Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Royal Mail: Performance
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to ask everyone to go along with me for a few seconds by closing their eyes and visualising what the Royal Mail means to them. I picture the intrepid and hardy postie battling through snow, hills, rain and fog to ensure that our post is delivered. I picture the regular encounters with my postie wherever I have lived, and the kind, warm and friendly conversations we have had on the doorstep. Members will be happy to know that I am not going to go round the room asking what they visualised, but I imagine it was fairly similar to what I just described.
If there was one word to sum it all up, it would be “trust”—trust in the Royal Mail service and in an institution that has been a constant in British life for over 500 years. But we all know that that trust is waning. We feel it ourselves, and we hear it from our constituents, families and friends. The institution that so many of us have known, valued and trusted is changing, and something must be done by us in this House to stop the decline.
Before I turn to some of the issues and recommendations, I want to address the elephant in the room: Royal Mail is facing significant external pressures—we all know that. Modern technology such as email and online messaging has gradually sidelined traditional letter mail. Royal Mail itself often says that it used to be a letters organisation that delivered parcels, and now it is a parcels organisation that still delivers letters. This challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom. Our friends in Denmark, for example, saw their state postal operator, PostNord, deliver its final traditional letter in December 2025, ending more than 400 years of national letter delivery. From 2026 onwards, PostNord will focus solely on parcel delivery, after letter volumes fell by around 90% since 2000. We have faced a similar trend here in the UK.
For all of us here, that raises a broader question for our country: in this increasingly digital world, do we still value physical letters? My answer—I imagine it is the same as that of everyone else here today—is a resounding yes. There is something secure about a letter passing through trusted hands on its journey to its destination. As we all know, digital systems can fail or be hacked or manipulated. At a time of growing international uncertainty and environmental disruption, it is imperative that we maintain a strong and resilient network of physical mail delivery. In this new era, with Royal Mail now operating as a privately owned company with overseas ownership, we must work with the company to ensure that the universal service obligation is fit for purpose and, crucially—this is the key point—understood by the British public.
I am sure this will come up in many Members’ speeches, but the failure to meet delivery targets is a significant problem. Under the current USO, Royal Mail is required to deliver 93% of first-class letters the next working day and 98.5% of second-class letters within three working days.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. The timelines he is outlining have not been met, but that has coincided with a remarkable increase in the cost, particularly of first-class stamps, in the past five years. Does he agree that that is what drives the downward trend in the community’s trust in Royal Mail to deliver, and it needs to modernise and be more efficient?
David Reed
I have been looking at the numbers over the last few years, and Royal Mail has gone from significant losses of about £400 million three years ago, to £200 million losses, to making a £14 million profit last year. Because it is a privately owned company—we will come on to that—it has cut a lot of fat away, but it has also cut away muscle. Prices have increased, but the service has gone down. That is completely unacceptable, and it is probably the reason why we are all here today.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. A recent Gallup meta-analysis of about 1.8 million employers found that a meaningful increase in employees’ wellbeing leads on average to a 10% increase in productivity. In the light of that evidence, does he agree that it would be beneficial for the chief executive of Royal Mail to meet urgently with the Communication Workers Union to ensure that existing agreements are honoured and that the wellbeing of the workforce is genuinely prioritised?
David Reed
That is a serious point. We can talk about the Royal Mail service for our constituents, but the posties themselves are experiencing significant trouble at the moment. I am sure we have all heard about it in our inboxes recently. I will come to the issue later in my speech, and I am sure other Members will raise it, but I do agree with the hon. Member.
Royal Mail has failed to meet both those delivery targets for three consecutive years, and I have very little confidence in when a letter would arrive if I sent one today. If anyone could give me an insight into that, I would be very happy to hear it. Furthermore, Royal Mail offers economy access mail, a non-priority service for bulk non-time-critical letters that provides savings compared with first and second-class services. It typically delivers within four working days, often arriving alongside other post, but it can take up to five days or more. The fact that companies or organisations such as banks and the NHS use that product helps to explain the correspondence in our inboxes and the conversations we have in our constituencies, in which people ask why their post seems to disappear for weeks only to arrive all at once. That crucial point has not been communicated to the public in any meaningful way.
Set against the backdrop that competitors can offer reliable same-day or next-day parcel delivery, it is easy to understand why public confidence in Royal Mail has declined. At the same time, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) alluded to, our local posties are under significant pressure, working in an increasingly demanding environment in what I am sure can feel to them like a thankless job. Members will, like me, have received emails from local postal workers asking for support and for their concerns to be heard. It is right that we give them a voice in this conversation.
I have no doubt that Members will set out a wide range of issues that they and their constituents have experienced. I want to leave ample time for those contributions, but I do want to share one example of poor delivery service that I have experienced with Royal Mail. It reflects what many of my constituents have been dealing with for some time; it is clear that the problems are not isolated, but getting a straight answer about them is far harder than it should be. In my case, public money was involved: every Member knows that they can produce a non-partisan, publicly funded annual report to communicate with constituents, yet in parts of my constituency that report simply was not delivered. I pressed Royal Mail on what went wrong and did not receive a proper answer. I am still waiting to receive one. When public money is used, there should be clear accountability, but that has not happened here.
The same applies to those paying out of their own pockets. Our constituents are paying increasing amounts for stamps and not getting the service they have paid for. Again, there is little accountability. I am sure we will hear similar experiences from colleagues today. If Royal Mail cannot provide an answer to a Member of Parliament about delivery failures—I gave it ample opportunity to do so, on many occasions—it raises serious questions about what an ordinary member of the public can expect to experience when they ask the same questions.
This is the United Kingdom, not Russia or North Korea. When people pay for a service, they rightly expect it to be delivered well. When it is not, they expect, at the very least, a clear explanation and reassurance that the problem will not happen again.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I send my commiserations to the hon. Member’s constituents for not receiving his newsletter. On a wider point, I have visited the hard-working postal workers at the Garforth and Seacroft delivery offices in in my constituency and, as he says, they work hard and take pride in their work. Does he agree that the fault does not lie with them? There is a toxic culture at the top of Royal Mail. It needs to work with the Communication Workers Union and the Government to sort things out and protect the universal service obligation.
David Reed
At no point have I laid any blame at the posties’ feet; this is a structural issue. The point that I am making—this is important, because it is affects all of us in this House—is that Royal Mail underpins a large part of our democracy. At the time of elections, we all expect election leaflets to be delivered. That is part of our democracy; it is an obligation that Royal Mail has to us, and we expect it to be upheld. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are structural problems. I want Royal Mail to meet the union and have those conversations. It is no fault of the posties, who work very hard—as does everyone in this House.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. We have been talking about this issue for many months, and yet there has been no improvement. There are still delays. In one office in my constituency, there is a staffing shortage of 10, so there is a fundamental problem with motivation and staff feeling valued. Does he agree that this cannot go on? People are missing hospital appointments and essential mail. The Government need to fix it sooner rather than later.
David Reed
The hon. Lady makes a serious point, and I hope the Minister will address it. Bear in mind that Royal Mail is a private company. Many organisations choose the deferred mail option—the economy of economies option—because it is the cheapest. Why would they not? But because they choose that option, people do not receive their post for a long time. Many of my constituents are fairly elderly and rely on letters for NHS appointments or bank statements. If they receive nothing for two weeks and then get it all at once, they find that difficult to understand. It has not been communicated meaningfully, so Royal Mail needs to do that very quickly.
I was grateful to sit down with the Royal Mail leadership last week. We broke bread and discussed the serious challenges that the organisation faces, as well as the shortcomings in the services that many of our constituents experience. From my conversations, I believe there is a genuine desire to improve and an acknowledgement of the scale of the challenge ahead. However, given the volume of correspondence that flows into Members’ offices on this issue, it is vital that we convey our constituents’ strength of feeling. The message must be heard loud and clear: people are not satisfied, and they expect the service to improve quickly.
My message to Royal Mail is this. You are not just a company; you are a British national institution. Do not wait to be criticised in the press, complained about by customers across the country or summoned before Select Committees or the Secretary of State. Be proactive. Communicate clearly what you are doing to improve the service. Most importantly, begin an honest national conversation with the British public about what they can expect. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so it will be difficult to get every Member in. I am going to impose a two-minute limit to start. It is not in my gift to stop this, but if Members take interventions, that may further restrict the time that people have to speak. That is in your gift.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to the posties in my patch. The Blyth and Ashington sorting offices have been absolutely brilliant.
This issue has been raised before, and we are raising it again today. The people at the pick point—the people on the factory floor and the people in the sorting offices—have a different story to tell from the directors of Royal Mail, and it is up to us to decide who is telling the truth here. We have seen horrendous issues, certainly in my constituency. If the Minister takes one thing away from this debate, I plead with him to have a look at the allegations by people in the sorting offices about management receiving bonuses to ensure that the universal service obligation is not adhered to and to prioritise parcels over letters. Please, Minister, investigate that allegation, because if it is true, it needs to be dealt with.
We have lots of issues in my constituency, including to do with the democratic process. We had an election in which 73 votes came after the close of poll. We have disabled people suffering and potentially being evicted from their properties. We have people with speeding fines who normally would get their wrist slapped facing court judgments. We have medical appointments being cancelled. We have a whole array of difficulties.
This is deliberate sabotage by Royal Mail—that is my view. The answer is to ensure that the Government renationalise Royal Mail. It is a treasured service in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I reiterate that there is a strict two-minute time limit on speeches.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.
The debate is particularly timely because, just yesterday, my office received three separate phone calls about three separate addresses in Fell Lane in Keighley, none of which have received their post for the last two weeks, despite those residents specifically expecting letters. I do, however, commend the work of postal workers across the country, without whom we could not function. Let me be clear that my contribution today is aimed not at them, but at the management structures that sit within Royal Mail.
I have had various correspondence and meetings with Royal Mail—one in September last year, and two following on from that—specifically raising the cases of my constituents. One pensioner, for example, waited more than two weeks for a new bank card to arrive. In that time, she could not access her pension and do the basics of her weekly food shop. Another constituent waited 10 days for a hospital letter to arrive. He is undergoing chemotherapy, so ended up missing a vital appointment. Distrust of the postal service has become so bad that one of my constituents hand-delivers documents to the court herself, unable to trust the system after receiving papers late in the post.
Royal Mail’s website still says that if someone buys a second-class stamp, they can expect that post to be delivered within two to three working days, or indeed on a Saturday, yet in my meetings with Royal Mail staff, they tell me that that is not internally the expectation of the delivery of their service. There is therefore a discontinuity between what they are telling the public and Members of Parliament and how they are operating internally. That must change, and I expect the Minister to hold Royal Mail to account on behalf of my constituents and those of all Members of Parliament here.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Unfortunately, in Oxford East, we have had a series of problems with the reliability of Royal Mail deliveries. Initially, there was an unwillingness to acknowledge those problems. I undertook one visit to a sorting office that had apparently been cleaned up in advance of my visit, with all the mail put out of the racks and into boxes. I was told about that, so I then did an unannounced visit and saw the real state of play, which was very different.
Following those unfortunate events, the management engaged more with me and local residents, and a number of changes were instituted following a public meeting. The east Oxford sorting office counter is now open for longer. There is a special system for NHS letters in Oxford, pioneered by Oxford posties, and measures have been introduced to improve retention of staff. Both my local residents and I have been advertising recruitment events for the local Royal Mail. I underline to the Minister that the one thing that worked in Oxford, even though we still have big problems, was engaging with the local posties and residents. We should listen to them, because they know how to improve the service. We really need to see that from the management of Royal Mail, as was rightly underlined by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).
Secondly, we need to stop the unfair competition with delivery cowboys. We have all seen this, unfortunately, in our constituencies. I have heard some appalling tales from people who are employed under really dreadful terms and conditions. They do not even have time to go to the toilet. They cannot eat, apart from when they are driving. They are paid a pittance. They have completely impossibly expectations placed on their shoulders. Ultimately, they are undercutting the Royal Mail model. We need to deal with it. We need the Employment Rights Act 2025 enacted in full and we need more action to stop that unfair playing field.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Just last week, a resident in Bramhall told me that his sister in Scotland sent two letters—one to himself in Greater Manchester and another to Australia. I am pretty sure that everyone can guess what happened. The letter to Australia arrived not one, not two, but 10 days earlier than the letter to Manchester. Joan from Heald Green had a similar issue, with no post being delivered to her in about three weeks, although her parcels were being delivered. When she asked the postal worker about the letter delivery, she was told that no staff were available to deliver the letters, and that parcels were being prioritised as they were a more lucrative side of the business.
Ironically, one of my constituents almost missed lifesaving surgery, with the letter arriving on the same day that the surgery was supposed to take place. This issue disproportionately impacts older and more vulnerable people. As Cheadle has one of the oldest populations in Greater Manchester, this causes particular concern for me.
Time and again, I have raised this issue with Royal Mail, and time and again I get the same response back, highlighting how terrible it is for my constituents and assuring me that they will look into it, but nothing changes. I have asked for meetings, but they never get arranged. The utter contempt that Royal Mail has shown Members of Parliament raising this issue is absolutely staggering.
It is about more than post; it is about people’s lives—their hospital appointments, bank statements, birthdays and christenings. It is a service that so many people rely on and trust. Without an effective and timely mail service, many people in my constituency will be cut adrift and isolated, which is why this is so important.
Mismanagement should have consequences, and the Government must take urgent steps to ensure that Royal Mail is held to account. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will do to ensure that my constituents get the postal service that they deserve and that bosses get their act in gear and start doing the job they are paid handsomely to do.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on securing this vital debate. I want to make three points about Royal Mail performance that are of particular concern to my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, and particularly in the town of Glenrothes.
Despite the fantastic efforts of our local postal workers, there have been significant delays in my constituents receiving mail, particularly over the Christmas period. A major factor in this is the understaffing of our delivery offices. Royal Mail is recruiting additional staff to address local pressures, but it is vital that there is action on recruitment and retention in the service for the longer term. Royal Mail must work with CWU to address the issue of its contracts creating a two-tier workforce.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Two-tier contracts have been raised in my constituency, with new employees being brought in on poorer terms and conditions. Moreover, the backlog has increased because, when people come back from sick leave, their overtime is cut, which causes real issues in building the backlog and causing staff members to come back to increased workloads. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot fix Royal Mail’s problems without fixing these two-tier contracts?
Richard Baker
My hon. Friend is completely correct, and as always makes the point eloquently. It is vital that Royal Mail management listen to her and CWU.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) was absolutely right about hospital appointments. Appointments letters arriving on the day of the appointment or after the appointment has taken place causes huge distress, as well as inefficiency for our local health services. Unfortunately, in Scotland, we do not have the NHS app enjoyed by colleagues in England, so these deliveries are all the more important, particularly for older people. They are not being prioritised—they are not being sent first or second class, but via an economy method. Royal Mail provides a barcode to prioritise deliveries, but it is not clear that has always been used; I am pursuing that with NHS Fife.
Finally, tougher targets are being set for Royal Mail in the years ahead, and I want to seek reassurance from the Minister that he will work with the Royal Mail and, crucially, the CWU to improve the vital service that the Royal Mail provides—not least with the forthcoming elections in Scotland, in which we will look to Royal Mail to deliver postal votes and electoral communications on time—so that our constituents can have confidence in this vital public service in the coming years.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on securing this important debate. Like all Members here, I have received a significant amount of correspondence from constituents—by email, I hasten to add—who are concerned about the performance of Royal Mail.
To be clear, I do not lay the blame at the feet of the posties; their hard work, day in and day out, is vital. However, delivery delays are having a huge impact on my constituents’ lives, and I will raise some of their concerns today. I have had numerous reports of areas in Bromley and Biggin Hill that my constituents receive only one delivery of letters a week, while parcels seem to be delivered with no delays. When letters do arrive, they are bundled together—sometimes a week’s worth in one go. One constituent even described a Christmas card being delivered three months late.
I appreciate that not all letters are time sensitive, but an issue of particular concern that has been raised by other hon. Members is whether NHS appointment letters are lost or delayed. One lady preparing for an ophthalmology appointment expected to receive a letter in advance to explain what she needed to do to prepare, but it arrived after the appointment.
Another of my constituents explained that her husband was recently referred for a CT scan, and subsequently heard nothing about when the appointment was scheduled for. When they phoned the hospital, they discovered that a letter with an appointment date was sent to them four months previously. They never received that letter, so they naturally did not keep the appointment.
Bromley and Biggin Hill is not in the middle of nowhere. It simply should not be the case that my constituents are waiting for weeks for letters to be delivered. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on what can be done to ensure my constituents receive the service they deserve and need from the Royal Mail.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I think that we would be hard pressed to find an MP or member of the public who does not support their local postie. We know their value, and they were considered the fourth emergency service during the pandemic. What a shame that we did not hold on to that mantle for them as, if we had, I suspect that the service would be much better today.
We have heard a lot about two-tier delivery in Parliament and across the media in the past week. Prioritisation of parcels means that days and days of urgent mail is often left in the sorting office. Despite dedicated posties requesting overtime to clear backlogs, the message from Royal Mail management is clear: they want the service to fail. They are making the job harder for staff on the ground by freezing overtime and forcing unsustainable workloads, and we are seeing a managed decline of a treasured British institution. Since 2022, worse pay and drastic watering down of terms and conditions have seen 27,000 new employees leave in the first year. The Royal Mail used to be a job for life.
I have an excellent relationship with the posties in the CWU east London postal branch and in my own constituency in Dagenham and Rainham. That is due to the late Lee Waker, a councillor who was a dedicated postie and a CWU political officer—a legend.
Last year, Ofcom concluded their assessment of postal service reforms. It announced that the specification for the universal service obligation will change, and referenced letter decline as a key driver. Tell that to the millions of people waiting for medical appointments or facing late fees, which hon. Members have mentioned. If things do not change, we might be telling people that their postal vote was not counted because Royal Mail bosses have delayed people’s votes—their democratic right.
Royal Mail need to listen to the CWU and to Government. I want to say in the strongest possible terms that this is not the fault of our posties; they pride themselves—
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I am really worried that we will get to a point where people in Yeovil will lose their money, damage their health or worse because of the failings of Royal Mail.
Residents such as George from Chard have missed vital hospital appointments because confirmation letters arrived after the scheduled date. They are now on a waiting list and hoping for a cancellation. Mary and too many others have reported that bank cards and financial documents have been delayed or lost entirely, which has led to additional interest being added to unpaid bills. One constituent has had prescriptions sent to the wrong address repeatedly for months; meanwhile, another has been receiving someone else’s important legal documents. Another Yeovil resident, Bernice, told me that the situation got so bad last year that she did not receive mail for four weeks, and was then delivered it all on the same day and could not get in her front door. Of course, this is not a reflection on the hard-working posties and Royal Mail staff in Yeovil; I will keep saying that. The poor pay and conditions for Royal Mail staff are not good enough.
I appreciate that the Minister understands and shares the concern of our constituents, but this powerlessness has to change. Can he set out what discussions he has had with Ofcom on holding Royal Mail to account for failing to uphold the universal obligation and its improvement plan, and clearly operating a parcel-first policy? Can he also set out what assessment he has made of the impact on the wellbeing, health and finances of rural residents as a result of delivery failures by Royal Mail? Finally, can he tell us what his Department is doing now to empower the Government to better hold Royal Mail and its bosses to account?
Government powerlessness has to end. Residents and Royal Mail staff in Yeovil deserve much better.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the dedicated postal workers in Sheffield Central, who work tirelessly to ensure that people receive their letters and deliveries throughout the year.
I have also been contacted by constituents in the Nether Edge area of Sheffield who have complained of delays and missing post. Some residents have missed important work papers, legal documents and hospital appointments, while others have found themselves waiting endlessly for their gas or electric cards. One constituent in particular is responsible for planning decisions in the Peak district, and is still waiting for official committee papers posted first class nearly a month ago. That has directly impacted his ability to do his job.
Many described receiving nothing for weeks on end, and then finally receiving a bundle of post on one day. Missing vital mail has become a danger to people’s health, wellbeing and financial security. Despite contacting Royal Mail, it has not responded to a single one of my emails; it is just not good enough. What will the Minister do to ensure that there is no discrepancy between what Royal Mail is telling us and what their workers are saying is happening on the ground, particularly about the deliberate strategy within the company to devalue those who are doing their jobs in the sorting offices?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for providing the opportunity to speak about this issue.
We are seeing the breakdown of vital services in my Strangford constituency and in Ards. We are hearing stories of cancer screening invitations arriving a week after the appointment date. We are seeing small business owners—the backbone of our local economy—having to apologise to customers for parcels that are sitting in the sorting office. We are seeing elderly neighbours waiting for pension letters or bank cards that never come.
The staff on the ground are working hard but they are being asked to do the impossible. A system designed for letters has been choked by the sheer volume of parcels and, in the race for profit, it is the humble first-class letter—the one containing peoples’ hospital results or bills—that is being left on the floor. We are told it is a recruitment issue. We are told it is the weather. For the people of Northern Ireland it feels like a postcode lottery. A letter could be a contract or a connection. We are not asking for the world; we are simply asking for a postal service that works for everyone, regardless of their address.
I have a quick example of how things are going wrong. I am currently dealing with a child with diabetes who has been accepted for a personal independence payment, but due to Royal Mail delays—it is not the child’s fault, but someone else’s—his form is late and his parents are missing out on more than a month’s worth of payments that they should be entitled to. It is clear that Royal Mail needs to buck up its ideas. Ofcom recently fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing national delivery targets, but that will not get my constituent the backdated PIP money that they are due.
