What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
On Saturday afternoon, Bridlington Town FC will take on Curzon Ashton in the FA trophy first round proper—the first time the club has reached that stage of the competition in 22 years. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Brid all the very best on Saturday afternoon in the FA trophy, and can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of sports clubs and local communities?
8. What assessment the commissioners have made of the adequacy of the places of worship renewal fund in supporting churches in suburban areas.
The Houthis in Yemen were largely quiet for four years, but Yemen is one of those disastrous areas where humanitarian aid is desperately needed. Now that the Houthis have come out and attacked at the behest of Iran, what action are the Government taking to build a coalition of forces to defeat the Houthis—not contain them but actually defeat them—so that the threat that they pose to the region is minimised or eradicated? The reality is that Iran is ordering their position in order to disrupt the shipping lanes of the world.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. Clearly, apart from Monday, Backbench business will be coming up in the Chamber only after we come back from the recess. If we are granted time on Thursday 12 November, we will have Select Committee statements from the Health and Social Care Committee and the Defence Committee, followed by a debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, followed by a debate on the Nolan principles, which many people have asked for. In Westminster Hall on Tuesday 27 October, there will be a debate on recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. On Thursday 29 October, there will be a debate on mandatory safeguarded 24/7 helipads at major trauma centres, followed by a debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. On Tuesday 3 November, there will be a debate on the findings of the Milburn review. When we come back after the recess, on Tuesday 10 November, there will be a debate on antisocial behaviour. I remind Members that because the House will be sitting Monday hours on that day, that debate will start at 11.30 am and not 9.30 am as usual. May I gently nudge the Leader of the House? We are still awaiting the extra Labour member of the Backbench Business Committee. One of the Government members is on long-term deployment in our forces, and another colleague had a terrible accident and therefore is on crutches and finds it difficult to get the meetings, so we have challenges making sure we are quorate to consider the business. The situation in Nepal continues to be catastrophic. Often, when there is a disaster such as flooding, everyone says, “We must do something,” and then nothing else happens. I pay tribute to Benji and Nic Gould, two boys aged 11 and nine, who at the HarroWall climbing centre climbed the equivalent of going to Everest base camp and raised £3,500 for charity. I think we should congratulate them—I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in doing so—and also say that we need to continue to our work to assist the great people of Nepal.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will try to be as efficient as I can, given the time. As we have heard, clause 23 gives a new power to the Home Secretary that requires people to pay towards the cost of any asylum support they have received, once they are able to do so. In contrast to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—Members will not be surprised to hear this—this does not make me uncomfortable. I reject the notion that it is a refugee tax; I think that is just scaremongering Green campaign nonsense. [Interruption.] I said I was going to be efficient, so I will not take an intervention. Our constituents pay considerable amounts of taxation, and we are spending incredible sums on the asylum support system. It is entirely reasonable, and fair to the British taxpayer, that people who have received support should contribute to that cost. This group contains three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about how much people should pay, three Government amendments about waivers and insolvency, and amendment 141, which I tabled, about what happens when people do not pay; Members will not be surprised to hear that we will be opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Together, they give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee something that the Bill does not: what the scheme will actually charge and how it will operate.
