Westminster Hall
Tuesday 7th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Effort, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I begin by referencing my. A register of members interests declarations?I would also like to thank the backbench Business Committee for granting this vital and I believe, timely debate. We are about to effectively have a change of government and that will mean an opportunity for reset in my. In my opinion, and whilst usually we come to these debates, avid to. Hear what the Minister has to say.
Today. We might not be so much a. In the case in terms of a reflection on the past. But we are going to hopefully look to the future. Of course, I commend the Minister for his efforts, but I will not commend him too much because that might not help him. In the weeks a in the weeks ahead, as the government is. Reformed. But I do acknowledge his personal commitment to a to these issues as the Prime Minister moves on, the cuts in official development assistance and the way in which they have been carried out with nothing seemingly learned from the lessons of the merger of DfID and FCO.
Surely cannot be part of his legacy, which he will wish to promote. Notably, that this government is presiding over cuts to our overseas aid budget that are deeper and faster than those being implemented in the United States under the Trump administration. The Fcdo's resource del budget, reduced by nearly 20% over £1.5 billion, with bilateral programmes accounting for almost half of this and no detail yet available. Indeed, stakeholders are still waiting for the Fcdo to publish its bilateral allocations for Oda reportedly being held back until just before the summer recess.
I do not demur from the arguments about hard choices and and when there are limited resources or specifically the need to increase defense spending. But part of that is also acknowledging that those decisions do have consequences, often for the poorest and most vulnerable communities on the planet. Yes I will.
Today. We might not be so much a. In the case in terms of a reflection on the past. But we are going to hopefully look to the future. Of course, I commend the Minister for his efforts, but I will not commend him too much because that might not help him. In the weeks a in the weeks ahead, as the government is. Reformed. But I do acknowledge his personal commitment to a to these issues as the Prime Minister moves on, the cuts in official development assistance and the way in which they have been carried out with nothing seemingly learned from the lessons of the merger of DfID and FCO.
Surely cannot be part of his legacy, which he will wish to promote. Notably, that this government is presiding over cuts to our overseas aid budget that are deeper and faster than those being implemented in the United States under the Trump administration. The Fcdo's resource del budget, reduced by nearly 20% over £1.5 billion, with bilateral programmes accounting for almost half of this and no detail yet available. Indeed, stakeholders are still waiting for the Fcdo to publish its bilateral allocations for Oda reportedly being held back until just before the summer recess.
I do not demur from the arguments about hard choices and and when there are limited resources or specifically the need to increase defense spending. But part of that is also acknowledging that those decisions do have consequences, often for the poorest and most vulnerable communities on the planet. Yes I will.
09:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Honourable member for giving way. I'm the chair of the wash, water, Sanitation and Hygiene, All-Party parliamentary Group and a big champion of the time to deliver campaign for WaterAid. A million moms and babies lose their lives every year because of lack of access to water during childbirth. I wonder if he agrees with me that when we're looking at humanitarian and global aid, that we should make sure that that remains an absolute basic provision and a priority.
09:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I absolutely do, and I'll be coming on to the issue later of. The most effective way in which limited resources can be used. And that is clearly one of them. But we do need to have honesty in this debate and acknowledge that where there are reductions in funding and changes in funding, they have consequences. And we have to have that honest dialogue and move away from the sort of speak that has become commonplace, such as mainstreaming. Everything now is to be mainstreamed, which Mr.
effort, in my view, means that actually no resources are going to be devoted to it, but simply that it will be part of some wider general budget. And that has been specifically the case in relation to women and girls. And that is something that we must we must push back against.
effort, in my view, means that actually no resources are going to be devoted to it, but simply that it will be part of some wider general budget. And that has been specifically the case in relation to women and girls. And that is something that we must we must push back against.
09:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And he will obviously know, given he sits on the International Development Committee, as I do, that to date, the International Development Committee has found, and I quote, that there is still no detail on how poverty alleviation will be prioritised and tracked under the new model, going from donor to investor. I wonder if he agrees with me that if poverty reduction is to remain a primary focus of Oder, we need to understand better how these things will be tracked.
09:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I absolutely agree with the honourable gentleman and I commend him for his work on the International Development Committee, and I will come on to the committee's report on the future of development, which highlighted that very issue. The Committee sought to help this government to take forward what was its stated objectives. I am hoping that the incoming government will grasp the recommendations in that report and move forward in the way in which he. He outlines. Now, whilst I think the public across the world might have been.
And indeed, hopefully citizens were distracted by a. The Democratic Republic of Congo almost knocking England out of the World Cup. Sadly for them, the situation at home was and is still verging on the catastrophic. And it is an example of where UN thought out and unstructured cuts and changes have a devastating impact because we are seeing the spread of Ebola in certain parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where particularly US funding and US A structures have been withdrawn. There is no meaningful alternative government structure to be able to provide the health service, and to me that is an absolute.
Example of where funding cuts have a real impact and an impact that could spread here to to the United Kingdom. We recently in Glasgow had a suspected Ebola case. Very fortunately, it had not come to fruition, but the idea that Ebola in a in a remote part of Central Africa is nothing to do with us is really one again, that we need to push back on. Now we cannot be starry eyed about what was happening previously, and I was very struck by a. Under a point seven and under a much more favourable climate for international development.
And I was very struck by an article I read in the Guardian. I am sure my honourable friend will not tell the leader of the opposition that I read an article from the Guardian, but basically it was saying that in. In the context of the previous Ebola outbreak, which was successfully tackled. But the international response. As Sierra Leone and saw on the ground, was. Lots of outsiders coming, setting up their compound, employing local people, sometimes to be cooks or drivers, and then driving around in their white land cruisers and not engaging.
Not leaving any positive legacy. And indeed, my own experience recently in travelling to Malawi was that whilst the agencies and others who were there had done a really good job, unfortunately, the Malawi and government had not because it was now totally reliant on these agencies to provide a. To provide the services and I think my right hon. Friend may recall that when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scotland Malawi Partnership is something that we have promoted, I had to decline to meet the then president of Malawi at his suite in the Dorchester Hotel, because I felt that that was just such a wholly inappropriate.
A way of having a discussion, which was ultimately about how we could give them more aid. So I think we have we can't be starry eyed about what what has gone before. There needs to be a there needed to be changed. We needed to focus on how we could most effectively deliver aid and and support. But we have to do it in a coherent way. We have to have a long term plan accepting budget realities and aligned with the UK's wider interests.
So if the member for Makerfield is in search of sound advice, I would point him as my honourable friend opposite has already referenced to the recommendations of the International Development Committee's recent report, UK aid in a Fractured World and the huge body of evidence that supported that report. In it, the committee called for greater clarity on the government's theory of change in relation to poverty alleviation and how it would prioritise programmes and schemes, and actually try to help suggest how this government might actually have achieved its own stated policies, but also set out a comprehensive vision, which I hope the new Prime Minister might be willing to adopt if he were specifically to ask my opinion, which I am not anticipating as I do not have a vote.
I do not think I have a vote in the Labour leadership contest, but maybe I have. Maybe in days past, I think you had to pay £3 to get one. So maybe there's still time. But if you were to ask my opinion, I would suggest investment should shift towards programmes that are undeniably value for money, where we can make the most profound difference per pound spent doubling down on effective interventions with the greatest multiplier. Effect. Indeed.
And indeed, hopefully citizens were distracted by a. The Democratic Republic of Congo almost knocking England out of the World Cup. Sadly for them, the situation at home was and is still verging on the catastrophic. And it is an example of where UN thought out and unstructured cuts and changes have a devastating impact because we are seeing the spread of Ebola in certain parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where particularly US funding and US A structures have been withdrawn. There is no meaningful alternative government structure to be able to provide the health service, and to me that is an absolute.
Example of where funding cuts have a real impact and an impact that could spread here to to the United Kingdom. We recently in Glasgow had a suspected Ebola case. Very fortunately, it had not come to fruition, but the idea that Ebola in a in a remote part of Central Africa is nothing to do with us is really one again, that we need to push back on. Now we cannot be starry eyed about what was happening previously, and I was very struck by a. Under a point seven and under a much more favourable climate for international development.
And I was very struck by an article I read in the Guardian. I am sure my honourable friend will not tell the leader of the opposition that I read an article from the Guardian, but basically it was saying that in. In the context of the previous Ebola outbreak, which was successfully tackled. But the international response. As Sierra Leone and saw on the ground, was. Lots of outsiders coming, setting up their compound, employing local people, sometimes to be cooks or drivers, and then driving around in their white land cruisers and not engaging.
Not leaving any positive legacy. And indeed, my own experience recently in travelling to Malawi was that whilst the agencies and others who were there had done a really good job, unfortunately, the Malawi and government had not because it was now totally reliant on these agencies to provide a. To provide the services and I think my right hon. Friend may recall that when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scotland Malawi Partnership is something that we have promoted, I had to decline to meet the then president of Malawi at his suite in the Dorchester Hotel, because I felt that that was just such a wholly inappropriate.
A way of having a discussion, which was ultimately about how we could give them more aid. So I think we have we can't be starry eyed about what what has gone before. There needs to be a there needed to be changed. We needed to focus on how we could most effectively deliver aid and and support. But we have to do it in a coherent way. We have to have a long term plan accepting budget realities and aligned with the UK's wider interests.
So if the member for Makerfield is in search of sound advice, I would point him as my honourable friend opposite has already referenced to the recommendations of the International Development Committee's recent report, UK aid in a Fractured World and the huge body of evidence that supported that report. In it, the committee called for greater clarity on the government's theory of change in relation to poverty alleviation and how it would prioritise programmes and schemes, and actually try to help suggest how this government might actually have achieved its own stated policies, but also set out a comprehensive vision, which I hope the new Prime Minister might be willing to adopt if he were specifically to ask my opinion, which I am not anticipating as I do not have a vote.
I do not think I have a vote in the Labour leadership contest, but maybe I have. Maybe in days past, I think you had to pay £3 to get one. So maybe there's still time. But if you were to ask my opinion, I would suggest investment should shift towards programmes that are undeniably value for money, where we can make the most profound difference per pound spent doubling down on effective interventions with the greatest multiplier. Effect. Indeed.
09:40
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The honourable member for giving way and as as he I know, knows, nutrition is foundational to development and the UK has been a trusted partner on nutrition globally for many years. Um, in the context of the reduction in aid spending, um recently, does the honourable member agree with me that supporting and developing innovative, innovative new mechanisms such as the Child Nutrition Fund, for example, that these are vital to reversing the trend of hunger, malnutrition and starvation whilst working in partnership with with nations that are affected by this to.
09:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I absolutely agree with the honourable gentleman and I actually can think of no better example than the child Nutrition Fund to achieve what he has set out and our wider development objectives. Malnutrition is entirely preventable and treatable, yet it remains the underlying cause of nearly half of all deaths among children under five. It stifles economic growth, weakens immune systems and disproportionately impacts women and children. So the Child Nutrition Fund, in my opinion too, is the perfect example of what the public expects from Oda funding.
It puts foot in the stomachs of those in need, and with a relatively modest investment from the UK government, this fund has a unique capacity to leverage full Atlantic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources. If we want value for money in a stretched budget, nutrition is where we must double down. So indeed.
It puts foot in the stomachs of those in need, and with a relatively modest investment from the UK government, this fund has a unique capacity to leverage full Atlantic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources. If we want value for money in a stretched budget, nutrition is where we must double down. So indeed.
09:42
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Um, the right hon. Gentleman has talked about stretched budgets. Does he agree with me that we also need to address debts because private debt is also a big factor in preventing some of the low income countries from investing in the health and education systems. And that should also form part of the government's strategy in the future to leverage more money into the low income countries that are debt distressed.
09:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I do agree with the honourable gentleman and I commend him and others present and other parliamentarians on bringing the debt issue back to the debate. Obviously, it was a it was a very focal point of debate a number of years ago, but it appears to have slid down the agenda. But it still remains a. The vital issue that he has highlighted another vital issue which and in which I referenced the Child Nutrition Fund is public support. And we all have to acknowledge that we have to rebuild public support for development.
I, I put my hands up to being complacent in that regard, as I think many in the sector where assuming that that support would remain. Now it is actually still there, but it is all about the questions that people are asked and about the context in which they are being asked those questions. And that is why, for example, the Child Nutrition Fund, where people see that an intervention by the UK can make a direct effect on saving the lives of children commands public support, some less easily explainable interventions, or the inability to a.
The inability to be clear that interventions are not wasteful. That is what detracts from public support. It was very surprising, therefore, that the government was at one point proposing to get rid of I k the body that actually reviews the effectiveness of of of Oda. But thanks to the efforts, cross-party of everyone on a the International Development Committee and others in Parliament, that decision was was reversed. At least in a part. I just want to touch briefly a a.
Mr.. Effort on the work of the all party group on HIV and Aids, which I am the co chair and in the context of the multilateral bilateral debate, which is also something that I think that we need to have going forward. I was very, very supportive of additional funding for the Global Fund because it has done a huge job in not only the areas which it tackles in the context of Aids, tuberculosis and malaria, but it actually provides the backbone of health systems in many countries which which would not be there, where the Global Fund, not providing the support on these other issues.
Of course, I am welcoming the government's £850 million contribution to that fund, which was a lot more than had previously been a touted, but less, of course, than my right hon. Friend provided in a. Billion pounds, but of course there were smoke and mirrors because that funding is back ended. The bulk of that funding is coming at the end of the three year period, and that does impact on the global fund's capacity to carry out its job. And again, those have direct consequences.
And I do commend Bel Trew and the independent newspaper for the way in which they have highlighted the impact that cuts have had already in relation to the fight against HIV and Aids. I think we do need.
I, I put my hands up to being complacent in that regard, as I think many in the sector where assuming that that support would remain. Now it is actually still there, but it is all about the questions that people are asked and about the context in which they are being asked those questions. And that is why, for example, the Child Nutrition Fund, where people see that an intervention by the UK can make a direct effect on saving the lives of children commands public support, some less easily explainable interventions, or the inability to a.
The inability to be clear that interventions are not wasteful. That is what detracts from public support. It was very surprising, therefore, that the government was at one point proposing to get rid of I k the body that actually reviews the effectiveness of of of Oda. But thanks to the efforts, cross-party of everyone on a the International Development Committee and others in Parliament, that decision was was reversed. At least in a part. I just want to touch briefly a a.
Mr.. Effort on the work of the all party group on HIV and Aids, which I am the co chair and in the context of the multilateral bilateral debate, which is also something that I think that we need to have going forward. I was very, very supportive of additional funding for the Global Fund because it has done a huge job in not only the areas which it tackles in the context of Aids, tuberculosis and malaria, but it actually provides the backbone of health systems in many countries which which would not be there, where the Global Fund, not providing the support on these other issues.
Of course, I am welcoming the government's £850 million contribution to that fund, which was a lot more than had previously been a touted, but less, of course, than my right hon. Friend provided in a. Billion pounds, but of course there were smoke and mirrors because that funding is back ended. The bulk of that funding is coming at the end of the three year period, and that does impact on the global fund's capacity to carry out its job. And again, those have direct consequences.
And I do commend Bel Trew and the independent newspaper for the way in which they have highlighted the impact that cuts have had already in relation to the fight against HIV and Aids. I think we do need.
09:46
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Honourable member for giving way. It feels to me that the scope for the UK and European Union countries to work more closely together to tackle what seems to be a rising global anti rights movement. With the progress that we're seeing in Hungary. It feels like there's an opportunity here to start to push back on the age of impunity. Would he agree with me that we should be putting human rights and especially sexual and reproductive rights and health on the agenda of the upcoming European political community that meets in Dublin in October.
09:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I agree with the principles the honourable gentleman setting out, and I was going to come to actually that now, because we do need to see UK leadership in coordinating a response to issues where, because of political decisions taken in the United States, certain groups are going to be deprived of help and support. And we have got to have a role in ensuring that coordination, that that support goes in, whether it is through a country, donors, philanthropists or NGOs. But for example, LGBT communities and LGBT communities are not going to get the support unless we proactively do something to ensure that coordination.
And whilst I was very positive that there was still an LGBT budget within the Foreign Office and welcomed that announcement, I do not see the proactivity at this time in terms of of tackling the sort of issues that the honourable gentleman mentions, and we need to be in the forefront of that. I will draw my remarks to a close, Mr. Redford, because others wish to contribute. I was going to touch on British international investment, but perhaps my colleague on the International Development Committee from Cornwall will do so.
I still want to make the point, though. That BII has to play a much greater part in being aligned with UK government policy. What. Whatever it is, that does not mean that it should not be independent in terms of making investments, but other countries, the position of their equivalent bodies is that it is aligned with their government policy. And I am not convinced at the moment that BII is, and given the scale of its level of investment, it needs to be.
I think we've had I've tried to range over a. Of the moment, and I do look forward to the contribution of others. But as I said at the start, I think a. There have been 1 or 2 good things in the last couple of years, but I do not think it is a glorious part of the Prime Minister's legacy, and hopefully going forward, we can have that reset.
And whilst I was very positive that there was still an LGBT budget within the Foreign Office and welcomed that announcement, I do not see the proactivity at this time in terms of of tackling the sort of issues that the honourable gentleman mentions, and we need to be in the forefront of that. I will draw my remarks to a close, Mr. Redford, because others wish to contribute. I was going to touch on British international investment, but perhaps my colleague on the International Development Committee from Cornwall will do so.
I still want to make the point, though. That BII has to play a much greater part in being aligned with UK government policy. What. Whatever it is, that does not mean that it should not be independent in terms of making investments, but other countries, the position of their equivalent bodies is that it is aligned with their government policy. And I am not convinced at the moment that BII is, and given the scale of its level of investment, it needs to be.
I think we've had I've tried to range over a. Of the moment, and I do look forward to the contribution of others. But as I said at the start, I think a. There have been 1 or 2 good things in the last couple of years, but I do not think it is a glorious part of the Prime Minister's legacy, and hopefully going forward, we can have that reset.
09:49
09:50
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I just remind members that to stand in their places if they're intended to contribute, I intend to bring the front benches in at 28 minutes past. So that gives you roughly 7 to 8 minutes each. So just a rough guide. There's no hard limit. The question is that the House has considered the UK policy in the context of global funding trends, and I call. Sorry, I beg your pardon. Becky Cooper.
09:50
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
You. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. So we meet at a moment when the global aid system is under extraordinary pressure. And I thank the honourable gentleman for bringing this incredibly important debate here this morning. Current projections suggest that cuts to international aid could contribute to as many as 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five. That is the human cost of dismantling the world's aid architecture at speed. The United Kingdom is not alone in reducing aid spending.
The United States, France, Germany and Canada are all scaling back their commitments. But that does not make our choices less significant. It makes them more significant. When every major donor retreats at the same time, there is no one left to step into the gap. And the truth is that the challenges we face today do not stop at national borders. Conflict. Climate change, forced displacement, pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance affect us all. Investment overseas is increasingly an investment in our own security and prosperity here at home.
Global health provides perhaps the clearest example of why this matters. Viruses do not stop at passport control. The first line of defence against the next pandemic is not at Heathrow or Dover. It is in strong public health systems thousands of miles away. Our National Health Service and the health security of people across Britain depend on a global health system that works effectively for everyone, and that is. Why I do welcome aspects of the government's approach. As has already been said, I welcome the decision to provide protection for key multilateral health organisations and I am proud that the UK has made ambitious commitments to the Global Fund and to Gavi institutions with a proven ability to deliver vaccines at scale and to reach communities that fragmented programmes often cannot.
And the government are also right to recognise that countries want autonomy, not dependency, and our role should be to help build resilient health systems that countries themselves can sustain and own. That is the right long term objective. I will, of course.
The United States, France, Germany and Canada are all scaling back their commitments. But that does not make our choices less significant. It makes them more significant. When every major donor retreats at the same time, there is no one left to step into the gap. And the truth is that the challenges we face today do not stop at national borders. Conflict. Climate change, forced displacement, pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance affect us all. Investment overseas is increasingly an investment in our own security and prosperity here at home.
Global health provides perhaps the clearest example of why this matters. Viruses do not stop at passport control. The first line of defence against the next pandemic is not at Heathrow or Dover. It is in strong public health systems thousands of miles away. Our National Health Service and the health security of people across Britain depend on a global health system that works effectively for everyone, and that is. Why I do welcome aspects of the government's approach. As has already been said, I welcome the decision to provide protection for key multilateral health organisations and I am proud that the UK has made ambitious commitments to the Global Fund and to Gavi institutions with a proven ability to deliver vaccines at scale and to reach communities that fragmented programmes often cannot.
And the government are also right to recognise that countries want autonomy, not dependency, and our role should be to help build resilient health systems that countries themselves can sustain and own. That is the right long term objective. I will, of course.
09:53
09:53
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I thank the honourable gentleman for that intervention. I agree 100%. My hon. Friend here has already talked about his role of the all party parliamentary group on Wash, and it is an absolute essential health determinant. To continue partnership and resilience building are incredibly important, but they cannot be the whole answer. A strategy designed to strengthen systems over many years does little for a clinic that is closing next month. Communities facing the loss of essential services are not reassured by a long term theory of change.
Much as we love that in the development arena, they are worried about whether medicines will be available, whether healthcare workers will be paid and whether the lights will stay on. Withdrawal is fast. Capacity building is slow and people are falling through that gap. That is why, to be honest, the decision to withdraw support from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Pandemic Fund is really quite disappointing. The government's own impact assessment warns that these choices increase the risk of disease outbreaks.
We are closer than ever to eradicating polio, a disease that has blighted generations of children. And yet potentially because of cuts to official development assistance. We are stepping back from that goal, and I urge us not to. I am equally concerned about the dismantling of the Fleming Fund. Antimicrobial resistance may sound a little bit abstract, but it is not a distant or theoretical threat. Just ask anybody you know about what they think will happen if antibiotics don't work when they need them.
It's one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face. The effectiveness of those antibiotics underpins modern medicine and protects countless lives. Every day. Our NHS depends on those medicines continuing to work, and recent outbreaks of serious infectious diseases reminds us just how much rests upon them. And as we have just been reminded, we must recognise that health does not exist in isolation. Clean water, good nutrition, quality education, our health interventions by another name. We know, of course, for example, that children whose mothers have received a secondary education are far more likely to be fully vaccinated.
So while I welcome the prioritisation of health care spending, we cannot ignore the reality that many of the programmes being cut are, in practice. Health programmes too. And nowhere is this more evident than in Africa. The continent bears around a quarter of the world's disease burden, while possessing only 3% of the global health workforce. Yet bilateral aid to Africa is facing a 56% reduction. The steepest regional cut across the entire Oda budget. Multilateral institutions will, of course, continue to play an essential role, but we should not be naive enough to believe that they can absorb cuts of this scale without consequences, and these consequences are already becoming clear in Malawi.
An estimated 250 000 adolescents could lose access to family planning services each year. In Somalia, fewer women, girls and boys will be able to access life saving health care because of these decisions. Behind every statistic is a human being whose opportunities, health and future are being diminished. There is also a broader question of fairness. The NHS benefits enormously from healthcare workers who trained overseas before coming here to serve patients across the United Kingdom, which we sometimes forget in our conversations on immigration.
It has been estimated that the UK has saved around £14 billion by relying on health professionals, educated and trained elsewhere. Many of the countries from which those workers come are themselves grappling with fragile and understaffed health systems. That is not a windfall. It creates responsibility. Duty to invest back into the health systems from which we have drawn so much expertise, not to withdraw support at the very moment those systems are under increasing strain. Ebola, Covid 19 and antimicrobial resistance is ultimately the same.
We cannot isolate ourselves from global threats. The cheapest crisis is the one that we prevent. Have described these decisions as exceptional measures taken in difficult fiscal circumstances, and I recognise those pressures. But we have a responsibility to keep people safe, including people here in the United Kingdom. Today, the protection of some of the world's most vulnerable communities is being weakened, and in doing so, we are undermining our own health security here in Britain. And so for those reasons, I urge my government to look again a credible, serious and urgent plan to restore aid.
Spending is needed, and not only because it is the right thing to do, but also it is because it is in our national interest as well.
Much as we love that in the development arena, they are worried about whether medicines will be available, whether healthcare workers will be paid and whether the lights will stay on. Withdrawal is fast. Capacity building is slow and people are falling through that gap. That is why, to be honest, the decision to withdraw support from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Pandemic Fund is really quite disappointing. The government's own impact assessment warns that these choices increase the risk of disease outbreaks.
We are closer than ever to eradicating polio, a disease that has blighted generations of children. And yet potentially because of cuts to official development assistance. We are stepping back from that goal, and I urge us not to. I am equally concerned about the dismantling of the Fleming Fund. Antimicrobial resistance may sound a little bit abstract, but it is not a distant or theoretical threat. Just ask anybody you know about what they think will happen if antibiotics don't work when they need them.
It's one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face. The effectiveness of those antibiotics underpins modern medicine and protects countless lives. Every day. Our NHS depends on those medicines continuing to work, and recent outbreaks of serious infectious diseases reminds us just how much rests upon them. And as we have just been reminded, we must recognise that health does not exist in isolation. Clean water, good nutrition, quality education, our health interventions by another name. We know, of course, for example, that children whose mothers have received a secondary education are far more likely to be fully vaccinated.
So while I welcome the prioritisation of health care spending, we cannot ignore the reality that many of the programmes being cut are, in practice. Health programmes too. And nowhere is this more evident than in Africa. The continent bears around a quarter of the world's disease burden, while possessing only 3% of the global health workforce. Yet bilateral aid to Africa is facing a 56% reduction. The steepest regional cut across the entire Oda budget. Multilateral institutions will, of course, continue to play an essential role, but we should not be naive enough to believe that they can absorb cuts of this scale without consequences, and these consequences are already becoming clear in Malawi.
An estimated 250 000 adolescents could lose access to family planning services each year. In Somalia, fewer women, girls and boys will be able to access life saving health care because of these decisions. Behind every statistic is a human being whose opportunities, health and future are being diminished. There is also a broader question of fairness. The NHS benefits enormously from healthcare workers who trained overseas before coming here to serve patients across the United Kingdom, which we sometimes forget in our conversations on immigration.
It has been estimated that the UK has saved around £14 billion by relying on health professionals, educated and trained elsewhere. Many of the countries from which those workers come are themselves grappling with fragile and understaffed health systems. That is not a windfall. It creates responsibility. Duty to invest back into the health systems from which we have drawn so much expertise, not to withdraw support at the very moment those systems are under increasing strain. Ebola, Covid 19 and antimicrobial resistance is ultimately the same.
We cannot isolate ourselves from global threats. The cheapest crisis is the one that we prevent. Have described these decisions as exceptional measures taken in difficult fiscal circumstances, and I recognise those pressures. But we have a responsibility to keep people safe, including people here in the United Kingdom. Today, the protection of some of the world's most vulnerable communities is being weakened, and in doing so, we are undermining our own health security here in Britain. And so for those reasons, I urge my government to look again a credible, serious and urgent plan to restore aid.
Spending is needed, and not only because it is the right thing to do, but also it is because it is in our national interest as well.
09:58
09:58
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I've been. Thank you to the honourable member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale for raising this important issue and for the passion and the detail that he conveyed. I also want to welcome the Minister to this place and look very much forward to what he has to say. And the Shadow Minister as well, who's always here, needs to be. I look forward to her contribution. We meet at a sobering. Are the global landscape for official development.
Assistance is contracting before our very eyes. With funding falling right across the West here at home. Our aid budget is actually down to 0.3% of the G. And I understand the intense fiscal pressures facing our nation, and I understand the absolute necessity of strengthening our national defence in a dangerous world. However, the aid strengths are more responsibility does not diminish. It intensifies when there's less to go around as a matter of profound duty to ensure that every single penny we do set aside is well spent and we cannot afford waste.
We cannot afford bloated bureaucracy and we cannot afford Whitehall centric projects that fail to hit the ground. I'm very happy to give way on yesterday's.
Assistance is contracting before our very eyes. With funding falling right across the West here at home. Our aid budget is actually down to 0.3% of the G. And I understand the intense fiscal pressures facing our nation, and I understand the absolute necessity of strengthening our national defence in a dangerous world. However, the aid strengths are more responsibility does not diminish. It intensifies when there's less to go around as a matter of profound duty to ensure that every single penny we do set aside is well spent and we cannot afford waste.
We cannot afford bloated bureaucracy and we cannot afford Whitehall centric projects that fail to hit the ground. I'm very happy to give way on yesterday's.
09:59
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Honourable gentleman has raised the principal point that this is money that will come from aid to defence, something I think the total by 2020 526 will be 4.8 billion, then 6.5 billion. Some of us can appreciate the need for defence and the need for investment, but this is transferring money to the most profligate and incompetent spending department in government. In defence, some of us have been here for a number of years. Can remember Nimrod 4.4 billion scrapped. Bowman radio system 2.5 billion scrapped.
The daring destroyer class 1.5 billion over expenditure. Ajax armed vehicles 4 billion most probably not capable of being used now and then. The sale of married quarters lost 4 billion. We're giving money to a department that has wasted money time and time again from one that is desperately needed to save lives.
The daring destroyer class 1.5 billion over expenditure. Ajax armed vehicles 4 billion most probably not capable of being used now and then. The sale of married quarters lost 4 billion. We're giving money to a department that has wasted money time and time again from one that is desperately needed to save lives.
10:00
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I'm not sure if the minister will be able to answer that or not, because he's not in charge of defence. But nonetheless, the point is well made. Uh, Mr. Chairman, being wise stewards of public money also means we must take a hard, honest look at where our money is going. Abe was never meant to be a permanent, open ended dependency. Its ultimate goal must be to help nations stand on their own two feet. Today we see vast sums of British taxpayers money still flowing into middle income countries.
And we can mention some of them who are, um, excellent economies. And I think of India is one, um, that a fast growing economies, expanding space programmes and burgeoning domestic wealth, surely common sense must be fail. We should be deeply wary of continuing to fund countries that are now clearly on their feet and fully capable of looking after their own citizens. Our priority must shift. And I've got a solution that I want to put to the minister at the end. We must concentrate our precious, limited resources on the poorest of the poor, on those forgotten nations that desperately need a helping hand just to get onto their feet, to achieve true value for money.
The foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must also radically change how it delivers aid. For too long, vast sums of UK aid have been swallowed up by a massive international agencies. Expensive consultants sitting in metropolitan hotels miles away from suffering the older gentleman and in reduction even mentioned with some of the the conferences and hotels when the people were starving on the very streets. This is not efficiency. If we want maximum impact for the British taxpayer and maximum relief for the world's most vulnerable, we must empower local on the ground bodies.
We must trust the people who actually know the area, who speak their language, who live amongst the communities, and who truly understand the complex realities on the ground. In particular, this afternoon I want to champion a grip that is too often overlooked by modern technocrats, our church missionaries, and our faith based organisations, ones who have been there for hundreds of years, literally hundreds of years. Uh, and the job that they do and charity, both physically and emotionally and biblically. These men and women do not fly in for a three month contract and fly out when a crisis hits.
They've been in the places for years, sometimes for decades, and often for generations. They are there in the poorest village of Africa, the most remote parts of Asia, and the most dangerous corners of the Middle East. They have built deep, unbreakable bonds of trust with local people. They know exactly who you're starving. They know which clinics lack medicine, and they know how to distribute resources without a single penny being siphoned off by corruption. I say to the minister, respectively, and the minister knows me well.
When the Fcdo partners with established missionary networks, we are not funding expensive administrative overheads there, there my constituents, Stanford, has many, many churches and faith groups from all the churches, from the Church of Ireland, the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian. Uh, the Elim and many other other churches as well. They are funding pure direct delivery. They are utilising infrastructure that is already built, relationships that are already formed, and a dedication, a dedication that money simply cannot buy. Uh, I've mentioned this before, Mr.
Chairman, in other debates and maybe today, hopefully the minister can give me some, some, uh, reply on this. The networks are there, the people are there, the work they're doing, I think of the mission in particular in Zimbabwe. Um, and also in Swaziland as two places where they're working, producing, uh, farm farmers to till the land and produce their own food at the same time. They're teaching, they're, they're involved in healthcare, they're involved in education. So I asked the minister today, please, as we reshape our aid footprint, will the government commit to bypassing the bloated international middlemen and graduated economies?And will the Fcdo actively challenge our precious reduced resources into these trusted, long standing church, missionary and local bodies who offer the ultimate value for money?Let us ensure, Mr.
Chairman, that British aid is defined not by the billions we spend, but by the lives we save through those who knew just how to save him as a church, missionaries, as a faith based groups, they're. They're happy to be a partner with government. I think they should be invited to do so. Thank you very much, sir.
And we can mention some of them who are, um, excellent economies. And I think of India is one, um, that a fast growing economies, expanding space programmes and burgeoning domestic wealth, surely common sense must be fail. We should be deeply wary of continuing to fund countries that are now clearly on their feet and fully capable of looking after their own citizens. Our priority must shift. And I've got a solution that I want to put to the minister at the end. We must concentrate our precious, limited resources on the poorest of the poor, on those forgotten nations that desperately need a helping hand just to get onto their feet, to achieve true value for money.
The foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must also radically change how it delivers aid. For too long, vast sums of UK aid have been swallowed up by a massive international agencies. Expensive consultants sitting in metropolitan hotels miles away from suffering the older gentleman and in reduction even mentioned with some of the the conferences and hotels when the people were starving on the very streets. This is not efficiency. If we want maximum impact for the British taxpayer and maximum relief for the world's most vulnerable, we must empower local on the ground bodies.
We must trust the people who actually know the area, who speak their language, who live amongst the communities, and who truly understand the complex realities on the ground. In particular, this afternoon I want to champion a grip that is too often overlooked by modern technocrats, our church missionaries, and our faith based organisations, ones who have been there for hundreds of years, literally hundreds of years. Uh, and the job that they do and charity, both physically and emotionally and biblically. These men and women do not fly in for a three month contract and fly out when a crisis hits.
