Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14 July 2026

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

[Relevant document: Oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 11 November 2025, on Work of the Department and its arm’s length bodies, Session 2024-26, HC 415.]

I beg to move, That this House has considered isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities.

What a stupendous pleasure it is to serve under your incredible chairship, Mr Vickers. With so much discussion in recent weeks about the north south divide, I thought that this debate would be the perfect opportunity to bring colleagues from coastal communities together in a time honoured parliamentary tradition of comparing notes on who has been most overlooked for funding. While that is a joke, it makes a serious point: communities like mine often feel isolated, not just from funding and opportunity, but from the national conversation. In recent years, the challenges facing the Isle of Wight have rarely made headlines or shaped the political agenda. That does not make them any less real or important to those of us who live there.

What is great about securing this debate is that we can highlight in glorious technicolour the deprivation faced by coastal communities, and how that is simply not seen as urgent, visible or politically fashionable to champion by those meant to represent us. I am therefore pleased to have secured the debate and am encouraged to see so many colleagues from coastal communities across the length and breadth of the country coming together to champion the British coast.

One of the biggest challenges I have faced since being elected in 2024 has been convincing policymakers that the Isle of Wight deserves not simply Government attention, but the same level of support and intervention as that of other communities facing similar levels of deprivation, poor education outcomes and lower life expectancy. Often, the island’s challenges are treated as serious enough to be acknowledged, but not urgent enough for Government intervention. I believe, however, that deprivation and isolation in places such as the Isle of Wight have reached a point where we can no longer pretend that the challenges are a hidden or unknown phenomenon.

The evidence has been there for years and the experiences of local people speak for themselves. As a 2024 report from the London School of Economics argued, many of the persistent challenges facing seaside communities are driven by, in part, “a striking degree of complacency and indifference.”

As Professor Chris Whitty said in his 2021 report into the health of coastal areas, even after adjusting for age and deprivation, “there remains a ‘coastal excess’ of disease”, otherwise referred to as the coastal effect.

Without falling into the trap of reeling off statistics for the sake of it, I want to highlight a few examples that show exactly why the issue demands greater attention, in particular on the Isle of Wight. It is isolated by the Solent and we are the only English constituencies with only one method of transport on and off, which is privately operated. With 85% of the island classified as rural, delivering services becomes that much more difficult. We have the second highest level of educational deprivation in the south of England, a population whose average age is 11 years higher than the national average, and child poverty rates that continue to sit about 4% above the national average. Taken together, those figures demonstrate a community with clear and pressing needs, but one whose deprivation is too often obscured by neighbouring affluence, leaving it overlooked by the very funding formulas designed to help those who need them the most.

I know that it has become something of a running joke that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), I mention ferry travel in almost every speech or intervention I make, but I ask colleagues to imagine what it would be like regularly to pay between £200 and as much as £500 to get to the next county—so to travel from Derby to Nottingham or Southampton to Portsmouth, they would need to find that sort of money. For the island, that is not a hypothetical question; it is a reality.

During the Isle of Wight festival a few weeks ago, the cost of a return car ferry rose to over £500, due to dynamic pricing. For most people, a journey with a maximum distance of 12 miles would be a routine trip. For islanders, it can mean a bill larger than many people’s weekly pay packet, simply to reach the mainland and to access the services that many others take for granted. When we consider that islanders earn, on average, £5,000 a year less than their mainland counterparts, yet still rely on the same highly expensive ferries to access specialist hospital appointments, visit family and friends, pursue educational opportunities or simply enjoy the freedom to travel, the scale of our isolation becomes much clearer.

I congratulate the hon. Member, my neighbour, on securing this debate, which is important not only for us on the Isle of Wight, but for so many MPs, hence the wonderful turnout in the Chamber today. In particular, I thank him for highlighting our issues with ferries. I am sure he would agree that it is not just the price we all pay to get back and forth, but the whole impact on our local economy. That is a message we really need to get across, and use the opportunity of a new Prime Minister to do so.

The hon. Member, my neighbour, is correct. He will not be surprised to know that I have already raised the issue at least once, if not several times, with the potential incoming Prime Minister.

It is not just islanders’ wallets that are impacted, but our council budgets, public services and ultimately the sustainability of the island. Earlier this year, the fair funding review left the Isle of Wight council facing a £13 million a year funding shortfall, despite the additional costs and challenges I have already described. If that does not demonstrate that current funding formulas are failing places like ours, I do not know what does. There is nothing fair about a funding review that overlooks the additional costs of island life and then expects local services to deliver the same or more with significantly less.

The truth is that being an island or a coastal area comes with unavoidable costs. Even when positive changes are made nationally, they often take longer to reach us, if they reach us at all. Research undertaken by the University of Portsmouth has identified an island factor: the unavoidable additional costs associated with delivering services on the Isle of Wight. The study found that our island status creates extra costs through self sufficiency, dislocation and what it termed the “island premium”, estimating an added cost of £380 per resident every year, but costing the Isle of Wight council at least £23 million a year extra just to stand still when compared with a similar sized authority on the mainland. That is coupled with our deprivation, which is often hidden in plain sight.

Unlike in some parts of the country where deprivation is concentrated in large urban areas, our challenges are widely dispersed across the island. Areas that experience significant levels of child poverty, poorer health outcomes and educational disadvantage sit directly alongside communities that are comparatively affluent and rank far more favourably in the Government’s indices of deprivation. That phenomenon has been described by academics as “nested deprivation”, where pockets of deep need exist in areas that appear on average to be doing relatively well. The consequence is that deprivation can be masked by neighbouring prosperity. That helps to explain but not justify how the Isle of Wight’s two constituencies can rank among the most deprived and left behind in the country on some measures, yet still miss out on funding opportunities such as Pride in Place. In other words, our deprivation is not hidden because it does not exist; it is hidden because it sits behind postcard views, nostalgia and pockets of affluence, fuelled by second home ownership that can distort the reality.

Such deprivation makes the challenges already facing the country much harder to deal with on the island. Delivering special educational needs and disabilities provision on the island or in a coastal area brings additional challenges, from recruiting and retaining specialist staff to ensuring that there are enough specialist places available. Unlike many mainland communities, families do not have the same range of nearby alternatives when local provision is stretched, and accessing support off the island can mean significant additional cost and disruption. With an ageing and often isolated population, the healthcare inequalities highlighted by Professor Chris Whitty in his 2021 report on coastal communities ring particularly true on the Isle of Wight, where we continue to see higher than average rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and dementia, all while patients must travel across the Solent to access specialist treatments such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

I know that older and vulnerable populations are often supported by naval clubs, particularly in coastal areas, but also across the country. In West Bromwich, unfortunately, our naval club, which is well used by older veterans, is set to close. I have been campaigning hard to try to save it and will work with everyone to try to do that. Does my hon. Friend agree that community groups such as naval clubs are very important in tackling the health inequalities, deprivation and isolation issues he is talking about today?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

I agree entirely that we are almost reliant on community groups in coastal and island communities. There is a danger that such provision no longer exists when funding dries up.

We have no dedicated stroke nurse or cancer nurse. Thankfully, after asking, our integrated care board has agreed to fund an epilepsy nurse for the first time; the issue is now attracting someone to do the job. Despite small positive developments, I continue to hear numerous accounts from residents who have chosen not to pursue treatment at all, or have delayed doing so simply because they cannot face the cost, time and stress of repeatedly making the journey. As I draw to the end of my speech, that is the key point that I want to leave Members with.

The costs faced by islanders and by many people living in isolated coastal communities go far beyond the inconvenience of waiting for a ferry or a lifeline transport link. Too often when we talk about isolation we focus on geography, but the real cost of isolation and deprivation is a human one. It is the opportunity not taken, the treatment not received, the family not visited, and the support that arrives too late or not at all. Until we recognise that, our funding, policymaking and public services for communities like the Isle of Wight’s will continue to face barriers that many others never have to think about.

Order. I call Jim Shannon.

I am in a state of shock; I had to fiddle through my papers to get my notes. Thank you, Sir Alec, for calling me to speak. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for setting the scene. He is right about the deprivation of coastal communities everywhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I will obviously speak about my constituency. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but she is always very responsive and helpful.

When we discuss social isolation and deprivation in this House, the mind naturally wanders to stark images of inner city decay or urban high rises. I want to take us to a different kind of hardship, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, that is wrapped in beautiful scenery but is no less cruel to those who live through it.

I am talking, of course, about the Ards Peninsula in my beautiful constituency of Strangford. It is a place of incredible community spirit, from Portaferry to Donaghadee, right down to the village of Ballywalter where I was brought up from 1959. We have people who look out for one another, a real definition of a community at work. Scrape beneath the surface, however, and stats from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency tell a troubling story. According to the Northern Ireland multiple deprivation measure, the Ards Peninsula suffers under one notable category: the geographic access to services domain. Villages like Portavogie, Kircubbin, Ballyhalbert, Ballywalter, Carrowdore, Cloughey and Portaferry—all the way down—are ranked among the worst in the province.

What does that mean in reality? It means that anyone without a car is trapped. We have an ageing population in Ards and North Down, with around 20% aged 65 or over. Regional data shows that nearly a quarter of those older folks live in social isolation. The local bus service is infrequent and 11 local bank branches have closed down in my constituency in the past few years. I suspect the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) has had a similar experience. The nearest GP’s surgery requires a complex, multi stage journey. Elderly people are being cut off from the world, suffering in silence from chronic long term loneliness.

Looking at the other side, the cost of car insurance for young people is astronomic, among the highest in the United Kingdom, so they cannot afford to drive. They might get a wee car worth maybe £500 or £600, but the insurance will cost £3,500.

The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the transport challenges that people face in rural communities. We know that the Government have plans to introduce additional charges for purchasing an electric vehicle, which seems paradoxical when we are trying to encourage people to be more environmentally friendly. Does he agree that the Government should think carefully about support for people in rural and isolated areas when they consider that policy?

I thank my friend and colleague, whose intervention is now on the record. He is right to focus on that. I hope the Minister will be able to answer. What happens in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency happens in mine.

Pockets of the peninsula face employment and income deprivation due to the seasonal nature of the economy. The stigma of poverty and mental health often keeps people from reaching out for help. We have high levels of mental health issues. While healthcare and transport are rightly devolved matters, handled by the Assembly in Stormont, I believe there is an opportunity for the Minister to hold discussions with the relevant Minister at the Assembly. The stats are a warning sign that we are facing a postcode lottery of the highest order. We need targeted infrastructure funding, robust support for rural community transport schemes, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East referred to, and digital connectivity to ensure that no rural pensioner or struggling family is left behind.

I welcome some of the schemes introduced by the Ards and North Down borough council, but economies of scale dictate that they cannot reach rural businesses as they should. Councils are limited to their funding pot, which is why I look to the Minister to have discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland. When it comes to the block grant, maybe this money could be ringfenced to help.