The hon. Member has proved my point: if you turn up to scrutiny meetings and make your point, sometimes the Government listen. They did so by taking on one of my earlier amendments. Turning up and contributing is helpful.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a refugee tax. On 18 March 2025, Labour Members voted down that new clause 37. The then Minister told that Committee that it was not sufficiently developed to be put into primary legislation. Interestingly, we heard the same criticism from witnesses about clause 23 of this Bill, and even the Government’s own impact assessment rates the impact of these measures as “uncertain”. I ask the Minister what amount and what income threshold the Government intend to set. The Home Office has spoken of £10,000; will that be a flat rate per adult, and over what period? How will the threshold be set so that the charge does not deter people from taking work or declaring their earnings—a risk that the Government’s own impact assessment identified? Amendment 76 would prevent any payment that would leave a person or household with below 60% of median household income. Clause 23(5) already provides that no one will be required to pay if it would make them “destitute”. Amendment 76 would go far beyond destitution: with a 60% median test, very few people who had been supported by taxpayers would ever pay anything; it would turn into a repayment scheme in name only. Amendment 81 would cut the amount owed by 20% for every 30 days beyond six months that the Home Office took to decide a claim. I understand the point being made—delays cost money and are not the claimant’s fault—but it is the taxpayer who has paid for those months, and the answer to delays is making faster decisions, not giving a discount. What is the current average time to an initial decision, and what is the Government’s target? Amendment 79 would cap repayments at the cost of the support received. I would be surprised if the Government intend anything else. Will the Minister confirm that nobody will be asked to repay more than the support they receive, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion? If so, the amendment is unnecessary. Government amendment 124 will enable repayments to be reduced, waived or refunded, including by giving the Secretary of State discretion. Amendments 125 and 126 deal with insolvency. The supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that the powers will be subject to the negative procedure because they can only benefit individuals. The Opposition will not oppose the measures, but the use of a discretion to waive, exercised on a case by case basis and never reported, is how schemes like this quietly stop working. What criteria will govern waivers? Will the number and value of waivers be published each year? Will a person be able to clear the debt by making themselves bankrupt? The Committee is entitled to know whether the scheme will ever recover meaningful sums. Migration Observatory expects that unless the threshold is set significantly below the minimum wage, the number of people earning enough to reach it will be relatively small. That is set against the enormous cost to the British taxpayer. Around 97,500 asylum seekers receive taxpayer-funded support, costing the taxpayer roughly £4 billion in 2024-25. Simple division of that figure suggests that the costs are close to £40,000 a year per person supported. A £10,000 contribution, if it were ever collected, would recover only a small proportion of the initial cost. During the Committee’s oral evidence session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West asked the Minister what measurable difference the Bill will make, she said: “I do not want to put a specific figure on it.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 72, Q127.] Can she do so now? How many people do the Government expect to pay? How much will be recovered each year, and over what period? How much will it cost to build and run the system? Given that the Government do not have a good history of running systems, can she assure us that the scheme will raise more money than it costs? Amendment 141, tabled in my name, would ensure that where an individual has been required to repay asylum support costs, any unpaid amount can be considered when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement. That would give the scheme more weight by providing that the debt will influence settlement decisions until it is paid off. If amendment 141 is not made, the consequence of not paying will depend on earned settlement rules that have not been laid before Parliament. Will the Government support the amendment? The Opposition oppose amendments 81, 76 and 79, but not Government amendments 124 to 126. As I mentioned, the principle of clause 23 was originally in a Conservative proposition, so of course we support it, but our concern is that a repayment scheme with discretionary waivers and no consequences for non-payment will be ineffective. We look for assurance from the Minister on that. I will be pressing amendment 141 to a Division.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142. Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who “started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”. That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges? Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those? Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force. Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments. Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that “the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.] Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest. Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report? Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what? Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert— “(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament— (a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and (b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of— (i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3), (ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and (iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.” This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.
Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when. Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote. Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected. We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see. If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now. The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those “who have had their case concluded”; but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November? The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers “take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”, but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn. How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge? Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter. Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?
7. What assessment the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has made of the potential impact of the pause of local government reorganisation on boundary reviews in the areas involved.
The Government’s management of local government reorganisation must have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Can my right hon. and learned Friend advise, if not on the Floor of the House, in writing, whether there is also a financial cost to the Local Government Boundary Commission?
After 18 months of dither and delay, and cuts to the farming budget, Labour’s shambolic SFI scheme closed within hours, leaving farmers unable to access funding to protect and restore nature. We now know, through freedom of information requests, that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs knew the scheme could collapse within hours, yet the Government pressed ahead regardless. Now, environmental charities, including the Rivers Trust, are warning that that will undermine nature recovery. Does the Secretary of State recognise that by failing the custodians of our countryside, she is failing nature too?
Reform UK's London mayoral candidate, Laila Cunningham, gives an exclusive interview discussing the state of public safety in the UK, knife crime, violence against women, shoplifting, and antisocial behaviour.
The Prime Minister will remember that, in 2013, he met me to discuss the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos, and he has supported the affected families since. One of them is his own constituent Marie Lyon, who has led this fight for decades. More recently, Marie suffered a heart attack—a stark reminder that time is running out for the families who have already waited a lifetime. Now that he is the Prime Minister, will he meet me and Marie to finally deliver the justice that these families deserve?
Many people in my constituency feel frightened and intimidated when just walking on the pavement runs the risk of them colliding with an e-scooter or e-bike. I have raised the matter with the police, but they say they are unable to take action unless the riders are caught riding the vehicle. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater enforcement powers, clearer national guidance and stronger controls on the sale of illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, so that we can better protect our residents and restore confidence in our neighbourhoods?