They've been in the places for years, sometimes for decades, and often for generations. They are there in the poorest village of Africa, the most remote parts of Asia, and the most dangerous corners of the Middle East. They have built deep, unbreakable bonds of trust with local people. They know exactly who you're starving. They know which clinics lack medicine, and they know how to distribute resources without a single penny being siphoned off by corruption. I say to the minister, respectively, and the minister knows me well.
When the Fcdo partners with established missionary networks, we are not funding expensive administrative overheads there, there my constituents, Stanford, has many, many churches and faith groups from all the churches, from the Church of Ireland, the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian. Uh, the Elim and many other other churches as well. They are funding pure direct delivery. They are utilising infrastructure that is already built, relationships that are already formed, and a dedication, a dedication that money simply cannot buy. Uh, I've mentioned this before, Mr.
Chairman, in other debates and maybe today, hopefully the minister can give me some, some, uh, reply on this. The networks are there, the people are there, the work they're doing, I think of the mission in particular in Zimbabwe. Um, and also in Swaziland as two places where they're working, producing, uh, farm farmers to till the land and produce their own food at the same time. They're teaching, they're, they're involved in healthcare, they're involved in education. So I asked the minister today, please, as we reshape our aid footprint, will the government commit to bypassing the bloated international middlemen and graduated economies?And will the Fcdo actively challenge our precious reduced resources into these trusted, long standing church, missionary and local bodies who offer the ultimate value for money?Let us ensure, Mr.
Chairman, that British aid is defined not by the billions we spend, but by the lives we save through those who knew just how to save him as a church, missionaries, as a faith based groups, they're. They're happy to be a partner with government. I think they should be invited to do so. Thank you very much, sir.
10:04
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you. Mr.. It's a delight to participate in this debate today, and I thank my Right Honourable member for calling it. And I refer to my own register of interest as a member of the IDC. And as a former development banker. Um, and I share many of the reflections of my IDC colleagues about the need for clarity. Um, and to be absolutely steadfast in our pursuit of the overarching goal of the UK's foreign. Development policy, which is that of poverty alleviation.
I think our report sheds a light on the fact that there is a much greater need for clarity, transparency, and, in a way, measurability of some of the outcomes that we are looking to deliver on in a particularly constrained, uh, circumstance that we are in. But that said, I do wholeheartedly support this government's shift towards from from the mindset of donor to investor. That is necessary because not just because that is what many developing countries are asking of us, but also because that is simply the only way we will get this scale of investment that is needed to transform the fortunes of the world's poorest countries.
Whichever way you look at it, the SDG financing gap or or any other interpretation, the scale of capital need is enormous and cannot, quite frankly, be met by the multilateral development banks, let alone our development aid budgets. Me move from the sort of, uh, I guess the hand-wringing that we're all so used to in our favourite sector towards a much more kind of normative positive pitch as to what role the UK government can play as we head into the G20 and where we have the chance to really set, uh, set the tone of development globally.
We have a unique role that we can play in, um, in I think three areas. One, the global debt system. Two is the role of multilateral development banks. Our influence on those and on development finance more broadly. And three, on the mobilisation of private sector investment. I know that these are three themes which the government is incredibly invested in and aligned with our shift from donor to investor. Um, but let me be very clear, um, at least in my experience, what will work to deliver those shifts across those three agenda items on global debt?The UK is the, is the home for the vast majority of emerging markets.
Sovereign debt, um, the courts of England are the jurisdiction. It's a jurisdiction under which it is governed. Governed. The other key jurisdiction being, of course New York. Now, in my mind it is incumbent on this jurisdiction to try and right the wrongs that my honourable member, whose honourable friend, who's no longer in his place, but who brought forward a private member's bill last year. Um, it is incumbent on us to take that need to build not just a more sustainable debt system, but ultimately the financial capacity of some of these countries.
It is incumbent on us to take that agenda very seriously. And I welcome the work that the London coalition has done so far. I welcome the steps to strengthen the common framework. I welcome the term sheet, which suggests pause clauses that might prevent some of these, quite frankly, usurious debt obligations of developing countries building up during restructurings. And I certainly welcome the need for transparency as well, which is another workstream of the London coalition. But we must ask ourselves this question is this sufficient?Are voluntary measures and self-regulation of the city as the leading emerging markets bond market?That sufficient and as a key player in the G20, can we take a stand in delivering a much greater ambition to ensure that some of those best practices move from being voluntary to a gold standard for the market?And I would suggest that if there are concerns about the market impact, one only has to look back to the previous round of global debt reform under Gordon Brown and some of the concerns raised by the city.
Then let's let's be honest, not all investors are created equal. A big pension fund that just happens to have exposure to Ghanaian sovereign debt is not the same as a sovereign, as a distressed debt hedge fund. Um, there will be a differential view from those creditors on whether or not um our. Real ambition from the UK to put some of these reforms on a statutory footing is going to scare the market. And I would encourage the government to engage with that very strongly.
I'd be happy to provide evidence from the city. Um, and from economists working on global sovereign debt to support the fact that this might not all be doom and gloom. This might be an opportunity to reset the sustainability of the sector. And in doing so, build financial capacity with. That financial capacity, I would argue we can mobilise a far greater sum of of investment. Um, than we ever have done before. I know that is the ambition of, of the Development Minister, Baroness Chapman.
And, and to be honest, if we were able to get that financial capacity right for these countries, it may be that the sums that have been cut in aid pale into insignificance, to put it bluntly, um, compared with what investment could be mobilised if we get that macroeconomic structure right. But moving to the role of multilaterals, it is also their role to mobilise private capital. Um, and yet I would argue that particularly some of the larger multilaterals, which we've been very fervent in supporting, are not currently taking sufficient risk.
They are in many cases crowding out commercial banks and are too focused on debt. They need to be more catalytic in the work that they do. I do think BII, it sets a good reference point to this. And the other thing that BII serves as a good reference point for is project development, or what the IFC would call upstream project development. I will give way to my honourable.
I think our report sheds a light on the fact that there is a much greater need for clarity, transparency, and, in a way, measurability of some of the outcomes that we are looking to deliver on in a particularly constrained, uh, circumstance that we are in. But that said, I do wholeheartedly support this government's shift towards from from the mindset of donor to investor. That is necessary because not just because that is what many developing countries are asking of us, but also because that is simply the only way we will get this scale of investment that is needed to transform the fortunes of the world's poorest countries.
Whichever way you look at it, the SDG financing gap or or any other interpretation, the scale of capital need is enormous and cannot, quite frankly, be met by the multilateral development banks, let alone our development aid budgets. Me move from the sort of, uh, I guess the hand-wringing that we're all so used to in our favourite sector towards a much more kind of normative positive pitch as to what role the UK government can play as we head into the G20 and where we have the chance to really set, uh, set the tone of development globally.
We have a unique role that we can play in, um, in I think three areas. One, the global debt system. Two is the role of multilateral development banks. Our influence on those and on development finance more broadly. And three, on the mobilisation of private sector investment. I know that these are three themes which the government is incredibly invested in and aligned with our shift from donor to investor. Um, but let me be very clear, um, at least in my experience, what will work to deliver those shifts across those three agenda items on global debt?The UK is the, is the home for the vast majority of emerging markets.
Sovereign debt, um, the courts of England are the jurisdiction. It's a jurisdiction under which it is governed. Governed. The other key jurisdiction being, of course New York. Now, in my mind it is incumbent on this jurisdiction to try and right the wrongs that my honourable member, whose honourable friend, who's no longer in his place, but who brought forward a private member's bill last year. Um, it is incumbent on us to take that need to build not just a more sustainable debt system, but ultimately the financial capacity of some of these countries.
It is incumbent on us to take that agenda very seriously. And I welcome the work that the London coalition has done so far. I welcome the steps to strengthen the common framework. I welcome the term sheet, which suggests pause clauses that might prevent some of these, quite frankly, usurious debt obligations of developing countries building up during restructurings. And I certainly welcome the need for transparency as well, which is another workstream of the London coalition. But we must ask ourselves this question is this sufficient?Are voluntary measures and self-regulation of the city as the leading emerging markets bond market?That sufficient and as a key player in the G20, can we take a stand in delivering a much greater ambition to ensure that some of those best practices move from being voluntary to a gold standard for the market?And I would suggest that if there are concerns about the market impact, one only has to look back to the previous round of global debt reform under Gordon Brown and some of the concerns raised by the city.
Then let's let's be honest, not all investors are created equal. A big pension fund that just happens to have exposure to Ghanaian sovereign debt is not the same as a sovereign, as a distressed debt hedge fund. Um, there will be a differential view from those creditors on whether or not um our. Real ambition from the UK to put some of these reforms on a statutory footing is going to scare the market. And I would encourage the government to engage with that very strongly.
I'd be happy to provide evidence from the city. Um, and from economists working on global sovereign debt to support the fact that this might not all be doom and gloom. This might be an opportunity to reset the sustainability of the sector. And in doing so, build financial capacity with. That financial capacity, I would argue we can mobilise a far greater sum of of investment. Um, than we ever have done before. I know that is the ambition of, of the Development Minister, Baroness Chapman.
And, and to be honest, if we were able to get that financial capacity right for these countries, it may be that the sums that have been cut in aid pale into insignificance, to put it bluntly, um, compared with what investment could be mobilised if we get that macroeconomic structure right. But moving to the role of multilaterals, it is also their role to mobilise private capital. Um, and yet I would argue that particularly some of the larger multilaterals, which we've been very fervent in supporting, are not currently taking sufficient risk.
They are in many cases crowding out commercial banks and are too focused on debt. They need to be more catalytic in the work that they do. I do think BII, it sets a good reference point to this. And the other thing that BII serves as a good reference point for is project development, or what the IFC would call upstream project development. I will give way to my honourable.
10:11
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank the honourable member for giving way. Um, he mentioned he mentions the issue of Multilaterals. And of course we are in a scenario at the moment where we've seen massive cuts to aid my particular sector. As many people will know, the sector that I worked in for 30 years has wash, which has been was cut by 85% before the recent aid cuts. Um, and is so important in terms of, of, of changing people's lives now with multilateral, the movement to multilateralism and multilateral support.
Uh, does the honourable member agree with me that we should see that channel used to direct much larger funds to the very poorest to, to, to sectors like wash. And I'm not saying exclusively wash, but sectors like wash so that we can see a real improvement in people's lives across the world.
Uh, does the honourable member agree with me that we should see that channel used to direct much larger funds to the very poorest to, to, to sectors like wash. And I'm not saying exclusively wash, but sectors like wash so that we can see a real improvement in people's lives across the world.
10:12
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I do agree that there needs to be, alongside this shift to more risk capital, which will support that goal as well. Alongside that risk, that shift to more upstream project development, together with local partners, there needs to be that focus on the world's very poorest and getting capital into those markets that currently do not have the capacity to support it. So that's something that we have to move on each of these fronts on. On the global debt reform front, on the our engagement with the multilateral development banks and with our own dfis.
With the private sector as, as well, because it is only by getting the capacity right, by getting the work that the Mdbs and Dfis do right, that we, we will be able to mobilise capital at scale. And wash in particular, is one of those areas that I think suffers from being. I would say, in my experience, quite uninvestable by development finance, um, in part because the ability of Dfis to support the municipal level city regions is underdeveloped. And I would urge the minister, um, to, to work with, say, U20 colleagues to, to address that issue as well.
So I will I'll briefly give way.
With the private sector as, as well, because it is only by getting the capacity right, by getting the work that the Mdbs and Dfis do right, that we, we will be able to mobilise capital at scale. And wash in particular, is one of those areas that I think suffers from being. I would say, in my experience, quite uninvestable by development finance, um, in part because the ability of Dfis to support the municipal level city regions is underdeveloped. And I would urge the minister, um, to, to work with, say, U20 colleagues to, to address that issue as well.
So I will I'll briefly give way.
10:13
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
For the Multilaterals. I just want to put on record, certainly my concerns, and I think a number of IDC committee members share. The concern is that it's going to be much harder for us to influence the Multilaterals when most of our money is going there, as opposed to bilateral aid. Does he share my concern that we need to resource appropriately to be able to achieve maximum leverage within the multilateral system?
10:13
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I do share his concern, and I think there is a in a time of constrained resources, a bit of a knee jerk reaction to move everything into the multilateral space to get more bang for our buck. But as we've seen, it's not as simple as that. And one does have to be wary of, of making that money go further. Um, but I am glad to say that there are examples, particularly on the climate finance front, where our government has stepped up to ensure that we maintain the agenda of the multilateral development banks.
But I will, in closing, Mr. Radford, to sum up, I think we need to be serious about that potential need for a statutory footing for some of the reforms to the global debt system, which the UK is uniquely well placed to to address. We need to push our multilateral development banks and dfis to go further, to take more risk and to do that upstream development work. And we need to mobilise in doing so, the private capital that at the minute is unable to get to the world's poorest countries.
But I will, in closing, Mr. Radford, to sum up, I think we need to be serious about that potential need for a statutory footing for some of the reforms to the global debt system, which the UK is uniquely well placed to to address. We need to push our multilateral development banks and dfis to go further, to take more risk and to do that upstream development work. And we need to mobilise in doing so, the private capital that at the minute is unable to get to the world's poorest countries.
10:14
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, Mr. Efford. And may I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members interests?May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate and on leading a galaxy of great speeches. It's a pleasure to follow the honourable lady. She and I have worked together on global health partnerships, and I agree with everything that has been said. If I can just pick up on a couple of points that have been made during the course of the debate, there's been focus on the British G20, and I'm sure that that is a very important opportunity for Britain to provide some leadership on this.
Um, as we get older, we tend to look back through rose tinted spectacles at the past. Um, and I want to acknowledge right at the outset that British development policy is by far at its best when it is conducted on an all party basis. It is not a Labour or Conservative or liberal policy. It's a British policy. And that has been one of the great glories of it in the past. Also, um, I think the government has done well in its recent conference, where it brought together a lot of interested parties and helped to underline an appropriate agenda.
And also, we must be careful, those of us who really care about this, because we are still in Britain spending an enormous amount of money, uh, that are provided by taxpayers. And it is doing a lot of good. So although it's been greatly and savagely diminished, a lot of the spending is very good. So I want to make that clear. And also the government has stuck. I will in just one moment. And also the government has stuck to the 2023 White Paper, which was effectively an all party white paper, and I'm very pleased to see they have done that.
Um, as we get older, we tend to look back through rose tinted spectacles at the past. Um, and I want to acknowledge right at the outset that British development policy is by far at its best when it is conducted on an all party basis. It is not a Labour or Conservative or liberal policy. It's a British policy. And that has been one of the great glories of it in the past. Also, um, I think the government has done well in its recent conference, where it brought together a lot of interested parties and helped to underline an appropriate agenda.
And also, we must be careful, those of us who really care about this, because we are still in Britain spending an enormous amount of money, uh, that are provided by taxpayers. And it is doing a lot of good. So although it's been greatly and savagely diminished, a lot of the spending is very good. So I want to make that clear. And also the government has stuck. I will in just one moment. And also the government has stuck to the 2023 White Paper, which was effectively an all party white paper, and I'm very pleased to see they have done that.
10:16
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The Right Honourable member for giving way. I think the point he's making is so critical here. We've obviously seen public support wane in recent years, but protecting and preserving that narrative of the good that we do in the world is important. Uh, you know, I think often as a country, we tend to look at the floor rather than looking up at the sky. And as a country, we've got a monarch of high standing. We are a permanent member of the Security Council.
We are a NATO partner. We were a founder member of the United Nations. We're a global financial hub. We've got world leading universities and research institutions. So would he agree with me that actually, one of the things that can come out of this debate, but the other debates that we have around this topic is not to hand-wringing, as we've heard repeatedly in this chamber, but in fact, to think about how we build on our successes and we celebrate the good that we have done.
We are a NATO partner. We were a founder member of the United Nations. We're a global financial hub. We've got world leading universities and research institutions. So would he agree with me that actually, one of the things that can come out of this debate, but the other debates that we have around this topic is not to hand-wringing, as we've heard repeatedly in this chamber, but in fact, to think about how we build on our successes and we celebrate the good that we have done.
10:17
10:17
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Agree with that because here's here's citing a number of things that where Britain makes a big contribution. But there is a big black hole where we have we have cut off our legs in respect of international development. And I'm going to come on and say a word or two about that in in a moment. Um, can I also say that the importance of turning from donor to investor is absolutely right. But if you're investing in a poor country and there is an adequate health and education, your workforce is not going to be able to attract suitable investment.
So we have to be wary about that. We have to always focus on the results agenda, showing that the British taxpayer is getting 100 pence of value for every pound that is spent. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of saving eichi, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era where there was huge support led by Tony Blair, led by Gordon Brown, led by David Cameron and led by by Theresa May.
If you don't have support at the top, and particularly if you have a Prime Minister who is foolish enough to say from the despatch box that DfID is like an ATM in the sky, spewing out public money, taxpayers money. Unless you have that support from the top, you will not win back and sustain public support. And finally, the only point on which I disagreed with my right hon. Friend was in respect of BII. BII, of course, does follow the government's lead.
The government is of the 100% shareholder in BII and is therefore able to set out very clearly what the priorities should be, but then should leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate. Now um, Mr. Efford, I would argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and the Starmer premiership. And bear in mind that in the last year of the last conservative government, don't tell the Treasury this, but we actually spent nearly 0.6. So, you know, there was a huge amount of support.
But there are three areas where we have seriously lost out. First of all, Britain's reputation as a result of these cuts. And as was pointed out, these cuts in Britain are more savage pro rata than the cuts in America. These the damage to Britain's reputation is acute. I would argue that since the Suez crisis there has only been one area of indisputable British international leadership and that has been on international development, and I'm afraid we have lost that. We have lost out on British interests, uh, particularly in respect of the rampant nationalism that is now being pursued at a time when you need international cooperation to tackle these great scourges that have been mentioned in this debate.
And above all, perhaps the poorest people in the world who were reliant on British expertise and support and cash, they, too, have lost out. Um, and now is a chance with a new leader, uh, who was the honourable member, right honourable member for Makerfield was a part of a government that really championed international development. Uh, he knows about that. Now is a chance to make some changes. And I urge Labour members to rise up now at this point and say that the historic interests and support of the Labour Party has been for international development.
You might expect the Tories to cut aid and development, but you don't expect the Labour Party to do it. Now is a chance to have a real reset, and that reset, in my view, Mr. effort should include three things. First of all, it should include an acceptance that the vaporization of DfID and the merger was an ocean going disaster. Everyone who has had anything to do with it knows that perfectly well. It has led to a huge loss of skill. I urge the government to decide to set up at least an agency, if not to restore DfID, to take action on helping to restore our reputation and the the huge agglomeration in London of expertise that resulted.
Secondly, we should move back, as is the law of the land, to the point seven. We should do it. However, over a number of years. You can't provide that sort of amount of money overnight. But over a period of five years, six years, we should try to move systemically back to that. And finally, Mr.. Effort, we should understand what the government doesn't understand, which is that defence, diplomacy and development are linked together very tightly indeed.
And the idea that taking development money and putting it into defence is the answer to the admittedly absolute requirement to spend more on defence is absurd. Development is the other side of coin of the coin of, of, of defence. And I hope the new administration, when it comes in shortly, will take account of some of these matters.
So we have to be wary about that. We have to always focus on the results agenda, showing that the British taxpayer is getting 100 pence of value for every pound that is spent. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of saving eichi, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era where there was huge support led by Tony Blair, led by Gordon Brown, led by David Cameron and led by by Theresa May.
If you don't have support at the top, and particularly if you have a Prime Minister who is foolish enough to say from the despatch box that DfID is like an ATM in the sky, spewing out public money, taxpayers money. Unless you have that support from the top, you will not win back and sustain public support. And finally, the only point on which I disagreed with my right hon. Friend was in respect of BII. BII, of course, does follow the government's lead.
The government is of the 100% shareholder in BII and is therefore able to set out very clearly what the priorities should be, but then should leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate. Now um, Mr. Efford, I would argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and the Starmer premiership. And bear in mind that in the last year of the last conservative government, don't tell the Treasury this, but we actually spent nearly 0.6. So, you know, there was a huge amount of support.
But there are three areas where we have seriously lost out. First of all, Britain's reputation as a result of these cuts. And as was pointed out, these cuts in Britain are more savage pro rata than the cuts in America. These the damage to Britain's reputation is acute. I would argue that since the Suez crisis there has only been one area of indisputable British international leadership and that has been on international development, and I'm afraid we have lost that. We have lost out on British interests, uh, particularly in respect of the rampant nationalism that is now being pursued at a time when you need international cooperation to tackle these great scourges that have been mentioned in this debate.
And above all, perhaps the poorest people in the world who were reliant on British expertise and support and cash, they, too, have lost out. Um, and now is a chance with a new leader, uh, who was the honourable member, right honourable member for Makerfield was a part of a government that really championed international development. Uh, he knows about that. Now is a chance to make some changes. And I urge Labour members to rise up now at this point and say that the historic interests and support of the Labour Party has been for international development.
You might expect the Tories to cut aid and development, but you don't expect the Labour Party to do it. Now is a chance to have a real reset, and that reset, in my view, Mr. effort should include three things. First of all, it should include an acceptance that the vaporization of DfID and the merger was an ocean going disaster. Everyone who has had anything to do with it knows that perfectly well. It has led to a huge loss of skill. I urge the government to decide to set up at least an agency, if not to restore DfID, to take action on helping to restore our reputation and the the huge agglomeration in London of expertise that resulted.
Secondly, we should move back, as is the law of the land, to the point seven. We should do it. However, over a number of years. You can't provide that sort of amount of money overnight. But over a period of five years, six years, we should try to move systemically back to that. And finally, Mr.. Effort, we should understand what the government doesn't understand, which is that defence, diplomacy and development are linked together very tightly indeed.
And the idea that taking development money and putting it into defence is the answer to the admittedly absolute requirement to spend more on defence is absurd. Development is the other side of coin of the coin of, of, of defence. And I hope the new administration, when it comes in shortly, will take account of some of these matters.
10:22
10:22
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
To share these principles of concern for the vulnerable and for equality and for solidarity, is the government that has presided over the biggest single ever cut to the UK aid budget. And as the honourable member before me mentioned, aid, our investment as a country in international has historically been a matter of cross-party consensus. And that is crucially important. This is not a party political issue. This is about our fundamental humanity as politicians and as a nation. And so it is unbelievably disappointing, isn't even the word.
It is shocking and shameful that we are in this position where this government has slashed aid to such an extent. It is short sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better world, in building a more secure world. And it is frankly immoral because aid does work. And as the honourable member, with all of her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths.
Millions, every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is. It is immoral. And I will very, very brief. I've got almost no time. Thank you.
It is shocking and shameful that we are in this position where this government has slashed aid to such an extent. It is short sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better world, in building a more secure world. And it is frankly immoral because aid does work. And as the honourable member, with all of her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths.
Millions, every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is. It is immoral. And I will very, very brief. I've got almost no time. Thank you.
10:24
10:24
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
We know that aid works. I've seen it myself. I've worked in international development for several decades before coming to this place. I have seen in Malawi how the provision of clean water literally saves lives. I have seen in Burundi how work on HIV and Aids literally saves lives. I've seen in northern Uganda how investment in conflict resolution and conflict prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers works to rebuild lives and livelihoods. I have seen in the Philippines how international aid has helped to.
Community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods. Aid works. No, it's not perfect. Of course it's not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer term programs, how to work better with local partners, how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. But we know all of this, and we have been doing it for decades.
And yet what has happened?The rug has been pulled out from under aid. For what purpose?To put it into defense spending. As the honourable member pointed out, which in itself has too often been a black hole cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. Whereas in the aid sector we have focused on results, we have focused on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results and why was this done?Let us remember this aid cut was put in place on the 25th of February 2025.
That was one month after Donald Trump came to the white House. It was two days before Keir Starmer went to the white House touting this aid cut and direction of funding into defence. As part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Well, look how well that worked. It did not. It never was going to. And so this country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity for what it is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid because it is life saving, because it is the long term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place.
And because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country, that's not just aid. That is absolutely engagement with the debt crisis. That is absolutely engagement with our trading relationships. It absolutely means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as polluter pays taxes in order to generate new streams of revenue, to invest in these life saving and life changing programmes. But one thing has to be clear we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world.
This aid cut, this shameful labour aid cut, makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour government will reverse course. Thank you.
Community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods. Aid works. No, it's not perfect. Of course it's not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer term programs, how to work better with local partners, how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. But we know all of this, and we have been doing it for decades.
And yet what has happened?The rug has been pulled out from under aid. For what purpose?To put it into defense spending. As the honourable member pointed out, which in itself has too often been a black hole cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. Whereas in the aid sector we have focused on results, we have focused on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results and why was this done?Let us remember this aid cut was put in place on the 25th of February 2025.
That was one month after Donald Trump came to the white House. It was two days before Keir Starmer went to the white House touting this aid cut and direction of funding into defence. As part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Well, look how well that worked. It did not. It never was going to. And so this country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity for what it is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid because it is life saving, because it is the long term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place.
And because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country, that's not just aid. That is absolutely engagement with the debt crisis. That is absolutely engagement with our trading relationships. It absolutely means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as polluter pays taxes in order to generate new streams of revenue, to invest in these life saving and life changing programmes. But one thing has to be clear we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world.
This aid cut, this shameful labour aid cut, makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour government will reverse course. Thank you.
10:28
10:28
10:28
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. And I want to pay tribute to the member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale for securing this debate today because we rarely talk about it in the chamber, because the government doesn't seem to want to talk about aid and development very much. And it must and it should, because our world is on fire. Cuts to development make it worse, and it is within the British national interest to support it.
But I am sure, chair, that if my party had cut the aid budget that far, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. The deplorable aid cuts from a proud 0.7 to 0.3%, the biggest cuts to aid this century, and which amount to a 50% cut in bilateral aid to Africa alone, are in danger of stripping the UK of much of its proud reputation on the global stage. And I must note at this point that despite continual prompting from members of the International Development Select Committee, of which I am on, the government is still yet to publish its country allocations of aid, which makes it very, very difficult to scrutinise the damage.
But we do know, and the government knows, that these cuts will cost lives. And combined with the collapse of USAID, the lives lost will likely be in their millions. Countries where we have a legacy, Afghanistan, for example, where 45% of the population needs humanitarian assistance and which is no longer prioritised within the UK's aid budget. In 2022, we contributed $488 million. Today, this is $32 million in the DRC. We have heard of how global aid cuts have caused such damage to health systems that the response to tackling the Ebola crisis has made it significantly harder.
And I know the personal commitment of many members in this room and the minister, but this is where we are, the party of DfID, of making poverty. History has become the government of aid cuts so extreme that they outstrip the Trump administration in their brutality. A Labour government which followed Donald Trump in cutting aid, outdid him. A Labour government whose legacy and development is already far worse than the conservatives. Just two years into their administration. And yet, once there was consensus and I agree with the Right Honourable member for Sutton Coldfield on almost everything, he said, but particularly on leadership.
And it comes to a pretty past when a member urges Labour members to rise up and be radical. This member, Right Honourable member, said it was the best job in the world that he had a development minister. The British did the best job in the world in development. There was consensus building on the Labour government. It was the coalition who delivered the 0.7 NI commitment. This was a Liberal Democrat manifesto promised since the 1970s and in coalition, we reached the UN aid target and NATO's defense spending target.
At the same time proving that investment in development and defence are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as we have heard, they are complementary. And as I and others have said, defence, diplomacy and development support each other and strengthen any coherent foreign policy. We have heard from some of the UK's most senior former military chiefs that reduce development capacity. Today stores up greater instability, greater cost and greater risk. Tomorrow, that means more defence spend down the line and look how we are scrabbling about for it now, because development brings benefits to Britain, it is strategic and mutually beneficial because investing in peace, building prosperity and stability keeps us safe here.
To take guarding against another pandemic. Covid wasn't so long ago and we are told with certainty that there will be another one. And with all its death and its destruction of economies and its long tail of social challenges and mental health, I'm sure many of my honourable friends will share my dismay at the decision by the government to discontinue funding the Pandemic Fund. And what about climate change?When harvests fell through drought or flooding?Malnutrition sets in. Communities fight for pasture and people migrate.
In May, the government broke its pledge to the Green Climate Fund by announcing a cut of 50%, while its new international climate finance target of over £6 billion of public money, which I note is committed over three rather than five years, also seems to be a reduction. And we here I will briefly.
But I am sure, chair, that if my party had cut the aid budget that far, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. The deplorable aid cuts from a proud 0.7 to 0.3%, the biggest cuts to aid this century, and which amount to a 50% cut in bilateral aid to Africa alone, are in danger of stripping the UK of much of its proud reputation on the global stage. And I must note at this point that despite continual prompting from members of the International Development Select Committee, of which I am on, the government is still yet to publish its country allocations of aid, which makes it very, very difficult to scrutinise the damage.
But we do know, and the government knows, that these cuts will cost lives. And combined with the collapse of USAID, the lives lost will likely be in their millions. Countries where we have a legacy, Afghanistan, for example, where 45% of the population needs humanitarian assistance and which is no longer prioritised within the UK's aid budget. In 2022, we contributed $488 million. Today, this is $32 million in the DRC. We have heard of how global aid cuts have caused such damage to health systems that the response to tackling the Ebola crisis has made it significantly harder.
And I know the personal commitment of many members in this room and the minister, but this is where we are, the party of DfID, of making poverty. History has become the government of aid cuts so extreme that they outstrip the Trump administration in their brutality. A Labour government which followed Donald Trump in cutting aid, outdid him. A Labour government whose legacy and development is already far worse than the conservatives. Just two years into their administration. And yet, once there was consensus and I agree with the Right Honourable member for Sutton Coldfield on almost everything, he said, but particularly on leadership.
And it comes to a pretty past when a member urges Labour members to rise up and be radical. This member, Right Honourable member, said it was the best job in the world that he had a development minister. The British did the best job in the world in development. There was consensus building on the Labour government. It was the coalition who delivered the 0.7 NI commitment. This was a Liberal Democrat manifesto promised since the 1970s and in coalition, we reached the UN aid target and NATO's defense spending target.
At the same time proving that investment in development and defence are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as we have heard, they are complementary. And as I and others have said, defence, diplomacy and development support each other and strengthen any coherent foreign policy. We have heard from some of the UK's most senior former military chiefs that reduce development capacity. Today stores up greater instability, greater cost and greater risk. Tomorrow, that means more defence spend down the line and look how we are scrabbling about for it now, because development brings benefits to Britain, it is strategic and mutually beneficial because investing in peace, building prosperity and stability keeps us safe here.
To take guarding against another pandemic. Covid wasn't so long ago and we are told with certainty that there will be another one. And with all its death and its destruction of economies and its long tail of social challenges and mental health, I'm sure many of my honourable friends will share my dismay at the decision by the government to discontinue funding the Pandemic Fund. And what about climate change?When harvests fell through drought or flooding?Malnutrition sets in. Communities fight for pasture and people migrate.
In May, the government broke its pledge to the Green Climate Fund by announcing a cut of 50%, while its new international climate finance target of over £6 billion of public money, which I note is committed over three rather than five years, also seems to be a reduction. And we here I will briefly.
10:32
10:32
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
To work international development sector. I used to work in Oxfam thinking about how you increase public support for international aid. I agree with what everybody in this room is saying, but we have a problem in our country where there are people in growing numbers who don't. And I fear that we as a parliament, have to tackle the complacency that we are exhibiting here in the chamber. So leadership matters. But how can we in Parliament actually grow that support to sustainably fund poverty alleviation?
10:33
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
The honourable member is 100% right, and I will come to that slightly later. In my speech. We hear a lot from the government about migration. Each one percentage increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9% more people to migrate, and they escape war to the largest single group of unaccompanied minors in small boats has been from Sudan, the world's greatest humanitarian disaster. In the midst of a brutal civil war. But this is just the tip. The wider Sahel is a tinderbox.
Millions are expected to fall into crisis or worse, into hunger. In this lean season, as armed violence escalates across the region, thousands of schools are closed due to insecurity. Health systems are buckling under the weight of need. And still and still we cut. Does the government understand the reality of these cuts at this inflection point, when the world is on fire?And don't we need some honesty with the public on where Oda is actually spent in 2025, 2.4 billion was spent on in donor refugee costs, in comparison to 1.3 billion spent on humanitarian assistance, life saving Oda being spent on propping up a broken asylum system and less and less spent on the causes that brought them here in the first place.
We can assume that the cuts came first and the strategy second. Given that the cuts announced in February 2025 seemed to take everyone, including the Foreign and Development Secretary, by surprise. And since then, the approach has often seemed confused and incoherent, and the IGC has asked for clarity and the government's theory of change to reach its shared objective for poverty alleviation. And of course, upheaval like this can create opportunity and wake us up from our stupor. Make make the case for aid outside of our own echo chamber, and there is a chance to imagine, reimagine our aid and development spend.
But tearing down the system before the plan is in place is never a good idea. The answer for many things that have failed to be funded is that they will be mainstreamed, which is euphemism for disappeared. British aid and development worked. Millions of children vaccinated and educated, safe birth, clean water, sanitation, life saved all achieved by well under 1% of this country's GNP. And it gave the UK influence and leverage on the world stage. If we had a seat at the table in global fora, friends in trade and diplomacy, why not celebrate this instead?The Minister for development suggested that the days of viewing the UK government as global charity are over.
Does the minister here really believe this, or does the Minister hope with us that with a change in leadership and a new Prime Minister, that the focus on the long term will come back a realization that doing the work now will make Britain safer and more powerful down the line?And wouldn't he agree that the framing of the debate to pitch defence against development is wrong?That, as the developed Minister at the time when she resigned, said it would be impossible to raise the resources needed to fully fund our defence capability just through tactical cuts to public spending.
And so it is. There is another hole, a 4.7 billion hole in the defence budget. Despite the aid cuts that were supposedly meant to fill it. So isn't it right that the government and the new Prime Minister must lay out the urgency of the debate on funding our defence and our development spend and the benefits that it can bring to Britain. Mr. chair, great damage has been done from our retreat from aid, and has been done to the reputation of our country and our shrinking influence while we retreat.
