Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 November 2026

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

Hunting Trophy Imports

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

The House will observe a two-minute silence at 11 am in remembrance of those killed in conflict. The beginning and end of the silence will be marked by the Division bells. I will suspend the sitting before 11 am so that Members can observe the silence. I call Clive Efford.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. For anyone watching this debate who is unsure of what we are debating today, hunting trophies are taken from animals, usually big game, that are murdered by huntsmen in what is the most despicable form of hunting that remains today. In the words of Sir David Attenborough, trophy hunting is

“what people did in the 19th century. One would have thought people would have got over that.”

To bring their hunting trophies—bits of mutilated animals—back to the UK, the hunters need to obtain an import licence. The UK is among a diminishing number of countries that still license the import of hunting trophies. I know the Minister will agree that we must end the import of hunting trophies, because it was a pledge in the Labour manifesto at the last election. The purpose of this debate is not to convince the Government that the importing of hunting trophies is wrong, but to stress the need for action and to end the constant delays.

We know that those in the pro-hunting lobby are rich, powerful and well-connected. They deploy arguments to confound Governments and defuse arguments against hunting. They claim that it is essential for conservation and for reducing human-wildlife conflict, and that it brings economic benefit to rural communities—but none of that is true. Only last month, the World Wildlife Fund launched its latest “Living Planet” report, and its shocking conclusion was that wildlife numbers in Africa have fallen by 80% since 1970.

The global conservation body, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, says that many species are affected by hunting. CITES, the international wildlife trade body for the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, tells us that some of the world’s most endangered animals are being shot by trophy hunters, including British trophy hunters.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. The late, great Dr Jane Goodall described trophy hunting as

“unconscionable…utterly cruel…and…disastrous from a conservation perspective.”

Since 2015 we have seen 1,764 trophies from endangered species brought into the UK, including 284 elephant trophies. Does the hon. Member agree that there is strong cross-party support for a ban, and that the need for the Government to bring forward the legislation is urgent?

[Clive Efford]

Yes, I agree, and I welcome the support of the Green party in urging action on this matter.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have looked into the question: since the July 2024 general election, 41 permits have been given for the UK, including one crocodile, one giraffe, four hippopotamuses, 21 African elephants, a scimitar-horned oryx, Marco Polo sheep, five lions, one leopard and six bears. Is he shocked by that, and does it not show that the Government need to crack on and implement the promises of their manifesto and ban trophy hunting?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we need to crack on. The examples that he has read out are shocking. We should not countenance that by importing the parts of the animals that have been slaughtered.

LionAid says that hunting endangered and vulnerable species contributes directly to the dramatic decline in their populations by adding an extra mortality factor to the threats already facing them. Stopping hunting will reduce death rates, stabilise animal populations and promote biodiversity. The main international bodies campaigning on this issue are telling us that trophy hunting has nothing to do with conservation, nor does it address wild animal-human conflict. I have seen testimony from local community members of the Maasai, who state that hunting increases the anxiety of wildlife in areas where it is taking place, increasing the likelihood of attacks on humans. There is evidence that, far from reducing incidents of wild animal-human conflict, it makes attacks more likely.

Neither does trophy hunting bring economic benefits to rural communities. In the testimonies that I have seen, members of the Maasai communities talk of families being forced from ancestral lands and, if people resist, beatings and kidnappings—not my claim, but the claim of people from communities being forced from their lands to make way for trophy hunting.

Amnesty International conducted research into forced evictions of the Maasai indigenous people in Loliondo between June 2022 and May 2024. It reported on suppression of protests by Maasai people:

“On 10 June 2022, Tanzanian security forces resorted to the use of excessive force, including using live ammunition and tear gas, to stifle peaceful protests by Maasai residents of Ololosokwan village in Loliondo. The demonstrators had gathered to resist a demarcation exercise by the security forces, who were trying to displace them from their ancestral lands in the name of so-called ‘conservation’. More than 40 people were wounded, others were left homeless, and many were forced to flee the country.”

Tigere Chagutah, regional director of Amnesty International for east and southern Africa, said of the Tanzanian Government:

“It is particularly disturbing that they have carried out these evictions under the pretext of ‘conservation’, while in reality, they have allowed Otterlo Business Corporation to do improper or illegal trophy hunting activities, in clear violation of Tanzania’s Wildlife Conservation laws”.

Otterlo Business Corporation is a trophy hunting company. Far from being of benefit to these people, hunting is taking away their human rights.

I urge the Government not to turn their back on these atrocities. We cannot police what goes on in other countries, but we can prevent our country from being used to encourage human rights abuses by ending forthwith the import of hunting trophies, listening to the people whose communities are being destroyed by the hunting industry and introducing an immediate ban on hunting trophies, with a view to introducing legislation at a later date. That has been done in other countries, and we should not delay.

I have been on safari. I have visited Botswana and Zambia, where I saw wonderful animals in their own habitats. The experience was nothing like seeing captive animals. I was armed—with my camera—and captured moments that will live in my memory for the rest of my life, and I was not alone. Across the safari park, there were hundreds of people in trucks capturing similar experiences. Of course, we left the animals behind for others to see at a later date, rather than killing them and stealing them away for our own gratification. That is the sustainable way for communities to benefit from wildlife and invest in conservation. Trophy hunting is doing the exact opposite.

This is not an issue of people in the UK acting like neo-colonialists. It is for us to choose what we allow to be imported into our country. More than 90% of the British public approve of a ban on animal body parts being imported as trophies. A ban imposed by the UK would have a significant impact on this vile trade. Research by anti-hunt campaigners confirms that some of the world’s leading trophy hunters are British. British trophy hunters have shot the critically endangered black rhinoceros, shot monkeys out of trees and shot African elephants, which are currently the most popular of the various threatened species shot by British hunters. More than half the permits issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since the 2024 general election were for those magnificent creatures.

That is despite African elephants recently being upgraded by IUCN’s red list. Savannah elephants are listed as endangered and forest elephants are now critically endangered. Yet British trophy hunters are still shooting them for their ears, feet, tails and tusks.

British hunters have also shot giraffes, hippos, leopards and canned lions. Canned lions are born and bred in captivity for the purpose of being shot. The semi-tame animals are fenced in fields from which there is no escape before they are slaughtered. British hunters have shot polar bears, which face extinction thanks to climate change, and Africa’s most endangered big cat, the cheetah, of which 7,000 remain. We know all that because we can see the licences for their body parts to be imported to Britain. It is time to bring this to an end once and for all.

Even Donald Trump’s America will not allow imports of the last three cases I quoted—canned lions, cheetahs and polar bears. That should tell us something. Of all those, the canned lions tell us most about the mentality of the people who hunt. How does someone get a thrill from slaughtering an animal that cannot escape? The word “sport” is often associated with hunting, but how can it be a sport when one side of the game cannot choose to play and does not know it is fighting for its life until it is shot?

Trophy hunting is not about conservation, it does not resolve issues of wildlife-human conflict, and it does not bring economic benefits to rural areas—certainly not in the way that tourism can. Local people have been attacked, their land stolen and their human rights abused. Private companies are stealing their homelands. Britain should not be accommodating this industry.

Will the Minister confirm that legislation to ban trophy hunting imports exists and that officials at DEFRA have drafted it? If Government time does not exist for that Bill, will the Minister pass it to me, so that I can put it forward as a ten-minute rule Bill? The overwhelming support across the House would get it through quickly. Other countries have introduced a moratorium on such imports and legislated later. If Britain cannot do that, will the Minister explain why? Above all, will the Minister accept that there can be no further delay?

09:42

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing a significant amount of parliamentary time for this debate.

Most people know of Cecil, the iconic lion lured from a protected area in Zimbabwe, wounded by an American trophy hunter and killed some hours later. Cecil’s death sparked a global outcry and public calls to ban the outdated and inhumane practice of trophy hunting. As the hon. Member said, trophy hunting causes animal cruelty for the purposes of human entertainment and so-called sport. Animals hunted for trophies are shot by inexperienced hunters, and the animals’ suffering is not just celebrated, but incentivised, with some hunters using bows and crossbows to hunt. Animals that are shot but escape can take hours or even days to die in agony.

The trophy-hunting industry is based on an economic model that incentivises the cruel and unsustainable exploitation of wildlife. It conflicts with and undermines the viability of ethical alternatives, including eco-tourism. As the hon. Member described, trophy hunting is not, as is sometimes claimed, essential for conservation. There are many highly successful conservation programmes operating around the world, in countries such as Kenya and Costa Rica, that do not involve killing the animals they are meant to protect. Yet we see organisations such as the Otterlo Business Corporation, based in the United Arab Emirates, making millions from this horrible so-called sport.

I have been contacted by a number of constituents. Like my colleague beside me, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I see an awful lot of traffic in my inbox on this topic. The messages all agree that the practice of trophy hunting is deeply cruel and barbaric. In that correspondence, my constituents rightly point out that page 59 of Labour’s manifesto committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister when that Bill will be introduced. Can she confirm that work has actually begun on such a Bill?

As the practice continues, one British hunter even boasted recently of proudly killing a critically endangered black rhino—one of the rarest and most vulnerable animals on the planet. People across these islands have been waiting for 11 years since the first promises were made to ban the import of hunting trophies. In that time, another 2,000 trophies from animals considered to be endangered by CITES have been brought back to Britain, including the ears of elephants, the feet of giraffes and the entire bodies of bears and monkeys. I am told that these so-called trophies are worthless in their countries of origin and gain value only when imported. That is the key to the legislation promised by this Labour Government.

Across the Atlantic, the vice-president of the United States, J. D. Vance, has met Safari Club International, the trophy hunting group that targets endangered animals including pygmy hippos. The UK Government need to stand against any influence from the White House against proposals for a ban.

The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst mentioned Tanzania during his excellent speech. It is no coincidence that the most recent meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was held in Tanzania. The country is a member of the Commonwealth, yet we hear about human rights violations against the Maasai tribesmen and tribeswomen. These are not minor matters. I am sure he has seen the same footage that I have seen of Maasai tribesmen risking their lives to give evidence of disappearances, murders, forced evictions, the slaughter of cattle, corruption, bribery, false fines and paramilitaries operating on behalf of the Government. There are claims that allowing trophy hunting is all about conservation and reducing human-animal conflict. No, it is not about those things; it is about a multimillion-dollar industry called trophy hunting.

The fact that the 153rd meeting of the IPU was held in Tanzania should be of great interest to us. I have read the report, especially the section on human rights, and there is no mention of trophy hunting. That meeting of the IPU was attended by Mr Speaker. It is about time that the UK Government acted and introduced a Bill to ban trophy hunting imports.

09:47

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for introducing the debate and setting out the arguments for change so well.

Banning trophy imports was in Labour’s 2024 manifesto and is an incredibly popular topic with the public, as we have heard. In common with other hon. Members, my office receives many emails about the issue. Over 80% of people in the UK are very much in favour of a ban, although I think the number may actually be higher. We know how cruel trophy hunting is: animals are chased for long distances, with many wounded from failed shots, all for the enjoyment of people. Around 400 trophy items have been imported into the UK over the last decade, including from giraffes, elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs and more, which is very distressing.

Trophy hunting is also harmful for conservation. The conservation argument for the continuation of trophy hunting is very weak. It is shocking that trophy hunters can still shoot endangered animals, such as many giraffe subspecies that have been declared endangered. Current leopard population sizes are unknown, yet about 10,000 were killed by trophy hunters between 2004 and 2014. Hunters target older males, which are needed for social stability and population health in many animal populations.

Moving away from the topic slightly, it is important to note that Scotland still exports trophy items, which I find upsetting. In 2024, a rural community in Zimbabwe imported a Scottish stag’s head. In Scotland, a red stag can be shot and exported for £500 to £1,250. I know that is not what today’s debate is about, but we should consider discussing it in the future. As well as banning imports, we need to look at banning exports from the UK. We may not have lions and elephants, but we have other beautiful animals, such as many different species of deer. We need to protect wildlife not only abroad but here.

09:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for showing such passion and determination for bringing about these much-needed changes.

As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) said, this matter strikes a deep chord not only with my Strangford constituents, but across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My constituents have contacted me in large numbers about the archaic, barbaric and utterly indefensible practice of importing hunting trophies from endangered animals into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Let us be quite clear: this debate is not about traditional, sustainable hunting for food. If it was, and if people were starving, there could be some justification. It is about the execution of some of the world’s most iconic and vulnerable species for nothing more than a sick thrill, a photo opportunity and a gruesome souvenir to put on a coffee table or to hang on a wall. Society has moved on. What may have been acceptable in the past is certainly not acceptable today, and that is the reality. Yet despite years of promises, manifestos and cross-party consensus in both this Chamber today and the main Chamber, the UK’s doors remain wide open to this vile and barbaric trade.

Recent figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paint a deeply concerning picture. Between July 2024 and September 2026, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issued no fewer than 41 import permits for hunting trophies, which the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) mentioned in his intervention. Let that sink in: 41 permits in just over two years.

Those permits cover animals that are on the brink of extinction, with some 21 permits issued for African elephants. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody would want to shoot an elephant—I cannot get my head around that one. Five were issued for lions and four for hippopotamuses, and there were others issued for leopards, polar bears and rhinos. We see lovely nature programmes on TV where animals roam free, but some men—and probably some women as well, unfortunately—wish to kill them. Every single permit represents an animal that died in distress, often slowly, from blood loss or infection, just so a British hunter could boast about it. It is a national embarrassment that, in 2026, we are still facilitating the decline of these magnificent creatures.

The public support for taking action is overwhelming. Up to nine in 10 British people—almost 90%—want to see an immediate, comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports. I wish the Minister well in the role she plays—she knows that we wish her the best in what she does—but the Government should take the action that people overwhelmingly want. It will go through Parliament without any hiccups or problems whatever. We have seen private Members’ Bills pass through the House of Commons unanimously, only to be stalled, blocked or run out of time because of a small minority. This is something that 90% of people in the United Kingdom believe should be law.

The current Government made a clear commitment in their election manifesto to ban these imports. Yet—I say this with respect to the Minister and the Government—when asked just last month for a concrete timetable to implement this ban, Ministers provided no dates and no timeline. Today the Minister is in the hot seat: I ask her to give us a timescale, give us a date and tell us when it will happen. The permit flow continues at a rate of nearly two dozen a year while the Government drag their feet.

We cannot allow external pressure from international hunting lobbies or administrative inertia to water down the British people’s standards. We should be leading the world in wildlife conservation, but to do that we must stop giving a green light to the destruction of the world’s biodiversity.

I am not the only one who loves David Attenborough’s TV programmes. They are all about the oceans at the moment, and he has done other wonderful programmes in the past. They motivate us to speak out, and today we are doing that. I urge the Minister to please stop kicking the can down the road. The British public are watching; our constituents demand action. The wildlife of this planet cannot afford any more delays. Give this House and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a date by which legislation will be introduced, and let us finally consign this cruel trade to the history books, where it belongs.

09:55

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate.

We have been here before. I am deeply passionate about banning the import of hunting trophies. Indeed, I was proudly part of the shadow DEFRA team that ensured that a commitment to such a ban was included in our manifesto at the last election. Despite that commitment, two years on from the election, we are still yet to legislate for a ban. Indeed, we are yet to see a lot of progress on the broad range of ambitious pledges that the Government made before the last election and in the recent animal welfare strategy.

This is not a new issue—there have been such debates before in Westminster Hall, the main Chamber and the other place—but I believe that we now have the numbers to get this done and dusted in this parliamentary Session. I share the public’s frustration at the delay, which is made worse by the confident knowledge that we have won the argument in the House and among the public. As we have heard, polling consistently shows more than 80% support for banning this outdated practice. Nevertheless, the Government have issued 41 permits to import hunting trophies since the election. That means we are complicit in this vile trade until we do something about it. We cannot afford to wait until the next parliamentary Session for a ban, or to replicate the dither and delay of the Conservatives; we need change now. Any further delay risks this critical legislation being timed out before the next general election. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that DEFRA will introduce a comprehensive animal welfare Bill next year, and that it will include a comprehensive ban on the import of hunting trophies.

I believe that the case for a ban has been comprehensively and emphatically proven—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees—so I will focus the remainder of my remarks on why hunting directly undermines species conservation and on how to tackle poaching. Due to the actions of humans, more species are threatened with extinction today than ever before. A major global biodiversity study in 2019, co-ordinated by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, found that direct human exploitation of animal populations, such as hunting, has been a major driver of the decline. Despite that, internationally protected species—those protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, or on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list—remain the focus of trophy hunters. Thousands are killed each year; we have already heard the list.

We cannot turn a blind eye to this crime against nature. The populations of hunted species are declining dramatically, with studies showing that hunting has knock-on effects on animal populations in protected areas. Indeed, local populations have recovered only when hunting bans or moratoria are implemented consistently.

Another myth is that trophy hunting prevents poaching, but they are two sides of the same coin. Permitted and illegal activity are rampant in identified hunting areas. A major example of that is the Selous game reserve in Tanzania, previously the largest hunting area in Africa. Despite its prolific commercial use, 55,000 elephants were poached on the reserve between 2007 and 2014, leading to an estimated population decline of 80%. That prompted the Tanzanian Government in 2018 to accuse hunting companies of being complicit in a national poaching crisis. Shortly afterwards, the northern part of the reserve was designated as a national park, in which hunting was banned.

I pay tribute to all those who have continued to campaign over the years to get this ban in place, including the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. Let us be clear that trophy hunting drives international demand for the body parts of threatened species, whether licensed or poached. That directly undermines global efforts to tackle the illegal trade in animal parts, such as ivory or rhino horns. The only way we can drive down global demand is to end the UK’s participation in this immoral enterprise. That requires a comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports, and I implore the Minister to bring that forward as soon as possible.

We have been here before. We have had the debate before, we know the arguments and we know what needs to be done. There is cross-party support; we have heard that very clearly today. Please, Minister, let us just get on with it.

10:00

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

I first commend my friend, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for the manner in which he introduced the debate and for bringing his personal experience of photo safari tourism to the Chamber. Those of us who have had the privilege of seeing animals in the wild in Africa can only marvel at the experience. It is unlike anything else, and certainly unlike anything that anybody ever sees in a zoo.

There will be an element of repetition in this debate, but the points are worth restating. It is suggested that trophy hunting contributes to conservation and the African economy. That is a myth. When Ian Seretse Khama was President of Botswana he banned trophy hunting and promoted photo tourism. The economy grew, wildlife was conserved and the populations grew. It was a win-win. His successor—wined, dined and probably bribed by Safari Club International—overturned the ban. Tourism fell and wildlife suffered, as did the economy. That classic example kicks the bottom out of the argument that this issue has anything whatsoever to do with anything other than hard cash. It is certainly true that a very small number of very wealthy and corrupt people in Africa benefit considerably, mainly from the United States’ trophy hunting tourist trade.

There is a myth that trophy hunting also involves some kind of macho courage. Men, and occasionally women, go and slaughter wild endangered species. What is courageous about slaughtering an effectively tamed animal that has been bred and fed in captivity, caged in a small area and then murdered so that the killer can have a photograph taken with the carcase and the body parts shipped back home to be mounted on the wall? A yellow streak runs right through those people and they are revolting. It is time that everybody stood up and said so.

In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on banning trophy hunting. I applaud the work that continues to be done by Eduardo Gonçalves and his campaign. He has been an absolute stalwart to the cause and he deserves our thanks.

In the last Parliament, two Bills were brought before the House of Commons. One was a Conservative-led Bill, presented by the then Member of Parliament for Crawley; the other very similar Bill was brought by John Spellar, then a Labour Member of the Commons and now Lord Spellar in the other place. Both those Bills went through virtually unopposed, but they were killed off by the neanderthal tendency in the upper House.

With great respect to my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the idea that he will present a Bill—I would support that, of course—if the Government cannot find time to do this is a forlorn cause. This has to be Government legislation. I understand that a Bill has already been prepared by DEFRA. The point has been made that it features in the Labour party manifesto, and as far as I can see, there is no reason whatsoever why this measure should not be brought swiftly on to the statute book. It can be done; it must be done. The time is right—in fact, it is beyond time. We may not be able to ban trophy hunting, but we certainly have the power to ban the import of the product of that trade, and we should do so now.

10:06

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on his tenacity in pursuing this issue and his speech today. I know the passion the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has for this issue and the hours and hours he has spent making the case in such a formidable way, as he has today.

The number of mammals in Africa has dropped 80% in my lifetime. Many are brought back dead to these shores, diminished to rugs and relics for the enjoyment of a few people who take pleasure in presiding over the extinction of some of the world’s greatest mammals. Parliament has long supported the banning of this practice, and it was an honour to serve on one of those Bill Committees when we last sought to legislate. However, that was unsuccessful due to the other place, and this sickening trade continues while other nations have brought it to an end. We should have led the way, not least in the light of the number of people from the UK who hunt. Instead, there has been painful dither and delay. We have to do this in this Parliament.

Across Europe and the world, laws on this are tighter. Britain is one of just four countries that still allow the critically endangered black rhino to be imported from hunts, alongside polar bears, cheetahs, lions, giraffes, elephants and leopards. Animal parts are being brought into the UK under this Labour Government. I urge the Minister to go back to her Department and place an immediate moratorium on the issuing of licences; that would be action before the legislation comes before us. This has to stop. We could see the extinction of some species in my lifetime if we do not. I congratulate the armed forces, who we send to Africa to support the patrolling of some of these reserves. But it seems unconscionable that we also allow the trophies to return to the UK.