Email is beyond many of our older people, and they depend on the so-called snail mail, which must return to being dependable once more. The staff are phenomenal, but root-and-branch changes must take place. The Minister is a good man and I spoke to him about this issue yesterday. We need it sorted Minister; the ball is at your toe.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I refer Members to my registered interests. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate.
“Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water”—
I could not agree more with that quote, which was leadership pledge No. 5 from the now Prime Minister, then simply the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, when he was bidding to become the leader of the Labour party.
Public ownership really does offer the best solution for ending the managed decline of Royal Mail. It would put an end to the reductions in service provision; to the cuts to resources, including recruitment and retention issues; to the prioritisation of parcels over letters; and to the disgraceful imposition of low wages and inferior conditions for new starters in 2022.
Postal workers across Alloa and Grangemouth are sick of their working conditions. Every day, they see a national institution being ravaged by private capital. No wonder morale is at an all-time low. We, as Back-Bench or Front-Bench Labour MPs, are here as trade unionists. What is happening to our postal workers is against everything we believe in. Our postal workers need us to be in this place for them. It is not too late for us to step in to stop the asset-stripping of Royal Mail and nationalise it. What would a Labour party in opposition say about the situation? I would put everything I own on that Labour party agreeing with leadership pledge No. 5.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
In 1884, parts of London would receive up to seven deliveries per day. By 1879, that had increased to 12 daily deliveries—can Members imagine? Today, in some parts of Sutton and Cheam or Worcester Park, we are lucky to see one delivery a week. That is 150 years of progress.
Luke Taylor
I agree primarily with the point made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who listed promises made by the Prime Minister. I would like to see the Prime Minister held to account a little more for his promises, which are undelivered—just like the mail in Sutton and Cheam.
Sutton residents in SM1, SM2 and SM3 cannot rely on the post any more. When Royal Mail fails to do its job properly, everyday people are left dealing with the fallout: prescriptions do not turn up, hospital letters land after the appointment has passed, Mother’s day cards arrive when the moment has gone and parking fines arrive after the grace period has expired.
However, the plural of anecdote is not data, so when I saw that this debate had been scheduled, I decided to get my own. Last Wednesday I sent out a batch of first-class letters from my constituency. In the letter I asked people to tell me when their delivery turned up and how long it had taken. The results: out of 23 replies so far, only 15 arrived the next working day, five took two days, and three took three days or more to arrive, with the latest arriving this morning. Yes, that is a small sample size—my credentials as an engineer will not let me fail to mention that—but Royal Mail’s target to have 93% of first-class mail arrive the next day was failed catastrophically, with my experiment placing its success rate closer to 65%.
When someone pays for first class, they are not making a complicated request: next-day delivery—that is the promise. Royal Mail may be a private company, but it delivers a public service, which is supposed to be overseen by Ofcom. A private company failing to deliver the public services it is mandated to do and getting away with it because of rubbish regulators—that covers at least 50% of the speeches delivered in this Chamber. It feels so familiar to me, having done it over and over. The Government are further eroding the confidence of our public by not showing improvements in any of these services.
Let me conclude with some questions for the Minister. Local elections are approaching in May, and the Government know that many people rely on postal votes to express their democratic right. The Minister has only to look across the Atlantic for recent experience of the undermining of faith in the electoral system when there is a lack of confidence that ballots will arrive on time and be counted. What assessment has been made of the impact of delays on local elections? What plans do the Government have to require Royal Mail to remove the shackles on local delivery offices to help them to clear rounds at this critical time? Will the Minister give a read-out of what firm actions and conclusions were agreed in his meeting with Ofcom last Wednesday, after his statement in the Chamber last week?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Over the past week, the delivery offices that serve Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have both been ranked in the top five in their regional area for delivery failure. This matters for customers waiting for vital posts and for staff under immense pressure. It is not the fault of the posties; the responsibility lies with the owners. Poor decisions have created a weakened system, chaotic revisions and a recruitment crisis driven by low pay and worse conditions for new starters. The result is a workforce that is overstretched and a service that is letting customers down.
As for the USO, the six-day delivery remains a vital national guarantee, but changing specifications alone will not fix a service that is being run down. Ofcom has allowed an uneven playing field when it comes to competitors, such as Amazon, that benefit from the universal network without contributing to its cost. Royal Mail carries the burden of serving over 30 million addresses while others extract profit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made a good point about bogus self-employment among competitors. If we do not get this right, we will undermine the impact of the Employment Rights Act. That is why the CWU is right to call for a universal service fund so that all operators contribute fairly to the network they rely on.
Ofcom’s broader approach risks a race to the bottom—it is not pursuing efficiency. If we are serious about improving performance, we have to have a fundamental rethink. I have raised this with the Minister on previous occasions, and I raise it again today. This is a mess and it is collapsing. An obvious solution is staring us in the face: take Royal Mail back into public ownership, and do it quickly.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
My constituents in Hartlepool report letters arriving late, entire streets going days without deliveries and, in some cases, post turning up only once every 13 days—this is not once or twice, but a pattern lasting for months. Let me be absolutely clear, as other Members have been, that this is not the fault of our posties. I have met them and they are hard-working, committed and deeply proud of the job they do. They are just as frustrated as anyone else because they know the service is not what it should be.
The failure lies not with the workforce but with the system. The Royal Mail as an organisation is simply not delivering the service that the public are entitled to expect. We should be honest about why. The privatisation of Royal Mail has gone the same way as rail and water: a public service turned into a private asset, focused no longer on delivery—quite literally in this case—but on what can be extracted. Profit first, service second, and the public and our hard-working posties left to pick up the pieces.
The consequences for my constituents are not abstract but real and serious. Bills arrive late triggering penalties, appointments are missed, and important correspondence simply does not turn up on time or at all. Financial penalties, missed healthcare and the real anxiety caused by a service that is not functioning are not minor inconveniences. Yet these issues are raised with Royal Mail, we are told that they are not long-term problems, but just down to short-term staff absences. With respect, that does not pass the most basic credibility test.
Who gets it in the neck at the end of the day? Our posties on the doorstep. This is profoundly unfair. Royal Mail is failing the public and its workforce. It is a pattern: privatise a public service and it fails the public. So I urge the Minister, who I know is deeply committed, to take on the Royal Mail, and if it does not improve, take it back.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Royal Mail leadership is failing our hard-working posties and failing Eastbourne. Eastbournians are missing vital medical appointments because letters from doctors have arrived late. Others are being forced to reschedule legal hearings because of to delayed documents, and some are missing important deadlines for paying fines and bills.
Time and again, the Royal Mail has unacceptably attempted to pile the blame on our hard-working posties by citing long-term sickness and absence as the primary cause of the failures. That is not true. The problem is a toxic culture at the top—a culture in which staff feel unable to take well-deserved annual leave, and when they do, they return to weeks of backlog and are left playing catch-up because cover is not taken seriously. This is pushing our posties to breaking point: amazing posties like Manuel, my postie, and others across town, in particular Barry, who covers King’s Drive too.
I make one short and simple request of the Minister in order to support us in Eastbourne to stand up and be heard. Will he meet with me and hard-working local posties, as well as representatives of the CWU, to hear directly from those on the frontline about what is going on in Eastbourne, the challenges they face, and the upstream changes that are urgently needed to make Royal Mail great again?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you Mr Twigg, for chairing today’s debate.
What started with a pension deficit led to corporate excess, and then of course, the Lib Dem-Tory coalition escalating the risk to the Post Office with their Postal Services Act 2011. And now we see business failure with obscene consequences: a two-tier workforce, with wages below the real living wage, conditions falling, and the price of stamps increasing to the point of unaffordability. We know that the billionaire leader of the company is now striving to cut the universal service obligation. This is a failed business that the Government must pick up and drive forward.
I commend York’s posties for the incredible work that they do. I met with them recently to hear their stories. One said to me:
“I’m bringing to your attention the dire state we find ourselves in due to the business not caring about customers’ mail. Mail gets left every day in our office, birthday cards, hospital letters, everything. The staff here are exhausted as we keep getting unachievable work loads.”
We know from the workforce that they have got the solutions in their hands. They know how to drive the business forward. The CWU and Unite, as their unions, will be able to work with the business and help the Minister to ensure that it thrives again. Recruitment challenges because of the unmanageable workloads have resulted in 27,000 staff leaving since 2022.
As with rail, we know that the best efficiency and value would come from the Government bringing Royal Mail back into public hands for the public good, and keeping its public commitment. Let us be bold and brave, and let’s have it back.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The performance of Royal Mail is an issue of significant concern across North Somerset. Issues with deliveries are having real consequences for residents and businesses alike. In the light of concerns highlighted to me, I launched a survey in mid-February to ask constituents about their experiences with Royal Mail. I have also been working constructively with local CWU representatives and meeting staff in sorting offices to understand the challenges Royal Mail is facing and to find practical solutions. I am grateful for the engagement and look forward to continuing those conversations.
The issue was brought into sharp focus for me in January when I hosted a town hall for constituents. Many residents unfortunately received their event invitations after the town hall had already happened. One property business in Clevedon shared its experience. The business deals with house and flat sales, where deadlines carry real legal weight. The business went nearly two weeks without a single delivery. Royal Mail said it is either a staffing issue or that other delivery routes are taking priority. The property business asked whether it might be able to collect its post directly from the local sorting office, but it was told that that would not be possible.
According to my survey, 87% of respondents in North Somerset are experiencing delays, and 53% said that delayed deliveries had caused them to miss appointments and deadlines. Those figures reflect a level of disruption that goes beyond what most North Somerset residents would consider acceptable, and it is a concern shared by staff. One of my survey respondents has stage 4 cancer. They manage over 50 medical appointments alongside work and caring for a four-year-old child. They depend on NHS letters to manage care and plan their life around it, and one key appointment letter sent in December has still not arrived. As a pharmacist, I see that risk as unacceptable.
Our posties are a pillar of our community, working tirelessly in all weathers to deliver a vital postal service. I want to be clear: my concerns are with systemic issues in our postal system. Perhaps, as the CWU asks, Royal Mail should be back—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Unfortunately, we are now going to have to move to a time limit of a minute and a half. I am still trying to get everybody in.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
As the proud son of a Blackpool postie, I declare my interest in this debate and refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I start by thanking all our posties in Blackpool and across the country for their vital service. Despite the privatisation of Royal Mail, they maintain a sense of pride as public servants, knowing better than anyone their role in our communities as a recognisable face, a trusted person and a point of contact. It is vital that we protect them and the service they deliver.
Posties in Blackpool South have told me they are forced to prioritise parcels over letters—allegations that are echoed across the country and in Westminster Hall today—but every undelivered letter abandoned at a sorting office until tomorrow represents a real-world consequence: a missed medical appointment for an elderly constituent, a missed benefit notification for a single parent or an important notice for local business. Those communications are a national priority for local residents—something no other courier can compete with. That is why we need to ensure that Royal Mail delivers its national service.
Rather than setting itself apart, Royal Mail appears to be intent on joining the race and becoming just another parcel courier with gig economy terms and conditions for its workforce. We have a responsibility to ensure that that is not allowed to happen. Improvements to service quality are impossible unless the company agrees to an urgent pathway to equalising workers’ terms and conditions. We must ensure that the new owners stick to their agreements with the CWU and the Government, and for the sake of preserving this 500-year-old institution—
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to put on the record my thanks to the posties across the Hexham constituency. They traverse extremely rural areas to deliver post in some pretty challenging circumstances. It is a pleasure to represent them and their families.
Unfortunately, like some of the post in my experience, most of my speech will go undelivered, but I do want to speak a little bit about the impact of Royal Mail’s management, particularly its neglect of rural communities. A constituent recently arrived at the local sorting office to collect 15 items of important undelivered mail, including a cancer test result with a postmark dated two months earlier. My constituents and I find that there is a serious lack of accountability at Royal Mail, and that includes a failure to recognise the scale of the problem in my constituency and the scale of the issues affecting the rural constituencies who rely on the postal service as a lifeline.
There is much I would like to go into, but I want to focus particularly on the case of a constituent who I have been supporting. They requested for legal documents to be sent between two solicitors’ offices via recorded delivery, with proof of postage, at the beginning of December 2025. The documents never made it to the intended recipient. My constituent contacted Royal Mail customer service on numerous occasions, and spent 60 minutes on hold—they also got in contact via email, online and in person at the sorting office. All Royal Mail could say was that the documents are now considered lost.
I am sure we all want to hear assurances that Royal Mail will take action to improve its service and make full use of the Government’s commitment to support that. I urge the Government to press Royal Mail to ensure that future plans explicitly consider the needs of our most rural and sparsely populated communities.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The service provided by Royal Mail in my constituency is simply not good enough. Hundreds of residents have written to me over the past year with shocking, but unfortunately almost identical, stories. In the worst-affected areas of Abbeymead and Abbeydale, most residents I speak to do not get post for three to four weeks, only for a pile of letters to arrive at once. I know that to be true because I live there, and my post arrives monthly as well.
In Tuffley, Matson and Hempsted, they are experiencing similar issues: people are waiting on hospital appointments, new debit cards and other important post. I hope that most of the Mother’s Day cards have now arrived—I pray that all the Christmas cards have been delivered. Something has to change.
I want to be absolutely clear that this poor service is not down to our hard-working posties in Gloucester. I visited the Gloucester North delivery office last week and spoke with them, and they are working really hard in difficult conditions. The post arrives late from the Bristol sorting office; the posties are waiting later and later in the morning for that delivery from Bristol, which impacts how many hours they can deliver for. Parcels are being prioritised over post—that is what the posties tell me, but management are still denying it. The posties also told me in detail about the two-tier workforce system, which means that most staff now leave in six months.
To make matters worse, they are being undercut by other companies that pay their staff more. Amazon recently opened a large depot in Gloucester, and is paying £4 an hour more than Royal Mail offers. The Minister knows that I have been raising this repeatedly with the Department for Business and Trade. I have written to Ofcom, which still says that it is fining those companies and that will improve things. It will not; they are baking those fines into their business cases. Can we please give the regulator more teeth so that we can actually improve the service?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The situation at Royal Mail is a systemic failure, from imposed revisions to delivery offices, to a toxic managerial culture and a recruitment model built on low pay and insecure conditions. The optimised delivery model has failed but Royal Mail is pressing ahead with it regardless, despite the workforce’s suggestions that offer a more viable way forward. There is the underlying resource crisis; since 2022, new entrants have been offered wages barely above the legal minimum, with fewer hours and diminished terms and conditions. The results are stark: thousands are leaving the job.
There is regulatory imbalance in the sector, as we have heard, and it cannot be right that companies like Amazon can benefit from national delivery infrastructure without paying a single penny towards it. The proposal for a USO network fund, requiring all operators to contribute, needs to be taken forward. That is not only fair but essential. Finally, I must address the conduct of the new owner, EP Group. Commitments made to workers have not been honoured. That breach of trust undermines confidence and raises serious questions about the company’s long-term intentions.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for introducing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), who has turned private investigator. I was very impressed by his efforts.
There is no doubt that there is a real crisis in the postal service. I have just read “Precipice” by Robert Harris; it tells the story of a love affair between Prime Minister Asquith and a young socialite. It is recorded in the many, many letters delivered between them each day. The book is about the letters between them, half of which survive. The letters to the Prime Minister, I believe, were destroyed, but the letters to the socialite survive and form the basis of the book. Mr Harris invented the other letters—love letters to the Prime Minister: imagine that. Now we have email and texts, and no doubt future writers will look at political emails.
Times have changed, and we must acknowledge that. In Denmark, the letter post has, unbelievably, completely stopped. Here, the universal service remains an obligation, not an option. Our people expect that. I urge the Government to get a grip on this. If the solution is indeed public ownership, let us simply do that.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
As the proud daughter of a postie, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The performance of Royal Mail in parts of Sherwood Forest has been poor. Constituents in Clipstone have had no reliable postal service for over five months. At first, the Mansfield sorting office said that it was due to demand over the holiday period, but we are now in March. I have reached out nationally to Royal Mail, but had no response.
As I said, this issue is deeply personal to me. My dad was a postie for over 30 years; I lost him on 6 September last year. It is clear that Royal Mail used to represent something more than it does now. It provided good, secure jobs; the jobs were tough, yes, but Royal Mail workers were respected, supported and had strong terms and conditions. Over the years, those terms and conditions have been eroded. Posties in my constituency tell me that the job has become near impossible, with chronic understaffing, ever-changing regulations, different terms and conditions for people doing the same job, and top-down ideas that simply do not work on the ground. These posties are not people who want to see Royal Mail fail; in fact, they are quite the opposite. However, in my recent meetings with the Communication Workers Union, I was told that 50% of new Royal Mail staff leave within their first year, which amounts to 27,000 workers leaving since 2022.
Royal Mail is not just another company; it is a proud British institution, part of the fabric of our communities. There is something fundamentally British about the idea that, six days a week, someone in a red and blue uniform walks our streets to deliver mail. For constituents in Clipstone, for my communities across Nottinghamshire and for Royal Mail workers across the country, I urge the Minister to act, and act now.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Many people in Worcester are very frustrated by the delays in the Royal Mail service, which are impacting their healthcare and their access to money. However, having spoken to Citizens Advice, I know that this is not an issue of the moment, nor one restricted to Worcester; it is much bigger than that.
I thank the Minister for his action on this issue. However, having met Royal Mail representatives myself, what is even more concerning than everything else is how hard it is to get acceptance from the company about the issues that exist, a straight story and openness. That makes us question the character as well as the competence of Royal Mail’s management. We need meaningful discussions, and truthful and realistic dialogue.
We also need to reflect on reality and to consider our part in this situation. Royal Mail is under obligations that are not commercially sustainable and it does not receive the money to meet them. It is now in a doom loop of increasing prices and declining demand.
We all deeply value Royal Mail. We want it to be healthy, thriving and serving us well. We need to tackle this issue head-on, so I urge the Minister to help us to get everything on the table, get everyone around the table, and fix this situation.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.
I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for highlighting all the impacts on their constituents, in the form of missed medical appointments, financial appointments or legal appointments. Exactly the same is true in my Witney constituency. Obviously, I speak for the whole Chamber; we are all getting correspondence about this issue in our mailbox, because it is causing so much trouble. The other thing that has come out so strongly in this debate is the stress, the distrust and the unfairness that the posties themselves have to live with. That situation causes a huge amount of unhappiness, but there seems to be no end to it in sight, which is a real problem.
The turnover rate of new Royal Mail employees is extremely high and the work practices are harsh. Yet we rely on our local posties, and almost without exception they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. I will give a particular shout out to my postie, Tony, who on Christmas eve worked way beyond his scheduled hours. He should not have had to do that and should have been paid for it. However, he is representative of everybody working for Royal Mail around the country, and that situation does not just happen on Christmas eve; it happens week in, week out.
The work practices are just getting tougher and tougher. That comes out in the latest quarterly report, which makes for miserable reading. For example, delivery targets were not met in a single postcode across the first three quarters of 2025-26. In Oxfordshire, just 67.2% of first-class mail arrived, against the target of 93%.
In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million, saying that it urgently needed an improvement plan. However, five months later Royal Mail is still saying that it cannot publish that plan until talks with the postal workers union—the CWU—conclude. All the while, our constituents and our posties are left paying more and suffering more for an inadequate and wholly unreliable service.
Charlie Maynard
I have been here for 17 months. We could rehash things from 14 or 17 years ago. I believe that in 2009 the Labour Government sought to take a 30% stake out of the Royal Mail, but I am not interested in going back through that because we are where we are. Let me try to finish my speech, and I will talk about where I think we should be heading now.
The Government and Ofcom need to urgently make it clear to Royal Mail executives that they must get a grip on the situation. Although letter numbers have fallen, there is still plenty of demand for Royal Mail’s delivery services. Crucially, everyone across the country and all of us here in Parliament place huge value on retaining the universal service obligation. What seems clear is that the incentives are wrong.
The new owner of Royal Mail is a commercial operator that bought International Distribution Services, the holding company of Royal Mail, in June 2025 with a full understanding of the Royal Mail’s USO requirement. The business seems to be prioritising its profitable parcel business, General Logistics Systems. The owner also has a clear commercial incentive to cut costs on the Royal Mail side of the business and to keep lobbying Ofcom to continue to loosen the USO requirements even further. Such a strategy serves the owner of Royal Mail very nicely, but is a terrible outcome for the many millions of people up and down the country who depend on the USO, and for the posties.
I am sure the Minister and Ofcom recognise that predicament and also recognise that the USO is a key public good. I am interested in the extent to which the Minister considers the situation similar to or different from the telecoms industry levy, which is used to fund the broadband universal service obligation. Does the Minister agree that insisting on much clearer operational transparency from the Royal Mail would be good to establish more detail on whether parcels are being prioritised over letters and the impact of that? It could be managed by Ofcom requiring root-level data on delivery performance and clear reporting on parcels versus letters prioritisation to make it harder for USO traffic to be quietly deprioritised. What steps is the Minister considering taking to stop a situation where Royal Mail keeps trying to bounce Ofcom into cutting the USO further?
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been an incredibly powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for their contributions. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. There has been a consistent theme and a consistent message, but I will try not to repeat all the powerful speeches that we have had. I will try to focus my speech on the questions for the Minister.
I have had a lot of casework in West Worcestershire on this issue, and it seems to have happened post Ofcom’s decision in July 2025 to allow a change to the universal service obligation. That seems to be the point at which I observed a huge increase in casework. We have heard about really serious consequences on our constituents’ lives. It is incredibly important that the Minister gets to grips in terms of his responsibilities vis-à-vis particularly the regulator. I want to focus on the meeting that the Minister had last week with Ofcom, and I want to add my appreciation for the amazing work that our posties do in West Worcestershire.