Others whose values may not match ours are making a play for Africa. With rapid population growth and an emerging labour force, Africa will become one of the world's biggest markets and the government should place itself in the best position to take advantage of that. The government has a chance now, with a new leader in place, to take the long term strategic view to repair the damage, return to the world stage and remember their moral responsibility and the strategic benefit to Britain. It is not too late, but it is nearly.
Millions are expected to fall into crisis or worse, into hunger. In this lean season, as armed violence escalates across the region, thousands of schools are closed due to insecurity. Health systems are buckling under the weight of need. And still and still we cut. Does the government understand the reality of these cuts at this inflection point, when the world is on fire?And don't we need some honesty with the public on where Oda is actually spent in 2025, 2.4 billion was spent on in donor refugee costs, in comparison to 1.3 billion spent on humanitarian assistance, life saving Oda being spent on propping up a broken asylum system and less and less spent on the causes that brought them here in the first place.
We can assume that the cuts came first and the strategy second. Given that the cuts announced in February 2025 seemed to take everyone, including the Foreign and Development Secretary, by surprise. And since then, the approach has often seemed confused and incoherent, and the IGC has asked for clarity and the government's theory of change to reach its shared objective for poverty alleviation. And of course, upheaval like this can create opportunity and wake us up from our stupor. Make make the case for aid outside of our own echo chamber, and there is a chance to imagine, reimagine our aid and development spend.
But tearing down the system before the plan is in place is never a good idea. The answer for many things that have failed to be funded is that they will be mainstreamed, which is euphemism for disappeared. British aid and development worked. Millions of children vaccinated and educated, safe birth, clean water, sanitation, life saved all achieved by well under 1% of this country's GNP. And it gave the UK influence and leverage on the world stage. If we had a seat at the table in global fora, friends in trade and diplomacy, why not celebrate this instead?The Minister for development suggested that the days of viewing the UK government as global charity are over.
Does the minister here really believe this, or does the Minister hope with us that with a change in leadership and a new Prime Minister, that the focus on the long term will come back a realization that doing the work now will make Britain safer and more powerful down the line?And wouldn't he agree that the framing of the debate to pitch defence against development is wrong?That, as the developed Minister at the time when she resigned, said it would be impossible to raise the resources needed to fully fund our defence capability just through tactical cuts to public spending.
And so it is. There is another hole, a 4.7 billion hole in the defence budget. Despite the aid cuts that were supposedly meant to fill it. So isn't it right that the government and the new Prime Minister must lay out the urgency of the debate on funding our defence and our development spend and the benefits that it can bring to Britain. Mr. chair, great damage has been done from our retreat from aid, and has been done to the reputation of our country and our shrinking influence while we retreat.
Others whose values may not match ours are making a play for Africa. With rapid population growth and an emerging labour force, Africa will become one of the world's biggest markets and the government should place itself in the best position to take advantage of that. The government has a chance now, with a new leader in place, to take the long term strategic view to repair the damage, return to the world stage and remember their moral responsibility and the strategic benefit to Britain. It is not too late, but it is nearly.
10:36
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
To serve under your chairmanship today, let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale on securing this really important and timely debate. As ever, he brings considerable knowledge to this place and experience on development issues and really importantly, an understanding that the world in which we deliver development has fundamentally changed, as indeed do a number of other speakers today, not least my right hon. Friend the member and my constituency neighbour, the member for Sutton Coldfield. I think it's fair to say, Mr.
Effort, that few in this place have the depth of knowledge that he brings to the debate today. The international landscape is defined by conflict, instability and strategic competition. Russia continues its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sudan has become the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe. Fragility stretches across the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, and China is using finance and infrastructure investment to expand its geopolitical influence. And at the same time, donor budgets across Western democracies are under increasing pressure. Against that backdrop, Britain must ask a simple question how do we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible possible benefit for the British people?Our national security, our prosperity and health, as well as for the recipients?That is why we, as conservatives, believe the debate should not simply be about the size of the aid budget.
It must be about reform. Following the government's decision to reduce odor from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, the spending review allocated £8.9 billion in 27, 28 and £9.4 billion in 2829. We believe it's right to go further, reducing Oda to 0.1% of GNI and delivering almost £7 billion of savings across those two years to help fund the sustained increase in defence spending required in today's far more dangerous world. But reductions in spending alone are not enough. They must be accompanied by genuine reform.
That is where I fear the government have failed to provide the meaningful clarity that we deserve. After two years in office, ministers continue to speak of moving from donor to investor. Yet we still do. No, do not know what that means in practical terms. And I would just gently point out at this point, it was almost a decade ago that the conservative government published a strategy for how to do economic development. So today, I'd like to ask, can the minister explain what criteria is now being used to determine whether a programme represents value for money and serves Britain's national interests?Which programmes have been cancelled?Which partnerships have been scaled back?Which priorities have been strengthened, and what measurable outcomes will the government use to judge success?Because I do believe the British taxpayer deserves answers and so do we as parliamentarians.
Our approach is clear on this side. We believe Britain's development mission should be redefined. Development assistance must be tightly focused on advancing Britain's economic interests, our national security and our wider strategic influence. That means asking of each and every programme, whether it strengthens Britain's security, supports economic resilience, helps prevent instability, counters authoritarian influence or creates longer, stronger long term partnerships. If it. Of course.
Effort, that few in this place have the depth of knowledge that he brings to the debate today. The international landscape is defined by conflict, instability and strategic competition. Russia continues its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sudan has become the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe. Fragility stretches across the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, and China is using finance and infrastructure investment to expand its geopolitical influence. And at the same time, donor budgets across Western democracies are under increasing pressure. Against that backdrop, Britain must ask a simple question how do we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible possible benefit for the British people?Our national security, our prosperity and health, as well as for the recipients?That is why we, as conservatives, believe the debate should not simply be about the size of the aid budget.
It must be about reform. Following the government's decision to reduce odor from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, the spending review allocated £8.9 billion in 27, 28 and £9.4 billion in 2829. We believe it's right to go further, reducing Oda to 0.1% of GNI and delivering almost £7 billion of savings across those two years to help fund the sustained increase in defence spending required in today's far more dangerous world. But reductions in spending alone are not enough. They must be accompanied by genuine reform.
That is where I fear the government have failed to provide the meaningful clarity that we deserve. After two years in office, ministers continue to speak of moving from donor to investor. Yet we still do. No, do not know what that means in practical terms. And I would just gently point out at this point, it was almost a decade ago that the conservative government published a strategy for how to do economic development. So today, I'd like to ask, can the minister explain what criteria is now being used to determine whether a programme represents value for money and serves Britain's national interests?Which programmes have been cancelled?Which partnerships have been scaled back?Which priorities have been strengthened, and what measurable outcomes will the government use to judge success?Because I do believe the British taxpayer deserves answers and so do we as parliamentarians.
Our approach is clear on this side. We believe Britain's development mission should be redefined. Development assistance must be tightly focused on advancing Britain's economic interests, our national security and our wider strategic influence. That means asking of each and every programme, whether it strengthens Britain's security, supports economic resilience, helps prevent instability, counters authoritarian influence or creates longer, stronger long term partnerships. If it. Of course.
10:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Normally, the. Always makes incredibly important and helpful contributions. In my contribution, I suggested that there's another way of doing things and that's working. Along with the church groups and faith based organisations. Would really feel that that's a possible way of moving forward to spend the money and the influence wiser.
10:40
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Gentleman always brings a great passion to to this place and is never afraid of sharing ideas. I think we're at a stage with development where we are. I think all of us are looking for more answers, more ideas, and I think it's also important that we look to other partners in other donor countries as well, and we learn from those from those as well. If I come back to that point about longer term partnerships, if and and an areas where programmes should be, you know, helping us, if they don't, we should ask why not and why British taxpayers are funding it.
But it also means introducing far greater conditionality, because the British taxpayer rightly expects the organisations and the countries receiving our support to demonstrate accountability, transparency and good governance. And that principle must apply equally to the multilateral system. Under the last conservative government, Britain led international efforts. Efforts to reform the UN agencies, reduce duplication and introduce stronger performance based funding. We challenge international organisations to deliver better value and greater accountability. So I'd like to ask the Minister now what reforms he is pressing for across the United Nations and the wider multilateral development banks.
What conditions are attached to UK funding?What discussions has he had with our international partners about driving greater transparency and accountability throughout the multilateral system, and what is the government doing to promote positive reform, where it takes place, such as that being rolled out by the president of the world Bank?Ajay Banga?Equally important is the role of bilateral and multilateral partnerships. Britain's relationships, particularly across the Commonwealth, remain one of our greatest strategic strengths. So I'd like to ask, rather than relying on large multilateral institutions, how is the government exploring more agile, bilateral and multilateral partnerships that can better advance our economic and security interests?What discussions has the minister had with key partners, particularly across the Commonwealth, about developing those new models of cooperation that deliver greater impact, stronger accountability and better value for the taxpayer?Has the government also explored the potential for development partnerships with countries such as Japan, South Korea, as well as the Nordics and Germany?These are allies whose interests align with ours in different parts of the world, and they matter for our security and prosperity.
But economic development must sit at the heart of our approach to international development. Conservative governments demonstrated that development is not simply about grants. It's about creating jobs, building markets, and enabling countries to stand on their own feet. BII we've heard of today has become one of Britain's genuine development success stories, mobilising private capital and supporting sustainable economic and economic growth. So can the minister tell the House whether BII will receive further support, and what level of private capital does the government expect to leverage through development finance, if development is to support Britain's national interests, then global health must also remain central.
We have a proud record on this side of the house of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, tuberculosis and Malaria. Those investments have not only saved millions of lives, but strengthens Britain's own health security. So can the minister confirm today the government's future commitments to Gavi and the Global Fund?And importantly, the sequence of this funding?I'd like to turn quickly to, um, humanitarian crises because Sudan cannot be ignored. It is now the world's humanitarian, worst humanitarian emergency.
So can the minister tell us what additional action Britain is taking to secure humanitarian access, and what discussions are taking with regional partners?I'm very conscious of the time almost coming to an end, but I also just want to touch on Ukraine. Um, I visited there earlier, again this year. Again, one of the gravest humanitarian issues arising from this war. We are seeing is the systematic abduction and forced deportation of Ukraine. Ukrainian children. So can the minister update the House on the latest support the UK is providing to efforts to locate and identify and reunite these children with their families.
Conflict is increasing. Donor funding is under pressure. Strategic competition is intensifying. Britain's development policy must change, too. So today I hope the Minister will explain not only where the government are spending the money, but how their approach is being fundamentally reformed to meet the realities of a more dangerous and contested world. And I look forward to hearing the minister's response.
But it also means introducing far greater conditionality, because the British taxpayer rightly expects the organisations and the countries receiving our support to demonstrate accountability, transparency and good governance. And that principle must apply equally to the multilateral system. Under the last conservative government, Britain led international efforts. Efforts to reform the UN agencies, reduce duplication and introduce stronger performance based funding. We challenge international organisations to deliver better value and greater accountability. So I'd like to ask the Minister now what reforms he is pressing for across the United Nations and the wider multilateral development banks.
What conditions are attached to UK funding?What discussions has he had with our international partners about driving greater transparency and accountability throughout the multilateral system, and what is the government doing to promote positive reform, where it takes place, such as that being rolled out by the president of the world Bank?Ajay Banga?Equally important is the role of bilateral and multilateral partnerships. Britain's relationships, particularly across the Commonwealth, remain one of our greatest strategic strengths. So I'd like to ask, rather than relying on large multilateral institutions, how is the government exploring more agile, bilateral and multilateral partnerships that can better advance our economic and security interests?What discussions has the minister had with key partners, particularly across the Commonwealth, about developing those new models of cooperation that deliver greater impact, stronger accountability and better value for the taxpayer?Has the government also explored the potential for development partnerships with countries such as Japan, South Korea, as well as the Nordics and Germany?These are allies whose interests align with ours in different parts of the world, and they matter for our security and prosperity.
But economic development must sit at the heart of our approach to international development. Conservative governments demonstrated that development is not simply about grants. It's about creating jobs, building markets, and enabling countries to stand on their own feet. BII we've heard of today has become one of Britain's genuine development success stories, mobilising private capital and supporting sustainable economic and economic growth. So can the minister tell the House whether BII will receive further support, and what level of private capital does the government expect to leverage through development finance, if development is to support Britain's national interests, then global health must also remain central.
We have a proud record on this side of the house of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, tuberculosis and Malaria. Those investments have not only saved millions of lives, but strengthens Britain's own health security. So can the minister confirm today the government's future commitments to Gavi and the Global Fund?And importantly, the sequence of this funding?I'd like to turn quickly to, um, humanitarian crises because Sudan cannot be ignored. It is now the world's humanitarian, worst humanitarian emergency.
So can the minister tell us what additional action Britain is taking to secure humanitarian access, and what discussions are taking with regional partners?I'm very conscious of the time almost coming to an end, but I also just want to touch on Ukraine. Um, I visited there earlier, again this year. Again, one of the gravest humanitarian issues arising from this war. We are seeing is the systematic abduction and forced deportation of Ukraine. Ukrainian children. So can the minister update the House on the latest support the UK is providing to efforts to locate and identify and reunite these children with their families.
Conflict is increasing. Donor funding is under pressure. Strategic competition is intensifying. Britain's development policy must change, too. So today I hope the Minister will explain not only where the government are spending the money, but how their approach is being fundamentally reformed to meet the realities of a more dangerous and contested world. And I look forward to hearing the minister's response.
10:45
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, Mr. Effort. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. Um, can I say that I'm grateful to the Right Honourable member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale for securing this debate this morning. I'm thankful to all members who have contributed across the House, and I will do my very best to respond to points that have been raised. 20 years ago, many believed that globalisation, economic growth and international cooperation would steadily drive down poverty and expand opportunity across the world.
That ambition remains as important today as it was then, but the world has changed and it has changed dramatically. We are living through a period of geopolitical fragmentation, increasing conflict and economic uncertainty. The assumptions around development policy no longer hold, so we must adapt. Many traditional and significant donor countries have announced or are carrying out reductions to their official development assistance or Oda budgets. Global aid fell by 23% in 2025, the largest year on year reduction we have ever seen. As this House is well aware, the government made the difficult decision to reduce the UK Oder budget to fund a necessary increase in defence spending.
A tough decision that many members have talked about today and not all members agree. I understand that, but the right one in my view, given the threats our country faces. Constrained odor, though, is only part of the story. This is clear when we look at Africa, where the annual financing gap and the differences between the investment Africa needs each year to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals and the funding it can. Currently, access is around $1.3 trillion. In contrast.
Aid to sub-Saharan Africa totaled $66.5 billion in 2024. That gap demonstrates that traditional Oda flows have only ever amounted to a small fraction of what is actually needed. In other words, Oda can only be part of the solution, not the whole solution. Continuing to work in the same way and expecting different results is no longer defensible. Middle income countries are calling for change and have been for some time. They want long term, genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism.
I gladly.
That ambition remains as important today as it was then, but the world has changed and it has changed dramatically. We are living through a period of geopolitical fragmentation, increasing conflict and economic uncertainty. The assumptions around development policy no longer hold, so we must adapt. Many traditional and significant donor countries have announced or are carrying out reductions to their official development assistance or Oda budgets. Global aid fell by 23% in 2025, the largest year on year reduction we have ever seen. As this House is well aware, the government made the difficult decision to reduce the UK Oder budget to fund a necessary increase in defence spending.
A tough decision that many members have talked about today and not all members agree. I understand that, but the right one in my view, given the threats our country faces. Constrained odor, though, is only part of the story. This is clear when we look at Africa, where the annual financing gap and the differences between the investment Africa needs each year to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals and the funding it can. Currently, access is around $1.3 trillion. In contrast.
Aid to sub-Saharan Africa totaled $66.5 billion in 2024. That gap demonstrates that traditional Oda flows have only ever amounted to a small fraction of what is actually needed. In other words, Oda can only be part of the solution, not the whole solution. Continuing to work in the same way and expecting different results is no longer defensible. Middle income countries are calling for change and have been for some time. They want long term, genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism.
I gladly.
10:47
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
For giving away the argument that aid is only a small part of the solution to global poverty and inequality is not a controversial one. But lower middle income countries have not been calling for the change that his government has delivered. The biggest slash in the aid budget altogether. If he believes that aid, expenditure and development investment needs to be done slightly differently, then let's make the argument for that. But cutting it should play no part in the sort of changes he's talking about.
10:48
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank. Mr.. Thank the honourable lady for her intervention. I have to say it's in complete contrast to my conversations with foreign ministers. Actually. Some of them are quite exhausted by the idea that we dictate the terms of aid funding. They're quite exhausted by the fact that we put a project in and then move away five years later with limited output. I'm not giving away. I'm not giving way. She posed the question.
I'll answer it when I have. Had these conversations with ministers globally, including in Africa, that Mr. Efford. I understand the honourable lady has significant experience in this field. I'm talking about meetings I've had with ministers whilst serving as a minister in the Fcdo. They are clear they want a different approach to how overseas development aid is funded. They want a different approach on economic growth, on investment. I've had more conversations. Mr. Efford with ministerial counterparts on investment, on digital infrastructure than I have on deciding a project runs for five years and then walks away from it.
The honourable lady and I are not going to agree. The difference with me is I'm not going to shout from a sedentary position. I have too much respect for the House for that. Long term, genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism. To reflect this new reality, we are modernising our approach to international development through four essential shifts. And the Shadow Minister raised the first point, so I hope I can I can answer a question.
First, we move from donor to investor, and there's been some criticism around the term today. But this is the key point. Partnering with countries to unlock growth jobs, trade through innovative finance and private sector investment. And that's what we mean when we're talking to these countries. This is what they're asking for, not the dictatorial response of we will do this to you. It's doing it, working with them, not to them. Second, moving from service delivery to support systems, helping countries build their own education, health and economic systems so they can thrive without aid.
Third, moving from grants to expertise, leveraging UK strengths like our world class universities, the City of London, the Met Office, HMRC, our education, health and tech sectors. And fourth, we're moving from international intervention to local leadership, working in partnership with the local actors and organisations, rather than interventions that are driven internationally. And in responding to the honourable gentleman, member for Strangford comments, this is the key point that he talks about having better delivery on the ground with the people who understand it. It has to be the way forward so I can hopefully offer him some reassurance in that.
In that point to his question, to both me and the shadow minister, as the shifts reflect in how we are prioritising the older budget to. I beg you, of course I give you my honourable friend.
I'll answer it when I have. Had these conversations with ministers globally, including in Africa, that Mr. Efford. I understand the honourable lady has significant experience in this field. I'm talking about meetings I've had with ministers whilst serving as a minister in the Fcdo. They are clear they want a different approach to how overseas development aid is funded. They want a different approach on economic growth, on investment. I've had more conversations. Mr. Efford with ministerial counterparts on investment, on digital infrastructure than I have on deciding a project runs for five years and then walks away from it.
The honourable lady and I are not going to agree. The difference with me is I'm not going to shout from a sedentary position. I have too much respect for the House for that. Long term, genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism. To reflect this new reality, we are modernising our approach to international development through four essential shifts. And the Shadow Minister raised the first point, so I hope I can I can answer a question.
First, we move from donor to investor, and there's been some criticism around the term today. But this is the key point. Partnering with countries to unlock growth jobs, trade through innovative finance and private sector investment. And that's what we mean when we're talking to these countries. This is what they're asking for, not the dictatorial response of we will do this to you. It's doing it, working with them, not to them. Second, moving from service delivery to support systems, helping countries build their own education, health and economic systems so they can thrive without aid.
Third, moving from grants to expertise, leveraging UK strengths like our world class universities, the City of London, the Met Office, HMRC, our education, health and tech sectors. And fourth, we're moving from international intervention to local leadership, working in partnership with the local actors and organisations, rather than interventions that are driven internationally. And in responding to the honourable gentleman, member for Strangford comments, this is the key point that he talks about having better delivery on the ground with the people who understand it. It has to be the way forward so I can hopefully offer him some reassurance in that.
In that point to his question, to both me and the shadow minister, as the shifts reflect in how we are prioritising the older budget to. I beg you, of course I give you my honourable friend.
10:51
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the Minister for giving way. And he's talking about the importance of long term partnership. Last week I was proud to lead the first British parliamentary delegation to visit Syria since the fall of the regime of the Assad regime. And there I had a number of conversations with government ministers who were asking for technical support from our government, particularly in the areas of send some 27% of Syrian children are now disabled following the war. They were also asking us to reopen the embassy in Syria.
They were asking for business support and a lot of others, and I wonder if the minister agrees with me that now is the right time for a new development partnership with the Syrian government, as that nation hopefully builds from the ashes.
They were asking for business support and a lot of others, and I wonder if the minister agrees with me that now is the right time for a new development partnership with the Syrian government, as that nation hopefully builds from the ashes.
10:52
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
For her intervention on the wider work of Syria, I would agree with her that my colleague the Minister for Middle East, member for Lincoln, is working very hard to bring about more support for, for for the Syrian regime, and we continue to prioritise it. She's right on the wider expertise. That's exactly what the Oda changes bring about is using our expertise, whether in education, in health or, dare I say, in planning. I've had numbers of conversations on on planning and infrastructure investment in countries.
Sometimes it's about listening to these countries and what they actually want us to help with, rather than just saying we we think we know what's best. So I would agree with her wider point. Um, the shadow minister, a number of other colleagues have raised the multilateral system. I happen to be the UN minister. And UN reform is very high on my agenda, not just through the UN Secretary General's discussions on UN 80, but wider reform around the International Civil Service on the international architecture system that Baroness Chapman and I are leading on in the Foreign Office.
So she's right to challenge us on that. But I can reassure her that in my ten months in office, we have led the charge not just as a member of the Security Council, but as a leader in the UN multilateral space to bring about more reform within the UN system. I will I'm just conscious of time.
Sometimes it's about listening to these countries and what they actually want us to help with, rather than just saying we we think we know what's best. So I would agree with her wider point. Um, the shadow minister, a number of other colleagues have raised the multilateral system. I happen to be the UN minister. And UN reform is very high on my agenda, not just through the UN Secretary General's discussions on UN 80, but wider reform around the International Civil Service on the international architecture system that Baroness Chapman and I are leading on in the Foreign Office.
So she's right to challenge us on that. But I can reassure her that in my ten months in office, we have led the charge not just as a member of the Security Council, but as a leader in the UN multilateral space to bring about more reform within the UN system. I will I'm just conscious of time.
10:53
10:53
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
He is right to raise this, and I will come to that through my speech, particularly on multilateral development bank system, and I know other members have raised it as well, so I'll try and make some progress. Um, we will prioritise multilateral organisations. As has been mentioned in the Oda budget, where the international system is required to deliver at scale and with legitimacy. We are backing the most efficient parts of the multilateral system to multiply our investment. For example, we're prioritizing the multilateral development banks who are the largest source of development and climate finance, and are able to lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms.
That includes the World Bank's International Development Association, where each pound we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and where we've increased our contribution by 40%. And it includes the African Development Fund, where our £650 million contribution will allow them to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concession loans, including issuing bonds on the London Stock Exchange for the first time. At the same time, we remain committed to reforming the global development system, as I mentioned, and will strengthen its most important parts on humanitarian health, climate and the global financial system.
And I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman, that this reform and our influence remains absolutely crucial to the Fcdo's wider work. Can I come to a particular point that I know the right hon. Gentleman, um, cares deeply about, and I pay tribute to his many, many years of work in this space. And that's on the vital work of support for HIV and Aids as being a key part of the development infrastructure. The UK remains a steadfast leader in global HIV response, working with key partners like the Global Fund, the W.H.O., United, and Aids to strengthen health systems to prevent new HIV transmissions and save lives.
Our commitment is backed by action. In 2025, the UK hosted the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund, with South Africa helping to secure $12.64 billion for the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, including a UK pledge of £850 million. We also recognise the vital role of UNAids. It provides world class HIV data, coordinating an international response and ensuring that global communities continue to be heard. As the organisation undergoes significant change. The UK will continue to support an effective and responsible transition that protects essential functions and delivers the best possible outcome for the global HIV response.
Alongside this, we are investing in innovation, including by expanding access to the new long acting HIV prevention and treatment technologies. This has the potential to transform the global response and help put the world back on track towards ending Aids as a public health threat. As we do so, we will continue to champion an approach that is inclusive and evidence based, one focused on key populations, communities and those most at risk from HIV to ensure that hard won gains are protected for future generations. It would also be remiss of me, Mr.
effort, not to respond to some of the comments on LGBT leadership at the multilateral system. I happen to be the minister responsible for this, and I can reassure the House that we will not shy away from our responsibilities on the multilateral platform. I have announced in recent weeks a £21 million fund, 3 million of that will go to kaleidoscope for its international response in supporting the LGBT communities around the world. I will never shy away from my responsibilities to challenge and make sure that those communities who are being oppressed, whose rights are being rolled back, will not be ignored.
While I remain the minister. Meanwhile, we are prioritising our bilateral support for countries and communities that need it most. We are committed to 1.4 billion a year to places with the highest humanitarian need over the next three years. This includes fully protecting the budgets for Ukraine, Sudan and Palestine, and protecting funding for Lebanon during the ongoing crisis. I wanted to briefly answer my hon. Friend the member for Worthing West. Question on polio and to reassure her that we that we are doing our very utmost to ensure that we are investing £1.5 billion in Gavi between 2026 and 2030.
This is about shifting where investment works and actually looking at immunisation as being a way of eradicating polio. It's not about a lack of support, it's about trying to make sure we get development right and making those decisions. In concluding, Mr. Efford, In a changed world, we need a new approach. And that's exactly what we're doing. In May, the UK hosted the Global Partnerships Conference, which brought together participants from governments, multilateral organisations, business, tech, philanthropy and civil society. I can never say that word.
I heard first hand from partners the importance of genuine partnership as the basis for our modern development approach, and an approach which combines our diplomatic network, our financial sector, our expertise and our businesses to have far greater impact. It is the essence of going beyond aid and using the full range of UK capabilities to support partner countries. That is our vision for international development and it is how we will meet the global challenges we face.
That includes the World Bank's International Development Association, where each pound we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and where we've increased our contribution by 40%. And it includes the African Development Fund, where our £650 million contribution will allow them to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concession loans, including issuing bonds on the London Stock Exchange for the first time. At the same time, we remain committed to reforming the global development system, as I mentioned, and will strengthen its most important parts on humanitarian health, climate and the global financial system.
And I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman, that this reform and our influence remains absolutely crucial to the Fcdo's wider work. Can I come to a particular point that I know the right hon. Gentleman, um, cares deeply about, and I pay tribute to his many, many years of work in this space. And that's on the vital work of support for HIV and Aids as being a key part of the development infrastructure. The UK remains a steadfast leader in global HIV response, working with key partners like the Global Fund, the W.H.O., United, and Aids to strengthen health systems to prevent new HIV transmissions and save lives.
Our commitment is backed by action. In 2025, the UK hosted the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund, with South Africa helping to secure $12.64 billion for the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, including a UK pledge of £850 million. We also recognise the vital role of UNAids. It provides world class HIV data, coordinating an international response and ensuring that global communities continue to be heard. As the organisation undergoes significant change. The UK will continue to support an effective and responsible transition that protects essential functions and delivers the best possible outcome for the global HIV response.
Alongside this, we are investing in innovation, including by expanding access to the new long acting HIV prevention and treatment technologies. This has the potential to transform the global response and help put the world back on track towards ending Aids as a public health threat. As we do so, we will continue to champion an approach that is inclusive and evidence based, one focused on key populations, communities and those most at risk from HIV to ensure that hard won gains are protected for future generations. It would also be remiss of me, Mr.
effort, not to respond to some of the comments on LGBT leadership at the multilateral system. I happen to be the minister responsible for this, and I can reassure the House that we will not shy away from our responsibilities on the multilateral platform. I have announced in recent weeks a £21 million fund, 3 million of that will go to kaleidoscope for its international response in supporting the LGBT communities around the world. I will never shy away from my responsibilities to challenge and make sure that those communities who are being oppressed, whose rights are being rolled back, will not be ignored.
While I remain the minister. Meanwhile, we are prioritising our bilateral support for countries and communities that need it most. We are committed to 1.4 billion a year to places with the highest humanitarian need over the next three years. This includes fully protecting the budgets for Ukraine, Sudan and Palestine, and protecting funding for Lebanon during the ongoing crisis. I wanted to briefly answer my hon. Friend the member for Worthing West. Question on polio and to reassure her that we that we are doing our very utmost to ensure that we are investing £1.5 billion in Gavi between 2026 and 2030.
This is about shifting where investment works and actually looking at immunisation as being a way of eradicating polio. It's not about a lack of support, it's about trying to make sure we get development right and making those decisions. In concluding, Mr. Efford, In a changed world, we need a new approach. And that's exactly what we're doing. In May, the UK hosted the Global Partnerships Conference, which brought together participants from governments, multilateral organisations, business, tech, philanthropy and civil society. I can never say that word.
I heard first hand from partners the importance of genuine partnership as the basis for our modern development approach, and an approach which combines our diplomatic network, our financial sector, our expertise and our businesses to have far greater impact. It is the essence of going beyond aid and using the full range of UK capabilities to support partner countries. That is our vision for international development and it is how we will meet the global challenges we face.
10:57
10:57
10:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Minister for his. A response. A as I said, I know that it's a picture of. From the current government. This is a moment for reset and I hope that the incoming government. The new Prime Minister, will take on board many of the things that were said in this debate, and in particular the International Development Committee's recent report on the future of international development in a fractured world. This may be an echo chamber, but we here can all make a difference in making the case for international development, which we have to do outside of here, and we have to be bold enough to challenge some of the perceptions that people have.
Most people think that a huge percentage of the UK budget is spent on aid. They don't realise that it's 0.3%, they think it is nearer 40%, so there are lots and lots of misconceptions out there. We have to. We have to ourselves be leaders in terms of challenging that. But at this moment in time it is Labour MPs who really have the opportunity to make a difference. I was through several changes of Prime Minister and it is the the position that it is now.
It is the point at which they can be influenced. They are not influenced when they're already into number ten. That becomes much harder. It's at this moment, as they go across the threshold. And we have had some very passionate contributions from Labour MPs. There are lots of other Labour MPs I know who are very passionate on this issue. So my appeal is the same as my right hon. Friend from Sutton Coldfield make that difference now and get international development back on the government agenda.
Most people think that a huge percentage of the UK budget is spent on aid. They don't realise that it's 0.3%, they think it is nearer 40%, so there are lots and lots of misconceptions out there. We have to. We have to ourselves be leaders in terms of challenging that. But at this moment in time it is Labour MPs who really have the opportunity to make a difference. I was through several changes of Prime Minister and it is the the position that it is now.
It is the point at which they can be influenced. They are not influenced when they're already into number ten. That becomes much harder. It's at this moment, as they go across the threshold. And we have had some very passionate contributions from Labour MPs. There are lots of other Labour MPs I know who are very passionate on this issue. So my appeal is the same as my right hon. Friend from Sutton Coldfield make that difference now and get international development back on the government agenda.
10:59
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
The UK policy, in the context of global funding trends, as many as that opinion say I. Contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Please move out of the room very quietly, please, so I can get on with the next business. Thank you. We all get passionate. Whilst people settle down. Order!I will call Miss Julie to move the motion. I will then call the minister to respond.
I remind other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from 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.
I remind other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from 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.
11:01
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, as we celebrate a remarkable milestone in the history of one of Britain's great railways. It is part of our city's history and identity. It has helped connect our city to the wider engineering, celebrated for its scenery and cherished by the communities it serves. For Carlisle, this railway is far more than a transport link. It is part of our city's history and identity. It has helped connect our city to the wider north for generations, bringing people, ideas, commerce and opportunity.
Engineering celebrated for its scenery and cherished by the communities it serves. For Carlisle, this railway is far more than a transport link. It is part of our city's history and identity. It has helped connect our city to the wider north for generations, bringing people, ideas, commerce and opportunity. Today, it is fitting that we come together to celebrate not only its past, but the people who ensured it would have a future. The story of the Carlisle to settle railway begins in the great age of Victorian railway building.
It was one of the last great railways constructed in Britain, and undoubtedly one of the most ambitious, ambitious building. It required extraordinary determination. More than 6000 navvies worked along the route, enduring isolation, appalling weather and dangerous working conditions to carve a railway through some of the most challenging terrain in England.
Engineering celebrated for its scenery and cherished by the communities it serves. For Carlisle, this railway is far more than a transport link. It is part of our city's history and identity. It has helped connect our city to the wider north for generations, bringing people, ideas, commerce and opportunity. Today, it is fitting that we come together to celebrate not only its past, but the people who ensured it would have a future. The story of the Carlisle to settle railway begins in the great age of Victorian railway building.
It was one of the last great railways constructed in Britain, and undoubtedly one of the most ambitious, ambitious building. It required extraordinary determination. More than 6000 navvies worked along the route, enduring isolation, appalling weather and dangerous working conditions to carve a railway through some of the most challenging terrain in England.
11:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Some of those navvies came from Northern Ireland and from the Republic of Ireland, who helped build that. But can I congratulate the lady for her assiduous commitment to her constituents?She's obviously making a very, very good name for herself in this House. Well done to her and I wish her well. Will the honourable lady also join me in urging the government to ensure that the Department of Transport actively applies the invaluable infrastructure and community led preservation lessons learned from the Settle-carlisle Railway Trust to protect our vital regional connectivity and heritage lines across all of the United Kingdom, including the heritage links in Northern Ireland as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
11:03
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank the honourable member for that intervention. It's always a pleasure to be intervened on by the honourable member for Strangford, and as I will go on to say, I think there are many lessons that we can apply from today, from from the history of the railway line to some of the challenges and some of the examples that community groups across the country, um, when they're campaigning for their local railways, I think we can learn a lot from the Carlisle railway. Entire settlements were established to house the workforce, which founded many of the villages along the line today.