We need to address this, but I want the Government to think about going further and making it illegal to advertise safari hunting and for anyone to hunt on those trips. Given the depravity that goes with this barbaric practice, people should face criminal charges. Those who promote the trips should have the full force of the law thrown at them. There is little point in banning the import of so-called trophies when people already have the photos, have destroyed their prey and, in some cases, have left the animals wounded and in pain. We have to stop the shooting and the killing.

The 30,000 endangered animals killed each year, the 10,000 lions killed since Cecil, who we heard about earlier, was brought to our attention, and the 2,800 African elephants killed in 2024 alone—their population has declined from 20 million at the start of the 19th century to just 400,000 today—show that our failure to legislate over decades has let the trophy seekers off the hook. Add to those the monkeys, gorillas and baboons, which share our DNA and are now the second most hunted species. That is shocking.

Labour Ministers need to get a ban over the line. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for DEFRA, we committed to an immediate ban as soon as we came into government. Two years of this Labour Government have passed, and we are halfway through this Parliament. We have to legislate. If the Government are looking for a quick fix, we can make the parliamentary time. Ban the imports, the adverts, the hunters and—one more—the publication of photos. We must make it a criminal offence for a UK resident to celebrate their kill on social media or in an advert—no carve-outs, no exceptions. There is no need for a new King’s Speech or manifesto—86% of the public support a ban. We must not delay, but be proud to see it through.

10:14

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate and bringing us all together.

Yesterday, I visited a drop-in for assistance dogs. Two dogs were available for photographs—and, frankly, to pet. That was smart of the organisers—the queue was out the door, and they were running out of leaflets. The organisers knew that we are a nation of animal lovers, and that that is reflected in Parliament. However, that is not yet reflected in our action on trophy imports. Whatever our intent and feeling, and however much work has been done behind the scenes, we are falling behind. The US, Canada, Australia and many more have implemented trophy bans, and we have not. In the past decade, almost 2,000 animal trophies have been brought into the UK. These are endangered animals—body parts of species we cannot afford to lose and individual animals whose lives were much too precious to be ended for entertainment.

There is no public opposition to a ban—the vast majority of people in the UK support one—and there is little political opposition. Virtually all Members of Parliament support a ban. Issues that unite us in this place to that extent are vanishingly rare. We should value that and celebrate it; we should take the chance to do the right thing—an act of strength and kindness in a hard world. On so many issues, the drama and division make a lot of noise and take up a lot of space. We all participate in that—it is one of the ways that we make things happen—but a consensus does not mean a lack of importance, urgency or determination. It means quite the opposite. This is an issue on which people who agree on little else have come together, and that is significant.

We really are a nation of animal lovers. On this issue, there is a simple way to reflect that in our laws: we must make parliamentary time to ban the import of hunting trophies, and to ensure that we play no part in the exploitation, suffering and violation of innocent animals. I will be so proud to support that ban when it happens. We have the power to do this. Let us use it soon.

10:14

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on his very good speech on this important subject. A few weeks ago, I was in Zambia for the first time, as part of a global public health trip to look at HIV, malaria and tuberculosis control. While we were driving between villages, we got to see elephants and giraffes just walking along the side of the road. It was an absolute dream come true for me. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who is an absolute hero of mine for the years he has campaigned on animal welfare issues, including many years on this subject specifically.

I very much appreciate and recognise the work that has been done on this issue, and the public agree. Some 84% of responses to the Government’s consultation were in support of a ban on hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. Despite overwhelming support, successive Governments have failed to act and get a ban over the line. When in government, the Conservatives promised a ban and held a consultation, but when the legislation passed through the Commons, opposition to it in the Lords used deliberate delaying tactics to prevent it from becoming law. The Labour party promised to ban trophy imports in its manifesto, yet we are still waiting. There is no Government Bill, no clear timetable, and no mention of trophy hunting in the animal welfare strategy.

We should be clear that our animal welfare laws should be written here in Westminster, not in Washington. We know that the Trump Administration have written to the UK Government urging them to reconsider approaches to trophy hunting. We should not allow pressure from the United States to determine how we protect endangered animals worldwide.

I find it genuinely difficult to comprehend the mindset of somebody who travels thousands of miles, pays tens of thousands of pounds and then deliberately kills one of the most magnificent creatures on the planet simply for the pleasure of doing so, especially when that creature may well be endangered. Like all vets, I have had to end the lives of animals on many occasions—more than I can remember. We do it out of compassion and to relieve suffering. Even when it is the kindest thing to do, no matter how many thousands of times we have done it, taking a life is never something that we take lightly. I cannot understand someone who wants to take the life of a magnificent, healthy wild animal and then bring it back and mount its head or body part as a trophy. What kind of achievement is it to kill an elephant? What is there to celebrate in shooting a lion or a rhinoceros? What sort of person, having killed an endangered animal, then wants to see that body part mounted on a wall?

The British public want a ban, the House of Commons has already voted for a ban and the Government committed to a ban in their manifesto. I urge the Minister to please bring forward legislation, stop any delaying and let us show the world that Britain wants absolutely no involvement in trophy hunting.

10:18

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing this important debate and setting out the importance of the issue.

I declare a strong personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the many organisations that have campaigned against trophy hunting for many years, including Four Paws, Humane World for Animals, Born Free, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. I am pleased to be here as the shadow DEFRA Minister speaking in strong support of a ban on the importation of hunting trophies.

We have heard many powerful contributions from all parties. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) introduced us to the story of Cecil, whom I will talk more about. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) is a wonderful, proud animal welfare advocate in the House, and I consider her a close colleague and friend. She is a member of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare—in fact, three officers of that APPG, which I chair, are present. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the majesty of the animals that have been hunted, while the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) talked about the importance of her work when she was in the shadow DEFRA team.

Like my veterinary colleague and friend the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for his animal welfare advocacy from the Conservative Benches. He worked very closely with our late friend Sir David Amess, and I pay tribute to him. My right hon. Friend talked about his passion for conservation and the importance of photo tourism, which I will touch on soon.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the splendour of the African mammals that have suffered and mentioned the importance of our UK armed forces working to help conservation efforts. Finally—I do not think I have missed anyone—the hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) spoke with huge passion about how we are very much a nation of animal lovers. It sounds like a cliché, but it is so true. This is an issue that unites us across the House, so I thank her for saying that.

Last year, we marked 10 years since the tragic killing of Cecil the lion—a horrific event that caught the world’s attention and ignited global outrage and the campaign to ban the import of hunting trophies to the UK. Yet despite the outcry, the global trophy hunting industry has continued unabated. Sadly, Cecil’s story was not unique: every year, trophy hunters kill thousands of these precious and majestic animals around the world. Trophy hunting is a barbaric and outdated practice that should be consigned to the history books. These majestic animals should be shot only with cameras, not with lethal weapons.

Since the 1980s, an estimated 25,000 hunting trophies from slaughtered animals have been imported to the UK. The practice of bringing animal carcases or parts thereof back to Britain is outdated and unnecessary. Ending this trade would send a clear message that the United Kingdom does not support the killing of precious, majestic and often endangered wildlife.

In the UK, we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am proud of the Conservatives’ work in government to advance animal welfare standards and strengthen protections for animals at home and abroad. This included banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for fattening or slaughter in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which I hope will survive next week’s EU reset; banning the keeping of primates as pets; passing the Pet Abduction Act 2024; increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and enshrining animal sentience in UK law through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the important Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. We must remember that Cecil the lion was a large, majestic, magnificent, sentient animal that was hunted and senselessly and horrifically struck down.

I was extremely proud to co-sponsor the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 with my veterinary colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Winchester. It was a landmark piece of legislation designed to tackle illegal, disturbing and unethical pet importation practices such as the importation of under-age puppies, heavily pregnant dogs or cats, dogs that have been horrifically ear-cropped and cats that have been barbarically declawed—senseless procedures that have no clinical indication whatsoever. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), the shadow Nature Minister, strengthened penalties and expanded police powers to tackle livestock worrying.

Back in 2018, the Conservative Government passed the Ivory Act 2018, one of the world’s strongest ivory bans, providing vital protection to elephants at risk. Later, as a shadow Minister, I was proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition in support of the expansion of that Act to provide protection to narwhals, orcas, sperm whales and hippopotamuses. As I said at the time:

“Animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity”—[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 11 December 2024; c. 4.]

across the House.

The United Kingdom can again use its global soft power and put pressure on countries that, horrifically, continue to kill animals such as whales and dolphins. We must tell those countries to stop these barbaric practices once and for all. Now is the time to get serious about protecting the world’s wildlife and habitats, protecting animals, halting further damage and restoring what has been lost. The UK has a significant part to play in that work.

In 2019, the Conservative Government held a consultation on the scale and impact of the import and export of hunting trophies. It received more than 44,000 responses, 84% of which were in favour of a ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. In response, the Conservative Government rightly set out plans to ban imports of hunting trophies from endangered and threatened species.

Sadly, it is now more than six years since a UK Government first committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. It is also six years since the IPBES—the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services—global assessment reported that around 1 million plant and animal species are believed to be at risk of extinction. Yet to this day, trophy hunting continues, with the most recent available statistics showing a huge increase in the numbers of trophies imported.

I was very disappointed when, in the previous Parliament, the Conservative-led Bill to ban hunting trophy imports failed to proceed after receiving unanimous support and passing through the House of Commons. So much work had been done to get to that position—consultations carried out, the Bill drafted and parliamentarians across the House briefed—but we now find ourselves, five years on, having to think about reintroducing legislation. I am sure we all feel this is deeply upsetting and frustrating.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who brought the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill back to the House in the 2024-26 parliamentary Session, where it again received cross-party support. But it now feels like groundhog day, because once again we are waiting for legislation to come forward. The previous Conservative Government started the process; the baton has now passed to the current Government, who also had a ban in their manifesto.

There is a saying: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the second-best time is now.” The same is true here. We should have taken action sooner after Cecil the majestic lion was killed, but we can and must take action now. I urge the Government to act; will the Minister say how and when they will do so? Together, parliamentarians and animal welfare organisations—all of us as a human race—must do something powerful and great for animals. Let us get a ban over the line and consign this practice to the history books.

10:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)]

It is an honour to respond to this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing it and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. We are used to hearing different views from different sides of the House, but I have heard the overwhelming consensus in the room today.

This is an issue that understandably generates strongly held views, both within Parliament and beyond, and raises important questions about the role that the United Kingdom should play in helping to protect biodiversity around the world. I therefore welcome the opportunity to clearly restate the Government’s position, which, as my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, formed a clear part of our manifesto commitment in 2024. The Government have made a clear commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern, and we remain committed to delivering on that promise.

The United Kingdom has a long history of championing global action to protect endangered species, demonstrated most recently by our chairing of the standing committee of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—our leadership and engagement at the convention on biological diversity COP, and our more recent work under the UN convention against transnational organised crime to tackle the serious and organised crime that drives the illegal wildlife trade. Our approach to hunting trophy imports forms part of that wider commitment to protecting biodiversity and ensuring that international wildlife trade does not undermine the conservation of threatened species.

[Irene Campbell]

What has come over very clearly during the debate is that we are looking for a timeline. Can the Minister confirm whether one is forthcoming?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

My hon. Friend raises a critical point, which I acknowledge was the key and overwhelming theme of the debate. I have 10 minutes to talk and there are some other points that I want to make first, but I will come to it in a moment.

Ensuring that the UK plays its part in reducing pressures on species of conservation concern and supporting wider global efforts to protect biodiversity remain core commitments. I know that Members, campaigners and the public are understandably keen to see progress. Indeed, this issue has been debated in Parliament on a number of occasions and there is considerable public interest in it. The Government recognise that strength of feeling. Our commitment has not changed, and we will deliver a ban when parliamentary time allows. We are working to ensure that we are in a strong position to move forward when the opportunity arises.

[Imogen Walker]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I will not, because I am addressing the point of timing, but I will come back to my hon. Friend if she would like to intervene in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) all raised very valid questions about timings. The timetable for any Bill will depend on wider parliamentary scheduling. Our aim is clear: to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity and within this Parliament.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I want to continue to make this point clearly, if I may.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, asked how we have progressed. We have undertaken considerable preparation and are ready to move quickly when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that reassures Members.

[Irene Campbell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Let me continue for one more moment.

I recognise that Members and stakeholders will want to see faster progress, but our objective is not simply to put legislation on the statute book that is not fit for purpose. We want to deliver a ban that is robust, enforceable and capable of securing positive conservation outcomes.

[Jim Shannon]

I understand the process only too well, but I encourage the Minister and the Government, because we all want to ensure that they get a win-win out of this. Eighty-six percent of the people of this nation want this to happen. That has to be a win-win for the Minister, for the Government and for all of us.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for his earlier contributions. I hope I have made it clear that this formed a part of our manifesto commitment and we remain committed to it. I understand and recognise the public sentiment that he references. It remains a core part of our commitment, and we are fully committed to bringing forward legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows.

[Imogen Walker]

There have been clear cross-party calls today and in the lead-up to the debate. If the Minister is not able to give us a timetable here and now, will she commit to updating us at the earliest possible opportunity when this will be progressed in Parliament and when parliamentary time will be found?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her speech earlier. I reiterate that we will bring forward the legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows. I am sure that we will be able to bring forward further announcements in due course.

[Clive Efford]

With all due respect, “when parliamentary time allows” is not good enough. We have had too many delays on this issue. Other countries have introduced a moratorium, with the intention to legislate later. Will the Minister explain why we cannot do that, so that we can move urgently and quickly, here in the UK?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. A moratorium was the theme of many hon. Members’ contributions today, and I understand the strength of feeling behind that. We do not have the legal powers to stop trophy imports without primary legislation. That is why we are focused on doing this properly, so that the ban is clear, enforceable and robust, which requires primary legislation.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I will make some progress, if I may.

I recognise that this is not always a straightforward issue. That is why we want to continue to engage with stakeholders representing different perspectives and to consider the evidence carefully as we develop a robust policy. That engagement has deliberately sought to build a balanced picture of the evidence, to ensure that the policy, when it comes, is robust, defensible and deliverable.

[Ruth Jones]

With all due respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) said, we have had the debates and arguments. We know what the stakeholders say and believe. We know we need action. My fear is that the planned legislation will come too late. It is no good bringing it in at the fag-end of this Parliament because we will not get it enacted. That will be a tragedy for us and the animals.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I hear the issues and the sentiment loud and clear, both in this room and from the public. Forming the right robust legislative process is different from having a debate. We have to get the legislation tight, robust and defensible. That work is ongoing and it requires engagement and evidence. We have committed to delivering that when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that provides reassurance that work is ongoing to build the most robust and defensible legislation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Apologies, but I need to make progress.

My colleague Baroness Hayman has engaged directly with representatives of affected range states, including in discussions with representatives from southern African countries—Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and others—where concerns have been raised about the implications of an import ban for wildlife management, conservation and livelihoods. At the same time, she has met extensively with organisations campaigning for stronger action on trophy hunting, bringing together conservation and animal protection organisations to hear their evidence and concerns.

Although we may not be able to reconcile every view on this deeply contested issue, we can and must ensure that the policy we bring forward is informed by evidence, by the experience of affected countries and communities, and by those organisations that have rightly and tirelessly worked on these issues for many years. Engagement will continue as we work towards legislation that delivers our manifesto commitment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A point I raised in the debate was that the Government could place an immediate moratorium on the issuing of licences. Will she go back to the Department and raise that with civil servants, and ensure that the Government put that immediate moratorium in place?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I think I have made clear the point on a moratorium: we need primary legislation to ensure that we bring in a ban that is defensible and robust. I am happy to meet her to discuss the specific point she raises in further detail, but I hope I have been clear that we stand by our manifesto commitments and we are committed to bringing forward a ban when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament. I am happy to meet colleagues to discuss this in further detail.

[Sir Roger Gale]

This really is not good enough. The point has been made over and over again in this Chamber. All this work has already been done, twice. The Bill has been approved; the Minister’s Department has a drafted Bill ready to go. There is ample parliamentary time for the Government to introduce the legislation now. The time for kicking the can down the road is over. It has to be done now.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I hope I have been clear that we are committed to delivering this. We are committed to making sure that we bring forward the most robust piece of legislation, which is defensible and workable, and it will happen when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament.

Let me conclude by saying that protecting species is central to our wider ambition to halt biodiversity loss and safeguard nature for future generations. We are determined that the UK should play its part, and we will deliver on our commitment to ban hunting trophy imports in a way that is robust, enforceable and delivers positive outcomes for conservation. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for bringing this important issue before the House, and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.

10:40

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response but, quite frankly, it really is not good enough. Who are the Government afraid of? Such a tiny minority of people would be affected by a ban on hunting trophy imports. The Government have overwhelming power behind them; they could defend their position.

On the idea of “robust” legislation, what is so sensitive about this piece of legislation compared with any other? Are we to expect that the Government will introduce a perfect Bill that will not be amended in any way? Over my years in this House, I have seen Bills that have had hundreds and hundreds of Government amendments made to them after they have been brought before the House. What is the debate that is taking place within DEFRA that is making it fearful of bringing forward legislation? That concerns me greatly. This issue has been debated widely, over a great many years; there is not much more that we can learn from either side of the argument. This is the time that the Government have to act and move forwards.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken this morning—we have to keep the pressure on—and to all the campaigning groups. I have mentioned some of them, but I thank in particular the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, which supported me in preparing for the debate. The Government have to listen. This is not just about the animals themselves; it is becoming more and more apparent that it is a human rights issue as well. The time has come for the Government to stand by those people, stand up for the animals that are being slaughtered and take forward this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.

10:43

Sitting suspended.

11:00

On resuming, the House observed a two-minute silence.

Neurodiversity: Ministerial Role

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

11:04

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call Adam Dance to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. We will still have to finish strictly on time at 11.30 am.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a Minister for Neurodiversity.

About 20% of the population are what we would call neurodivergent, yet there is no one person working across Government Departments to ensure that the needs of this 20% are considered. Neurodivergence is an umbrella term that describes people who think, learn, process, inform and interact with the world differently from the normal. It captures both medical and non-medical differences, including attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, autism, dyslexia and so many others. I myself am very neurospicy, as I call it. Although each of those traits and learning difficulties is unique, we use the term not only because there are overlapping traits but because people with ADHD and autism, for example, share a lot of challenges with their health, school and work.

For years, the main challenge when it comes to Government has been an unacceptable lack of understanding of neurodivergence. Policymakers just have not got it and have made life harder, not better, for that 20% of the population. In fact, that lack of understanding is why I got involved in politics in the first place, campaigning to stop the closure of the youth club that helped to save my life when I was struggling with severe dyslexia, ADHD and severe bullying. It just made no sense to me that the Government and the then Conservative-run Somerset county council could not understand the damage they were doing by cutting youth service funding by 100% in Somerset, particularly for neurodiverse people.

Even after we saved my youth club, the feeling that decision makers just do not understand has followed me through politics. It is what drove me to stand for election and to be in this place today. For far too long, it has felt like the world has been set up by someone else, and like neurodiverse people are an afterthought.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for all that he does and for how he has been able to overcome these difficulties. Many neurodivergent people report being misunderstood by those around them, leaving them feeling isolated and without adequate support. A dedicated Minister for neurodiversity could help drive a more targeted approach. Does he agree that appointing a dedicated Minister would help to prevent neurodivergent people from falling through the cracks and would ensure that they receive the understanding that they very much deserve, which would help them in their lives?

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing that up. I will come to lots of those points later.

Coming into this Parliament with a new group of MPs and a new Government, I was really hopeful. I thought we would get things done across the parties. There are some fantastic MPs and Ministers who really do get it, but there are still far too many in power who are just as clueless as the Tories were when they tried to shut my youth club. I have been in meetings where Ministers have suggested that ADHD is just a mental health illness, which is not the case, and in meetings and debates where MPs and others have leaned into toxic narratives about ADHD or autism being a myth. While these seem like lots of insignificant things, when they are put together, we get a culture that leads to policy that is not just bad but damaging for neurodiverse people.

In fact, in many ways I think we have gone backwards from when my generation was at school. Under-investment in diagnosis and support pathways in the NHS means that people face a two-year minimum wait for ADHD and autism assessments if they are lucky, and way too many miss out on support and treatment.

A whole generation have gone without any identification or support at all. Research by the charity The Hidden suggests that between 250,000 and 600,000 autistic adults over the age of 50 in England have never been diagnosed. The education system is not set up to support neurodiverse people. Years of under-investment in local councils, which are for some reason responsible for special educational needs and disabilities support, has led to a crisis in Somerset, where more than 85% of children wait 20 to 52 weeks to get their education, health and care plan implemented, if they are lucky, and so many others are going without support at all.

Meanwhile, vocational, technical and creative pathways are being shut down, and there is too much focus on exams. Spelling, punctuation and grammar marks in non-English exams just punish you for having a learning disability. A lack of investment in training and support for teachers has seen them struggling to support pupils or just not understanding them altogether.