The meeting with Ofcom came about on the afternoon after last week’s urgent question, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to update us on the action that he is taking. Ofcom agreed that the new Czech owner of Royal Mail could change the universal service obligation, and that change started last July. The new delivery model means that first class should continue to be delivered on a daily basis, and second class should be every other day. But what we have heard loud and clear in this debate today is that that does not seem to be happening. We buy a first-class stamp for a reason—because we want a delivery the next day. How is Ofcom justifying its decision to allow Royal Mail to have higher costs for a service that is clearly getting worse? What did it tell the Minister at the meeting that he had? Did he secure any commitments from Ofcom about its powers vis-à-vis Royal Mail?
I know that the Minister also sits down regularly with Royal Mail. What discussions has he had with Royal Mail about the issues that have been so well articulated across the House this morning? Staffing cuts, delivery revisions and operational changes have clearly contributed to this collapse in performance. Does the Minister believe that the current regulatory framework for this precious part of our critical national infrastructure is fit for purpose? Is he considering any reforms to the regulatory framework for Royal Mail?
Royal Mail continues to say—I think we have heard it illustrated by the contributions this morning—that the universal service obligation, as currently defined, is impossible to deliver. When the company was bought, the new owner must have done due diligence on what the obligations were. Does the Minister accept the premise that the current universal service obligation is impossible to deliver, or does he think that, with the right regulatory interventions, the owner can meet it?
The recent letter that Royal Mail sent to the Business and Trade Committee refers to its contingency plans to prioritise parcels to prevent unsafe build-ups, but I think all of us believe and have heard anecdotally that the prioritisation of parcels is a deliberate business decision, because that is where the margin is seen to be. Can the Minister explain the conversations that he has had with Royal Mail about the threshold for that contingency—Royal Mail claims that it holds it in reserve—for addressing parcels with a higher priority than letters? At what point does a temporary decision to implement that contingency become a permanent de facto policy of deprioritising letters—the very heart of our universal service obligation?
Robbie Moore
On Royal Mail’s website today, it says that if a customer buys a second-class stamp, they can expect delivery within two or three days, including Saturdays, but since 28 July last year, delivery has not taken place on a Saturday. There seems to be an inconsistency between what Royal Mail is saying publicly and what it is actually delivering. What does my hon. Friend feel that the Minister should do to address this clear anomaly?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I look forward to the Minister responding to that, but I think we have heard today that even that weaker delivery obligation is not being met.
We also need to consider the wider business context that we are living in. Many businesses like Royal Mail have had to pay this additional jobs tax. The Employment Rights Act is having an impact on hiring across the economy. Does the Minister acknowledge that his own Government’s decisions have affected the situation? What assessment has he made of the impact of Government tax policies on Royal Mail’s financial resilience?
In conclusion, this debate is about ensuring that a service relied upon by millions is restored to the standards that the law requires. What steps immediately can the Minister take to restore a reliable six-day service? What action will he take to hold Royal Mail to its legal obligations? What reforms will he pursue to ensure that Ofcom is an active, effective regulator rather than a passive observer? When will the public finally see improvements to the service in the way that they have been promised for years?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing today’s important debate. He spoke about falling confidence in Royal Mail. I think the debate has shown that there is growing anger about failures of service. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Tom Collins), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and others spoke about how, when raising those concerns on behalf of constituents, they heard a completely different version of events in response. That has added to the sense of the frustration, particularly when hon. Members are so connected to their local posties, who understand what is happening on the ground.
I join others in paying tribute to our hard-working posties across the country. The hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and others rightly said that any criticism of Royal Mail service is not a criticism of the posties themselves.
The Government remain absolutely committed to the universal postal service, which is an essential part of our economic infrastructure. It can and should be delivered. Hon. Members have raised concerns about the impact of service failures on the work of democracy. They have talked about bank cards not arriving and the isolation that causes. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the human impact of missed hospital appointments, and there are also consequences for legal hearings and business deals.
I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) that I am also not getting love letters through the post—
Blair McDougall
Seriously, though, it is galling that Royal Mail is increasing the price of its services but is not meeting delivery targets. Our constituents rightly expect that, if they are paying more, they should get the service and deliveries on time. It is simply not good enough.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is always very responsive; I appreciate his responses today and in the past. I spoke about a person who applied for PIP and found that there was a delay in the post. That young boy, a type 1 diabetic, was denied one month of his benefit as a result. Will the Minister please look at that?
Blair McDougall
I will happily look at that. It is another example of a service that is simply not good enough.
As was mentioned, I recently met Royal Mail’s chief executive to press these issues directly. He was left in no doubt about the level of anger and concern across the House, and he was clear that the service is not where he wants it to be. He gave me a firm commitment that he will work towards restoring confidence in the service.
Where service has fallen short locally, whether due to staffing pressures, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned, operational challenges or external disruption, customers need to see sustained and structural improvement, not just short-term fixes. I understand that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has met Royal Mail to discuss these issues. I have been advised that there are currently three vacancies in the Exmouth office, and I expect that Royal Mail will fill them to ensure there is an improvement in service locally.
Across the country, our constituents deserve visible improvements in reliability, and that expectation underpins every discussion that I and other Ministers have with Royal Mail. That is why, before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured significant commitments from the new owners of the business, including a commitment to prevent dividend payments until quality of service improves.
As many hon. Members said, service improvement is also intimately linked to workers’ terms and conditions and the reform of Royal Mail’s operation. It is critical that the Royal Mail workers are on board with the operational changes, and that their experience informs that work. The Government continue to engage with EP Group on that; that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State convened a joint meeting with the owners of EP Group and the CWU last month to help to unblock the outstanding issues. That engagement continues.
Hon. Members also referred to my detailed discussion with Ofcom last week about its expectations of Royal Mail and the steps it is taking to protect consumers. I highlighted hon. Members’ significant concerns about the delivery performance and the negative real-world impact that that is having on our constituents. It is fair to say that Ofcom has heard the strength of concerns, particularly those expressed in the Chamber last week. One outcome of that meeting is that Ofcom is clear, as it has been for some time, that Royal Mail is required to publish a detailed improvement plan that results in significant and continuous progress, and that it expects that one should appear within days of an agreement with the union. Where failures continue, Ofcom will not hesitate to act again, and last year’s £21 million fine was a clear signal.
We are in a context where, as has been said, the performance of many other parcel providers makes Royal Mail’s performance look positively glowing, and Ofcom is also looking at that wider context. None of us is blind to the wider context and the structural pressures. Letter volumes have halved over the past decade. As hon. Members have said, to ensure that the USO is sustainable, Ofcom has made changes to Royal Mail’s obligations.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) made clear, those changes and reforms cannot be imposed from the top down. Royal Mail must work constructively with its workforce and unions to ensure that operational changes translate into better services for customers across the country—a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker).
There is wisdom in every sorting office; staff there understand how the business works. We have taken a close interest in the negotiations, the new operating model and workers’ conditions. I mentioned that the Secretary of State recently met with EP Group and the CWU; a further meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. I am hopeful that Royal Mail’s owners and the union will work together in the interests of Royal Mail’s employees, its customers and the business.
Several hon. Members raised concerns about the impact on postal votes. We have sought strong reassurances from Royal Mail on that issue. There have been meetings with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission to discuss plans for the upcoming elections, and a similar meeting is taking place in Scotland with Ministers there. My hon. Friend the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy is having a further meeting with Royal Mail to discuss postal votes, and we are leaving Royal Mail in no doubt about our expectations in that space.
Luke Taylor
It is encouraging to hear that the Government have sought reassurances, but nothing short of a fundamental revolution in my local delivery office will see postal votes delivered even within the weekend on which they are expected to arrive. Can the Minister detail what those reassurances involve? Do they require additional resource to be provided to the delivery offices so that they can pay for the inevitable overtime or additional staff on those dates? Similarly, when the postal votes need to get back to our town halls, what will be done to make sure that that end of the process also happens over a period of three or four weeks?
Blair McDougall
Obviously, part of ensuring that the obligations around postal votes are maintained is making sure that the resource is there on the ground to do that. Another part of it is also the prioritisation of postal votes within the service. There are existing structures for that, such as doing sweeps of boxes. I reiterate that the Government will continue to hold Royal Mail to account, will support strong and independent regulation by Ofcom and will press urgently for the improvements that customers rightly expect to see.
Andy McDonald
Just before the Minister sits down, can he help me with a couple of things? The reduction in terms and conditions for new entrants into our sorting offices is causing great problems. People are leaving within days and weeks, so there is an issue there. Similarly, in this competitive landscape, we have other providers working on the basis of bogus self-employment. Given that we approach this issue on a whole-of-Government basis, rather than just in silos, I wonder whether we are looking closely at the damage that this situation is causing. I think particularly of the £10 billion that goes uncollected through bogus self-employment, which could enhance the coffers of the Treasury, among other things, and provide people with secure and solid work. As it stands, we have insecure and fragile work, both in Royal Mail and in the private sector that competes with it. Surely this is the worst of all worlds. A thorough approach is needed. I am yet to hear the Minister tackle the key issue raised by many hon. Members from the Government Benches: that we should be looking at the option of public ownership. Will the Minister please address that?
Blair McDougall
Our focus at the moment is on getting the business on to a sustainable footing. That is about the negotiations on the very terms and conditions that my hon. Friend raises. As I mentioned, Ofcom has put on notice those other parcel providers. That is primarily about the poor quality of service that we see from many of them, but when we talk to Royal Mail and the union—as I am sure my hon. Friend has done—they will point out that sense of better employers being undermined by those working practices. He has been a constant campaigner in that respect.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I reassure them that the specific localised issues that they have raised will be covered in ongoing engagement with Royal Mail and Ofcom, along with the bigger structural conversation with the union and owners. I close by again paying tribute to the posties who do an extraordinary job across the country, and stress again that none of the criticisms today are laid at their door.
David Reed
I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this important and timely debate. Most importantly, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for turning up this morning and making their constituent’s voices heard.
A number of wide-ranging issues have been brought forward. It has been a productive debate, and it is clear that we all want to retain a letter postal delivery service in the UK. However, as many Members have said, there are structural issues across the service, and we are going through a period of unprecedented technological change. Those changes are affecting people up and down the country. People are not receiving post such as NHS letters or important legal documents. These issues are affecting posties’ morale, they are affecting recruitment and retention, and they are affecting our democracy and the use of public money.
I thank the Minister for his speech and the points that he raised. I know that he and his team are working very hard with the Secretary of State to make Royal Mail accountable for a lot of those issues. I hope that the Business and Trade Committee can bring forward an inquiry to look into this issue in a granular way and report those findings back to the House. Looking across Westminster Hall today, it is clear that there is cross-party support to improve the situation, and this has been a productive conversation.
I say to Royal Mail, “We are getting on the job; we are going to improve this service, and we will enforce the USO and make sure that it is fit for purpose, because we all deserve this service that we are paying for.” I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to make sure that that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for domestic abuse survivors.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members for attending the debate and standing up for survivors of domestic abuse in their constituencies. I also thank the excellent women’s rights campaigners, some of whom have joined us today. Without their relentless research, activism and day-to-day support for victims, we would be unable to fully represent domestic abuse survivors.
I must open today’s debate with a sad reality: according to Refuge, an estimated 2.2 million women and 1.5 million men have experienced domestic abuse in this country in the last year alone, and according to a 2025 report by the Office for National Statistics, this issue is far from niche. Refuge also found that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. The fact that we use words like “on average”, “approximately”, and “estimated” on such a serious topic beckons us to acknowledge that those numbers still suffer from severe under-reporting, highlighting just how much more work we have to do.
In the light of International Women’s Day having just passed, and with the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy still fresh in our minds, I want to take this opportunity to assess how Government support for domestic abuse survivors holds up in practice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; he was absolutely right to do so. I am also very happy to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to hearing her response. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about children in emergency refuge accommodation? I bring that to his attention simply because, in Northern Ireland, some 45% of children in emergency refuge are aged nought to five, which has a difficult impact on those formative years. More support is needed to provide a firm foundation for children during those most vulnerable years—it is not just the ladies; it is the children as well.
Ben Maguire
I thank the hon. Member for that excellent point—I will come on to accommodation issues and the impact on children.
I recognise that really important steps have been taken in recent months, on which I congratulate the Government. For instance, many people will agree that the removal of the presumption of contact puts children’s voices and experience back at the heart of contact decisions, which is a genuine step forward for their safety. The 2025 statutory reforms to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 updated the terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial abuse” with “economic abuse”—and recognised that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as their children.
However, from speaking to my North Cornwall constituents and the charity sector, I realised that the VAWG strategy does not yet place arguably the most crucial protection for victims at the centre of its aims. Of course, societal change is urgently needed to prevent so-called normal people becoming perpetrators of abuse, but what about those victims who are caught up in the cycle of abuse now? How can we help them and free them from harm?
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Abusive ex-partners can exploit loopholes in the Child Maintenance Service to get control and avoid paying. A constituent of mine is owed over £15,000 and has been left in financial hardship with disabled children. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government guidance on child maintenance payments to survivors of domestic abuse must be written into law, including a means of getting payments from those using the process as coercive control?
Ben Maguire
I completely agree; I have actually had some similar casework. I will come back to that point.
In a deeply troubling case brought to me by a wonderful Cornish advice clinic, a female client, who I will call Louise for this debate, was refused legal aid on the basis that she supposedly had too much disposable income and assets, despite the reality that, at the time, she was sofa surfing, effectively homeless and earning only minimum wage. Although she may have passed the merits test, she failed the means test, because she was not paying rent and was not on benefits, so the system deemed her ineligible for legal support.
After Louise fled her partner, who had reportedly abused her, both parties applied for residential custody of their child. Although the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service recommended that the child live with their mother, the judge awarded custody to the ex-partner, arguing that the mother had not followed the correct legal route when she fled from home. She is now permitted to see her child only by travelling hundreds of miles back to the area from which she fled, and the ex-partner refuses phone contact altogether. She is terrified of returning to a family court and knows from experience how one-sided the system can be, especially as her ex-partner has the money and the legal representation, while she would be forced to represent herself. How many women consider the reality that Louise currently faces and, as a result, end up staying with their abuser?
The legal aid Minister assured me that an eligibility waiver is available for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for urgent protections, such as non-molestation orders, yet a survey commissioned by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse found that more survivors had to represent themselves in legal proceedings than were able to access legal aid. The Ministry of Justice’s own harm report found:
“The most important and frequently mentioned form of structural disadvantage was lack of access to legal representation.”
Most cases I have reviewed end with a victim—whose abuse has not yet reached so-called dangerous levels—applying for a child protection order, anti-stalking order or non-molestation order, which means they do not qualify to skip the legal aid means test. On the contrary, victims will be assessed on their income through a test that has not been uprated with inflation since 2009.
An applicant is not eligible for legal aid if their monthly disposable income exceeds £733. That threshold is clearly blind to reality. So far, the Government have chosen to ignore rising food and energy costs, as well as the huge debts that can be caused by an abuser. Even if someone has £750 left at the end of the month including those costs, which is farcical, the fact that solicitors can cost anything from £120 an hour to £400 or £500 an hour speaks volumes about the poorly executed calculations that are applied to the legal aid means test threshold.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for my Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill, which he has backed from the start. He is making a very powerful point about the role that businesses can play in supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, who are the reason why we are all here and who we care so much about. Does he agree that we should be doing more to encourage businesses to support women fleeing from domestic abuse, such as through the roundtable that I hosted recently with Women’s Aid, Airbnb and AXA? Does he also agree that the response from Travelodge this week has been simply shameful and that, quite frankly, it has failed to tackle violence against women and girls in one of its properties?
Ben Maguire
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being such a champion on this issue, and I completely agree with his condemnation of Travelodge’s frankly despicable response. His point regarding Airbnb is interesting, and I have been making the same point recently, because it crosses over with the Travelodge issue.
I am sure that many Members have heard from survivors in their constituencies who tell them they have spent all their savings on legal fees or they have accrued tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. We know that survivors often face crippling financial barriers when trying to protect themselves and, in many cases, their children. Would the Minister tell me why the review period for the threshold has not yet been changed and why the gap between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford to pay for legal services has not received closer scrutiny during the means test review?
The previous Government completed their review in 2022 and then proposed new criteria in 2023. Implementation was later delayed and, as far as I am aware, the current Government have not yet indicated that they intend to progress the work. I would therefore appreciate an update from the Minister on the status of the legal aid means test review.
I welcome the Government’s steps to include economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act, but claiming that if a victim can prove they are economically abused, they will become exempt from the means test is a bit like asking victims who are under a severe threat to their health—in the most vulnerable state of their life—to sift through a haystack to find a purposefully and impossibly well-hidden needle. The £100,000 capital exemption recently introduced for the means test has been powerfully rejected by Women’s Aid and domestic abuse charities, which say that it does not go nearly far enough.
Sitting on a £1 million property that is co-owned with their perpetrator, who—guess what?—will not sell, excludes someone from any legal support. Such trapped capital should not be included in the financial eligibility calculation. I would go as far as stating that such inaccessible capital should be exempt from the means test, particularly as many victims are too afraid to leave their homes with their children as they are not certain that the family courts will bring them a positive outcome, as I have highlighted in Louise’s case.
According to the Surviving Economic Abuse 2026 report, almost 1 million women in the UK who experienced economic abuse last year said that the abuse prevented them from leaving their dangerous abuser. In the worst-case scenario, that decision, which is forced on them via our systematic failure to understand the reality of domestic abuse for victims, can be fatal. Another recent study covering a 12-year period, which included 400 homicide reviews, found that one person died every 19 days in cases that involved economic abuse. In other words, every three weeks a victim dies because an abuser uses economic abuse as a tool of control.
Refuge recently evidenced how 75 women were killed as a result of domestic homicide in the year ending 2025. Those numbers should spark outrage across our society. This final act of violence could have been prevented had there been proper legal resources in place for victims, or proper housing support that meant victims could be safe. Too many victims are forced to return to their perpetrators because they do not receive the levels of legal support needed to continue with the legal process. That means that many are unable to obtain things such as protective orders against their perpetrator, or obtain safe child contact arrangements.
Victims could even end up homeless. Those brave victim survivors who do leave their homes and apply for urgent homelessness protection can receive immediate legal support, but they end up having to go through the legal aid means test. If they are seen to have an income above the threshold, they have to support their own legal representation, when it is actually their abuser who has forced them out. Victims therefore become stuck between staying in their family home and enduring their suffering, or ending up potentially homeless—due to, again, this destructive means test.
A Cornish women’s protection centre recently reached out to me, detailing the following case that it was dealing with—for which I have again changed the name. Katy’s ex-partner abused and controlled her, both during and after their relationship ended. The ex-partner controlled contact with their children and locked Katy out of their property, resulting in her sleeping on the streets. During the family court process, which lasted 18 months, Katy had no legal aid or legal advice, and minimal support throughout the court proceedings, representing herself at the family court.
Eventually, the judge granted a non-molestation order, an occupation order, a prohibited steps order, and a full care order for the children. However, after achieving that without any access to legal advice, Katy and her children have still not been given access to their home and remain homeless. Reporting by Women’s Aid reinforces this reality. Survivors frequently cannot secure a legal aid solicitor due to the combined effects of eligibility barriers and a national shortage of legal aid providers. That leaves many women unable to challenge refusals, missing deadlines and remaining in unsafe or unsuitable accommodation because they cannot navigate the process alone.
All of that continues despite official homelessness data showing that large numbers of households become homeless or are threatened with homelessness due to domestic abuse, which means they should be treated as vulnerable and properly protected, not forced through a rigid financial test that was never designed for people fleeing violence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Just to be clear, there are no legal ramifications of the homelessness test in part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act. There is a homelessness duty; in the vast majority of cases, people do not have to undertake legal action in order for the homelessness duty to apply to them.
Ben Maguire
I thank the Minister. Perhaps she can follow up on that point in her speech.
I ask the Government urgently to reform evidence requirements for economic abuse in favour of more accessible evidential criteria. The lack of clarity regarding acceptable forms of evidence causes already limited legal aid solicitors to pre-emptively refuse to take on survivors’ cases. Having discussed and highlighted countless reasons to reform the legal aid means test for victims of domestic abuse, I must ask why legal aid is barely mentioned in the VAWG strategy, despite it being such a vital tool for victims to seek justice and crucial support.
The Justice Secretary in the previous Government, Alex Chalk, is acknowledged by many in the women’s rights sector to have been open to committing to reform the legal aid barriers that victims face. I am sure, and hopeful, that the Government will be open to working with all of us to fix the legal aid means test, which, as I hope I have set out clearly, is the biggest obstacle to so many victims. I recently launched a petition to reform the means test, and I hope to widen the campaign further.
How much more loss—how many more needless deaths—do we as a country need to endure? How many more debates are needed in this place for the Government to consider the issue properly? Until they commit to removing the legal aid means test for all domestic abuse victims and survivors, including those who are not currently accessing universal credit or fleeing the abuser, I hope to see urgent implementation of the delayed legal aid reforms, as pushed for by the VAWG sector. Those include the mandatory disregarding of inaccessible capital for victims of domestic abuse; the raising of the income threshold, which needs to include an annual review of the means test; and reformed evidence requirements when trying to prove economic abuse.