Their story is an important part of the railway's heritage and deserves to be remembered alongside the engineering achievements for which the line is famous. The engineer responsible for the project was John Crossley, and as Cumbrian ramblers will testify, the terrain over which he engineered the line is not forgiving. Construction was frequently halted by snow, flooding and frozen ground. One contractor withdrew altogether after underestimating the severity of the landscape and weather conditions. Yet despite those challenges, the line was completed and opened for passenger services in 1876, just 11 years after Parliament had passed the Enabling Act.
I'm sure the Minister wishes he had a few. John Crossley's today on hand for some of some of our current rail projects. The railway required the construction of 14 tunnels and 22 viaducts. The most famous of these, the Ribblehead Viaduct, stands 100ft, 104ft high and comprises 24 magnificent arches stretching across the northwest landscape. Soon after crossing Ribblehead, trains entered a tunnel driven deep beneath the moors for over a mile and a half. The line also travels to Aisgill Summit, the highest point reached by any mainline railway in England.
There are fascinating stories through the route at Lazonby. Local legend tells us that the tunnel was constructed at the request of a local vicar, who did not wish the railway to pass directly in front of his vicarage. 150 years later, these structures remain as a testament to Victorian ingenuity, determination and ambition. Yet despite its engineering significance and strategic importance, the future of the Carlisle to Settle railway became increasingly uncertain during the second half of the 20th century. In 1963, the Beeching Report recommended the withdrawal of passenger services from the line, although those proposals were not immediately implemented.
Station closures and service reductions, followed. By 1970, all stations apart from Settle and Appleby were closed and passenger services had been reduced to just two trains a day in each direction. In the 1970s, the railway suffered years of under-investment. Freight traffic was diverted onto the electrified West Coast main line and ageing infrastructure deteriorated. Viaducts and tunnels were allowed to fall into disrepair, and by the early 1980s, British Rail argued that the cost of maintaining the railway could no longer be justified, and proposals were brought forward to close it entirely.
What followed was one of the most inspiring grassroots campaigns in British railway history. In June 1981, before closure had even been formally announced, the friends of the Settle-carlisle line held their inaugural meeting in Settle Town Hall. They recognised the threat and they acted. Soon they were joined by local authorities, rail users, railway development groups, environmental campaigners and communities along the route. When closure notices appeared in 1984, the campaign intensified. Campaigners challenged BR's assumptions and highlighted the railway's wider value.
They argued that its tourism potential had been overlooked. They argue that they argued that its role as a strategic diversionary route had been underestimated, and they argued that closure would damage communities that depended upon the railway. They were right. The campaign also exposed what many regarded as a policy of closure by stealth, reduced services, diverted traffic, inflated repair estimates, all to justify closure. Publicity surrounding the campaign encouraged people to start using the railway in unprecedented numbers. Passenger journeys rose dramatically from around 93,000 per year in 1983 to around 4000 450,000 by 1989.
In 2025, there were almost 1 million journeys along the Carlisle to Settle railway.
Their story is an important part of the railway's heritage and deserves to be remembered alongside the engineering achievements for which the line is famous. The engineer responsible for the project was John Crossley, and as Cumbrian ramblers will testify, the terrain over which he engineered the line is not forgiving. Construction was frequently halted by snow, flooding and frozen ground. One contractor withdrew altogether after underestimating the severity of the landscape and weather conditions. Yet despite those challenges, the line was completed and opened for passenger services in 1876, just 11 years after Parliament had passed the Enabling Act.
I'm sure the Minister wishes he had a few. John Crossley's today on hand for some of some of our current rail projects. The railway required the construction of 14 tunnels and 22 viaducts. The most famous of these, the Ribblehead Viaduct, stands 100ft, 104ft high and comprises 24 magnificent arches stretching across the northwest landscape. Soon after crossing Ribblehead, trains entered a tunnel driven deep beneath the moors for over a mile and a half. The line also travels to Aisgill Summit, the highest point reached by any mainline railway in England.
There are fascinating stories through the route at Lazonby. Local legend tells us that the tunnel was constructed at the request of a local vicar, who did not wish the railway to pass directly in front of his vicarage. 150 years later, these structures remain as a testament to Victorian ingenuity, determination and ambition. Yet despite its engineering significance and strategic importance, the future of the Carlisle to Settle railway became increasingly uncertain during the second half of the 20th century. In 1963, the Beeching Report recommended the withdrawal of passenger services from the line, although those proposals were not immediately implemented.
Station closures and service reductions, followed. By 1970, all stations apart from Settle and Appleby were closed and passenger services had been reduced to just two trains a day in each direction. In the 1970s, the railway suffered years of under-investment. Freight traffic was diverted onto the electrified West Coast main line and ageing infrastructure deteriorated. Viaducts and tunnels were allowed to fall into disrepair, and by the early 1980s, British Rail argued that the cost of maintaining the railway could no longer be justified, and proposals were brought forward to close it entirely.
What followed was one of the most inspiring grassroots campaigns in British railway history. In June 1981, before closure had even been formally announced, the friends of the Settle-carlisle line held their inaugural meeting in Settle Town Hall. They recognised the threat and they acted. Soon they were joined by local authorities, rail users, railway development groups, environmental campaigners and communities along the route. When closure notices appeared in 1984, the campaign intensified. Campaigners challenged BR's assumptions and highlighted the railway's wider value.
They argued that its tourism potential had been overlooked. They argue that they argued that its role as a strategic diversionary route had been underestimated, and they argued that closure would damage communities that depended upon the railway. They were right. The campaign also exposed what many regarded as a policy of closure by stealth, reduced services, diverted traffic, inflated repair estimates, all to justify closure. Publicity surrounding the campaign encouraged people to start using the railway in unprecedented numbers. Passenger journeys rose dramatically from around 93,000 per year in 1983 to around 4000 450,000 by 1989.
In 2025, there were almost 1 million journeys along the Carlisle to Settle railway.
11:07
11:07
11:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I really commend the Honourable Lady on raising this point, because not only is the Carlisle to set a line of importance. Carlisle is such a great railway town with such a strong tradition. But does she agree with me that the campaign that she is reflecting in relation to Carlisle to Settle Line is very much applicable to the borders railway extension, which would go from Carlisle to Tweedbank in the borders, bringing the tourist benefits, bringing a. The scenery, bringing the opportunities that keeping the Settle-carlisle line open has brought.
11:08
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you. And I thank my hon. Neighbour and friend for. Right honourable neighbour and friend for his intervention. I completely agree with him. I think the same spirit that we see today with the borders rail campaign is exactly what we saw with the Carlisle line. And he is absolutely right about the economic benefits that have already been demonstrated with the extension that's gone in between Edinburgh and Tweedbank, and I believe could be realised with the Carlisle to Tweedbank extension as well.
And I'm very grateful that this government has ensured, along with the Scottish Government, that the funding is now in place to to do the viability work on that, on that remaining leg between Tweedbank and Carlisle. On the 11th of April, 1989, the then Secretary of State for transport, Paul Channon, announced that consent for closure would be refused. Repair costs were found to have been lower than originally claimed and passenger growth had demonstrated the continuing viability of the line. It remains one of the most significant victories for community transport campaigning anywhere in the United Kingdom today.
As we celebrate this anniversary, we should acknowledge every person who played a role in that achievement. The volunteers, campaigners, railway staff, local councillors, passengers and community leaders who fought for the railway's future. They ensured that future generations would continue to benefit from this remarkable line. There is perhaps no more touching symbol of that campaign than Russ up the border. Collie, whose owner, Graham Nuttall, served as the first secretary of the friends of the Carlisle Settle line. Russ famously signed the petition himself to save the railway with his paw print, and after Graham Nuttall tragically lost his life while walking in Wales in 1990, Russ Up remained at his side for 11 weeks before they were found.
Today, a bronze statue stands at Garsdale station in my in the constituency of my honourable friend the member for Morecambe and Lunesdale seat, and it commemorates Russert's loyalty and courage. It has become one of the most beloved landmarks on the railway, and a reminder of the devotion that people have shown to protecting this line. The story of the Carlisle Settle Railway did not end with its reprieve. In many ways a new chapter began. Today, the line is operated by Northern Rail and is supported by an outstanding partnership of organisations.
The friends of the Settle-carlisle line continue their invaluable advocacy and volunteering work. The Settle-carlisle Railway Trust helps preserve and promote its heritage and the Settle-carlisle Railway Development Company serves as an accredited community rail partnership working to encourage tourism, education and community engagement. Their efforts have transformed the railway into one of Britain's great rail success stories. The line continues, as I have said, to bring thousands of visitors into Cumbria and Westmorland and Yorkshire every year. It supports our local economies, connects our rural communities and introduces new generations to our railway heritage.
The anniversary this anniversary year demonstrates that spirit perfectly. Schools, volunteers, artists and community groups are all helping tell the railway story through events and exhibitions. I am particularly pleased to see the commissioning of a new play Lives Along the Line, written by Yorkshire playwright Joan Barnard, to be performed this summer by the Vagabond Theatre Group at the Appleby Public Hall and the Victoria Hall in Settle, a story that will help bring to life those of the people whose lives have been shaped by the railway over the past century and a half.
So what makes Carlisle Central Railway so special?It is, of course, one of the most beautiful railway journeys in the world. Few railways can rival its combination of dramatic landscapes, historic stations and iconic engineering. From my home of Carlisle, through the Eden Valley to the Yorkshire Three Peaks, it offers views that attract visitors from across Britain and beyond. But its importance extends far beyond tourism. For many communities, it remains a vital transport link, providing access to employment, education, healthcare and leisure opportunities for rural communities along the route.
It remains every bit as important today as as it did for those who campaigned to save. It understood it would be. It also continues to play an important strategic role within the rail network. When the West Coast main line is closed because of engineering works or weather events, which sadly, in my part of the country are a little bit all too familiar or any other disruption. The Carlisle Settle Railway provides an invaluable diversionary route. In an age where resilience and redundancy within critical infrastructure are increasingly important, the line's value strategy stretches far beyond the communities that it serves.
The railway's resilience was demonstrated once again following Storm Desmond and the major landslip at Eden Brows in 2015 and 2016. The subsequent repairs demonstrated the continued commitment of preserving this vital railway for future generations. As we look ahead to what I hope will be another 150 years of Carlisle to settle line, we should remember the lesson at the heart of its story. Infrastructure should never be judged purely through the lens of short term accounting. We must also recognise the social value, strategic importance, connectivity, resilience and heritage.
Had closure gone ahead in 1989, Britain would have lost one of its greatest railways. Instead, thanks to the determination of campaigners and communities, we are celebrating its 150th anniversary. I therefore ask the minister, my friend and fellow rail enthusiast, in responding to this debate, to provide reassurance that the long term future of the Carlisle to Settle railway remains secure and that the government recognises its ongoing strategic value to our national rail network and that community organisations and volunteers who do so much to support the line will continue to receive the backing they deserve.
I also ask the Minister to join me in paying tribute to the friends of the Settle to Carlisle line. The Settle-carlisle Railway Trust. The Settle-carlisle Railway Development Company and all those whose dedication continues to sustain this remarkable railway. Most importantly, I ask the Minister to join me in thanking the visionaries who refuse to accept that this railway story was over because of them. Trains still run between Carlisle and settle because of them. Communities remain connected, and because of them, future generations will continue to enjoy one of the finest railway journeys anywhere in the world.
And long may that continue.
And I'm very grateful that this government has ensured, along with the Scottish Government, that the funding is now in place to to do the viability work on that, on that remaining leg between Tweedbank and Carlisle. On the 11th of April, 1989, the then Secretary of State for transport, Paul Channon, announced that consent for closure would be refused. Repair costs were found to have been lower than originally claimed and passenger growth had demonstrated the continuing viability of the line. It remains one of the most significant victories for community transport campaigning anywhere in the United Kingdom today.
As we celebrate this anniversary, we should acknowledge every person who played a role in that achievement. The volunteers, campaigners, railway staff, local councillors, passengers and community leaders who fought for the railway's future. They ensured that future generations would continue to benefit from this remarkable line. There is perhaps no more touching symbol of that campaign than Russ up the border. Collie, whose owner, Graham Nuttall, served as the first secretary of the friends of the Carlisle Settle line. Russ famously signed the petition himself to save the railway with his paw print, and after Graham Nuttall tragically lost his life while walking in Wales in 1990, Russ Up remained at his side for 11 weeks before they were found.
Today, a bronze statue stands at Garsdale station in my in the constituency of my honourable friend the member for Morecambe and Lunesdale seat, and it commemorates Russert's loyalty and courage. It has become one of the most beloved landmarks on the railway, and a reminder of the devotion that people have shown to protecting this line. The story of the Carlisle Settle Railway did not end with its reprieve. In many ways a new chapter began. Today, the line is operated by Northern Rail and is supported by an outstanding partnership of organisations.
The friends of the Settle-carlisle line continue their invaluable advocacy and volunteering work. The Settle-carlisle Railway Trust helps preserve and promote its heritage and the Settle-carlisle Railway Development Company serves as an accredited community rail partnership working to encourage tourism, education and community engagement. Their efforts have transformed the railway into one of Britain's great rail success stories. The line continues, as I have said, to bring thousands of visitors into Cumbria and Westmorland and Yorkshire every year. It supports our local economies, connects our rural communities and introduces new generations to our railway heritage.
The anniversary this anniversary year demonstrates that spirit perfectly. Schools, volunteers, artists and community groups are all helping tell the railway story through events and exhibitions. I am particularly pleased to see the commissioning of a new play Lives Along the Line, written by Yorkshire playwright Joan Barnard, to be performed this summer by the Vagabond Theatre Group at the Appleby Public Hall and the Victoria Hall in Settle, a story that will help bring to life those of the people whose lives have been shaped by the railway over the past century and a half.
So what makes Carlisle Central Railway so special?It is, of course, one of the most beautiful railway journeys in the world. Few railways can rival its combination of dramatic landscapes, historic stations and iconic engineering. From my home of Carlisle, through the Eden Valley to the Yorkshire Three Peaks, it offers views that attract visitors from across Britain and beyond. But its importance extends far beyond tourism. For many communities, it remains a vital transport link, providing access to employment, education, healthcare and leisure opportunities for rural communities along the route.
It remains every bit as important today as as it did for those who campaigned to save. It understood it would be. It also continues to play an important strategic role within the rail network. When the West Coast main line is closed because of engineering works or weather events, which sadly, in my part of the country are a little bit all too familiar or any other disruption. The Carlisle Settle Railway provides an invaluable diversionary route. In an age where resilience and redundancy within critical infrastructure are increasingly important, the line's value strategy stretches far beyond the communities that it serves.
The railway's resilience was demonstrated once again following Storm Desmond and the major landslip at Eden Brows in 2015 and 2016. The subsequent repairs demonstrated the continued commitment of preserving this vital railway for future generations. As we look ahead to what I hope will be another 150 years of Carlisle to settle line, we should remember the lesson at the heart of its story. Infrastructure should never be judged purely through the lens of short term accounting. We must also recognise the social value, strategic importance, connectivity, resilience and heritage.
Had closure gone ahead in 1989, Britain would have lost one of its greatest railways. Instead, thanks to the determination of campaigners and communities, we are celebrating its 150th anniversary. I therefore ask the minister, my friend and fellow rail enthusiast, in responding to this debate, to provide reassurance that the long term future of the Carlisle to Settle railway remains secure and that the government recognises its ongoing strategic value to our national rail network and that community organisations and volunteers who do so much to support the line will continue to receive the backing they deserve.
I also ask the Minister to join me in paying tribute to the friends of the Settle to Carlisle line. The Settle-carlisle Railway Trust. The Settle-carlisle Railway Development Company and all those whose dedication continues to sustain this remarkable railway. Most importantly, I ask the Minister to join me in thanking the visionaries who refuse to accept that this railway story was over because of them. Trains still run between Carlisle and settle because of them. Communities remain connected, and because of them, future generations will continue to enjoy one of the finest railway journeys anywhere in the world.
And long may that continue.
11:15
11:15
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you. Mr.. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I'd also like to heartily congratulate my very good friend, the member for Carlisle, for securing this debate on the anniversary of the Settle-carlisle railway and to other members for their contributions in the debate today. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents. This is a moment of celebration of our railways, but also to reflect on both its present and its future.
And I welcome the opportunity to address some of those points today. The Settle-carlisle railway, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, is, of course, one of the most historical and spectacularly scenic lines in the UK, with a long and colourful history of innovative engineering and dogged determination on the part of rail visionaries who fought to keep the line open against all the challenges it has faced. A legacy that my hon. Friend is certainly working hard to continue, and I am delighted to assure my hon.
Friend, that the future of the line is indeed secure. The introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer, which has brought thousands of new visitors to the line. The investment at Horton in Ribblesdale Station, and the line's invaluable role as a support route for the West Coast Main Line. All these demonstrate its ongoing importance to our network and this government's commitment to its future, and I am pleased that there is such a strong community rail involvement with this historic line. Community rail is all about connecting communities to the railways and at the heart of the community rail concept.
Our community rail partnerships. The Settle-carlisle Railway Development Company has done some wonderful work in this area. It has been an accredited community rail partnership for over five years, working to support the local economy and benefit communities along the line. Now, their work includes organising station open days and art installations, running projects to support access to the railway and environmental initiatives with community organisations, as well as providing a range of services and products that benefit locals and visitors alike. The Settle-carlisle Railway Development Company really achieves so much for the benefit of communities along this historic line, and I congratulate them on their most recent reaccreditation awarded in recognition of their community centred projects and services provided across the Yorkshire Dales and Cumbria.
And I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust, which does so much valuable work in helping restore, preserve and maintain the historic buildings and structures along the route, sparking the imagination and the engagement of the public. But the railways, of course, have changed so much since the first passenger trains on the Settle-carlisle line, and I think it is appropriate to raise where this government sees the future of this railway. Rail reform will put passengers and customers back at the heart of the rail network.
The Railways Bill, of which I know my hon. Friend is a keen supporter, is progressing through Parliament and will create Great British Railways. It will bring track and train together under one publicly owned and accountable body to reduce fragmentation and improve decision making. GBR will work closely with local mayors and local authorities to make sure that services meet the needs of their areas, and better integrate with other modes. Now I would like to turn next to Northern Rail and its performance as northern is the main operator on the Settle-carlisle line, and I'm pleased with the introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer, which links Greater Manchester and Lancashire to the Settle-carlisle line and the Dales.
I also hope that the honourable member's constituents are able to partake in Northern's offer of discounted tickets between Leeds, Settle and Carlisle, in honour of the 150th anniversary, but this does not mean that there isn't more work to do now. Northern's performance does leave room for improvement and we have an improvement plan which outlines the steps that the operator will take to improve reliability, with a target of 90% of all of its trains arriving within three minutes of timetable and cancellations below 2%. I'm pleased that the latest rail period results show that cancellations on the Leeds Carlisle route were only 1.24%, but we need to work to improve punctuality, with 7,077% arriving within three minutes.
And I look forward to working with the honourable lady to improve those services for both tourists to her remarkable area and her constituents. Northern is also in discussions with train manufacturers to procure new train sets to replace the oldest trains in its fleet. The procurement of up to 450 new train sets is going to offer increased capacity, as well as more accessible trains for passengers. Now in January and April this year, Mr. Efford, the Settle and Carlisle route played a critical role in supporting passengers during several closures of the West Coast Main Line for engineering work to avoid lengthy replacement bus journeys.
Avanti West Coast operator there BI mode trains over the historic route, the first time in more than a decade that it has been used for this purpose. Feedback was incredibly positive, underlining findings from the rail watchdog Transport Focus that passengers prefer to stay on trains than take replacement bus services. That's certainly a preference I have, too, even if it involves a longer journey. Avanti hopes that The Settle and Carlisle route can continue to play this important role as a diversionary route over the next decade, especially when a significant volume of renewals activity is required on the northern section of the West Coast Main Line.
Now, moving on to infrastructure, Network Rail recently installed a footbridge with lifts at Horton in Ribblesdale Station, allowing the closure of a high risk level crossing and rail connection of the nearby quarry. The scheme was a mix of public and private investment, including a contribution from the quarry, along with the access for All fund connecting the quarry by rail. Safeguards the future of the facility whilst reducing carbon emissions by taking lorries off the road. The Settle and Carlisle Lines 150th anniversary is an opportunity not only to celebrate extraordinary railway heritage, but also to recognise wider investments to ensure that rail continues to support communities, connectivity and economic growth for generations to come.
That investment includes the £323 million West Coast North modernisation programme, the biggest programme of improvements on the northern section of the West Coast main line in decades. Network rail and industry partners are working together in the spirit of Great British Railways to keep passengers moving, while replacing ageing infrastructure, particularly the overhead line equipment that powers electric trains. Now, over the past two years, Network Rail has renewed around 200km of overhead wires on the northern sections of the West Coast main line. This work is going to improve reliability and deliver a more resilient and better connected railway for passengers and freight.
From the Settle and Carlisle Line to the West Coast main line, rail remains a vital part of connecting people, places and opportunities across the North and Scotland. Now the member for Carlisle will recall the department's own investment of £13.5 million as part of the £38 million Carlisle Station Gateway project. Part funded by the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal and delivered in partnership between Network Rail and Cumberland Council, the scheme provides a new public square to the rear of the station and enhanced Court square to the front. New lifts and increased car parking capacity works are on site and the Scott and Brassey public House has now opened in the restored first class waiting room, and passengers have been enjoying a selection of great local ales and.
I am often travelling up to Glasgow and I will avail myself of those great local ales as soon as I make contact with Carlisle Station. To conclude then, Mr. Efford, I would like to assure the honourable member that this government is firmly committed to honouring our railway heritage and improving services for passengers in rural communities across the North. She continues to be a resolute champion of the Settle-carlisle railway, and the government is committed to supporting her and her constituents as she continues to do so. And here's to the next 150 years to come.
And I welcome the opportunity to address some of those points today. The Settle-carlisle railway, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, is, of course, one of the most historical and spectacularly scenic lines in the UK, with a long and colourful history of innovative engineering and dogged determination on the part of rail visionaries who fought to keep the line open against all the challenges it has faced. A legacy that my hon. Friend is certainly working hard to continue, and I am delighted to assure my hon.
Friend, that the future of the line is indeed secure. The introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer, which has brought thousands of new visitors to the line. The investment at Horton in Ribblesdale Station, and the line's invaluable role as a support route for the West Coast Main Line. All these demonstrate its ongoing importance to our network and this government's commitment to its future, and I am pleased that there is such a strong community rail involvement with this historic line. Community rail is all about connecting communities to the railways and at the heart of the community rail concept.
Our community rail partnerships. The Settle-carlisle Railway Development Company has done some wonderful work in this area. It has been an accredited community rail partnership for over five years, working to support the local economy and benefit communities along the line. Now, their work includes organising station open days and art installations, running projects to support access to the railway and environmental initiatives with community organisations, as well as providing a range of services and products that benefit locals and visitors alike. The Settle-carlisle Railway Development Company really achieves so much for the benefit of communities along this historic line, and I congratulate them on their most recent reaccreditation awarded in recognition of their community centred projects and services provided across the Yorkshire Dales and Cumbria.
And I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust, which does so much valuable work in helping restore, preserve and maintain the historic buildings and structures along the route, sparking the imagination and the engagement of the public. But the railways, of course, have changed so much since the first passenger trains on the Settle-carlisle line, and I think it is appropriate to raise where this government sees the future of this railway. Rail reform will put passengers and customers back at the heart of the rail network.
The Railways Bill, of which I know my hon. Friend is a keen supporter, is progressing through Parliament and will create Great British Railways. It will bring track and train together under one publicly owned and accountable body to reduce fragmentation and improve decision making. GBR will work closely with local mayors and local authorities to make sure that services meet the needs of their areas, and better integrate with other modes. Now I would like to turn next to Northern Rail and its performance as northern is the main operator on the Settle-carlisle line, and I'm pleased with the introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer, which links Greater Manchester and Lancashire to the Settle-carlisle line and the Dales.
I also hope that the honourable member's constituents are able to partake in Northern's offer of discounted tickets between Leeds, Settle and Carlisle, in honour of the 150th anniversary, but this does not mean that there isn't more work to do now. Northern's performance does leave room for improvement and we have an improvement plan which outlines the steps that the operator will take to improve reliability, with a target of 90% of all of its trains arriving within three minutes of timetable and cancellations below 2%. I'm pleased that the latest rail period results show that cancellations on the Leeds Carlisle route were only 1.24%, but we need to work to improve punctuality, with 7,077% arriving within three minutes.
And I look forward to working with the honourable lady to improve those services for both tourists to her remarkable area and her constituents. Northern is also in discussions with train manufacturers to procure new train sets to replace the oldest trains in its fleet. The procurement of up to 450 new train sets is going to offer increased capacity, as well as more accessible trains for passengers. Now in January and April this year, Mr. Efford, the Settle and Carlisle route played a critical role in supporting passengers during several closures of the West Coast Main Line for engineering work to avoid lengthy replacement bus journeys.
Avanti West Coast operator there BI mode trains over the historic route, the first time in more than a decade that it has been used for this purpose. Feedback was incredibly positive, underlining findings from the rail watchdog Transport Focus that passengers prefer to stay on trains than take replacement bus services. That's certainly a preference I have, too, even if it involves a longer journey. Avanti hopes that The Settle and Carlisle route can continue to play this important role as a diversionary route over the next decade, especially when a significant volume of renewals activity is required on the northern section of the West Coast Main Line.
Now, moving on to infrastructure, Network Rail recently installed a footbridge with lifts at Horton in Ribblesdale Station, allowing the closure of a high risk level crossing and rail connection of the nearby quarry. The scheme was a mix of public and private investment, including a contribution from the quarry, along with the access for All fund connecting the quarry by rail. Safeguards the future of the facility whilst reducing carbon emissions by taking lorries off the road. The Settle and Carlisle Lines 150th anniversary is an opportunity not only to celebrate extraordinary railway heritage, but also to recognise wider investments to ensure that rail continues to support communities, connectivity and economic growth for generations to come.
That investment includes the £323 million West Coast North modernisation programme, the biggest programme of improvements on the northern section of the West Coast main line in decades. Network rail and industry partners are working together in the spirit of Great British Railways to keep passengers moving, while replacing ageing infrastructure, particularly the overhead line equipment that powers electric trains. Now, over the past two years, Network Rail has renewed around 200km of overhead wires on the northern sections of the West Coast main line. This work is going to improve reliability and deliver a more resilient and better connected railway for passengers and freight.
From the Settle and Carlisle Line to the West Coast main line, rail remains a vital part of connecting people, places and opportunities across the North and Scotland. Now the member for Carlisle will recall the department's own investment of £13.5 million as part of the £38 million Carlisle Station Gateway project. Part funded by the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal and delivered in partnership between Network Rail and Cumberland Council, the scheme provides a new public square to the rear of the station and enhanced Court square to the front. New lifts and increased car parking capacity works are on site and the Scott and Brassey public House has now opened in the restored first class waiting room, and passengers have been enjoying a selection of great local ales and.
I am often travelling up to Glasgow and I will avail myself of those great local ales as soon as I make contact with Carlisle Station. To conclude then, Mr. Efford, I would like to assure the honourable member that this government is firmly committed to honouring our railway heritage and improving services for passengers in rural communities across the North. She continues to be a resolute champion of the Settle-carlisle railway, and the government is committed to supporting her and her constituents as she continues to do so. And here's to the next 150 years to come.
11:23
14:29
14:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I beg to move that this House has considered the future of British horse racing, and, Mrs. Harris, it's an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I'm very grateful to honourable members for being here for this debate. I am going to be very generous with intervention time and all of that, but I would just hope that honourable members can for the next. I think it's 45 seconds. Just bear with me and not intervene. Honourable members will see why.
The final open ditch is fence number 14. I'll. France by about a length and a half. Jukebox man in second, now being pushed along by Django Bay in third. They're bunching up towards the fourth from home and it's Ile de France. He's now joined by the jukebox man on his outside Django Bay, right there in close third. J-Lo now makes a big move around the outside and is now in fourth. Just covered up when Gaelic Warrior and Bam bridge Master Chewy on the inside.
Factor file on the outside. Still no more than four lengths. Splits this star studded field of eight as they make their turn for home. Three fences to go in this Ladbrokes King George. And it's now Django Bay on the outside with the jukebox man. And J-Lo is right there with Gaelic Warrior on the inside. Banbridge tries to go through between two horses. Fact to file was away on the outside towards the second from home.
The jukebox man had a lead by a neck on the inside. Gaelic warrior Banbridge the reigning champion with every chance. Django Bay right up the inside. Still a length between the leading four of the King George over the final fence. Banbridge a nose in front, Gaelic warrior to the inside and jukebox man racing towards the line in a head bobbing finish in the centre. Jukebox man on the far side Gaelic warrior and on the near side. Banbridge.
In a classic renewal of the Ladbrokes King George and the reason why I want to focus on that, and it's because I was there on Boxing Day last year to watch the running of the King George and the audible gasp as the four are in the frame came round the final furlong and the final bend into the straight and you should have heard the roar. I think the whole of Spelthorne was on the jukebox. Man owned by Harry Redknapp, and certainly when he crossed the line very close, the place simply erupted.
And the reason why I'm focusing on Kempton Park Racecourse and my Spelthorne constituency is because it is under very severe threat. And the reason why it is under very severe threat is because, um, the Jockey Club in around 2017 sold a an option to read Ray Barrett um that they could make an application to flatten the racecourse and put up to 3500 homes there. Um, unfortunately. This had been, this had been seen off before under prior planning rules. However, under the new National Planning Policy Framework, honourable members will be aware that there is um if you if your proposed development is within 800m of a train station with two departures an hour in the same direction, it is an assumed yes for planning purposes, despite the fact that it is all greenbelt and highly protected metropolitan green belt, despite the fact that some of it is floodplain, and despite the fact that all of it is an internationally famous iconic racecourse.
And so what I wanted to do by bringing this debate here today was to highlight the risk that this could happen so that the minister could start getting, because obviously it's policy, it's not rules. And so hopefully the minister will be so furnished as to be able to advocate for one of the most important sporting venues important to horse racing in particular. Um, when this thing goes in now Redrow Barratt have said that they uh, they told me on the 20th of March that they were going to put a planning application in by the end of this year.
Um, after I started campaigning vociferously for Kempton Park, uh, this elicited a statement to some media on Friday that they had no plans to put a planning application in this calendar year, however, comma, um, my area Spelthorne is under local government reorganisation and so on the 1st of April next year, Spelthorne Borough Council will be no more and we will be subsumed into West Surrey. And if I have my my way South Middlesex and I can see what Redrow Barratt are going to do, and they're going to wait until the 1st of April and then this planning application will go in.
Then it lasts until the end of 2028. Uh, unless there is a live planning application submitted under consideration, in which case the, um, it gets extended for a further two years. And obviously locally, I am agitating and my local residents in Spelthorne, uh, love their racecourse and have no desire to see it flattened and turned into housing. And so I, as all members would, started a petition. We've had over 3500 signatures so far. I had a public meeting, um, in, uh, in the magpie pub in Lower Sunbury last week, and we got about 770 people there, but I really wanted to get a view from horse racing as to what their view of this is.
And I'm, whilst I go to Kempton Park, I don't, I don't know um. Horse racing inside and out. So I, I reached out to a number of people in the racing industry and have been absolutely blown away by the response that I have received and I wish to share with honourable members a certain aspects of that response. And in doing so, I want to pay tribute to, um, someone in the public gallery racing royalty in my book, Nicky Henderson, who has absolutely been fantastic in galvanising horse racing.
And, uh, the response which we've got. And so I'll start first with, um, a, an email I had from a chap called Richard. Okay. He's a, he's also called Richard Dunwoody as a steeplechase jockey. I enjoyed some of the best days of my career at Kempton Park Racecourse. Two of them were when partnering with the Great Desert Orchid to win the King George VI Chase in 1989 and in 1990, hats flew in the air. The roars were deafening as Daisy crossed the line, his ears pricked.
It would be a tragedy to lose this racecourse with the introduction of all weather racing at Kempton Park has changed, indeed changed over the years, but the standard of racing at the course has not. Jockeys and horses of the very highest level still compete there. As we witnessed last years in the renewal of the King George for horses, took the last fence line abreast with Harry Redknapp's The Jukebox Man taking the honours by the narrowest of margins. As good as it gets, wrote journalist Brough Scott.
And yes, Kempton Park is as good as it gets when it comes to grade one sporting venues. We cannot let it fall to property developers. Um Nicky is also garnered, uh, names of support from I mean, this is this is like who's who?Okay, uh, so. And the National Hunt. Well, Nicky Henderson, Paul Nicholls, Dan Skelton, Willie Mullins, Ben Pauling, Jamie Snowden, Alan King and Fergal O'Brien from the world of the flat. Gosden, Roger Varian, Richard.
Hannon, Andrew. Balding, Ralph. Beckett, Charlie. Hills. Ed. Walker. Eve. Johnston, Horton and a number of people in the racing press. You probably saw Marcus Armitage's, uh, column at the weekend. Um, and and so the list goes on. And I just. Wanted to lots of those names are just a boiling down of some of the reaction that I've had. And here's a, here's a decent example.
Uh, sir, I am Dan Skelton. I've been involved in horse sports all my life and have been a National Hunt racing trainer for 13 years. I'm currently champion trainer of the UK. In I write, um, I'm writing in support of Kempton Park, remaining exactly that. Cprw is an elite racing venue steeped in history with a lot more to offer in the future. Horse racing is the second biggest spectator sport in the UK and a major contributor to the to the UK economy and its culture as an employer, British racing takes care of a great many thousand individuals and families with specific skills and quite obviously in more rural destinations.
Any jobs lost in our current economy would be disastrous. I will give way.
The final open ditch is fence number 14. I'll. France by about a length and a half. Jukebox man in second, now being pushed along by Django Bay in third. They're bunching up towards the fourth from home and it's Ile de France. He's now joined by the jukebox man on his outside Django Bay, right there in close third. J-Lo now makes a big move around the outside and is now in fourth. Just covered up when Gaelic Warrior and Bam bridge Master Chewy on the inside.