I welcome the Minister’s announcement and remind others that this is not just a question for the north-east or for Aberdeen South. There are only two postal code areas in the UK that do not have a jobs connection to the North sea, so despite the scant appearance of the Opposition Benches, this affects every constituency. I welcome the £2 billion investment in the transition, because we need those skills, that workforce and that supply chain as stepping stones to the transition to new industries. I caution my hon. Friends to ensure that we are not remembered as the Government who let down the North sea workforce in the way in which the Conservatives let down the coalfield workers. May I ask the Minister to detail, and encourage him to rush through, the tiebacks and the decommissioning that will keep us in the North sea for years to come?
My constituent Joe Bennett, who is in the Public Gallery, has not seen his parents Craig and Lindsay Foreman since January 2025, when they were arrested and detained by Iran, and presented with fake charges of espionage. I thank the Foreign Secretary and his predecessors for their work on this case, but will the Prime Minister consider additional action, including a clear public condemnation of their detention as arbitrary and unlawful in international law, and provide them with diplomatic protection, as we have in other cases, to increase the pressure on Iran to bring Craig and Lindsay home?
The previous Government’s legacy Act failed to command the confidence of victims, survivors and many veterans. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking the organisations that represent them that have engaged with my Committee, with Members across this House and with him?
I pay tribute to Sir David Bell for his review into antisemitism in schools and colleges. Unfortunately, Bournemouth has recently seen antisemitic incidents, and I want my constituents to know that I stand against that every single time, and we must root out that ancient evil in Bournemouth. I also want to ask about what the Government will do to encourage positive engagements with Jewish cultural experiences. The Russell-Cotes gallery and museum in Bournemouth is about to open a new exhibition about Jewish Bournemouth called “waves of change”. My right hon. Friend is of course very welcome to come and visit; equally another Minister from the Department for Education is very welcome to come and see the exhibition. What more would she like to see happen to encourage positive engagement with Jewish cultural experiences?
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. I am so pleased to see her there, and I know that her rural credentials are strong. As the Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk, one of the most productive farming constituencies in the country, it has been a privilege to spend a significant amount of my time over the past two years meeting farmers, landowners, growers and rural businesses across the area. Farming is not simply another sector in South West Norfolk; it shapes our landscape, supports our local economy, underpins food production, contributes to environmental stewardship and helps to define the very character of our communities. Since being elected, I have made a conscious effort to get out on to farms and to listen, and I firmly believe that good policy starts with understanding the reality on the ground. That means standing in fields and walking farmyards, and hearing directly from the people who deal with the practical challenges and the opportunities facing farming every single day. I welcome that our Farming Minister has been undertaking that engagement, too, and I know that it has been valued by the industry. I have now met more than 100 South West Norfolk farmers, and from those meetings I have been struck by their resilience, dedication and innovation. Agriculture today requires farmers to balance a growing range of responsibilities. Alongside producing high-quality food, businesses manage environmental outcomes, adapt to changing weather patterns, embrace new technologies and respond to market pressures. The scale of that challenge demonstrates the professionalism and adaptability of modern farming, and many are doing that while operating on extremely fine margins. The concerns of a farmer in Weeting will likely differ from those in Nordelph. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for farming, and one clear theme from my visits is how important confidence, clarity and certainty are for farming businesses making long-term decisions.