I will end my speech there, in the hope that, by the time of the next Westminster Hall debate on domestic abuse, we will have seen tangible progress to show survivors that we stand with them, we fight with them and we will do everything we possibly can to change the system for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I find myself in the difficult position that the debate was tabled for response by the Home Office, but almost its entire thrust is legal aid, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. I will do my very best to answer the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), but this is one of the main cultural changes that I wish to achieve with regard to violence against women and girls across the Government and across the country. Not a single one of the matters relating to violence against women and girls that he carefully alluded to—issues faced by victims of domestic abuse such as housing and homelessness, the family court, and issues to do with benefits and child maintenance—is the responsibility of the Home Office, and yet whenever there is an issue related to domestic abuse, people look to the Home Office. It is a cultural and an institutional failing that has led to a lack of advancement in this space. I will answer the hon. Member’s questions as best I can, but he will get a much more thorough response on the specificity of legal aid from the Ministers who are responsible for legal aid.
Ben Maguire
I acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about this not being the responsibility of the Home Office. I will say, though, that I excitedly awaited the VAWG strategy to see a cross-departmental approach to this vital issue—not action by one Department or another, but a whole-of-Government approach. I hope that she might agree with me on that point.
Jess Phillips
I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that that is exactly what this is. I only make the point because there is so often a risk in this place, and in the Government, of one person who cares a huge amount about something becoming the responsible party for it, always.
I will move on to the hon. Gentleman’s broader points. As he stated, the Ministry of Justice is conducting a review of the domestic abuse evidence requirements that need to be satisfied in order to access legal aid for private family matters, to ensure that those requirements are not a barrier to accessing legal aid for victims of domestic abuse.
I intervened on the hon. Member on his point about homelessness. I speak as somebody who, this week alone, has handled more than 10 cases of homelessness relating to domestic abuse. Not a single one of those interacted with the legal aid system, because, thanks to part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act, which I fought very heavily for, there is a duty on every tier 1 and unitary local authority area, with funding provided by the Government, to provide accommodation and house people. I would not want the message to go out from here that people will end up on the streets.
Of course, there need to be massive improvements in the manner in which refuge accommodation is commissioned. That is committed to in the violence against women and girls strategy. We also need to be clear what we mean by the term “refuge”, because one man’s—well, one woman’s—refuge accommodation may not be another’s. As we heard from our friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the housing of children in refuge accommodation is patchy across the entire country. Looking at how we commission that homelessness service is a huge and fundamental part of this.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
As a recovering councillor, I remember that my council used to commission a lot of these services through the WomenCentre in Calderdale, which was very good at preventing homelessness and other shocks. I often find—this might come back to the Home Office question—that a lot of post-separation problems happen because of post-separation economic abuse. Perhaps, in the longer term, we need to look at that from a legislative angle, so that post-separation abuse is better recognised in law, and then set up services to better prevent it.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was also—I feel like I have been here for ages—part of work with Surviving Economic Abuse, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned a number of times, to amend the Domestic Abuse Act to ensure that our legislation with respect to controlling or coercive behaviour included behaviour post-separation, because of the level of risk for people post-separation, which both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member alluded to. Over the years, there has been quite a lot of investment in getting somebody out in a crisis, rather than addressing the massive issues that occur in people’s lives afterwards. It is as if we tick a box when somebody leaves their home, and do not think about all the ramifications in their lives. My hon. Friend and I have worked very closely on that issue with regard to the family court and the presumption of contact, which has also been mentioned.
Alex McIntyre
Before she moves on from the subject of housing, does the Minister agree that the partnership between Women’s Aid, Airbnb and the Mayor of London is a really exciting pilot project for those people for whom refuges might not be the right place?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. When I was running refuge accommodation, we were moving from the era of everybody living in communal refuges to a new era of people needing separate accommodation. Some of that was about the rules on safeguarding with regard to which children could and could not live together, and about boys over the age of 16—actually, I think the age threshold was 14. As somebody who has adult male children, I would not want to flee to somewhere they could not live. That is hugely important.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a very important case for the need for legal aid thresholds. As somebody who has managed to amend our legal aid laws to carve out victims of domestic violence, I absolutely agree with him that we need to ensure that people can access the right legal services when they need them. If we had a lawyer from the Ministry of Justice in front of us, they would almost certainly be able to give a considerably more thorough answer, but there is relevant case law. For example, if someone’s asset is a house that they co-own, it cannot be included in the means test.
There are a number of issues, and we need to look at whether the threshold is right. My threshold is that I believe somebody when they tell me that they are a victim of domestic abuse, but I understand that the burden of evidence has to be slightly higher for Government Departments or legal departments. In the strategy, we have committed to addressing tenancies and the economic abuse of those who do not own houses, but who live in either social housing or privately rented properties. We have to look at the threshold for exactly what evidence is needed, and make sure that it is fair and balanced.
Adam Dance
One of the issues that we find in rural communities is that when someone flees domestic abuse and is rehoused, they are taken further afield because there is no housing nearby. They cannot meet their family or see their friends because of the lack of rural transport links. It is great to see what is happening here in London, but does the Minister believe that rural communities need more funding to support domestic abuse victims?
Jess Phillips
I will be down in Devon and Cornwall next week for both business and pleasure—I have turned business into a bit of pleasure as the recess comes along. I would like to thank Airbnb for that. [Laughter.]
The issue of need and how we commission services in rural areas has never been properly considered. On the basis of a headcount, we provide funding from lots of different Government Departments and lots of different sources. Whether that it is through part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act or through police and crime commissioners, the Government send finances to local areas, and it is for them to decide. North Cornwall is quite different from east Birmingham, and it is for local authorities to make decisions.
On the commissioning arrangements, do I think that rurality has been understood as a specific need in the same way as poverty or police data? I am not sure that it always has been—but what do I know? We are undertaking a huge piece of work on commissioning, and in fact I have reached out to some Liberal Democrat colleagues who represent rural areas to look at what we could be doing to make sure that we are getting the commissioning right. I am sure that the services that I am visiting in Devon and Cornwall next week will have some excellent ideas for me.
Adam Dance
I am from Somerset. Will the Minister meet me to have a conversation about these issues?
Jess Phillips
Of course. I did not mean to exclude Somerset or anywhere else, rural or otherwise. I would gladly meet the hon. Gentleman—I would gladly meet anybody. I do not wish to cause him offence, but I would dance with the devil to make women and children safer, so I would happily meet him to talk about Somerset.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that we have a cross-Government strategy, and that the points that the hon. Member for North Cornwall passionately highlighted will inform how we measure our progress. I always welcome people pushing not just my Department but every Department to do the very best that it can on violence against women and girls.
Question put and agreed to.
Freedom of Religion or Belief in China
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate on freedom of religion or belief in China.
I would like to open with a tragic story. On a hot August day in 2022, in Shanxi, northern China, more than 100 police officers descended on a Christian family summer camp, surrounding the gathering, forcibly searching and detaining dozens of believers—over 30 adults and 40 children. The police were breaking up not a dangerous gathering or insurgency, but a family day out. The camp was organised by an unregistered church called the Linfen Covenant House Church, and was a harmless event aimed at building church community. In the months that followed, pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were arrested and reportedly subjected to harsh interrogation, including sleep deprivation, humiliation and torture. Church member Wang Qiang was later detained and tortured for weeks after refusing to renounce his faith or fabricate testimony against the church leaders.
It took three years for the court to process that case, but justice was nowhere to be found. Prosecutors did not accuse the pastors of violence or any threat to society—they could not. Instead, they charged them with fraud, arguing that the voluntary offerings given by members of their unregistered church were somehow illegal. Pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were each sentenced to three years and eight months in prison and fined heavily, while church member Wang Qiang received a sentence of one year and 11 months. The community church insists that the three men had committed no crime, and that they had suffered simply because of their faith.
We have all come here today because we believe that freedom of religion or belief is not a secondary liberty; it goes to the heart of human dignity. It concerns the right to hold beliefs, to change beliefs, to have no belief, to worship in public and private, to teach and to live according to conscience without fear of intimidation, criminalisation, imprisonment or torture. That is why Parliament cannot look away, and why the situation in China requires ongoing and determined scrutiny.
What is taking place in China is not merely the sporadic mistreatment of a few isolated believers, nor is it the meddling of local officials. What we are seeing is the rolling out of a sophisticated system of repression, in which law, administration, surveillance, propaganda and coercion are all being weaponised to subordinate religion to the Chinese Communist party. The issue before us is not only persecution; it is the construction of an entire architecture designed to make genuine freedom of religion or belief impossible.
China’s persecution of religion comes under the broad policy initiative of Sinicisation. That term is made to sound mild, as if it refers only to making religion compatible with Chinese culture, but that is not the case; instead, it is political domestication. It means that every religious tradition must first be made subordinate to the ideology, priorities and authority of the Communist party. The goal is not merely to make religion Chinese, but to ensure that religion is stripped of its independence and made to serve the party’s political project.
Sacred texts can be reinterpreted, clergy can be screened and managed, venues can be monitored, publications can be censored, foreign links can be severed, and anything that escapes that framework can be branded illegal, extremist, fraudulent, subversive, or labelled as a cult. Religion must not simply co-exist with the party; it must be remade in the party’s image. Recent Sinicisation policies mean that all clergy must support the leadership of the Communist party, and must be evaluated and ideologically disciplined. All online or in-person religious activity requires a permit from Government. No child can be given religious education.
Furthermore, the sad story of the Linfen community church, which I referred to in my opening remarks, demonstrates that in China the law is always secondary to the will of the Chinese Communist party. China’s constitution appears to protect so-called normal religious activities, but in practice that protection is a joke. The same is true of China’s legal system. The party retains overriding authority over state institutions, including the courts and legislature. In other words, rights exist only to the extent that the party permits them to exist.
Evidence gathered by Christian Solidarity Worldwide takes us deeper. It shows how the law in China is drafted in deliberately vague terms to condemn believers, vaguely accusing them of “harming national interests”, “disrupting social order”, “resisting infiltration” or “extremism.” Such phrases are not carefully bounded legal concepts; they are instruments of selective enforcement. They create uncertainty by design and allow ordinary religious life to be reclassified as a threat.
As we saw with the Linfen community church, the vagueness of the rules means that donation to an unregistered church can be reframed as fraud. Similarly, a Bible study can become an illegal gathering; publishing or sharing religious materials can become an illegal business operation; and a sermon can become incitement to subversion. This is not neutral law enforcement; it is ideological criminalisation. Then, when the full weight of the justice system is brought down upon a believer, the defendant themselves becomes subject to serious procedural abuses. Lawyers are denied access to defendants, cases are shrouded in secrecy, and detainees can be isolated from family and counsel for prolonged periods, placed in legal black holes where torture and coercion become far more likely.
The case of the Linfen community church tells us a great deal. It tells us that family church life can be raided; it tells us that children are not shielded from the machinery of repression; it tells us that secret detention and torture remain live concerns; and it tells us that “fraud” is being used not as an honest response to dishonesty, but as a legal fiction to criminalise churches that refuse to submit to state control.
The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethno-religious persecution in China today, and as chair of the all-party group on Uyghurs, this topic is very close to my heart. Since 2016, the Xinjiang region has been transformed into one of the most heavily policed areas in the world, under a so-called counter-extremism campaign, marked by pervasive surveillance, forced interrogation and mass incarceration. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim and that non-Muslim Uyghurs are also persecuted.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. With respect to the Uyghurs, does she agree that what we are witnessing in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China is not simply a matter of restricted religious freedoms, but something far more grave? She points to the fact that the Uyghurs are subject to mass detentions and so-called re-education camps, and are used in forced labour by the Chinese Government. Does she agree that this bears all the hallmarks of crimes against humanity and, as many credible voices have argued, may well constitute a genocide?
Ms Rimmer
I do agree, and I will come to that later. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said more than I was going to say—I thought I was saying too much. Yes, he is absolutely right, and it is dangerous for us all.
The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethnoreligious persecution in China. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim, and not all Muslim Uyghurs are persecuted. Independent estimates suggest that between 1 million and 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in camps and prisons, with many later transferred into long-term sentences. Alongside that, Uyghur imams, scholars and religious leaders have been systematically targeted, with many detained in prisons for decades or dying in custody, underscoring the deliberate dismantling of religious leadership and community life. Uyghurs have been punished for everyday religious practice, including praying, fasting during Ramadan, teaching the Quran or even using traditional greetings, while mosques and shrines have been demolished and altered, children separated into state-run schools, and homes subjected to constant monitoring.
At the same time, ordinary expressions of the Islamic faith have been criminalised, and the wider system of repression has expanded beyond detention into forced labour, cultural destruction and enforced assimilation. Coercive labour transfer programmes have expanded across multiple sectors, with significant global implications for supply chains. The trajectory is now being further entrenched through new legislation, including the 2026 ethnic unity law, which promotes a single national identity, expands ideological control over religion and culture, and introduces broad penalties for behaviour that is deemed to undermine ethnic unity, effectively formalising a system that has already devastated the Uyghurs’ religious and cultural life. Thanks to many hard-working advocates —such as Rahima Mahmut, Benedict Rodgers and Lord Alton, to name a few—the Uyghur tribunal has concluded that a genocide is taking place in China, including through the sterilisation of Uyghur women. That finding was echoed by the UK Parliament, which voted to recognise the atrocities as a genocide in April 2021.
Evidence from human rights organisations describes the regulations governing Tibetan Buddhist temples, reincarnation and monastic education, including the prohibition on allowing children of compulsory school age to study scriptures in temples. Ordinary religious expression is recast as a threat to state security. Falun Gong practitioners have also faced extreme persecution, including arrests, torture and deaths in custody, with figures suggesting that more than 2,800 were arrested in 2024 alone. A mounting body of evidence presented in 2019 at the China tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC—the same person who chaired the Uyghur tribunal—pointed to the conclusion that Falun Gong practitioners have been the victims of a state-run programme of forced organ harvesting. It is unbelievable what went on there.
It is clear now that religious persecution in China has two aspects: the careful controlling of a narrow, politicised form of religion, and the outright repression of all other expressions of that faith. We see that clearly in the systemic persecution of Chinese Christians.
First, we see the careful controlling of a narrow and highly politicised form of Christianity. The so-called Three-Self Patriotic Movement, a state-sponsored form of Chinese Christianity, is presented by the authorities as the legitimate framework for Protestant worship. This is not simply a matter of registration; it is a matter of subordination. In regulating the churches, the state claims the right to decide which churches may legally exist, which pastors may lawfully preach, which cameras are installed above the doors, what theology may be taught and what children may hear. Registration does not guarantee safety; even registered churches have still been raided. That shows that the issue is not merely whether a church is registered, but whether it remains sufficiently obedient to party priorities.
Secondly, we see the outright repression of all those who refuse to conform to that limited model. While local government officials might be able to turn a blind eye to small house church gatherings, they can crack down in a flash on congregations that risk growing too large, too noticeable or too direct in their political messaging. Unregistered churches are pressured to join the state system, and refusal can trigger raids, detention and prosecution. Even the smallest acts of worship, such as organising a bible study in a home, can be labelled as illegal gatherings, leading to detention and imprisonment.
When preaching is treated as a political crime, and when ordinary worship becomes a criminal offence, freedom of religion or belief is not merely restricted, but effectively denied. What binds all these examples together is not a single denomination or doctrine, but the party’s insistence that no independent moral, spiritual, communal or transnational authority may exist outside its control.
Why should the United Kingdom care? First, because freedom of religion or belief is universal. It is not diminished by geography, and it does not become negotiable because the offending state is economically powerful. Secondly, because the United Kingdom has long claimed a role as a defender of human rights and the international rules-based order. That claim rings hollow if, when confronted with a sophisticated system of ideological repression by a major power, we choose caution over candour. Thirdly, because the evidence before us shows that China’s repression is becoming more systematic, more legalised, more normalised and more exportable. A model in which freedom of religion or belief is hollowed out through licensing, digital surveillance, patriotic indoctrination, vague criminal law and selective prosecution is not only a domestic tragedy for China’s believers, but a profound challenge to international human rights norms.
Let me conclude with several clear points. The United Kingdom should state plainly that China’s Sinicisation programme is incompatible with genuine freedom of religion or belief. We should call for the release of prisoners of conscience who are detained on account of religion or belief, including Christian leaders, Uyghur and Hui Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others. We should condemn the persecution of Uyghurs as what it is—a genocide. We should press for transparency in administrative and criminal detention, an end to secret detention practices, proper access to lawyers and families, and due process consistent with international standards. We should support international efforts to establish a robust, independent UN mechanism capable of investigating China’s serious human rights violations, including against freedom of religion or belief. We should work with international partners on targeted sanctions against those responsible for gross abuse. We should ensure that UK trade engagement does not proceed as though forced labour, religious persecution, cultural erasure and ideological criminalisation are somehow separate from the overall character of the state with which we are dealing.
China’s believers are not asking this House to solve every problem in one debate, but they are entitled to expect a democratic legislature to tell the truth.
Iqbal Mohamed
Given the 2021 parliamentary vote recognising the risk of genocide of the Uyghurs, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should be taking every step that they are obliged to take, under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to prevent genocide in China?
Ms Rimmer
I have to say that I did not hear everything that the hon. Member said, but I think we should do whatever we can to bring the issue to a head, one way or another. We cannot just leave it as it is.
I urge the Government to make freedom of religion or belief in China a sustained priority in our diplomacy, multilateral engagement, sanctions policy and trade posture, because if freedom of conscience means anything, it must mean something when it is hardest to defend.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Unfortunately, if they were not here at the start, I am not sure that I will be able to get them in.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on her speech. Although I will talk primarily about the persecution of Christians in China, and particularly the intolerable position of the Catholic Church, I fully support what she and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said about the persecution of Muslims. What is happening to the Uyghurs is absolutely intolerable.
In China, the institutionally entrenched ideological intolerance of Christianity and other religions stems back to 1949, and has continuously been perpetrated by the communist regime, often with extreme violence. An estimated 96.7 million Christians live in China; they are one of the largest Christian populations in the world. Religious groups are made to register with state-operated “patriotic associations”, and unregistered religious activity is illegal. Many Christians worship in unregistered house churches, which leaves them vulnerable to raids, fines and detention.
China currently ranks 17th on the 2026 world watch list, with a persecution score of 79 out of 100. In many regions of China, children under the age of 18 are widely prohibited from participating in religious activities. The restrictions reported include the suspension of Sunday school programmes, schools discouraging religious belief among students, and students being pressured to report religious activity within their families, which is probably the worst of all—something out of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.
In September 2025, China introduced new regulations on the online behaviour of religious clergy. The rules require religious leaders to support the leadership of the CCP, promote socialist values and preach only on Government-approved online platforms.
Let me say a bit about the position of the Catholic Church. Catholics were hopeful that the 2018 agreement between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China would heal wounds caused by the Communist party’s attempt to suppress Catholicism. The promise of reconciliation has, alas, not been realised. In some dioceses, the divisions between the actual Catholic Church in China and the state-backed so-called patriotic Church has actually deepened. Bishops who stood aside in the interests of unity have been marginalised and placed under surveillance for refusing to take part in state structures. State-controlled religious apparatus remains coercive. The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association exercises extensive control over Catholic life in the People’s Republic.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Between 2017 and 2020, my daughter worked as a teacher in Shanghai. We visited her at Easter 2018, and I recall walking past the Catholic cathedral while the service was taking place on Easter morning, and it was overflowing. Later in the day, I attended a service at the church that my daughter went to, and there were 200 or 300 people there. There did not appear to be any repression of the services. Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that it has got much worse over the last three or four years?
Sir Edward Leigh
The devil is in the detail. When it comes to China, everything is very complicated; there are no simple arguments or solutions. This is not an outright communist regime like North Korea. In theory, if someone is a Catholic, they are allowed to practise their faith, which is why my hon. Friend saw the church overflowing, but they have to practise in a way that is approved by the state.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The agreement the Catholic Church signed allowed the Government to approve the bishops and the structure. One of the criticisms that many have made, myself included, is that in getting that agreement the Catholic Church in a way turned its back on all the other Christians in China. It got something—not something great—but to do that, it did not then represent them. As the senior Christian Church in the world, it does bear some responsibility to see Christianity prosper, not go the other way. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Sir Edward Leigh
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. As I develop my speech, I will say that the Church and our leadership were perhaps naive in trusting the communist regime. The agreement is, frankly, proving to be worthless. That is often the case with China, as our own Government found in relation to Hong Kong.
Clergy are more or less required to align with the state body—the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association—in order to function properly in their parishes. The patriotic association has many levers of power at its disposal to use against those who refuse to conform to it, like those principled people mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) who for years were in underground churches. It is a case not of administrative oversight but of the direction of religion by the communist state. The Chinese Communist party has spent three quarters of a century attempting to effectively create an independent national church in China that will conform to the will of China’s secular rulers.
The Vatican-China agreement has resulted not in liberalisation but in stricter controls. Its full details have not been released—it is unbelievable—which prevents us from knowing its actual provisions. We do know from Chinese Catholics on the ground that institutional surveillance is continuing and increasing. State officials are now embedded into dioceses to monitor church life and report on it. In some areas, children are even banned from attending mass and other services. Seminarians are subject to political vetting, and clergy who trained abroad are often required to submit to the approval of the authorities and to retrain. Priests and religious personnel are required to surrender their passports. Surveillance, harassment and even imprisonment are normal.
The United Kingdom’s deal with China over Hong Kong gives us all cause for concern. The People’s Republic of China has continually run riot over it and made a mockery of it. Experience is showing that China is now doing the same with the Vatican’s agreement. We look to Pope Leo XIV for leadership and guidance. The agreement is up for periodic renewal. It has not been successful. We must be honest with ourselves and the world, even if that means not renewing the agreement.