Factor file on the outside. Still no more than four lengths. Splits this star studded field of eight as they make their turn for home. Three fences to go in this Ladbrokes King George. And it's now Django Bay on the outside with the jukebox man. And J-Lo is right there with Gaelic Warrior on the inside. Banbridge tries to go through between two horses. Fact to file was away on the outside towards the second from home.
The jukebox man had a lead by a neck on the inside. Gaelic warrior Banbridge the reigning champion with every chance. Django Bay right up the inside. Still a length between the leading four of the King George over the final fence. Banbridge a nose in front, Gaelic warrior to the inside and jukebox man racing towards the line in a head bobbing finish in the centre. Jukebox man on the far side Gaelic warrior and on the near side. Banbridge.
In a classic renewal of the Ladbrokes King George and the reason why I want to focus on that, and it's because I was there on Boxing Day last year to watch the running of the King George and the audible gasp as the four are in the frame came round the final furlong and the final bend into the straight and you should have heard the roar. I think the whole of Spelthorne was on the jukebox. Man owned by Harry Redknapp, and certainly when he crossed the line very close, the place simply erupted.
And the reason why I'm focusing on Kempton Park Racecourse and my Spelthorne constituency is because it is under very severe threat. And the reason why it is under very severe threat is because, um, the Jockey Club in around 2017 sold a an option to read Ray Barrett um that they could make an application to flatten the racecourse and put up to 3500 homes there. Um, unfortunately. This had been, this had been seen off before under prior planning rules. However, under the new National Planning Policy Framework, honourable members will be aware that there is um if you if your proposed development is within 800m of a train station with two departures an hour in the same direction, it is an assumed yes for planning purposes, despite the fact that it is all greenbelt and highly protected metropolitan green belt, despite the fact that some of it is floodplain, and despite the fact that all of it is an internationally famous iconic racecourse.
And so what I wanted to do by bringing this debate here today was to highlight the risk that this could happen so that the minister could start getting, because obviously it's policy, it's not rules. And so hopefully the minister will be so furnished as to be able to advocate for one of the most important sporting venues important to horse racing in particular. Um, when this thing goes in now Redrow Barratt have said that they uh, they told me on the 20th of March that they were going to put a planning application in by the end of this year.
Um, after I started campaigning vociferously for Kempton Park, uh, this elicited a statement to some media on Friday that they had no plans to put a planning application in this calendar year, however, comma, um, my area Spelthorne is under local government reorganisation and so on the 1st of April next year, Spelthorne Borough Council will be no more and we will be subsumed into West Surrey. And if I have my my way South Middlesex and I can see what Redrow Barratt are going to do, and they're going to wait until the 1st of April and then this planning application will go in.
Then it lasts until the end of 2028. Uh, unless there is a live planning application submitted under consideration, in which case the, um, it gets extended for a further two years. And obviously locally, I am agitating and my local residents in Spelthorne, uh, love their racecourse and have no desire to see it flattened and turned into housing. And so I, as all members would, started a petition. We've had over 3500 signatures so far. I had a public meeting, um, in, uh, in the magpie pub in Lower Sunbury last week, and we got about 770 people there, but I really wanted to get a view from horse racing as to what their view of this is.
And I'm, whilst I go to Kempton Park, I don't, I don't know um. Horse racing inside and out. So I, I reached out to a number of people in the racing industry and have been absolutely blown away by the response that I have received and I wish to share with honourable members a certain aspects of that response. And in doing so, I want to pay tribute to, um, someone in the public gallery racing royalty in my book, Nicky Henderson, who has absolutely been fantastic in galvanising horse racing.
And, uh, the response which we've got. And so I'll start first with, um, a, an email I had from a chap called Richard. Okay. He's a, he's also called Richard Dunwoody as a steeplechase jockey. I enjoyed some of the best days of my career at Kempton Park Racecourse. Two of them were when partnering with the Great Desert Orchid to win the King George VI Chase in 1989 and in 1990, hats flew in the air. The roars were deafening as Daisy crossed the line, his ears pricked.
It would be a tragedy to lose this racecourse with the introduction of all weather racing at Kempton Park has changed, indeed changed over the years, but the standard of racing at the course has not. Jockeys and horses of the very highest level still compete there. As we witnessed last years in the renewal of the King George for horses, took the last fence line abreast with Harry Redknapp's The Jukebox Man taking the honours by the narrowest of margins. As good as it gets, wrote journalist Brough Scott.
And yes, Kempton Park is as good as it gets when it comes to grade one sporting venues. We cannot let it fall to property developers. Um Nicky is also garnered, uh, names of support from I mean, this is this is like who's who?Okay, uh, so. And the National Hunt. Well, Nicky Henderson, Paul Nicholls, Dan Skelton, Willie Mullins, Ben Pauling, Jamie Snowden, Alan King and Fergal O'Brien from the world of the flat. Gosden, Roger Varian, Richard.
Hannon, Andrew. Balding, Ralph. Beckett, Charlie. Hills. Ed. Walker. Eve. Johnston, Horton and a number of people in the racing press. You probably saw Marcus Armitage's, uh, column at the weekend. Um, and and so the list goes on. And I just. Wanted to lots of those names are just a boiling down of some of the reaction that I've had. And here's a, here's a decent example.
Uh, sir, I am Dan Skelton. I've been involved in horse sports all my life and have been a National Hunt racing trainer for 13 years. I'm currently champion trainer of the UK. In I write, um, I'm writing in support of Kempton Park, remaining exactly that. Cprw is an elite racing venue steeped in history with a lot more to offer in the future. Horse racing is the second biggest spectator sport in the UK and a major contributor to the to the UK economy and its culture as an employer, British racing takes care of a great many thousand individuals and families with specific skills and quite obviously in more rural destinations.
Any jobs lost in our current economy would be disastrous. I will give way.
14:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Very grateful to the honourable member for giving way. I like him and no expert on the racing world, but I am lucky enough to have represent Fakenham Racecourse in my constituency, abroad and Fakenham. Does he recognise that the impact isn't just on the racing world?When you lose a racecourse, it's all. It's also in the community which hosts that racecourse, both in direct employment but also importantly in indirect employment, supporting the entire community and infrastructure that surrounds one of these courses. Does he also agree with me that when you have a course that goes, it goes forever and it's never replaced?
14:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My hon. Friend makes an two absolutely outstanding points, and you know that commentary I read out from the race. That's just like the sort of tip of the iceberg and sitting underneath all of that in order to produce that race, the whole ecosystem, the whole industry of equine specialisms, of stables, of lads, of trainers. I mean, the whole thing just culminates in a race. But as he says, it can supports a a whole industry. And he's absolutely right to say that if we lose it, we'll never get it back.
I'd be delighted to give way.
I'd be delighted to give way.
14:41
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Allow me to, um, actually add to the glorious number of our racecourses. And that's Bath Racecourse, which is the highest flat course, um, race a racecourse and um it just adds so much to the community. We have family events, we have 20 races, but we have family events. We have got big sporting events. Otherwise it was an important centre for the vaccine vaccination programme. So it's not just horse races, it's a whole city that benefits from having these racecourses.
And as he has already said, um, we are losing such a great thing if we lose our racecourses. But can we hear a little bit more how we can save our racecourses?
And as he has already said, um, we are losing such a great thing if we lose our racecourses. But can we hear a little bit more how we can save our racecourses?
14:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Absolutely. The honourable member makes a very good point. In the case of Kempton Park, um, I think it's Europe's largest antiques fair. Happens there twice every month. And I've been around and I've met stallholders who travel from Germany, who travel from France. And it is absolutely enormous and produces oodles of cash for the Jockey Club. So, um, I can't really understand the, uh. Understand why the Jockey Club would want to sell the family silver.
Um, but I think in terms of the way in which we're going to save our racecourses is a well, I mean, it's a bit like your local pub. Everyone should be going racing. Firstly, it's a use it or lose it. Um, secondly I think that we need to educate a lot of people about horse racing in order to be able to, um, when they are considering things like planning applications, they, they really do. So from a position of understanding and, um, and obviously I'm doing my bit by advocating here as much as possible, I'd be delighted to give way.
Um, but I think in terms of the way in which we're going to save our racecourses is a well, I mean, it's a bit like your local pub. Everyone should be going racing. Firstly, it's a use it or lose it. Um, secondly I think that we need to educate a lot of people about horse racing in order to be able to, um, when they are considering things like planning applications, they, they really do. So from a position of understanding and, um, and obviously I'm doing my bit by advocating here as much as possible, I'd be delighted to give way.
14:43
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I'm delighted to be here in support of, uh, his debate on the future of British horse racing. I have Aintree Racecourse in my constituency, and I should also declare my register of members interests and that of the all party group which I chair, which is the all party horse racing and bloodstock group. Uh. I have been passionate about horse racing since I was very young, and I, I would say the challenges that horse racing faces, and I will say a few words when you've when my hon.
Friend has concluded his speech. But the challenges that horse racing. Currently struggles with uh, are in. It. Of the fact that it is a global leader in what it does. British horse racing is the best in the world, and people want to be part of British horse racing, but it really needs government and it needs the industry itself to find the strong leadership from within, to be working together to make sure that this incredible product that we have is really protected for the future.
Friend has concluded his speech. But the challenges that horse racing. Currently struggles with uh, are in. It. Of the fact that it is a global leader in what it does. British horse racing is the best in the world, and people want to be part of British horse racing, but it really needs government and it needs the industry itself to find the strong leadership from within, to be working together to make sure that this incredible product that we have is really protected for the future.
14:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, I thank the honourable member. And he's reminded me that I, too, should declare the fact that I'm part of his Appg and that he is my chair. Um, and I want to continue with some of these extraordinary. So this is an email I received from Kelly. I'm, I'm writing to express my full support for your opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Kempton Park Racecourse, and to thank you for securing Tuesday's debate. Kempton is far more than a racecourse.
Since opening in 1878, it has become part of Britain's sporting and cultural heritage. It is one of the country's few truly year round racecourses, staging over 70 fixtures annually through its all weather track, while also hosting the prestigious King George and some of the finest jump racing in the world. It is a nationally significant sporting infrastructure and, to the honourable member's point, an internationally recognised venue and a major economic asset that, once lost, will never be replaced locally. It supports jobs and generates substantial spending for hospitality, retail, transport and many other businesses while providing valuable green space nationally.
It underpins an industry supporting tens of thousands of jobs. As my Honourable Friend with Fakenham in his course pointed out across racing, agriculture, veterinary services, transport, media, tourism, hospitality and countless rural businesses internationally, it strengthens Britain's reputation as a global leader in horse racing, attracting overseas owners, investment and visitors. Um. Is about far more than one racecourse. It is about protecting jobs, heritage, tourism, green space and one of the most successful global industries. Once Kempton is lost, it will be lost forever.
Um, I will continue with these until you get bored or intervene on me. I did like to give.
Since opening in 1878, it has become part of Britain's sporting and cultural heritage. It is one of the country's few truly year round racecourses, staging over 70 fixtures annually through its all weather track, while also hosting the prestigious King George and some of the finest jump racing in the world. It is a nationally significant sporting infrastructure and, to the honourable member's point, an internationally recognised venue and a major economic asset that, once lost, will never be replaced locally. It supports jobs and generates substantial spending for hospitality, retail, transport and many other businesses while providing valuable green space nationally.
It underpins an industry supporting tens of thousands of jobs. As my Honourable Friend with Fakenham in his course pointed out across racing, agriculture, veterinary services, transport, media, tourism, hospitality and countless rural businesses internationally, it strengthens Britain's reputation as a global leader in horse racing, attracting overseas owners, investment and visitors. Um. Is about far more than one racecourse. It is about protecting jobs, heritage, tourism, green space and one of the most successful global industries. Once Kempton is lost, it will be lost forever.
Um, I will continue with these until you get bored or intervene on me. I did like to give.
14:46
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
A bit of a break. I thank him for giving way. I'm also a member of the Appg. Um, that my honourable friend chairs. I think there's a, there's a couple of things here today. One is the memories, the cherished memories that horse racing gives you. I mean, I've had them since I was a young lad and, uh, my mum's cousin, um, who had a, I think it was the Prince of Wales pub at Newmarket, um which was just amazing.
We used to go and visit her, but uh, Desert Orchid finally gets his head in front up that Cheltenham Hill. And four times winner of the uh, of the of the King George. Uh, I think split by the fellow once in one year as well. And Nicky Henderson and Kauto Star and Denman fighting it out as well. Red Rum and Frankel, scintillating kind of form. And the Newmarket Guineas. I you know, it just brings so much wonderful passion and pride.
And it's about patriotism as well, you know, of our country because it just goes back for generations. I'm sure my honourable friend will talk about Doncaster Racecourse in a. But for me as well, I've got the National Racing college in my area. Um, and we talk a lot about young adults and going into new industries, young adults with special educational needs as well. And the importance of that 18 to 24 year olds and being able to find new jobs that are not necessarily jobs behind a desk and jobs that require lots of theory.
I wonder if you could just agree with me that, you know, the National Racing College employs about 40 people, 130 apprenticeships a year. It's absolutely marvellous. So this is also definitely about the jobs. It's about the industry and what it can do in inspiring young adults to get into a different profession. That is absolutely amazing in terms of a career.
We used to go and visit her, but uh, Desert Orchid finally gets his head in front up that Cheltenham Hill. And four times winner of the uh, of the of the King George. Uh, I think split by the fellow once in one year as well. And Nicky Henderson and Kauto Star and Denman fighting it out as well. Red Rum and Frankel, scintillating kind of form. And the Newmarket Guineas. I you know, it just brings so much wonderful passion and pride.
And it's about patriotism as well, you know, of our country because it just goes back for generations. I'm sure my honourable friend will talk about Doncaster Racecourse in a. But for me as well, I've got the National Racing college in my area. Um, and we talk a lot about young adults and going into new industries, young adults with special educational needs as well. And the importance of that 18 to 24 year olds and being able to find new jobs that are not necessarily jobs behind a desk and jobs that require lots of theory.
I wonder if you could just agree with me that, you know, the National Racing College employs about 40 people, 130 apprenticeships a year. It's absolutely marvellous. So this is also definitely about the jobs. It's about the industry and what it can do in inspiring young adults to get into a different profession. That is absolutely amazing in terms of a career.
14:48
14:49
14:49
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. I think the honourable member would have been kind to. Rather than anything else. Um, but I thank him for his point and he's absolutely right. I remember, you know, everywhere I've lived. So I used to go to Perth races when we lived in, when I was in the Army, we used to go to Catterick races. Absolutely. Uh, part of um your experience of that place is uh the racecourse there. Um this from Alan King at Barbury Stables.
Dear Lincoln, I have run horses at Kempton Park for over 25 years. Turning over, turning over, training over 100 winners. In my opinion, Kempton is the is in the top four British racecourses. It is very fair track and attracts top class horses in both National Hunt and flat racing. Its other huge attraction is that it produces decent going. Midwinter, which is the only southern track that provides this. I think it is truly irreplaceable. Um, Philip and Sarah Hobbs, um, as a trainer of National Hunt horses for 40 years, I'm very opposed to Kempton Park closing down to build houses.
It is the home of the King George on Boxing Day, as well as plenty of other important races, and is very free draining, maintaining good ground in the winter. It also has a place providing plenty of opportunities for flat horses and the all weather circuit. It would be my huge pleasure.
Dear Lincoln, I have run horses at Kempton Park for over 25 years. Turning over, turning over, training over 100 winners. In my opinion, Kempton is the is in the top four British racecourses. It is very fair track and attracts top class horses in both National Hunt and flat racing. Its other huge attraction is that it produces decent going. Midwinter, which is the only southern track that provides this. I think it is truly irreplaceable. Um, Philip and Sarah Hobbs, um, as a trainer of National Hunt horses for 40 years, I'm very opposed to Kempton Park closing down to build houses.
It is the home of the King George on Boxing Day, as well as plenty of other important races, and is very free draining, maintaining good ground in the winter. It also has a place providing plenty of opportunities for flat horses and the all weather circuit. It would be my huge pleasure.
14:51
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way and he's clearly passionate about the horse racing sector, but I wonder if he saw the incident at the Grand National Festival earlier this year where Gold Dancer broke his back during the race and was whipped to continue. And as a result, when he got over the finishing line, it was too late for the vets to be able to save him. This is not an isolated incident. Last year there were 254 deaths of horses due to horse racing and in too many cases, these were horses that could have survived their their injuries.
But where the owners judged that the damage was not worth it in terms of the value that they could bring to them financially. So does the honourable gentleman agree that with this and with the 641 instances of recorded whip abuses, that if the horse racing sector is serious about its future, and I recognise that it matters to so many people than it needs to show that horses are not going to be treated as an expendable asset, but as the beautiful animals they are. And to avoid these future deaths.
But where the owners judged that the damage was not worth it in terms of the value that they could bring to them financially. So does the honourable gentleman agree that with this and with the 641 instances of recorded whip abuses, that if the horse racing sector is serious about its future, and I recognise that it matters to so many people than it needs to show that horses are not going to be treated as an expendable asset, but as the beautiful animals they are. And to avoid these future deaths.
14:51
14:51
14:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you chair. The. The honourable member speaks with passion about animal safety and horse safety, and I do know that I don't know a single owner, trainer, jockey, anyone involved in horses who doesn't care deeply for those horses. And I've also been struck at Kempton Park by seeing the extensive lengths that the racecourse goes to in terms of redesigned fences, in terms of redesigned barriers to ensure that, um, animal welfare, horse welfare is is a very high priority. I do understand, I mean, I can understand I didn't see the particular incident that he has referred to, but I do I do take it on trust that the industry cares deeply for its animals, which are both highly prized and very expensive.
Um. Uh, this is from Martin Featherstone. Godley, dear. Mr. Job is a former racehorse trainer. I'm very concerned to hear that our premier racecourse could be sold for redevelopment. Kempton, with its all weather track, offers valuable opportunities all year round to flat racing owners and trainers and. Owners and trainers and hosts some of the most important races in the jump racing calendar with its proximity to London and its good transport links, it is also a highly valued local immunity.
I would like to add my voice and support to preserving Kempton Park statue status as a racecourse. Um. I would like honourable members to think that I was in any way scraping the barrel by now. Um, but I will someone who is not in horse racing, um, I believe he's the nation's favourite astrologer. Um, Mr. Russell Grant who said good morning, Lincoln, someone has just told me that you're leading a campaign regarding the proposed development of Kempton Park. Is this true that they want to build over the racecourse?Do let me know if I can help.
Kempton Park is one of the four jewels in the Middlesex sporting crown. The. Good afternoon Lincoln. I've read the article in the Racing Post today regarding the application that Barratt Redrow intend to make for planning consent on the land at Kempton Park Racecourse with the closure of Chelmsford. The importance of retaining Kempton as a dual purpose racecourse, providing owners and. With all weather racing all year round and National Hunt racing during the winter within easy access of central London has become all the more important.
I have horses in training in Lambourn for both the Flat and National Hunt, where the. Where. For the latter, Kempton is probably the best drained and fairest course in the United Kingdom, rarely impacted by adverse weather. I understand the house is a house builders option to purchase. The course expires in 2028, which suggests that it is likely to be exercised within the next year. The council could resist any consent, which would mean that Kempton Park has to close.
Wrong. The council should resist any consent, which would mean that the it has to close as a racecourse because it is not only greenbelt, but it is also a course supported by owners, trainers and providing employment for so many. I am not going to continue with these, but I think the Minister and honourable members. I was really surprised. I thought that when I reached out to horse racing that it would speak with 50 or 60 different voices, but the whole of horse racing has appears to be, with the exception of the Jockey Club, um, totally united by the notion that we must save Kempton Park Racecourse from development.
If the Minister is concerned that I am some form of Nimby, I can reassure her that if she wants. If she wants to build any homes in Spelthorne, I can share other places which are not on iconic racecourses, Greenbelt, um and, uh, and partial floodplain. And so I would hope that I have given her enough political ammunition, which she can, uh, go away, make some inquiries, and ensure that, um, if this planning application is ever to see the light of day, uh, that strong signals could be sent to Redrow Barrett about its ultimate lack of success.
And if they want housing in Spelthorne, I can give it to them elsewhere.
Um. Uh, this is from Martin Featherstone. Godley, dear. Mr. Job is a former racehorse trainer. I'm very concerned to hear that our premier racecourse could be sold for redevelopment. Kempton, with its all weather track, offers valuable opportunities all year round to flat racing owners and trainers and. Owners and trainers and hosts some of the most important races in the jump racing calendar with its proximity to London and its good transport links, it is also a highly valued local immunity.
I would like to add my voice and support to preserving Kempton Park statue status as a racecourse. Um. I would like honourable members to think that I was in any way scraping the barrel by now. Um, but I will someone who is not in horse racing, um, I believe he's the nation's favourite astrologer. Um, Mr. Russell Grant who said good morning, Lincoln, someone has just told me that you're leading a campaign regarding the proposed development of Kempton Park. Is this true that they want to build over the racecourse?Do let me know if I can help.
Kempton Park is one of the four jewels in the Middlesex sporting crown. The. Good afternoon Lincoln. I've read the article in the Racing Post today regarding the application that Barratt Redrow intend to make for planning consent on the land at Kempton Park Racecourse with the closure of Chelmsford. The importance of retaining Kempton as a dual purpose racecourse, providing owners and. With all weather racing all year round and National Hunt racing during the winter within easy access of central London has become all the more important.
I have horses in training in Lambourn for both the Flat and National Hunt, where the. Where. For the latter, Kempton is probably the best drained and fairest course in the United Kingdom, rarely impacted by adverse weather. I understand the house is a house builders option to purchase. The course expires in 2028, which suggests that it is likely to be exercised within the next year. The council could resist any consent, which would mean that Kempton Park has to close.
Wrong. The council should resist any consent, which would mean that the it has to close as a racecourse because it is not only greenbelt, but it is also a course supported by owners, trainers and providing employment for so many. I am not going to continue with these, but I think the Minister and honourable members. I was really surprised. I thought that when I reached out to horse racing that it would speak with 50 or 60 different voices, but the whole of horse racing has appears to be, with the exception of the Jockey Club, um, totally united by the notion that we must save Kempton Park Racecourse from development.
If the Minister is concerned that I am some form of Nimby, I can reassure her that if she wants. If she wants to build any homes in Spelthorne, I can share other places which are not on iconic racecourses, Greenbelt, um and, uh, and partial floodplain. And so I would hope that I have given her enough political ammunition, which she can, uh, go away, make some inquiries, and ensure that, um, if this planning application is ever to see the light of day, uh, that strong signals could be sent to Redrow Barrett about its ultimate lack of success.
And if they want housing in Spelthorne, I can give it to them elsewhere.
14:56
14:56
14:56
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you. Chair, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I also declare that I'm a member of the a for horse racing. I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute on this important debate of the future of horse racing. Few places understand the cultural and economic impact of this industry better than Doncaster. Horse racing has been a part of my constituency story for more than four centuries, and Doncaster Racecourse is one of the oldest in the country and has been the home to the Saint Leger since 1776.
This September marks the 250th anniversary of the Saint Leger, an event that honours centuries of sporting heritage and continues to captivate racing fans from across the world. And I'm sorry to disappoint honourable members in this room, but it is the Saint Leger, which is the most iconic racing event in this country, and I do hope that everyone, including the Minister, will be able to join us this September. Success reflects the importance of the industry nationally. Horse racing contributes more than £4.1 billion to the UK economy.
Supports 85,000 jobs and remains the country's second largest spectator sport. It's a major employer in my constituency and across Doncaster, and is an important part of both rural and urban economies, defining and defining of Britain's sporting heritage. If we want the future of horse racing to be a successful one, the industry must have the confidence to invest. That means providing greater certainty over its long term funding and ensuring that government policy reflects the unique contribution that racing makes to our economy and to our communities.
I will give way.
This September marks the 250th anniversary of the Saint Leger, an event that honours centuries of sporting heritage and continues to captivate racing fans from across the world. And I'm sorry to disappoint honourable members in this room, but it is the Saint Leger, which is the most iconic racing event in this country, and I do hope that everyone, including the Minister, will be able to join us this September. Success reflects the importance of the industry nationally. Horse racing contributes more than £4.1 billion to the UK economy.
Supports 85,000 jobs and remains the country's second largest spectator sport. It's a major employer in my constituency and across Doncaster, and is an important part of both rural and urban economies, defining and defining of Britain's sporting heritage. If we want the future of horse racing to be a successful one, the industry must have the confidence to invest. That means providing greater certainty over its long term funding and ensuring that government policy reflects the unique contribution that racing makes to our economy and to our communities.
I will give way.
14:57
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank my honourable friend for giving way and for the advocacy that she plays for this sector. She will know that I. Have you talked to racecourse in my constituency and for over 60 years, the horse racing, horse racing betting levy has helped causes like ours. But I understand that some of that levy, um, doesn't go to Uttoxeter in the same way that it does in European countries. And so does she agree that the board should look at this to give more support to courses like ours?
14:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you. I do agree with my honourable friend and I. I also want to highlight the unique relationship between horse racing and betting key income streams, including horse racing, betting levy, media rights and sponsorship contribute around £350 million a year to racing, and it is therefore vital that any changes to regulation recognise the potential impact on the industry and ensure that the economic and community value that it brings is not diminished.
14:58
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
From that point which allow. Thank you very much. I congratulate the honourable lady for her speech. He's talking excellently, and the point she raised, though, is apt and it's currently happening. And so I'm sure she would share my concerns, would welcome some comments from the minister about how we can mitigate these unintended consequences. That government has unfortunately brought about, particularly with the big the big betting companies reducing their sponsorship levels to the horse racing sector as a result of the changes in the recent, uh, tax regime.
It's not intended, but it is happening and the impact is being felt right now.
It's not intended, but it is happening and the impact is being felt right now.
14:59
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I want to thank my honourable friend for his important contribution, which I know is, um, a real salience in his constituency. And I also want to raise a growing concern around the black market and the unintended consequences that regulation can create. There is clear evidence that illegal betting activity has increased significantly in recent years. And this shift away from regulated markets risk giving worst outcomes both for horse racing fans, but also to the exchequer in lost tax revenue. But most importantly, it's depriving horse racing, the horse racing industry of vital levy income.
It also creates serious integrity risks as all bets place to illegal operators are far more difficult to monitor and investigate, making it harder to protect the support the sport from corruption. And so I welcome the government's recognition of this challenge, including investment to tackle illegal gambling and the creation of a dedicated task force, as this is essential action to ensure customers remain within the legal betting market, and I hope to see more work done by government in this area in the future. For constituencies like mine, this debate is not simply about sport, it's about protecting jobs, supporting local businesses and our city centre, and preserving an important part of national heritage, ensuring that racecourses such as Doncaster can continue to thrive for generations to come.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and I hope that she will provide reassurance that the government is committed to working in partnership with the industry to secure a sustainable and prosperous future for British horse racing. On the 250th anniversary of the most iconic race in.
It also creates serious integrity risks as all bets place to illegal operators are far more difficult to monitor and investigate, making it harder to protect the support the sport from corruption. And so I welcome the government's recognition of this challenge, including investment to tackle illegal gambling and the creation of a dedicated task force, as this is essential action to ensure customers remain within the legal betting market, and I hope to see more work done by government in this area in the future. For constituencies like mine, this debate is not simply about sport, it's about protecting jobs, supporting local businesses and our city centre, and preserving an important part of national heritage, ensuring that racecourses such as Doncaster can continue to thrive for generations to come.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and I hope that she will provide reassurance that the government is committed to working in partnership with the industry to secure a sustainable and prosperous future for British horse racing. On the 250th anniversary of the most iconic race in.
15:00
15:00
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Carolyn Harris. It's a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and it is a pleasure to see leading trainer Nicky Henderson here today, and that should indicate how important the debate is to the racing industry. I would like to congratulate my honourable and gallant friend for securing this debate, and I should make clear at the outset that my husband is a board member of the Racecourse Association and chairman of the National Horse Racing College. Previous speaker said, set out the importance of the horse racing industry to the economy, tax receipts and jobs, not to mention the importance to local communities and to sporting excellence in the UK.
This sport is genuinely world leading, of which we should all be immensely proud. I actually don't think the government needs persuading of this case. I think it already understands this. This can be seen from last year's budget, when the Chancellor exempted horse racing from her increases in gambling taxes, something which was welcomed by the horse racing industry following their acts. The racing tax campaign. So I don't fear this government deliberately seeking to destroy and undermining horse racing in the UK, but I very much fear them doing so inadvertently through ignorance.
I am not asking the government to do something to support horse racing. I am instead today urging the government not to do two things in particular which would decimate horse racing in the UK if they went ahead. The first request is that the government directs the completely hopeless Gambling Commission to abandon any form of financial risk assessment or affordability checks with regards to the betting industry, the previous government rightly said that any checks should be entirely frictionless, but the pilot that's being carried out has been a complete failure.
So rather than flogging a dead horse, the government and the Gambling Commission must abandon this policy. And despite claiming that financial checks are not carried out, which merely shows the incompetence of the Gambling Commission, which is made up of people who know nothing about gambling and don't even understand their own policies. These are already driving punters in their droves to the black market. Roughly 10% of gambling in the UK is now carried out in the black market, and is growing rapidly, all due to the tax policies of the government and regulatory policies of the Gambling Commission, which means the regulated sector cannot compete with the black market.
This is, of course, bad for player protection, and it's also devastating for the horse racing industry, which relies on the betting industry and punters for much of its income. Give way.
This sport is genuinely world leading, of which we should all be immensely proud. I actually don't think the government needs persuading of this case. I think it already understands this. This can be seen from last year's budget, when the Chancellor exempted horse racing from her increases in gambling taxes, something which was welcomed by the horse racing industry following their acts. The racing tax campaign. So I don't fear this government deliberately seeking to destroy and undermining horse racing in the UK, but I very much fear them doing so inadvertently through ignorance.
I am not asking the government to do something to support horse racing. I am instead today urging the government not to do two things in particular which would decimate horse racing in the UK if they went ahead. The first request is that the government directs the completely hopeless Gambling Commission to abandon any form of financial risk assessment or affordability checks with regards to the betting industry, the previous government rightly said that any checks should be entirely frictionless, but the pilot that's being carried out has been a complete failure.
So rather than flogging a dead horse, the government and the Gambling Commission must abandon this policy. And despite claiming that financial checks are not carried out, which merely shows the incompetence of the Gambling Commission, which is made up of people who know nothing about gambling and don't even understand their own policies. These are already driving punters in their droves to the black market. Roughly 10% of gambling in the UK is now carried out in the black market, and is growing rapidly, all due to the tax policies of the government and regulatory policies of the Gambling Commission, which means the regulated sector cannot compete with the black market.
This is, of course, bad for player protection, and it's also devastating for the horse racing industry, which relies on the betting industry and punters for much of its income. Give way.
15:03
15:03
15:03
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
We need better support from everywhere that I'm talking about, but these are the key issues that are undermining the industry and that's why I'm going to press on with the key matters today that are threatening the racing industry. So will the minister assure the House that these affordability checks will be abandoned despite today's senseless announcement by the Gambling Commission?The second request is to ask the government to ignore the siren voices of the Social Market Foundation. In its recent policy suggestion to double the tax on category B gaming machines from 20 to 40%, the SMF tried to portray itself last year as a friend of horse racing, and unfortunately, some in the industry who should have known better were taken in.
This proposal proves beyond doubt that the SMF on our friends, rather enemies of the horse racing industry, such a swingeing increase in tax rate would destroy not only casinos and bingo halls, but would virtually collapse the remaining betting shops in the UK, which have been reduced in number rapidly in recent years. Indeed, regulars have calculated that this policy would close 70% of the remaining betting shops, saying the numbers reduce from 5500 to just 1500. Each and every betting shop contributes a significant amount of money to horse racing through levy payments and especially meteorite payments.
So will the minister set out how much money horse racing gets from betting shops, and take this opportunity to rule out the government carrying out the SMF policy proposal?Will she also explain how many betting shops she believes will close if the SMF tax proposals on machines is implemented?And the simple fact is that if the minister will not stop the affordability checks and does not get a grip on the reins of the out-of-control Gambling Commission, and if the government will not rule out vastly increasing the tax on category B machines, then any promise today to support horse racing will be completely worthless and will undermine her Chancellor's policy.
From the last budget, I await the Minister's speech with great interest, as will the entire horse racing industry.
This proposal proves beyond doubt that the SMF on our friends, rather enemies of the horse racing industry, such a swingeing increase in tax rate would destroy not only casinos and bingo halls, but would virtually collapse the remaining betting shops in the UK, which have been reduced in number rapidly in recent years. Indeed, regulars have calculated that this policy would close 70% of the remaining betting shops, saying the numbers reduce from 5500 to just 1500. Each and every betting shop contributes a significant amount of money to horse racing through levy payments and especially meteorite payments.
So will the minister set out how much money horse racing gets from betting shops, and take this opportunity to rule out the government carrying out the SMF policy proposal?Will she also explain how many betting shops she believes will close if the SMF tax proposals on machines is implemented?And the simple fact is that if the minister will not stop the affordability checks and does not get a grip on the reins of the out-of-control Gambling Commission, and if the government will not rule out vastly increasing the tax on category B machines, then any promise today to support horse racing will be completely worthless and will undermine her Chancellor's policy.
From the last budget, I await the Minister's speech with great interest, as will the entire horse racing industry.
15:05
15:05
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. Pleasure to serve with you in the chair today. Can I once again congratulate the honourable gentleman for securing this speech today?I'm not going to repeat all the points that colleagues have made. People know my passion for the sport. And I will say of the minister, I know that the minister enjoys horse racing and is keen to be supportive to the industry, and I'm looking forward to what this government and colleagues in Westminster can do. Working with the racing industry over the years ahead to really take it from strength to strength.
So let me start with the strength of British horse racing. It. There was a there was a battle last year over the racing tax because government was going to look at horse racing in the same light as online casinos and gambling. And that was totally and utterly wrong. Horse racing is, uh, an. Incredible industry, employing tens of thousands up to 100,000 people across the country. It's important to all of our communities, up to 60 racecourses across the United Kingdom.