I am conscious of time and those who want to speak, so I will conclude with this. I urge the Minister to work with the devolved Administration to look closely at the hidden pockets of rural deprivation. Let us show the people of the Ards peninsula—they are my constituents; it is where I live—that although they live at the geographic edge of our nation, they are at the centre of our concerns. They are always at the centre of my concerns as their MP, but they should also be at the centre of the concerns of this House. Respectfully, Minister, let us invest in these worthy communities.

Order. I am setting an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes. The Front Bench speeches will start at 10.28 am.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) secured this debate. Isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities is such an important issue.

Cornwall is not an island, like the Isle of Wight, but we are a rural peninsula with sea on three sides. We were identified by the EU as one of the poorest areas of western Europe, and we received the highest level of structural funding from 1999. Since then, we have not often been selected to receive Government funding that uses the indices of multiple deprivation as a measure, because those indices favour more densely populated areas at the expense of sparser, more rural parts of the country.

Poor infrastructure, high housing costs, precarious seasonal employment and lack of access to healthcare, transport and education are major issues for Cornish residents, and they are all drivers of poverty in rural and coastal places. This particularly hits our young people and the opportunities open to them, and in the short time I have, I want to talk about that.

Professor Ovenden Hope has written about the concept of educational isolation in places such as ours. The problems include recruiting teachers, getting to school, and low aspiration due to the distance that young people have to travel to get further and higher education. The education maintenance allowance, set up in 2004, was a real boon to places such as mine. The two FE colleges in the middle of Cornwall grew massively, but that meant that sixth forms shut. Although there is a great system of education and apprenticeships, the EMA’s abolition left a real problem, with students across Cornwall having to travel long distances to those FE colleges without the money to help them do that. There was a bursary, but bus routes were scrapped, the private providers left, and we have been left with young people really struggling to get to education—further education particularly—and to the work placements and job opportunities that are so important for them.

In urban places with mayors, there is free or cheap travel for under-19s. In Cornwall, the college funds most of it, which results in real inequity. We now have real issues with our young people not being able to access the work opportunities or FE that they would like, and they are therefore dropping out earlier. That has a real impact, and it places them at a distinct disadvantage compared with young people in urban areas. I have raised this issue with the potential new Prime Minister, and I really hope that we can address it.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate on our coastal communities, which are so often forgotten. Those of us who represent coastal communities like Honiton and Sidmouth can sometimes forget that we represent such a beautiful, stunning part of the world. Sometimes it is only on a Friday or Saturday, when my mind is here or on work, that I drive over a horizon and see the sea and am reminded what a beautiful place it is. But coastal communities often contain pockets of hidden deprivation. In particular, they are susceptible to low social mobility, which is what I want to spend a couple of minutes speaking about.

The latest report by the South West Social Mobility Commission highlights a paradox: the south west region performs really well on some measures, such as employment and economic participation, but it is one of the weakest in England educationally for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. If we want there to be stronger local economies, higher productivity and better paid jobs, we need a pipeline of young people with the skills, qualifications and opportunities to access them.

The south west peninsula has some fantastic opportunities for the economy and for the UK as a whole. Our agrifood, our defence industries and our clean energy are second to none. Yet the South West Social Mobility Commission found that just 41% of pupils eligible for free school meals in the south west achieved the expected standards in reading, writing and maths at age 11—the lowest level of any region in England. By the age of 19, only 30% of those eligible for free school meals achieved a level 3 qualification. Too often, ambitious young people are faced with a choice: stay in the community that they have grown up in and that they love or leave in search of better paid and more varied career opportunities. That could be different. If we really value our coastal communities and the economic opportunities that they offer, we can set regions such as the south west alight.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this debate.

I represent the lovely seaside town of Southport, and like many coastal MPs, I know that our lovely towns can be deceptive because behind the frontage there are lower wages, poor health, seasonal work and young people leaving. That is why I welcome how this debate has been framed, because as well as being economic, the challenge facing our coastal areas is social.

There is the loss of the places that bring people together, such as libraries, youth clubs, post offices, Sure Start centres, village halls and pubs. There has been a wealth of research in the last decade on the hollowing out of those places and the malign long term consequences of the funding decisions of the last 20 years or so. However, the one that strikes and stays with me the most is Diane Bolet’s “Drinking Alone”. It charts the correlation between the loss of the local pub and the subsequent propensity of the local population to vote for the radical right at election time. The correlation is striking. It is true that the causal relationship is not fully understood, but what I do understand is that if social isolation is correlated to extreme politics, then it is worth a chance of reversing that ideology by trying to socialise people more in their local areas and geographic communities.

I also encourage colleagues to search out “Nothing to do and nowhere to go”. It might sound like the B side to a song by a second division punk band from 1978, but it is an academic paper published earlier this year, and the title says it all. It argues that years of losing youth provision, leisure facilities and community spaces has not just reduced opportunities for young people; it has weakened people’s sense of belonging. To bring it back to Diane Bolet’s thesis about voting behaviour, the research was conducted in Great Yarmouth.

When the general public hear about infrastructure, they tend to think about roads, but social infrastructure matters too. Youth clubs, sports clubs, libraries, community centres, parks and gardens, faith groups—all of that. I say to anybody watching this debate back in Southport: please get involved. Please help to make our town the town it can be in whatever way you can.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Britain’s coastal communities are among the most beautiful parts of our country, but behind that picture postcard image lies a reality that too often goes unnoticed—isolation, hidden deprivation and a lack of opportunity. As an MP representing a number of coastal communities along the coast of Somerset, through Brean, Berrow, Burnham on Sea and all the way to Steart, I know there are many shared issues in those communities that are markedly different from those inland.

The statistics paint a stark picture. Coastal communities have higher levels of deprivation than inland areas, lower rates of educational attainment, higher rates of disability and an older population. Too many coastal towns suffer from poor transport links, economic inactivity, seasonal employment and the loss of young people seeking opportunities elsewhere. The House of Lords Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities recognised these challenges as far back as 2019, and it called on the Government to develop a dedicated coastal communities strategy.

Today, however, many local businesses in coastal areas face higher costs and greater uncertainty. High streets continue to struggle and tourism operators face mounting pressures. The looming threat of a tourist tax, along with Labour’s slew of other taxes on work and increasing compliance costs, such as those related to the Employment Rights Act 2025, all serve to make it harder for small businesses in coastal areas to survive.

I hope the Minister, when she sums up, will consider the effect of the right to guaranteed hours on businesses in coastal towns. Has she considered that, when those businesses take on seasonal workers during a period of good weather, they are compelled to offer those hours for the next reference period, whatever the weather might be? Coastal communities need improved transport and digital connectivity to overcome geographical isolation. They need fair funding that recognises the pressures of ageing populations and vulnerable residents. It is time for the Government to listen, develop a genuine coastal communities strategy and ensure that the people who live and work along our coastline have the opportunities that they deserve.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. Despite countless studies showing gaping disparities in everything from employment to life expectancy, coastal towns are neglected in discussions about geographical inequality. There are a few reasons for that. They often sit within otherwise affluent areas, and they do not neatly fit into the north south divide. Places such as Morecambe and Blackpool have more in common with Ramsgate and Bournemouth than, say, Manchester, to pick a random example.

In Morecambe and Lunesdale, 10.2% of people say that they are always lonely. That is staggering, given what we know about the health impacts of loneliness. Social connection is a fundamental human need. It is as crucial to our survival as food, water and shelter. We are biologically wired for social connection. As adults, we cannot just go up to someone in the playground, like my daughter does, and say, “Will you be my friend?”

Communities do not happen by accident. They need the social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, youth clubs and naval clubs. We need to protect that infrastructure and think about the barriers to social interaction, such as poverty. If someone cannot afford to go and do anything, how do they meet people, particularly if they are on a fixed income, as pensioners often are? Transport is an issue. I have two brilliant bus user groups in my constituency, and they fight every day to make sure that everyone can get on a bus to go places and meet people.

Finally, I want to mention the necessity of communities with roots. In Morecambe, we have a deep rooted community. There are areas of transience, but people have been there for generations. People know each other, and that social infrastructure is important. I am really concerned about the impact of short term lets, such as Airbnb and others, on social cohesion. In my constituency, we are getting Eden Project Morecambe. That will be fantastic for our town, but I am concerned about the impact of the changing accommodation scene. I am worried about the impact on residential housing, which is why I am supporting calls for licensing, including caps on numbers, for short term lets. We need to make sure that the roots can stay deep in our community. We need to make sure that people are able to build connections over generations, and then they can be healthier and live longer.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. There is a version of coastal communities that we like to tell ourselves, of chocolate box fishing villages and tight knit communities where people look out for one another, and there is certainly truth in that. In Tiverton and Minehead, I represent one and I see it. We talk of coastal areas being at the end of the line, but there is no line for west Somerset. It is a cul de sac.

The west part of my constituency, for all its natural beauty, suffers from the lowest social mobility in the country, and it ranks among the poorest travel times to employment, at the 96th percentile. Education and employment opportunities for those living along the coast are so limited that teenagers are catching a bus at 6 o’clock in the morning, with a two hour journey each way, just to reach the further education courses they need. It is a material hit to a young person’s aspirations, forcing them to compromise before they have even started and putting them at a direct disadvantage to their peers elsewhere. It creates a profound poverty of aspiration and ambition, brought about by an environment that tells people they have been forgotten.

That is why my party has consistently called on the Government to apply a fair funding formula that properly takes into account the realities of coastal and rural life for education, travel, health and much more. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), much of whose political brand rests on regional empowerment, might turn his attention to the south west as he closes in on No. 10, because the coastal and rural premium is real and is felt acutely.

Over the last few months, my office has produced a report into dementia in Tiverton and Minehead. Isolation and loneliness ran through it as a constant, unrelenting theme, not as one issue among many, but as the backdrop against which everything else is experienced. This year alone, the west Somerset coastal area has lost dental services, its post office, hospital scanning equipment and its local citizens advice bureau. They are services that young and old alike depend on, and one by one they are disappearing. Devolution in Tiverton and Minehead means meaningful evolution to prosperity, opportunity and a better future for all my constituents.

Order. I thank Members for bobbing. I know I am whipping through the speeches, but I am trying to make sure that I get everybody in.

Meur ras. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for introducing this very important debate. It speaks directly to the reality facing my constituents in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, the furthest southerly Labour seat in the United Kingdom.