Chinese Catholics and fellow Christians, as well as other persecuted minorities in China, should not have to suffer at the hands of the state. The United Kingdom must be vigorous in raising these subjects in diplomatic conversations. I say to the Minister that this must not just be an obligatory embarrassing aside, but a headline item in our interactions with the communist Chinese state.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate. This is not the first time that either of us have spoken on this topic in this place. I also pay tribute to the Father of the House for his speech. I hope that Pope Leo heeds his call and follows the example of his predecessor, John Paul II, in standing up to communism around the world.
I am delighted to see present the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has previously spoken passionately about the Uyghur Muslims in China. I am disappointed that he came in late, because I was looking forward to hearing his remarks. I hope you can fit him in at some point, Ms Jardine.
On 12 October 2020, as a member of the Petitions Committee I led a debate on China’s policy on its Uyghur population. The petition we debated asked the Government at the time to impose sanctions on China over its treatment of Uyghur Muslims, and had nearly 150,000 signatures. Many Members spoke of how Uyghur Muslims, a Turkic ethnic group native to Xinjiang, China, had been subject to mass detention, surveillance, forced labour and many other human rights abuses. It is a tragedy that, six years later, nothing has changed, and the Uyghurs still face unimaginable horrors.
Just 1.8% of China’s population is Muslim; however, the Chinese Government are making it almost impossible to practice Islam freely, thanks to strict, unlawful restrictions. Under the guise of preventing religious extremism, they target any form of expression of Islam, even if it is practised behind closed doors in someone’s home.
According to the House of Commons Library, over 1 million Uyghurs have been forced into re-education camps since 2017. These re-education camps are nothing of the sort. According to the BBC and other news sources, in these camps women were sexually assaulted, Muslims were forced to eat pork and detainees were subject to all forms of abuse. Simultaneously, in Xinjiang mosques were destroyed, halal food was hard to find and fasting during was Ramadan not allowed, making it impossible for Uyghurs to freely practice their religion and beliefs.
China views any practice associated with Islam as extremism. The Chinese Communist party wants to completely erase the Uyghur population, their culture and their way of life. The BBC has also revealed that women have experienced forced sterilisation, forced abortion, rape, assault and separation from their children and families. The Council on Foreign Relations claims that children have been sent to boarding schools without parental consent. The injustices that women and children face are nothing short of horrifying. As a democratic Government, we must continue to speak up for women and girls’ rights around the world, just as we have been doing here in the United Kingdom.
I think the same now as I thought in 2020, when I sat on the Opposition Benches. We as a country cannot be silent about China’s actions. They are not only a clear restriction on the ability to freely practice beliefs, but a threat to the existence of an entire group of people. It is nothing short of truly sickening.
The so-called re-education camps may have largely been abandoned since 2023 because the Chinese Communist party has adopted new methods, but freely practising Islam is still forbidden and punished. The methods of eradication have changed; the aim has not. The changes indicate not an easing of China’s policy, but an erasure of Uyghur culture, which has been dismantled, attacked and stamped out for years. The formal justice system is now being used to imprison people for reasons such as attending mosque services, sending texts containing verses from the Quran or contacting people from any of the 26 countries that China considers sensitive. Their crime, in China’s eyes, is simply having been born a Muslim.
Just last week, the Telegraph carried a story about a new shared identity law in China. The law, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston has touched on, was introduced to further assimilate Uyghurs by requiring pre-school children to learn Mandarin and giving Chinese characters priority over the scripts of minority languages. The Chinese Government also changed the name of 630 Uyghur villages. The end goal is the erosion of the cultural practices and rights of minority groups.
I am sure that I speak for everyone in this room when I say that I am especially appalled by reports of organ harvesting. It is horrific, repulsive and inhumane. It has no place in the 21st century. There are truly no words to describe the operation that the Chinese Communist party has been running.
China’s actions are affecting Uyghurs not only in China, but worldwide. The Thai Government deported 48 Uyghurs in February 2025, despite that Government’s incorporation of an international legal principle that bans countries from returning people to a place where they face the risk of persecution. China’s influence is evidently spreading: Beijing has pressured other Governments to repatriate Uyghurs who have fled China.
China denies to Uyghur Muslims communication with the rest of the world. That is why it is up to democratic Governments who believe in the rule of law to speak up with one voice and condemn the actions of the Chinese Communist party. Equally, we cannot stand by and let China’s influence spread. People should feel safe to freely practise their religious beliefs, and we must continue to acknowledge the human rights abuses that China has been committing for years. Human rights abuses should be called out, whoever commits them. We should not be afraid to stand up to them and speak out when we see or hear about them.
Given how difficult it is to hear from Uyghurs in China, the Government must listen to those around the world and their experiences. They provide a rare opportunity for us to hear about the brutality of their treatment. We must give them a voice and, more importantly, listen and respond to what they are saying. I therefore ask the Minister: in what ways are the Government communicating with Uyghurs around the world? I urge the Minister to continue making use of advocacy groups such as Stop Uyghur Genocide and the Muslim Association of Britain to truly listen to the horrific experience of Uyghur Muslims and understand how our Government can support them.
The freedom of religion or belief strategy, which was published in July 2025, highlights China as a focus country. Can the Minister give more details on how the strategy has helped those who face religious persecution in China, specifically Uyghurs, and on whether there are any new updates or changes to the way the strategy works? Does the Minister have any plans to introduce stronger sanctions, given that China is not improving its treatment of Uyghur Muslims? Our Government cannot refuse to impose harsher sanctions or pose harder questions because economic questions are at stake. When an entire religious group’s existence is threatened, we must stand alongside them. Not only is that in line with the Labour Government’s values, but it should be in line with humanity.
I would also like to know what the Government are doing specifically to support Uyghur women and children around the world. They, in particular, have been silenced and have faced gender-based violence. It is vital that we create new, different and tailored ways to give them a voice and support within the freedom of religion or belief strategy.
I do not want to be standing here in six years’ time with the same things happening: more abuse and more erosion of human rights. I do not want to be standing here with a Government who are afraid to stand up to China because they see it as economically powerful. I want something done, and I want it done now. It does not matter whether someone is Christian, Muslim or whatever religion they subscribe to. We are all humans, and we should stand up for the human race.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for setting the scene incredibly well in this very important debate. Her unwavering commitment ensures that the persecution of religious minorities in China, an issue that too often risks being forgotten, remains a consistent and vital part of parliamentary discourse.
I give credit to the Minister and the Government for their part in championing freedom of religion or belief as a fundamental human right. Each Thursday morning, at business questions to the Leader of the House, I ask a question about somewhere across the world where there is discrimination and where freedom of religion is found wanting. To be fair to the Leader of the House and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, they always come back with a commitment within a week or 10 days. That is to be commended, and I thank the Minister and the Government for it. Our nation has long sought to stand at the forefront of global efforts to promote religious freedom. We recognise that faith is not merely a private conviction; it is a core pillar of identity, community, conscience and human dignity.
Through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have learned how many of the freedoms that we take for granted are denied to millions around the world. Basic rights such as access to employment and the freedom to live in peace, practise one’s faith and hold one’s beliefs are routinely denied to Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners, Christians and many other minority groups in China. It is therefore vital that our Government continue to hold partners, allies and counterparts accountable for the national and international commitments that they have made.
For many of us, this is not the first time that we have discussed freedom of religion or belief in China. We are very aware of the injustices, persecution and systematic repression that many religious minorities continue to face, without respite or easement and without any sanction on the perpetrators. As the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston clearly outlined, more than a decade into President Xi Jinping’s rule, efforts to centralise control have resulted in heightened repression across the country, particularly in the years following the covid-19 pandemic.
The Chinese constitution claims to guarantee freedom of religious belief, especially under article 36, which recognises five officially sanctioned religions. On the ground, however, the opposite happens: ultimately, the authority of the Chinese Communist party supersedes those constitutional protections. Police routinely arrest, detain and harass leaders and members of so-called illegal religious groups that refuse to join state-sanctioned religious bodies. Their peaceful gatherings are disrupted. Many face imprisonment simply for practising their faith independently. There is no independent civil society. The freedoms of expression, association, assembly and religion remain severely restricted. Human rights defenders and those who are perceived as critics of the Government face persecution. I will mention some of them.
One of those individuals is the Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who is one of the APPG’s spotlight prisoners of conscience. He was first detained by the Chinese authorities in 2006. Prior to that, he was widely respected for taking on sensitive human rights cases, including defending religious minorities. Between 2006 and 2011, he was repeatedly disappeared and was subjected to severe beatings and torture. From 2011 to 2014, he served a prison sentence; he was released in August 2014. He was forcibly disappeared again from his home in Shanxi province on 13 August 2017. His disappearance is widely believed to be linked to his legal work defending human rights and religious minorities, particularly Christians and Falun Gong practitioners. His whereabouts remain unknown, but it is widely believed that he is being held in some form of detention.
I ask that the Minister ask his officials to investigate where Gao Zhisheng is. Alongside him are Pastor Ezra Jin, Renagul Gheni, Pastor Huang Yizi and Dr Wang Bingzhang. Along with countless others, they have experienced similar stories of repression, arbitrary torture, detention and forced disappearance. Those stories must not be ignored.
According to the 2024 Fund for Peace human rights and rule of law index, China ranks as the third worst country in the world for human rights. Out of approximately 175 countries, it is right up at the top in third place, chasing place No. 1. China and the Chinese Communist party want to do away with all human rights and all religious beliefs and control them in their entirety. That is deeply concerning and should not be overlooked in any of our diplomatic engagements with Chinese counterparts.
I want to acknowledge the important work of the UK-based non-governmental organisations and advocacy groups whose research and reporting continues to shed light on human rights abuses in China. Without their work and dedication, much of what we know today would remain hidden.
I recently had a conversation with a representative of the Chinese consulate in Northern Ireland. Boy, is that boy brainwashed! He was trying to tell me how things were in China, but he picked the wrong person that day. I gave him a wee bit of focus for his attention after he invited me to China. I said, “I’ll hardly be going, but I tell you what: whenever you stop persecuting the Christians, stop abusing the Falun Gong and stop massacring, killing and raping Uyghur Muslims, you and I will have a conversation.” I will also send him this speech, which will probably end up in his bin. He is the Chinese Communist party’s representative in Northern Ireland; I am watching him and he knows I am watching him. I hope he is watching us here on TV, by the way—just to let you know, I know where you are.
I have made a list of the many communities in China who are not free to practise their beliefs. More than 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other Turkic Muslim minorities have been detained without charge in so-called re-education or internment camps. Protestant and Catholic Christians face harassment, detention, imprisonment, fines and the closure of churches. Falun Gong practitioners and other independent spiritual groups have been labelled as evil cults since 1999. Many have been arrested, imprisoned and tortured. Tragically, there have been numerous reports of deaths in custody. Tibetan Buddhists face severe restrictions on religious expression, including surveillance, detention and torture for peaceful religious activities. Smaller religious groups and independent spiritual leaders are frequently targeted under broad social order laws.
Among those cases, we see a clear pattern. If you refuse to submit to state control and the Chinese Communist party, you are silenced—not you, Ms Jardine; I am referring to the generic “you”. We are given the opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless. We must ensure that those who are suffering persecution know that they are not forgotten. If the freedom of one religious community is taken away, we must send a message to the world that the freedoms of others can also be removed without consequence. Nothing is more important than human lives made vulnerable by our silence.
In everything we do, we must remember the Uyghur Muslims, the thousands of Christians worshipping in underground churches, the Falun Gong practitioners and the many other minority communities who face constant pressure to conform to the ideology of the Chinese Communist party or risk separation from their families, forced labour or even death. For me as a Christian, and for the many others here who have the same faith, this is not only a political responsibility, but an expression of spiritual solidarity. The deliberate dismantling of families and communities is especially devastating. Church leaders are removed from their homes and imprisoned simply for professing their faith in Jesus Christ. Parents are separated from their children. Congregations are dismantled.
Perhaps most troubling of all are the systematic restrictions placed on young people. Open Doors reports that those under the age of 18 are not permitted to attend even registered church services. Children are the future of any nation; we all know that. Preventing them from attending worship is not accidental. It is a deliberate attempt to shape the future by erasing faith from the next generation. I cannot imagine what it would be like to live in a society in which sharing my faith with my own children could result in punishment, surveillance or separation from them.
Faith is not simply something that we say or do. It is a fundamental part of who we are. In moments of despair and difficult headlines, we all look to hope. For Christians, that hope is found in Jesus Christ, the one who proclaims freedom for the captives and light for those in darkness.
I will draw to a close, ever mindful that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) will speak after me. I want to give him time to participate, because his words are important and we all look forward to hearing what he has to say. James 4:17 states:
“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
As Christians, we adhere to that promise and hope that others will do likewise. As parliamentarians, we have both the opportunity and the responsibility to do good. We know what good must be done; I think, to be fair, that the Minister and our Government also know what good must be done. May these words strengthen our resolve to stand with all those who suffer. May they encourage us to act with courage and conviction, even in the face of much adversity.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I will have to call the first Front Bencher at 3.28 pm.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I owe you an apology, Ms Jardine, for arriving late to the debate. I am grateful for your chairmanship, and grateful to be allowed in, having been delayed. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate, and for being stalwart in all these issues about freedoms and rights of worship. I bow before her greater authority in this matter.
Much of what I wish to say has already been said. Therefore, in the short time available, I will try to cover the issues that are at stake. We have talked consistently about the problems in China. There are of course many other countries in the world where Christians and Muslims are persecuted, but it is in China that the collective persecution becomes an absolute, state-inspired problem.
The nature of what has been discussed already is quite remarkable. Look, for example, at the programme of Sinicisation of religion by law, and by deliberately abusive behaviour. Crosses must be removed from churches and domes, and the minarets of mosques must be demolished to make them look more like Chinese buildings. Pastors and imams are told to focus on religious teachings that reflect socialist values in line with those of China. Newly annotated versions of core religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran and others, have been issued back to places of worship, and what is left of the churches are regularly ordered to replace images of Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping. Blatantly, boldly and in full view, China does not want to have any kind of worship beyond the worship of the communist, and in particular of Xi Jinping.
In March this year, China approved a new law that codifies ethnic assimilation, in contravention of China’s own constitution and of international law. It mandates that all children must be taught Putonghua before kindergarten and—interestingly—that they will therefore avoid all aspects of other religions as a matter of doctrine.
That brings me to two elements that I want to focus on. First, as has been said well by hon. Members in this debate, the Uyghurs are suffering a genocide. There is no question about it. The Chinese authorities find them a deeply troublesome group. They are not Han Chinese, and that is what most Chinese policy is about. At the core of the dislike of the Uyghurs lies their Muslim belief. What astounds me so often is that we know about this. We have campaigned on it. I was sanctioned because of the campaign on the Uyghurs. It is interesting how easily people have been allowed to forget the issue and not raise it. I would love all the mosques in the United Kingdom to raise the plight of the Uyghurs, because it is the right thing to do. I would love Christian churches to constantly talk of the plight of the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs have, in many respects, become forgotten.
The persecution of the Uyghurs is appalling. Many hon. Members have talked about the nature of the re-education camps. When did we last hear about the concept of re-education camps? In Nazi Germany. It is astonishing. The women are persecuted and raped, and are now no longer having babies. The population of the Uyghurs has now collapsed because they are being forcibly sterilised, and the men are going off to forced labour—it is so obvious; millions have gone.
By the way, to those who like the free market, I should underline the point that forced labour completely undermines the free market. How can anyone compete with a country that uses forced labour on a grand scale to make products and drive out competitors? There is, in every respect, an absence of tolerance to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism—we too often forget about the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, nearly a quarter of a million of whom are in forced labour camps, rather like the Uyghurs.
What is happening to the Uyghurs is a terrible travesty, but I also want to speak about Christianity and Christian churches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who I have a huge amount of time for, raised the issue of the role of the Catholic Church. I have to say to him that, since I set up the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we have tried to extract from the hierarchy in the Catholic Church—I say this, by the way, as a Catholic—the text of what it agreed with the Chinese Government, and we have never been able to. It has never been published. We have never been able to refer to it. All we are asking for is that it be laid out in the open, so that we can see, first of all, whether the Chinese stick to their arrangements and, secondly, whether there was any provision for other Christians in China.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See, and therefore I go regularly to the Vatican to talk to Archbishop Gallagher, the Foreign Minister of the Vatican. He is an extremely clever, subtle and charming man, but it is very difficult to understand, despite having those personal conversations, what has actually been agreed. My view is that the Vatican is full of principled people who live in a moral dimension, and they are up against intellectual thugs, frankly. We have been sold a pup with this agreement, and we should reconsider it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend completely. Openness sometimes is a far better disinfectant for a problem than keeping it behind closed doors. As we know, the reality, even under the agreement, is pretty appalling. The Chinese get to appoint the bishops they want. People cannot have church house meetings. All the Protestants and other free churches now suffer massive persecution; they can be closed down because the umbrella of the Catholic Church has moved away from them.
What do we know about China? China is petrified about what happened to it, to Poland and eventually to the Soviet Union: the Catholic Church eventually broke down the whole adherence to communism in Poland; that infected pretty much the rest of the Soviet Union, which then collapsed. China is petrified that it will face the same. The only reason it did a deal with the Catholic Church at all was to try to put off the idea that it would be influential, and it has succeeded in that respect. I am very sorry that the previous Pope and the current Pope did not take it upon themselves to pursue this issue and sort it out. I take no pleasure in criticising the Church that I am a member of, but we have to be honest about this. The situation in China for Christians is appalling. We could have done more, and the Catholic Church could have done more, but we forget the Buddhists, we forget the Muslims, and we forget the others whose right to practise free faith has gone as well.
Before anybody says that I am only on the attack against the Labour Government, I want to say that I am not: when my party was in government, I was as much a thorn in their side as I am now in the side of the Labour Government. It is just the reality, and we have to face up to the facts. The recent visit by the Prime Minister to China was a problem. I simply say this to the Government. When the Minister responds to the debate, he must understand what has already been said by one of his colleagues: does economics trump freedom, freedom of religion and freedom of speech? If it does, we have gone down a bad road. If it does not, then why are we doing this right now?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate. Engagement without condition is not diplomacy; it is complicity. Promoting the values of democracy, respect for the rule of law and protection of religious freedoms must be the cornerstone of any serious British foreign policy, particularly foreign policy with a country that has outright rejected the values of democracy. Yes, China is a major global power, and yes, Britain must engage with it on trade, climate change and the great shared challenges of our time, but engagement cannot come at the cost of our principles, because when we trade away our values, we diminish not only ourselves but the very idea of Britain as a force for good in the world—an idea that has already taken a solid beating in recent years after the last Government’s cuts to the Department for International Development and this Government’s refusal to reverse them.
We have accepted that the people of China will not have democracy—a decision that will weaken their society from top to bottom—but turning a blind eye to the Chinese Communist party’s human rights abuses requires some mental gymnastics, because they sit in plain sight. The CCP’s actions in Hong Kong are openly intended to snuff out any remaining hope of a return to democracy, and its openly autocratic ambitions for Taiwan are clearly in breach of an international order that is grounded in sovereignty and freedom, revealing a fear of the accountability that democracy enables. Most disturbingly of all, we have seen years of coverage, research and evidence on what is clearly a genocide against the Uyghurs.
It is true to say that some degree of realism holds water in the practice of international relations, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are clear about where the red lines are. We are clear that freedom of belief should not be reclassified as a western luxury. It is a universal human right that is set out in the UN charter, and which has been established as a principle in the hearts and minds of conscientious people the world over, yet religion exists in China only at the pleasure of the state. China operates a centrally directed system of ideological control to stifle hearts as much as it stifles minds. It is clear that China operates a centrally directed, ideological and coercive policy of assimilation that is rooted in ethnic nationalism, intolerance and the regime’s demand for absolute authority.
China’s economic rise is undeniable. It has lifted millions of people out of poverty and reshaped the global economy. Under President Xi, China has become an even bolder systemic rival to the open and democratic rules-based order that we believe in, leading some in the west to argue that China’s economic success warrants a rethink of the kinds of values that we are willing to tolerate in the global order. But let me be clear: we must not follow that path to its logical and awful conclusion—a world where the liberal values that built not just strong economies, but flourishing and vibrant societies, are jettisoned in favour of nihilism and a belief that “might makes right” and that independence of thought is worth trading for raw economic output.
Britain faces a choice—not about whether to engage, as we must, but about how we engage. Silence in the face of oppression is not neutrality, but weakness at the very least and acquiescence at worst. I fear that this Labour Government risk drifting into that silence through their pursuit of closer economic ties, with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor appearing willing to turn the other cheek to abuses not just in China, but here in our own country. In my constituency of Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park, I represent many Hongkongers who came to this country because they believed that Britain would stand for their freedoms when others would not—a belief encouraged by the introduction of the British national overseas visa scheme, which is one of the few positive things that the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip ever did as Prime Minister. It is a belief that mattered urgently, following the imposition of the national security law.
We have all seen that law unfold before our eyes. Independent media have been silenced in Hong Kong, democratic voices have been imprisoned, and academic and artistic voices that speak out against the CCP have been chillingly dismantled. Thousands of people have been arrested as political prisoners, including the British national Jimmy Lai, who now faces the rest of his life in prison for daring to exercise his freedom of speech. China has banned Jimmy Lai from receiving the sacrament from the priests who occasionally visit him—a gross violation of his religious freedom.