And it is an industry that attracts a remarkable amount of investment, especially in on on the flat, flat horse racing, through breeding and through, um, the sale and, and, and all the, all the work that goes around breeding race horses for a global industry. So I often think we, we mustn't or the Treasury mustn't quite understand the investment that horse racing brings into this country. I'd like to see it do a much better job of that. And I do share real concern and opposition to the way in which affordability checks have been brought about, and now look to be implemented.
And I don't know of any significant public policy like this, which will have major impact, a major impact on the revenues that go into the Treasury that can be made and implemented by quango outside of outside of the view of Parliament, away from government ministers. And I'd like the Minister to be very honest with us about the remit of her department over, uh, the Gambling Commission and actually where authority for this policy lies, and where authority lies with it, when we want to challenge it, when it's not working because the.
It's already been mentioned today, but the impact is on the black market. It's on people that go go racing, people who are at home, who decide to use a VPN very easily and gamble where there are no rules and they don't know who they're gambling with. They don't know where that money that they may receive in return has come from, and the links to criminality that we can be certain will be pervasive across all of that. And the Treasury should be looking first and foremost on, uh, criminality and the potential loss to the black market of people who want to gamble legally in this country.
And I have worked long and hard over many years on the issues of addiction, all types of addiction. And I know that there are good things that can be done to improve the behaviour of bookmakers, but also regulation and health support for people who struggle with gambling. Indeed, Miss Harris, you have spent many years in this place yourself and I'm sure are watching this debate with interest from the chair today. So let me finish by saying a couple of more general points. This incredible British product, which captivates many parts of the globe and some of the most, successful and wealthy individuals who want to come and play, and British horse racing, uh, is something that we do not make enough of in this country.
It's a powerful for our diplomacy. It's powerful for investment in this country. And it's just powerful for bringing people together, including the working class communities up and down the country, who take such enjoyment from it. Uh, just attending a day at the races. And we need that to continue. Uh, and I think a review of a much broader review of the financing of British horse racing that takes account of the money that comes in from bookmakers, the levy, and so much more, and I'll leave my contribution with one little fact.
Currently, uh, breeding is a loss making activity in this country. If you're breeding horses, the number of thoroughbreds being bred each year, every year has been in decline for a number of years. And it is very difficult to make a profit in the current climate. It should not be the case that needs better leadership from within horse racing. It needs better link up with government, and it needs us to appreciate what we have in this country. Thank you.
So let me start with the strength of British horse racing. It. There was a there was a battle last year over the racing tax because government was going to look at horse racing in the same light as online casinos and gambling. And that was totally and utterly wrong. Horse racing is, uh, an. Incredible industry, employing tens of thousands up to 100,000 people across the country. It's important to all of our communities, up to 60 racecourses across the United Kingdom.
And it is an industry that attracts a remarkable amount of investment, especially in on on the flat, flat horse racing, through breeding and through, um, the sale and, and, and all the, all the work that goes around breeding race horses for a global industry. So I often think we, we mustn't or the Treasury mustn't quite understand the investment that horse racing brings into this country. I'd like to see it do a much better job of that. And I do share real concern and opposition to the way in which affordability checks have been brought about, and now look to be implemented.
And I don't know of any significant public policy like this, which will have major impact, a major impact on the revenues that go into the Treasury that can be made and implemented by quango outside of outside of the view of Parliament, away from government ministers. And I'd like the Minister to be very honest with us about the remit of her department over, uh, the Gambling Commission and actually where authority for this policy lies, and where authority lies with it, when we want to challenge it, when it's not working because the.
It's already been mentioned today, but the impact is on the black market. It's on people that go go racing, people who are at home, who decide to use a VPN very easily and gamble where there are no rules and they don't know who they're gambling with. They don't know where that money that they may receive in return has come from, and the links to criminality that we can be certain will be pervasive across all of that. And the Treasury should be looking first and foremost on, uh, criminality and the potential loss to the black market of people who want to gamble legally in this country.
And I have worked long and hard over many years on the issues of addiction, all types of addiction. And I know that there are good things that can be done to improve the behaviour of bookmakers, but also regulation and health support for people who struggle with gambling. Indeed, Miss Harris, you have spent many years in this place yourself and I'm sure are watching this debate with interest from the chair today. So let me finish by saying a couple of more general points. This incredible British product, which captivates many parts of the globe and some of the most, successful and wealthy individuals who want to come and play, and British horse racing, uh, is something that we do not make enough of in this country.
It's a powerful for our diplomacy. It's powerful for investment in this country. And it's just powerful for bringing people together, including the working class communities up and down the country, who take such enjoyment from it. Uh, just attending a day at the races. And we need that to continue. Uh, and I think a review of a much broader review of the financing of British horse racing that takes account of the money that comes in from bookmakers, the levy, and so much more, and I'll leave my contribution with one little fact.
Currently, uh, breeding is a loss making activity in this country. If you're breeding horses, the number of thoroughbreds being bred each year, every year has been in decline for a number of years. And it is very difficult to make a profit in the current climate. It should not be the case that needs better leadership from within horse racing. It needs better link up with government, and it needs us to appreciate what we have in this country. Thank you.
15:11
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
First of all, can I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship?And a big thank you to the honourable gentleman for for setting the scene incredibly well, as he always does on a subject matter which is very, very close to his heart. Um, always a pleasure to see the minister in her place. I look forward to, to your answers to, uh, I know the honourable lady is um, um, very much involved in our department and she has horse racing as one of her passions.
So she's well known for, for that. And I look forward to her contribution. Um, I um. Everybody has spoken about their own, um, race courses. I don't have any in my constituency, but my neighbouring constituency of South Downs has where we have the, the down royal and also another racecourse at Downpatrick as well. So it's important to us, my neighbours, I was just thinking there when I was sitting there, almost every one of my neighbours owns horses. Uh, some of them are horse jumping, some of them are are for racing in the courses that down, down, Royal and down and elsewhere.
So I understand the, the importance of it is for my neighbours when it comes to, to this subject matter and the passion the gentleman has showed for his constituency and the importance to have that um racecourse retained is something that's been put on record today. I want to. Madam Chair, as you probably would expect me to, uh, want to speak about because the the title of this future British horse racing. And I know, Madam Chair, I know you're independent, and that's your job as chair of this meeting.
But in the past, you've had a very deep interest in gambling, and I want to talk about that a bit. And the Gambling Commission. So we meet today to discuss an industry that is woven into the very fabric of our national heritage. Horse racing is a magnificent, magnificent sport, a massive rural employer and a source of immense pride and community across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, from the stable hands and the breeders to the racecourse staff, thousands of livelihoods depend on its continued success.
And I want to see that happen as well. However, as we look forward towards the future of this great sport. Excuse me, mostly with a sense of deep caution, a steady hand and a clear moral compass. We got some water. Excuse me. Excuse me. The relationship between horse racing and the betting industry is historic and The relationship between horse racing and the betting industry is historic and undeniable. And provides a vital financial lifeboat that keeps our racecourses open and their prize purses funded.
But we cannot, and we must not. I believe, allow our support for the sport to blind us to the devastating social realities of problem gambling. I see the fallout in our communities. I see families torn apart, livelihoods ruined and mental health shattered by a grip of gambling addiction. Therefore, any vision that anyone has has to be part of this for the future of British horse racing must be fundamentally rooted in an unwavering commitment to gambling awareness and robust player protections. We must welcome the implementation of balanced safety measures, such as frictionless financial vulnerability checks, which are absolutely critical, and they're designed to catch on affordable homes before they destroy lives.
I know there are those within the racing industry who fear the financial impact of these regulations. I understand their anxieties about falling revenues, but I say to the industry, and very respectfully to the minister, sustainability cannot be built on the backs of vulnerable people who are losing money, that they just don't have to spend. Two sustainability manager means creating a safe, transparent environment where the casual punter can enjoy a flutter responsibly while those at risk are intercepted and protected. And that's what I want to make my point today.
I know something, Madam Chair, that you and and the past in this House have been to the forefront, and I've always supported you in all the the ventures that you take forward in this House. And that's that's one that's been successful. The future of racing depends on its social licence to safeguard that licence to sport, I believe, must step up and lead from the front. We need to see gambling awareness and betting at every single level of the racing experience, and it should be prominently visible on a.
Racecourses throughout our TV broadcasts and integrated into every digital betting platform. So when the minister replies, please, please give me that reassurance on that matter that I wish to see for my constituents and others who are listening to this programme and Westminster Hall outside. We must ensure that a meaningful portion of the revenues generated from racing betting is directly and transparently funnelled into independent research, into education and a treatment for gambling harm. Arm chair, you and I and perhaps many others in this room have had occasion to meet some of those who have lost family members to the gambling.
Uh, where the gambling took over their whole life. And they eventually succumbed to taking their own lives. As they've seen, that was the only way out. We must make sure that never happens again. So those constituents of mine back home have asked me to, to put this on record in the House. I'm doing that today. So my conclusion, Madam Chair, I ask the minister today, as the government works to secure the long term funding and the governance of British racing, what assurances can the minister give that gambling harm prevention will remain at the heart of national policy?Secondly, will the Minister commit to working with the sector to ensure that we protect both this historic British sport, because we want to see it retained?We know the importance of it and, most importantly, the vulnerable individuals and families in our communities.
Let us build a future for British racing that is prosperous but above all, is safe, ethical and responsible. Thanks so much.
So she's well known for, for that. And I look forward to her contribution. Um, I um. Everybody has spoken about their own, um, race courses. I don't have any in my constituency, but my neighbouring constituency of South Downs has where we have the, the down royal and also another racecourse at Downpatrick as well. So it's important to us, my neighbours, I was just thinking there when I was sitting there, almost every one of my neighbours owns horses. Uh, some of them are horse jumping, some of them are are for racing in the courses that down, down, Royal and down and elsewhere.
So I understand the, the importance of it is for my neighbours when it comes to, to this subject matter and the passion the gentleman has showed for his constituency and the importance to have that um racecourse retained is something that's been put on record today. I want to. Madam Chair, as you probably would expect me to, uh, want to speak about because the the title of this future British horse racing. And I know, Madam Chair, I know you're independent, and that's your job as chair of this meeting.
But in the past, you've had a very deep interest in gambling, and I want to talk about that a bit. And the Gambling Commission. So we meet today to discuss an industry that is woven into the very fabric of our national heritage. Horse racing is a magnificent, magnificent sport, a massive rural employer and a source of immense pride and community across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, from the stable hands and the breeders to the racecourse staff, thousands of livelihoods depend on its continued success.
And I want to see that happen as well. However, as we look forward towards the future of this great sport. Excuse me, mostly with a sense of deep caution, a steady hand and a clear moral compass. We got some water. Excuse me. Excuse me. The relationship between horse racing and the betting industry is historic and The relationship between horse racing and the betting industry is historic and undeniable. And provides a vital financial lifeboat that keeps our racecourses open and their prize purses funded.
But we cannot, and we must not. I believe, allow our support for the sport to blind us to the devastating social realities of problem gambling. I see the fallout in our communities. I see families torn apart, livelihoods ruined and mental health shattered by a grip of gambling addiction. Therefore, any vision that anyone has has to be part of this for the future of British horse racing must be fundamentally rooted in an unwavering commitment to gambling awareness and robust player protections. We must welcome the implementation of balanced safety measures, such as frictionless financial vulnerability checks, which are absolutely critical, and they're designed to catch on affordable homes before they destroy lives.
I know there are those within the racing industry who fear the financial impact of these regulations. I understand their anxieties about falling revenues, but I say to the industry, and very respectfully to the minister, sustainability cannot be built on the backs of vulnerable people who are losing money, that they just don't have to spend. Two sustainability manager means creating a safe, transparent environment where the casual punter can enjoy a flutter responsibly while those at risk are intercepted and protected. And that's what I want to make my point today.
I know something, Madam Chair, that you and and the past in this House have been to the forefront, and I've always supported you in all the the ventures that you take forward in this House. And that's that's one that's been successful. The future of racing depends on its social licence to safeguard that licence to sport, I believe, must step up and lead from the front. We need to see gambling awareness and betting at every single level of the racing experience, and it should be prominently visible on a.
Racecourses throughout our TV broadcasts and integrated into every digital betting platform. So when the minister replies, please, please give me that reassurance on that matter that I wish to see for my constituents and others who are listening to this programme and Westminster Hall outside. We must ensure that a meaningful portion of the revenues generated from racing betting is directly and transparently funnelled into independent research, into education and a treatment for gambling harm. Arm chair, you and I and perhaps many others in this room have had occasion to meet some of those who have lost family members to the gambling.
Uh, where the gambling took over their whole life. And they eventually succumbed to taking their own lives. As they've seen, that was the only way out. We must make sure that never happens again. So those constituents of mine back home have asked me to, to put this on record in the House. I'm doing that today. So my conclusion, Madam Chair, I ask the minister today, as the government works to secure the long term funding and the governance of British racing, what assurances can the minister give that gambling harm prevention will remain at the heart of national policy?Secondly, will the Minister commit to working with the sector to ensure that we protect both this historic British sport, because we want to see it retained?We know the importance of it and, most importantly, the vulnerable individuals and families in our communities.
Let us build a future for British racing that is prosperous but above all, is safe, ethical and responsible. Thanks so much.
15:17
15:17
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Miss Harris. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the honourable member for Spelthorne for securing this debate, and I refer members to my register of interest, where I detail hospitality received from the Jockey Club in July last year. And also I'm a member of the Horse racing Appg. Much of the home of horse racing is in my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire. The July Racecourse, the Newmarket Equine Hospital, many of the studs and yards, including the National Stud and the famous Newmarket rearing Stallion statue, are all in my constituency.
Horse racing provides jobs, great days out and cares for much of our beautiful landscape. And yet it feels under attack from many angles. Horse racing, as we've heard, depends on the income from the betting levy. I am grateful that the government listened to calls to double gambling duty on remote betting, rather than harmonising all gambling tax rates, but I am worried, like others, that plans to extend affordability checks could damage horse racing. I recognise the dangers that gambling can cause psychological distress, financial and social difficulties and government attempts to reduce this damage are worthy, but they'll be counterproductive if they continue to drive people to unregulated sites.
I understand, as we've heard today, the Gambling Commission has already announced that it is going to introduce financial risk assessments with a phased implementation. I ask the minister to monitor that really, really closely and make sure it isn't having unintended harms. I've got a small bio energy plant in my constituency which is under threat of closure due to removal of government subsidies. It has a sister plant in Thetford, which takes the bedding waste from local stables and produces energy and organic fertiliser. This plant is also under threat, gaining a small income from the waste bedding.
Instead of having to pay for its disposal, is important for the industry. I ask the minister to talk with colleagues in Defra and Desnos to help them understand the significance of these small bio energy plants to horse racing and other rural industries. Planning policy, as we've heard, also needs to respect the horse racing industry. Breeding, training and racing horses needs a lot of land. The new market area has wonderful soils and clear water from chalk streams, which grow excellent grass, which in turn develop thoroughbred horses.
We mustn't allow genuine need for new housing and green energy to damage the water and grassland, nor to restrict the land available for the horse racing industry. The Sonica solar farm has been approved despite concerns expressed by the horse racing industry, amongst others. It's vital that we mitigate any damage. In particular, we must have strong regulation and enforcement to ensure that any fire in the battery energy storage units can be managed without damage to the surrounding area. People, horses, wildlife and our precious watercourses.
Applications for further solar farms must take account of the needs of the horse racing industry, particularly the studs where breeding mares need a calm environment. We've also got a speculative application in the area for something called Forest City, and it's really worrying the amount of concern and stress that's causing to people, because it would completely destroy the environment of the area and really damage the horse racing industry. And yet, unless they put in a planning application and answer all the questions and have that planning application decided, they can continue to cause this stress and angst in the area with their well funded plans, but with no detail behind them.
But to end on a positive note, I was honoured to attend the National Stud graduation ceremony last week. We celebrated with the 29 graduates, all of whom have jobs to go to following their qualification, and these are people from all all areas of of our of our economy and background. Of course, some of them are people who have always been interested in horses, but some of them are people who didn't know they were interested in horses until they heard about this scheme and got involved. We had a taxi driver, someone who'd been cooking burgers, and they've all qualified with this prestigious qualification.
And as I say, they have all got jobs to go to. These people are the future of horse racing. Will the minister join with me in congratulating the graduates and thanking the staff at the National Stud for running an excellent training programme.
Horse racing provides jobs, great days out and cares for much of our beautiful landscape. And yet it feels under attack from many angles. Horse racing, as we've heard, depends on the income from the betting levy. I am grateful that the government listened to calls to double gambling duty on remote betting, rather than harmonising all gambling tax rates, but I am worried, like others, that plans to extend affordability checks could damage horse racing. I recognise the dangers that gambling can cause psychological distress, financial and social difficulties and government attempts to reduce this damage are worthy, but they'll be counterproductive if they continue to drive people to unregulated sites.
I understand, as we've heard today, the Gambling Commission has already announced that it is going to introduce financial risk assessments with a phased implementation. I ask the minister to monitor that really, really closely and make sure it isn't having unintended harms. I've got a small bio energy plant in my constituency which is under threat of closure due to removal of government subsidies. It has a sister plant in Thetford, which takes the bedding waste from local stables and produces energy and organic fertiliser. This plant is also under threat, gaining a small income from the waste bedding.
Instead of having to pay for its disposal, is important for the industry. I ask the minister to talk with colleagues in Defra and Desnos to help them understand the significance of these small bio energy plants to horse racing and other rural industries. Planning policy, as we've heard, also needs to respect the horse racing industry. Breeding, training and racing horses needs a lot of land. The new market area has wonderful soils and clear water from chalk streams, which grow excellent grass, which in turn develop thoroughbred horses.
We mustn't allow genuine need for new housing and green energy to damage the water and grassland, nor to restrict the land available for the horse racing industry. The Sonica solar farm has been approved despite concerns expressed by the horse racing industry, amongst others. It's vital that we mitigate any damage. In particular, we must have strong regulation and enforcement to ensure that any fire in the battery energy storage units can be managed without damage to the surrounding area. People, horses, wildlife and our precious watercourses.
Applications for further solar farms must take account of the needs of the horse racing industry, particularly the studs where breeding mares need a calm environment. We've also got a speculative application in the area for something called Forest City, and it's really worrying the amount of concern and stress that's causing to people, because it would completely destroy the environment of the area and really damage the horse racing industry. And yet, unless they put in a planning application and answer all the questions and have that planning application decided, they can continue to cause this stress and angst in the area with their well funded plans, but with no detail behind them.
But to end on a positive note, I was honoured to attend the National Stud graduation ceremony last week. We celebrated with the 29 graduates, all of whom have jobs to go to following their qualification, and these are people from all all areas of of our of our economy and background. Of course, some of them are people who have always been interested in horses, but some of them are people who didn't know they were interested in horses until they heard about this scheme and got involved. We had a taxi driver, someone who'd been cooking burgers, and they've all qualified with this prestigious qualification.
And as I say, they have all got jobs to go to. These people are the future of horse racing. Will the minister join with me in congratulating the graduates and thanking the staff at the National Stud for running an excellent training programme.
15:22
15:22
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you. And it's an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Harris and I thank the honourable member for Spelthorne for securing this important and timely debate, and I refer members to my register of interest, where I received hospitality from the Jockey Club, and I'm also a member of the Racing and Bloodstock Appg. Horse racing is the UK's second most attended spectator sport after men's football, with over 5 million people visiting British racecourses every year. Horse racing attendees, contrary to popular belief, come from a diverse range of socio economic and ethnic backgrounds, with 39% of horse racing tickets being purchased by women.
British horse racing is undeniably a huge success story across all the metrics, particularly in terms of economic and cultural impact. British horse racing remains a force to be reckoned with. Our races attract the best horses, we have the best bloodstock and some of the best trainers. Racing is a British cultural institution. So I would absolutely give way.
British horse racing is undeniably a huge success story across all the metrics, particularly in terms of economic and cultural impact. British horse racing remains a force to be reckoned with. Our races attract the best horses, we have the best bloodstock and some of the best trainers. Racing is a British cultural institution. So I would absolutely give way.
15:23
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I mentioned this earlier on. I think for the record, since the honourable gentleman referred to that the exciting horse race where Bond Bridge was mentioned, I think bridge came third. But what we do in Northern Ireland. Of course, sir. AP McCoy, Anthony Peter McCoy is the most famous jockey from Northern Ireland, hailing from Moneyglass, County Antrim, he is widely regarded as the greatest National Hunt jockey of all time. 4358 winners and being crowned British champion jockey for a record 20 consecutive years.
That tells you what Northern Ireland does, Madam Chair, and we can do it better than anybody else.
That tells you what Northern Ireland does, Madam Chair, and we can do it better than anybody else.
15:24
15:24
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I thank the honourable member for his excellent contribution. So it's a British cultural institution setting the gold standard for quality that steeped in rich history and prestige. Horse racing dates back more than three centuries, with thoroughbred horse racing being created here, first in the UK, and it remains closely connected with royalty, a tradition which has continued with His Majesty the King, and I was delighted that he came to the Epsom Derby this year. And this only further boosts its global reach. It's a soft power asset in the British arsenal that is already working hard for the UK on the international stage.
Four of the top ten races in the world are held in the UK. This is more than in any other country. Royal Ascot alone was broadcast to over 300 million households across 180 different countries. In 2023. The British Horseracing Authority reported that the racing industry had direct revenues in excess of 1.47 billion. Its annual contribution to the British economy was a staggering 4.1 billion, and the industry supports over 85000 people, employing them in racecourses, training yards, stables, breeding organisations as well as in the betting industry.
And in Epsom. I've been absolutely delighted to go and see the yards and meet the really hard working individuals in the training yards. British horse racing simply would not be what it is today without these people working behind the scenes. It's vital and it underpins many local communities, particularly rural ones. I've seen the positive impact of British racing in my constituency, which is the home to the Epsom Downs racecourse and host the famous Epsom Derby, and I was fortunate to be able to attend the Derby in June earlier this year, which was an incredible, exciting and fantastic event and if you haven't attended it before then I suggest that you do so.
A report commissioned on behalf of the Jockey Club highlights how economically significant the Epsom Derby is on a national scale, but also how it's just as important on the local scale for the constituency and the county that it calls home. The report found that the economic impact of the Epsom Derby in 2024 alone was over 63 million. The races, events, hospitality and visitor spending accounted for over 56 million of the total figure. The ups and downs, training facilities and employment opportunities came in a close second and third, both bringing in estimated figures of between 2.5 and 3 million.
The revenue brought in by the event highlights. Horse racing is an anchor institution in the local economy in contributing nearly £1 billion of capital through supporting regional hospitality and cultural industries in East Surrey. In the context of just how important the horse racing industry is, it's disappointing that the reform of the horse racing betting levy did not better deliver support for the industry. The levy yield for the 12 months to 31st March 2025 reached almost 109 million. Whilst this is the fourth successive year of increase in height since the levy collection reforms of 2017, it's still short of the 2007 and 2008 record of 116.5 million.
So I urge the Labour government to reconsider its decision not to support extending the levy to overseas racing, because the income of the industry continues to fall. In the past two years, the Levy Board estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen from 11 billion to 8.5 billion. The board says that this falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport's long term health. So does the minister agree that British horse racing is an international success story, a source of global soft power and a vital community asset in many towns across the UK?I will give way.
Four of the top ten races in the world are held in the UK. This is more than in any other country. Royal Ascot alone was broadcast to over 300 million households across 180 different countries. In 2023. The British Horseracing Authority reported that the racing industry had direct revenues in excess of 1.47 billion. Its annual contribution to the British economy was a staggering 4.1 billion, and the industry supports over 85000 people, employing them in racecourses, training yards, stables, breeding organisations as well as in the betting industry.
And in Epsom. I've been absolutely delighted to go and see the yards and meet the really hard working individuals in the training yards. British horse racing simply would not be what it is today without these people working behind the scenes. It's vital and it underpins many local communities, particularly rural ones. I've seen the positive impact of British racing in my constituency, which is the home to the Epsom Downs racecourse and host the famous Epsom Derby, and I was fortunate to be able to attend the Derby in June earlier this year, which was an incredible, exciting and fantastic event and if you haven't attended it before then I suggest that you do so.
A report commissioned on behalf of the Jockey Club highlights how economically significant the Epsom Derby is on a national scale, but also how it's just as important on the local scale for the constituency and the county that it calls home. The report found that the economic impact of the Epsom Derby in 2024 alone was over 63 million. The races, events, hospitality and visitor spending accounted for over 56 million of the total figure. The ups and downs, training facilities and employment opportunities came in a close second and third, both bringing in estimated figures of between 2.5 and 3 million.
The revenue brought in by the event highlights. Horse racing is an anchor institution in the local economy in contributing nearly £1 billion of capital through supporting regional hospitality and cultural industries in East Surrey. In the context of just how important the horse racing industry is, it's disappointing that the reform of the horse racing betting levy did not better deliver support for the industry. The levy yield for the 12 months to 31st March 2025 reached almost 109 million. Whilst this is the fourth successive year of increase in height since the levy collection reforms of 2017, it's still short of the 2007 and 2008 record of 116.5 million.
So I urge the Labour government to reconsider its decision not to support extending the levy to overseas racing, because the income of the industry continues to fall. In the past two years, the Levy Board estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen from 11 billion to 8.5 billion. The board says that this falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport's long term health. So does the minister agree that British horse racing is an international success story, a source of global soft power and a vital community asset in many towns across the UK?I will give way.
15:27
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Does she agree that with all good intentions, the government wanted to do something about gambling addiction?But so much has now gone on to the black market gambling and therefore we should really look at gambling addiction as a public health issue and look at other reforms that support the horse racing industry.
15:27
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Yeah, I thank the honourable member for intervention, and I absolutely agree. And I was actually recently at a Gamblers Anonymous meeting so that I could actually, for myself firsthand understand the actual real world consequences of gambling. So I wanted to ask what actions the Labour government are taking to ensure that British horseracing continues to thrive and prosper. This support is more important than ever and has public backing. The 2025 Appg on Racing and Bloodstock found that 53% of Britons say that horse racing is an important part of their culture.
66% say that they view racing as an important part of their identity of their towns such as Newmarket, Doncaster and Cheltenham. We've heard from many members representing those constituencies today, and a further 56% stated that they support a law requiring greater reinvestment into British horse racing. I'd also like to highlight serious concerns about the future of Kempton Racecourse, as the honourable and gallant member for Spelthorne has spelt out today with his racing commentary. Where the racecourse is currently under threat from housing development on the entire site.
If this goes ahead, it will have a devastating impact on the Epsom horse racing community due to its close proximity to Epsom Downs. Kempton Park is a major source of various racing opportunities throughout the year, offering a safe all weather race surface. If lost. This would require the Epsom horses and their trainers to travel much further distances afield to find suitable races. This is simply unacceptable, so I urge the Minister to consider the consequences that this closure and redevelopment will have on the Epsom horse racing community if it goes ahead.
So I ask the Minister if it's at all possible to find a compromise if such an application is submitted, that would keep all parties happy. For example, the development only going ahead on the backlands of the Kempton Park site. While the racecourse is maintained in its current form, as well as supporting the industry and our racetracks, we need to ensure that we protect the horses, which are the backbone of the support of the sport. Animal aid reported that in 2025, 254 horses were killed due to racing, while 641 total whip abuses were recorded across 515 incidents.
This is absolutely tragic and we must absolutely do more to protect our racehorses. The Liberal Democrats are clear that animal welfare must always be upheld, and that human entertainment will never be acceptable justification for poor animal welfare. So we're calling on the government to prevent the abuse of racehorses and reduce avoidable deaths by creating an independent regulatory body for horse welfare. This body would be separate from the British Horseracing Authority. I'd also like to highlight the tireless campaigning by my honourable friend for Newbury, a fellow supporter of British horse racing.
For over a year, he has repeatedly championed for greater equestrian safety, particularly for horses and their riders. When on our roads. I urge the minister and all those here today to listen to his campaign and to support his private member's bill on horse and rider safety. We also can't talk about horse racing without talking about betting and gambling, which many view as synonymous with the sport. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms. We recognise the dangers that gambling can cause, such as psychological distress, financial and social difficulties.
We also recognise that there is a distinction between the harms posed by betting on horse racing and by online gaming slots. This is why we propose doubling the rate of remote gaming duty, and didn't support the government's proposals to harmonise gambling tax rates. And we're thankful that the government listened to the Liberal Democrats and adopted our proposal by doubling the remote gaming duty. But we need to. But we continue to believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by gambling, especially when it comes to gambling advertising.
To end, I would like to reaffirm my support for British horse racing. British horse racing is an undeniable success story, and I urge the Minister to reflect on the contributions made here today and listen to my calls to guarantee that we continue to do all we can to support this important industry.
66% say that they view racing as an important part of their identity of their towns such as Newmarket, Doncaster and Cheltenham. We've heard from many members representing those constituencies today, and a further 56% stated that they support a law requiring greater reinvestment into British horse racing. I'd also like to highlight serious concerns about the future of Kempton Racecourse, as the honourable and gallant member for Spelthorne has spelt out today with his racing commentary. Where the racecourse is currently under threat from housing development on the entire site.
If this goes ahead, it will have a devastating impact on the Epsom horse racing community due to its close proximity to Epsom Downs. Kempton Park is a major source of various racing opportunities throughout the year, offering a safe all weather race surface. If lost. This would require the Epsom horses and their trainers to travel much further distances afield to find suitable races. This is simply unacceptable, so I urge the Minister to consider the consequences that this closure and redevelopment will have on the Epsom horse racing community if it goes ahead.
So I ask the Minister if it's at all possible to find a compromise if such an application is submitted, that would keep all parties happy. For example, the development only going ahead on the backlands of the Kempton Park site. While the racecourse is maintained in its current form, as well as supporting the industry and our racetracks, we need to ensure that we protect the horses, which are the backbone of the support of the sport. Animal aid reported that in 2025, 254 horses were killed due to racing, while 641 total whip abuses were recorded across 515 incidents.
This is absolutely tragic and we must absolutely do more to protect our racehorses. The Liberal Democrats are clear that animal welfare must always be upheld, and that human entertainment will never be acceptable justification for poor animal welfare. So we're calling on the government to prevent the abuse of racehorses and reduce avoidable deaths by creating an independent regulatory body for horse welfare. This body would be separate from the British Horseracing Authority. I'd also like to highlight the tireless campaigning by my honourable friend for Newbury, a fellow supporter of British horse racing.
For over a year, he has repeatedly championed for greater equestrian safety, particularly for horses and their riders. When on our roads. I urge the minister and all those here today to listen to his campaign and to support his private member's bill on horse and rider safety. We also can't talk about horse racing without talking about betting and gambling, which many view as synonymous with the sport. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms. We recognise the dangers that gambling can cause, such as psychological distress, financial and social difficulties.
We also recognise that there is a distinction between the harms posed by betting on horse racing and by online gaming slots. This is why we propose doubling the rate of remote gaming duty, and didn't support the government's proposals to harmonise gambling tax rates. And we're thankful that the government listened to the Liberal Democrats and adopted our proposal by doubling the remote gaming duty. But we need to. But we continue to believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by gambling, especially when it comes to gambling advertising.
To end, I would like to reaffirm my support for British horse racing. British horse racing is an undeniable success story, and I urge the Minister to reflect on the contributions made here today and listen to my calls to guarantee that we continue to do all we can to support this important industry.
15:31
15:31
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Miss Harris, as always, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And I will start by referring members to remember in the House, sorry to my register of interest and also highlight that I have visited and met a number of trainers in the two years as Shadow Minister, both with the Appg and also just as the Shadow Minister. Let me also start by congratulating my honourable friend for Spelthorne, uh, on securing this important debate. No one can doubt the passion for which he speaks for British horse racing and for his constituents, and more widely for racing, who have raised concerns about the future of Kempton and, more broadly for the sport.
Dare I say he might have a future open to him in commentary, given the the opening of today's debate. So watch out, Ruby Walsh. That was a very impressive, uh, yeah, very, very, very impressive. And like him, I did enjoy, uh, the King George and seeing Harry Redknapp, uh, being, being the winning, winning owner. In fact, I have enjoyed going to Kempton over the years. Um, Madam Chair, and I know Kempton Park means a great deal to a large number of people, not just in the immediate community around the racecourse, but to the wider London and South East community that, you know, see Kempton Park as one of its home courses alongside Lingfield, which is slightly closer to where to where I live in south east London.
And I do understand the concerns that he has around the development proposals that might be coming forward, and also the broader, uh, weakening of greenbelt protections, which this government has undertook. And this is an issue that I've raised on a number of occasions as the shadow sports Minister. Obviously, today we are talking about the impact that might have on British horse racing, but it's also a concern that is felt across all of British sports, in particular the role in the future of Sport England, which is also part of this broader concern around the impact on planning protections.
We must ensure that if we're going to continue to have great British sports, that future generations and current generations have somewhere to go and watch sports, whether that is at the elite level or what we're talking about today, or whether that's at the grassroots. And it's a concern that I hope the government does listen to very carefully. I know it's not just the DCMs issue, it is a local government issue, but it's a concern that is felt across this House and across a number of sports. Now, more broadly, today's debate is about the future of British horse racing as a whole, and I really enjoyed listening to the contributions for a number of members that I know do care passionately about the sport and do work very hard as part of the Appg, horse racing is one of Britain's greatest sporting success stories.
It is woven into our national identity and remains one of our most successful global sporting exports. It's also an industry of enormous, enormous economic importance, particularly to our rural economy. British horseracing contributes around £4.1 billion to the UK economy every year, sports more than 85,000 jobs and generates around £300 million annually in tax revenues for the Treasury. More than 500 training yards and 660 stud farms support rural communities across the country. Won more than 5 million racegoers attended Britain's 59 racecourses last year, with attendances increasing by 5% year on year.
The industry's value extends far beyond these headlines, as we all know, it supports hotels, pubs, restaurants and countless small businesses across the country. It provides opportunities for people from every background, from institutions such as the National Horse Racing College that we've heard about already, and the British Racing School. British breeding attracts significant international investment. While our welfare standards are rightly regarded as the best anywhere in the world. In fact, Madam Chair, since 2000, British horseracing has invested £63 million, I understand, into veterinary research helping reduce fatal injuries on the racecourse by around a third.
