Parliament for scrutiny, in line with the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

[HCWS1364]

Electronic Travel Authorisation

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

Today marks a significant milestone in the transition to a fully digital immigration system with the UK moving to full enforcement of its digital “permission to travel” requirements. First, everyone (except British and Irish citizens and some other exempted cohorts) wishing to travel to the UK will need a “permission to travel”, and this requirement will be enforced. Secondly, from today most visa nationals applying for a visit visa will receive an eVisa only, replacing physical visa vignette stickers.

This marks a further step in the move away from paper-based evidence towards secure, digital records linked to the passport used for travel. Carriers, including airlines, are required to check that passengers hold permission to travel through automated checks against Home Office records before boarding.

The permission to travel must be in the form of:

an electronic travel authorisation (ETA);^[1]

an eVisa (a digital record of identity and immigration status);^[2] or

other acceptable physical proof, where permitted.<sup>[3]

[1]</sup> https://www.gov.uk/eta

^[2] https://www.gov.uk/evisa

^[3] https://www.gov.uk/evisa/travel-with-evisa

Wherever possible, the permission will be digitally linked to the passport being used for travel, enabling status to be confirmed quickly and securely. Anyone who has an eVisa must ensure their travel document is linked to their visa via their UK Visas and Immigration account, to ensure the smoothest travel experience. This also applies to those with status under the EU settlement scheme and I particularly urge everyone in that group to ensure that their latest passport is linked to their UKVI account.

The benefits of introducing a digital permission to travel requirement are twofold. First, we will know more about people before they travel to the UK, strengthening the security of our border, enabling a more targeted approach to border control with more efficient processing of arrivals. By maximising the use of upstream interventions, we are preventing people who pose a threat to the UK from traveling in the first place, by refusing them permission to travel here.

Secondly, this approach enables the Government to deliver key innovations through end-to-end digitisation, making it easier for people to come to the UK to live, study, work or visit, thereby boosting the UK economy through tourism, trade, and investment opportunities.

The Home Office continues to promote the ETA scheme and transition from physical immigration status documents to eVisas through a comprehensive programme including media activity, gov.uk, extensive stakeholder engagement, cross-Government engagement and targeted customer communications. In parallel, we have undertaken extensive engagement with carriers to ensure they are prepared for these new requirements.

Electronic travel authorisation (ETA) for non-visa nationals

The ETA scheme was launched in October 2023 with over 19.6 million ETAs granted up to September 2025. Phased roll-out brought EU nationals into scope in April 2025 and, since then, it has become a universal requirement for all eligible non-visa national visitors, which is now being enforced from today. Public and stakeholder communications have been ongoing since 2023 and we continue to update guidance on gov.uk, work with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office posts and engage directly with carriers and the travel and tourism sector.

With the ETA requirement now in force, carriers such as airlines are required to check passengers hold the appropriate permission before they travel. Linked to this, carriers may be liable to a penalty if they bring someone to the UK who does not have the correct documentation or permission. Passengers can also check their ETA status and expiry online.<sup>[4]

[4]</sup> https://www.gov.uk/check-eta

Dual nationals

British citizens,^[5] including dual nationals, are not eligible for an ETA and should prove their permission to travel and enter the UK border with a valid British passport or a passport containing a certificate of entitlement (CoE) to the right of abode. From tomorrow, the CoE will be available in digital form, linked to their passport. Without either of these documents, British citizens risk being refused boarding or may experience delays when travelling to the UK from today. Further information is available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/electronic-travel-authorisation-eta-guide-for-dual-citizens

^[5] https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizenship

The nature of British nationality law means there is no central register of British citizens or British dual nationals and therefore no mechanism to directly contact all those who may be affected. We have, however, taken active steps to raise awareness of what this means for dual British citizens. Public information strongly advising dual nationals to travel with a valid UK passport or CoE has been available since October 2024, including official guidance on gov.uk, and we included guidance for dual citizens in our ETA communications campaign which has been running since 2023. In November 2025, we announced the enforcement of ETA from 25 February 2026, which included information about the requirement for dual citizens: “No permission, no travel: UK set to enforce ETA scheme”.^[6] We provide explicit written and spoken guidance to people who naturalise or register as British citizens, including through their application and at citizenship ceremonies, and since the start of the year we have also emailed people who have registered or naturalised in the last 10 years where we hold useable contact details.