The vast majority of farms in my constituency are small family farms. It was campaigning from constituency MPs like myself and others that got the changes to that policy so that it now works for the vast majority of those impacted. Over the past decade or so, farmers have been at the sharp end of changing political landscapes, with Brexit and its fundamental change to farming policy being the most profound, because farming is an industry that plans years ahead. Decisions made today on investment, machinery, water infrastructure, environmental delivery and succession have consequences that last decades. Farmers can adapt to change and seize new opportunities when there is a clear direction of travel, but it becomes difficult for businesses to plan with confidence when there is a lack of certainty. In countless conversations, farmers have told me they are desperate for that clarity, consistency and long-term thinking from Government. I hope that the farming roadmap developed under this Labour Government is the start of that approach. One of the biggest issues raised has been around profitability. The fundamental challenge that remains is in ensuring that farming businesses can generate sustainable returns. While discussions often focus on environmental schemes or regulation—this scheme or that scheme—as is the case with the Lib Dem motion before the House, neither environmental ambition nor long-term investment can be achieved if a farm business itself is not financially viable. Farming continues to be treated as a political football. Cosplay Reform Members may have a Barbour jacket and a flat cap, but do they actually have a single farming policy? I note their absence from today’s debate. And what of the Tories, desperate as ever to be the face of rural Britain like it is some divine right, while completely ignoring the demise of farming under their watch? It was their withdrawal from the common agricultural policy that left our farmers exposed with no plan in place. It will be some years before many farmers will forgive that level of betrayal by the Conservatives. Many farmers tell me that despite producing world-class food, margins are often squeezed by factors beyond their control. That limited agency over their destiny feeds into their frustration and the poor mental health of many farmers, which is a real concern. Looking forward, I remain optimistic about the future of British farming. There are many significant challenges, but there are opportunities too. We have some of the most productive farmland to be found anywhere in the world, we have farmers who are innovative, entrepreneurial and committed to producing high-quality food, and we have growing opportunities around technology, precision agriculture, water management and sustainable food production. However, success is not guaranteed. It will require a recognition that food production and environmental improvements are not competing objectives. Done properly, they can and must go hand in hand. To conclude, I have three main asks of the Government. First, with the Budget looming, we must raise the annual investment allowance and consider what I have called the green investment allowance, because incentivising investment in rural areas into things like reservoirs and revamping poultry sheds will deliver greater environmental benefits than many SFI schemes.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Government cannot pay for everything, but we can and should create an investment framework that encourages famers. Secondly, we must significantly improve the availability of on-farm water collection and storage through amending planning laws and providing capital grants. Without that, land currently farmed will become unviable, with increasing drought and water scarcity. Thirdly, we must also focus on supply chain fairness, turbocharging a more co-operative model, such as that in New Zealand, using public procurement powers and tackling imports that have lower environmental and animal welfare standards than those that we permit here in the UK. I could go on, but if food security really does mean national security, there needs to be tangible action and we need it now.
Before joining Parliament in 2019, I had 22 years of service with Royal Mail as an engineer, and I can tell the hon. Lady that working conditions were in decline then. We now hear that more than 400 postal workers are leaving the business every week. That is due to workload and working conditions. A two-tier workforce cannot work for any organisation; the workforce need to be rewarded accordingly. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Would the hon. Lady agree that Ofcom needs further powers to bring about the change that is necessary, because it is limited in what it can do? For the record, Ms Lewell, I worked at Royal Mail for 30 years, not 22.
Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start I want to say something about today’s date. Sixty years ago, a colliery spoil tip gave way above the village of Aberfan and slid down on to Pantglas junior school. One hundred and sixteen children and 28 adults were killed. Anyone who grew up in a coalfield community knows the name Aberfan. It is part of our shared history, and the people of that village have carried it every day since. I know that the whole House will have this in their thoughts today. I am grateful for the chance to raise an issue that matters a great deal to people in Mansfield, across Nottinghamshire and in former coalfields right across the country: the pensions of the men and women who worked in our pits, and whether we are finally going to give them everything that they are owed.
I will give way, and I am going to take as many interventions as possible, but I would ask Members to be brief please.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is long overdue. For years, a group of campaigners from Nottinghamshire and right across the country refused to let this issue go.
I absolutely agree. There are too many people to thank and mention individually, but one of the campaigners—Mick Newton—a friend of mine for over 40 years, is here in the Gallery watching the debate tonight. Some of the campaigners are, sadly, no longer with us. I hope that their families know that their work is being recognised in the House tonight.
I thank my hon. Friend for that recognition. It is important that we recognise those campaigners who are still fighting. I have to say this to every one of them: you have made a difference and a lot of what I am about to describe would not have happened without you.
I join my hon. Friend in thanking those he mentioned. In Mansfield and across the rest of my constituency, whole communities were built around the pits. My constituents’ fathers and grandfathers went underground—and plenty of them went underground themselves. They kept the lights on and the factories running for this country. It was hard, dangerous work, and many of them are still living with what it did to their health. The least we owe them is a decent pension. For a long time, they did not get that. When British Coal was privatised in 1994, the Government of the day agreed to guarantee the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. In return, the Treasury took a share of the surpluses. Over the years that followed, billions of pounds went into the Treasury while a lot of former miners and their widows got by on fairly modest pensions. People in our communities never thought that was fair, and they were right. I am proud that this Labour Government have started to put it right.