And I've had the privilege, alongside a number of members in the room, to visit some of these facilities across the country. As the shadow Minister for sport and Gambling, I also recognise the unique relationship between horse racing and betting, which has been referred to already today. Unlike almost any other sport, horse racing's finances are fundamentally intertwined with a well-regulated betting industry. Media rights, sponsorship and the horse betting levy together contribute around £350 million every year to British horse racing, and I did. I did smile listening to some of the comments from some members that seek to, um, perhaps say that we should have tighter regulations on gambling and then also complain about a reduction in funding for horse racing.
For me, that position, you know, it's classic trying to look both ways by a certain party. I don't think that's a position that most people in racing recognise, and we have to be honest about the trade offs at play here, because we support a evidence led, proportionate regulation that protects the most vulnerable people, but whilst also allowing the 22.5 million adults in Britain who bet each month and do so safely today, the Gambling Commission has announced that following a protracted pilot period, there will be a phased introduction of affordability checks over the course of an implementation period of an unspecified length.
This has caused huge concern already, madam Chair. It was something that we had hoped that there would be serious reflection upon by government and the Gambling Commission itself. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Um, I have raised on a number of occasions my concerns, which was raised by my honourable colleague opposite about the lack of oversight by the government of this decision of an arm's length body. It seems a complete dereliction of duty by the government and by DCMs in particular, to have allowed the Gambling Commission to go ahead without bringing this back to Parliament following the pilot.
That is deeply concerning to me as a shadow minister, and I think it's deeply offensive to this House that would like to scrutinise these decisions. As elected members of the British public, so it is disappointing. Decision has gone ahead and there will be severe financial consequences and implications for the sport of horse racing and for jobs in this country, and it does, you know, we can look at this from a variety of aspects. You know, the intrusion element onto people that want to have a bet safely and that want to do so, uh, with their well earned money in a safe environment, I think we can all see the risk of consequences.
I remember a debate in this place, uh, under the last Parliament, where I was one of the few members that come into the room without a horse track in my constituency with no ministerial shadow ministerial responsibilities, but raised the same concerns about the impact this could have on British horse racing. Consider a week such as Cheltenham or Aintree, the amount of money that gets spent in those week. We could see these, these regulations triggered very quickly and we could see more and more people driven to that illegal black market, which should be the concern of every single member in this House.
Regardless of your perspective on gambling and on horse racing, that is the biggest threat to gamblers and to people suffering with addiction in this country. And we must not continue with these unintended consequences of policy. I find it completely unacceptable for members to stand up in this place and to consider and continue to continue to advocate for British horse racing and for safe, regulated gambling in this country, but then continue to put the hurdles and the obstacles in way which continue to drive the black market in this country.
Enough is enough. We have to be honest about the decisions we are making as policy makers, and we have to be honest and decisions that we are ducking and allowing the Gambling Commission to do without the scrutiny of this elected chamber and this elected House should be doing, because around 120,000 horse racing bettors could face enhanced financial checks, with the majority expected simply to refuse them, reducing betting turnover and cutting living levy income for the sport, all while moving those punters into the black market, which I've said is growing significantly under this government.
The previous conservative government made clear that these checks should only proceed if they can be delivered entirely frictionless. Yet following the Gambling Commission's pilot, decisions were delayed and independent analysis was not fully published. More concerning Madam Deputy. Madam. Madam Deputy speaker, Madam Chair. Sorry, apologies. I'm getting excited. This policy has now been signed off for implementation without key stakeholders in horse racing and betting, being able to see that vital evidence, such as the independent review of the pilot, the Gambling Commission is now operating, I believe, beyond its remit, and must be brought to task by this House or by the government itself.
I hope the Minister will agree with me. Like other policies introduced through the Gambling White Paper in 2023, this decision needs to have full and proper parliamentary scrutiny now. I appreciate the Minister's department are very busy with another race currently underway for who is the future Prime Minister and who perhaps is the future Member of Parliament for Clacton?I understand that sir has just been set off whilst we're in this chamber. However, for this decision to be taken unilaterally, laterally by the Gambling Commission does show a clear, like I said, abduction of duty by the Department for culture, Media and Sport, which I do believe sadly has failed to grasp the.
The the necessary details here and to bring it back. It's quite simple. These checks have been proven by the Gambling Commission's own pilot to not be fully frictionless, as promised by ministers in this government, as well as the previous evidence suggests that illegal betting has expanded dramatically in recent years as more and more burdens and taxes have been placed on the regulated market directly, resulting in significant migration away from the regulated market. I have said, Madam Chair, a number of times. I have no problems with bashing the bookies, but I want it to be done in the most traditional sense and that is those that want to have a bet on the horse that they want to win.
Bashing the bookies in that sense, not the government continuing to drive this underground illegal black market trade, which we know is fuelling some very, very dodgy characters overseas. Illegal operators, as we know, pay no UK tax. They make no contribution to horse racing, provide none of the consumer protections required of licensed operators, and create serious integrity risks for the sport itself. The Treasury has already estimated to be losing around £300 million annually through this activity, and this is only likely likely to increase with both the punitive tax rises from this Labour government and the introduction of these financial checks, the government could not claim that it has not been warned.
I've spent the best part of two years warning the government. This is only going to get worse, and I know there are Labour members in this House that share these concerns. If we generally want consumers to remain protected, we should be encouraging them to stay within that regulated market rather than unintentionally pushing them elsewhere. The horse racing industry also needs and deserves clear engagement from the government. So I hope the minister will answer a number of questions, which I believe are fairly straightforward today, Madam Chair, to finish, will she commit to stronger engagement with the Horse Racing Authority and wider industry, regardless of who is in number ten?Will she ensure the Anti-Gambling Commission publishes a full update on the Financial Risk Assessment pilot before any further decisions are taken?Will she require that the Gambling Commission publishes an implementation timeline for these intrusive checks?Will she also tell us what steps will be taken to ensure that answers from credit reference agencies will be consistently given with results, and that there will be no discrepancies between agencies recommendations?And finally, will she work across government to ensure that British horse racing continues to receive the support that an industry contributing billions to our economy, sustaining tens of thousands of jobs, and performing such an important part of British sporting heritage, gets the scrutiny and the support it deserves.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge the government to heed my words today and to do all it can to support the British horse racing traditions. Thank you.
Dare I say he might have a future open to him in commentary, given the the opening of today's debate. So watch out, Ruby Walsh. That was a very impressive, uh, yeah, very, very, very impressive. And like him, I did enjoy, uh, the King George and seeing Harry Redknapp, uh, being, being the winning, winning owner. In fact, I have enjoyed going to Kempton over the years. Um, Madam Chair, and I know Kempton Park means a great deal to a large number of people, not just in the immediate community around the racecourse, but to the wider London and South East community that, you know, see Kempton Park as one of its home courses alongside Lingfield, which is slightly closer to where to where I live in south east London.
And I do understand the concerns that he has around the development proposals that might be coming forward, and also the broader, uh, weakening of greenbelt protections, which this government has undertook. And this is an issue that I've raised on a number of occasions as the shadow sports Minister. Obviously, today we are talking about the impact that might have on British horse racing, but it's also a concern that is felt across all of British sports, in particular the role in the future of Sport England, which is also part of this broader concern around the impact on planning protections.
We must ensure that if we're going to continue to have great British sports, that future generations and current generations have somewhere to go and watch sports, whether that is at the elite level or what we're talking about today, or whether that's at the grassroots. And it's a concern that I hope the government does listen to very carefully. I know it's not just the DCMs issue, it is a local government issue, but it's a concern that is felt across this House and across a number of sports. Now, more broadly, today's debate is about the future of British horse racing as a whole, and I really enjoyed listening to the contributions for a number of members that I know do care passionately about the sport and do work very hard as part of the Appg, horse racing is one of Britain's greatest sporting success stories.
It is woven into our national identity and remains one of our most successful global sporting exports. It's also an industry of enormous, enormous economic importance, particularly to our rural economy. British horseracing contributes around £4.1 billion to the UK economy every year, sports more than 85,000 jobs and generates around £300 million annually in tax revenues for the Treasury. More than 500 training yards and 660 stud farms support rural communities across the country. Won more than 5 million racegoers attended Britain's 59 racecourses last year, with attendances increasing by 5% year on year.
The industry's value extends far beyond these headlines, as we all know, it supports hotels, pubs, restaurants and countless small businesses across the country. It provides opportunities for people from every background, from institutions such as the National Horse Racing College that we've heard about already, and the British Racing School. British breeding attracts significant international investment. While our welfare standards are rightly regarded as the best anywhere in the world. In fact, Madam Chair, since 2000, British horseracing has invested £63 million, I understand, into veterinary research helping reduce fatal injuries on the racecourse by around a third.
And I've had the privilege, alongside a number of members in the room, to visit some of these facilities across the country. As the shadow Minister for sport and Gambling, I also recognise the unique relationship between horse racing and betting, which has been referred to already today. Unlike almost any other sport, horse racing's finances are fundamentally intertwined with a well-regulated betting industry. Media rights, sponsorship and the horse betting levy together contribute around £350 million every year to British horse racing, and I did. I did smile listening to some of the comments from some members that seek to, um, perhaps say that we should have tighter regulations on gambling and then also complain about a reduction in funding for horse racing.
For me, that position, you know, it's classic trying to look both ways by a certain party. I don't think that's a position that most people in racing recognise, and we have to be honest about the trade offs at play here, because we support a evidence led, proportionate regulation that protects the most vulnerable people, but whilst also allowing the 22.5 million adults in Britain who bet each month and do so safely today, the Gambling Commission has announced that following a protracted pilot period, there will be a phased introduction of affordability checks over the course of an implementation period of an unspecified length.
This has caused huge concern already, madam Chair. It was something that we had hoped that there would be serious reflection upon by government and the Gambling Commission itself. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Um, I have raised on a number of occasions my concerns, which was raised by my honourable colleague opposite about the lack of oversight by the government of this decision of an arm's length body. It seems a complete dereliction of duty by the government and by DCMs in particular, to have allowed the Gambling Commission to go ahead without bringing this back to Parliament following the pilot.
That is deeply concerning to me as a shadow minister, and I think it's deeply offensive to this House that would like to scrutinise these decisions. As elected members of the British public, so it is disappointing. Decision has gone ahead and there will be severe financial consequences and implications for the sport of horse racing and for jobs in this country, and it does, you know, we can look at this from a variety of aspects. You know, the intrusion element onto people that want to have a bet safely and that want to do so, uh, with their well earned money in a safe environment, I think we can all see the risk of consequences.
I remember a debate in this place, uh, under the last Parliament, where I was one of the few members that come into the room without a horse track in my constituency with no ministerial shadow ministerial responsibilities, but raised the same concerns about the impact this could have on British horse racing. Consider a week such as Cheltenham or Aintree, the amount of money that gets spent in those week. We could see these, these regulations triggered very quickly and we could see more and more people driven to that illegal black market, which should be the concern of every single member in this House.
Regardless of your perspective on gambling and on horse racing, that is the biggest threat to gamblers and to people suffering with addiction in this country. And we must not continue with these unintended consequences of policy. I find it completely unacceptable for members to stand up in this place and to consider and continue to continue to advocate for British horse racing and for safe, regulated gambling in this country, but then continue to put the hurdles and the obstacles in way which continue to drive the black market in this country.
Enough is enough. We have to be honest about the decisions we are making as policy makers, and we have to be honest and decisions that we are ducking and allowing the Gambling Commission to do without the scrutiny of this elected chamber and this elected House should be doing, because around 120,000 horse racing bettors could face enhanced financial checks, with the majority expected simply to refuse them, reducing betting turnover and cutting living levy income for the sport, all while moving those punters into the black market, which I've said is growing significantly under this government.
The previous conservative government made clear that these checks should only proceed if they can be delivered entirely frictionless. Yet following the Gambling Commission's pilot, decisions were delayed and independent analysis was not fully published. More concerning Madam Deputy. Madam. Madam Deputy speaker, Madam Chair. Sorry, apologies. I'm getting excited. This policy has now been signed off for implementation without key stakeholders in horse racing and betting, being able to see that vital evidence, such as the independent review of the pilot, the Gambling Commission is now operating, I believe, beyond its remit, and must be brought to task by this House or by the government itself.
I hope the Minister will agree with me. Like other policies introduced through the Gambling White Paper in 2023, this decision needs to have full and proper parliamentary scrutiny now. I appreciate the Minister's department are very busy with another race currently underway for who is the future Prime Minister and who perhaps is the future Member of Parliament for Clacton?I understand that sir has just been set off whilst we're in this chamber. However, for this decision to be taken unilaterally, laterally by the Gambling Commission does show a clear, like I said, abduction of duty by the Department for culture, Media and Sport, which I do believe sadly has failed to grasp the.
The the necessary details here and to bring it back. It's quite simple. These checks have been proven by the Gambling Commission's own pilot to not be fully frictionless, as promised by ministers in this government, as well as the previous evidence suggests that illegal betting has expanded dramatically in recent years as more and more burdens and taxes have been placed on the regulated market directly, resulting in significant migration away from the regulated market. I have said, Madam Chair, a number of times. I have no problems with bashing the bookies, but I want it to be done in the most traditional sense and that is those that want to have a bet on the horse that they want to win.
Bashing the bookies in that sense, not the government continuing to drive this underground illegal black market trade, which we know is fuelling some very, very dodgy characters overseas. Illegal operators, as we know, pay no UK tax. They make no contribution to horse racing, provide none of the consumer protections required of licensed operators, and create serious integrity risks for the sport itself. The Treasury has already estimated to be losing around £300 million annually through this activity, and this is only likely likely to increase with both the punitive tax rises from this Labour government and the introduction of these financial checks, the government could not claim that it has not been warned.
I've spent the best part of two years warning the government. This is only going to get worse, and I know there are Labour members in this House that share these concerns. If we generally want consumers to remain protected, we should be encouraging them to stay within that regulated market rather than unintentionally pushing them elsewhere. The horse racing industry also needs and deserves clear engagement from the government. So I hope the minister will answer a number of questions, which I believe are fairly straightforward today, Madam Chair, to finish, will she commit to stronger engagement with the Horse Racing Authority and wider industry, regardless of who is in number ten?Will she ensure the Anti-Gambling Commission publishes a full update on the Financial Risk Assessment pilot before any further decisions are taken?Will she require that the Gambling Commission publishes an implementation timeline for these intrusive checks?Will she also tell us what steps will be taken to ensure that answers from credit reference agencies will be consistently given with results, and that there will be no discrepancies between agencies recommendations?And finally, will she work across government to ensure that British horse racing continues to receive the support that an industry contributing billions to our economy, sustaining tens of thousands of jobs, and performing such an important part of British sporting heritage, gets the scrutiny and the support it deserves.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge the government to heed my words today and to do all it can to support the British horse racing traditions. Thank you.
15:42
15:42
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair, Mrs. Harris, and I'd like to begin by congratulating the honourable member for Thorne on securing this vital debate on the future of horse racing. There have been many valuable contributions in this debate, and I'm going to try and respond to all the points made to me. Of course, I'm not the gambling minister. She sits in the other place, so I will also make sure that she may write to some members on some points, but I know, um the on I recognise the focus of this debate is on the future of Kempton Park.
I know the honourable member for Spelthorne is deeply concerned about the long term option agreement on the racecourse land, which runs until 2028, and the local anxieties around potential housing development on greenbelt and on floodplain. He made a couple of points around the national policy framework. It doesn't seek. Um so where it does seek to support the development of land connected to the rail railway stations, this does not grant automatic permission or remove appropriate local oversight. I have asked my office to reach out to my counterpart in Mhclg.
You will appreciate that planning is an issue for local authorities and for Mhclg, and I'm sure my counterpart will will meet with him. I know the Gambling Minister will be very happy to meet with him. I spoke to her earlier today, but this is this particular point I'm planning is of course for MH CLG. And you know, in his speech he made he's a strong advocate for his constituency and indeed for the industry. And through the examples he shared the many emails, but also the public meeting at the magpie pub that he shared.
It's clearly an issue that will be of real concern to his constituents and recognise that the significance of the track dating back, I think he said to 1878, and I do recognise that while the developer has stated that a planning application is not imminent this year, the government does fully recognise the immense sporting and cultural value of this historic venue. Kempton Park is home, of course, to the iconic King George VI Chase on Boxing Day, a legendary steeplechase. Any mid-season highlight of the jumps calendar that is fiercely defended by leading trainers and racing fans alike, some of which join us in the gallery today.
And I thought the honourable member illustrated this very powerfully in his opening remarks, and I might just draw his attention to the fact that there are 40 examples of racecourses being represented on the National Heritage List for England, with grandstands, pavilions and racing stables included, so I might encourage the member to submit an application to Historic England. If you'd like a specific part of Kempton Park Racecourse to be considered for listing, that might be something that he wishes to consider. But I just obviously reiterate that while any specific development proposal remains a matter for local government and the independent planning process, we do completely understand just how much this internationally famous racecourse means to the heritage of British racing and the local community, and as the honourable member will appreciate, I'm sure he will appreciate where those decisions lie.
But I will, after this debate, write to him and set up the meetings that I've committed to do so. His Majesty's Government recognised the significant contribution that racing makes to British culture and its particular importance to the British economy. As has been rightly mentioned, it plays a central role to the livelihood of many different communities, and I am well aware, from my time as the Shadow Minister for gambling, of the strength of support on both sides of the House for horse racing and, of course, some of the concerns and challenges that it faces.
British horse racing is world class. It is a world class industry and it is the envy of the global sporting community. As the member for Liverpool, it was a joy to see him in Liverpool in his home city last week rightly highlighted whether it be flagship events like Royal Ascot, the Cheltenham Festival Festival, Goodwood and York, the major international attractions. But of course we've got. We had two members from Doncaster here and it's absolutely important to recognise the 250 year anniversary of the Leger.
It was a delight to join the Honourable Lady back in 2023. At the same day that I believe His Majesty the King was in attendance, I've been pleased to go to the lecture on more than one occasion. I'd be delighted to go back again, and I know just how important, just down the road from my constituency, how important Donnie Racecourse is. But beyond the glamour of some of the elite festivals, racing is an economic powerhouse. It's our nation's second largest spectator sport, contributing over 4 billion annually to the economy and supporting approximately 85000 jobs, many of which are vital, vital to the sustainability of our rural communities.
And as the Minister for tourism, I am aware of the reputation Britain has as a global leader in racing and breeding. Indeed, it is promoted worldwide as part of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland campaign, demonstrating the role that sport plays in soft power. Now, I do recognise that the concerns of the industry, and indeed of members have been raised about the introduction of financial risk assessments. The Gambling Commission today announced its intention to implement these assessments through a careful, phased approach, and the Commission outlined.
The recent pilot demonstrated that these assessments can successfully identify individuals in severe financial distress without intruding on the overwhelming majority of customers. Now, crucially, the pilot showed that for those that did reach the threshold for assessment, checks can be undertaken without friction. In 97% of cases. And of course, remember, it only affects 0.5% of customers. However, I do fully appreciate the concerns put to me. This, of course, is a policy that dates back established in the 2023 White Paper under the previous government.
So there has been three years of this policy being implemented, a two year pilot, any phase implementation, the shadow minister and indeed other members have raised concerns and put questions to me, and I recognize the honourable member. The Shadow Minister has taken a keen interest in this subject. On the 16th of November 23, he put a written question to the then gambling minister, and in that reply, the Gambling Minister under the previous government talked about how the current system was inconsistent and how we want to bring some uniformity.
There was a point put to me by the honourable member from Liverpool about where the policy is set. The policy is set by government. Indeed, it started under the previous government. It's continued under this. And the gambling gambling minister, who sits in the other place is responsible for that, and the implementation is for the Gambling Commission. Having spoken to the gambling Minister, I know she has met with the Gambling Commission and put many of these questions to them.
I'm sure the Gambling Commission would meet any member of this House, and indeed, I can set up that meeting if that would be welcome. But I have heard that the points that members have put to me, and I will take them back to the gambling Minister, and indeed. Yep. Go on.
I know the honourable member for Spelthorne is deeply concerned about the long term option agreement on the racecourse land, which runs until 2028, and the local anxieties around potential housing development on greenbelt and on floodplain. He made a couple of points around the national policy framework. It doesn't seek. Um so where it does seek to support the development of land connected to the rail railway stations, this does not grant automatic permission or remove appropriate local oversight. I have asked my office to reach out to my counterpart in Mhclg.
You will appreciate that planning is an issue for local authorities and for Mhclg, and I'm sure my counterpart will will meet with him. I know the Gambling Minister will be very happy to meet with him. I spoke to her earlier today, but this is this particular point I'm planning is of course for MH CLG. And you know, in his speech he made he's a strong advocate for his constituency and indeed for the industry. And through the examples he shared the many emails, but also the public meeting at the magpie pub that he shared.
It's clearly an issue that will be of real concern to his constituents and recognise that the significance of the track dating back, I think he said to 1878, and I do recognise that while the developer has stated that a planning application is not imminent this year, the government does fully recognise the immense sporting and cultural value of this historic venue. Kempton Park is home, of course, to the iconic King George VI Chase on Boxing Day, a legendary steeplechase. Any mid-season highlight of the jumps calendar that is fiercely defended by leading trainers and racing fans alike, some of which join us in the gallery today.
And I thought the honourable member illustrated this very powerfully in his opening remarks, and I might just draw his attention to the fact that there are 40 examples of racecourses being represented on the National Heritage List for England, with grandstands, pavilions and racing stables included, so I might encourage the member to submit an application to Historic England. If you'd like a specific part of Kempton Park Racecourse to be considered for listing, that might be something that he wishes to consider. But I just obviously reiterate that while any specific development proposal remains a matter for local government and the independent planning process, we do completely understand just how much this internationally famous racecourse means to the heritage of British racing and the local community, and as the honourable member will appreciate, I'm sure he will appreciate where those decisions lie.
But I will, after this debate, write to him and set up the meetings that I've committed to do so. His Majesty's Government recognised the significant contribution that racing makes to British culture and its particular importance to the British economy. As has been rightly mentioned, it plays a central role to the livelihood of many different communities, and I am well aware, from my time as the Shadow Minister for gambling, of the strength of support on both sides of the House for horse racing and, of course, some of the concerns and challenges that it faces.
British horse racing is world class. It is a world class industry and it is the envy of the global sporting community. As the member for Liverpool, it was a joy to see him in Liverpool in his home city last week rightly highlighted whether it be flagship events like Royal Ascot, the Cheltenham Festival Festival, Goodwood and York, the major international attractions. But of course we've got. We had two members from Doncaster here and it's absolutely important to recognise the 250 year anniversary of the Leger.
It was a delight to join the Honourable Lady back in 2023. At the same day that I believe His Majesty the King was in attendance, I've been pleased to go to the lecture on more than one occasion. I'd be delighted to go back again, and I know just how important, just down the road from my constituency, how important Donnie Racecourse is. But beyond the glamour of some of the elite festivals, racing is an economic powerhouse. It's our nation's second largest spectator sport, contributing over 4 billion annually to the economy and supporting approximately 85000 jobs, many of which are vital, vital to the sustainability of our rural communities.
And as the Minister for tourism, I am aware of the reputation Britain has as a global leader in racing and breeding. Indeed, it is promoted worldwide as part of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland campaign, demonstrating the role that sport plays in soft power. Now, I do recognise that the concerns of the industry, and indeed of members have been raised about the introduction of financial risk assessments. The Gambling Commission today announced its intention to implement these assessments through a careful, phased approach, and the Commission outlined.
The recent pilot demonstrated that these assessments can successfully identify individuals in severe financial distress without intruding on the overwhelming majority of customers. Now, crucially, the pilot showed that for those that did reach the threshold for assessment, checks can be undertaken without friction. In 97% of cases. And of course, remember, it only affects 0.5% of customers. However, I do fully appreciate the concerns put to me. This, of course, is a policy that dates back established in the 2023 White Paper under the previous government.
So there has been three years of this policy being implemented, a two year pilot, any phase implementation, the shadow minister and indeed other members have raised concerns and put questions to me, and I recognize the honourable member. The Shadow Minister has taken a keen interest in this subject. On the 16th of November 23, he put a written question to the then gambling minister, and in that reply, the Gambling Minister under the previous government talked about how the current system was inconsistent and how we want to bring some uniformity.
There was a point put to me by the honourable member from Liverpool about where the policy is set. The policy is set by government. Indeed, it started under the previous government. It's continued under this. And the gambling gambling minister, who sits in the other place is responsible for that, and the implementation is for the Gambling Commission. Having spoken to the gambling Minister, I know she has met with the Gambling Commission and put many of these questions to them.
I'm sure the Gambling Commission would meet any member of this House, and indeed, I can set up that meeting if that would be welcome. But I have heard that the points that members have put to me, and I will take them back to the gambling Minister, and indeed. Yep. Go on.
15:49
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for giving way. I think we're beyond this, he said. She said what happened in previous parliaments, the commitment from the previous government was clear that these checks must be frictionless. The comments of the minister now the previous shadow minister, was also that these should be frictionless. In your comments, you've acknowledged that they they're not frictionless completely. So why are we proceeding with something that is against what the previous government and what this government said was their policy?I mean.
15:50
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I recognise the point the honourable member makes. I quoted him in recognising his consistency on this issue. I recognise that he put questions to the previous government on this. 97% has been frictionless in the pilot. Obviously it hasn't yet been rolled out. It will be and it will be considered and kept under close. Uh, close consideration. He did actually, in fairness, put a couple of other questions to me. I understand that the evidence will be published in due course, and I understand the implementation timeline will be published after the summer, but I will ensure.
If you would like to meet with the gambling Minister on that, and indeed, I'm sure she will meet with other members if they are interested. Uh, I'm now going to just move on to speak a little bit about how horse racing holds a unique position as the only sport in receipt of a direct, government mandated levy, which is paid by bookmakers at 10% of gross profits and is projected to return 110 million to the sport this year. Following a comprehensive review of the levy. A written statement to this House in March outlined that there won't be legislative legislative changes to its rate or scope at this time.
In last year's budget, the Chancellor announced British horse racing was specifically carved out of the increase to gambling duty, an increase that affected overseas racing and other forms of betting. We recognise that bookmakers already contribute through the 10% levy and we want to acknowledge the value, the role the sport plays to British culture. The member for Stoke, who is no longer in his place, raised the unintended consequences with me and I will ensure the gambling minister writes to him, but I will reflect those concerns also to the Treasury.
As announced last week in our response to the consultation on fees on course, bookmakers will now be charged on the basis of gross gambling yield rather than days of operation, and this removes a significant financial disincentive for bookmakers to attend smaller race meetings and will result in a fee reduction for 44% of operators in this category, and I am incredibly encouraged by the proactive and ambitious steps of the racing sector is taking to innovate. The British horse racing authorities work on Project Beacon and Project Pace show exactly the kind of forward thinking strategy needed to protect and grow the sport.
Now, members have raised valid points about the risk of consumers moving to the unlicensed illegal gambling market. The government recognises that this threat exists. We are taking action in this space, including providing an additional £26 million of funding over three years to enable the Gambling Commission to increase its enforcement activity. The Illegal Gambling Task Force, chaired by Baroness Twycross, is actively considering what more can be done to tackle these threats, and they will meet again later this month. We are also committed to ensuring that the licensed sector is not placed at a commercial disadvantage, and to support this, we will soon launch a consultation on banning unlicensed gambling sponsors in sport and we will continue to work across government to crack down on illegal advertising.
And finally, I would like to just touch upon the issue at the very heart of the sport, the welfare of the animals. Over the last 20 years, British racing has invested over £47 million in veterinary research and education, with funding from the Levy Board and more recently, the Racing Foundation, and to build on this progress, the Levy Board is committing 3.7 million to disease surveillance, veterinary Science and Education program starting this year. I will give way.
If you would like to meet with the gambling Minister on that, and indeed, I'm sure she will meet with other members if they are interested. Uh, I'm now going to just move on to speak a little bit about how horse racing holds a unique position as the only sport in receipt of a direct, government mandated levy, which is paid by bookmakers at 10% of gross profits and is projected to return 110 million to the sport this year. Following a comprehensive review of the levy. A written statement to this House in March outlined that there won't be legislative legislative changes to its rate or scope at this time.
In last year's budget, the Chancellor announced British horse racing was specifically carved out of the increase to gambling duty, an increase that affected overseas racing and other forms of betting. We recognise that bookmakers already contribute through the 10% levy and we want to acknowledge the value, the role the sport plays to British culture. The member for Stoke, who is no longer in his place, raised the unintended consequences with me and I will ensure the gambling minister writes to him, but I will reflect those concerns also to the Treasury.
As announced last week in our response to the consultation on fees on course, bookmakers will now be charged on the basis of gross gambling yield rather than days of operation, and this removes a significant financial disincentive for bookmakers to attend smaller race meetings and will result in a fee reduction for 44% of operators in this category, and I am incredibly encouraged by the proactive and ambitious steps of the racing sector is taking to innovate. The British horse racing authorities work on Project Beacon and Project Pace show exactly the kind of forward thinking strategy needed to protect and grow the sport.
Now, members have raised valid points about the risk of consumers moving to the unlicensed illegal gambling market. The government recognises that this threat exists. We are taking action in this space, including providing an additional £26 million of funding over three years to enable the Gambling Commission to increase its enforcement activity. The Illegal Gambling Task Force, chaired by Baroness Twycross, is actively considering what more can be done to tackle these threats, and they will meet again later this month. We are also committed to ensuring that the licensed sector is not placed at a commercial disadvantage, and to support this, we will soon launch a consultation on banning unlicensed gambling sponsors in sport and we will continue to work across government to crack down on illegal advertising.
And finally, I would like to just touch upon the issue at the very heart of the sport, the welfare of the animals. Over the last 20 years, British racing has invested over £47 million in veterinary research and education, with funding from the Levy Board and more recently, the Racing Foundation, and to build on this progress, the Levy Board is committing 3.7 million to disease surveillance, veterinary Science and Education program starting this year. I will give way.
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Absolutely. Make that commitment. I think I touched on some of the points that she made, but I'll I'll make sure she receives that letter. And so in conclusion, British horse racing is a cherished part of our national heritage heritage and an invaluable contributor to our economy. As I've reflected in this place before, I have a number of happy memories of going to the races myself, in particular down the road from my constituency to races, but in particular to York races, where I spent a wonderful day with my late, great agent, Jim Andrews, who sadly passed away shortly after that time.
And so I always think of him when I think of York races. Thank you.
And so I always think of him when I think of York races. Thank you.
15:53
15:53
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm really grateful to the members for Doncaster, Central, Tatton, Liverpool, Walton, Strangford, Ely and East Cambridgeshire. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, own absolute resident expert, the member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and for the Minister's reply, where I took a great deal of note of what she was saying, and I hope that the. They are also listening to it in the boardroom of Retro Bharat, because I think. And I look forward to rereading her words tomorrow, because they.
They told a very large story. I'd also like to thank all of racing who has, uh, come in behind this campaign to save Kempton Park Racecourse and also to members of the public, my own residents, a number of whom have come up here today, and also from racing more widely. And I hope that the racing is reassured that the number of expert voices that have been, um, given. Some airtime today in this room, uh, shows that they have some very fierce advocates for horse racing and look forward to it having a bright future.
They told a very large story. I'd also like to thank all of racing who has, uh, come in behind this campaign to save Kempton Park Racecourse and also to members of the public, my own residents, a number of whom have come up here today, and also from racing more widely. And I hope that the racing is reassured that the number of expert voices that have been, um, given. Some airtime today in this room, uh, shows that they have some very fierce advocates for horse racing and look forward to it having a bright future.
15:54
15:55
15:59
15:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order, order!I will call Adam. Dance to move the motion. And then I will call the minister to respond. I remind other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate, and the Minister. Same with interventions. They will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30 minute debates. Adam dance to move the motion.
16:00
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank you, Miss Harris. I beg to move that this House has considered the potential merits of increasing for protections and the fraud strategy, 2026 to 2029. It is a pleasure to be leading this debate with you in the chair. I'd like to thank the Minister for being here to today as well. Fraud has been spreading like the plague for years, infecting almost every aspect of daily life online. On the phone, at work or out and about. You just cannot know who or what to trust.
Fraud costs the UK economy over £1 billion a year, yet sentencing for fraud is well below the level it was in 2010. In 2025, the British consumers lost £1.2 billion to fraud, a four year high. What this rise means is my constituent small business and Milton being scammed out of over £3,000 of orders by credit card scams, wiping their business costs out, another constituents elderly mother having debts run up by an estranged relative who used her mother's details. To extent, the bailiffs came round on another constituents being tricked into vesting hundreds of thousands of pounds into a building company, which then shut down, and lots of constituents being defrauded thousands by tradespeople for half done work or work that never actually happened.
I will give way.
Fraud costs the UK economy over £1 billion a year, yet sentencing for fraud is well below the level it was in 2010. In 2025, the British consumers lost £1.2 billion to fraud, a four year high. What this rise means is my constituent small business and Milton being scammed out of over £3,000 of orders by credit card scams, wiping their business costs out, another constituents elderly mother having debts run up by an estranged relative who used her mother's details. To extent, the bailiffs came round on another constituents being tricked into vesting hundreds of thousands of pounds into a building company, which then shut down, and lots of constituents being defrauded thousands by tradespeople for half done work or work that never actually happened.
I will give way.
16:02
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on bringing forward this important debate. My constituents in Southend West and Lee have similar concerns about the impact on fraud, especially on vulnerable people, and I've spoken to the noble Lord Hanson as he's been developing this strategy to outline these concerns. So does he agree with me that the direction in the new UK fraud strategy and expanding the stop Think fraud campaign and promoting proactive policing is a good thing and should be welcomed?
16:03
16:04
16:04
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Can I just say, um, Madam Chair, that, um, I think we need to get a balance and I've spoken to the honourable gentleman beforehand. We must be incredibly careful not to let the state overreach in the process. So does the honourable member agree that a law abiding citizens should be able to walk into their local banks and spend, withdraw or transfer their own hard earned money without being treated like a criminal suspect?We must ensure that the fraud strategy does not become a nanny state charter that forces ordinary people to prove to a bank clerk just why they want to spend their own money.