Instead of making the case of Jimmy Lai a priority, the Prime Minister has followed a strategy of kowtowing to Beijing, which has already compromised the UK’s security. Frankly, his greenlighting of the Chinese embassy in the heart of London is his biggest national security mistake to date, and presents an open door for the ramping up of Chinese spying in our country. He has also sent the utterly shameful message to Hongkongers—many of whom have already been targeted, intimidated and coerced by the CCP on our own streets—that he prioritises trade deals over their safety.
It is time for the Prime Minister to show some backbone in his dealings with President Xi. He must call louder for the release of Jimmy Lai and challenge Xi personally on the bounties that have been raised against Hong Kong activists in the UK. He recently spoke about putting the national interest first in his foreign policy. I invite the Minister to confirm whether the Prime Minister will take that approach when he next meets the Chinese Government, because it is clearly not the case today. I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm that nobody who is here through the British national overseas scheme because they wish to live freely in a democracy will be forcibly sent back into the CCP’s arms if they fail to pass something as arbitrary as an English-language test to qualify for indefinite leave to remain.
There are other critical things that the Government must not shy away from discussing with Beijing. Let us be clear that the Chinese state has constructed a system of control against the Uyghur Muslim population so intrusive and calculated that it cannot be dismissed as anything other than co-ordinated genocide. We see mass internment camps, forced labour and relentless surveillance operating at an incredible scale. At the heart of the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, we see an attempt to erase the Uyghur identity itself. Faith, language and culture are being stripped away in the name of CCP control. This is a genocide. The Labour party in opposition was willing to call it that, and Parliament voted in 2021 to recognise it as such, but the Government have yet to confirm their position.
I will ask the Minister several questions in closing, each of which I hope he will address, because my constituents, British nationals and people around the world want to hear his answers. Will he tell us candidly whether economic calculations have led the Government to reverse their position on whether a genocide has taken place? If he argues that they have not, I invite him—without compromising classified information—to present evidence to the House to support that claim. I also ask him to confirm whether sanctions are still under review for individuals and entities complicit in infringements of the freedom of speech, region or belief, or any other manner of human rights abuses. On trade and supply chains, will the Minister commit to a ban on imports from regions where there is documented evidence of forced labour? If not, why not? If so, can he confirm that these will be Magnitsky-style sanctions that make use of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018?
I really hope the Minister will answer those questions because the British public deserve to know ahead of the next China visit, whenever it may occur, which path the Government have chosen—silent acquiescence and weakness, or a Britain that has the courage of its convictions and is not afraid to call out injustice on the world stage once more.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this important debate on Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.
I thank all Members who have taken the time to participate in this debate, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). And I say this with all sincerity: no debate in Westminster Hall, particularly on freedom of religion or belief, would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated their determination to continue to raise this important matter in this place.
Freedom of religion or belief is one of the most fundamental human rights. It is the right to hold beliefs, practise them openly and live according to one’s conscience without fear of persecution. That principle lies at the very heart of the international human rights framework, and the United Kingdom has historically championed it across the world. Yet in China today, we see deeply troubling evidence that that freedom is being systematically eroded. Nowhere is that more evident than in Xinjiang, where credible reports have documented the widespread repression of the Uyghur Muslims and other minority communities, as we have heard. There is extensive evidence of mass detention, forced labour, the destruction of religious sites and the suppression of religious practices. Mosques have reportedly been demolished or repurposed, and individuals have faced punishment simply for expressing their faith. These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a wider pattern of state control over religion.
Similar concerns arise in Tibet, where, as we have heard, Tibetan Buddhists continue to face restrictions on their religious life and cultural identity. Monasteries are closely monitored, religious leaders face intense scrutiny, and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely is severely constrained. For many Tibetans, religion is inseparable from culture and identity, so these restrictions go far beyond matters of worship.
There are also growing concerns about religious freedom in Hong Kong. For many years, Hong Kong stood as a place where religious communities could operate with relative freedom. However, following the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law, civil society has come under increasing pressure, and the space for freedom, including religious freedom, has narrowed significantly.
The case of Jimmy Lai, the publisher and democracy campaigner, remains a stark example of that wider erosion of liberty. For years, Mr Lai has been imprisoned for his peaceful advocacy of democratic values. His case has become emblematic of the shrinking freedoms in Hong Kong and has rightly drawn strong concern from Members right across this House, some of whom are here today.
Freedom of religion or belief does not exist in isolation. It flourishes only where other fundamental freedoms—speech, assembly and the rule of law—are protected. That is why this debate is so important. It is not simply about one right among many, but about the wider ecosystem of freedoms that allows a society to flourish.
Historically, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in defending those freedoms. Our diplomats have worked through international institutions; our Ministers have raised concerns directly with their counterparts; and Parliament has consistently spoken with moral clarity when human rights are under threat. However, in recent months there has been discussion about a potential “reset” in the United Kingdom’s relationship with China. Engagement between nations is of course necessary—I understand that. China is a major global power and dialogue is essential on issues ranging from trade to climate change, but we should engage with China from a position of strength. That means being clear-eyed about where we have leverage and using it responsibly in defence of our values.
In that context, issues such as the decision on the proposed new Chinese embassy in London take on a wider significance. Approving such a development without securing meaningful progress on issues such as human rights risks giving up important leverage prematurely. Engagement must therefore be principled, co-ordinated and rooted in a firm commitment to the freedoms we seek to uphold, but engagement must never come at the expense of our values.
I hope that the Minister will address a number of important questions when he responds. First, as part of any diplomatic engagement with Beijing, have the Government raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief directly with the Chinese authorities, and if so, what response did they receive?
Secondly, will the Government continue to work with partners at the United Nations to highlight human rights concerns in China? Previous Governments played an important role in co-ordinating joint statements on abuses in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Do Ministers intend to continue building those coalitions internationally?
Thirdly, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to protect individuals in the United Kingdom from transnational repression? In recent years, there have been increasing concerns about intimidation, surveillance and pressure being directed at diaspora communities here in the UK. Individuals who speak out about religious freedom or human rights abroad must be able to do so without fear of harassment or coercion on British soil.
Finally, I would welcome clarity on how human rights considerations are being weighed in the Government’s broader relationship with China. There has been considerable public debate about the proposed redevelopment of the Chinese embassy, on the Royal Mint Court site, into what would become the largest Chinese embassy complex in Europe. Many have raised concerns about the symbolic and practical implications of that project, given the wider human rights context. Planning decisions must of course follow the proper legal process, but the Government must recognise the strength of feeling that exists when questions of national security, human rights and foreign policy intersect in this way, and they must surely understand why so many people oppose the development of a new Chinese embassy in London.
The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a country that stands up for liberty and the rule of law. Those principles have shaped our history, our institutions and our place in the world. When people are persecuted for their faith, whether they are Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Christians facing restrictions in China, or religious communities under pressure in Hong Kong, we simply cannot look the other way. The credibility of our foreign policy depends on our willingness to speak clearly and consistently about such issues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that freedom of religion or belief remains a central pillar of the UK’s foreign policy, and that in our engagement with China, we will continue to stand firmly on the side of those whose fundamental freedoms are under threat.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, I think for the second time since you joined the Panel of Chairs. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate, and I appreciate the thoughtful contributions by hon. Members from across the House. They have sent a clear signal of the deep and shared concern in this place about the challenges faced by faith and belief communities across China.
Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right that sits at the heart of the UK’s wider human rights approach. The Government strategy on this topic was published last summer. It makes it plain that this fundamental human right is an important part of our foreign policy. As part of our strategy, we are focusing on 10 priority countries where we judge that we can make the biggest difference in defending that right; China is among them. That is the right thing to do and is firmly in our national interest: we know that countries that uphold fundamental rights and the rule of law are more stable, prosperous and resilient. When freedom of religion or belief comes under pressure, it is so often the case that other rights quickly follow.
Those who wish to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief in China face deep restrictions. Communities are limited in being able to practice their faith freely, including the Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Catholic and Protestant Christians, and Falun Gong practitioners. As I think every Member mentioned today, we continue to see extensive state control over freedom of religion or belief across different communities, including intrusive surveillance, restrictions on worship, requirements for political education and arbitrary detention.
In Xinjiang, the scale and severity of those violations affecting the Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim communities remain of deep and long-standing concern. With Ramadan underway and Eid approaching, we are especially mindful of reports of restrictions on fasting and religious observance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) mentioned, and the continued pressure that those communities face. In Tibet, sustained interference in monastic life, cultural expression and the appointment of religious leaders continues to pose a profound challenge to the perseverance of Tibetan Buddhism and identity.
We have also witnessed continued pressure on Christian communities, and the arrest of Zion church leaders in October was a stark reminder of the growing constraints on pastors and Christian worship more broadly. Many churches have endured closures, intimidation and intensified surveillance, all of which point to the shrinking space for independent Christian worship. Falun Gong practitioners continue to face intimidation, restrictions on assembly and arbitrary detention. Those who practice outside China face serious threats and harassment linked to their beliefs.
The Government have been clear that China must uphold its international obligations. As a signatory to the universal declaration of human rights, we expect China to observe the obligations that it has freely accepted. Individuals should be free to practice or not practice religion or belief according to their conscience without fear, coercion or discrimination.
I am grateful to hon. Members for the points, observations and questions they have raised in this debate. Let me specifically address the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Caerphilly about the ethnic unity law. China’s ethnic unity law risks further tightening controls over culture, religion and language. We will continue as a Government to monitor developments, and we will not hesitate to raise our concerns with China. We urge China to respect its obligations under international and national law.
Although I cannot pre-empt specifics on future diplomatic engagements, the UK will consistently raise concerns about minority rights wherever we engage with Chinese counterparts, both bilaterally and in co-ordination with international partners; I will come to some of the questions about the United Nations shortly. We advance freedom of religion or belief in China in three ways: by raising concerns privately and publicly, by using our influence during bilateral and multilateral engagements and by supporting communities across China that are affected by violations.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have not taken part in a debate with him on this subject, either on the Floor of the House or in this Chamber in my six months as the Minister or in my 10 years in the House. He is a true champion of freedom of religion or belief. I pay tribute to his absolute steadfast dedication to not just those of Christian faith but all those who hold faith across this country and across the world. If he writes to me about the Chinese human rights lawyer—forgive me, but I could not catch the gentlemen’s name—I am more than happy to ask my officials to investigate and come back to him in writing.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked about our bilateral engagements. We are committed to challenging China where we must, and our bilateral engagement on this matter is firm and consistent. I should tell the House, particularly in response to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that the Prime Minster has raised these concerns on human rights abuses and freedom of religion and belief. The Chancellor and Ministers have raised those abuses, as have the Foreign Secretary and the former Foreign Secretary. I understand that that was the case under the previous Government, too. We have a unity of purpose, and we will call out religious persecution where we see it in our multilateral and bilateral relationships.
The UK has continually raised concerns about violations affecting faith communities. We monitor developments closely and raise cases directly with authorities whenever that is appropriate. Those conversations are not easy, but they are essential. It is because we maintain engagement that we can raise the hardest issues directly, including on freedom of religion or belief, and we do so at the highest levels.
Many Members raised the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China. I wonder if some Members do not follow the news or statements on the Floor of the House, but the Prime Minister raised the points that many Members have raised today directly with President Xi, and he said that in his statements on the Floor of the House. Senior Ministers have raised those abuses with their counterparts and we will continue to do so, for the record. That sustained engagement at senior levels ensures that our concerns are clearly heard and understood.
The shadow Minister and a number of colleagues raised issues around our support within the multilateral space. The shadow Minister is quite right to raise that the UK not only led the charge, but was the first country to lead the UN statement on human rights abuses in China. I can confirm that we will continue to lead that work in the multilateral space. That is why we work with international partners, not just in the UN but in the G7 and in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and through coalitions such as the Media Freedoms Coalition, which is central to our approach. I am pleased that we have been able to take the chair of the Media Freedoms Coalition; that means that we can focus on another form of abuse, on media freedom, over the next two years.
We use all possible levers to hold China to account for human rights abuses against the Uyghur, Tibetans, Christians and others. Last July, the UK hosted a side event at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to reaffirm the universal right to freedom of religion or belief, including for Tibetan Buddhists. I pay tribute to, and thank, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who is the UK special envoy, for championing the UK’s commitment to that matter at the event and for reaffirming the right of Tibetans to choose their own religious leaders.
We will never shy away from calling on China to improve its record on freedom of religion or belief, and on human rights in general. To pick up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly about violence against women and girls, he may not have seen that just yesterday the Foreign Secretary announced her pillars of work for the Government within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. One of them is specifically about tackling violence against women and girls globally, not just in the UK. It will remain an absolute priority that we call out that violence, not just in conflict but also in matters of human rights abuses across the world.
Many Members have raised the question of what the Government are doing now. On 2 March, the UK’s ambassador for human rights called on China to address reports of restrictions on religious and cultural freedoms and of forced labour—mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—and urged the release of all arbitrarily detained individuals. That work goes on constantly and all the time, and will continue to do so under this Government.
The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned Hong Kong, and specifically Jimmy Lai and the national security law imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics. The Foreign Secretary could not be clearer that that is a political imposition and something that we do not support. The Foreign Secretary and other senior Ministers have also raised Mr Lai’s case, including the Prime Minister, who, during his visit, raised it directly with President Xi. That has opened up discussions of the most acute concerns directly with the Chinese Government at the highest levels. Following the sentencing fairly recently, we will rapidly engage in and continue to engage in Mr Lai’s case.
To conclude—I am conscious of time and the need to allow my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston to make her own concluding remarks—I again thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. The situation for many religious and belief communities in China remains extremely serious. The Government will continue to raise concerns at the highest levels, to press China to meet its international obligations, to work with international partners, and to support practical initiatives that defend that fundamental right. Freedom of religion or belief is and will remain a non-negotiable part of the UK’s engagement with China. We will remain steadfast in defending this right for everyone.
Ms Rimmer
There are few of us here today, but the speeches in this debate have been absolutely from the heart, sincere, and very detailed indeed. Members have not just come in and written out a speech; they are here because they have been living with this issue for years. They really believe in what they are saying, and we really want to see an outcome.
I was invited this morning to 1 Parliament Street and Room B with a group of children from a Manchester school; I think they were about seven or eight. They made me the bracelet that I am wearing. They taught me how to make it, but they had to do that because I could not thread the thread through the beads. Each bead represents a religion, and there are two of each colour all the way round. The booklet that comes with it tells us about religion.
I was thinking to myself about coming to this debate and what is going on in the world now. I was thinking about religion and belief and why people are fighting when they should not be. Every single religion is in this book and is represented with beads on this bracelet. It tells you what they are looking for and the peace message: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Everything comes down to the same thing, in different words. The children were pointing this out to me and saying, “We should all have a religion. Some people don’t, but they still believe in being kind to each other,” and I thought, “If only they could grow up and carry on through the world like that—keeping peace.” If only we could do that.
We have been focusing on the profoundly important issue of freedom of religion or belief. I thank my friends the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who put so much effort into the cause of freedom of religion or belief, and human rights. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) speaks out very often about it. I did not know of the interest in and passion for the cause of the Uyghurs that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) has, but certainly in his speech he was well involved in capturing that. He spoke about organ harvesting and about Xinjiang. It was wonderful to hear his commitment and his depth of understanding of what was going on. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) is just wonderful. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) has gone out of the Chamber. I am sorry that I could not hear all of his interventions to answer them. I thank them all very much, and the Minister for his responses. We will keep on at the Government. We are not going to go away.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.
Cheadle Train Station
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I will call Tom Morrison to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in these 30-minute debates, there will unfortunately not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Mr Morrison
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Cheadle train station.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the Minister for being here to address my concerns and those of my constituents directly. Cheadle is a thriving and growing town in Greater Manchester with 23,000 residents. It is a vibrant place packed with great restaurants and a fantastic community culture, and it has the most beautiful green spaces in the region. Yet it has been missing a railway station for over half a century.
The original station opened 1 February 1866. It had two platforms and was located just north of Cheadle High Street. It connected Cheadle to Warrington, Stockport and Liverpool, opening up new opportunities for almost a century. At the time, the line was crucial for transporting coal between Yorkshire and the port of Liverpool, as it avoided central Manchester. The route was one of the busiest double-track lines in the country for goods services. Sadly, passenger services were withdrawn in November 1964, and Cheadle has not had a passenger rail service since.
Today, Cheadle is suffering from chronic congestion. Everyone in the area will know what I mean when I talk about the Manchester Road crawl. Between 8 am and 9am, and then between 3 pm and 6 pm, the roads between Cheadle and Manchester stand at a halt as hundreds upon hundreds of cars, buses, lorries and other vehicles try to use the route between the two areas. This happens every day of the week and has become a source of real angst for my constituents.
People are rightly encouraged to take the bus for public transport, but it takes an hour to get from Cheadle to Manchester Piccadilly, and from Cheadle to Stockport town centre, whereas it would take just 18 minutes and seven minutes respectively by train. It is clear that Cheadle train station is the antidote. The benefits of restoring Cheadle’s rail connection would be boundless, breathing extra life into the high street, connecting residents with work and family, reducing congestion and supporting clean growth, while opening up the region for my constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Like him, we lost our train station many moons ago—back at a time when I had hair, which was a long time ago. We have watched the decline of public transport, and if we get rid of stations, it means a slow decline, and can easily end up with the removal of lines. While the profit margin is, and should be, a material consideration, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the obligation to provide a service is equally important?
Mr Morrison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. Yes, the point is that this is about people. Given the rate I am losing my hair, I hope we get the train station while I have more hair than him.
Residents overwhelmingly support the new station, with 87% of people responding positively to the consultation, which was managed by Cheadle Civic Society and the Cheadle Village Partnership—two organisations that are run by local community activists who have the village at their heart. The proposal was approved for planning in 2023, but no work on site has been done. My constituents write to me almost every day to ask where the station is and why it has not been built yet.
Make no mistake: Cheadle rail station is a fully developed, shovel-ready proposal, and there is absolutely no reason it should have stalled like this. The business case was developed and approved, the land negotiations were progressed and agreed, the timetable modelling and independent analysis were all done, and never was there any sign that there could be a problem. It was a truly collaborative effort. Stockport council, Transport for Greater Manchester, Northern and Network Rail have all worked together to make Cheadle rail station a reality. Most importantly, the community stood up and pulled together to make it happen. This is truly the people’s project.
The plans have support from the leader of Stockport council, councillors and MPs across the borough, the Greater Manchester chamber of commerce, numerous local businesses, and the Greater Manchester combined authority, which included the station in the 2025 Greater Manchester strategy. The project even has the support of the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The station is designed to be inclusive, which will be especially welcome news to train station accessibility campaigner Nathaniel Yates, who works so hard to make sure that all Greater Manchester rail stations have disabled access.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a compelling case for the people of Cheadle to get the railway station they deserve. He mentioned Nathaniel Yates, who is a phenomenal campaigner in our region for accessibility at railway stations, and I visited Bredbury station and Romiley station with him. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that when we eventually do get Cheadle station, it should be accessible, so that everybody can access it and people get the rail service they deserve.
Mr Morrison
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. The one word we can use to describe Nathaniel Yates is “legend”. He has put accessibility at train stations at the very top of the agenda in Greater Manchester, and we should all follow his lead on this.
Transport for Greater Manchester says that the station would deliver significant benefits, including fast, reliable and accessible connections between Cheadle, Stockport and Manchester, meaning greater opportunities and less car dependency. Additionally, the increase in journeys would improve the commercial sustainability of the mid-Cheshire line. There would be an estimated demand for 91,000 new passenger journeys a year by the late 2020s, and approximately £400,000 per year in additional revenue.
Sadly, the project has been stalled for some time, and we await a rail industry governance decision on the future of the project. There have been concerns about timetable changes on the mid-Cheshire line, but independent modelling and an industry review show that only minor adjustments are required, with an overall neutral impact on network performance. Any interim adjustments would be temporary and manageable. Network Rail has concerns about the fragility of the Stockport-Manchester corridor, but existing modelling clearly shows that the impact is manageable. That should not outweigh the case for investing in growth, connectivity and opportunity.
It is clear that Cheadle rail station would be more than viable. The Government know this and are dragging their feet—it simply does not make sense. The station makes sense politically, economically, environmentally and socially. The delays in decision making are not only putting the future of the station at risk but undermining the confidence of the public—a public who not only backed the rail station but delivered the consultation. They lobbied politicians and raised a huge campaign in favour of the plans. They are the people who deserve this, and any decision to the contrary, especially after walking them up that hill, would be unforgivable.
The towns fund programme has already had to extend the funding deadline to March 2027 because of the delays. Additionally, costs are increasing with inflation every day, and uncertainty is building for partners and contractors. Constituents write to me week in, week out, without fail, to inquire about the progress of the station, and each week I am unable to update them further. This cannot go on.
The people of Cheadle need clear direction from the Government. Responsibility for the delay lies squarely with the Department for Transport, which has the mandate to instruct Northern to serve the new station—powers that neither Stockport council nor Transport for Greater Manchester have. The Department must confirm that the required timetable change can proceed, outline a firm pathway for construction, and constructively engage with Network Rail and Northern Rail to move the project forward.
Since this bump in the road arose, I and the Cheadle towns fund board have taken numerous steps to engage with the Department for Transport directly. I wrote to the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, in December and urged him to provide clarity, and I am still awaiting a response. Stockport council and the Cheadle towns fund board have also written to the Minister, and are awaiting a response.
I say again that Cheadle train station is fully funded, planned and widely supported, and would only enhance Cheadle further, drastically improving residents’ lives, boosting growth in the economy, tackling regional inequality and increasing sustainable transport. The Government simply need to get their act together and sign it off. With Government backing, the station would quickly become a reality, regenerating the village centre, increasing connectivity and driving economic resilience. Very few infrastructure projects reach this stage with such strong backing and unified support.