Arm’s length bodies are just as bad. Recently removed training material from Ofsted on Prevent suggested that a person with autism is more likely to be a dangerous extremist because they may develop special interests, which is insane. My assistant’s younger sister is autistic; her special interest is frogs. How does that make her more likely to be a terrorist? Guidance like that means that people with autism are more likely to get those types of referral; it does not address the factors that actually lead to radicalisation.

It is not just about healthcare or schools. The failures spread to the workplace. You are 80% more likely not to be in education, employment or training if you have SEND. There is still too little understanding of how to adjust and make the most of neurodiverse people’s skills. Sadly, what all this means is that you are far more likely to end up in prison or taking your own life if you are neurodivergent. Without the support I had, that would have been me.

What is most frustrating of all is that none of the work across Government to solve this is joined up well enough. You do not stop struggling with dyslexia, ADHD, autism or any other neurotype difference when you leave school, believe me. Being neurodivergent means that you will experience our education, health, justice, work and pension and Government systems differently for your whole life. That is why we have so many campaigners out there fighting for support for neurodivergent people: because after years of terrible policy, too many people feel like I did as a young person, which is that decision makers just do not get it and cannot be trusted.

A Government are supposed to serve all their people, and yet we are failing to provide representation for 20% of the population. Think about it like this, Mr Stuart: if I owned a landscaping company and ignored the needs of 20% of my customers by using plants that they were allergic to and making it impossible for them to get around their gardens, I would rightly be out of business. The Government will probably not go out of business—well, I hope not, at least as long as Liz Truss is not allowed anywhere near the Government again—but their failure to properly represent the needs of 20% of the people they were elected to represent is more than just a policy failure. It is damaging our democracy.

What we need in Government is someone whose job it is to listen, to understand and to represent the needs of neurodiverse people. It is not about special treatment, but about making sure that politics—big and small, national and local—do not unfairly impact neurodivergent lives, as they so often do. Given all the big challenges in Government, considering the appointment of a neurodiversity Minister could not come at a better time. Our health service is being restructured, our local integrated care boards are being merged, while their budgets are being cut, and our SEND system is undergoing generational change. The Milburn and Timms reviews will see an overhaul of work and benefits support, local government is being totally restructured, and our justice and prison system is undergoing a serious overhaul as it faces collapse.

Despite the fact that these are the systems that educate, diagnose, support and rehabilitate neurodivergent people, no one in Government is currently responsible for neurodivergent people through this transition. We all know what institutions, politics and Government are like: without someone with authority in the room making the case for neurodivergent people’s needs, they will be drowned out and forgotten. That cannot be allowed to happen any more. Ultimately, that is why we need a Minister in the Cabinet Office for neurodiversity.

A Minister for neurodiversity is obviously no silver bullet. No one policy solution will fix this, but what we need is one officer holding responsibility for making sure we join up all the different solutions: someone who is working across Government and is able to hold Government Departments, bodies and local authorities to account, but also someone who can co-ordinate and help Government bodies to get it right. It is not that there is some evil group of neurodivergent-hating elite we need to get rid of. Well, I hope not; that would be way too easy. There are so many fantastic people across Government, at all levels, who want to do right by neurodivergent people, but right now our institutional culture across Government just does not give policymakers the space or the tools to consider neurodivergent people properly.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. I recognise that our society and Government are set up in a neurotypical way, as opposed to looking at divergence. I congratulate the Government on all the work they are doing around young people, but we know that we need to look at a life course. I support the hon. Member’s call to ensure that we have a cross-cutting mainstream focus on neurodivergence, but also that we embed that into the policies and the structures of our society.

[Adam Dance]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention; I totally agree with you—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Adam Dance]

Sorry—I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is really good to have cross-party support. Just as the Prime Minister has argued that we need mayors as a force to drive change in local authorities’ areas, we need one person in Government to drive positive change on neurodiversity policy.

You are probably thinking, “Adam, that is all great, but how are you actually going to do it?” To put it simply, I am asking the Government to do three things: first, to make way for a new Minister by restructuring current posts or amending the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 to expand the number of Ministers we can have; secondly, to give the new Minister funded statutory powers, by presenting Parliament with a cross-departmental strategy for neurodiversity that the Minister would be responsible for implementing, because this does not work if the Minister does not have teeth; and thirdly, to appoint a Minister for neurodiversity, which is probably the most difficult and political part of the whole process.

That is obviously easier said than done, but, as with most things, the answer is there: it just requires political willpower. Look at the new Minister for Artificial Intelligence post in the Cabinet Office. We see this time and again with Government: we are told, “Oh, that is too complicated,” or, “Oh, that wouldn’t be practical,” but then the public kick up a fuss, and, suddenly, it is not too difficult and can actually be done rather quickly. Let us not forget that this is about 20% of the public.

Obviously, though, the Minister today cannot snap her fingers and promise to do this—I would love it if she could. That is just not how this works, and I get that. Instead, I ask the Minister to commit today to starting the process by having civil servants review cross-departmental policy on neurodiversity and the merits of a neurodiversity Minister, and then to meeting me and campaigners to talk through the findings with us and hear our suggestions in more detail.

I know that this proposal is ambitious, but it is the lack of ambition on neurodiversity policy that has got us into this mess in the first place. It is only with bold action that we are going to make a difference, because I do not want to live in a country where the next generation of neurodiverse kids feel as I did when they tried to shut my youth club, and where decision makers just do not get it and just do not care. I thank everybody for listening.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate, and to other Members for their contributions.

I know that the hon. Member speaks truly from his own heart and his own experience about these issues. I assure him that I take his contribution very seriously, and I will make sure that the points he has raised are heard across Government, particularly in the Departments for Education, Health and Social Care, and Work and Pensions. It is so important that we have people like him in this Parliament, making sure that voices and experiences like his are heard not just here but across the country. I thank him for that.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the good things about the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) introducing the debate is that, by showing others out there with disabilities how they can progress in life and what they can achieve, he will now become, perhaps unknowingly, an inspiration to them.

[Sally Jameson]

I agree. The hon. Member for Yeovil is a role model for many thousands, possibly millions, of people out there who might think that their neurodiversity could hold them back from office: he is showing that that is absolutely not the case. He is using his role in Parliament to make sure that these issues are brought to the forefront of Government, the media and so on. I congratulate him on doing that, both today and more widely in this place.

Supporting people who are neurodiverse is of critical importance to the Government. The hon. Member is right to say that we do not have a Minister solely responsible for neurodiversity. He will know that ministerial portfolios and the machinery of government more generally are matters exclusively for the Prime Minister himself, but I want to assure him that this is a core focus of Government policy across Departments. I would actually expect—as I am sure Ministers and people more widely would as well—that neurodiversity and the issues that affect neurodiverse people need to be woven into all Government policy across all Departments, regardless of whether there is a Minister. We should expect that and hold the Government and ourselves accountable to ensure that that is happening.

The particular issues raised today are overseen by the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care, for Education, and for Work and Pensions. Those Secretaries of State and their Departments work closely together, and the Government continue to work on the needs of people who are neurodiverse.

The independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism found that ADHD and autism referrals and waiting lists for diagnosis have “risen dramatically”. We want to ensure that people of all ages get the right support and, crucially, get it at the right time, without having to wait for a diagnosis before they can get access to help.

The Government recognise that waits for ADHD and autism assessment remain too long and have a huge impact on individuals and their families. We all know that from our constituency inboxes.

[Adam Dance]

One of my projects last year was a ten-minute rule Bill for universal screening, which I have been working on and talking to Ministers about. It would screen everyone at primary school to pick up their neurodiversity. Does the Minister think we can reopen the discussion on that?

[Sally Jameson]

I cannot make a decision on that here, but I will take it back to the relevant Departments—I suspect that is a question for the Department for Education—and ask that they have another look at the hon. Member’s ten-minute rule Bill.

Support is too often organised around diagnosis, rather than people’s needs and circumstances. People seeking help increasingly present with overlapping needs that do not simply fit into a single diagnosis. Better understanding of that is important. As set out in the Government press release following the independent review, we are moving to a more needs-led model, providing earlier access to information, support and appropriate intervention based on individual needs and circumstances without and before a diagnosis, while also improving timely access to high-quality diagnostic assessment when required.

Moving on to the SEND reform element, which the hon. Member for Yeovil touched on, we remain committed to ensuring that every child has the best start in life with accessible and local support in their community and ending the need for families to fight for help. Since consulting on our SEND reforms, we have worked with partners across education, health and local government to build on the foundations for long-term improvement.

Funding allocations and guidance that have been previously announced include £4 billion of investment to enhance inclusive provision across early years, schools, colleges and local authorities. Alongside that, there is another £3.7 billion in capital funding between 2025 and 2030, which will create 60,000 new specialist places. Through local SEND reform plans, we are ensuring every area delivers targeted local support. We will publish the consultation response in due course and will introduce legislation on this at the earliest opportunity.

As announced in the King’s Speech, the education for all Bill will be introduced in this parliamentary Session to make mainstream education more inclusive and ensure all children get the right support early on. The Bill will help children and young people and is backed by more than £200 million for SEND and inclusion training. New requirements in the SEND code of practice will ensure that settings train all staff in SEND and inclusion more widely.

[Adam Dance]

That £200 million is welcome, but it is very little money per school or per teacher. It is a good start, but we need to go further. I have one more question, while I am on my feet: will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss a neurodiversity Minister in the Cabinet Office?

[Sally Jameson]

I will ensure that someone meets the hon. Member. I am not sure whether that meeting will be with me; I need to clarify responsibility and portfolio on that, because it is technically the Prime Minister who would appoint the Minister for neurodiversity, but I will come back to the hon. Member on that and arrange an appropriate meeting.

The hon. Member touched a bit on employment and neurodiversity, though I appreciate there is more to be said. It is incredibly important, particularly as we await the Milburn review and things we will be doing more broadly to support the population. Good work, good health and wellbeing for neurodivergent people is incredibly important. In 2025, the DWP launched an independent panel of academics with expertise and lived experience of neurodiversity to advise us as a Government on boosting awareness and inclusion in the workplace.

The panel considered why neurodivergent people often have poor experiences in the workplace and have a low overall employment rate. We welcomed the publication of the report by the expert academic panel on neurodiversity, alongside the Government response, on 2 October. The report highlights the valuable contribution that neurodivergent people make to our workforce and sets out recommendations to improve their recruitment, retention and progression in the workplace. Neurodivergence should not hold anyone back from achieving their potential in their workplace, or in their career more widely, as the hon. Member has shown. Our response sets out our work across Government with our stakeholders to increase work opportunities, and our continuing work focusing on needs-led support and inclusive workplace design to help employers better attract and retain talent.

We have also announced a training package, backed by £200 million of new funding, to ensure that teachers, educators, teaching assistants, support staff and leaders across early years, school and, importantly, post-16 settings can be trained to support pupils with SEND and neurodivergence and to help them with employment readiness.

I am conscious of time, but I will touch on the inclusive mainstream fund, which forms part of the Government’s commitment to building a more inclusive mainstream education across the country. More than £500 million per financial year over the next three years will equip schools and, importantly, colleges, as well as early years settings, with up-front funding to help them to have a more inclusive design. Building on the consultation on SEND reform, the fund addresses historical gaps in early support to help to ensure that every child and young person benefits from high-quality adaptive teaching. Settings can use the IMF alongside core funding allocations to strengthen inclusion for all pupils. It focuses on a needs-led approach rather than a rigid set of boxes that need to be ticked. It will allow teachers, colleges and employers to focus on what the people they work with need.

The independent review led by Peter Fonagy has challenged us to think differently about supporting people with mental health and neurodivergent needs. We want people of all ages to have the right support at the right time without waiting for a diagnosis before they can access help. Through our forthcoming mental health strategy, we will set out how we will move towards earlier needs-led support and better integration between mental health and neurodevelopmental pathways. We want to provide earlier access to information, support and appropriate interventions based on individual needs, while improving timely access to high-quality diagnostic assessments when required.

I end by repeating the Government’s commitment to support people living with neurodiverse conditions. I again thank the hon. Member for Yeovil for securing a debate on this important issue. I know that he will continue to raise this issue, not just in proposing a Minister for neurodiversity, but in championing the needs of the neurodiverse population and what they require from the Government to ensure that they can be successful and thrive, not just in early years and school, but in higher education, employment and, later in life, in social care. I will ensure that everything the hon. Member raised in the debate lands with the relevant Government Departments. I will take away his request for a meeting to discuss further how we can have better representation in Government. We are committed to ensuring that the right services are available at the right time for the right people; our support for that will not waver.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg in the Chair]

10:34

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on Rosebank oilfield. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will stand in front of world leaders at the COP31 climate summit. He is expected to say that this is a pivotal moment for global climate action. He is right, and that takes me straight to the heart of today’s debate. If the Government are clear that climate change is no longer a distant threat and that fossil fuels are driving climate breakdown, why are they not clear that green-lighting Rosebank, the biggest undeveloped oil and gasfield in the North sea, is a complete dereliction of duty? My constituents are clear about the risks of more fossil fuel extraction.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

Not at this moment—I will get a bit further in my speech. The risks include more of the heatwaves that killed thousands of people in the UK this summer, the worst drought in 50 years and floods that could hit this winter, driven by a dangerous combination of climate change and what is set to be the most extreme El Niño we have ever seen. Every fraction of a degree of global heating makes the future less safe, and every drop of oil pumped from Rosebank contributes to that less safe future. Today, I call on the Government to make the right choice and reject Rosebank. Let me lay out my case.

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

We all want growth but, given that Rosebank is primarily for export and that oil and gas revenues are expected to plummet to nearly zero by 2030, does the hon. Member agree that even the economic case does not stack up?

[Carla Denyer]

I do agree, and I will be coming to that point in just a moment. First, I will start with the climate and nature case against Rosebank. If it is given the green light, its carbon emissions are projected to total a devasting 254 million tonnes. That is equivalent to 70% of the UK’s entire emissions last year and greater than the combined carbon dioxide emissions of the 73 lowest-emitting countries and territories.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that those nations did the least to cause this crisis, but are already paying for it in floods, failed harvests and debt, and that Britain should not hand the global south yet another bill for our choices?

[Carla Denyer]

I absolutely agree. In fact, it is the human rights and international justice aspects of this that turned me into a climate activist in the first place.

That devastating 254 million tonnes is a climate-wrecking volume of emissions. If Rosebank is allowed, it would keep producing oil until 2052, polluting our atmosphere after the date by which the UK is legally committed to net zero.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I will make a little more progress. The International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are clear: opening new oil and gasfields is incompatible with limiting warming in line with the Paris agreement. This is the key point in this debate: globally, even if we only extract all the oil, gas and coal in existing wells and mines, we will release seven times more emissions than would keep us within 1.5° of warming. That means that there must be no new oil and gas extraction at all.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Would the hon. Member accept that, if we do not produce our own oil and gas, it is not that we are going to use any less of it, but that we are going to import more oil and gas from other places with a higher carbon footprint?

[Carla Denyer]

Unfortunately, it sounds as if the hon. Member might be suffering under some misapprehensions about the facts of the case. The fact is that this oil and gas would be sold on international markets, as I will come on to in just a moment.

[Warinder Juss]

Employment in oil and gas has fallen significantly over the last decade, but the UK is forecast to be reliant on oil and gas until 2050. Does the hon. Lady agree that a just transition requires the Government to do their utmost to create high-quality clean energy jobs as quickly as possible, so that we can not only challenge the climate crisis, but keep our skilled workers in employment?

[Carla Denyer]

I agree absolutely; it is almost as if the hon. Member has been peeking at my notes. I am now going to plough on, because quite a lot of interventions have predicted something I am about to say.

I have put the climate case against Rosebank, but the economic case is equally powerful. Rosebank will not bring down my constituents’ energy bills, nor anyone else’s. New oil and gas production in the UK will do nothing to affect market price here, which is set internationally and has been driven up by Donald Trump’s war in Iran. As Equinor has confirmed, Rosebank’s oil will be sold on the open market. Hon. Members should not just my word for it: a former Conservative Energy Secretary admitted that new oilfields will do nothing to bring down the price of energy. The current Energy Secretary has said that

“if you care about affordability, North Sea does not solve that problem for you”.

By contrast, renewables are already saving us money. Since the start of the Hormuz crisis, record-high UK wind and solar generation has avoided the need for gas imports worth £5.9 billion. That is what real energy independence looks like. Although I welcome the progress and ambition on renewables that we have seen under this Government, it does not and never will justify the extraction of new fossil fuels. Every day, I am emailed by Bristol Central constituents struggling with the seemingly never-ending affordability crisis, and energy bills are now set to jump by another £276 from January.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Last summer, Monmouthshire saw wildfires, and before those it saw floods. Does the hon. Lady agree that people such as my constituents need more affordable renewable energy to secure their homes—not investment in the vested interests of oil companies?

[Carla Denyer]

I agree. The Prime Minister has rightly promised action to address the cost of living. To do that, he needs to break the link between fossil fuel prices and electricity prices by getting off oil and gas, rather than deepening our reliance on fossil fuels, when we are precisely in a fossil-fuelled cost of living crisis.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I am going to make a bit more progress. Why on earth has the Chancellor been given a veto on new offshore wind projects if they do not lower bills, when he is not applying the same test to decisions about climate-wrecking fossil fuels?

That brings me to jobs. In the last 10 years, the number of jobs supported by the UK oil and gas industry has more than halved, despite the previous Government approving hundreds of licences. The reality is that 93% of viable oil and gas reserves in the UK North sea have already been extracted, so jobs will continue to decline unless we change direction. By investing in renewables industries and helping workers to secure well-paid, unionised jobs in those industries, the Government can build a secure future for workers.

Currently, an offshore wind turbine contains three times as much material from abroad as it does from domestic manufacturers. Public investment in UK manufacturing capacity for offshore wind alone—never mind the other technologies—would generate 10,000 direct and more than 13,000 indirect jobs.

[Douglas Lumsden]

rose—

[Alice Macdonald]

rose—

[Carla Denyer]

I am going to make a bit more progress. Those potential jobs are why, last year, I tabled the Energy and Employment Rights Bill, outlining key steps to future-proof jobs in the energy sector. They are also why I am working alongside trade unions to call for statutory rights to union reps for future-proofing jobs, to create a legal requirement on employers to include trade union reps in workplace planning related to decarbonisation. That, not Rosebank, is how we build a stable, future-facing economy.

The economic case against Rosebank goes to the heart of our tax system. We need to know whether the Government questioned the assumption in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn Budget papers that Rosebank will be approved, and whether the Treasury has a predetermined view. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero alone must take the decision on Rosebank. Any indication that the Government are relying on it for tax revenues could be considered indirect pressure. Could that risk making the decision unlawful?

In her approval of Jackdaw, the Secretary of State herself concluded that she

“has not been able to form a view in which she has sufficient confidence”

regarding the tax receipts from the gasfield. In other words, the Government do not think that they are going to raise much tax from the gas drilling for which they have just given the go-ahead. The OBR has pointed out that, even with its assumption that Rosebank is approved, the combined effect of the expiry of the windfall tax and the declining nature of the North sea basin means that tax receipts from the oil and gas sector as a whole are projected to be “close to zero” by 2031-32. Compare that with the global damage that would be caused by emissions from Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are estimated to cost between £170 billion and £483 billion, and the £13.3 billion of UK public money that has already been spent, incredibly, on tax breaks for fossil fuel firms between 2019 and 2026. That is enough money to insulate every home in fuel poverty in England, which would be the real way to bring down bills.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case, particularly about the economic importance of investing in renewable energy and the fact that the Rosebank oilfield would not bring down our bills. Does she agree that it was particularly disappointing that, in the recent Budget, the Government cut back on funding for home insulation measures—measures that, alongside renewable energy, are where the Government should be focusing their attention?

[Carla Denyer]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As he and I have said many times, the cheapest energy bills are those that people do not have to pay, because their home is so well insulated that they do not have to buy that energy in the first place.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I am beginning to wrap up now.

If Rosebank is fundamentally incompatible with a liveable planet, will not bring down energy bills, will not future-proof North sea jobs and represents a significant drain on public finances, why is it even being considered? Analysis of Government meetings shows that, between July 2024 and June 2026, UK Ministers had 200 meetings with the main firms involved in Rosebank and Jackdaw and their lobbyists—about two a week. The only ones who benefit from more oil and gas are the fossil fuel companies making record profits. Shell, part owner of Rosebank, doubled its global profits in the year from September 2025 to an astounding £8.1 billion. We cannot cave in to its lobbying now.

Green-lighting Rosebank would also risk breaching the Government’s sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. Ithaca Energy, which holds a 20% stake in Rosebank, is controlled by Delek Group. Last year, that group was included in a United Nations database of firms that allegedly provide services or utilities to support illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That, too, must be a factor in any decision on Rosebank.

As I draw to a close,

“the idea that we will say, ‘Look, there is a climate crisis; this will not make any difference to our energy security; the Energy Secretary says that it will not cut bills; it is not the answer for the jobs of the future; but we will carry on doing it anyway’, is climate vandalism.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 50.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the now Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). He is completely right. The decision whether to approve the climate-wrecking Rosebank oilfield is a defining moment for this Government and this Parliament. I hope that today’s debate will help to ensure that, when we look back, we can do so with pride at a decision that will protect us all and stop Rosebank in its tracks.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. It will not have escaped right hon. and hon. Members’ notice that this is a very busy debate. It is unlikely that every Member will get in; however, I am imposing a two-minute time limit. If Members intervene, I may not call them during the debate. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.34 pm.