When it comes to remote coastal isolation and hidden deprivation, the machinery of Government is simply broken by stereotypes and urban centric thinking. Purely as a matter of scale, most people have no idea that Bristol, supposedly in the south west, is closer to Manchester than to Camborne, Redruth and Hayle. When most people think of Cornwall, they have a picture postcard image, yet beneath that image lies deep hidden deprivation: wages are far below the national average, employment is seasonal and insecure and housing is ridiculously unaffordable to most. While the EU recognised that with objective 1 funding, Westminster simply has not. In fact, Treasury models compound the Cornish misery: in migration by wealthier English retirees inflates affluence figures, masking the scale of poverty. In my constituency alone, nine neighbourhoods rank among the most deprived in the country, yet wealthier coastal areas create an overall impression of poverty lessening in the region. The indices of multiple deprivation fail those nine communities, because Treasury models consider the overall picture and do not identify the hidden poverty within.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) alluded to, Cornish residents are systemically disadvantaged in housing, healthcare and public transport. On SEND, Cornwall is the 11th least funded of 151 local authorities, receiving less than half the per pupil funding of councils in Kensington and Chelsea, and about £500 less than places in Manchester.

Much of Cornwall’s population lives in pretty poverty. It is isolated, deprived and hidden from Westminster. If the Government are serious about tackling inequality, they must ensure that funding reflects need, not averages on a Whitehall spreadsheet. It is time for a radical review of funding models for remote coastal areas.

It is a particular pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate. I have lived and worked in a coastal community throughout my life, so I can speak with some force about the challenges they face.

Our sea ports are not just transit points for goods but engines of regeneration, holding the unique power to lift coastal areas out of deprivation and firmly reconnect them to national prosperity. Ports are the lifeblood of coastal economic health, explicitly serving to catalyse jobs and drive local wealth where it is most needed. Their activities support 90,000 jobs across the broader region, yet a significant driver of isolation and economic deprivation in coastal communities is the severe lack of adequate transport connectivity. Coastal communities are, by their geographical nature, at the end of the line. When we talk about hidden deprivation, we are talking about young people who cannot easily travel to access further education, local businesses that struggle to attract external investment and residents who face profound social isolation.

The hon. Gentleman is speaking very powerfully about the need for connectivity around coastal ports. Is he aware that the two largest towns in the UK with no railhead, Fraserburgh and Peterhead in my constituency, have been left in exactly that position after the Beeching cuts of the 1960s? Does he agree that, if the Government bring forward a new strategy for these areas, they have to look at rail connectivity?

I was not aware of the situation of the two towns the hon. Gentleman mentions, but he highlights a key point. I have been campaigning for the last 15 years to reintroduce the direct train service from Grimsby and Cleethorpes to London King’s Cross. What Hull Trains has done for the north bank of the Humber—many Members will be familiar with it—has been a real boost to the local economy. I now look to Great British Railways to do the same for the south bank, but it has to be said that I have my doubts. If we are really serious about tackling hidden deprivation in our coastal communities, we cannot leave them cut off from the capital. A direct rail link would be a real boost to the economy of the south bank of the Humber.

If we are to truly break physical barriers of isolation, we must also strengthen east west rail freight connectivity. Immingham is the largest port in the country, measured by tonnage, and it needs better access to other industrial centres, which would relieve the M62 of an enormous amount of heavy goods vehicle traffic. When we invest in fundamental infrastructure, private investment and supply chain growth will naturally follow. I urge the Minister to recognise that upgrading transport infrastructure is absolutely key to reducing isolation and deprivation in our local communities.

More in Common recently published a report, commissioned by Associated British Ports, that provides a fascinating array of statistics and opinions gleaned from extensive research. It shows very clearly that the state of high streets and the cost of living are the key issues in our coastal communities. I urge the Minister to focus on that when she responds to the debate.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. My constituency has enormous potential, but it has been held back by years of austerity, under investment and managed decline. Coastal communities once stood at the heart of Britain’s economy: our ports connected us to the world, our fishing fleet fed the country and our industries sustained skills and secured jobs. Fleetwood was a thriving port, central to our national prosperity.

Today, many coastal communities face deep poverty, poor health, lower educational attainment, insecure work and poor quality housing, yet the deprivation is hidden. Severe need in one neighbourhood can be obscured by apparent prosperity only a few miles away, and broad funding formulas fail to reflect the reality of individual towns. Those problems are made worse by isolation. When buses are unreliable, railway lines have disappeared and services have closed, geographical isolation quickly becomes economic and social isolation. Young people feel that they must leave to find decent work. The industries that once sustained reliable working communities like mine have disappeared with too little put in their place.

This decline was not inevitable; it is a result of political choices, and it is now the duty of this Government to fix it. Without investment in towns such as Blackpool and Fleetwood, the Government cannot achieve their missions of growth, opportunity, health and clean energy. It is not good enough simply to pump more money into the major cities of the north and south; our towns need support too. The lasting answer to poverty is good work that pays decent wages, and that requires the reindustrialisation of our coastal towns. In Fleetwood, we need a tidal barrage and the train line reconnected. Transport is not simply about getting from one place to another; it connects people to work, education and healthcare.

We came here to rebuild our communities, build warm homes, restore transport links, create secure jobs and give young people a reason to live locally. It is time to give our coastal towns hope again. Let us all get on with delivering the future we promised.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this key debate.

The vital question on “Desert Island Discs” is not what luxury a person desires or which tune they would save from the waves; it is how they would cope on their own. Although we all enjoy a bit of peace and quiet now and then, we are in the end social animals, which is why isolation and loneliness, grinding day in and day out, is such torture. The Scottish household survey says that roughly one in four people suffer loneliness, with 16 to 24-year olds and over-75s disproportionately affected. Coastal areas such as my Dumfries and Galloway constituency have many remote and rural communities, which is, in itself, a problem. A person who has £10 in their pocket in a city can do something with it; they can go somewhere or see a friend. But £10 up an isolated farm track is of little use at all.

The reasons for isolation are myriad. People living longer is of course a good thing, but the harsh reality is that one half of a couple is likely to outlive the other. Although the 2022 Scottish census was utterly botched by the SNP, it indicated that single person households were the most common, accounting for about 37.1% of all homes. Places such as pubs, which were once the wellsprings of communities, are closing in droves. Rural deprivation, especially in coastal areas, where communities are fragile because of a lack of employment and critical infrastructure, is all too real.

Coastal areas are beautiful, none more so than Dumfries and Galloway, with its rocky cliffs, secluded bays, unspoilt empty beaches and rolling gentle hills, but we cannot eat the scenery or have a chat with the big sky overhead. Loneliness needs to be seen for what it is: a public health issue. Rural people, by nature, have to be resilient and self reliant, and the fact is that no Government can do everything. I must mention the charity A Listening Ear, which in my community, movingly, has a programme called “No One Dies Alone”. That outreach is compassionate and vital, and it is critical that communities work together to tackle loneliness.

Order. I am immediately dropping the time limit to two minutes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Hartlepool is a town with a proud coastal and industrial heritage, but above all, it is a town of proud people. We spend a great deal of time in this place talking about the concept of freedom, by which we usually mean freedom from something—whether that is freedom from regulation, from taxation or from the state. Although those debates matter, there is another freedom that we speak of far less: the freedom to become everything we are capable of becoming. The freedoms to earn, to learn, to build a secure life through our own hard work, to raise a family with confidence and to fulfil our potential—those freedoms matter every bit as much, if not more.

Freedom is not simply the absence of restraint; it is the presence of opportunity, but that is what deindustrialisation and globalisation robbed from communities like mine. It did not simply close factories; it took freedom away from working people. It took away their freedom to earn a secure wage and build a career, or to believe that if they worked hard, there would be a decent job waiting for them at the end. It took away the freedom to know that our children will enjoy a better future than we did. The scars were never just economic; they were social, cultural and deeply personal.

To solve this issue, education must be the engine room of freedom. In Hartlepool, I am so proud that our FE college is taking a visionary approach to ensure that children have that freedom. Not every young person wants the same pathway, and vocational excellence is every bit as valuable as academic excellence. Through our partnerships with X energy and Centrica, whereby the new nuclear that we are bringing to Hartlepool partners with our FE college, we are once again giving our young people the freedom to believe that their future will be better than the lives their parents had.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. Time and again, everybody in this debate has come back to the word “community”, and I believe that coastal communities do it like nobody else. Although my Chichester constituency is affluent, that affluence often means that funding does not make it to the pockets of deprivation that are present, especially those on my coast. People look at somewhere like Chichester and say, “They don’t need the support,” so those communities are far more likely to fall between the cracks.

I represent the coastal communities of Pagham, the Witterings and Selsey. Selsey translates directly to “seal island”, because even though it is part of the mainland, there is one road in and out, so if there is an accident on that road, it is literally an island. The people there do community like nobody else. When I think of Selsey, I think of the Selsey Care Shop, the Selsey Venture Club, the Selsey Beach Litter Ninjas and the Selsey Sea Bathing Society. All those charitable organisations and communities come together to support each other in tackling poverty in the area, as well as the isolation and loneliness.

The other thing that happens in Selsey is that the population doubles during the summer, because of all the holidaymakers who come to enjoy our beautiful coastline. Despite that doubling of its population, Selsey does not receive extra police officers to patrol the streets or extra support for an ambulance service, and there are not suddenly fewer cars on the road in Selsey. No extra resource comes in and no extra infrastructure is provided. Instead, it is the community that ends up stepping up and providing support.

When we think about isolation and hidden deprivation within our coastal communities, I have to say that I see those things all the time in places such as Selsey. I am grateful that we have amazing charitable organisations that help the people affected and try to fix the problems where so often statutory services have failed.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate.

Like all hon. Members who represent a coastal constituency, I am lucky to represent such a beautiful area. However, one of the first issues we face is that of perception. My constituency has some of the most expensive land in the country, which sits just 20 minutes away from areas that fall within the most deprived 10% of places in England. Such extremes of wealth can often mask what is really happening in a town. Average gross median weekly full time earnings in Poole are £764, but monthly rent is around £1,400. One in four children in Poole is living in relative poverty after housing costs, which shows the impact of high rents and their effect on the cost of living.

Towns such as Poole are also desperate for good quality, affordable and secure council housing for local families, rather than the developer led luxury waterside apartments that have sprung up in recent years. Such apartments are either unsuitable for young families or out of reach for many locals. We know that poor housing can lead to poor health outcomes. Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability free life expectancy are all lower in coastal areas, and the gap between more affluent areas and poorer areas continues to widen.

In conclusion, I hope that the new Prime Minister will consider appointing a Minister for coastal communities to address these very important and pressing issues.

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for throwing the spotlight on the challenges that many of our communities face. More than 20% of Bexhill’s neighbourhoods are among the most deprived in England.

Many of the speeches this morning have focused on what central Government can do, but I will use this opportunity to recognise and thank the organisations that do amazing work in my community to tackle the challenges we face, right here, right now. For example, funded by the previous Government’s levelling up fund, Heart of Sidley has shown what can be achieved through years of grassroots work, local partnership and community leadership, developing a vision for a brand new community hub at the heart of Sidley. I thank Tanya and her team, the chair, Jay Carroll, and all the volunteers involved in that project.