It is certainly important to raise those meetings and to have that conversation with members and trustees as frequently as possible. One of the first big decisions that this Government took was to hand the £1.5 billion investment reserve of the mineworkers’ pension scheme back to its members. That meant a 32% increase in their pensions. Last year, the Government did the same for the British Coal staff scheme, transferring the £2.3 billion reserve. That is the best part of £4 billion back where it belongs, and thousands of families in my constituency have felt that difference. What is left is the question of surpluses: what happens to the money that builds up in these schemes in the future and the money that is sitting in them right now? The trustees of both schemes have put forward proposals and I think they are sensible. The mineworkers’ pension scheme trustees have asked for three things: first, that around £1 billion of surplus that is locked up in the scheme is used to give members a new bonus pension now; secondly, that 100% of future surpluses will go to improving members’ pensions; and thirdly, that the bonus pensions awarded in 2024 are protected so they cannot be taken away
My hon. Friend raises such an important point about the urgency of this question. The third point that I raised really matters to people in my constituency. Members of the British Coal staff scheme have bonus pensions that are protected; members of the mineworkers’ scheme do not. I do not think that anybody could explain to a retired miner in Mansfield why his bonus should be less secure than the one paid to someone he worked alongside at the same colliery. We should fix that. The British Coal staff scheme’s trustees have made similar proposals, such as clear valuations showing whether the scheme is in surplus or deficit. I want to be clear about one thing: neither set of trustees is asking for the Government guarantee to be removed. Nobody wants to put pensioners’ security at risk and nobody is suggesting the schemes pay out money they might need to meet their commitments. We cannot, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) pointed out, keep telling people in their 80s that fairness is coming at some point in future.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I share that disappointment. I have also to recollect that at the general election in 2019, Boris Johnson stood on the town hall steps in my constituency and committed to putting this right. Those on the Conservative Benches spent five years doing nothing for mineworkers. There is an economic point too. When we increase the pensions, that money gets spent in our constituencies, in communities that have had decades of decline since collieries closed, and that matters. I have had very good discussions with Ministers and with the trustees of both schemes and I know that a lot of work is ongoing. The Budget is next Wednesday, so I want to put four questions to the Minister.
Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend; it is very timely indeed.
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his magnificent leadership on this issue over many years. I shall return to my questions for the Minister. First, I am curious to know whether the Government will commit to resolving the surplus sharing for both schemes. Secondly, will he confirm that both sets of trustees’ proposals, including protecting the mineworkers’ 2024 bonus pensions and using the undistributed surpluses, are being considered by the Treasury? Thirdly, will the Government work with the trustees to ensure that genuinely available surpluses can be paid out as they arise, rather than have elderly pensioners waiting years for the next valuation? Fourthly, will the Government work with the trustees to look at the long-term future of both schemes to ensure that they keep serving their members as well as possible as the schemes get older? For mining communities, this has never been purely about money. It is about whether this country respects the people who did the hardest jobs and empowered everything else in the economy. People in Mansfield and in all our communities have heard a lot of promises over the years. This Government have kept more promises on mineworkers’ pensions than any that went before them, and all of us on the Labour Benches should be genuinely proud of that, but we should not stop short at this moment. We have given back the reserves. Now let us sort out the surpluses, while the men and women who earned these pensions are still here to enjoy them. After more than 30 years, they have waited long enough, and I hope that the Minister can give them some hope tonight.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions throughout the debate, and for sharing issues raised by farmers and rural communities across our country. I also thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for raising these important matters. Let me reiterate the words of my excellent fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), in her first speech at the Dispatch Box: we know how hard this year has been for farmers. Behind every statistic about drought, input prices or farm income is a family making difficult decisions about crops, livestock bills and their future. We set out our farming road map because farmers have repeatedly asked for clarity and certainty, and we are delivering that. The road map sets out this Government’s strategic vision for farming. We want profitable, productive farms that are better able to withstand volatile weather and markets, and geopolitical shocks. The road map also sets out that domestic food production will be maintained at least at current levels, while nature recovery, economic growth and the responsible use of land and resources are supported. That is supported by the strong financial settlement that DEFRA secured in the 2025 spending review. Across this Parliament, the Government have allocated a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production, including £788 million this year alone in new funding for farmers to boost farm productivity, develop cutting-edge technologies to drive future growth, and maintain a healthy natural environment. Where this year has exposed vulnerabilities, this Government have responded. We have made drought flexibilities available, supported investment in farm reservoirs and added funding to the