14:45

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on securing this debate. I may disagree with her, but it is very valuable that we continue these conversations.

Too often, this debate is framed as a binary choice: people are for oil and gas, or they are for renewables. I spent more than a decade working with renewables businesses before I came to this place, and I can say that that is a false choice. The question is not whether we decarbonise; it is how we do it and who we take with us. Let me be clear: this is not an issue for Aberdeen or even just for Scotland. While in my constituency I have businesses such as TechnipFMC and Oceaneering, which employ hundreds of skilled people in subsea engineering and manufacturing, we are nowhere near the North sea’s front door, and that story is repeated across the country.

We will not decarbonise our economy or remain world leaders in decarbonisation by switching off one industry and hoping that another switches on. The engineers, welders, technicians and businesses—that whole ecosystem—will build floating offshore wind, carbon capture and the grid of the future. Those skills do not sit in a drawer waiting to be used. If the work goes, the skills go, and the capability goes with them. In Fife, we know very well what happens when an industry closes down without a plan. When pits closed, whole communities lost not only their jobs, but the sense of who they were. For communities across the UK, energy is part of their identity and their pride, and it should be part of their future.

The Government took the right decision on Jackdaw, and the Treasury’s own forecasts have assumed that Rosebank would go ahead since at least 2019. Through the energy wealth fund, that revenue can be reinvested in a low-carbon future. Think of a young person, in my constituency or across the country today, deciding whether to start an engineering apprenticeship. For generations, oil and gas has been the front door to that technical career; many who walk through it go on to offshore wind, nuclear, renewables, defence or other industries, but they need to see that that door is open. Close it, and we do not just lose an industry—we lose the next generations of engineers that every other industry depends on.

14:47

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. My constituents will be brutally disappointed with the opening of this debate, and probably with many of the contributions we will hear later. In my constituency, we are proud of our legacy in oil and gas, and we are proud of the jobs. These are good, high-skilled jobs, many of which cannot and will not be replaced by the energy transition, but this is not about jobs just in Aberdeen: as we have heard, thousands of jobs all across the country are supported by continuing oil and gas production. Forcing my constituents out of their jobs and then importing the hydrocarbons they were previously paid to extract is cruel and unnecessary. I do not understand why so many people do not get that argument.

Rosebank is desperately needed. It is needed for the almost 3,500 jobs that depend on it, and more importantly, it is needed as a sign that the North sea is open for business. It is needed for the tens of thousands of supply chain jobs up and down the country. We all know that the North sea is a declining basin—we have heard it already; we get that. It will not last forever, but it would be economic suicide to pay for more imports rather than extract ourselves, with all the jobs and tax revenue that that brings.

Not only does the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) suggest that we miss out on billions of pounds in tax revenue, which could fund any ideas that she cares to go for, but it is clear that not supporting Rosebank means supporting higher carbon emissions. We know that importing more oil and gas to fuel our country is expensive and more carbon intensive. This is insane. Why are we even considering this? I am sure that many Members in this House would be quite comfortable buying Putin’s oil instead—I say, “No, no, no.” Every barrel that we can produce locally benefits us here.

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

Before the Government even consider taking revenue from Rosebank, does the hon. Member think that they should be increasing taxes on the British insurance companies that are currently providing maritime services to the movement of Russian gas?

[Douglas Lumsden]

I am here to discuss oil and gas, Rosebank and what is most important for my constituents in Aberdeen South. We have the industry; we should just get on and do it. We need Rosebank, and we need more exploration for the benefit of my constituents and of the nation. It is a mystery that this Government and the naysayers, such as the Greens, keep telling us that the North sea is empty, yet our neighbours, the Norwegians, keep drilling. If it is empty, why ban new exploration?

This Government need to approve Rosebank now. We cannot wait any longer. Let us get Britain drilling again.

14:49

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.

Rosebank will have a direct consequence for climate destruction and human life. It will impact trust in Government and weaken our global standing as leaders in climate protection. It will release 254 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is 70% of the current emissions for the whole UK. While previous permissions were granted, the courage of Greenpeace and Uplift in seeking a judicial review caused Government to rightly pause. Now, we have an opportunity to set the future pathway for energy.

As for Rosebank itself, the scale of gas and oil will have real climate impact, but it will also have an impact on human life. We know that, together, Jackdaw and Rosebank will lead to an additional 32,000 heat-related deaths by the end of the century and will have other impacts on the global climate. We know from the Supreme Court judgment that it is so important to assess the future impact of Rosebank, which is why the examination has been so important. It is ultimately a quasi-judicial decision, but it must also take on board the real crisis we face with the climate today.

The submission has been made, and it sits on the Secretary of State’s desk. The question is whether or not the future of our planet matters more than jobs, which could be better invested in the renewable sector for the long term. We need to ensure that we have sustainability for our planet.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will not. It is really important that we make the right decision today in this debate, but also that the Minister does when he gets the opportunity.

14:51

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.

We are reaching a point where a decision must be made about Rosebank. There are arguments on either side, but not every argument is equally valid. It is not true that Rosebank will help with energy security; the oil it produces will be overwhelmingly exported. Rather, we should invest in industries that actually do contribute, such as solar and wind. It is not true that Rosebank will reduce energy prices, and it is disappointing that people still put out that message for public consumption when it is quite clearly flat wrong. It is also not true that if we do not drill this oil, the Norwegians will. It is a geologically separate field; if we do not drill there, nobody does.

On the other side of the argument, drilling at Rosebank will not necessarily increase UK use of fossil fuels in absolute terms, although it would, as others have said, add to the total amount of world fossil fuel production. The international COP process is focused on reducing fossil fuel demand and not supply, and perhaps that is a problem. A further argument has been made that, although the state does not own Rosebank oil, it will benefit from taxation, but that is actually a very difficult thing to calculate. Profits can be offset against development and decommissioning costs, and depending on the exact timescale, much of the potential tax revenue might never reach the public purse.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Milne]

I will not. A new taxation regime, the oil and gas revenue levy, begins in 2030. Equinor will make most of its investment while the generous reliefs are switched on, but will generate most of its profit after 2030 when the windfall tax is no longer in effect. I ask the Minister what assumptions are being made regarding tax revenue—the rationale, not just the amount. Does the Minister accept that returns could be greatly reduced by clever accountancy? Can we be sure that Rosebank does not end up as a gigantic tax dodge?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I call Anna Gelderd.

14:53

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Twigg.

The climate and a thriving and resilient economy in which the cost of living works for my constituents are not independent issues; they are two sides of the same coin. These types of political and economic issues are national, international and deeply personal. My granddad Frank never got to know his Dad, a miner who died in an industrial accident deep under the North sea. The history of our national energy policy, from the industrial revolution onwards, is written by the jobs, families and people who built our great fossil-fuelled economy. However, we must now forge a new, practical path—one that includes the current use of oil and gas but ends at the prize of a secure, richer, renewable energy-fuelled Great Britain.

We live in an unprecedented era in which our energy security is more vital than ever and in which jobs and wealth must be protected and economic opportunities seized. On both of those points, Rosebank fails. The UK has sovereign rights to explore resources in the seabed of our continental shelf, but rights over the seabed do not give us sovereignty over the waters above it. Our energy security must consider that point. The biggest economic opportunity lies in renewable energy. I do not want to see us fall behind.

[Alice Macdonald]

On that point, does my hon. Friend welcome today’s announcement of a £12 billion deal for Vanguard wind farms off the coast of Norfolk, which will help support 2,400 jobs? Does she agree that our focus should be on investing in renewable energy projects and unlocking jobs for constituents such as mine?

[Anna Gelderd]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is doing great work on behalf of her constituents. I do not want to see the UK fall behind while other countries race towards maximising the economic benefits of the energy transition. Government decisions send important signals to investors. Clear, consistent support gives renewable energy businesses and their supply chains the confidence to invest, expand and create the skilled jobs here in the UK. As the Government, we must provide stability and choose our signals to the financial markets wisely. There are opportunity costs in not doing so.

This weekend I talked to a local resident called Dave, who told me that his renewable energy business, which previously had over 80 orders a month, fell to just five when the then Prime Minister David Cameron indicated that he was minded not to support onshore wind. A few offhand comments—not legislation or Government investment, just signals from a Prime Minister—had a material effect on a thriving local business in Cornwall and on our ability to build the industries that we need for the future. We must do better. We must give renewable energy businesses the confidence to grow. We must give the North sea workforce the support to continue to build a more secure, cleaner and resilient energy future.

14:56

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.

The SNP’s approach to Scotland’s energy future is grounded in pragmatism, climate responsibility and protecting our industrial workforce. We recognise the inescapable reality that the economy will continue to require oil and gas for years to come as we transition towards net zero. That is why we do not support the Government’s blanket ban on new exploration licences as set out in the Energy Independence Bill.

On major developments such as Rosebank, our position is both principled and rigorous. Decisions cannot be made on the basis of political posturing. They must be assessed individually against statutory emissions targets and climate compatibility. Where domestic production carries a lower emissions footprint than imported fossil fuels, it is entirely rational to consider it while demand remains. For as long as we need oil and gas, it is also ethically questionable to offshore our responsibilities to countries that have poorer environmental controls and, in many cases, very poor employment rights.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Leadbitter]

No, I will press on. Scotland’s renewable potential is extraordinary. Our nation leads the world in offshore wind deployment, with renewable generation breaking new records. Yet our constituents are forced to endure the cruel absurdity of living in an energy-rich nation while paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe and suffering widespread fuel poverty.

For half a century, Westminster has treated Scotland’s energy reserves as a Treasury cash cow, squandering vast revenues rather than investing them for the lasting prosperity of our communities. We are determined that the north-east of Scotland, long the oil and gas capital of Europe, must become the net zero capital of the world. Yet our communities are caught between two failed Westminster extremes. Under the Conservatives, 70,000 jobs were lost while they pushed empty “Drill, drill, drill” slogans without building the renewables bridge. Now, Labour is pursuing the opposite extreme—imposing exploration bans and extending a punitive energy profits levy beyond all justification, threatening to repeat the industrial devastation that Thatcher inflicted in Scotland’s heartlands.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Leadbitter]

No.

Neither ignoring the cliff edge nor pushing workers straight over it are serious policies—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Al Carns.

14:58

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Before I address what the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) has passionately talked about, I want to be very clear that I agree that climate change is a security threat. It is something that we must collectively address, and I support the effort to reduce emissions. However, the hon. Member’s narrative worries me. I hear a great deal about what we should stop doing and far less about the economic, ecological and security consequences of those decisions.

Britain emitted 367 million tonnes of greenhouse gases last year. That sounds like a lot, but it represents less than 1% of total global emissions. That is less than 1%. That does not mean that we should abandon our responsibility to reduce them—far from it. But we must be honest about the scale of our contribution, the cost that we ask people to bear up and down the country and whether our policies actually reduce global emissions or simply move them elsewhere.

The reality is that Britain will continue to need oil for decades. That cannot be refuted. Refusing to produce it here does nothing on its own to eliminate that demand—it just does not. It simply increases our reliance on imports, which can carry their own environmental costs. In 2024, Britain spent nearly £52 billion importing oil and petroleum products, leaving us with a net trade deficit of £24 billion. Before Putin invaded Ukraine, Russia supplied around a third of our diesel imports. It could be thought that that experience might have taught us something, yet we are remarkably relaxed about making Britain more dependent on overseas supplies.

Next, there is the export argument, which we have heard a lot. We are repeatedly told that North sea oil is exported as though that settles the argument. Much of it goes to European refineries and returns to Britain as fuel. Commissioned research estimates that around 65% of UK continental shelf crude oil ultimately reaches the British market directly or through European refining. My final point is that before we embark on this journey, we must look people and businesses in the eyes and tell them that we are going to cancel it all.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Excellent; that was right on time. I call Jim Shannon.

15:00

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for setting the scene so well. She knows that she and I have very different opinions, but I respect her views and hope that she will respect mine as well.

The Minister and Government need to get the balance right. Other Members have spoken about that, and I recognise that there is significant demand. The Jackdaw gasfield was approved, as it should be, but we also need 10 billion barrels of oil between now and 2050.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman speak towards the mic?

[Jim Shannon]

Excuse me—can I start again? [Laughter.] Only joking.

Businesses, community and charity leaders all recognise the benefit of domestic production. Over 2,000 of them have added their support for Rosebank because of its importance. This oilfield will support hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. On Monday, the Energy Secretary stressed that affordability is her “overriding objective”. With January expected to bring the biggest rise in bills in four years, action must be taken now to protect energy affordability. Rosebank is part of the solution to stability: by making better use of our own natural resources, we will no longer be largely beholden to geopolitical tensions in the middle east.

Closer to home, in Northern Ireland, energy prices continue to climb—that is why I am here as the MP. Home heating oil prices across Northern Ireland are rising, with 68% of households depending on it, and in my constituency of Strangford and on the Ards peninsula, that figure is 80%. That is why I welcomed last month’s long overdue decision to approve gas production at Jackdaw, which will secure energy supplies for homes and businesses.

Does the Minister agree that strengthening our energy security is of the utmost urgency, and if so, that lessons must be learned from the impact of the Jackdaw delays? Does he also agree that support should be given to the proposed Rosebank oilfield immediately? I urge the Minister and Government: do not delay taking decisive action to reduce our reliance on volatile international energy markets.

15:03

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Like many of my constituents, I am alarmed at the suggestion of even more carbon extraction from the North sea. Like them, I find it hard to believe that we can be considering this after the summer we had. According to researchers, this year’s heatwaves in the UK caused around 4,500 deaths, and the UN is now saying that we are on track for a 2.8° temperature rise.

The lowest-polluting countries are facing the sharpest impact, from Nepal to Bangladesh, Somalia and more. We are staring at climate breakdown, and it seems like madness that we are even having a conversation about more carbon extraction and more oil drilling, or about slashing the electric vehicle quota and unleashing more fossil fuel consumption. All of that is on top of the decisions to approve Jackdaw and cut heat pump subsidies.

Progress has been far too slow, but to reverse the gains that have been made on the UK’s green transition should be unthinkable and will not be forgiven by future generations. At this critical point, I worry that senior politicians have decided that the climate is a foregone conclusion and that we should take a lead from Trump and “drill baby, drill” for some short-term gains—but those gains would be diminishingly small.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Apsana Begum]

I will not be giving way.

We know that Rosebank and Jackdaw drilling will have no impact on prices at the pump or on household bills. Short-term gains are quickly overshadowed by the costs of the clean-up bill and climate damage. Rosebank will not provide long-term security for North sea jobs. We know that these projects—Rosebank and Jackdaw—will generate an awful lot of money for Shell and Equinor, so much so that big oil is threatening a capital strike. After hundreds of meetings with fossil fuel lobbyists, I suggest that the Minister should spend less time listening carefully to them and more time listening to constituents like mine who are telling us clearly, “No new oil and gas.”

15:04

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Oil and gas is energy treasure. That is the reality. Oil and gas represents 80%-plus of all the energy that we use currently, and that will be the case for many decades to come—way beyond 2050. Any nation blessed with such energy treasure is trying to extract it as fast as they possibly can, and we should do the same. Quite rightly, the Foreign Secretary has allowed the extraction of oil and gas in the Falkland Islands, so the idea that we would not allow the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea, just outside the wonderful nation of Scotland, is completely bizarre.

The numbers are fantastic: more than £8 billion of GDP; 2,000 jobs during construction; and 500 jobs permanently—those are big, serious numbers.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Tice]

I will not give way, if that is okay, because so many want to speak.

That is hundreds and hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly. Frankly, it is financially gross negligence not to extract that energy treasure. That is the simple reality.

The myth is that because the oil is exported, we should not extract it. Guess what? It goes to refineries in Europe, because we were stupid enough to shut down our refineries in the past 20 years, only for some 65% of what is exported to come back to the United Kingdom, as a parliamentary Committee heard recently. We need to take advantage of this treasure.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Tice]

I will not give way, because others want to speak.

We have a growth crisis. This is a great opportunity for jobs, activity and investment. It is treasure, and we should extract every last barrel, every last drop.

15:06

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this timely debate. I begin by agreeing with her and acknowledging the facts that our climate is warming, our seas are rising and our landscape is on fire. That is why this Labour Government are pushing ahead with the transition, a move that, like the wildfires in the Cairngorms, is transforming the landscape and marine horizon in front of our eyes.

I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are committed to renewables. There are 145,000 jobs in renewables, which is more than in the North sea now, at under 21,000.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I will not be giving way. That is why I support a pragmatic transition, utilising domestic oil production, rather than importing it, and supporting Scottish skills and jobs as we move the workforce across to renewables.

Let us be clear eyed about this: Rosebank, of course, would support jobs—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) pointed out—and yes, it would support £24 billion in economic activity and give us tax revenues, but let us not pretend that approving Rosebank will save the North sea, or that its refusal means the end of the North sea story. The North sea is a declining basin, with more than 70,000 jobs gone under the previous Government, and, realistically, jobs will continue to move away from the North sea as the sector is wound down.

Transition, however, is not the same as abandonment. That is why the energy wealth fund announced by the Chancellor and moving jobs across are so important. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said, I believe that there should be no new licensing under the Energy Independence Bill. That makes sense. We will need gas for 2045, but without new licences, the reduction in North sea gas production will be 97%, and with new licences, 95%—we are fighting about that 2% in the transition.

We should actually be using the success of the North sea oil and gas sector in the growing renewables sector, and using the skills and supply chains developed over decades to give us the next generation of energy jobs. The worst thing we could do at this time is to switch off the North sea and to be foolhardy in our haste. The transition from oil and gas to clean energy has to be done, but we need to support the energy workforce, our domestic energy security and the transition.

15:08

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

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of my constituents, who want to see our Government continuing to take the strongest possible approach to the climate emergency and continuing to show leadership on the global stage.

We are debating these issues as communities across our country are gathering to watch the national emergency briefing on the climate emergency. I have already attended a number of screenings of it, and I will attend another in my constituency next week. The briefing has been prepared by climate scientists and it is stark. I have not heard any dissent from this science. We are already in the danger zone of global warming significantly above 1.5°. The climate destabilisation that follows from this level of global warming will bring chaos and hardship to every corner of the globe.

It is already happening. The bleakest statement from the scientists in the film is that our current climate, which is characterised by increasing floods, heatwaves and storms, is as good as we will know in our lifetime.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I will not give way, because of the number of people who wish to speak.

Things will inevitably continue to get worse. But the national emergency briefing is also hopeful: it tells the story of places such as Curitiba in Brazil, where city leaders, working intentionally over many decades, have transformed a city of 3.5 million people into a healthy, sustainable and resilient place. It also documents the ways in which investment in carbon reduction and climate adaptation creates jobs, contributes to economic growth, saves lives, improves living standards for everyone, and saves the huge costs of climate emergency responses and disaster recovery.

My constituents care deeply about the climate emergency: they want to see fossil fuels remain in the ground; they want there to be no drilling at Rosebank; and they want to see our Government continuing to lead on the global stage on the energy transition. I urge the Minister to take the views of my constituents and feed them back to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero as she makes this crucial decision.

15:10

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

Today, I urge the Government to take the same common-sense approach to the decision over Rosebank that it applied to the decision over the Jackdaw gasfield. Over its lifetime, Rosebank would contribute an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy and on average it would support over 500 UK-based full-time jobs, with £500 million making its way every year to the Treasury in tax revenue by the end of this Parliament. As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about the threats posed by Russia, Iran and other hostile actors, I believe that a decision to approve Rosebank will help to ensure that oil supplies for Europe are not constrained by the geopolitical choke-points that we have seen driving up the cost of living in recent years.

Let me be absolutely clear that I support the Government’s net zero targets and recognise the importance of bold, practical action on climate change. However, the transition must be delivered in a way that protects jobs, ensures energy security and carries public support.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luke Akehurst]

Sorry, no.

As the UK will continue to consume oil and gas for the foreseeable future, it makes little environmental sense to offshore production to other countries outside Europe, which often have higher emissions and additional transportation costs, only to import the same resources back into Britain. A decision to withhold the approval of Rosebank will not change whether we use oil in the short to medium term. Instead, it will determine whether those resources are produced responsibly here in the UK while we continue to invest in the clean energy industries of the future.

With a progressive Government in power that faces up to the challenge posed by climate change, we could even ensure that the Rosebank project helps to pull us towards our climate obligations and not away from them, through the energy wealth fund, which has already been announced and which will reinvest revenues from oil and gas into renewable energy. A decision to approve Rosebank could therefore move us closer to a clean energy system and create even more jobs on top of those directly linked to the Rosebank field.

15:12

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the climate and nature crisis caucus.

If we measure both sides of the scales, it is obvious that the costs of pollution from Rosebank vastly outweigh any of its benefits. Those costs will fall on millions of people across the UK who are already struggling to make the sums add up at the end of the month. They will be the ones whose living standards will dive as farmers’ yields fall and food prices soar; they will be the ones whose health will suffer as our weather grows more extreme and the temperatures in our schools, hospitals and workplaces become unbearable; and they will be the ones who will pay the price of flooded homes and businesses.