The Pelham is helping to tackle the causes and consequences of social isolation and poor mental and physical health through youth work, counselling and volunteering. It is also home to the suicide prevention focused running group RunningSpace, founded by Jacky Youldon, who has direct experience of how exercise helped her. The Bexhill Family Collective provides a local nursery service, Dragonflies, as well as a community pantry, and outdoor learning and gardening activities for families. Bexhill Caring Community has for decades provided affordable and vital support to older, housebound and lonely residents. Freedom Church in Sidley provides a community marketplace, which redistributes food that would otherwise go to waste to households that are struggling. Many others, including Bexhill Foodbank Advice Service, Warming Up The Homeless, and Bexhill and Rother Homelessness Unity Group, are all doing their best to tackle the challenges in the community, and they provide hope, advice and support to so many people.

The Government have a role and I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West about the funding formula and the challenges it has created. Of course, as a coastal community with a lot of hospitality businesses, the damaging jobs tax and the increase in business rates have made things difficult. However, in Bexhill we are looking ahead to our £20 million town deal, which was awarded by the previous Government. I know that residents are excited about what we can achieve with that money, because Bexhill, at its heart, is a community of positive people who want to get things done and want to improve their lot in life. We will do everything we can with that money to support them in doing so.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate.

Blackpool is a town with huge potential and pride, but we are also a case study in what happens when national policy neglects the specific needs of coastal communities. The decline of traditional industries, the collapse of secure employment and decades of under- investment in housing, education and health have left scars that no one off funding round can heal.

In Blackpool, the impact of deprivation extends far beyond income; it affects health, wellbeing and social connection. Last year’s community life survey found that adults living in the most deprived communities are nearly three times more likely to report feeling lonely than those in the least deprived areas. Loneliness does not exist in isolation from health; people living with disabilities or long term health conditions are almost three times more likely to experience chronic illness and loneliness.

Left unaddressed, isolation and poor health feed one another, deepening inequality and creating a cycle that is difficult to break. Tackling isolation is vital to improving public health, reducing health inequalities and helping people live healthier, happier lives. Against that backdrop, I have seen what is possible when people are given a chance to build that connection. I have seen it at Grow Blackpool at The Grange community centre. I have seen it in The Hub in South Shore with the Monday lunch club run by Brian and Karen, and I have seen it at the Forget Me Not dementia café led by Jenny Fitzsimmons and all her brilliant volunteers. Such places are stepping up to fill that gap. I have seen volunteers, community groups and local organisations build connections and create hope where it is needed.

We need a Government who match that determination. We need targeted funding, long term planning and genuine recognition of place based disadvantage. That means the scaling up the ambition and speed of projects such as Pride in Place and moving beyond short term pots of cash and towards sustainable, multi year investment tied to measurable outcomes in coastal towns, such as better jobs, improved health, higher educational attainment and connected communities. It also means a dedicated coastal communities Minister leading all that change.

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate. I want to speak up for Ilfracombe in particular, and the challenges that will be familiar to coastal communities everywhere. Devon county council has identified Ilfracombe as one of the most vulnerable towns in Devon. Its remote location leaves it badly cut off from wider public services, economic opportunities and emergency intervention. That pattern will be all too familiar for those in this room.

What I can never accept are shameless articles, such as the one recently published in a national tabloid newspaper that I will not name, punching down at Ilfracombe. Trashing a small town’s reputation for clicks is not journalism; it is monetising misery and it is not fit for tomorrow’s fish and chip paper. I have spoken with local business owners who pour their hearts and souls out into Ilfracombe trying to make things better, and the very last thing that they need is a hatchet job in the national press.

Just yesterday, it was reported that a local teenager, Bradley Blackmore, bravely rescued another boy from drowning. Well done, Bradley. Ilfracombe can boast award winning manufacturing businesses and several promising new housing schemes supported by North Devon council and the Ilfracombe Community Land Trust, delivering safer social housing for local people. Every year, crowds flock to Ilfracombe for the maritime festival. This August, a daring soapbox derby will again raise thousands for charity, and I am proud to say that Ilfracombe has just been shortlisted for the first ever UK town of culture awards, one of only 15 towns in the country on the list.

I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider re inventing the coastal communities fund or coastal revival fund for the new generation. How should we talk about challenges without damaging the reputation of coastal towns that deserve our help? How do we deliver what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) called “good growth in every postcode”?

In coastal communities such as mine in Scarborough and Whitby, we see persistently high levels of domestic abuse where victims and survivors are hidden and isolated. Scarborough has the highest rate of reported domestic abuse in North Yorkshire. A landmark report found that, on average, victims in rural areas, including North Yorkshire, were subject to abuse for 25% longer and were half as likely to report it compared with victims in urban areas. Referrals to the Independent Domestic Abuse Services in North Yorkshire, the largest charity supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence in the county, continue to rise. In 2025, it received over 20,000 referrals, compared to 18,000 in 2022.

I have worked on countless heartbreaking cases on behalf of my constituents where women experiencing domestic abuse have been denied the support that they need. A constituent recently told me that she contacted multiple organisations to try to get help so that she and her child could move away from her abuser, but they kept saying, “There’s not much help we can give you.” Another survivor wrote to me to say she was homeless, and paying to live with her three children in hotels.

My constituents desperately want to move on from their isolating and traumatic experiences of domestic abuse. Sometimes, dispersed accommodation is the answer, and other times the answer is a refuge, but there is no refuge in the North Yorkshire council area, the largest county by area in England. I urge the York and North Yorkshire combined authority to deliver a women’s refuge on the coast. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how she is working across Government to provide targeted support to hidden and isolated victims of domestic abuse in coastal communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate, because it is vital to consider the issue of hidden deprivation and isolation in coastal communities. In Methil and Buckhaven in my constituency, which have proud histories in fishing and mining, these problems are there in plain sight. There are too many derelict buildings, too many families scarred by the impacts of substance misuse and too many homes that are hard to heat. A third of children live in relative poverty.

Levenmouth has the lowest employment rate in Fife and the highest economic inactivity rate. That is why the future of Methil yard in my constituency has been such a priority for me since I was elected. If we ensure that British yards benefit from Government procurement, including through the defence investment plan, that could make a big difference for many of our coastal towns, and certainly would in Methil.

If we create more opportunities for work, tackle the pressures on cost of living, improve public services and improve public transport for all our people, coastal communities stand to benefit the most. Government at all levels, including the Scottish Government, must also have a clear focus on their specific needs. That means devolving power further, including within Scotland, so that the people living in these communities, who are both proud of and ambitious for their areas, have a real opportunity to create change where they live.

Methil and Buckhaven will receive £20 million in Pride in Place funding over the next 10 years. Our new neighbourhood board is brimming with ideas on what could be done with these funds to provide better support to local people, to use investment in the public realm to realise the beauty in our local coastline and to improve the quality of life in the community. If we take the example of Pride in Place and go much further, investing in our coastal towns and backing local residents to take the decisions that can transform their local areas, this Government can make a real difference in improving their communities and lives.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate. A report by Plymouth Marjon University used the phrase “pretty poverty” to describe places such as mine in South East Cornwall, where visitors see our coastline, fishing villages and tourist economy, but behind the curtain are local families facing low wages, insecure and seasonal work and a shortage of affordable homes.

Poor transport links, patchy digital connectivity and challenges in accessing healthcare, education and employment are part of the challenge. The realities of living in rural and coastal communities cannot be measured by populations, because the distances, travel times and cost of service delivery really matter. They impact whether someone can actually get to an appointment, their college or a job interview. We need more bus provision to enable them to do so.

Those realities should be reflected much more consistently in funding decisions. Tolled crossings, such as the Tamar crossings, which many of my constituents rely on every day, adding yet another cost. High levels of second homes and short term holiday lets put additional pressure on the local housing market, reducing the supply of homes for local people and often forcing them to move away the communities where their support networks are based.

The social infrastructure in South East Cornwall, made up of pubs, social clubs and other places, is thriving, but these places are under pressure, and we must do more to support them. Property values in Cornwall are driven up by homes that local people could never realistically afford, which impacts our experience. Tourism is vital to our economy, but those visitors cause significant additional pressures; young people often feel they have to leave home to find opportunities.

I want Cornwall to become not only one of the UK’s leading tourist destinations, but a place where young people can build careers in digital industries, defence, clean energy and maritime tech, as well as other advanced manufacturing. We have so much potential; we have led the country before and we will do so again. With greater support from the Government, we can face these challenges head on, because Cornwall certainly does not lack ambition.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this debate on a fantastic subject.

What I am about to say is specific to the highlands and Scotland, but it is relevant, to a lesser extent, to all hon. Members in the Chamber. I have written a brilliant report called “Remote Scotland: Spiralling towards Unviability?”—I imagine everyone will be scrambling for a copy after the debate. It is about education; childcare; health and social care; energy demographics; centralisation; housing; work and economy; transport; and digital connectivity—all subjects that have been covered in this debate.

Isolation comes as a result of many of the issues that I will point out, and deprivation, as has been mentioned, is much less obvious in a small, pretty croft house on the lochside than in a deprived inner city housing estate. An 82-year old widow in Gairloch wrote me to say that she is living in her croft house in the winter and paying as much to heat it as she receives in her state pension of £182 per week. There is no daily bus to the town, she does not have a car, her carer comes intermittently and her daughter lives near Glasgow. She is both isolated and deprived.

I will focus on four things. Being part of the EU was extremely important for remote areas. They received funding commensurate with the additional costs of delivering infrastructure and services across a remote, dispersed and sparsely populated area. A week before his election, Boris Johnson promised that not a penny of funding for rural areas would be lost as a result of Brexit. That money funded skills training, community projects and infrastructure, including roads and bridges. Between 2000 and 2018, EU structural funds contributed €1.2 billion to the highlands and islands, while in the past three years, the UK shared prosperity fund contributed £9.4 million to the highlands and islands—that shows the disparity. Boris Johnson’s Government broke his promise immediately, and the Labour Government have not replaced the shortfall.

Centralisation of services in the UK, and in Scotland in particular, has seen powers move from councils back to Whitehall and Holyrood. In the highlands, powers and funding have also been moved back to Inverness city, at the expense of Wester Ross, Skye, Caithness, Sutherland and Lochaber. Capital investments, such as city deals, have been hogged by cities. In January 2024—before I joined it—the Scottish Affairs Committee produced a report showing that the cost of living premium in remote Scotland was up to 30% higher than in urban Scotland. As hon. Members will know, mains gas is really available only in towns and cities, at 7p per kilowatt. Those in rural areas pay for electricity, which costs 26p per kilowatt—four times as much—to heat their houses. Food costs a great deal more in rural shops than in supermarkets. Of course, the distances to central services such as banks, doctors and medical centres are far greater.