This is also a prime opportunity for the Government to walk the walk and combat the regional inequalities that they claim to prioritise. The Institute for Public Policy Research argues that the UK’s economic success relies on northern growth, and I could not agree more. Improving people’s day-to-day quality of life directly creates the growth that this country so desperately needs. Treasury officials have previously described the north as an “untapped gold reserve”, and I know that to be true, but the Government must follow that up with action.
Let me highlight the impact of regional inequalities on young people in my constituency. While facing massive challenges, they are now doubly burdened with record unemployment and fewer opportunities for starting out in life. The young people of Cheadle need a good public transport system to help them to access education and jobs. This is not a “nice to have”; they need it.
Does the Minister want Cheadle to thrive and invest in the long term? Do the Government want to leave a legacy that will improve the lives of constituents in Cheadle? Do the Government really mean it when they say they will support clean growth and investment in public transport? Will they get on the train headed towards a more equitable and prosperous country? Will the Minister confirm that the Department will provide the necessary direction so that Cheadle train station can move into delivery without further delay?
I would like to leave a picture in everyone’s minds—a vision for Cheadle. I envision a stronger, more resilient and connected Cheadle in just a few years’ time: a Cheadle where elderly residents such as Paul can easily get the train to their doctor’s appointment; a Cheadle where the high street is thriving even more, and where businesses are fighting to open; a Cheadle where Elise, a teenager at college, can be independent and travel quickly to college without buying a car; and a Cheadle where all residents can easily travel to Hazel Grove and Stockport within minutes, but also to Manchester city centre, Greater Manchester and beyond far more easily than ever before.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that we must conclude by 4.42 pm, when the next debate will begin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate, and everyone else, including the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their helpful interventions that stressed the fundamental importance of rail connectivity to communities in the north-west of England.
Before I turn to the substance of my speech, I want to say that I have noted the hon. Member for Cheadle’s point about the lack of response to his correspondence with the Rail Minister and the Department for Transport, and I will make sure that his correspondence receives a full response as quickly as possible.
I am grateful for the impassioned case the hon. Gentleman made for building the new station. He outlined how railways serve as a catalyst for economic growth, social connections and interconnectedness between different communities. A powerful case has been put forward on behalf of the people of Cheadle.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing the debate and pay tribute to him for the strong case he made on behalf of his residents in Cheadle. If I was in his position, I would make broadly the same arguments. However, I am the Member of Parliament for Mid Cheshire, and I have to speak for my constituents, and unfortunately there is no way to deliver a station at Cheadle that does not have a detrimental effect on the mid-Cheshire line and add to the journey time from Northwich, which is already an hour.
Transport for Greater Manchester’s modelling proposed dropping the services from Plumley, Ashley and Mobberley down to every two hours, rather than every hour, which would effectively kill rail travel to those communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the proposal is to go forward, we need to look seriously at either a half-hourly service from Northwich or wider infrastructure improvements, so that we can improve journey times for the whole line?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the matters that I will turn to shortly, including connectivity and capacity considerations for other parts of the north-west rail network. He is absolutely right that the Department for Transport has an obligation to ensure that these questions are considered in the round, and that communities are not disadvantaged. I will turn to that point in more detail in a moment.
The Government know and understand how vital good, reliable and frequent rail services are to local communities, particularly those in the north of England, which have seen years of chronic under-investment. The Government recognise the potential benefits of the proposed new station at Cheadle for the local community, including improved access to jobs, education, healthcare and economic growth, alongside the forecasted positive revenue that would help to support the railway’s financial sustainability.
In determining whether a new station is feasible, a number of considerations must be made, and relevant stakeholders must be included in the decision-making process. Network Rail, as the owner of the rail infrastructure, is responsible for assessing whether additional train stops could be accommodated, taking into account operational constraints on the network. The Department for Transport is responsible for understanding the cost to the taxpayer of additional stops and services.
Stockport council, which received funding for the planning and construction of a new station at Cheadle in 2022, is responsible for the project’s delivery, and Cheadle has been included in the Stockport local regeneration fund since September 2025. The funding landscape for local authorities has evolved, with the town deal, the levelling-up fund and the pathfinder pilots now combined into one streamlined, flexible funding stream called the local regeneration fund. This change aims to cut down on bureaucracy, and gives local authorities much more freedom to adapt schemes in response to local needs, so that they no longer require central Government approval for project adjustments. As a result, decision making is now much more devolved, empowering local authorities to act swiftly and responsibly on local priorities.
The delays to the project have unfortunately occurred due to several concerns around timetable feasibility and the potential effects on performance. The proposed location with planning permission is on a single-track section of the rail network, which leads on to the congested corridor between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, limiting service options and presenting complex operational challenges. While services run along the mid-Cheshire line through Cheadle, the capacity of the line between Stockport and Altrincham is constrained by the single-track stretches. Parts of the mid-Cheshire line are also used by freight services, which will need to be considered when planning for any additional stops.
The interconnected nature of the rail network means that this proposal cannot be considered in isolation; it would affect the nationally significant Stockport-Piccadilly section of the west coast main line. An additional stop on the single-track section risks delays for all services at Edgeley junction No. 2, as trains approach central Manchester and interact with this critical section of the west coast main line. That could have serious knock-on impact on services across the network. The proposed timetable would also require the re-timing of long-distance passenger and freight services.
The Rail North partnership board is the decision-making board for service considerations for Northern Trains Ltd and TransPennine trains, and is one part of the process that needs to be take place to enable the service change. It is now evident that service change, including reducing the frequency of services that stop at Ashley and Plumley, is the only way that an hourly stop at a new station at Cheadle could be accommodated. Officials are developing a paper for consideration by the Rail North partnership board at its next meeting on 15 April. We need to ensure that those who are potentially impacted by such a change are given the opportunity to voice their concerns through meaningful consultation. We therefore encourage Stockport council and Transport for Greater Manchester to continue to engage with stakeholders and industry about the concerns raised and the areas potentially impacted by proposals.
This has been an opportunity to reflect on the case for a new station at Cheadle. Transport connections underpin the core missions of this Government: to kickstart economic growth, unlock housing delivery and break down barriers to opportunity to transform lives. After years of poor performance, it is more important than ever that passengers regain confidence in the rail services they rely on and that the risk to punctuality is fully understood and mitigated as far as possible. However, any timetable changes must be carefully considered to balance local benefits against wider network impacts.
I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and other Members for their contributions. I commit to continuing the conversation with him on a key issue for him and his constituents, as he continues to fight for improved transport connections across his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Enterprises and Community Ownership
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered social enterprises and community ownership.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.
When people make speeches about post-industrial towns like mine, they often begin in the same way: by listing everything that we have lost. They talk about decline, deprivation, and the industries that disappeared during the wave of UK deindustrialisation. To be clear, many of those things are true and it is important to acknowledge that. However, that story often misses something just as important, because although the mills closed and the factories fell silent, the people of towns like Leigh and Atherton did what they have always done: they got on with it. They supported each other, they built new initiatives and they kept their communities going. What I see in my constituency is not a place defined only by what has been lost, but resilience, creativity, and an extraordinary sense of community, built from the ground up.
The truth is that towns like mine have never lacked ideas, talent or determination, but we have often lacked the structures that allow communities to own and shape their local economies. That is exactly why social enterprise and community ownership matter: they give communities tools to shape the economies and the future that they have always been building themselves.
At its heart, this debate is about ownership, because ownership determines who benefits from economic activity. When businesses are owned elsewhere, profits leave, but when businesses are owned locally, wealth stays, and it circulates through the local economy, supporting jobs, suppliers and services in the places where that wealth is created. A community-owned business or co-operative is owned and controlled by local people, who collectively make decisions and share the benefits. Those businesses exist to serve the needs of the community, rather than outside investors. Social enterprises operate in a simple way. As defined by Social Enterprise UK, they are businesses that trade
“for a social or environmental purpose”
and reinvest the majority of their profits into that mission. Both models give communities real power to shape their local economies and their future.
The tradition is deeply rooted in the north. The modern co-operative movement began with the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers—a group of working people who showed that communities could come together to build businesses that served everyone.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for mentioning Rochdale’s crucial role as the birthplace of the co-operative movement—a global social justice movement. Rochdale council is currently acquiring a church with the intention of turning it into a community-owned cultural venue, and our Pride in Place project in Hurstead, Belfield and Smallbridge similarly has the potential to become a community-owned co-operative, but at the moment the legislation works against both: co-operatives cannot claim gift aid, they do not get proper business rate relief, and there are many, many other ways in which it works against them. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be removing those obstacles from co-ops so that they can thrive?
Jo Platt
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for the co-operative movement, whose birthplace is in his constituency. I absolutely agree with him—there is more the Government can do to support co-operatives in all sectors.
Today, the co-operative spirit is alive and well in my constituency. In towns like mine, such organisations are not simply community projects, but are becoming local economic anchors. Let me give the House a few examples. For Tyldesley is a community-led initiative that is revitalising the town through heritage restoration and community activities. In the same town, the Pelican Centre was one of the first swimming pools in the country to become community owned, and it is still thriving 14 years later. The Snug in Atherton, led by grassroots champion Rachael McEntee and supported by the Music Venue Trust, is helping to build a vibrant local cultural scene. Leigh Works is creating space for small businesses and digital innovation to flourish, while inspiring the next generation of local talent.
In a speech about community ownership, I could not afford to leave out Leigh Spinners Mill. I declare an interest: I used to manage that facility. It was once a disused red-brick giant of our industrial past, and it is now a thriving centre of creativity and enterprise, providing space for community organisations and local businesses. These are not isolated stories; they are part of a growing national movement.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I would like to add one further example from my constituency. The Rebuild Site, a social enterprise, has identified that in the construction industry a large amount of waste goes to landfill and contributes hugely to our carbon dioxide emissions. It offers a service to developers whereby at the end of a job, it takes the surplus waste back to its warehouse, sells it and donates the money to community projects. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more examples like the Rebuild Site across the country to engender genuine pride in our towns and cities?
Jo Platt
That is exactly what this debate is about: hearing about initiatives that are thriving all over the country, bringing them together, and creating the support that those organisations need. I will definitely take that forward to see whether there is anything that we can do in our local area.
Across the UK there are about 131,000 social enterprises—roughly one in every 42 businesses. Together, they contribute about 3.4% of GDP, employ more than 2.3 million people, and reinvest more than £1 billion each year in social and environmental causes. Community businesses alone number around 11,000, generating nearly £1 billion in income. Crucially, for every pound spent with a community business, about 56p stays in our local economies. Almost half operate in the most deprived communities—proof that this model thrives precisely where it is needed most. If we want inclusive, place-based growth, supporting social enterprises and community ownership must be part of our economic strategy.
Too often the system simply is not designed for such organisations. Right now in my constituency the Pete Shelley memorial campaign, a brilliant group organising festivals that showcase incredible local artists, is working to become a social enterprise so that it can reinvest profits into helping young people access opportunities in the creative industries. But like many groups across the country, it faces real challenges in balancing its social impact with financial sustainability, navigating complex legal structures and accessing the patient capital that such models require. Without the right support, we risk losing extraordinary local potential.
I want to recognise the progress that this Labour Government have already made. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill introduces a landmark community right to buy, giving local people the opportunity to protect and take ownership of the spaces that matter to them most. Programmes such as Pride in Place and wider investment in town regeneration are already helping communities begin to rebuild. If we want those models to move from the margins to the mainstream, we must match community ambition with political ambition. Communities need three things to make the model succeed: first, access to patient and flexible finance; secondly, procurement systems that value social impact, not simply the lowest price; and thirdly, proper business support so that local people with great ideas are not left to navigate the system alone.
We should also continue strengthening organisations such as Locality, the Co-operative Development Unit, and Social Enterprise UK, whose expertise already helps communities turn ideas into thriving enterprises. I care deeply about this because I have seen the difference that it makes. During my time managing Leigh Spinners, I saw at first hand what happens when local people are given the space and power to shape their community’s future. I have seen with my own eyes the transformational power of national investment in community ownership. Thanks to the previous Government’s community ownership fund, places like Leigh Spinners Mill were able to step in, secure valuable spaces for working people, and turn the threat of loss into a hub of thriving businesses. When people have ownership, they have hope; when people have a stake, they have a voice. Ownership changes outcomes, and towns like mine have the talent, the ideas and the community spirit to thrive.
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly talks about driving growth across the country, but too often that growth has yet to reach towns like mine, where the backbone of the economy is not large corporations but small, locally rooted businesses. That is where social enterprise and community ownership come in: keeping wealth local, creating jobs locally, and ensuring that growth is rooted in the places that need it most. The question for the Government is simple: will we back the communities that have always built their own futures? If we do, we will build not only businesses, but stronger, fairer and more resilient communities. That is the future our towns deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I see that lots of Members are bobbing. Given that I am going to call the wind-ups at 5.22 pm, Opposition spokesmen will have five minutes each and the Minister will have 10 minutes. You will appreciate that time is limited, so let us try to get everyone in. I suggest speeches of about three minutes.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate. When it comes to recognising what communities need, no one knows better than local folk. I am lucky that there are so many special organisations and inspirational people positively impacting all the communities across Alloa and Grangemouth, and I would like to highlight a few today.
The Newlands community hall in Grangemouth has been taken over by SeaLock Infinity, which has increased community use of the facility with various clubs, exercise classes and social activities taking place. That will improve health and wellbeing enormously. Also in Grangemouth, the local community council successfully campaigned against the cuts to Zetland Park maintenance. In the beautiful Zetland and Inchyra Parks, the Central Football Foundation has taken on the pavilions. Extensive repair works that will make the pavilions more energy-efficient are scheduled, and alongside the Young Portonian Theatre Company, they will be excellent venues for sporting and cultural community activities. Another local football club doing great things is Gairdoch United, which has taken on the Glensburgh pavilion in Carronshore and the Letham pavilion, for the advancement of public participation in the beautiful game.
Across the constituency in Clackmannan, the development trust has secured the future of the town hall, where I had a ball playing indoor bowls—badly, I must admit. The trust has also taken on the library, and it plans to expand the range of activities that it offers to local people—congratulations to everyone involved. It was great to meet Janette from the Tullibody community development trust, which promotes social inclusion and healthy living, and is instrumental in creating community spirit and a sense of tremendous local pride. I also met those involved in the Tullibody Heritage Centre. Its history group has amassed an incredible collection that celebrates life in the ancient village—a fantastic way to spend a morning. Last Saturday, I popped into the Ben Cleuch Centre in Tillicoultry for World Book Day, where some of the trustees were dressed up as famous literary characters.
Whether it is providing libraries, meeting rooms, workspaces, kids’ play areas, community gardens or warm spaces for socialising and catching up, the Tillicoultry, Coalsnaughton and Devonside development trust is doing so much good. Community asset transfers are so much more than just taking on a building: the feeling of belonging that they often provide is invaluable, and the people involved deserve every bit of credit possible.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate, and for her inspiring opening speech.
At a time when the Government seem to have no money and rural areas often feel overlooked, social enterprises and community-owned assets are more important than ever. I will relate that to the rural communities in my constituency, where the loss of a single pub, the village hall or another shared space is not just an inconvenience but can mean the loss of connection, support and community identity. I am constantly inspired by the amazing enterprises springing up across South Cotswolds. The Fleece Inn in Hillesley is one example. It faced closure in 2011 when the pub company went into administration, but local people stepped in to form a community enterprise. They purchased the freehold and reopened the pub in 2012 as a community-owned establishment, and today it is thriving again.
In Christian Malford, the community-owned village hall plays a vital role. It hosts events, supports local groups, and creates connection in an otherwise widely dispersed rural population. One of my favourites is in Cirencester, where the new branch of The Long Table shows how community enterprise can go even further. Tom Herbert and his team have established a “pay-as-you-can” model that is based on the premise, “What would it be like if everybody had access to good food and people to eat it with?” It tackles food insecurity and rural isolation, re-imagining what a community space can be, not as charity but as dignity, equality and shared experience.
Despite their success, many of these community enterprises are under pressure, with 32% of them only just surviving. Some are at risk of closure. The Christian Malford village hall is in urgent need of repair or upgrade, while community pubs often struggle to meet payroll. At the same time, demand is growing as rural populations age and rural transport gets worse. Will the Minister commit to boosting existing support, including the community ownership fund, which needs to be scaled up? We need a dedicated rural community ownership fund that provides the targeted, long-term support that communities need. A little goes a very long way when it is put in the hands of passionate, energetic and community-minded people who know exactly how to use the money to deliver the best return on investment, and to deliver for their communities.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. In Warrington South, I have been working closely with grassroots sports clubs like Cromwell Athletic, Crosfields and Bank Quay Bulls, and people like Ste and Bob: volunteers who give their time week in, week out, not for recognition, but because they care about their community and the sports clubs that are a part of it. They are not asking for much—just decent pitches, facilities that are fit for purpose and a fair chance to grow the game for the next generation. They want to take ownership of the very spaces that they rely on, to secure them for the long term, improve them and open up access so that more people of all ages can take part in sport.
When communities have ownership of their assets, they invest in them, protect them and make them work. In Warrington, we are now exploring a local sports co-operative, bringing clubs together and giving them confidence, structure and support to take the next step into community ownership. When clubs can take ownership of their pitches, it unlocks crucial external investment from organisations such as the Football Foundation, the Football Association and the Rugby Football League, all of which I have met alongside local clubs. They are ready to back grassroots sport and improve facilities back home in Warrington. That means better pitches, improved facilities, more games being played and more young people being involved and getting active. That is what community ownership makes possible.
Right now, too many communities are being held back. In Warrington, the will from clubs and partners is there, but the system is not keeping up. Local authorities simply do not have the capacity or resource to move quickly enough on community asset transfers. Good projects are now at risk of stalling. Momentum and good faith are being lost. Opportunities are in danger of slipping through our fingers. Access to funding remains a barrier, because the ambition is there locally but the tools to deliver it are not always in place.
If we are serious about community ownership, we need to match ambition with action. That means targeted funding to help communities to take on and improve local assets, especially in grassroots sport where the social return is so clear. It also means giving local authorities the capacity, resource and streamlined processes that they need to move at pace to support communities, not slow them down. I urge the Minister to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to strengthen the role of the co-operative development unit in providing the practical support that communities need to take on assets and to work across Government, including with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to support governance structures that enable community and fan-led ownership to succeed.
Community ownership is not just a model. It is a great way of making sure that when places grow, our communities grow with them. If we get this right, we will not only protect and improve the green spaces that matter to our constituents, but empower the clubs and people who make them such a vital part of our towns and villages.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for highlighting the wonderful benefits of social enterprises and community ownership. She is back with a bang—well done to her for securing this debate. I wish to give a Northern Ireland perspective and set out some of the exceptional ways in which we are doing things there.
We are at a transformative moment for Northern Ireland. For too long, our economic story was told through the lens of what we lacked or what had been lost. Today, it is a joy to tell the story of the 1,200 social enterprises across our townlands. It is a story of resilience and innovation, with £933 million in annual turnover that stays in our communities. If that is not a good story to tell, I would like to know what is.
In Northern Ireland, social enterprise is not just nice to have; it is foundational. In my constituency—from the Gatelodge café at Ards hospital, which provides training and employment for young people with learning difficulties, to the Comber farmers’ market, a volunteer-led initiative that provides a platform for local producers while serving as a vital social hub for the town—we are seeing what happens when local people take the keys to their own future.
Community ownership is how we reclaim our disused barracks, our closed pubs and our historic halls and turn them into hubs of health, heritage, hope and vision. To truly unlock that potential, we must move beyond the grant reliance trap. We need a dedicated regional community ownership fund tailored to the unique needs of local community infrastructure. We also need legislative support to strengthen our right to buy, so that no community asset is lost simply because the paperwork is too complex. We need progressive procurement to ensure that the £3 billion that our Government spend every year prioritises businesses that deliver real social value back to our streets.
Our sector is mature. Over half of our social enterprises have been trading for more than a decade. They are led by women—there are plenty of women here, as an indication of that. They are led by people with lived experience. They are motivated by a shared belief that profits should serve people, not the other way round. Let us not just build back; let us build ours. Let us ensure that every pound spent in Northern Ireland works twice as hard: once for the service it provides, and once for the community it empowers. The drive and the ability are there. What is needed is the support.
I look forward to the Minister’s speech. We must invest in local communities, understanding that every pound invested will not only have its returns in tax but, more importantly, fire up a generation to make their living doing something that they are passionate about and that helps their local community. We all have that desire. Working together, we can make those dreams a reality.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) said that ownership matters. She is spot on. Ownership affects who makes decisions and who benefits from those decisions. For too long, we have had too little ownership of commercial and community assets by local people, and too much by remote organisations with no real stake in the places they operate in.
Before coming to this place, I worked for years in what is called the social enterprise sector. I have never been keen on calling it a sector. One of my old mates once said to me, “Sectors are where movements go to die.” I think social enterprise is better understood as a movement. It is defined not by business structures, but by an underlying philosophy that business should work in the interests of communities and that wealth should circulate locally rather than being extracted.
I will devote the rest of my speech to the new Office for the Impact Economy, which sits in the Cabinet Office. It is a positive development that shows that there is an understanding that tackling social and economic challenges requires taking a different approach. We already have a good example of the Office for the Impact Economy’s approach in the better futures fund, which currently sits in DCMS. That fund is bringing together public, private and social investment to support early intervention, and it pays for results rather than just for activity. Rather than having the Office for the Impact Economy reinvent the wheel, there is an opportunity to build on the success of the better futures fund. The Office for the Impact Economy would be better placed to take on responsibility for the existing fund from DCMS and further develop it as a cross-Government programme.