Moreover, we know that the carbon pollution already in our atmosphere is disrupting the rhythm of England’s seasons right now, and that the stress of climate change is already killing England’s ancient oaks. On Armistice Day, when we remember those who fought and died for our country, it seems that we might be forgetting what inspired and sustained so many of them through the hell that they faced.

We say, “Lest we forget”, but what honour do we pay to the memory of Edward Thomas if we now pursue policies that destroy the “hawthorn-time in Wiltshire” that shaped him into a conscious Englishman? What worth is given to Rupert Brooke’s promise,

“That there’s some corner of a foreign field

That is for ever England”

if we exacerbate the climate-induced drought that is reducing the River Granta, which he loved, to a feeble dribble, such that no future generation can join him

“as swimmers into cleanness leaping”?

What sort of remembrance do we offer Robert Graves if, by extracting the last dregs of fossil fuel profits, we extinguish

“the quiet of an English wood”,

which he longed for in the trenches of 1915?

If those poets were with us now, what would they make of a proposal that threatens to wreck the landscapes, the sights and sounds, and the sense of home that made England so precious to them? That national inheritance is infinitely more valuable than all the revenues Shell and Equinor can promise us.

15:14

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The wider context of the Rosebank decision is clear and cannot be stated firmly enough. The route to a clean, secure and affordable future lies in renewable energy, not in more drilling of oil and gas. I commend the Government’s work on driving the renewables transition so far, but on Rosebank, I will focus my point on energy security.

If I thought there was an argument that Rosebank would boost our energy security, I would take that seriously. The threats to our wider security and way of life from Russia, Iran and others are severe, and if we fail to keep ourselves safe, we will undermine all the societal, economic and environmental progress that we want to see at home. However, I do not see the energy security case for Rosebank. In the short term, it will not boost our domestic energy production, as 90% of its reserves are oil, not gas, and are likely to be exported. In the long term, it will drive up emissions and increase the very real security threats caused by climate change, from pressure on food systems to increased migration.

Frankly speaking, we are on a hiding to nothing to say that in a global context, the emissions from Rosebank are low and dwarfed by emissions from China or elsewhere. That does not absolve us of our responsibilities to do our bit to protect our planet. I would like to thank the many residents who have been in touch with their concerns ahead of this debate. I will quote one resident who summed it up nicely:

“My main concern is the future we’re leaving for our children. As a mum…I want to feel that we’re actually making progress and doing everything we can to limit the impact of climate change for future generations.”

I worry increasingly about this issue. As we know, the final decision on Rosebank rests with the Secretary of State. She will be privy to legal advice that I have not seen, but for me the question is whether Rosebank supports that transition to a clean, secure and affordable future for ourselves and our planet. I am not convinced that the answer is yes.

15:16

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on securing a debate that is so incredibly important to my constituents.

Drilling at Rosebank would be a mistake for our climate goals and it would not accomplish the very things that many voices arguing in favour of it claim it would. I represent a community where fuel poverty is real; it is real in those rural homes that struggle with insulation and it is real for the families that come to my surgeries and tell me they struggle with the cost of heating oil. I do not believe that drilling at Rosebank would help those families; indeed, it would continue our destructive addiction to fossil fuels at the precise time we should be looking at the geopolitical situation and weaning ourselves off them.

I have not discovered this issue out of political convenience. I have always been a proud member of the environmental movement. My constituency is one where protecting our landscape is paramount. It is the land of Hadrian’s wall, swathes of peatland, the Tyne river and, until a few years ago, the Sycamore Gap tree. My constituents have been proud of the natural beauty of Northumberland for generations. Protecting and conserving what we have should not be a left-wing idea; it should be the oldest idea that we have.

Over the summer, I surveyed my constituents. Hundreds of people took the time to answer and 89% said protecting the environment and fighting climate change is a key priority for them. When I asked whether they would support granting new oil and gas licences or expanding current drilling, 98% said no.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Joe Morris]

I am afraid not. I would invite anyone to check Hexham Matters to see whether 98% of my constituents agree on anything else.

Over its lifetime, Rosebank is projected to release emissions equal to about 70% of everything that the UK emits in a year. That is more than the combined emissions of the 73 lowest emitting countries and territories on Earth. Of those 73 countries, some are the poorest in the world and the most exposed to the effects of the climate change, and they are all to be outweighed by a single oil field.

I want us to be the Government who have the courage to say no to Rosebank. We came into office promising no new licences. I am aware of the technical arguments, but the public believe that Rosebank would represent a new licence. Conserving the natural world should not be a preserve of those of us on the left; it never was. However, there is a bloc in this country that wants a cleaner, fairer and more secure future, and it spans all parties and none. It includes the climate campaigners who come to my roundtable, as well as the constituents I meet regularly. I urge the Minister to listen to their voices.

15:18

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Governments are defined by their first few months in office. Whatever else they do on the environment, getting Rosebank wrong will shape the green credentials of this Government for years to come. They cannot afford to get this wrong.

Climate change is not just another problem; it is the stage on which the future of humanity will be played out. We are talking about a threat to billions of people, devastated food systems, whole cities becoming uninhabitable, a health emergency and a security nightmare. We are at this danger point because of decades of actions by fossil fuel giants; they knew the dangers of climate change that they were causing and they covered up the truth, all to keep the profits flowing. They continue to spread disinformation, putting profits before all else.

Let us be clear: Rosebank is not compatible with our climate targets—it is dangerous to pretend otherwise. Rosebank will not lower bills. Its oil will be sold on the international market by a private company at market prices, making it billions. People’s bills are higher because we are hooked on oil and gas. Renewables are the cheaper way to break that dependency. The International Energy Agency says that Rosebank will do very little for energy security, and OBR figures show that Rosebank will do almost nothing for tax revenues. Finally, Rosebank is a clear international law risk, because it will aid the flow of profits to a company that is operating in illegal Israeli settlements. For so many reasons, the Government must not approve Rosebank.

15:20

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Over the last year, I have been holding regular MP forums with constituents who have written to me about different themes and issues. One such forum is the local eco-forum that I co-ordinate. At that event, my constituents ensure that their voices are heard, and I have promised to represent them in this Chamber as their local Member of Parliament.

I hope the House will indulge me for the next two minutes if I quote issues that my constituents have raised with Rosebank. First, Gerard from Lancaster said that this summer’s weather made it clear that

“the scale of Rosebank is fundamentally incompatible with any credible pathway to the UK’s climate commitments.”

Frances from Pilling told me:

“We can already see climate breakdown unfolding all around us.”

Barbara from Garstang highlighted:

“We’re already seeing the consequences in repeated and record-breaking heatwaves, devastating floods, failing harvests and rising food and insurance costs.”

Another constituent, Laura, said:

“As a young mother and a researcher whose work focuses on the effects of climate change on disease, I am deeply concerned about the future my daughter will face if we fail to act now.”

The impact on our climate leadership was another theme that emerged, with Michael highlighting that the UN

“has now said the world has failed to hold the Paris agreement pledge of keeping global temperature rises to under 1.5 degrees and that we must cut global emissions by 18% over the next four years to find our way back.”

Oscar from Barnacre told me:

“COP31 provides a huge opportunity that could define this government—to stand on the world stage and announce the rejection of the Rosebank oil field on climate grounds.”

Indeed, that is something I hope we see in the coming days.

The impacts on energy security and energy profiteering were also made clear, with various constituents stressing that this would not lower their bills or offer them the energy security they seek. I urge the Government to listen to my constituents and to recognise how unpopular a decision it would be to go ahead with the Rosebank development.

15:22

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. At the heart of every major economic and industrial decision should be one simple question: what does this mean for British workers? Will it create good jobs, develop skills, strengthen industry and bring investment to communities that are too often left behind? Will it give the next generation the chance to earn a decent living through skilled work? That is the British worker test, and it is my view that approving Rosebank passes it.

First, on energy security, we cannot surrender domestic production while continuing to consume imported oil and gas. That is not energy independence; it is an industrial retreat that does not pass the British worker test. Secondly, on jobs, Rosebank represents a major investment opportunity that will bring thousands of jobs. Behind those figures lie real people—engineers, welders, electricians, technicians, offshore workers and those employed throughout the supply chain. We cannot rebuild our industrial economy by turning our backs on the industries capable of sustaining it.

Thirdly, it is about our communities. I represent Hartlepool, which is a town with a proud industrial heritage and a future that should be built around engineering, advanced manufacturing and energy. We are pursuing nuclear investment, developing our skills base and working to attract industries that will create opportunities for the future. Jobs in Hartlepool rely on renewables, they rely on nuclear and they rely on oil and gas. That is my frustration with this debate: too often it is about political ideology. Whether it is the representatives of Reform who would destroy renewable jobs, or the Greens who would destroy nuclear jobs and oil and gas jobs, that all means job destruction in my community. Instead, we should do it all. That protects Hartlepool jobs, it protects jobs throughout this country, and it passes the British worker test.

15:24

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I recognise that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, but I must think about Scotland’s future. I am an environmentalist because I am a realist, and I believe that, when confronted with facts, we must face them. The North Sea Transition Authority projects UK oil production falling from 650,000 barrels a day today to just 60,000 by 2050—a decline of more than 90% within 25 years—and those projections account for discoveries such as Rosebank.

Employment has tracked production downwards. How can I look Scots my age in the eye and tell them Rosebank offers a secure career to raise a family and retire if it is 90% smaller when we retire? I cannot do that. Scotland has been here before. Our transition away from coal devastated communities, including Newcraighall in my constituency. We must not repeat the mistake of marooning workers in a sector ineluctably in decline.

Edinburgh has the energy transition on our doorstep, and I regularly meet constituents on six-figure salaries travelling the world working in renewables. That is where the jobs of Scotland’s future lie. Scotland industrialised early, and although we did not know the effects of climate change then, we know them now. How can we advocate that countries such as Nigeria and Bangladesh reduce their emissions, if Scotland cannot take the steps to do so? Those countries will be the biggest markets for our renewables expertise. I oppose Rosebank because I back Scotland’s energy sector and I want it to thrive for decades to come.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I call Perran Moon.

15:26

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)]

Meur ras, Mr Twigg. It is an honour to serve under your chairship. I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that pledged to ban the approval of new oil and gas licences in the North sea. Rosebank would be a futile final bone thrown to the oil industry. The proceeds of Rosebank will not be felt in energy bills, given that the oil will be sold on the international markets with no guarantee that it will be reimported back into the UK and will barely tweak the Treasury’s revenue needle.

Had we set up an energy wealth fund, as the Norwegians did while the UK endured the Thatcher years—and as the Chancellor did in the Budget two weeks ago—the UK would have benefited from these proceeds, but we long sold off control and therefore the ability for Rosebank to benefit our communities.

We should instead be investing in renewables, much in the same way that the National Wealth Fund has invested £1 billion in offshore wind projects announced today. We will create good, productive jobs, bolster energy security and tackle the cost of living. These benefits will be felt prominently in post-industrial communities such as Cornwall, where we have remarkable opportunities in critical minerals, geothermal, floating offshore wind and solar.

But there is another massive decision on the Government’s doorstep today that has the potential to dwarf even Rosebank. If the Government choose to reduce the 2030 target for zero emission vehicles to 50%, with flexibilities extended, that would create a demand for petrol equivalent to double annual Rosebank production. It is really important that Members understand this. Failing to transition to electric vehicles would come not only with a catastrophic environmental cost, but the loss of 127,000 jobs and £70 billion in gross value added. I therefore urge Members to galvanise their opposition against the changes to the ZEV mandate. I would be happy to discuss this with any Members after this debate.

15:28

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important debate. Indeed, no debate is more important than one that discusses the consequences of our heating climate. In the Derbyshire Dales, the climate crisis is no longer something happening elsewhere or something for future generations.

Over the summer, I spoke to anxious residents in Thorpe who were terrified of a wildfire occurring at Dovedale. I spoke to farmers having to use their winter stores to feed their livestock. I have been to six showings of the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, each of which was packed out, showing the level of concern. That concern is reflected by the latest science.

The global temperature has increased by 0.4°C in the last decade alone. We all know that we have unofficially already breached 1.5°C. This summer has made the climate emergency very real. The National Heat Risk Commission estimated that the week commencing 22 June alone cost the economy £1.15 billion in lost output. That could potentially rise to £25 billion a year by 2030.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Whitby]

Sorry, I do not have time.

I accept that Rosebank will not blow our carbon budgets, because much of the 254 million tonnes of carbon emissions will be created in other territories. But the planet does not care where the carbon comes from: it all ends up in the atmosphere or the sea and affects us all. Production of the oil will not make life any cheaper for people; the price will be set by global markets.

The Government made a commitment to no new oil and gas for a very good reason: we must retain our authority and global leadership on the climate. We cannot do this by ourselves.

[Samantha Niblett]

Does my hon. Friend agree that saying we contribute only 1% to global emissions does not give weight to the size of our influence? We might be small, but we are mighty. If we are flippant about our commitment to renewables and reducing our carbon emissions, that sends an awful message to the rest of the world.

[John Whitby]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.

On Rosebank, we cannot keep kicking this planet-sized can down the road. We need to draw the line somewhere—and I say we draw it here.

15:30

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this vital debate, because my constituents in regularly flooded Shrewsbury are incredibly concerned about the environmental impact that could come from approving the licence for Rosebank, and several local environmental groups and many residents got in touch to tell me so. People such as Diane, Amy, Hannah, Ian, Jamie and Phil want our Government Ministers to know the strength of feeling against fossil fuels, which belong in the past and not in our future. In fact, Hannah described Labour’s manifesto commitment not to approve any new licences as

“lighting a beacon of hope for a better tomorrow”.

The Government have already approved the Jackdaw gas licence—described as a “balanced decision”—promising to ringfence the £1 billion tax revenue for the energy wealth fund so that we can move forward with our investment in Great British Energy renewable projects to guarantee our national energy security. However, I would urge the Minister and our Secretary of State not to make a decision in favour of Rosebank and not to add further to our climate emergency.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Julia Buckley]

I am sorry; I will not.

Instead, can we show our international leadership on the environmental emergency and use the Rosebank moment as an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to climate resilience, rejecting the oil licence in favour of renewables so that we can uphold our net zero promise and relight that beacon of hope for a better tomorrow?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I hope to call the Lib Dem spokesperson at 3.34 pm. In the meantime, I call Abtisam Mohamed.

15:33

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Twigg. I will keep my contribution brief.

Like many others, I have signed the StopRosebank pledge on behalf of my constituents in Sheffield Central because we do not have an alternative to survival. There is no moral argument in developing more oilfields as climate breakdown continues. Unless we act now, we will be known as the generation that knowingly ushered in climate catastrophe.

Rosebank fails on every test. It will not benefit taxpayers, who will shoulder the vast majority of the development costs. It will not strengthen our energy security, because most of the oil will be sold on international markets. And it will not reduce energy bills for our constituents, who will remain exposed to volatile fossil fuel prices. I want us to show the courage to invest in renewable energy for a cleaner future, which will allow us to show real climate leadership.

15:32

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I join everybody else in thanking the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important and timely debate. And it is timely, as we have heard powerfully from Members across the room, and at the multiple people’s emergency briefings in my constituency and across the country following a summer of record-breaking heatwaves, droughts and wildfires.

[Martin Wrigley]

The summer has been so hot and the storms so bad in my constituency that we are in a state of severe drought and flood warnings at the same time. Can we really consider allowing Rosebank to go ahead and look the next generation in the face?

[Pippa Heylings]

It is very hard to look my children and the next generation in the eyes as we debate this issue. The Met Office has confirmed that, as a result of burning fossil fuels, we are now living in a changed climate.

The UK’s independent climate advisers acknowledge that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches net zero, but they are clear that

“this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pippa Heylings]

I will not.

Instead, those advisers said that limiting the expansion of fossil fuel production must be a key priority. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a new objective to support

“a globally standard-setting, 1.5°C and climate science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production.”

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Pippa Heylings]

I will.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Dr Opher]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree with me, and about 150 constituents who have written to me, that instead of investing in the exploration of oilfields such as Rosebank, which would cost £4.1 billion—it is a difficult field to explore—and would not lower bills, we should invest £4.1 billion in renewable energy?

[Pippa Heylings]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that not only did I allow him to speak, but I agree with him.

The decision on Rosebank will be the first major test of the Government’s new approach and the UK’s climate commitments. We need energy security now more than ever in this unstable world. Although we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper, more efficient energy, successive Governments have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity. Because they scrapped zero-carbon homes and insulation schemes, the Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in energy bills between 2017 and 2025, and leaving those off-grid exposed to heating oil price spikes, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) described. The Conservatives have pledged that they would continue doing the same if elected.

The sad truth is that Britain has not moved anywhere near fast enough when it comes to reducing the demand for gas and oil in our homes and transport, so we need some North sea oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, accepting that reality does not mean supporting every new oil and gas development. When it comes to Rosebank, we Liberal Democrats are clear that the evidence does not meet rigorous climate tests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) stated, around 90% of Rosebank’s reserves are oil, most of which will be sold into the global markets, not reserved for British consumers. Rosebank will not necessarily shield households and businesses from the volatility of global energy prices, and so will not bring down people’s bills in my constituency or other constituencies.

The oil and gas workers who have powered our economy for generations deserve our gratitude and respect, and they are rightly angry that the number of jobs supported by the North sea over the past decade has more than halved, with no transition in place. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for the Just Transition Commission to put them at the heart of the new transition.

Ministers must also confront a wider climate issue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) powerfully highlighted. Following the Finch judgment, the full climate impact of oil and gas production can be properly assessed. Rosebank’s projected scope 3 emissions are around seven times greater than those associated with Jackdaw, equivalent to roughly a quarter of the UK’s sixth carbon budget. The Government have stated that the approval of Jackdaw is in line with our legally binding net zero targets, but that is because our net zero targets do not include scope 3 emissions. Will the Government therefore comply with their own policy, following the Finch judgment, that mitigations will be required for scope 3 emissions? None has been set for Jackdaw.

Rather than pursuing projects such as Rosebank, we should focus our efforts on accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy and to electrification, so that we can use up all this good, clean energy. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a national electrification strategy?

This debate is about the choices we make for our energy future. Rosebank will not lower bills, it raises serious questions about tax revenues, it will not increase our energy security, and it will not save the North sea—but it will wreck our climate.

15:40

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing the debate.

I start by paying my respects to Sir Jim Milne, whose death at 85 was announced today. Sir Jim was a giant of the oil and gas sector. Born and raised in Aberdeen, he went on to be one of the north-east’s most renowned energy sector entrepreneurs. My condolences, and I am sure those of many others, go to Sir Jim’s family, friends and many colleagues, who will miss him greatly.

This debate is not about whether we need oil and gas. We do, and we will for decades. It is about where the oil and gas we need comes from, and whether we get the economic benefits from producing it ourselves. While we need oil and gas, and while we have oil and gas, we should be prioritising using our own oil and gas. But—madly—we are not.

When the Government permitted Jackdaw a few weeks ago, they said it would be good for jobs, good for business and good for energy security—and they were right. But those same arguments apply for Rosebank. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) and others have highlighted, Rosebank will support thousands of jobs, directly and in the supply chain. It could deliver tens of billions of gross added value to our economy and around half a billion pounds annually in direct tax revenues. No serious Government would be prepared to walk away from that.

Rosebank is primarily an oilfield, but it contains a notable amount of gas. Although Jackdaw is expected to produce the equivalent of 6% of the UK’s gas needs, Rosebank could contribute a further 4%, and the Government permitted Jackdaw on the basis that it was good for gas supplies this winter and good for energy security. The same reasons therefore apply to Rosebank.

One of the principal arguments made against Rosebank in this debate is that the oil will be exported, so let us deal with that face on. About 90% of the crude oil that we extract in UK waters is refined in the UK or exported to Europe, with approximately 65% of that, as we have heard, returning to the UK as refined products—products that we need every day. The extraction of oil from the UK is good for our energy security. It is far better than importing oil from the other side of the world, where supply is vulnerable to disruption at choke points such as the strait of Hormuz.

Let us be completely honest: the export argument is incredibly superficial. We are an exporting nation; we are the fourth largest exporter in the world, and trade accounts for 60% of our GDP, so why has that suddenly become an argument against Rosebank? Those who are concerned about the oil being exported should ask themselves why the UK has lost a third of our refining capacity in the last two years and whether they will support our proposals to scrap carbon taxes and restore the competitiveness of domestic refineries—but, sadly, I doubt that many will.

The reality is that the alternative to not producing our own oil and gas here is not using less; rather, it is importing more. Those imports are more carbon intensive, extracted under different standards and shipped miles around the world to get here. So why are we deliberately replacing domestic production with more high-emission imports? That is the choice that those opposing Rosebank in this debate are making.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that any oil extracted from Rosebank would have to be exported to be refined? We do not have the refining capacity, as she just mentioned, so it would represent more carbon emissions, increased costs and very little coming back to us.

[Harriet Cross]

We are exporting to Europe now and bringing it back—Rotterdam is a lot closer than, for example, Canada, Nigeria or Algeria, where we are importing a lot of our oil from.