The rest of the UK has not had the renewables boom. Scotland has, except that has produced very few local jobs, little legacy housing and minimal community benefit. It is not a boom. Scotland as a whole received only £30 million of community benefit in 2025, and the highlands, which are covered in wind farms, got only £7 million. Westminster could have legislated for community benefits at any time over the last 20 years, but it did not. Rural Britain will be generating electricity for urban Britain, but at the moment there is precious little in it for rural communities.

We have a major demographic crisis; it has come up in debates before. In primary and secondary schools all the way up the west coast, the school roll has dropped by 50%. The school in Portree on the Isle of Skye was built less than 20 years ago for 1,000 children, but fewer than 500 children go to it. The small schools do not get science, technology, engineering and mathematics coverage; they do not get the physics, mathematics or computing teaching that the big urban schools get. That means that parents with children who are gifted in those subjects move into the cities, so there is a downward spiral at those schools. The University of the Highlands and Islands is a brilliant concept, but, again, it does not teach science, technology, engineering and maths in Fort William or Portree, say.

Our kids leave—they go to Inverness or Glasgow, never to return—so we have a greatly ageing population. The highlands has seen a 71% increase in the number of over-75s, and that is set to increase by a further 34% in the next five years. We have had an 18% fall in the number of care homes, despite the rising number of elderly people; there are only 45 care beds in Skye for a population of 10,000. NHS Highland is paying £77,000 a day for delayed discharges.

In short, people in rural coastal communities earn less money. Their housing, food, heating and fuel for their vehicles cost more, and public transport costs more because of the distances. They have less access to public services, find it harder to access equivalent education, and their young leave. When they need care as elderly people, it is often not available, and if it is, it is more expensive. Remote Scotland is spiralling towards being unviable, and neither the Westminster Government nor the Holyrood Government are stepping forward to support it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is a huge privilege to wind up the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this very important debate. I welcome the Minister to her place; this will be the first time we have had an exchange in this place.

As hon. Members will know, I do not represent a coastal community. The River Lea and the white water rafting centre that proudly hosted events for the 2012 Olympics are the closest my constituency comes to having a coastline. However, many of my constituents grew up visiting our coasts, and have warm memories and strong cultural attachments to the beaches, clifftops and seaside towns of our great island nation. I fondly remember trips to places such as Clacton, Bournemouth, Great Yarmouth and Southend. From my visits to many of our seaside towns, and from hearing hon. Members’ testimonies, it is apparent that those places face unique challenges. Unfortunately, many of them have experienced decline in recent decades. The challenges that they face are not always adequately acknowledged or addressed by central Government. Understandably, many feel as if they are overlooked time and again.

Many Members have made eloquent cases about that, providing us with valuable insights from the people they speak to and from their own experiences, but I will touch on some of those challenges again. They include poor or sometimes non existent transport links, unemployment and changes to a once reliable and profitable seasonal trade, a lack of housing supply, and large disparities in income, which mean that many people cannot afford to live in the places where they grew up. That is made even worse by the conversion of former hotels, B&Bs and residential properties into houses in multiple occupation, with councils and Government Departments using them to house people from elsewhere, leading to transient and unstable communities. Another challenge is an education system that receives far less money per pupil than some inner city areas of London, for example.

Unfortunately, decisions made by this Labour Government have worsened and compounded many of those issues. Businesses such as hotels, ice cream parlours and fisheries have been hit hard by the increase the employer national insurance and by burdensome regulations. Business rates have increased—in some cases massively and seemingly arbitrarily. Many people I meet in the hospitality industry, which is vital to coastal communities, tell me that they are really struggling; they simply have no more to give, and they ask why they should even bother. The Minister’s Department is now pushing through local government reorganisation, which in some areas will lump coastal communities together with inland towns and villages that have completely different priorities and challenges, and risks marginalising coastal communities even further. I urge the Government to pay particular attention to that when making decisions on local government reorganisation.

Ultimately, our coastal communities and the whole United Kingdom deserve better. We need a Government who cut rather than increase taxes, reward rather than punish aspiration and success, prioritise quality housing for local people rather than HMOs for illegal asylum seekers, and put the interests of ordinary British people first, not least those in our coastal communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I also welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), to his place—although neither of us represents a coastal town. He and I have known each other a long time.

The Government recognise the importance of coastal communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing such an important and well attended debate. Places such as the Isle of Wight are often thought of as postcards of national pride, as they should be, but as Members have said so well, behind the postcards, they face a distinctive challenge: geographical isolation, poorer connectivity, deprivation and barriers to opportunity. The Social Mobility Commission found that coastal communities have some of the least favourable conditions for childhood in our country—a disproportionately high number of their children are eligible for free school meals, for example, with parents who have relatively low qualification levels.

The Isle of Wight demonstrates the strengths and the challenges found across many coastal communities. Its economy was worth more than £3 billion in 2020. Health, education, retail, manufacturing and, of course, tourism all play a major role in the island’s strengths. At the same time, like all coastal communities, it faces a number of economic and social challenges. The Government are committed to ensuring that no community is left behind—there is no hierarchy when it comes to deprivation. Regardless of where people live, they must have access to the opportunities that they need to succeed.

That is fantastic rhetoric, but the reality of the funding formula is that it does exactly that—it creates hierarchies, inefficiencies and unfairness in the funding. Given that so many Members have raised it in the debate, will the Minister pledge to look again at the funding formula and how it negatively impacts on so many of our communities?

I will address that point later in my speech.

More than 5 million residents live in 169 coastal towns across England and Wales, and they deserve a voice and a future. The Government’s commitment to doing that goes well beyond rhetoric. That is why I am particularly proud that the Government support the Pride in Place programme—just one programme, but an important one—through which £6 billion has been allocated for long term investment in communities across the United Kingdom. I recognise that not every constituency among the coastal communities has secured funding, but the 50 coastal communities that have benefit collectively from more than £1 billion in investment. Those communities are not simply receiving the funds but being given greater voice in how that money should be spent.

After close inspection of the detail on Pride in Place, we found that 50% of the evaluation was based on data that was not available even to MPs. We could not understand in any way how the distribution of that money was decided, and it completely avoided what many of us thought were relevant data.

The Pride in Place plan sets clear criteria: the first tranche of funding focused on deprivation, and the second focused on deprivation and community cohesion. I am happy to provide more information to the hon. Member. I recognise that not every part of the country has Pride in Place funding, which is why I have always been clear that Pride in Place alone will not see the transformation that coastal communities need.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make a little progress. Pride in Place funding is important, because £20 million, including for 50 coastal communities, is not nothing. Alongside that, the Pride in Place impact fund is delivering up to £143 million to 93 local authorities, almost 40% of which are coastal communities.

Coastal communities also benefit from a range of wider Government interventions, as I said, and we recognise that improving education is a key part of that. I thank Members for making so many important points relating to education and the challenges that coastal communities face in respect of the isolation of educational facilities and, in many senses, their viability. The Government are already acting through initiatives such as Mission Coastal, working with schools, academy trusts and local partners to improve outcomes in disadvantaged coastal areas. Through the local regeneration fund, we are providing local authorities with greater flexibility to deliver projects that support local growth and respond to local priorities.

I recognise Members’ frustration about local government funding, and I know that councils deliver valuable services. The Government settlement strengthens the relationship between deprivation and funding. That is a good thing, and coastal communities will benefit from that. By 2028-29, the top 10% of most deprived areas will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived.

I am happy to give way, but I will just say that after 14 years of austerity imposed on us by Conservatives and Lib Dems, Members should reflect on the multi year settlement that local authorities are benefiting from.

I hear what the Minister says; as a lifelong Liberal, I personally found those years extremely difficult. That said, rurality is not taken into account when the Government give out money for local areas. Accounting for rurality and remoteness in local government funding outcomes would make a massive difference to my constituency and others.

The hon. Lady and I have worked well together on Select Committees, and she advocates for her area incredibly well. Others across the political divide will agree with her important point. Rural communities are being addressed through a number of different funds, but I recognise the general point about fairness through the local government settlement. I have spent much of my political career advocating for that, so I certainly will not diminish it.

The shadow Minister raised employer national insurance contributions. The Government had to make a difficult decision in order to boost public services spending by £100 billion. That was the right political choice that is ultimately helping coastal communities. I gently say that the challenges that coastal communities face have not emerged in the past two years because of Government fiscal policy. They are long standing challenges that multiple Governments have failed to properly address.

There is always a balance to be struck when it comes to taxation, how much money we can generate for frontline services and the long term investment that coastal communities need. We have to constantly review that, but I welcome the £100 billion of additional investment that has been generated by increasing employer national insurance contributions. Half of those who pay national insurance contributions are paying the same as they did previously and, because of the changes to the employment allowances, over 800,000 employers pay no national insurance at all.

I want to give the Minister the opportunity to comment on how the right to guaranteed hours affects seasonal workers. We are enjoying some beautiful weather in Somerset. If that were followed by a period of rainy weather when some businesses have no need of staff, the Government’s legislation would compel employers to offer staff the same time. That means those employers are currently deterred from offering employment. Will the Minister comment on that?

It is as though the hon. Gentleman has read my notes; I was just about to come to that. I welcome the opportunity to address that point, which has long been debated in both Westminster Hall and the Chamber. Flexible working is of course important for a labour market, and that is particularly the case for coastal towns, but the truth is that it has too often been used as a reason for employers not to give people their fair share of payment.

I recognise the seasonal nature of work in coastal towns, but there has to be a balance. The Employment Rights Act includes powers to ensure that zero hours contracts and the needs of seasonal industries are accommodated. It allows for further regulation and scrutiny, but there is already provision in the Act itself. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am confident that the Act provides not only rights for employees, but the flexibility that coastal towns need in respect of seasonal work.

On the points about transport opportunities that were so well put by Members of all parties, and the particular challenge for coastal communities that find themselves isolated, we know that convenient, reliable and affordable transport is essential for giving people access to education, training, employment and jobs. I was particularly shocked to hear about the cost of ferry travel from the Isle of Wight, which is extraordinary. It is particularly shocking when we think about the transport necessary for a local economy to keep going. The Government have announced, through our child poverty strategy, that we will develop a new transport poverty tool to help national and local bodies in England to identify areas of poor transport connectivity and affordability. Access to services depends on connectivity, as does a local economy, and individuals need to be able to use transport and go to work.

I agree with Members that transport infrastructure investment is a key part of economic growth, and I am also pleased that 11 of the UK’s 12 freeports, which I think have been mentioned as an important part of our economic growth, are in coastal locations, supporting the Government’s drive for economic growth.