16:05
16:05
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank my hon. Friend for, uh, intervening. Um, I agree with some of what you said, but also I come on to mention about banks later on where they should have more contact with people face to face instead of sending them online like one constituent. It is even simple little things like one constituent being scammed into paying for clean air zone charge that does not exist because it popped up as a sponsor page on Google, or another agreeing to send Amazon vouchers for their elderly mother to someone that is actually scamming them.
In response to this problem, the government came forward in April with the 26 to 29 fraud strategy, £250 million has been committed over the next three years for the plan. Now, I think there is a lot to welcome in the strategy, particularly the establishments of fraud, victim charter and new report fraud scheme that would replace Action Fraud, which was totally useless. I give way.
In response to this problem, the government came forward in April with the 26 to 29 fraud strategy, £250 million has been committed over the next three years for the plan. Now, I think there is a lot to welcome in the strategy, particularly the establishments of fraud, victim charter and new report fraud scheme that would replace Action Fraud, which was totally useless. I give way.
16:07
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
His interventions and I will keep it very quick. Madam House, I wonder if you agree with me that unfortunately in Scotland, the police, Scotland and the Scottish Government have not opted to join the report fraud scheme. That means my constituents do not get to benefit. So would agree with me that they really should try and make progress in joining that.
16:08
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I totally agree with my honourable friend, and I do think that Scotland should, should, should join because we should work together against fraudsters, not in isolation or silos short of catching the fraudsters, their constituents of mine who were defrauded, provided every scrap of evidence or their business could. But they were all told by action fraud that was known line of inquiry I was. I also really welcome the strong start on international cooperation and the introduction of an online care centre, a new abuse task force, and more data driven policing.
If properly supported, this could actually see us take a proactive approach to addressing the types of fraud that my constituents were victims of. In fact, I wonder whether the minister will look into if cases action fraud failed to follow up can be reopened. With these new systems in place, because lots of my constituents are still out of pocket. Despite this, though, there are still some real challenges I have with the strategy. The big question, of course, is, given the scale of the problem, is £250 million going to be enough?Are we going to be able to afford the technology and the workforce to actually keep up with fraudsters?Is the strategy fully costed, or are we going to find ourselves in a situation like the Defence investment plan, where the money just is not enough?I know for a fact that we do not have enough police officers to do outreach to all the people vulnerable to fraud in Yeovil and South Somerset.
Surely, given that we are losing billions to fraud, it would be a smart move to invest a bit more in fighting it. The expansion of the awareness campaign, like stop Think are great, but what challenges will that mean?In particular, how are current approaches going to be improved to reach more people and be more effective given the fraud cases are still on the rise?Another glaring issue is that the strategy provides no changes to the current system of largely volunteer charters and Ofcom oversight on social media and tech platforms to prevent fraud.
Another two thirds of all. Authorised UK financial fraud last year had happened on social media. In fact, through things like paid advertising through. These companies could actually be making a profit from fraud on their platforms. It's not good enough. So why is the government Ofcom not doing more?The Online Safety Act will give us the tools to find social media companies for not reducing harms. But will they actually be properly used?Will the Minister commit to pushing Ofcom to prioritise fraud enforcement?And will the government give Ofcom a hard deadline to implement the fraud advertising codes of practice that would set out rules for frauds, as online?Now we could talk for hours and hours about all the different types of protection that need to be in place, but sadly for me, but lucky enough for everyone else, we do not have ours.
So I'd like to focus on the case of two constituents and the questions around safeguarding their cases. Rose Christopher lives with developed language disorder and struggles to produce or retain contact information. He is very agreeable and is known to give constant to give consent, even if he does not really understand. This makes him incredibly vulnerable. Christopher was targeted by a romance fraudsters. They misled him largely online into believing he was in a romantic relationship with one of their gang.
He was convinced to travel to Hungary to buy a property for them to live in, investing £70,000 in a property that was never transferred to him. After that, he was persuaded into purchasing a rundown property in Yeovil and misled into joining a property scheme he could not afford. He ended up taking on loans to manage his debt. My team and I managed to get him the 700 £0 back from Lloyds after his therapist reached out to us, but this case raises serious questions around how effective protections are for most vulnerable people.
Around 7% of the population have DLD, and many more have other forms of learning difficulties which can make them just as vulnerable. So it is not a small number of people we are talking about, but banks fraud protection systems rely on automatic texts or AI, which the fraud strategy continues to support as a key safeguard, but that is not good enough for someone with communication challenges or learning difficulties. Christopher's therapists face endless barriers in trying to get in contact with Lloyds, and was turned away from the branches and told to go online, so we need clarity from the minister today on how government is going to work with the banks to ensure their safeguards are accessible for people with neurodiversity and disabilities.
Will the Fraud Victims Charter establish a right for vulnerable people to access in-person, specialised support in bank branches or banking hubs?We also need clear routes for therapists and support providers to be able to properly flag concerns to financial services and the police, because Christopher should not have been able to take out loans like that without it being flagged.
If properly supported, this could actually see us take a proactive approach to addressing the types of fraud that my constituents were victims of. In fact, I wonder whether the minister will look into if cases action fraud failed to follow up can be reopened. With these new systems in place, because lots of my constituents are still out of pocket. Despite this, though, there are still some real challenges I have with the strategy. The big question, of course, is, given the scale of the problem, is £250 million going to be enough?Are we going to be able to afford the technology and the workforce to actually keep up with fraudsters?Is the strategy fully costed, or are we going to find ourselves in a situation like the Defence investment plan, where the money just is not enough?I know for a fact that we do not have enough police officers to do outreach to all the people vulnerable to fraud in Yeovil and South Somerset.
Surely, given that we are losing billions to fraud, it would be a smart move to invest a bit more in fighting it. The expansion of the awareness campaign, like stop Think are great, but what challenges will that mean?In particular, how are current approaches going to be improved to reach more people and be more effective given the fraud cases are still on the rise?Another glaring issue is that the strategy provides no changes to the current system of largely volunteer charters and Ofcom oversight on social media and tech platforms to prevent fraud.
Another two thirds of all. Authorised UK financial fraud last year had happened on social media. In fact, through things like paid advertising through. These companies could actually be making a profit from fraud on their platforms. It's not good enough. So why is the government Ofcom not doing more?The Online Safety Act will give us the tools to find social media companies for not reducing harms. But will they actually be properly used?Will the Minister commit to pushing Ofcom to prioritise fraud enforcement?And will the government give Ofcom a hard deadline to implement the fraud advertising codes of practice that would set out rules for frauds, as online?Now we could talk for hours and hours about all the different types of protection that need to be in place, but sadly for me, but lucky enough for everyone else, we do not have ours.
So I'd like to focus on the case of two constituents and the questions around safeguarding their cases. Rose Christopher lives with developed language disorder and struggles to produce or retain contact information. He is very agreeable and is known to give constant to give consent, even if he does not really understand. This makes him incredibly vulnerable. Christopher was targeted by a romance fraudsters. They misled him largely online into believing he was in a romantic relationship with one of their gang.
He was convinced to travel to Hungary to buy a property for them to live in, investing £70,000 in a property that was never transferred to him. After that, he was persuaded into purchasing a rundown property in Yeovil and misled into joining a property scheme he could not afford. He ended up taking on loans to manage his debt. My team and I managed to get him the 700 £0 back from Lloyds after his therapist reached out to us, but this case raises serious questions around how effective protections are for most vulnerable people.
Around 7% of the population have DLD, and many more have other forms of learning difficulties which can make them just as vulnerable. So it is not a small number of people we are talking about, but banks fraud protection systems rely on automatic texts or AI, which the fraud strategy continues to support as a key safeguard, but that is not good enough for someone with communication challenges or learning difficulties. Christopher's therapists face endless barriers in trying to get in contact with Lloyds, and was turned away from the branches and told to go online, so we need clarity from the minister today on how government is going to work with the banks to ensure their safeguards are accessible for people with neurodiversity and disabilities.
Will the Fraud Victims Charter establish a right for vulnerable people to access in-person, specialised support in bank branches or banking hubs?We also need clear routes for therapists and support providers to be able to properly flag concerns to financial services and the police, because Christopher should not have been able to take out loans like that without it being flagged.
16:17
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Actually come up from Somerset to sit in the gallery today. Welcome, Jason. Jason was a victim of wealth creation and property investment scheme run by trainers that styled themselves like social media influencers and targeted veteran and military personnel. Now, what these influencers do is promote their self, their lifestyle, online. They then go to veterans like Jason Bigging up their military background to to build trust. And when you combine slick social media, a background you think you can trust, and the promise of training courses that offer financial freedom, that becomes pretty convincing, especially when you think that far too many of our veterans are facing hardship that see them twice as likely to run out of food compared to people that have not served.
According to Trussell. In reality, the training courses do not deliver the skills and high figure salaries promise. Instead, you get basic technology. Technicals and mindset training. The people running these schemes know that they offer. What they offer is absolutely rubbish, but they will convince you to invest in more sessions and recruit others until you're trapped. Jason ended up spending over £20,000 on training and it gets so bad he even considered taking his own life. Thankfully, Jason is with us and has turned things around.
He is working a fantastic job and has completed the Ironman to raise awareness and money for his community. Sadly, others felt they could not find a way out like Danny Butcher, who took his own life and now has a foundation set up in his name that Jason is a trustee on. Now, the fraud strategy does not really give us much on how to deal with cases like this, where people are clearly being taken advantage of and misled. But providing this as fraud is a challenge.
So I hope the Minister will commit to looking into how measures in the strategy can be used to investigate these type of practices. But what we urgently need is proper protections and warning on social media about the risks posed by these industry. We already have warnings in place for gambling and social media. We even provide warnings labelled for public service broadcasts. Why can we not do that for wealth creation influencers?But what Jason and other veterans have been fighting for is for the Financial Conduct Authority to fully regulate the property training industry across the UK.
Jason's not the only one. I've heard from many people who've been drawn up into this. The government also need to investigate the practices and impact of the broader, broader influence wealth creation industry, because it is not just veterans. And if we do nothing more and more vulnerable people be ripped off. Mr. Harris, it is no understatement to say that we are fighting a war with fraudsters. For far too long, they have been one step ahead. I hope the Minister will be able to address the issues we've raised today, and will commit to setting up a meeting with me and her ministry colleagues, so we can talk in more detail about these cases, because this issue is not going away, and I will not either.
I've seen I've been to I've seen stronger protections in place. Thank you.
According to Trussell. In reality, the training courses do not deliver the skills and high figure salaries promise. Instead, you get basic technology. Technicals and mindset training. The people running these schemes know that they offer. What they offer is absolutely rubbish, but they will convince you to invest in more sessions and recruit others until you're trapped. Jason ended up spending over £20,000 on training and it gets so bad he even considered taking his own life. Thankfully, Jason is with us and has turned things around.
He is working a fantastic job and has completed the Ironman to raise awareness and money for his community. Sadly, others felt they could not find a way out like Danny Butcher, who took his own life and now has a foundation set up in his name that Jason is a trustee on. Now, the fraud strategy does not really give us much on how to deal with cases like this, where people are clearly being taken advantage of and misled. But providing this as fraud is a challenge.
So I hope the Minister will commit to looking into how measures in the strategy can be used to investigate these type of practices. But what we urgently need is proper protections and warning on social media about the risks posed by these industry. We already have warnings in place for gambling and social media. We even provide warnings labelled for public service broadcasts. Why can we not do that for wealth creation influencers?But what Jason and other veterans have been fighting for is for the Financial Conduct Authority to fully regulate the property training industry across the UK.
Jason's not the only one. I've heard from many people who've been drawn up into this. The government also need to investigate the practices and impact of the broader, broader influence wealth creation industry, because it is not just veterans. And if we do nothing more and more vulnerable people be ripped off. Mr. Harris, it is no understatement to say that we are fighting a war with fraudsters. For far too long, they have been one step ahead. I hope the Minister will be able to address the issues we've raised today, and will commit to setting up a meeting with me and her ministry colleagues, so we can talk in more detail about these cases, because this issue is not going away, and I will not either.
I've seen I've been to I've seen stronger protections in place. Thank you.
16:23
16:24
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you very much. It's a great pleasure to be in this chamber with you in the chair. And can I start by congratulating the honourable member for Yeovil for securing the debate and thank him for the way in which he has set out some of the very difficult problems that all of our constituents have faced, as technology has provided the wherewithal to industrialise frauds and scams, often from abroad, so that there's no, um, there's there's no. Handle that we can get on what they're doing without um.
Involving ourselves in international cooperation and clearly as technologies advance, um, the threat of these kinds of activities evolve and we have to try to do what we can to keep pace with them and hopefully get ahead of them so we can do some prevention, uh, rather than try to pick up the pieces after, um, terrible things have happened. And can I also, um, at this juncture, pass on my, um, empathy and sympathy to his constituents, um, some of whom he's mentioned in his debate, uh, in this debate today, Christopher, who was the subject of a romance fraud and Jason, um, who was subjected to fraudulent behaviour, um, sort of tempting him with wealth creation, which wasn't there.
And I think one of the things that, uh, has, um. Certainly struck me very strongly since I took up this post, uh, three weeks ago. Um, but also, I have to say from my own constituency caseload over many years is how invidious and difficult it is for the victims of these kinds of behaviours. Actually, to, to admit that they've fallen into a trap because I think many of them feel a bit silly and they feel embarrassed and they don't know who to turn to to try to get redress.
And the way that redress has worked in this country in the past has not really kept up pace with the industrialization of the fraud that we've seen. And also its international aspect and its sophistication. And therefore, it's very it's been very difficult, as the honourable member for Yeovil has, um, accounted in his speech for systems to keep up. And therefore they feel not only embarrassed and worried and a bit shameful in many cases in my constituency caseload that they've fallen into these traps, but they then can't really find it very easy to get redress.
So I congratulate him on the constituency work that he has done to do that, and the way that he's used the systems that we are putting in place to ensure that, in a lot of cases, this money can be refunded, but obviously not in every case. Now, um, Mrs. Harris, my esteemed colleague in the Lords, Lord Hanson, is the person that leads on this area of work. But given that, um, despite all of the innovations that we've had in our Constitution to date, while I've been in this House, we haven't innovated to allow Lords to speak in Commons debates.
Thank goodness you've got me, and I'm more than happy to, uh, obviously talk to Lord Hanson about some of these issues, too. When the debate is over. Um, I think that, uh, before I come to the points that have been raised, I want to make some simple but important points. Lord is high volume and it's high harm for the reasons that the honourable gentleman has outlined. And I think anyone who has constituents and a constituency service will know from their own experiences in their advice surgeries that both those things are true.
It deprives law abiding people of their hard earned money. It's our businesses with sometimes crippling losses. It destroys lives and livelihoods. It destroys confidence. Um, it can destroy mental health. It drains our economy, weakens our resilience, and it undermines confidence in the rule of law. And this is very directly linked to my work as security minister, because it helps fuel some of the most serious threats we face as a country, as well as actually causing the real human harm that we've heard today.
And I've just also outlined so clearly, our response has to match up to the scale and impact of the threat. And I believe the government has acted with clarity and ambition. Um, with our new fraud strategy, which is the honourable gentleman mentioned in his, um, in his contribution was published in March of this year, and I thank him for the elements of it that he acknowledged he was happy to see. That is the international action, which is absolutely crucial to replace Action fraud, which many of us are talking about.
Our would have been better named inaction fraud. Um, it was certainly a very, very difficult thing to see. Any action coming out of, but it's, um, thankfully been replaced. And also other issues such as the report for fraud scheme and some of the victim support schemes, uh, and the charters and advertising that are coming along as the strategy becomes, uh, is begun to be put into effect in its broadest sense, the strategy is about bringing together all parts of the system, including government, law enforcement, industry, and civil society, and to go further and faster in our fight to disrupt the fraudsters and try to protect the public.
Now, um, it's a strategy that's built on clear principles, firstly, to disrupt criminals, to safeguard people and businesses, and to respond strongly to protect victims and enforce the law. There are there is £250 million of investment that the government has made, and we will work with everyone to clamp down on the fraud epidemic, but we'll also try to make that money work as hard as possible in cooperation with other parts of the system to include. We get best value for money. And to some extent, that's my answer to the honourable gentleman's question about whether 250 million is enough.
It's not a bad start, and we will see how it develops to ensure that we are covering the basis that we need to cover in this area as as quickly as possible. At the heart of the new approach is a new online crime centre with over £30 million of investment, bringing government, law enforcement, Gchq and industry together in one place. And its mission is clear it's to identify the technological enablers of fraud and they are rapidly evolving and industrialising. As I said before, to disrupt fraud at scale and to deliver high impact interventions at speed.
And so those are the things that the online crime Centre is working on, even as we speak, safeguarding and supporting victims is also at the forefront of the strategy. We're strengthening public awareness through an expanded stop think fraud campaign, because it's very important to remember that as plausible as some of these people are, it's the more that we can increase the the suspicion and resilience of the people that interact in these systems, the more likely we are to be more resilient to fraud. And I acknowledge absolutely that the psychological cleverness of quite a lot of this is, is something to behold.
These people are very clever at what they do. They are very sophisticated in the way in which they draw people in. And we have a duty, I think, all of us, to try to warn individuals about the kind of dangers that are out there with, with, with, with these kinds of very sophisticated approaches. Now, I can see the honourable gentleman looks like he's about to get up. So I'm going to give way.
Involving ourselves in international cooperation and clearly as technologies advance, um, the threat of these kinds of activities evolve and we have to try to do what we can to keep pace with them and hopefully get ahead of them so we can do some prevention, uh, rather than try to pick up the pieces after, um, terrible things have happened. And can I also, um, at this juncture, pass on my, um, empathy and sympathy to his constituents, um, some of whom he's mentioned in his debate, uh, in this debate today, Christopher, who was the subject of a romance fraud and Jason, um, who was subjected to fraudulent behaviour, um, sort of tempting him with wealth creation, which wasn't there.
And I think one of the things that, uh, has, um. Certainly struck me very strongly since I took up this post, uh, three weeks ago. Um, but also, I have to say from my own constituency caseload over many years is how invidious and difficult it is for the victims of these kinds of behaviours. Actually, to, to admit that they've fallen into a trap because I think many of them feel a bit silly and they feel embarrassed and they don't know who to turn to to try to get redress.
And the way that redress has worked in this country in the past has not really kept up pace with the industrialization of the fraud that we've seen. And also its international aspect and its sophistication. And therefore, it's very it's been very difficult, as the honourable member for Yeovil has, um, accounted in his speech for systems to keep up. And therefore they feel not only embarrassed and worried and a bit shameful in many cases in my constituency caseload that they've fallen into these traps, but they then can't really find it very easy to get redress.
So I congratulate him on the constituency work that he has done to do that, and the way that he's used the systems that we are putting in place to ensure that, in a lot of cases, this money can be refunded, but obviously not in every case. Now, um, Mrs. Harris, my esteemed colleague in the Lords, Lord Hanson, is the person that leads on this area of work. But given that, um, despite all of the innovations that we've had in our Constitution to date, while I've been in this House, we haven't innovated to allow Lords to speak in Commons debates.
Thank goodness you've got me, and I'm more than happy to, uh, obviously talk to Lord Hanson about some of these issues, too. When the debate is over. Um, I think that, uh, before I come to the points that have been raised, I want to make some simple but important points. Lord is high volume and it's high harm for the reasons that the honourable gentleman has outlined. And I think anyone who has constituents and a constituency service will know from their own experiences in their advice surgeries that both those things are true.
It deprives law abiding people of their hard earned money. It's our businesses with sometimes crippling losses. It destroys lives and livelihoods. It destroys confidence. Um, it can destroy mental health. It drains our economy, weakens our resilience, and it undermines confidence in the rule of law. And this is very directly linked to my work as security minister, because it helps fuel some of the most serious threats we face as a country, as well as actually causing the real human harm that we've heard today.
And I've just also outlined so clearly, our response has to match up to the scale and impact of the threat. And I believe the government has acted with clarity and ambition. Um, with our new fraud strategy, which is the honourable gentleman mentioned in his, um, in his contribution was published in March of this year, and I thank him for the elements of it that he acknowledged he was happy to see. That is the international action, which is absolutely crucial to replace Action fraud, which many of us are talking about.
Our would have been better named inaction fraud. Um, it was certainly a very, very difficult thing to see. Any action coming out of, but it's, um, thankfully been replaced. And also other issues such as the report for fraud scheme and some of the victim support schemes, uh, and the charters and advertising that are coming along as the strategy becomes, uh, is begun to be put into effect in its broadest sense, the strategy is about bringing together all parts of the system, including government, law enforcement, industry, and civil society, and to go further and faster in our fight to disrupt the fraudsters and try to protect the public.
Now, um, it's a strategy that's built on clear principles, firstly, to disrupt criminals, to safeguard people and businesses, and to respond strongly to protect victims and enforce the law. There are there is £250 million of investment that the government has made, and we will work with everyone to clamp down on the fraud epidemic, but we'll also try to make that money work as hard as possible in cooperation with other parts of the system to include. We get best value for money. And to some extent, that's my answer to the honourable gentleman's question about whether 250 million is enough.
It's not a bad start, and we will see how it develops to ensure that we are covering the basis that we need to cover in this area as as quickly as possible. At the heart of the new approach is a new online crime centre with over £30 million of investment, bringing government, law enforcement, Gchq and industry together in one place. And its mission is clear it's to identify the technological enablers of fraud and they are rapidly evolving and industrialising. As I said before, to disrupt fraud at scale and to deliver high impact interventions at speed.
And so those are the things that the online crime Centre is working on, even as we speak, safeguarding and supporting victims is also at the forefront of the strategy. We're strengthening public awareness through an expanded stop think fraud campaign, because it's very important to remember that as plausible as some of these people are, it's the more that we can increase the the suspicion and resilience of the people that interact in these systems, the more likely we are to be more resilient to fraud. And I acknowledge absolutely that the psychological cleverness of quite a lot of this is, is something to behold.
These people are very clever at what they do. They are very sophisticated in the way in which they draw people in. And we have a duty, I think, all of us, to try to warn individuals about the kind of dangers that are out there with, with, with, with these kinds of very sophisticated approaches. Now, I can see the honourable gentleman looks like he's about to get up. So I'm going to give way.
16:40
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you very much for your answers so far. I just wondered if you also agree with me that we should be fully regulating the property training industry, because that is a huge issue at the moment across the whole country, affecting lots of people. And as the Minister quite rightly said a second ago, if people don't come forward because they're embarrassed and that's why they also unfortunately take their own lives.
16:41
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Well, I, I, I think that we need to look to see where the issues are and where the loopholes are and where people are being exploited, and we need to see what we can do, both as law enforcers and regulators, to close those loopholes. So I'm not going to say yes immediately to the honourable gentleman's question, not least because it's not directly in my bivouac. But he can rest assured that we, we, we will be looking to see what the trends are. We will be looking to see how we can, um, harden the target, if you want to put it that way, which is a whole range of individuals who can be scammed and fall for very sophisticated frauds without realising.
And by the time they do realise it's too late. Now obviously the private sector and the banking sector has got an important part to play in this with the warnings that it puts, um on, on its own, uh, electronic banking systems. And there's an enormous amount of cooperative work that we need to do with all of this to ensure that our online crime centre can pick up, um, and collaborate with all parts of the system that is there to try to protect people. But as I was saying earlier, stop think fraud is an important part of that.
If something looks too good to be true and it's online, it's almost certainly too good to be true. And we've got to get that education, be it influencers or other types of people out there, to the people that are potential victims in this area. Now, um, of course.
And by the time they do realise it's too late. Now obviously the private sector and the banking sector has got an important part to play in this with the warnings that it puts, um on, on its own, uh, electronic banking systems. And there's an enormous amount of cooperative work that we need to do with all of this to ensure that our online crime centre can pick up, um, and collaborate with all parts of the system that is there to try to protect people. But as I was saying earlier, stop think fraud is an important part of that.
If something looks too good to be true and it's online, it's almost certainly too good to be true. And we've got to get that education, be it influencers or other types of people out there, to the people that are potential victims in this area. Now, um, of course.
16:44
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Going away again on banking, one of the biggest issues for Christopher was that his carer was turned away by Lloyds many times and sent online. One of the issues we're having, we're seeing this quite often with banks shutting and having banking hubs. Does the minister also agree with me that the banks should be more working, more with people with neurodiversity and disability to see them face to face?And should we have more support in our banking hubs?
16:45
16:45
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Well, I think the banking hubs are at an early stage of their development, and there are and there are good development at the moment. They're a bit more, um, a. They're less sophisticated in the, in the services that they can offer. And so we have to work with banks who are largely, um, because most of their customers wish going online and leaving the high street. And that does leave people who perhaps are more vulnerable to being scammed online in a more vulnerable situation.
So we, in our work with them, we have to try to make the case, um, that, that they need to have special relationships and ways of dealing with those who are neurodiverse or those who may be easier in some ways to, to fool. But in my experience, almost anyone can become a victim of this kind of fraud if they get caught at a vulnerable moment, or if or if they get caught when they're upset about something or. So so we've got to deal with education in a much in a much more, um, sort of, uh, holistic way, rather than just categorising people.
But I understand the point he's making. Um, I think, um, using data from report fraud, we are improving our ability to identify emerging fraud trends and also local fraud hotspots, which enable us to work with police forces and community partners to deliver targeted interventions. When we see they are needed most, we are just beginning to get to the stage where we can start spotting these kind of trends and trying to prevent them, rather than try to pick up the pieces after fraud has happened. Now it's equally important.
To coordinate the fraud protection network, which is something that the City of London police have, um, the responsibility for. And that brings together local, regional and national law and. And this network helps to reduce the threat of fraud and repeat victimization through consistent prevention, messaging, practical safeguarding advice, and targeted public engagement. And I think as we see more of these issues developing, we will be able to see what the what the trends are and be able to be more preventative and more ahead of the trends before they cause damage.
Now, with an estimated 70% of fraud having an international element, we know it knows no borders. As part of our effort to counter this, the UK sponsored, uh, UN Organization of Drug Control, Interpol Global Fraud Summit in March this year. This ministerial summit brought together over 1000 attendees across 115 governments, over 40 ministers and senior law enforcement, and over 500 private sector companies, including Big Tech, with the aim of strengthening international cooperation, raising global standards and agreeing coordinated multi-sector action. Plans to deal with fraud.
So we also want to do what we can to try to shut down some of the scam centres, which we know are appearing in particular areas of the world, and where we can we will sign memorandums of understanding with countries that may have a particular issue that we see impinging on our citizens. So the international part of this is also extremely important. And as he mentioned in his speech, um, working with the telecoms companies and also with the big tech companies is equally important. And I assure him that our new fraud strategy is particularly aimed at being able to ensure that we bring these different strands together and bear down on the current levels of fraud, which are completely unacceptable.
So we, in our work with them, we have to try to make the case, um, that, that they need to have special relationships and ways of dealing with those who are neurodiverse or those who may be easier in some ways to, to fool. But in my experience, almost anyone can become a victim of this kind of fraud if they get caught at a vulnerable moment, or if or if they get caught when they're upset about something or. So so we've got to deal with education in a much in a much more, um, sort of, uh, holistic way, rather than just categorising people.
But I understand the point he's making. Um, I think, um, using data from report fraud, we are improving our ability to identify emerging fraud trends and also local fraud hotspots, which enable us to work with police forces and community partners to deliver targeted interventions. When we see they are needed most, we are just beginning to get to the stage where we can start spotting these kind of trends and trying to prevent them, rather than try to pick up the pieces after fraud has happened. Now it's equally important.
To coordinate the fraud protection network, which is something that the City of London police have, um, the responsibility for. And that brings together local, regional and national law and. And this network helps to reduce the threat of fraud and repeat victimization through consistent prevention, messaging, practical safeguarding advice, and targeted public engagement. And I think as we see more of these issues developing, we will be able to see what the what the trends are and be able to be more preventative and more ahead of the trends before they cause damage.
Now, with an estimated 70% of fraud having an international element, we know it knows no borders. As part of our effort to counter this, the UK sponsored, uh, UN Organization of Drug Control, Interpol Global Fraud Summit in March this year. This ministerial summit brought together over 1000 attendees across 115 governments, over 40 ministers and senior law enforcement, and over 500 private sector companies, including Big Tech, with the aim of strengthening international cooperation, raising global standards and agreeing coordinated multi-sector action. Plans to deal with fraud.
So we also want to do what we can to try to shut down some of the scam centres, which we know are appearing in particular areas of the world, and where we can we will sign memorandums of understanding with countries that may have a particular issue that we see impinging on our citizens. So the international part of this is also extremely important. And as he mentioned in his speech, um, working with the telecoms companies and also with the big tech companies is equally important. And I assure him that our new fraud strategy is particularly aimed at being able to ensure that we bring these different strands together and bear down on the current levels of fraud, which are completely unacceptable.
16:49
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's of course a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship as a British parliamentarian, I remain proud of my roots in Pakistan and Kashmir, and therefore I continue to be privileged to be the chair of the all party parliamentary group on Kashmir, which has support from across the political spectrum, has worked across Parliament, engaged with government ministers around one simple principle, and that is the inalienable human right of Kashmiris must always come first. Which is why this debate is extremely timely. As members across this House continue to be extremely concerned at the seriously escalating.
Tensions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. But before I go on to this, let me put some points on the record very clearly, Madam Chair, for over a decade I have called out the persecution, oppression and injustice faced by Kashmiris in Indian occupied Kashmir. Their calls for justice have too often gone unanswered. Their fundamental human rights have been violated. Their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied to them. For over a decade, I have called out and challenged the most repressive and draconian security legislation the Indian Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act legislation which continues to be used to give the Indian armed forces sweeping powers of detention and immunity to persecute journalists, human rights defenders, political activists and ordinary civilians.
And we all saw in August 2019, when the right wing Modi government unilaterally and illegally revoked, revoked. Articles three, 70 and 35 Stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status. That was followed by mass detentions and unprecedented communications blackouts, severe restrictions on civil liberties and the further erosion of democratic rights. I led the campaign in this place on every single forum to call out the illegal actions of the Modi regime, and I want to today reassure the sons and daughters of Kashmir who remain under oppression in Indian occupied Kashmir.
Your voices will never be silenced, and they will continue to be heard loudly and clearly in this place. Madam chair, I want to make another point. For the record, before I move into the substantial part of this debate. And that's this. There is no comparison between the long term, systematic human rights abuses that have taken place in Indian occupied Kashmir and the current situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The scale, duration and nature of the repression in Indian occupied Kashmir remains in a different category altogether.
But that does not mean we should remain silent when serious concerns arise. And that brings me to the deeply troubling and worrying situation we have witnessed in recent weeks in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Members from across this House have been contacted by deeply distressed constituents unable to reach loved ones because of the lockdown and communications blackout imposed on parts of Azad Kashmir. Now well into its fourth week.
Tensions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. But before I go on to this, let me put some points on the record very clearly, Madam Chair, for over a decade I have called out the persecution, oppression and injustice faced by Kashmiris in Indian occupied Kashmir. Their calls for justice have too often gone unanswered. Their fundamental human rights have been violated. Their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied to them. For over a decade, I have called out and challenged the most repressive and draconian security legislation the Indian Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act legislation which continues to be used to give the Indian armed forces sweeping powers of detention and immunity to persecute journalists, human rights defenders, political activists and ordinary civilians.
And we all saw in August 2019, when the right wing Modi government unilaterally and illegally revoked, revoked. Articles three, 70 and 35 Stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status. That was followed by mass detentions and unprecedented communications blackouts, severe restrictions on civil liberties and the further erosion of democratic rights. I led the campaign in this place on every single forum to call out the illegal actions of the Modi regime, and I want to today reassure the sons and daughters of Kashmir who remain under oppression in Indian occupied Kashmir.
Your voices will never be silenced, and they will continue to be heard loudly and clearly in this place. Madam chair, I want to make another point. For the record, before I move into the substantial part of this debate. And that's this. There is no comparison between the long term, systematic human rights abuses that have taken place in Indian occupied Kashmir and the current situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The scale, duration and nature of the repression in Indian occupied Kashmir remains in a different category altogether.
But that does not mean we should remain silent when serious concerns arise. And that brings me to the deeply troubling and worrying situation we have witnessed in recent weeks in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Members from across this House have been contacted by deeply distressed constituents unable to reach loved ones because of the lockdown and communications blackout imposed on parts of Azad Kashmir. Now well into its fourth week.
16:51
16:51
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I thank my honourable friend for giving way. I have been inundated with representations from my constituents who have friends, family and loved ones in Azad Jammu and Kashmir deeply concerned at this blackout that's been going on for a month. Would my hon. Friend agree with me that the only way forward on this is peaceful resolution and for the government of Pakistan to return to peaceful table talks, and our government can play an important role in making those representations to the Pakistani government.
16:52
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right, and I'll come on to that point shortly. For over 1 million British Kashmiris, over 50,000 of whom were demonstrating on the streets of London over the weekend, this is not a distant foreign policy issue. These are their parents, their brothers, their sisters, their family. They have been worried sick, staring at silent phones, waiting for a call that does not come, hoping that people they love are safe. I will take the honourable gentleman, the honourable lady.
I will ask honourable members to be extremely brief, because I have a substantial contribution to make.
I will ask honourable members to be extremely brief, because I have a substantial contribution to make.
16:52
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank my honourable friend for giving way, and I thank him for his work as chair of the Appg. I've also been contacted by residents. I've got residents in Stoke on Trent North who live on both sides of the Line of Control and the seriously worried and we've had reports of food shortages, medical supplies, baby milk. So would my honourable friend agree with me that the UK government must do all it can to make sure we open up all humanitarian routes possible?
16:52
16:52
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
My hon. Friend is correct. I met recently with many constituents in my office who are deeply concerned by the internet blackout and able to find, if their families are okay and telling me some horrendous stories, including one story unverified that a two year old child has been shot. Their major concern is the food shortages and the lack of medicines that can go in. And my hon