There are some questions on the financial forecasts that I would like the Minister to address. Last year, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that the OBR’s forecasts do not provide a breakdown of individual fields, yet Rosebank was specifically referenced in this year’s forecast accompanying the Budget. Can the Minister explain why? Was the OBR given assurances by the Government that the field would be permitted? If Rosebank does not proceed, will the forecast need to be revised?

I would also like the Minister to clarify another inconsistency. Last month, the Foreign Secretary signed off the Sea Lion oilfield in the Falklands, which is twice the size of Rosebank. Both Sea Lion and Rosebank have published their scope-free calculations, so why has one been allowed while the other is still stuck in limbo? Why are the Government supporting jobs and growth in Port Stanley, but not in Aberdeen?

The debate on Rosebank should not be about climate change, emissions or use of oil and gas, because not permitting Rosebank will not mean that our demand for oil and gas disappears overnight. This is a debate about jobs, business and UK industry. Businesses need confidence, and oil and gas operators and supply chains are no different, yet the Government are sending completely contradictory signals. One minute, they recognise the importance of domestic production and jobs by permitting Jackdaw; the next, they continue to delay Rosebank and press ahead with their plan to ban new oil and gas licences.

It should not even need saying, but sadly it does: no business—oil and gas or otherwise—is obligated to invest in the UK. Firms can put their money, employ people, grow their businesses and produce their energy elsewhere, and increasingly they are choosing to do so. That is bad in so many ways for the UK—there is no plainer way of saying it. The Government are pushing investment abroad, driving down production and with it our energy security, sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs and skills that have taken more than half a century to develop, and—knowingly and deliberately—making us increasingly reliant on more carbon-intensive imports, precisely when we have seen how fragile international supply chains are.

[Olivia Blake]

Between 21 and 28 June this year—just eight days—there were 2,124 heat-associated deaths, which is 620 more deaths in one week alone than in the whole summer of 2025. How many health risks or deaths are needed before the Opposition get back around the table and rejoin the consensus that action on climate is not only critical, but necessary, and not a nice-to-have?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order.

15:45

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:10

On resuming—

[Harriet Cross]

The oil and gas sector is much more than just Jackdaw or Rosebank. This is an industry that employs over 100,000 people and supports a supply chain that is so important to the roll-out of renewables, nuclear or other defence and energy technologies. It is a sector that the UK cannot do without, so we really need to look at the way in which it is undermined, talked down and seemingly penalised by politicians and the public when they do not believe that we need oil and gas, or believe that we can keep going as we are with oil and gas.

Can the Minister please address how any credible Government can justify legislation to ban oil and gas licences when we need it, have it and will otherwise just be importing it? It will make us weaker, it will make our economy poorer and it will make too many people unemployed. That is the choice being made by this Government, and it is a choice that they are making through the Energy Independence Bill. They must know, deep down, that it is the wrong choice for the UK.

16:11

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Thank you for your expert chairing and timekeeping in this debate, Mr Twigg. I thank most Members for returning to hear the closing speeches, I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing the debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation.

I echo the comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), about Sir Jim Milne. He was a titan of industry in Aberdeen and was the founder of the Balmoral Group, which is a good example of what we are talking about today: the group was largely set up in oil and gas, but is increasingly doing work in renewables. My thoughts are with his family.

I want to be clear at the outset about one thing, which may disappoint many Members present. Rosebank is subject to an ongoing regulatory process. In due course, the Secretary of State for Energy has to decide whether or not to agree the grant of that consent. If she decides to do so, the North Sea Transition Authority then has to make the final decision. The environmental effect of the project will be considered and weighed alongside other relevant considerations in reaching a decision, including the potential advantages of the project proceeding. I stress that this Government will not make decisions for this country that are not compatible with our climate obligations, but I cannot and will not undermine the regulatory process that is currently under way by discussing the merits or demerits of the Rosebank project today.

However, I want to pick up some of the more general issues that have been raised in the debate. Of course, consideration of the Rosebank decision follows the decision taken by the Energy Secretary to approve the Jackdaw gasfield just a few weeks ago. The Jackdaw decision will support the country’s energy security, protecting hundreds of jobs and adding an estimated £2.9 billion to the UK economy; the decision document outlines more details on that. The decision was fully in line with our climate commitments, and we expect that in the coming days gas will start to flow from the field to meet demand right across Britain.

I want to set out once again the Government’s wider energy, North sea and climate policy. I will begin where the hon. Member for Bristol Central began: on climate. She is right to say that it is imperative that we tackle the climate crisis. The heatwaves, droughts and extreme weather events that are becoming all too frequent are a reminder to people right across this country that climate change is not some future, theoretical threat, but a very present reality that we are living through.

This Government are absolutely committed to tackling the climate crisis, supporting bill payers and bolstering our energy security by moving to the clean, home-grown energy system that we need and that we control. First, the recent heatwaves and extreme weather events that we have seen demonstrate why this is of critical importance, and that we must pick up the pace in the transition to clean energy. Secondly, recent rises to the energy price cap have largely been caused by the war in Iran, showing that we have to move off the ruinous reliance on global fossil fuel markets that we can never control.

The hon. Member and others rightly pointed out that new drilling in the North sea will not take a penny off bills, and we should be honest about that. Producing the energy that we need at home is vital to moving away from fossil fuel dependence, and the transition to clean energy remains a central priority for this Government. However, we have always been clear that the UK will still require oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come, even on our path to net zero.

It is a basic truth, which we must be honest about, that until we increase our electrification and move away from a reliance on fossil fuels, we will still require them to heat homes, power the country and power industry, but it is right that we take a pragmatic approach. In short, we are not a turn-off-the-taps Government, as our critics accuse us of being, but nor can we justifiably be a drill-every-last-drop Government. We have to manage the transition and build for our energy needs of the future as quickly as possible, and that is baked into the legally binding climate commitments that we have in order to reach net zero by 2050.

Just last week, we introduced the Energy Independence Bill to Parliament, making good on our commitment to introduce legislation to end new exploration licences. We will be the first major G7 producer country to take that step, making sure that we signal a commitment to the global 1.5°C climate goal and demonstrating global climate leadership at a hugely important moment for the world. Furthermore, North sea oil and gas production is already in natural decline. Production in 2025 was 75% lower than in peak years. Further licensing will not reverse that natural decline or change the UK’s status as a net importer of oil and gas. It is a basic fact that, while oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come, that has to be alongside our move, as quickly as possible, to the deployment of renewable, new nuclear and other low-carbon technologies.

[Richard Tice]

If we are the only G7 country to ban the drilling of new oil and gasfields, does the Minister think that other G7 countries will follow us, or does he think that they will laugh at our naive stupidity?

[Michael Shanks]

First, let me be very clear, because there has been a lot of confusion on this: new production from the North sea is not the same as new exploration licences. We have been very clear on that. Secondly, if we look at the history of the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, it has driven a global consensus to action on climate change. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the role that Britain should play in leading in the world, and then retreats at the very moment when leadership is important. This is a moment to stand up and fight for Britain’s influence in the world. I am very proud that we are there at COP and in other places trying to encourage the world in this transition. I hope that he would do likewise.

[Richard Tice]

No chance.

[Michael Shanks]

Also in the Energy Independence Bill is a commitment to support the management of existing fields by introducing transitional energy certificates. Those will enable some oil and gas production in already explored areas that are near licensed fields linked by a tie-back. At its heart, this is about taking a pragmatic approach to the North sea, providing long-term stability, maintaining jobs and ensuring that the sector continues to make an important contribution to the UK economy. I am sorry that the SNP seems to have changed its position from supporting that exact climate-leading position. I am not quite sure what its position is from one week to another, but I am sure that when this much-vaunted energy strategy is published at some point—we have only been waiting three years—we will know what the SNP’s real position on this is.

Many right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), made powerful comments about the importance of jobs being at the heart of this transition. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar rightly made the point that we need an energy mix, which means not “or” but “and”: having oil and gas alongside the push to renewables as quickly as possible. Those jobs are critical to what we need to do in the energy transition, and we have to hold on to them in the UK.

We have been ambitious about the number of clean energy jobs that we can deploy, tripling them in Scotland and at least doubling them in Wales, Northern Ireland and almost every region of England, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK by the end of the decade. These are not jobs arriving at some point in the future. Sumitomo opened the first UK high-voltage direct current subsea cable factory with more than 200 jobs; more than 1,500 jobs have been created in the electricity network sector in Scotland; and today we saw two new projects at Vanguard East and Vanguard West, with 2,400 jobs, as well as new jobs from SSE investment in Berwick Bank. These jobs are being created right now in communities right across the country, and we need to support even more of that investment in clean energy into the future.

A number of points have been raised today about the either/or choice between oil and gas and our move to renewables. I want to be clear that our pathway must be towards the deployment, as quickly as possible, of clean power right across the country. Every single day we remain exposed to fossil fuel markets is a day our constituents pay the price in their bills—and in a very uncertain world, we no longer have the energy security on which we once relied.

The long-term future of this country does not lie in fossil fuels from the North sea. The Government seek to make decisions that take a genuinely pragmatic view of the coming decades, in which we will require oil and gas in our energy mix, and ensure that we get as much economic advantage as possible. Renewables and nuclear is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. It is also a route to protecting bill payers and energy security and to meeting our hugely important climate commitments. Regardless of what decision the Energy Secretary makes on Rosebank, that transition will remain central to this Government’s objectives.

Since we came into office two and a half years ago, we have consented enough clean energy to power more than 20 million homes. We have kicked off a new golden age of nuclear. Some £110 billion of clean energy investment has flowed into clean energy industries. We have saved millions of pounds every single day on oil and gas purchases that we no longer required, as the strait of Hormuz closed, because we could rely on home-grown, secure power here in the UK. I am proud of that record. There is much, much more to do and we are absolutely determined to do it.

16:21

[Carla Denyer]

I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and all colleagues who have contributed. It is heartening, frankly, to see so many of us across the House united in opposition to new oil and gas.

I absolutely hear the concern that some Members have raised about their constituents’ jobs, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray)—not my constituency neighbour, but my neighbour in the room today—answered those points very clearly when he pointed out that jobs in the North sea are in terminal and steep decline and that we will lose 90% of them in the next 25 years, whether or not Rosebank is granted. Surely the best thing we can do for those workers is to ensure that they are supported with a fully funded transition support programme like the one I proposed in my energy jobs Bill.

I thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who cut through our arguments over exports and imports by reminding us that the planet does not care where the carbon emissions come from. I thank the many hon. Members who brought to the fore the stark impacts of the climate crisis falling on their constituents right now—including the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who talked about heat deaths this summer. I have been struck by the huge passion and eloquence in the room. I also thank the thousands of people who have written to their MP ahead of today’s debate. I pay tribute to Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Uplift, Zero Hour and others who help to make sure that we MPs understand the public’s strength of feeling on the issue.

Having covered the economic and climate cases in my opening speech, I will close with just a few words about the political case against Rosebank. Today’s debate has happened in the context of a political situation in the UK in which climate deniers and delayers on the hard right are trying to discredit climate action. Perhaps that is because they are out of touch; perhaps it is because they do not actually care all that much for the communities that they claim to represent; perhaps it is because they are bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. They push a narrative that is as misleading as it is dangerous. Sadly, we have seen it take hold, especially the misconceived idea that climate action is unpopular with voters and that rowing back on climate commitments is a winning strategy, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and I fear may be about to happen on electric vehicle targets.

The evidence simply does not bear out that idea. The UK public overwhelmingly support strong climate action. If we retreat from that truth, and from the truth of the climate science, the results will be disastrous. We cannot in good conscience look the other way. We must do everything possible to prevent the go-ahead being given to this action of climate vandalism. Once again, Mr Twigg, I thank you, the Minister and all colleagues who joined the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policy on Rosebank oilfield.

West London Orbital Rail Project

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:25

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call Ruth Cadbury to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the West London orbital.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to speak on an issue that is of particular relevance to Members from west London: the proposed development of the west London orbital rail line. This valuable strategic rail project will connect Hounslow in the west to Hendon in the north-west, avoiding the need to go into central London.

Back in the 1830s, during Britain’s first railway boom, parliamentary Committees signed off thousands of miles of new rail tracks in short order. I am not proposing that we do that today, but I hope to show why the proposal has broad and deep support from councils led by different political parties, a broad range of civic society organisations, the business community, MPs, the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor of London. The Government also supported it in the Budget two weeks ago.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I am so excited, because Neasden in my patch in Brent will be connected to the WLO. Does she agree that it will make London more economically sustainable, and will bring housing and jobs? What is not to love?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Exactly—and what is more, it will make it so much easier to get to Wembley stadium in my hon. Friend’s patch.

I thank the West London Alliance of local authorities, which has done so much to work up and promote the scheme, and to bring business and local government leaders together—some are in the Public Gallery watching the debate. But let me first set out some background about the scheme. The West London orbital route would start—or finish, depending on where you are—in my constituency at Hounslow station, passing through Isleworth, Syon Lane and Brentford stations. There would be a new station at Lionel Road, by Brentford football club’s ground, and it would then go through Acton and Old Oak Common, allowing an easy connection to High Speed 2 and the Elizabeth line, before continuing via Harlesden, Neasden, Brent Cross and finishing in Hendon. The route would connect west London with north-west London, significantly cutting journey times.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate, and I share her excitement. Does she agree that the project would not only supercharge economic growth and connectivity in west London, but benefit north London? It ends in my constituency, as she says, and it would bring benefits to the whole of north London and the borough of Barnet.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely do, but from a West London Alliance perspective, Barnet is in west London, so when I say “west London” I of course include Barnet.

My constituents and I will get to Wembley stadium in less than an hour, with a much better journey. The line will link 450,000 additional people to Old Oak Common within an hour, massively boosting the benefit that HS2 will bring to outer London.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Old Oak is in my seat. This huge thing that we were promised has still not quite happened, and it seems to be going over budget. Does she agree that we need a comprehensive traffic survey? Obviously, the benefits are great—it will be very quick to go to Brent Cross, for example—but several level crossings in Chiswick, which we used to share, will be down permanently, so where will that traffic go? Will it evaporate? The Old Oak link sounds great.

[Ruth Cadbury]

There is clearly a lot of work to be done, particularly on alternatives to the level crossings. I have one in my constituency, and I know that my hon. Friend has more. However, I am absolutely sure that the local authorities, which definitely want this scheme, and Transport for London—ditto—will work together to find effective solutions that do not disbenefit local areas in ways that can be avoided.

What is important for many of us and our constituents is the direct link to the Elizabeth line. That would allow my constituents to access another route both into central London and out to Heathrow without needing to get a bus up to the Elizabeth line stations.

The real magic of the scheme is that it makes use of existing rail lines. They have capacity, with some parts currently used only by freight, such as the Dudding Hill line and the stretch between South Acton and Kew Bridge. Only four new stations would be needed, and no elaborate new tunnelling is required, so it is more or less a shovel-ready scheme.

London’s existing tube and rail network was mainly developed by private companies in the 19th and 20th centuries as London was growing, but without much strategic thinking. Outer London boroughs do not have great connectivity in many parts, and what there is generally follows the radial rail routes going in and out of central London. There are exceptions that actually demonstrate success, such as the Mildmay line—until a year ago, we knew it as the North London line. That is an orbital route.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this incredibly important debate. Although we welcome the additional connectivity that the West London orbital will bring, TfL has refused to extend the line to provide connections for other underserved areas, such as Whitton and Twickenham. The hon. Member mentioned Wembley stadium; there are opportunities to provide better rail access to Twickenham stadium, but also for the Ivybridge estate, which sits in her constituency. Does she agree that TfL should reconsider its refusal to extend the service to those underserved areas of London?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member makes an important point. I have been asked by my constituents living in Whitton whether the line, at its western end, could continue beyond Hounslow, around the Hounslow loop line, to Whitton, Twickenham, and so on.

Particularly as we face the prospect of more events at the Twickenham rugby football union stadium, I am aware that there may be capacity challenges on the routes through Twickenham, but I hope that South Western Railway and TfL can look at what extra services would help connectivity for not only my constituents in Whitton but those on the south side of my constituency in Isleworth.

I will now move on to the wider benefits to the city region. West London is a powerhouse for economic growth in the UK, second only to central London in productivity and GDP per head. We have strong growth sectors: tech, arts, logistics, food manufacturing, the creatives and tourism, with many world-leading brands and businesses. However, the sub-region is held back by poor intra-regional transport links. That is why the west London orbital is so important.

It is projected that, for west and north-west London, the scheme will help to deliver 25,000 new homes and 11,500 new jobs, and will bring more than 3 million jobs within a 45-minute commute. That is so important for our economy here in London. Some 200 businesses have recently confirmed that they back the project, because they know that new public transport services are good for growth; they open up formerly inaccessible industrial areas and cut congestion on our roads.

Providing more public transport services also supports London’s net zero and climate change ambitions, improves our air quality and improves access to jobs, training, healthcare, leisure and cultural opportunities—especially for Wembley, as I have mentioned. Recently, there have been attempts to talk down London, but a strong capital city makes for a strong country, and strong growth in London means strong growth across the UK.

Where is the proof of the value of new services such as this? That proof is in the Elizabeth line. I remember when it was Crossrail, that much-maligned project, but since it opened to passengers in May 2022, the Elizabeth line has been a huge success. Some 90% of users say that it has improved their area, and within a couple of months it will transport its billionth passenger, way ahead of projections. More than that, though, the Elizabeth line has been responsible for thousands of jobs and homes along the line. Abbey Wood in the east has become one of the biggest regeneration areas in London. Build it and they shall come.

The Elizabeth line teaches us not only to go ahead with new transport lines, but to look at innovative ways of funding them. We were so pleased that at the Budget the Chancellor gave the Mayor of London greater power and control over spending income tax in London, along with powers to enable the WLO to be funded through the business rates regime. That, in turn, will benefit from the uplift in land value in and around the new line. That was the model we used to fund the Elizabeth line. We know it works. I want to thank the Chancellor and the Government for engaging with London MPs, the mayor and local authorities on this issue.

I move on to some questions for the Minister. When will the Government publish further details about proposals for fiscal devolution mechanisms, and when could the new funding powers become available? Will the Department for Transport co-ordinate work with TFL, the mayor, Network Rail and local councils on how the fiscal devolution mechanism can work to fund this project? What work is being undertaken with partners to establish a viable funding package following the announcement in the Budget?

The next stage of design on the WLO has been commissioned and will be worked on throughout 2027. Will the WLO, as a test case, enable local partners and the Government to work through what a funding package would look like during 2027? What needs to happen to keep the scheme on track for possible operation by 2035 and are there any Government-controlled obstacles? The WLO uses existing network freight lines, so its progress depends on work with Network Rail, including on level crossings. Will the Minister ask Network Rail to actively work with TfL on the next stage of design? Will he agree to meet TFL, the West London Alliance, local MPs and other partners to discuss how the Government can help bring the scheme forward? Finally, what lessons has the DFT learned from previous infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail, HS2 and the expansion of the London Overground network?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I hope we can build on the really positive announcements from the Budget. This project is a huge opportunity to increase connectivity, decrease journey times and bring extra investment into west London. I hope the Government can work with TfL, local councils, the West London Alliance and so many other organisations that are working together, committed to making this proposal a reality for my constituents and everybody else in west and north-west London.

16:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this debate and for setting out so clearly and comprehensively the importance that she attaches to improving transport connectivity across west London. I also recognise that she has considerable support among colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brent East (Dawn Butler), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor). There is clearly a united front on this issue.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth would expect, the Government recognise the importance of a reliable, accessible and well-connected transport network. That is particularly important in a global city such as London, where a transport network supports not only the capital’s economy, but the wider UK economy.

As we have heard today, the west London orbital is a proposal for a new London Overground passenger service between Hounslow and Hendon, making use of existing rail infrastructure, including lines currently used for freight, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Transport for London estimates that the scheme could support more than 25,000 new homes and about 11,500 jobs. As my hon. Friend said, that will improve connectivity and links between important areas of economic development, including Old Oak and Park Royal, Brent Cross and the great west corridor. She also discussed connectivity with Brentford Football Club and said on a number of occasions that she hoped there would soon be a direct link from the club to Wembley—

[Ruth Cadbury]

Wembley stadium.

[Justin Madders]

As a Brentford supporter, she might be a little over-optimistic in that regard, although I recognise the irony of my making such a comment. Nevertheless, I am sure that we would all benefit from regular trips to Wembley.

[Dawn Butler]

Lots of things happen at Wembley stadium, and we welcome people coming to it.

I thank the Minister for his comments. The reality is that after years of under-investment by the previous Government, we now have a Government who have recognised that situation and are investing in London. Will he join me in welcoming the devolution of powers to London? Those powers will enable the unlocking of schemes such as the WLO, which will bring about £300 million of investment into our economy.

[Justin Madders]

It is clear that the direction of travel under this Government is to empower local areas to control their own destinies; we think that is really important. We hope to see the mayoral model being replicated around the country, but there is already proof of concept in London. I will say a little more about the fiscal devolution proposals in a minute.

As Members will know, transport is devolved to the Mayor of London and Transport for London: it is for them to determine and prioritise which projects they want to support. Nevertheless, we work closely with Transport for London to understand the long-term needs of London’s transport infrastructure and where there are opportunities to enhance the network, including through major projects such as the one we are discussing today.