Will the Minister give way?

I apologise but I am going to make some progress because I have very little time.

Some coastal communities face the same housing crisis challenges as areas elsewhere in the country but, of course, particular characteristics of that crisis impact coastal towns. The Government’s £40 billion for building more affordable and social homes will benefit coastal communities as well as the rest of the country, but I know there are challenges around short term lets.

The Government are making changes to the tax system to ensure that housing is seen primarily as about people having a home, rather than as an investment—an important point made not only made in this debate but in the main Chamber too—and those taxation changes will be important for coastal communities. Alongside that, the Government have abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime, so landlords will no longer be incentivised via the tax system to make their properties available for short term lets. I believe that will make a tangible difference for coastal communities.

Members spoke powerfully about the need for a more joined up approach to the delivery of health services, and about the particular challenges coastal communities face because of their isolation. I pay tribute to Members who spoke about social isolation as well as the healthcare challenges for coastal communities. It is distressing to hear that constituents are not receiving the healthcare treatment they need. Someone’s access to healthcare cannot depend on whether they are a car owner. That is not right. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has a role to play in making sure that services are joined up, as does the NHS. The Government have made reducing health inequalities a central part of our mission.

I do not expect an answer today, but I did ask about Northern Ireland. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but would she please do me the favour of discussing with the relevant Minister there how we can be better helped in Northern Ireland?

I am of course very happy to pick that up separately with representatives from the devolved nations, especially in relation to health, because some of the principles obviously go beyond England.

I thank Members for highlighting the challenges. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for highlighting the acute challenges of domestic abuse in her constituency and her region; “There’s not much help we can give you” is simply not a good enough answer to anybody. That is the wrong message to give, and I believe there is help. I thank Members for an excellent debate on important issues. Coastal communities are important to the Government, and the potential of the whole country can be achieved only if coastal communities’ potential is achieved too.

I thank the Minister for her response, and echo the points made by colleagues from across the House. I sincerely thank Members for attending and contributing to the debate. I also want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), who could not make it today but shares the concerns raised.

Too often, decisions that appear cost effective on a spreadsheet can have profound consequences in the real world. A saving identified in a Excel workbook may, in practice, mean an older person on the Isle of Wight being sent to a mainland care home, a student reaching 18 without ever experiencing life beyond their area, or a local authority struggling to meet rising demand with an overstretched adult social care budget. The human cost is always felt by those who can least afford it, and the financial cost is ultimately felt by us all.

True fiscal responsibility is not just about balancing the books for the next quarter; it is about making the investments today that reduce costs tomorrow. In coastal communities like ours, that means tackling isolation and hidden deprivation, rather than simply managing their consequences year on year.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities.

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for rugby in schools.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the Chamber. Rugby is far more than 80 minutes on a Saturday afternoon: it teaches young people that success is earned collectively rather than individually; it instils discipline, respect, resilience and leadership; and it provides a place where people of every shape, size and background have a role to play. There are few sports where a prop, a scrum half and a winger can all become international stars despite having entirely different physiques, skills and strengths.

Rugby’s greatest asset is not Twickenham; it is not the premiership, and it is not even the England team or the Red Roses. It is the thousands of volunteers who open the clubhouse on a cold Saturday morning, mark out the pitches before dawn, coach the under-7s, wash the kit, cook the burgers, pull the pints, organise the fixtures, referee junior matches and somehow still find time to mow the grass. Across my constituency of West Dorset, we are fortunate to have extraordinary clubs, including Bridport, Dorchester, Puddletown and Sherborne. Those clubs are about more than rugby; they are community hubs. They bring together generations: parents become coaches and grandparents become supporters. Every membership subscription paid, every burger bought after a match, every pint served in the clubhouse and every raffle ticket sold helps to keep those clubs alive.

A thriving grassroots ecosystem produces world class athletes, and world class athletes inspire the next generation to pull on a pair of boots for the first time. But our grassroots game cannot be taken for granted. Over the last 24 years, 174 amateur clubs have disappeared. Many more are under immense financial pressure. Changing rooms are ageing, clubhouses need investment, facilities are often unsuitable for women and girls, and volunteer numbers are hard to sustain. Many clubs that once fielded six senior teams now struggle to put out two. Youth sections increasingly struggle to field full teams at the weekend. We need to support our grassroots teams by encouraging children to start rugby in the first place, and the best place to do that is schools. If we want world class international rugby tomorrow, we must invest in grassroots and school level rugby today.

Research has found that physical activity improves classroom behaviour, attention, reading and mathematical performance. Another study found that children who consistently participated in organised sport experienced lower absenteeism, better attention, stronger memory, higher educational attainment and were more likely to progress to university.

Importantly, team sport produces some of the strongest educational benefits. Rugby teaches young people to solve problems together, as well as teaching communication, leadership, decision making under pressure, discipline, trust and resilience when things inevitably go wrong. Those are precisely the skills employers tell us they struggle to find. The Confederation of British Industry found that 61% of employers were dissatisfied with young people’s resilience and self management, while nearly one third identified poor teamwork skills. Rugby develops those qualities. It teaches young people how to win graciously, how to lose with dignity, how to lead and follow, how to respect officials even when disagreeing with a decision and, perhaps most importantly, that individual brilliance only succeeds when it serves the team.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. He outlines some of the clubs in his constituency that do great things. In my main town of Newtownards, Ards rugby club is a phenomenal club that seeks to be involved in charitable as well as sporting aspects within the area. On its own initiative, it recently went into schools to provide free training sessions with children, to give them an understanding of and a passion for the game. Both girls and boys were invited to train with the club. Does the hon. Member agree that while the clubs can do so much, they really do need that wee bit of extra help to lift the children aspect of small teams?

The hon. Member must forgive that my speech is weighted towards English rugby, as he is absolutely right that the important role rugby clubs play in a community is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom.

Research has now described the evidence linking organised sport with improved psychological wellbeing as compelling. Researchers found that with more physical activity they saw improved classroom behaviour and concentration, stronger social relationships, attention, readiness to learn and cognitive function, healthier body composition, improved mood, reduced stress, increased blood flow to the brain and increased oxygen delivery. There is strong evidence that physical activity is associated with lower anxiety, lower depression, better mood, greater happiness, higher self esteem, greater life satisfaction and better body image. I could go on.

We often discuss young people’s mental health in this House, and rightly so. Rural areas like West Dorset have worse access to services, and children often struggle to get the help that they need, but we should also recognise that sport is one of the most effective preventive public health interventions available to us. Children who are active are significantly more likely to become active adults, which means lower long term healthcare costs. During the 2023-24 season alone, rugby generated over £2.03 billion in value, including £707 million through improved physical and mental health, more than £823 million of wider social value, and over £500 million in economic growth.

The Rugby Football Union’s all school programme, originally established as part of the rugby world cup legacy, introduced rugby into hundreds of state secondary schools. Independent research found remarkable outcomes. 73% of participating schools reported improved confidence among pupils; 49% reported improved resilience; and nearly one third even reported improvements in academic performance. Participants themselves reported improved leadership skills, greater confidence, better behaviour, reduced stress and improved self esteem.

The Sky Sports living for sport programme has supported more than 500,000 young people to gain access to sport. More than 90% of teachers reported improvements in pupils’ confidence, self esteem and teamwork. Teachers also reported an improvement of 71% in pupils’ attendance, 72% in academic attainment, 78% in behaviour, 83% in engagement with learning and 85% in engagement with school life. These are exactly the qualities we should want every young person to develop. They demonstrate why Government support for rugby and sport should never be viewed as just about exercise. It is also about the tangible benefits that follow.

For too long, access to elite rugby in England has been dominated by a relatively small number of independent schools. Although those schools have made enormous contributions to the game and continue to develop exceptional players, the current pathway is simply too narrow and based on privilege. Talent exists in every city, town and village in this country, but opportunity does not. If English rugby is to reach its full potential, we must ensure that a child’s postcode or their parents’ income no longer determines whether they have the opportunity to excel.

The numbers demonstrate the challenges and the opportunity. Independent schools educate about 7% of pupils in England, yet continue to produce a disproportionately large share of professional rugby players. That is not because talent is concentrated in one part of society; it is because access to coaching facilities, fixtures and clear development pathways often are. Independent schools are more likely to have experienced staff, and sometimes ex professional. That means that their students have far easier access to such facilities and better opportunities to perfect their sporting skills, compared with those at many state schools.

There are thousands of children attending state schools who have never picked up a rugby ball, not because they lack the ability or enthusiasm, but simply because the opportunity has never been presented to them. If we are genuinely seeking to improve England’s competitiveness on the international stage, the answer is not simply coaching the same group of players more effectively. It is finding talented young people who currently sit entirely outside the system.

That is why I welcome the work being undertaken by the RFU. The All Schools programme shows what can be achieved when rugby is brought into state education. Hundreds of schools that previously had little or no rugby provision are now introducing the sport to thousands of young people. Government can play an important role by ensuring that schools have access to suitable facilities, qualified coaches and meaningful links with local community clubs. School sport should never operate in isolation. The stronger systems are those where schools, clubs and governing bodies work together. That now needs to become the norm, rather than the exception.

We also need to look at a model that does not place the burden on teachers to become professional sports coaches, alongside their already demanding and vitally important jobs. We have world class universities with outstanding sports coaching degrees. We should use that pipeline to develop a new generation of professional coaches, who can support schools, take the pressure off teachers and help build the next generation of athletes across different sports, including rugby.

We should also recognise that not every young person wants or is initially able to play full contact rugby. Providing a non contact version of the game—the T1 rugby initiative—removes many of the barriers that might otherwise prevent young people from becoming involved. It offers an accessible introduction to rugby values, teamwork and skills, while giving participants confidence to progress if they wish. Importantly, it also enables schools with limited experience of rugby to introduce the sport safely and inclusively.

One of the greatest successes in English sport over recent years has undoubtedly been the rise of the Red Roses. Their success in winning the rugby world cup and wider participation present an extraordinary opportunity to build on that momentum. When girls are inspired by watching the Red Roses, there must be somewhere local for them to play the following weekend or through the week at school. Evidence shows that children from more deprived backgrounds are less likely to participate in organised sport, despite often benefiting the most from doing so. If we genuinely believe that rugby builds confidence, resilience, leadership and teamwork, those opportunities should be available to every young person, regardless of background. Sport should never become another form of inequality.

That is why partnerships between schools, local authorities and community clubs are so valuable. Community clubs already possess qualified volunteers, coaching expertise and strong local networks. Schools possess young people eager to participate. The challenge is ensuring that those two worlds connect more effectively. We should make it as easy as possible for schools to signpost pupils towards their nearest club and equally as straightforward for clubs to engage with local schools and introduce children to the game.