The approach that sits behind the better futures fund should not be limited to one programme affecting young people, because the same model can be applied to a much wider set of complex social issues, including homelessness, street drinking, library services, outreach and high street regeneration. In all those areas, we are not suffering from a lack of effort; we are suffering from over a decade of underfunding and from a system that is often too short-term and too tied to the wrong outcomes and outputs.
The better futures approach allows for longer-term investment, focuses on prevention and gives organisations the space that they need to deliver outcomes that work. If the Office for the Impact Economy can take the better futures fund model and apply it more widely to new problems, it could play a significant role in supporting social enterprises and community businesses to tackle some of the most complex problems facing our communities.
We all want economic growth. We all want growth that is felt across the country. But we need ownership of that growth. We need control and investment to be more closely connected to our communities, where people live. That is where the social enterprise movement has an important role to play.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. Members are getting two minutes each. Let us try to get everyone in.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. Many of our communities have felt left behind, with their concerns about the places where they live often going unheard, so I welcome the steps that this Government have taken since July 2024 to address that imbalance. They are giving power back to local people through programmes such as Pride in Place, which is investing £20 million in the communities of Whitburn and Blackburn in my constituency.
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 has been in place for more than a decade, but it has not quite delivered what was hoped. Although the word “empowerment” is enshrined in the name, that has all too often stayed on paper. Ultimately, when austerity is the driver of local community ownership, that undermines the chances of success, but when it is driven by community aspiration and ambition, proactive uptake can make a real difference to a community’s renewal and can breathe new life into our high streets and town centres.
One such example is the Low Port Centre in Linlithgow. The building was declared surplus to council requirements in 2023, but by early 2024, what had started out as a project for a group from St John’s church in Linlithgow had quickly evolved into an endeavour that attracted businesses, community groups and volunteers from across the town. They secured the building and converted it into a centre for small businesses, innovators, charities, the church itself and the Linlithgow reed band. There is even accommodation there. They identified what the residents and the town needed and how their collective endeavour could deliver for everyone. That needs to change from the exception to the rule. The UK’s Government’s commitment to enshrine co-operative values in their effort to increase community ownership will support exactly that.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh—a different Leigh—and Atherton (Jo Platt) for introducing this important debate. Like her, I am low-key obsessed with towns, so it is a genuine pleasure to speak on the subject.
When we talk about ownership, what we are really talking about is power: the power that communities have over the places they live, the services they rely on and the futures that they want to build. Nowhere in my constituency is that clearer than in the story of a pub called the Oxleathers. In 2023, thanks to the efforts of Highfields and Western Downs community group, the Oxleathers was registered as an asset of community value. That is not an obscure, technical planning designation. In reality, it is an incredibly powerful tool. It means that the community stood up and said, “This place matters to us.”
Patrick Hurley
I neglected to declare an interest in my capacity as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the social, co-operative and community economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that all Members at this debate should attend the annual general meeting of the all-party group on Wednesday 25 March at 5.30 pm? Sadly, it will not be in a community pub, but in Room N in Portcullis House.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am discouraging interventions generally, but that was delightful. Carry on.
Leigh Ingham
The Oxleathers is not just a pub; it is a social hub in one of the most deprived areas of Stafford, hosting community events and bringing neighbours together. We do a great local quiz there, and it provides a space where people who might otherwise feel isolated can connect with others. That really matters, because when we talk about regeneration, growth or economic development, we can overlook the simple truth that communities are built around places where people come together. It is those assets that have disappeared over 14 years of austerity. Community enterprises are social infrastructure. They create pride in place, belonging and resilience.
Across Europe, energy security is becoming one of the defining challenges of our time. The events unfolding in the middle east show us how exposed households and businesses are to fossil fuel markets. I want to share an international example that I find interesting. Over the past decade, Spain has invested heavily in renewable energy and community-driven regeneration. That shift has helped to reduce the influence of gas prices on electricity bills and has made the country far less exposed to the volatility of international energy markets. That makes a massive difference, because when communities generate their own energy, they not only reduce emissions but gain control.
That exciting opportunity is now emerging in Highfields and Western Downs, because the Oxleathers—the same community asset that has been saved by local residents—is now likely to play a key role in a community solar energy plan for the area. That community has some of the highest levels of fuel poverty in Stafford. For us, community energy offers a different path. Imagine a local pub, already the heart of a neighbourhood, becoming part of a local energy network where solar generation helps to power community facilities and local ownership means that the benefits stay local. That is what social ownership can do.
We are talking about giving communities the tools to shape their own economic future. If we want towns and villages across the country to thrive, empowering communities through social ownership must be at the heart of our approach.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my fellow Co-operative MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for introducing the debate. She served admirably in the social enterprise sector while she was resting from this place. Like her, I spent many years working in the social enterprise and co-operative sector, running Social Enterprise Yorkshire and the Humber. I hark back to a golden age—although we probably did not consider it one at the time—of social enterprise and co-operative support, which ended fairly abruptly in May 2010; I cannot quite pinpoint what could have happened in that month to make that change.
Prior to then, we had Business Link, an organisation run by the Government through the regional development agencies and funded by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It provided social enterprise and co-operative support, either directly or through regional social enterprise bodies. Such support is really important. We also had co-operative support through a similar regional mechanism funded by the Co-operative Group, which ended, a bit later, due to the issues with the Co-operative bank—we probably do not need to rehearse those in this debate.
Now there is very little support available, so I am absolutely delighted that MHCLG has announced the co-operative development unit. When I was running an organisation, we would not have had community asset transfer, or the scaling-up and development of new social enterprises, without that support; it is absolutely essential. I do not mean financial support, but support with advice, legal structures, business planning and mentoring—the whole range of support that was provided regionally. I first want to make a plea for regionalisation in the co-operative development unit.
It is then really important for Departments to work together. As I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) raise, we need the DBT, MHCLG and DCMS to work together to provide that support. Let us do this—let us get the band back on the road and see that support being provided.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
In constituencies such as mine, social and community enterprises are thriving. They are practical working solutions, driven by local people who care deeply about where they live. We see that in employee ownership, such as in United Auctions, where employees now have a direct stake in the business. We see it in community energy, through organisations such as the Callandar community development trust, which generates income that is reinvested back into local priorities. We also see it in communities stepping up to protect vital assets. After a devastating fire in Gargunnock, it was the community that rebuilt the village shop, securing its future.
That same spirit continues across my constituency, from development trusts transforming local buildings into community hubs to projects such as Bannockburn House, where heritage, restoration and public benefit come together. That has now inspired further work, including the Plean House and Stables initiative, which has recently gained charitable status. I wish every one of those projects success. Those examples show a simple truth: when communities are trusted and supported, they deliver.
However, I want to be clear that community enterprise is not a substitute for Government or local authorities; it must be complementary to them and, if that partnership is to work, it must be properly supported. Too often, such organisations rely on a small number of dedicated volunteers and face real pressures around capacity, funding and long-term sustainability. If we value community ownership—and we should—we must back it. These organisations are not asking to replace the state, but to work with it, and when that happens the results are clear: stronger communities, protected local assets and people with a real stake in the places that they call home.
I will quickly mention the community-owned pubs, the Black Bull in Gartmore and the Gothenburg in Fallin, which has endured for over a century. Finally, I am wearing my Stirling Albion pin badge in this debate; Stirling Albion football club became the first community-owned team in Scotland 15 years ago. Go Binos!
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate.
Ownership matters. It shapes who makes decisions, who benefits and, ultimately, whether growth is felt in our communities or extracted from them. For too long, ownership has been weighted away from local people, and toward distant shareholders and absentee investors. That is why social enterprise, co-operatives and community-owned businesses are vital. They keep wealth circulating locally, reinvest profits into services and jobs, and give people a real stake and pride in the places they live in. We often talk about growth, but growth alone is not enough. It does not translate into stronger communities, a sense of belonging, better living standards or greater economic fairness. Social enterprises show us that there is more than one way to do business, and that there is one where success can be shared.
An example from my community that brings that to life is the once-disused bank on Cosham high street that has been transformed into the vibrant Community Kettle. That small but remarkable community-interest company is run by a diverse team, many of whom have faced personal challenges, including disabilities and medical retirement. Together, they have created something powerful. They have turned an empty space into a thriving community asset, hosting a regular “chatter caff” to tackle loneliness, quiz nights, bingo, craft sessions and educational historical talks.
The Community Kettle is a lifeline for many people in the local area and, crucially, it is rooted in the community it serves. The value that it creates does not leave; it stays in the local area. However, its journey highlights barriers that many social enterprises face. My office has supported it with casework, and with the help of Labour councillors it was eventually able to secure a grant that has helped it to continue its work—but it should not have had to fight so hard.
If we are serious about unlocking the potential of social enterprises, we must address the structural challenges they face, whether that is access to finance, clearer business and strategic support, or ensuring that the public properly recognise and promote these models. If we want truly resilient local economies, we must consider this issue. Can the Minister set out what further steps his Department and all Government Departments can take to ensure that social enterprises and community-owned businesses are not just supported, but actively prioritised as part of a growth strategy?
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The new community right-to-buy model has been transformative, and community ownership is at the heart of what we do in Stroud.
What I have noticed, and other Members have already pointed out, is that each organisation has to go through the same learning process to get funding. And the other thing I have noticed is that a lot of local people are willing to put funds into community ownership, but they need some sort of guarantee that those funds are safe. There is a role for some regional support in that regard.
Just in the last week, the Stratford Park lido in Stroud has been threatened with closure. I know that local people hope that local government will be able to step in and offer support. If that does not happen, though, community ownership will provide a guarantee for this much-loved community service.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, there are many pubs—including in the Stroud area—that are now moving towards community ownership, simply because capitalism does not work very well in rural areas, but assets such as pubs are deeply valued. I will mention the Rose and Crown in Nympsfield, which was recently bought by the community. I have a personal interest in that pub, because it is about 2 miles’ lovely walk from my house and I am really glad that it has remained open. Community energy is also crucial. We have a scheme now whereby solar panels can be put on schools; we are trying to get community energy in every school in our area.
However, I have campaigned for the environmental right to buy to be part of the community ownership model. I know that the Government have committed to issuing some statutory guidance, so I would like to hear some more from the Minister about that guidance. Strengthening our small towns and villages means giving actual powers to communities so that they can purchase crucial parts of our society.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Excellent. Thank you, everyone, for being so disciplined with your speeches.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on her work in securing this debate.
The current landscape is extremely challenging for businesses of all kinds across all sectors, including social enterprises. I am sure that colleagues from across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the heart of their communities, about the challenges they face, which range from the Government’s national insurance rise to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty over what the Employment Rights Act 2025 might mean for them.
Social enterprises are a major part of the UK economy, with around 131,000 social enterprises operating across the country. Together, these organisations generate around £78 billion in turnover every year, which shows that they make an impact economically as well as socially. They reinvest their profits to support social and environmental missions, with around £1 billion being reinvested annually into local communities.
The sector also provides jobs for millions, with around 2.3 million people working in social enterprises across the UK. Social enterprises are often more inclusive employers, helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter the workforce and tackling barriers around gender, race, class and disability.
Community-owned organisations help to strengthen local economies by keeping wealth circulating locally and giving residents a direct stake in the services and businesses that shape their communities. However, many of these organisations face major challenges, including limited access to finance, rising operating costs and difficulty in navigating complex procurement systems. Without stronger support from the Government, many social enterprises risk being unable to scale their work, despite the enormous benefits that they bring to their communities. As we have heard from so many contributors today, community ownership also plays a growing role in protecting important local assets, such as pubs, shops, energy schemes and community centres, ensuring that they remain viable and locally accountable.
As we see unemployment at alarmingly high levels, the Government should be doing everything they can to support these organisations, which provide vital opportunities to local people. However, with employment costs rising sharply, access to a skilled workforce is an increasing issue that affects businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy last summer and the commitment to an increase in skills and training, but the apprenticeship levy does not work: many businesses cannot get the funding that they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding go unspent. We have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses more flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff.
It is welcome that the Government are focusing resources on training young people, but it is essential that opportunities for training and reskilling are available throughout life. The decision to defund level 7 apprenticeships for the over-22s risks limiting opportunities at a moment when it is more important than ever to provide opportunities for our young people.
More broadly, social enterprises, like many other kinds of businesses across the country, are struggling under Government decisions such as the rise in employer national insurance contributions. That continues to be the No. 1 issue raised with me when I speak to stakeholders and business owners. Small businesses in particular have been left struggling under the heavy burden of this jobs tax, and the Government must take steps to support those businesses, which are at the centre of communities and local economies. Thousands of social enterprises, which often provide community services, have felt the damaging impact of those changes. That is why I and all my Liberal Democrat colleagues have repeatedly called on the Government to reverse the rise in national insurance contributions and will continue to campaign for them to scrap this damaging policy.
The Liberal Democrats have also been calling on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates, but failed to deliver it. The current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the system, but their recent Budget did not bring forward welcome changes for business. The Chancellor announced lower business rate multipliers, but the new, higher rateable values from the Valuation Office Agency will wipe out any benefit that businesses get from the lower multipliers, so I ask the Minister how the Government now plan to meet their own commitment in the small business strategy to introduce permanently lower business rates.
Liberal Democrats have always believed in helping individuals to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives. We believe that employee participation in the workplace, together with wider employee ownership, is important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction and improving service to customers. As we see business confidence down and unemployment up, I urge the Government to consider urgent steps to ensure that those vital policies will allow these important organisations to thrive.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this important debate.
I should declare that I was once on the board of the Social Investment Bank until 2012, and that my brother-in-law is chief executive of the Oversight Trust, which looks after all the dormant asset investments. I think I speak from a position of knowledge when I say how important social enterprises and community-owned organisations are. They are indeed some of the most dynamic, resilient and socially valuable parts of our economy. It was wonderful to hear so many examples from so many contributors in this debate—I will not list them all, but they were all very well described.
Social enterprise and community ownership lead to reinvestment of profits locally. They create local jobs and deliver services that strengthen communities—services that might not exist without them. These organisations are more likely to be led by women and, as we have heard, to be located in areas of higher deprivation.
I will indulge in this opportunity to mention some great examples in West Worcestershire. I think of two community-owned and volunteer-led shops: one in Alfrick, which I had the honour of opening, and another in Lower Broadheath, where I am on the record as a founding shareholder. We have the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, which is a wonderful community interest company pub. We also have some examples of organisations that used to belong to the county council, but now belong to the community. Two examples in Malvern are the Malvern Cube and Boundless Outdoors Malvern, and they are really thriving now as community assets.
As we can see from the House of Commons Library briefing, these organisations are often very much more trusted, much more responsive and more resilient than their commercial counterparts—but they do not operate in a vacuum. They need a stable economic environment, predictable costs, and a Government who understand the pressures that they face.
His Majesty’s official Opposition have repeatedly raised concerns, which we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), that recent Government decisions, including increases to national insurance, unresolved business rate pressures, and the impact of the Employment Rights Act on labour costs have created additional financial strain for social enterprises, which are already operating on tight margins. Many in the sector say that those pressures are forcing them to put up prices, scale back their services, delay their investment plans or abandon plans for community asset purchases altogether. What assessment have the Government made of how the recent increases in national insurance contributions are affecting the financial sustainability of social enterprises and community-owned organisations?
Business rates are one of the biggest barriers to survival for these organisations. The Government’s approach has left many organisations facing uncertainty and rising costs, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that business rates policy supports, rather than undermines, community ownership and social enterprise growth? Access to finance is also a persistent challenge, so what funding is available for social enterprises and community-owned assets, and what work is being done with the UK’s leading financial sector to address the barriers that social enterprises and community-owned organisations sometimes face?
These organisations are there, ready to deliver economic and social renewal, but they face many of the same challenges as other businesses across the UK. It is time for the Government to stop making life harder for businesses of all kinds. It is time for the Government to adopt the Conservative plans for a 100% business rate relief on retail, hospitality and leisure for the benefit of our high streets.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Minister, will you leave a couple of moments for Jo Platt to sum up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I certainly will, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a privilege to respond to a debate with so many passionate and proud speeches on behalf of local community enterprises and charities.
I am glad to have the opportunity to congratulate Leigh Spinners on all of its success so far, to thank the Rebuild Site in Carlisle, to raise a glass to the Black Bull in Gartmore, the Fleece Inn in the Cotswolds and the Brewers Arms in Worcestershire, to tell Cosham Community Kettle to put the kettle on for me at some point when I visit, and to highlight the Low Port Centre in Linlithgow, the Oxleathers in Stafford, the Central Football Foundation in Grangemouth, and so many others that make our communities what they are. I will also abuse my position as Minister to talk about Social Blend in my constituency. It is a remarkable social enterprise that provides not just fantastic coffee and food, but employment and a sense of purpose to adults and young people with additional needs and disabilities. I recommend a visit to anyone.
What underpins this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) intimated, is a belief that everyone has something to offer. In the words, perhaps, of Robert Owen, “There are good hearts to serve men in palaces as in cottages.” The Government are passionate about the social enterprise sector and its contribution to society.
An estimated 347,000 social enterprises are helping to meet some of the toughest challenges in our society. When Governments and markets fail, and when others walk away, social enterprises step in and fulfil the needs of our communities. To support such organisations to deliver their invaluable work, and to help them to grow and to introduce even more innovation and services, the Government have introduced several measures over the past few months.
The Prime Minister wants the Government to work differently by putting partnership with civil society at the heart of everything we do. The civil society covenant embodies the ambition to recognise the value of civil society, and for every part of Government to partner and collaborate with civil society at every level, as hon. Members have asked for. At the civil society summit in July 2025, the Prime Minister said that he would give civil society
“a home at the heart of government”
and the newly established Civil Society Council will meet quarterly in Downing Street and be supported by a dedicated team in No. 10. The purpose of the Civil Society Council is to work in partnership with Government at the highest level to drive and oversee the implementation of the covenant, helping Government and civil society, including social enterprises, to design and deliver policies and services in genuine partnership.
DCMS is taking the lead on the local implementation of the covenant through the launch of the £11.6 million local covenant partnerships fund. Hon. Members asked for more support, and the fund will support local government, public service providers and civil society organisations to work collaboratively to tackle local policy priorities and better meet the needs of communities. In recognition of the need to diversify and unlock more income for the sector, the Government are delivering several strands of work that focus on ensuring that all organisations, including some of the smallest charities, are able to continue delivering impact and, where possible, to grow their operations.
Last summer, DCMS published the Government’s first-ever dormant assets strategy, which sets out our ambition to boost the reach and impact of the scheme. The strategy sets out how we will ensure the continued good governance of the scheme and, crucially, illustrates how the next £440 million tranche of funding will be distributed. That includes £132 million to benefit young people and £87 million for social investment. Part of that money will go towards providing small, flexible and affordable loans—the access to finance that hon. Members mentioned—to grassroots organisations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) spoke with evangelical zeal about the better futures fund, based on his deep experience in this area. We announced that £500 million fund in July 2025, and it is the world’s largest outcomes fund. It will support up to 200,000 children and their families over the next 10 years, and it will bring together Government, local communities, charities, social enterprises and philanthropists to give children a brighter future.
More broadly, I want to celebrate the remarkable growth of the impact economy, with recent reports estimating that it contributes a staggering £420 billion to the UK’s GVA, amounting to 15% of our GDP. The impact economy is a diverse system of purposeful organisations and capital, with the shared aim of delivering a strong economy in which everyone benefits. Social enterprises have a unique and powerful ability to innovate and to scale solutions to the big challenges that we face as a country, and the Office for the Impact Economy will continue to support closer collaboration between these organisations and Government.
I come to the second best thing to come out of Rochdale: the co-operative sector. [Interruption.] Someone just said “Lisa Stansfield”, which I think is unfair. We have an ambitious manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector, because we see co-operatives and mutuals as the key engines of inclusive and community-focused economic activity. Several hon. Members mentioned the need to increase the support and advice for co-operatives in order to meet that commitment. I work with members of our business hub network around the country, and they often tell me that as many as one in four people coming through their doors is looking for advice on co-operatives and community interest companies.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is rightly talking about people who want to set up co-operatives. I wonder whether he might talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education about the role that co-operative education should play in the curriculum through history, business studies, and personal, social, health and economic education. Young people need to understand what co-operative, social enterprise and mutual models look like, so that they instinctively think about setting up one when they go into the world of work, rather than being talked into doing so later on.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are having a wider conversation at the moment about how enterprise education in general should go through people’s experience in school, and the co-operative and social interest models should be part of that.
The co-operative development unit in MHCLG is helping to develop guidance and partnering with local authorities to see how we can improve access and advice. On community ownership, we are committed to communities and we are going further than ever to ensure that they have powers to take advantage of the assets that they value. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) asked specifically about the community ownership of power. He will be aware that the local power plan announced by colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is designed to address the barriers to community energy ownership and is backed by £1 billion to fund those local projects.
At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) asked whether the Government are willing to back local areas in taking control of the things that they value and that are important to them. I hope some of the measures that I have set out show that the Government’s answer is a resounding yes.
Jo Platt
I spoke very broadly about the value of social enterprise and community ownership, but to hear individual stories from across the country just shows the power that they have and their effect on us. I thank the Minister for his response and commitment to the sector, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered social enterprises and community ownership.