SFI26. I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) —he is back in his place—for his interventions. I think he is right to recognise the optimism and resilience of our nation’s farmers. I wholeheartedly support that view, as do so many Members in this House. I very much agree with what he said about the value of providing greater certainty to the sector; we are very much doing that through our farming road map. It sets out the Government’s vision for driving more a profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient farming sector, and we are doing that in partnership with the sector, via our partnership board and the sector growth plans. Members spoke about the SFI, this year’s two windows and the learning for future years, and I thank all Members who have offered practical ideas for its delivery in future. We also recognise where things have not worked as farmers would have wished. The speed with which the SFI26 window closed last month caused real disappointment, and I do not dismiss that frustration. I recognise the concerns raised by Members across the House, and the specific examples that they have given. Demand substantially exceeded the funding available, and we must learn from that experience as we work with the sector in partnership on SFI27. Working through the options, following my confirmation that we have scrapped the “first come, first served” approach, is absolutely a priority of mine.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He will know that we made a number of changes to improve the scheme this year. He briefly mentioned those in his opening remarks, but I have been very clear that we need to learn lessons from this year’s scheme and that means a commitment on scrapping the first come, first served approach and bringing forward SFI27 as early as possible. A number of Members also expressed concerns about the impact on farmers of trade deals done by the previous Conservative Government. Let me be clear: this Government will always act in the national interest to protect Britain’s farmers and secure our food security. We will never lower food standards and we will uphold the high animal welfare standards that our country expects. In the last year alone, we have reached agreement on new trade deals with India, the Republic of Korea, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Switzerland. All those deals strike a balance: they open new opportunities for UK businesses and help diversify supply chains, while also protecting the UK’s most sensitive sectors. A number of Members have been interested in the SPS agreement with the European Union. I want to thank the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) who is not in her place currently—[Interruption.]—there she is—for the issues she raised. The EU remains the UK’s biggest and closest export market, offering major opportunities for British food and drink businesses to reach millions of consumers. Yesterday, I was at the SIAL trade show in Paris, meeting businesses from every corner of the UK who want to increase their exports to Europe. The SPS agreement will reduce costs and delays for both UK and EU exporters and importers at the border, supporting the UK’s food supply chains and security. It will make agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, cutting costs and red tape for British producers.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It was a real pleasure to spend time with him at the Royal Norfolk Show earlier this year, where I heard very clearly the value of our innovation and world-leading technology in this space. I take this opportunity to reflect on the points he made earlier on the importance of working with our international partners and showcasing the best of British around the world, and thank him for that. He will appreciate that I cannot provide details on the ongoing SPS negotiations. The Prime Minister set out that the Government will be completing those negotiations before the next EU-UK summit on 20 November. A number of Members expressed concern about the impacts of the reforms to agricultural property relief on inheritance tax, which came into force earlier this year. I recognise that when the Government initially announced the reforms in 2024, there was significant concern in the industry about their impact. The Government listened to those concerns carefully, considered the feedback, and the previous Chancellor acted. That is why last year the Government went further to protect more farms and businesses, while maintaining the core principle that the most valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. This is a fair and balanced approach that protects the family farm while also fixing the public services that we all rely on.
On these matters the Government’s view is now settled. I recognise that the previous Chancellor made the changes as a result of the engagement that she and others had with the farming community up and down the country, but the hon. Gentleman would have been keen to place his views on the record and he has successfully done that. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) raised a number of constructive points as a result of his continued engagement with the farmers across his constituency. I understand he has now visited 100 farms in his patch, and I know that he is hosting a very important event in his constituency later this week on the future of farming, and I wish him well with that. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) spoke about the importance of profitability and the value of learning from international partners, and I thank him again for his insights. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) gave a very eloquent speech about the importance of co-designing the future of SFI. I can assure him that directly, and through officials, I and the Department are already working with the sector on exploring options and trade-offs as we consider what SFI ’27 will look like. To conclude, farmers deserve security, fairness and confidence to invest in the next generation and they have a Government who listen when times are hard and work in partnership with the sector to deliver on the commitments set out in our farming road map. That is our commitment: to back British farming; to maintain domestic food production; and to ensure that those who produce our food have a resilient and profitable future. Question put.