That is particularly important in rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Our geography means that opportunities can sometimes be harder to access. Transport presents challenges, schools are more dispersed, volunteer recruitment can be more difficult. That is why clubs such as Bridport, Dorchester, Puddletown and Sherborne, continue to play such an important role in growing our game. With greater connection with local schools, they can play an even greater part.

When state schools have been given the right funding and offered support, they have demonstrated exactly what is possible. A powerful example is Northampton school for boys. In the 2025-26 season, NSB achieved the historic breakthrough by winning the national schools cup, defeating Epsom college in the final, and ending a 20-year absence of state school winners. That reflects a deeply embedded and highly effective rugby programme, with 19 players currently part of Northampton Saints under-18 academy and seven players earning England under-18 international honours. Earlier in the same season, NSB also secured the SOCS Daily Mail schools trophy, becoming the first state school ever to lift that title.

Taken together, those achievements represent a watershed moment for state school rugby. For decades, these competitions have been dominated by independent schools. Before NSB’s success, the last state school to win the national cup was St Peter’s high school in Gloucester in 2006. NSB has shown that when state schools are properly supported with access to coaching and facilities, integrated into local clubs and provided with clear talent pathways, they can compete at the highest levels. Their success challenges long standing assumptions about where elite rugby talent comes from, and demonstrates that excellence exists across the entire education system when opportunity is made available.

We can already see the impact of widening those pathways in the players who have reached the very top of the game. Sadia Kabeya of the Red Roses attended a state school. Ellis Genge, a British and Irish Lions player, also came through the state school system. They are outstanding examples of players who did not follow the traditional route into rugby, yet have become some of the exciting and influential figures in sport. Their success shows exactly what can be achieved when talent is given the opportunity to flourish. We must make it easier for more young people to follow that path, because when we do, the game of rugby benefits enormously from the skills, diversity and character that those players bring.

Investment in changing rooms, floodlights, sports kit, state school pitches and time in children’s weeks would unlock years, if not decades, of increased participation. It would enable clubs to expand youth sections, to create better facilities for women and girls and to host schools’ disability rugby and walking rugby. Rugby contributes more than £2 billion annually to England through improved health, stronger communities and economic activity. Those benefits are felt in every constituency. Healthy young people place less pressure on the NHS. Young people engaged in sports are less likely to become isolated. Communities with thriving sports clubs tend to have stronger volunteer networks and greater civic participation. Businesses would benefit from healthier, more confident and more resilient workforces in the future.

Investment in grassroots rugby and sport more widely delivers dividends across multiple Government Departments. It benefits education, health, local government and the economy. I hope Ministers will continue working closely with the RFU, schools, local authorities and community clubs to develop a genuinely long term strategy for growing participation. We should ensure that every child has access to rugby during their education, strengthen links between schools and local clubs, and continue supporting the growth of women’s rugby. We should invest in community facilities in schools and clubs that are fit for the next generation, because every England international once pulled on an oversized shirt at their local club, every professional player began with a volunteer coach, and every packed stadium begins with a child picking up a rugby ball for the first time. If we continue investing in those first opportunities, the future of English rugby will take care of itself.

Will the Minister work across Government and with governing bodies to deliver the new school sport partnerships and enrichment framework, and provide early clarity on the objectives, priorities, delivery models and timescales? Will the Government ensure that schools have the capacity, facilities and support to deliver high quality sport, so that every child can participate, especially in deprived communities? Will they guarantee sustainable funding, sufficient staffing and strong professional development for school sport partnerships?

Will the Government support investment in the wider school workforce to help deliver activities such as rugby? Will they reaffirm the importance of PE and commit to a minimum of two hours of high quality PE each week? Will they ensure that the curriculum recognises the wider benefits of team sports? If we get this right, we will not only secure the future of English rugby across codes; we will strengthen our communities, improve the health of our nation and give every child the chance to grow, belong and thrive through sport.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this important debate on rugby in schools. When I was asked to sub in for the Minister for School Standards in responding to this debate, I knew that it would not be trying.

I should start with a brief disclaimer. We will talk about rugby in generic terms in this debate, but as a west Cumbrian MP, I have a particular obligation to recognise the role of rugby league in many communities in our country. Rugby league has a long and proud history, with deep roots in towns and communities across the north of England. It is part of local identity and community pride, and it helps form connections between schools, families and local clubs in much the same way as rugby union.

Just this Saturday, as a constituency MP, I saw the amazing impact of Kells in bringing the community together, especially children. That community building comes down to great characters, such as Peter Smith at Kells or Vince and Lana at Derwent Park Rangers, who have all been getting into schools to teach rugby league for well over 20 years. There are so many others I could mention in just my constituency, which reflects the scale of volunteer hours involved—the amazing adults who spend a chunk of their week giving young people the length and breadth of our country an opportunity to do exercise, to build teams and to develop a passion for rugby.

There is so much to celebrate about rugby. At the elite level, both rugby union and league continue to inspire through their outstanding athletes, strong traditions and thriving communities. However, the success of rugby should not be measured only by what happens on professional pitches; it should also be measured by the opportunities available to children and young people in schools and local communities at the grassroots level. Alongside other team sports, rugby helps young people to develop physically, socially and emotionally. Through participation, pupils learn teamwork, communication, leadership, resilience and respect for others. Those are not simply sporting skills; they are life skills that help prepare young people for further education, employment and adult life.

A key reason why rugby supports children to thrive is the contribution of the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby Football League. Through resources, training and support for schools and teachers, they help ensure that young people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to experience and enjoy the sport. Recent work across both codes has highlighted the importance of ensuring that rugby remains accessible, inclusive and relevant to today’s schools. We know that some schools can face barriers to participation, whether through concerns about safety, confidence in delivery or access to expertise. The response from both governing bodies has been to broaden opportunities and provide formats that are easier for schools to adopt and deliver.

Programmes such as T1 rugby and tag rugby, which the hon. Member for West Dorset mentioned, are excellent examples. They provide engaging, non contact ways for pupils to experience the values and enjoyment of rugby, while helping teachers to deliver the sport confidently and safely. Importantly, those approaches ensure that the future of rugby in schools is not simply about reproducing the adult game; it is about ensuring that every child has the opportunity to participate in a way that is enjoyable, accessible and appropriate.

That principle of equal access is especially important for girls. As the hon. Member has already highlighted, the recent success of the Red Roses has inspired a new generation of young women to demonstrate what they can achieve when girls are given the opportunity to participate fully. However, inspiration alone is not enough. We must ensure that girls in every community have access to high quality rugby opportunities through curriculum PE, extracurricular activity and inclusive formats that allow them to build confidence, develop skills and enjoy being active. Those approaches can help introduce rugby to pupils who may never have previously considered the sport to be for them, while also supporting broader participation among girls and young people from a wider range of backgrounds and communities.

As the Government develop our new PE partnership approach, the expertise of organisations such as the RFU and RFL will be invaluable, as is already proving to be the case. National governing bodies have a vital role to play in supporting schools through resources, workforce development and sporting expertise. Their contribution can help schools to achieve the right balance between participation and competition. We know that those are not competing priorities, as every child should have the opportunity to participate, develop competence and build confidence through the sport. At the same time, pupils should be able to pursue competitive opportunities built around safety and fairness. Rugby is particularly well placed to support both of those aims through inclusive programmes, strong local partnerships and clear pathways into competition. Rugby can continue to reach more young people while providing opportunities for those who wish to take the sport further.

The hon. Member for West Dorset is right to describe the need to change the model of school sports in this country. That is exactly what we are trying to do with the school sport partnerships model. We recognise that despite the funding of recent years, participation in school sport has remained fairly flat; it is well below what we need as a country in order to have a healthy population of young people who benefit from all that sport has to offer.

We have worked closely with the national governing bodies in this space. They are at the heart of the plan, and the partnership model is designed around bringing their expertise in to support schools, rather than relying on very busy teachers and schools to do the heavy lifting themselves. For small primary schools especially, it is a challenge to navigate the whole range of different sports and national governing bodies, and local competitions can be overwhelming. The changes that we are making will address the objectives that the hon. Member set out in his questions.

In closing, I place on the record my thanks to teachers, volunteers, coaches, school leaders, local clubs and national governing bodies for the work they do every day to create sporting opportunities for young people across our country. Their efforts ensure that sports like rugby continue to enrich the lives of children and young people across the country, not only by developing future players but by helping to develop future citizens equipped with the teamwork, communication, resilience and respect that will serve them throughout their lives. Rugby also has a crucial role to play at the heart of so many communities, so I thank the hon. Member for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

[Relevant document: Oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 23 June, on Climate and Weather Resilience, HC 68.]

I beg to move, That this House has considered preparedness for extreme heat.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. This issue affects all our constituents, so I will be happy to take interventions.

Over recent weeks, Britain has experienced an extraordinary succession of heatwaves that have tested the resilience of our communities and public services. We have talked on our way in today about how we have all been personally affected—we might have been uncomfortable at various points—but this succession of heatwaves poses serious risks. We have seen hospitals declaring critical incidents, ambulance services facing record demand, transport disrupted, schools closed and firefighters battling major wildfires following prolonged hot and dry conditions.

At the moment, there are 19 live wildfires across England and Wales. Last year, a devastating wildfire on the North York moors raged for 40 days over 10 square miles. It was caused by a campfire. Does the hon. Member agree that it is time to ban the use of disposable barbecues in public areas?

The hon. Member’s example highlights just how much of a risk wildfires pose. We need to take greater measures as a country to prevent them, including seriously looking at her suggestion.

The hon. Member said that he wanted to take interventions. He mentioned schools. On my way into Parliament today on the Northern line, which appropriately for today’s debate was boiling, I received a number of emails from worried parents. Schools are closing early in my constituency, a lot of them smaller primary schools in Victorian buildings, because they cannot accommodate children in the heat we are experiencing at the moment. It will not come as a surprise to the hon. Member that it tends to be single parents or parents without secure incomes who suffer the most when schools finish early. Do we need to speak with the Department for Education about getting some funding for extra fans and cooling units for our schools, so that children do not suffer because of climate change?

I agree with the hon. Member. I will come on to the impact on schools, and the fact that extreme heat does not affect everyone equally, later in my speech. Some communities and individuals are particularly affected, so I support her call, particularly because it highlights the need for a cross Government response.

The incidents I talked about were not isolated weather events, but a real world test of our preparedness for a hotter climate, exposing vulnerabilities across our health service, critical infrastructure, emergency response and natural environment. Britain has entered a new climate reality. The Climate Change Committee’s latest UK climate risk assessment warns that climate risks are increasing faster than our preparedness, with progress described as slow, stalled or moving in the wrong direction.