^[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no-permission-no-travel-uk-set-to-enforce-eta-scheme

This supplements our wider updates via gov.uk, engagement and promotion via Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office networks.

This position is long standing. Under the Immigration Act 1971, British citizens cannot be granted an ETA, a visa or other immigration permission. To enter the UK as a British citizen, people must evidence their right of abode by presenting a UK passport or a foreign passport endorsed with a CoE. Where all supporting information has been provided, people can expect their UK passport within three weeks when applying from the UK, and within four weeks for most applications from outside the UK. Where a dual national holds a foreign passport, His Majesty’s Passport Office reserves the right to request the original document to support completion of its checks. However, a colour photocopy of the foreign passport will usually suffice to help meet travel needs while the application is in progress.

ETA enforcement does not change this legal framework. What changes from 25 February 2026 is that carriers are now required to apply permission to travel checks consistently for non-visa nationals, in the same way that carriers already do for visa nationals, to avoid the risk of a penalty. We recognise this represents a change to how some British dual nationals experience pre-departure checks, particularly where they have travelled historically on a non-UK passport. Our approach aligns with that of comparable countries, such as the US and Australia.

Transitional arrangements and temporary measures

We do not plan additional grace periods. The ETA scheme has been rolled out to eligible nationalities since October 2023, and our approach has been clearly communicated throughout. A further transitional phase has been in place since roll-out completed in April 2025, meaning the requirement to have an ETA was not strictly enforced by carriers, giving passengers time to prepare.

Alongside this, we have supported carriers to prepare for these changes through sustained engagement, technical readiness work, partner materials, webinars and the introduction of a 24/7 carrier support hub. We have engaged with over 55,000 check-in agents globally to embed these checks in day-to-day operations.

Recognising the potential impact on dual British nationals, we have issued temporary operational guidance to carriers on the acceptance of alternative documentation. This includes carriers accepting, at their discretion, an expired UK passport (issued 1989 or later) alongside a valid non-visa national third country passport, where biographic details match. This is a short-term transitional measure and remains an operational decision for carriers. It does not replace the requirement to hold a valid UK passport or a valid CoE.

Carriers may also contact the carrier support hub, which may be able to confirm British citizenship for those with a digital record on the UK’s immigration and passport systems. This service is available to carriers only and our clear advice to passengers remains that they should travel with a valid British passport or CoE to ensure the smoothest experience. Carriers remain responsible for ensuring that passengers are adequately documented for travel; carrier liability requirements remain in force, and carriers may face charges if they transport passengers who do not have the required permission to travel. Carriers also set their own operating processes, and the decision on whether to carry a passenger is their commercial and operational decision.

Emergency travel documents remain available for urgent travel in defined circumstances. Adults and children who have previously held a UK passport issued after 1 January 2006 can apply where they need to travel urgently.^[7] Where a person has not previously held a UK passport, they can only apply if their urgent travel meets the exceptional circumstances criteria, for example urgent medical reasons or attending the funeral of a close relative. This long-standing arrangement is unaffected by ETA enforcement, but it does not remove the need to hold the correct documentation for future travel.

^[7] https://www.gov.uk/travel-urgently-from-abroad-without-uk-passport

In line with current practice, on arrival at the UK border, Border Force will continue to assess a person’s suitability to enter the UK and may conduct additional checks if required.

We will continue to take a compassionate and pragmatic approach to travellers who experience genuine difficulty while this process settles. The clearest way to ensure a smooth journey remains travelling with a valid UK passport or a CoE to the right of abode.

Transition to eVisas

Over 10 million people are already using secure and convenient eVisas, which are replacing physical immigration status documents such as biometric residence permits and visa vignette stickers in passports. We are now in the final phases of implementation, with eVisas becoming the default evidence of status for most immigration routes to the UK.