The Government have already provided significant support to Transport for London, including more than £6.5 billion in revenue funding and capital funding between 2020 and 2024. At the 2025 spending review, the Government also confirmed nearly £2.2 billion in capital funding for Transport for London over the four years from 2026-27 to 2029-30, to support major rolling stock, signalling and road renewal projects.

[Dr Huq]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister can allay some fears that I heard about on the doorstep last weekend about South Acton station in W4. People were saying that unless we sort out the level-crossing issue and find a better way of doing them, communities will be cut in half and there will be permanent gridlock. They were also saying that this project will never happen, because the money is not there. Can he elucidate?

[Justin Madders]

We can say with confidence that we will give the Mayor of London the powers and tools to make the project happen; it will then be a question for him to decide whether it actually happens. However, I am sure that, given the support in this Chamber, he will make the project a major priority.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point about level crossings. There is a consultation at the moment, which I hope will be able to identify and deal with some of the particular issues that she mentioned.

I want to say a few words about future fiscal devolution. The Chancellor set out in the Budget his plans to put power into the communities of our country, to get good growth in every postcode. We are moving away from the fragmented and restrictive central Government grant regime to give local leaders greater funding and certainty, with a stronger reward for local growth. That is why alongside the Budget we published a fiscal devolution road map, which sets out a reformed funding model for English regional and local government. Under fiscal devolution, all mayors will receive a share of business rates from 2027 and a share of local income tax from 2028, in place of central Government grants. For local authorities, a key part of our reforms is the commitment to make business rates a fully locally retained tax by the end of the decade.

For London in particular, the Chancellor committed in the Budget to legislating to enable the Mayor of London to establish a successor to the Elizabeth line business rate supplement. Such mechanisms will help the Greater London Authority to finance future transport infrastructure projects such as west London orbital—or indeed other schemes, potentially. Full details on fiscal devolution will be set out at the spending review in 2027.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that it will not be for central Government to decide where London invests; that will be, of course, for Londoners themselves. That means that the Mayor of London will have the tools to deliver the transport links that the capital needs. Along with No.10 North, we will work with the mayor, the GLA, Network Rail and local councils on how fiscal devolution can fund this project.

The west London orbital is at a development stage. As I have already said, Transport for London’s first public consultation is currently under way and will remain open until 18 November. The consultation seeks views on the proposed route, new stations, and the potential impacts and benefits of the new scheme, which will hopefully deal with the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton has just referred to.

Once the consultation has concluded, Transport for London will need to consider the feedback alongside the wider evidence as it continues to develop its proposals. Although the scheme is not yet at a funding package stage, we will continue to engage constructively with the mayor and Transport for London as the proposals develop and we continue to unlock funding that will enable the mayor to deliver the scheme should he choose to.

The Rail Minister, my noble Friend Lord Hendy, regularly meets Transport for London and the Greater London Authority to discuss their transport priorities. I am sure he will be happy to meet them again to discuss this further. Of course, it is for Transport for London to determine the timetable for the scheme and keep it on track for possible operation by the mid-2030s. Should Transport for London choose to progress it, we will of course work with them to ensure that there are no Government-controlled obstacles in their way. As with any scheme, we will work with both Network Rail and Transport for London on resolving issues, including on capacity, given that passengers and freight services would share the line.

In closing, I reassure hon. Members that the Government understand the importance of improving connectivity and supporting sustainable economic growth in London. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth for securing this debate and for the passion and clear-sightedness with which she has advocated for this particular line.

Question put and agreed to.

16:45

Sitting suspended.

Safety of Emergency Workers

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:54

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the safety of emergency workers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.

Our emergency workers run towards danger when the rest of us would instinctively run away. When someone is injured, trapped at sea, frightened or in grave danger, our emergency workers do not ask first who the person is, where they come from or what their political views are; they simply act. They do it because it is their duty, and because they care. In the case of organisations such as the RNLI and the coastguard, they volunteer their own time to save complete strangers. The very least they should expect in return is to do their job without being assaulted, threatened or intimidated.

Because of the nature of their roles, however, emergency workers often do not have a voice. They are expected to get on with their job and absorb the abuse. I wanted to hold this debate to give them a voice and secure action to protect them. Sadly, recent events in and around Portsmouth have shown that that cannot be taken for granted. On 6 September, protesters gathered at Eastney pier in an attempt to prevent migrants rescued from a small boat being taken out of the area. Further protests followed in neighbouring Gosport on 22 September and 4 October. There have been convictions for violent offences connected to those protests, and other cases remain before the courts—I will not comment on those proceedings.

The cases that have concluded give the House a very disturbing indication of what emergency workers faced. On 22 September, Shannon Dodds concealed her identity with a mask and sunglasses before spraying a noxious substance into the face of two police constables. Sally Pearson punched an officer, causing a suspected ligament injury that has left him unable to work for three weeks, and she then directed racial abuse at another officer. Behind those assaults are real people—officers who went home injured, families worried about their loved ones and colleagues left to pick up the pieces.

It was not just the police. I have spoken to emergency services representatives who were on the frontline. Ambulance crews trying to reach people in need of medical assistance were abused. Protesters rocked their vehicles, banging on the sides, and pushed phones aggressively into the workers’ faces, filming them and sharing the images online. The coastguard vehicle had every tyre slashed, police vehicles were damaged, and emergency workers and volunteers were followed, filmed and intimidated. Their message to me was simple: “This is not what we signed up for.”

Videos from the Eastney disorder showed protesters shouting, “Effing traitors,” and, “I hope you effing lot sink,” at the RNLI boats. Those words were directed at people whose only purpose is to save lives. The intimidation extends beyond the protests: I have heard reports of RNLI crew members’ children being harassed, and volunteers and staff being advised not to wear service-branded clothing in public for fear of abuse. What does it say about us if lifeboat volunteers cannot safely wear the badge of an organisation dedicated to saving lives? What sort of patriotism attacks British officers, obstructs British paramedics, damages coastguard vehicles and intimidates RNLI volunteers? Wrapping yourself in a flag does not make your actions patriotic. Real public service is someone putting on a uniform, answering an emergency call and helping someone they have never met.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. She represents a coastal seat just along from mine in Portsmouth, so she knows the value of the RNLI and the lifeboats. Does she agree that those who have dressed up what they have done as some form of righteous activism are both misguided and utterly irresponsible? In addition to some of the events she described, some children of RNLI volunteers were bullied at school. Does she agree that that crosses a line, and will she join me in full support of our RNLI volunteers and their families, who have paid a price for this?

[Amanda Martin]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. As a teacher, I say that bullying has no place in school, especially from people pretending to be patriotic who are just doing harm to the people helping us in our society.

I will be absolutely clear about the right to protest. I respect that right—I have been on many demonstrations. It is fundamental to our democracy, and I will always defend it. Many people who attended these demonstrations were local residents with genuine concerns about immigration, the asylum system and the impact on our communities. Some of them felt very intimidated by the turnout of protesters in balaclavas. Their concerns deserve to be heard, not dismissed. People should not be made to feel that expressing concerns about immigration makes them extremist or less entitled to have a voice. I understand the anger many constituents feel about illegal immigration, and I share their determination to stop dangerous small boat crossings.

People are entitled to demand secure borders, an effective asylum system and firm action against the criminal gangs that profit from putting lives at risk. They are also entitled to be frustrated by years of political rhetoric and promises from Governments who have had the opportunity to act but have not. There has been progress under this Government, but the job is not finished.

But there is an unmistakable line between peaceful protest and criminal disorder. Assaulting officers, obstructing ambulances, damaging emergency vehicles and intimidating rescue volunteers is not protest; it is criminal behaviour. We must also recognise that alongside concerned residents, there was an organised far-right element to these demonstrations. Hon. Members will be familiar with so-called Danny Tommo and the Patriot Platform. Through his network, far-right activists were mobilised from across the country to come to Portsmouth, often with their faces covered, to exploit local concerns, stir up division and contribute to disorder and hate.

Such people are creating a protest tourism industry, bringing chaos to communities and seeking to profit from public anger. We should never allow those who exploit legitimate public anxieties to claim that they speak for everyone who attends a peaceful demonstration. My first question to the Minister is: what is being doing to improve intelligence sharing between police forces when organised agitators travel between areas, and what more can be done to hold organisers and online instigators accountable?

Sadly, Portsmouth’s experience is not unique. The RNLI told me that it saw 140 reports of abuse and aggression across the country in September alone. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives recorded over 22,000 incidents of violent abuse between 2024 and 2025—the equivalent of 62 incidents every day. A survey by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine found that 96% of emergency department staff had experienced violence or aggression from a patient or member of the public. Before these protests, I was already hearing from hospital staff in my city that they were facing racial abuse at work. These flashpoints are part of the wider problem of how we treat the people who provide essential public services.

We must consider how these attacks can be prevented. One issue that is raised repeatedly in Portsmouth is the use of face coverings by people intent on causing disorder. There are legitimate religious and medical reasons for wearing face coverings, and those rights must be respected, but there is a clear distinction between those reasons and deliberately concealing one’s identity to commit offences and evade identification. At a subsequent protest in Portsmouth, which the Minister is aware of, police used powers to require the removal of these face coverings. Arrests were reduced dramatically and residents were able to express their views peacefully. Can the Minister explain how the Government are supporting local forces to use existing powers, and whether those powers need strengthening, particularly where police have not received prior notice of a protest?

I also want to address online intimidation, misinformation and disinformation. Local workers and volunteers have been doxed, with photographs of their personal information, including home addresses, shared online. Far-right accounts have labelled them traitors and encouraged hostility towards them. People have received death threats and letters sent to their homes. One worker said that by the time he had left the protest after his 25-hour shift and gone home, he saw his address all over X. He was very distraught about that and what it would do to his family. I have also heard of one worker who has not been home since June because they were misidentified online. People who have done nothing more than their jobs are being left frightened about being in their own homes.

The Hampshire Police Federation told me that officers understand the physical risks involved in policing protests, but after a 24-hour shift or a cancelled day of leave, it is going home and finding their face online that hits them hardest. Emergency workers are increasingly scared to use personal social media accounts to share pictures of their children with family, because they fear that agitators will infiltrate their accounts. New technologies are making this behaviour easier. The RNLI has had agitators entering its stations wearing Meta glasses and uploading footage online to cause further intimidation.

A consistent problem is how difficult it is to get personal information and videos taken down from social media. Social media companies do not have good enough procedures to deal with this—we must press them to do better, and quickly. I have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about tackling doxxing. Although I recognise that digital policy sits with other Departments, will the Minister explain the work taking place across Government to protect emergency workers from online intimidation, and to ensure that harmful personal information is removed quickly?

Alongside direct threats, we must challenge deliberate misinformation about the role of our emergency services. When those organisations put out factual statements explaining their work, they are often accused of lying, with hostility towards their staff and volunteers amplified as a result. The RNLI has a legal, moral obligation under international maritime law to assist those in distress at sea. Its crews are not political activists but specialist rescue workers, many of whom volunteer their time. There is a particularly important example from Eastleigh. While rescuing people from a small boat, RNLI crews also helped to ensure the safety of protesters who had gone into the water—the very people protesting at the RNLI’s involvement were saved by its crews.

I am also concerned that elected politicians have helped to amplify misinformation and hostility towards our emergency services. Councillors both locally and nationally amplified information by livestreaming and sharing videos, and by ignoring hostile comments on their social media posts, while emergency services were carrying out their duties. Elected officials and politicians carry responsibilities that should never be used to legitimise intimidation or encourage hatred.

Will the Minister raise with colleagues the need for a stronger standards regime for councillors, including how they can be held accountable when they use their position to encourage abuse or spread dangerous misinformation? What more can the Government do, working with social media platforms and trusted local voices, to challenge false claims before they translate into real-world intimidation or violence?

I was delighted that Portsmouth city council yesterday agreed to grant the RNLI the freedom of the city, following the protests. It was disappointing to note, however, that every Reform councillor abstained. This debate is ultimately about the kind of country we want to be. We can disagree passionately about immigration—we can protest and challenge the Government and we can demand change, and we should defend the rights of people to do so peacefully, even when we profoundly disagree with what they say—but none of that justifies the assault or intimidation of the people who keep us safe, nor should legitimate public concerns ever be exploited as an excuse to spread hatred.

The emergency workers we see being abused today may be the very people our families depend on tomorrow. Their duty is to help whoever is in danger; our duty is to make sure that they do it safely. Those workers do not ask whether somebody deserves to be saved, where they are from, their political background or what they have done. They simply answer the call.

We must defend the right of people to protest, but we must also defend the right of those who serve our communities to do so safely. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government will protect emergency workers from violence, strengthen the response to organised disorder, tackle doxing and misinformation, support those suffering trauma, and ensure that anyone who attacks or intimidates an emergency worker faces swift and serious consequences. Our emergency workers stand up for all of us, regardless of who we are and what we believe. It is time we did the same for them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. To get everybody in, it would be helpful if Members kept their speeches to around five minutes.

17:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for drawing this issue to our attention. I also congratulate her on the way she represents her constituents in this Chamber and in the main Chamber. They are fortunate to have her. When they listen to her contributions, they will know how important that is.

For emergency responders, being subject to physical violence and verbal abuse has become part of their daily routine. From 2024-25, there were 22,500 incidents of violence and abuse directed at ambulance workers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a rise of 15% on 2023-24. Any level of abuse is of course unacceptable, but we must recognise that the number of incidents is dramatically on the rise, having reached the highest on record over those years. Female ambulance workers are most likely to be targeted by the public. Senior ambulance officials believe that the true number of incidents is even higher than reported.

Other frontline forces, such as the police, regularly face abuse, with attacks on police happening an average of 100 times a day in the United Kingdom. Our officers now report that they are used to being punched and kicked but are growing increasingly concerned as abuse becomes more extreme and frequent. Hon. Members can get an idea from dashcam videos and police programmes showing motorway police on chases; they are attacked far too often.

Firefighters are no exception. Firefighters from the Northern Ireland fire and rescue service have been attacked on a number of occasions, as indeed have the police, by people high on drugs or drink, or with their own particular problems. Data from the London Fire Brigade shows that on average there were two incidents of physical or verbal abuse every week from 2019 to 2023. Such behaviour can never, ever be accepted as an occupational hazard.

These incidents have consequences beyond the emergency workers themselves, delaying responses and putting public safety at risk. Estimates suggest that more than 1,000 patients a day in England suffer potential harm from ambulance handover delays—these things are sometimes unseen, but they are none the less important.

I will give an example from last week in Northern Ireland. On Saturday, a serious assault on a paramedic happened at Altnagelvin hospital. I read about it in the paper on, I think, Monday morning. The lady sustained injuries to the back of her head, neck, face and hands during the attack. She was beaten to the ground and then attacked when she was on the ground. This kind of behaviour towards our emergency workers, who carry out their duties with such compassion when helping those in need, is utterly unacceptable.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate. The Rapid Relief Team does vital work by supporting frontline staff to ensure they can work safely during demanding shifts. For example, Surrey fire and rescue service worked all night to contain a fire in Grundon waste recycling centre in Leatherhead, and the volunteers mobilised to provide the crew with encouragement and warm food, which is particularly important when they face abuse and attacks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that we support such organisations?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes; we are thankful to the group that the hon. Lady mentions, as well as to the general public. We should never forget what they do.

I call on the Minister and Government to work to ensure long-term mental health support is available to our emergency workers. We need to be aware that the guys sometimes carry the trauma and the post-traumatic stress beyond what happens from the physical impact. The psychological effects of these horrific incidents last long after they have taken place.

The uniform worn by our emergency workers is not a shield against physical or verbal abuse. Behind every uniform that I or anybody sees is a real person, with real feelings and emotions. The trauma caused by these incidents cannot simply be taken off with the uniform at the end of the shift. When someone’s uniform is off, and they are sitting on the sofa, they still have to deal with what happened to them during the day. We must stop treating such abuse as an inevitable part of the job and recognise its lasting impact on those who work to save so many lives.

17:14

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing such an important debate on the safety of emergency workers.

Violence, intimidation and hatred should never be seen as just part of the job, and must be called out, with the right legislation, so that perpetrators face real consequences. Like Members across the House, I have heard of incident after incident involving emergency workers with intimidation, threats, racism and discriminatory hatred, far too often involving physical violence, directed at people who are simply trying to do their jobs. I recently met colleagues from the Black Country integrated care board and heard deeply concerning accounts of the increasingly audacious abuse directed at NHS staff, particularly non-white and migrant colleagues on the frontline, who are caring for and helping our communities.

Nobody should feel unsafe or targeted because of the uniform that they wear, whether they are a police officer already responding to a violent incident, a paramedic attending an emergency call, a firefighter being pelted with bricks as they attend a dangerous situation, or an NHS worker attempting to treat a patient but facing a barrage of abuse. These are incredible people carrying out vital public service roles in difficult circumstances.

Parliament has taken important steps to strengthen the law, but the scale of the problem remains stark. A Royal College of Emergency Medicine survey of emergency department staff, published just this September, found that 96% had experienced violence or aggression from patients or the public, 73% had experienced or witnessed it daily or weekly, and 63% had faced discriminatory abuse, including racism. Just 4% always felt safe at work. Closer to home, 3,336 assaults on emergency workers were recorded across the west midlands in 2025-26.

The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 created a specific offence, and the maximum sentence was subsequently increased to two years. Sentencing legislation also treats offences against emergency workers as an aggravating factor, and the Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduces further protections against threatening and abusive behaviour. Despite those changes, the scale of the problem remains deeply concerning. We have to ask: if Parliament has strengthened the law and increased penalties, why are we still seeing figures at this level? This damages morale, undermines staff retention and puts even greater pressure on already stretched public services.

The law must send an unmistakable message: violence, threats, racism and abuse against emergency workers will not be tolerated. Minister, will intelligence sharing help to ensure that perpetrators face real consequences, so that emergency workers can do their jobs free from violence, racism and discriminatory abuse? We cannot keep thanking these workers for their courage while expecting them to tolerate violence, intimidation and hatred simply as part of doing their jobs.

17:17

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)]

Meur ras, Mr Twigg. It is an honour to serve again under your chairship.

I invite Members to use their imagination and picture me as an 11-year-old tearaway on Sunday 20 December 1981, walking down Causewayhead in Penzance. We had had a storm the night before, but everything seemed very still the day after it, and I remember seeing a grown man crying for the first time ever. I knew something terrible had happened. It was not until we went to school the week after that I learned of the Penlee lifeboat disaster, in which the eight crew of the Solomon Browne had perished, along with the eight people on board the Union Star.

That disaster had a profound effect on me, but it also had a big impact on lots of my friends. Over the next few weeks, we learned who those eight men on the Solomon Browne were and where they lived in our communities. We also learned about the work of the RNLI. Even to this day, at the end of December in the village of Mousehole, the lights are dimmed to remember the crew of the Solomon Browne.

We not only learned who they were and what they did, but that the RNLI does not differentiate according to the colour of a person’s skin, or their creed; it goes out to help anyone in peril on the sea. People who live in coastal communities see the RNLI saving lives on a weekly basis. Across these British Isles its volunteers save thousands of lives every year. I have nothing but the highest, deepest admiration for these volunteers. They will always have my unequivocal support.

Those volunteers are truly the best of British. Those who abuse and bully those volunteers are, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst of British. They are not patriots. I ask the Minister: what powers can be used to punish those who abuse our heroes—the heroes who week in, week out think not of their own safety, but go out to sea to save people in trouble? The RNLI volunteers act selflessly when we need them to protect us; at this time, we need to do all we can to protect them.

17:21

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this debate. Every day, across our country, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, ambulance crews, nurses, doctors and, as we have heard today, lifeguards put themselves in difficult and dangerous situations to protect and look after us all. They are there for us on our worst days and they have dedicated their lives to serving their communities.

This summer, our firefighters in Suffolk demonstrated the very best of us when they responded to the fire at Dunwich Heath. They put themselves in harm’s way working long, brutal hours to protect our communities and our precious environment. Their work was nothing short of heroic. Far too many emergency workers are subject to violence, abuse and intimidation on a daily basis. In 2025, nearly one in five respondents to the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust staff survey said they had personally experienced violence at work and almost 30% had personally experienced harassment, bullying or abuse. Furthermore, staff from ethnic minority backgrounds experienced disproportionately high levels of abuse.

I am afraid to say that the figures for the East Suffolk and North Essex NHS foundation trust, which runs our hospitals, were little better. Around 15% of our staff experienced violence, and more than a quarter of those experience harassment, bullying or abuse. Those figures are already shocking, but they are especially shocking when we consider who is on the receiving end. These are people who give so much to others every day: nurses caring for patients throughout the night, mental health professionals supporting the most vulnerable people in our society and doctors providing essential day-to-day care. No one should face abuse or violence simply for going to work.

I have seen their dedication first hand. Earlier this year, I joined Sam and George from the East of England ambulance service as they responded to calls from people across Ipswich. Throughout the morning, I saw the professionalism, compassion and dedication they brought to every call, but I know people like Sam and George continue to face unacceptable levels of abuse. In 2023 alone, there were nearly 1,500 recorded attacks on East of England ambulance service staff.

Police officers in Suffolk face increasing levels of violence, too. In the 12 months leading to April ’26, Suffolk police officers were assaulted at least 622 times. That includes hundreds of physical assaults, verbal abuse and intimidation. These people went to work to help people, not to become victims themselves.