From today, 25 February 2026, most visa nationals applying for a visitor visa will receive an eVisa only, replacing physical visa vignette stickers.

These changes streamline the process for visa applicants who now only need to visit the visa application centre once to confirm their identity and receive their passport back at the appointment. Decisions will be communicated by email, and for those granted a visa, they will create a UKVI account to access their eVisa.<sup>[8]

[8]</sup> https://www.gov.uk/evisa/set-up-ukvi-account

Eligible applicants applying for evidence of exemption from immigration control from outside the UK will also receive a digital record of exemption instead of a physical vignette, allowing carriers and UK Border Force to confirm exemption status automatically through existing checks.

By the end of 2026, the Government intend to stop issuing all physical visa vignette stickers in passports, with all successful visa applicants receiving an eVisa. The latest information on the transition to eVisa is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updates-on-the-move-to-evisas/updates-on-the-move-to-evisas

The enforcement of the ETA requirement, alongside the continued transition to eVisas, reflects our commitment to modernising and further securing the UK border. They also lay the foundations for a contactless UK border in the future.

Members may wish to signpost their constituents to further information about these changes. Supporting materials can be accessed here: eVisa partner pack^[9] and ETA partner pack,^[10] including key messages, factsheets and materials that may be shared to amplify these changes.

^[9] https://homeoffice.brandworkz.com/bms/albums/?albumShare=9DCD0592

^[10] https://homeoffice.brandworkz.com/bms/albums/?albumShare=828F5184

[HCWS1361]

Grenfell Tower: Annual Report

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

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

The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 was a preventable tragedy that claimed 72 innocent lives. This tragedy was the consequence of profound failures within the system of oversight. People should have been protected. This Government recognise those failures and is putting in place the reforms needed to prevent such a tragedy from ever occurring again, and to create the conditions for the safe, affordable housing that we need.

Throughout this work, we have listened closely to the bereaved, survivors and the wider community, whose experiences continue to shape our reforms. But we know there is more to do to ensure every resident feels safe in their home and can trust those responsible for building and maintaining their homes. In February 2025, the Government accepted all the inquiry’s findings and committed to taking forward each of the 58 phase 2 recommendations. One year on, my Department has today laid the first annual report, setting out the progress made on those recommendations and the wider programme of policy reform delivered during the past year.

Alongside the annual report, we have laid the construction products reform White Paper, the general safety requirement consultation document, and published a statement from the interim chief construction adviser.

These publications and announcements demonstrate the Government’s ongoing work and firm commitment to deliver the lasting, systemic change that we need—the foundation for the safe, affordable homes that people deserve.

Construction products reform White Paper

In February 2025, the Government published the construction products reform Green Paper and committed to system-wide reform of the construction products sector. Fundamental reform, ensuring robust and accountable oversight, is essential to delivering meaningful change; ensuring safe and high-quality homes, buildings and infrastructure; and maintaining resilient supply chains.

Today, we have laid a White Paper that outlines an ambitious programme of system-wide reform. We will address regulatory gaps and long-standing issues in the construction products sector, where too little has changed since Grenfell.

We will establish a trusted, proportionate regulatory framework that ensures construction products are safe, and used safely. This will support long-term growth and contribute to the delivery of more, safer homes in the years to come.

The White Paper confirms the direction set out in the Green Paper and provides further detail on a range of proposed reforms, alongside a pathway for implementation. These include measures to strengthen the regulatory regime for construction products; enhance oversight of testing and certification processes; improve information requirements, digitisation and traceability; and reinforce the role and powers of the national products regulator to drive effective enforcement.

Consultation on the White Paper will run until 20 May 2026. We encourage as many responses as possible and welcome continued engagement from across the sector to support the progress of system-wide reform of the construction products regime.

General safety requirement consultation

The White Paper also paves the way for the introduction of a general safety requirement. The aim of the GSR is to bring currently unregulated products into the construction products regulatory regime. The regulations will require that construction products placed on the market are safe and will set out specific obligations for businesses. They will also provide the national regulator for construction products with the enforcement powers necessary to uphold these obligations.

We are consulting on the detail of a proposed GSR to ensure that it is proportionate to risk, practical to implement, enforceable, and aligned with broader Government policy on product safety and growth. This consultation will run until 20 May 2026.

Guidance to support businesses in meeting their obligations will be issued by the national regulator for construction products.

Grenfell Tower memorial expenditure legislation

We have also determined that we need to ask Parliament to pass a law to provide the statutory spending authority to support the creation of a Grenfell Tower memorial. We will introduce this imminently. This does not affect any of the current work on the Grenfell Tower site, and the memorial commission and the community will continue to take the lead in shaping a fitting and lasting memorial.

Throughout this work, one principle will guide all decisions: the voices of the bereaved, survivors and immediate community must remain at the heart of decisions, now and in the future.

[HCWS1363]

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

It has come to our attention that data tables were missing from HCWS1357, on the concordat made on 24 February, and these can now be found below:

Each year, the Government and the senior judiciary work to agree the sitting day allocations and overall funding envelope for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. This joint approach ensures transparency, supports long-term planning, and enables the system to operate within a realistic and sustainable framework.

Following extensive engagement with the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, the Judicial Office, I can confirm that we have reached a landmark settlement for 2026-27. This settlement ensures that courts and tribunals are equipped to operate at, or close to, maximum capacity.

For 2026-27, the Ministry of Justice will provide £2,785 million of total funding—£2,498 million fiscal resource and £287 million in fiscal capital funding. This represents a record investment in our courts and tribunals.

I will continue to increase the allocation in coming years. This settlement provides an unprecedented ability to plan for the long term. While this agreement formally governs the 2026-27 financial year, I have established firm funding commitments through to 2028-29 across all jurisdictions. By providing this three-year horizon, I am enabling HMCTS to plan more effectively, recruit with confidence, and begin to address outstanding caseloads with the stability that only multi-year certainty can provide.

The Crown court backlog continues to rise and stands at over 79,000 cases. My focus, as I have said to the House, is on victims who are being left to wait three, four or five years for their day in court. Central to this allocation, then, is the uncapping of the sitting day allocation for the Crown court for the next financial year, removing any financial constraint on the rate at which HMCTS operates. This will allow the Crown court to sit at record-high levels, hearing as many cases as possible, getting swifter justice for victims and tackling the Crown court backlog. Combined with our court reform plans, this investment will help turn the tide on the open caseload, enabling the system to move to a more sustainable footing over the period.

Beyond the uncapped capacity provided for the Crown court, this settlement delivers significant resources across all other jurisdictions. For magistrates courts, I am funding an allocation of 125,800 sitting days for the next financial year, up from 114,000 in the current financial year, and I am funding increases each year thereafter, with a target of 131,000 days in the final year. I have also set money aside for additional sitting days up to 140,000 in the final year of this spending review period if the system is able to deliver this.

The allocation also includes 80,200 days for civil justice and high allocations for the tribunals, including the funding to deliver up to a high ambition of 26,000 sitting days for the immigration and asylum chamber.

Additionally for family courts, I am funding 96,100 days in the next financial year, alongside funding an expansion of pathfinder courts in 26-27, which will greatly improve the court experience and outcomes for children and parents involved in private family cases, including those who have experience of domestic abuse.

To support this sitting day allocation, I am increasing capital funding by 46% compared to the previous financial year, to £287 million. This investment includes a boost to courts maintenance and will halt the long-term decline of the courts estate that we have seen in the last decade and a half. This investment will also underpin the system’s maximum operational capacity by supporting major estates projects and digital modernisation.

As was done for the first time last year, I am today publishing the total sitting day allocations per jurisdiction, and the firm commitments I am making on allocations for future years. The agreed sitting day allocations across the spending review period are set out below:

Table 1—Sitting day allocations for the complete spending review period

Funding at this level is expected to amount to the sitting-day volumes set out below.