If we are honest, the likelihood is that the true figures are much higher. Incidents go unreported because it is deemed to be part of the job, but abuse should never be part of the job. No one should expect and accept harassment as part of their day-to-day life, no one should accept violence as something they have to put up with, and no one should accept intimidation as something that is normal.

That is why the measures introduced in the Crime and Policing Act are so important. For too long there was a glaring loophole in the law. Our changes will ensure that the same protections apply in all settings, and that those who abuse our emergency workers face serious consequences. That sends an important message: abuse is abuse, wherever it happens, and emergency workers deserve our protection, wherever they serve.

Whether they are ambulance crews, NHS staff, police officers, firefighters or lifeguards, our emergency workers want to be able to do their job safely and return home to their families at the end of their shift. That is not an unreasonable demand. Those people take huge risks to keep us safe, and we ask an extraordinary amount of them. They deserve our protection. I hope this debate serves as a reminder not only of the challenges that emergency workers face, but of the immense debt of gratitude that we all owe them.

17:25

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. My thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate and bringing this issue to Westminster Hall.

In July 2022, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation, concluded that the occupation of firefighting is carcinogenic, linking it to firefighters’ exposure to toxicants present in fire effluents. Only six months later, a University of Central Lancashire study on Scottish firefighters, commissioned by the Fire Brigades Union, showed that firefighters have higher cancer and disease mortality rates than the general public. Tragically, many firefighters with rare cancers are diagnosed at the terminal stage.

Firefighters are directly exposed to potentially large quantities of toxins and fire effluents on a regular basis. Fire effluent is a cocktail of toxic, irritant and carcinogenic species, which vary depending on the specific materials burning and the fire conditions at an incident. Exposure through inhalation, ingestion or dermal absorption is likely to be a significant risk factor for acquiring cancers and diseases. Research has found that such toxins are often unknowingly transported back to stations and firefighters’ homes, further increasing their exposure. Even if the levels of contamination at fire stations are much lower than the levels at the incidents, prolonged exposures to potentially harmful contaminants add up over a lifetime of service, with significant health consequences.

One example is exposure to soot. Some 93% of firefighters have noticed soot in their nose after an incident: 30% said that it remained until they washed, 32% said that it was still noticeable for a few hours after washing, 23% said that it remained for up to a day and 6% said that it remained for more than a day. Only 6% reported not noticing soot at all.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the health and safety issues that our firefighters face. This summer, Dorset and Hampshire experienced wildfires, but firefighters in Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service do not have the lightweight protective gear that their counterparts in Hampshire do, meaning that they are more vulnerable to issues such as heat exposure. Does he agree that all fire services should have access to the personal protective equipment that they need for their job?

[Brian Leishman]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is imperative that we seek equality, and that means improving PPE for firefighters right across the nation.

To finish on my point about soot exposure, compared with the general public, firefighters are twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer if they have noticed soot in either their nose or throat.

The FBU has backed not only the devolution of relevant employment injury assistance benefits, but the creation of a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council, to review and modernise any Scottish benefits. Frankly, it is unacceptable that six years after the industrial injury scheme was devolved to Holyrood, the SNP Scottish Government is still not ready to roll out work to deliver the Scottish employment injury assistance scheme. The FBU has strongly advocated for the creation of a Scottish Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to ensure that employees have a permanent seat on the body responsible for reviewing and amending what illnesses, injuries and diseases would be recognised under a new Scottish scheme.

Firefighters have been atrociously let down, as a previous Bill to deliver that body was voted down in Holyrood, delaying this vital piece of work. Firefighter cancers and diseases are recognised with presumptive legislation and/or compensation schemes in more than 50 countries across the world. The way the SNP Government treat our fire service leaves firefighters and communities less safe; it is nothing short of a national disgrace.

17:30

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for a second time today, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on securing this important debate. I echo the language from many of my hon. Friends about the volunteers at the RNLI. As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) put it, those who have sought to intimidate, persecute and penalise the wonderful people who volunteer and their families really are the worst of the worst. We should all pay tribute to the volunteers for their sacrifice, their service and their courage.

I want to speak about some of the circumstances that emergency responders face in my constituency. Safety is not abstract idea there; my constituency is a remote, sparsely populated place, and parts of it are a long way from the nearest responder. A fell runner who breaks their ankle in the countryside near Haltwhistle; a family who is a cut off by flooding; a driver in a wrecked car at 2 o’clock in the morning: for all of them, the first person to arrive is someone who has chosen that job, who has given up their evening, their weekend or their sleep, possibly even for free in some cases. They ask for very little—they only ask that we do not make their jobs more dangerous than they have to be.

The rising violence and abuse that we have seen against emergency service workers in recent years should never a part of the job and should not be something that we tolerate as a society. Assaults on those workers should carry penalties that mean something, and we should consistently assess those sentences and make sure that they remain a complete deterrent to those taking part in them. Employers and the Government must invest in the training, equipment and protection of those workers. The mental health and trauma support that are essential after serious incidents should be prioritised. Staffing shortages are also a danger, because a crew that is stretched and exhausted is a crew that is more likely to be hurt.

The Police Federation tells us that sentences for assaults on emergency workers are often too lenient. The Fire Brigades Union has condemned attacks on crews on Halloween and bonfire night, and rightly says that anyone who targets firefighters on their way to an emergency is putting a whole community at risk. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives report physical assaults on paramedics and care assistants and threats and abuse often linked to alcohol, drugs and mental health crises.

We would not accept it in any other workplace. Every service describes the toll of repeated exposure to traumatic incidents. A paramedic does not forget a critically ill child. A firefighter does not forget a cut-out. A police officer does not forget a serious road collision. We cannot keep asking people to carry the mental and emotional toll of those things and believe that just offering them a leaflet is adequate. Mental health support after those serious incidents should be as routine, as quick and as well funded as anything else.

In Northumberland, we cannot discuss emergencies without discussing the A1; I know that the Minister will not be aware of all the ins and outs of the case, but I would like her to press it with the Department for Transport and the Treasury. The single-carriageway stretches of the A1 in Northumberland have a long and well-documented record of serious collisions; this year alone, there have been 12 deaths on them. I want to see the A1 dualled, and I know that all my hon. Friends from Northumberland do as well. I have worked with all the Northumberland MPs, the North East Mayor and other key stakeholders to press the case, and will continue to do so.

Each one of those collisions has a victim and a family, and we will never forget that, but each one of them also sends emergency responders on to the road: police officers to manage the traffic, firefighters to get people out of vehicles, paramedics to work on the live carriageway, and recovery and highway crews to operate just feet away from passing lorries. The danger on roads like that to people who respond is recognised nationally, especially when there is little room to separate moving traffic from people who are trying to help. Each time they are called out, they are asked to work next to fast-moving vehicles, often in the dark and the wet, and do the worst job of their working week. As I have said, I hope that the Minister can bring up the importance of the A1 to colleagues. The argument around dualling is well rehearsed. Because of the tragedies, the economic benefits and the risk to emergency workers, it is essential that we see that road dualled.

I also pay tribute to firefighters and the Fire Brigades Union. When I meet them, I regularly hear about growing risks in my constituency, from flooding, wildfires and climate-related emergencies to antisocial behaviour-related risks to their team. On bonfire night, Northumberland fire and rescue service control handled 266 emergency calls in 24 hours, and the busiest stretch, between 4 pm and 10 pm, saw crews attend 49 incidents across the county—bonfires, bin fires, road collisions and false alarms—with control staff also helping neighbouring services who were struggling with demand that evening. I pay tribute to them and thank the FBU for its consistent engagement with me since I was elected.

I want to widen this debate to include the mountain rescue service. A couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to meet mountain rescue service volunteers in Wylam in my constituency. Northumberland national park mountain rescue and the North of Tyne mountain rescue work in partnership. Between them, they cover about 5,000 square km—all of Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, from the Cheviots to the Tyne bridge. They are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—they are not paid at all.

They told me that they search for walkers, fell runners and climbers who are overdue or injured, and they search lowland areas for people who are vulnerable or missing from home. They also go into places that statutory services cannot easily reach. After meeting with them, I heard that storage of their equipment is a sharp problem that they have to deal with. Rescue kit is expensive and must be ready at a moment’s notice. I wrote on 30 October—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry, but I have to stop you there and call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson now.

17:35

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.

Emergency workers are heroes who carry this country on their shoulders. They may be there with someone in their final moments, they may have to put their life on the line to rescue someone in harm’s way and, sadly, they may also witness extraordinary abuse and violence—all in a day’s work. They are heroes because they take that mantle on with pride and commitment. They are the best of us because they cope with the unbelievable stress of constantly having to expect the unexpected.

What they should not have to expect, however, is extraordinary abuse, violence or risk to life and limb to be targeted at them for doing their jobs. It is not part of the job to be insulted. It is not par for the course to be assaulted. There is no excuse for this vile and disgusting behaviour—yet it is on the rise. There were 22,536 incidents of violence, aggression and abuse against paramedics and other ambulance workers in 2024-25, up 15% from a year before, according to the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives. Since many incidents go unreported, that number is likely an underestimate.

The latest NHS staff survey found that nearly one in seven workers in England were physically attacked by patients or the public last year—the highest level in three years. I recently met with representatives from the Royal College of Nursing, who told me about the scale of the challenge their members face, often on top of incredibly difficult working conditions. They pointed out that some trusts have had to take the extraordinary step of launching awareness campaigns encouraging patients not to abuse nursing staff, such as Chelsea and Westminster hospital’s “I Am Human” campaign. Could there be a sorrier reflection of the state of affairs than a campaign asking people not to harm those who are there to help them?

This entire debate is taking place in the context of the outrageous scenes we saw earlier this year in Portsmouth and across the south coast, in which thugs—that is who they are: thugs—targeted RNLI volunteers and staff for daring to comply with the law, their mandate and simple human conscience. The RNLI is a British institution, and those who take on this difficult work sum up what is best about this country, not least the Dunkirk spirit of ordinary people performing brave feats of rescue at sea; yet these heroes were subject to abuse both in person and online. They were confronted in public and doxed online, their children were bullied at school because of their parents’ rescue work, and they were forced to pause their services in Portsmouth altogether—all of that due to a handful of small people with small hearts and an even smaller and warped worldview whipped up by the extreme right.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that the targeting of emergency workers in the RNLI and across the emergency services is egregious on a human level, dangerous at a public health level and a critical risk to wider faith in public institutions at a Government level. It is egregious on a human level to do what those committing these crimes are doing—namely, refusing to see the human being behind the uniform or disregarding their right to go about doing their job safely. There is never an excuse for this kind of behaviour, and it is right that a specific offence was created in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018.

It is dangerous at a public health level, because when threats, intimidation and violence go up, the attractiveness of a career in the emergency services predictably declines, compounding existing shortages in policing, paramedics and nursing. To take policing alone, when officers are already overstretched, these issues only compound the strain of facing the work day and lead to sickness-related absences. Between the challenges facing police officers and the fact that in London alone there are currently 189,000 rest days owed to officers, this gruelling picture is clear.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for funding so that police services can offer their officers proactive mental health and wellbeing check-ups every six months, as well as a package of policies to recruit more officers to ease the burden on the existing workforce. It is why we supported and continue to support the 2018 Act that created a specific offence for assault of an emergency worker, and why I call on the Government to foster stronger links between hospital staff and local police so that they can work towards a stronger, more assuring police presence in medical settings, where appropriate and necessary.

It is also why we continue to publicly and proudly stand up for the RNLI by calling out the dangerous and un-British extremists who have targeted it, enflamed by the dehumanising rhetoric that too many on the right of politics espouse. Particularly dangerous are the repeated descriptions of the RNLI as a “taxi service” for migrants: a disgraceful misrepresentation of the role of those heroic volunteers and other staff. I am sad not to see Reform Members in this debate to condemn and to withdraw completely those remarks.

With all that in mind, we Liberal Democrats are keen to hear what specific additional steps the Government are taking to home in on the perpetrators of these crimes and to tackle the broader set of challenges facing our emergency services. I hope the Minister will give specific indications of what the Government plan to do.

17:40

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing the debate.

Our emergency services repeatedly put themselves in harm’s way to protect, serve and save our communities. Whether confronting criminals, responding to medical emergencies, rescuing people from danger or entering burning buildings, they carry out extraordinary acts of public service, often in the most challenging and dangerous circumstances. They should never have to accept threats, harassment or physical violence as simply part of the job. It is not what they signed up for and it is criminality. When they go to work to protect us, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are afforded the protections, respect and security they deserve.

We have heard in this debate about the scale of the problem. The statistics discussed demonstrate how torrid the situation is. The experience of the RNLI is particularly horrifying and completely unforgivable. Those figures represent more than just physical injuries. Violence and intimidation can lead to trauma and, in some cases, to people questioning whether to continue in a profession that they once felt was a calling. There is also a cost to the public. Every minute spent dealing with an assault, reporting an incident or recovering from an injury is a minute that could have been spent responding to an emergency and protecting someone in need.

That is why the Conservative Government backed the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and then, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, doubled the maximum penalty for such assaults to two years’ imprisonment and introduced Harper’s law, under which anyone who kills an emergency worker while committing a crime faces a life sentence. That was important recognition that assaults on those serving the public are abhorrent and that the law must deter them.

However, legislation is only as effective as its implementation. It is not enough to increase maximum penalties, as we did, if the sentences actually handed down do not reflect the seriousness of the offending. Sentencing Council data indicates that 25% of offenders or fewer receive immediate custody. Of course, not everyone should face imprisonment; it is not always appropriate. However, we must question whether judges are handing down sentences sufficiently strong to be a deterrent. Where someone deliberately assaulted an emergency worker carrying out their duties, the judge must impose a sentence that reflects the gravity of that, because the message should be sent that it will not be tolerated. No emergency worker should feel that reporting an assault is pointless or that they are left alone to deal with the consequences.

I also pay tribute to the volunteers who stand alongside our emergency services. Two particular groups protect the communities I serve. Rutland Community First Responders give their time freely, around the clock, to attend medical emergencies on behalf of the East Midlands ambulance service. In our rural communities—the hundreds of villages that I serve—those first responders can be the difference between life and death in the first critical minutes. They also teach residents how to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It is impossible to raise the subject of Rutland Community First Responders without mentioning the indefatigable Barbara Crellin, who is a real heart of our communities and the heart of that service.

The Leicestershire and Rutland 4x4 Response volunteers use their own vehicles to keep vital services running in severe weather. During the pandemic they delivered more than 1,000 pieces of medicine and protective equipment. They ask for nothing in return. I thank them for what they do. They deserve the same protection and respect as every emergency worker spoken about in this debate.

This debate is very simple, and we should advance a simple principle: those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the rest of us should not have to fear becoming victims themselves. They deserve our gratitude, but our gratitude alone is not enough; they deserve protection and assurances that the law will stand behind them

I would be grateful if the Minister would answer three questions. First, what assessment have the Government made of whether current sentencing outcomes undermine the deterrent effect of the legislation, and of whether they properly reflect the seriousness of these offences? Secondly, what steps are being taken to ensure that emergency workers who are assaulted receive proper support thereafter and that instances are properly investigated within emergency organisations? Thirdly, what further measures will the Government take to ensure that these protections translate into real improvements in the day-to-day safety of emergency workers? They run into danger to protect us all, and we must stand by them.

17:44

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this debate. Can I just say what a wonderful MP she is? We see each other in multiple settings, because she is very busy campaigning on many different issues, and we are all very lucky that she is in this Chamber, as was said by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

My hon. Friend has brought to the House an issue that should unite us all. However, as she eloquently described, it has not, and that shames those MPs and councillors who do not see the world as most of us do. I will focus my remarks on the specifics that she raised, but I also want to discuss the abuse of emergency workers more widely.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 as a private Member’s Bill. He campaigned on this issue for a long time, and it is good that we have the legislation on the statute book. However, we must ensure that it is doing what we need it to do, which is why we updated it through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to ensure that it applies in all settings. My right hon. Friend did a powerful bit of campaigning to get the original legislation across the line back in 2018.

Members have made powerful points about the wider issue of the assault of emergency workers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) said, nobody should be abused because of the uniform that they wear. That should be our starting point, and we should accept nothing less. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about mental health support for those who are abused, which is a very important part of the policing jigsaw. We will introduce a more powerful covenant through legislation. We currently have a policing covenant that is similar to the armed forces covenant, but we want to strengthen it to secure mental health support for police officers who find themselves in very difficult situations and who will inevitably struggle as a result.

We heard about some disasters in which Members’ constituents have had to face real tragedy, including the Penlee lifeboat disaster and the fire at Dunwich heath, both of which were real reflections of the harm and danger that we ask emergency workers to step into. I myself have been this year to three funerals of police officers who died in road incidents, which is catastrophic, and a total of seven have died this year.

There was some debate about the risks that firefighters take. I am very interested in and supportive of the FBU’s position on the support that our firefighters need, particularly in respect of carcinogens and whether there is a direct correlation, and whether compensation schemes should be set up. Such schemes are now available if someone dies from mesothelioma, which is linked to asbestos, so if there is a direct correlation for our firefighters, it is right that we look at those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said that true public service is putting on a uniform, answering an emergency call and helping someone you have never met. That is what happened in Portsmouth during the events of 6 September, which she has raised today, when emergency services and their partners responded to the small boat arrival in Eastney. They were there to protect life, to maintain public safety and to carry out their duties. Instead of being allowed to do that, officers were injured and emergency service vehicles were damaged. Hampshire police subsequently confirmed that seven police officers had been injured and treated at the scene, and we have heard some of those stories.

We have also seen reports of RNLI volunteers being subjected to abuse and their personal details circulated online. These are people who give their time to save others, and their families should not have to wonder whether a rescue at sea will bring a threat to their front door. The RNLI’s task is to save lives; immigration policy is the Government’s responsibility. We must never allow the two to be confused or allow lifesaving crews to become targets for anger about that policy.

Our response must be practical as well as unequivocal. First, criminal behaviour must be investigated, and those responsible brought to justice. As my hon. Friend said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a genuine concern about illegal immigration—people have good reason to be frustrated with what has happened and a right to demand secure borders—but that is very different from criminal behaviour, which must be investigated. Secondly, emergency services need effective arrangements to identify threats, share information and protect their people. My hon. Friend asked about that and she is absolutely right. Thirdly, we must tackle online targeting and intimidation, rather than treating it as separate to the risks on our streets. I want very briefly to touch on each of those points.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary has investigated the disorder at Eastney. It has reviewed extensive video evidence and charged individuals with violent disorder, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases or prejudice ongoing court proceedings. The absence of an arrest on the day does not mean that offending will go unpunished. Police need to investigate who was responsible, secure the evidence and take action, and the number of arrests that take place on the night does not reflect the full police response—it is really important for me to say that.

Of course, operational decisions are down to the police. The Government’s responsibility is to provide the legal framework and support effective policing. We expect criminal conduct to be investigated robustly, and we expect the safety of emergency workers to be taken seriously. There are already specific protections for emergency workers. Common assault or battery used against an emergency worker acting in the exercise of their functions can attract a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. More serious violence can be prosecuted under offences carrying higher maximum penalties. Those protections are not confined to paid employees; the statutory definition includes people providing search and rescue services, for example.

Turning to the right to peaceful protest—I am aware of the time—I must emphasise the word “peaceful”. It does not provide a licence to assault a police officer, threaten a paramedic, damage a rescue vehicle or obstruct a lifesaving response. We have seen groups of men dressed in black with their faces concealed seeking to intimidate communities and those carrying out vital public duties. That behaviour is thuggish and unacceptable. Wearing particular clothing alone is not an offence, but masks must not be used to embolden threats, violence or intimidation, and the police have a range of powers to address that conduct. We are seeing that play out not just in the protesting field, but through some public spaces protection orders, where the police can intervene in particular locations.

The police can impose conditions on processions and assemblies and ask for the removal of face coverings, and they can use dispersal powers where appropriate. They have to use those powers lawfully. I know that there will be Members who are concerned about getting the balance right between protest and criminality, and about how the police can intervene. We asked Lord Macdonald to review the entire protest and hate crime landscape. We are considering his report and will respond to it in due course. I think all Members here will be interested in the balance that he believes we need to strike and what we need to do to get there.

We do not have time to talk about online intimidation as much as I would like. The Online Safety Act 2023 is there up to a point, and I know that Members across the House and the Government are considering whether those powers in the criminal law adequately address the malicious publication of personal information. We need to look at that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is absolutely right to challenge us on it.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving emergency workers in Portsmouth and across the country a voice in this House. Today, the country fell silent in memory of those brave souls who gave their lives so that we may live in freedom and safety. Theirs is a legacy of selfless sacrifice, and it lives on in the public servants we have been discussing today—the devoted men and women who protect us and answer the call when it comes. They deserve our thanks, respect and protection.

17:54

[Amanda Martin]

I thank the Minister for her work and her words. I am glad that we have had cross-party support in this debate today. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s standing firm against abuse and violence towards our emergency workers. My dad was a police officer, so this is very important to me. We have come a very long way from clapping our emergency workers during covid to the state that we are in now, but I do have hope and I want to work across Government to make sure that our emergency workers go to work every day feeling safe and protected as they protect our communities.

17:55

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).