Extreme heat is no longer an occasional anomaly, but an increasingly defining feature of the UK’s climate. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2002, and the UK has already warmed by around 1.2° since the pre industrial period. England has experienced four major summer heat events since 2018, and the three warmest Junes on record have all occurred during this decade. UK Health Security Agency projections indicate that heat related deaths could more than triple by the 2050s without stronger adaptation.

Extreme heat is now a growing threat to public health, infrastructure, food security, nature and national resilience. It is already a public health emergency. Evidence on rising temperatures and mortality shows that recent heatwaves were not merely uncomfortable; they were deadly. New analysis estimates that around 2,700 heath related deaths occurred during the May and June heatwaves in England and Wales. These are not abstract statistics; they are the human cost of temperatures for which our society is not adequately prepared.

Unlike floods or storms, extreme heat rarely creates dramatic images. Instead, people die quietly, in hospitals, care homes or at home. The Environmental Audit Committee described extreme heat as a “silent killer”. It increases mortality gradually, often among those already vulnerable. Extreme heat places significant strain on the body, increasing the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness, dehydration, heat exhaustion and heatstroke. Hospital admissions rise for heart attacks, strokes, kidney injury and respiratory disease, while those with chronic illnesses or pregnancies and the elderly feel the impacts more acutely. Prolonged heat also affects mental health by disrupting sleep, increasing anxiety and impairing cognitive performance.

On the hon. Member’s point about mental health, does he recognise that a number of treatments for depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, can affect the body’s ability to regulate temperature? It is all written in the small print with the medication, but doctors and practitioners do not always pass on the information. Does he agree that people suffering with those conditions need to be more widely informed?

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. It shows the breadth of issues that we need to contend with. Addressing this issue really is a whole society, whole Government matter. I very much support raising awareness of her point. It shows the need to review how we can treat people in a way that gives them the support they need but does not make other problems worse in the context of heatwaves.

Where people live also matters. Poorly ventilated homes, upper floor flats, care homes, social housing and densely built urban areas can trap heat for prolonged periods. Poverty compounds the risks. Those least able to afford adaptations are often the most exposed. In my Waveney Valley constituency, Friends of the Earth analysis has identified neighbourhoods that are both highly exposed to extreme heat and socially vulnerable, with around one in 10 falling into that category. I am grateful to one of my constituents for drawing my attention to the risk of overheating faced by her neighbour, whose council owned bungalow effectively became a greenhouse during the latest period of extreme heat.

The consequences extend beyond individuals to our health and care system. The NHS was built for a different climate. During the June heatwave, hospitals declared critical incidents, elective operations were postponed and temporary cooling equipment was required. Ambulance services experienced unprecedented demand, with the London ambulance service recording its busiest week on record. At the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which serves part of my constituency, MRI scanners stopped working when the cooling systems failed.

Much of the NHS estate was not designed to operate safely during prolonged periods of temperatures approaching 40°, while many care homes remain poorly adapted to protect vulnerable residents. Extreme heat therefore threatens not only individual health, but the resilience of the health and care system itself. Heat health warnings, public communication and targeted support for vulnerable people must become routine.

Extreme heat is also an occupational health risk. Employers will increasingly need practical measures such as water, shade, ventilation, rest breaks and adjusted working patterns. Stronger workplace protections would safeguard both workers’ health and productivity. The private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) recognises that existing protections have not kept pace with our changing climate, and that employers need to be supported to ensure that people are working in safe and healthy conditions.

Britain’s buildings were designed for a cooler climate. During heatwaves, schools, hospitals, libraries, prisons and care homes can become dangerously hot, placing public services under additional pressure just as demand is rising.

The hon. Member is making a good speech on the risks associated with extreme heat. I had the good fortune of being a maths teacher in a brand new school building in 2023 in Leeds. Just before the building opened, the builders showed us around the place, and I asked how the building would be kept cool. They said it is a passive cooling system. I said I was not sure it would hold up in heatwave conditions. They said, “We’ve got this revolutionary new technology, Mr Sewards—you can open the window.” As anybody who has taught or been taught in classrooms during a heatwave knows, opening a window does absolutely nothing for the learning of students. Does the hon. Member agree that it is time for the DFE to consider changing its guidance on new school buildings so that air conditioning is preferred?

I thank the hon. Member for that point. I will come to the question of how we retrofit buildings and how we ensure that new buildings of whatever type, including schools, are fit for purpose for the large numbers of mainly young people who use them. His points are well made.

During heatwaves, schools can become unsuitable for learning, hospitals struggle to provide safe conditions for patients and staff, and care homes become hazardous for some of the most vulnerable members of society. The problem does not end when temperatures fall; many buildings retain heat long into the night. One constituent told me her home reached 42.5°, and her young son required urgent care after suffering a severe asthma attack induced by extreme heat in the flat.

The Climate Change Committee warns that, by 2050, 92% of existing homes could overheat during summer heatwaves if we do not have a full programme of adaptation measures. Most of the homes that we will live in then have already been built now, which means that national retrofit programmes are essential to keep people safe, including those that deliver shading, cooling, ventilation and green infrastructure. At the same time, every new home, school, hospital and workplace should be designed for a hotter climate through passive cooling measures such as external shading, ventilation, green roofs and reflective materials. Retrofitting later is far more expensive than building resilience from the outset, and every building constructed today should be designed for the climate we are moving towards, not the one we have left behind.

As well as changes to the built environment, we must also consider making social changes. We need to question whether the summer period will be the right time for exams in future. We must look to protect young people and help them to do their absolute best in exams, in whatever conditions are comfortable for them to work at their best.

The hon. Member will know that, with the extreme heat and reduced rainfall, a lot of water companies are introducing hosepipe bans to mitigate the risk of drought. Does he agree that that seems a bit redundant, given that artificial intelligence data centres use between 11 million and 19 million litres of water a day? Does he agree that, as we prepare to experience more extreme heat over the summer periods, there is an urgent need to address the water consumption of data centres to reduce the risk of drought across the country?

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. Water conservation, like energy conservation, is critical, and there must be measures to help households to do their absolute best on that. My region is one of those with a hosepipe ban in force at the moment. She is absolutely right that data centres pose a real risk both to our water conservation and energy conservation targets. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I should declare that I am a member of, is currently doing an investigation into that. She is absolutely right that there is limited point in emphasising other ways of reducing water and energy consumption if we allow massive increases in usage in other ways. As a society, we have to get a grip of the environmental risks of data centres and AI before they take hold.

The hon. Member is giving a very powerful speech. Water shortage is a very big issue for our farmers as well. At the moment, it is extremely difficult for a farmer to get planning permission for a small on farm reservoir. It is a big investment for the farmer, so it is a big deal that it takes so long. We really need to make that process easier because food security is as important as energy security or any of the other issues.

I strongly agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Food security and water security are absolutely central to this debate, and they are under real threat. I represent a rural area as well, and it is hard to believe that it is so difficult for farmers to get permission to store water on their farms when so many areas have the problem of too much water at some times of the year and too little at others. Surely, we can find an answer by bringing those problems together. As with anything else, Government policies need to support farmers to do things that they want to do that will help with our natural environment and our social preparedness. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that really important point.

Our transport networks were designed for a cooler climate. Extreme heat causes rails to buckle, overhead power lines to sag and road surfaces to deteriorate, and that leads to delays, cancellations and rising maintenance costs. As heatwaves become more frequent, transport resilience must become a standard requirement for infrastructure investment. Every road and railway built today should be designed for the hotter climate that it will face over its lifetime, because building in resilience now is far cheaper than repeatedly repairing failures later.

Our energy system was designed for a climate where peak demand occurred in winter. As temperatures rise, demand for cooling increases, while extreme heat reduces the efficiency of power generation and places greater strain on the electricity network. Recent heatwaves have demonstrated that hotter summers are creating new challenges for energy security and resilience. The electricity system must become more resilient to hotter summers as well as colder winters.

Extreme heat causes one of Britain’s greatest long term resilience challenges: water security. Hotter, drier summers increase demand, as higher temperatures reduce river flows, lower reservoir levels, dry soils and intensify pressures on supplies, particularly across eastern and southern England. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has repeatedly warned that England faces a serious risk of water shortages unless resilience improves. Ofwat warns that without action, England could face a daily water shortfall of around 5 billion litres by 2055.

This year’s record breaking spring heat provided a warning, with high demand and low storage levels leaving thousands of households in south east England without water. Building resilience means expanding reservoir capacity, modernising ageing infrastructure, reducing leakage, improving water efficiency and restoring natural catchments. Water security is no longer simply an environmental issue. It is fundamental to public health, food production, economic resilience and national security.

Extreme heat is becoming one of the greatest threats facing farmers and our food system. Predictable seasons, reliable rainfall and healthy soils are at extreme risk from climate breakdown. The National Farmers’ Union describes climate change as “one of the biggest threats to UK food security”, while 80% of farmers say that increasingly frequent extreme weather is threatening their livelihoods and reducing productivity. Heat stress is also threatening animal welfare. During the 2022 heatwave, when UK temperatures exceeded 40° for the first time, around 18,500 chickens died from heat in transit. Government figures indicate that more poultry died during the heatwaves we have experienced this summer.

Higher temperatures dry soils, increase irrigation demand and reduce crop yields. This year’s dry spring brought harvests forward into late June in some areas, with lower spring yields expected as a result. Many farmers can now harvest only in the mornings and evenings because grain becomes too dry during the hottest parts of the day, which increases storage fire risks and, in some cases, necessitates costly cooling before processing. The Climate Change Committee estimates that heat stress already costs agriculture around £205 million a year. Last year’s spring, the hottest and driest on record, contributed to one of the poorest harvests in recent decades, costing arable farmers at least £800 million in lost revenue.

The consequences extend far beyond the farm gate. The UK food security digest concludes that climate related disruption is already pushing up food prices, while the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit estimates that extreme weather added around £361 to the average household food bill during 2022 and 2023. As Britain becomes more reliant on imported food, we are increasingly exposed to climate shocks overseas, with disruption to just five staple foods estimated to have driven 30% to 40% of food price inflation over the past two years. Climate change is no longer just affecting where food is grown; it is affecting what families can afford. Supporting farmers through resilient farming systems, better water management, healthier soils, stronger animal welfare and continued innovation is essential to protecting affordable food, rural livelihoods and the resilience of Britain’s food supply. Food security is national security.

Wildfires are becoming a growing challenge for farmers and fire and rescue services. They are occurring earlier, lasting longer and increasingly threatening homes, businesses, infrastructure and rural communities. Hotter, drier summers dry vegetation and soils, allowing fires to spread rapidly and causing devastating damage to crops, wildlife and property. As the climate warms, fire and rescue services will need greater capability, stronger land management and better public awareness. Wildfire resilience must become a central part of Britain’s climate adaptation strategy.

Britain’s wildlife is experiencing the consequences of hotter, drier summers as well. Rivers and lakes warm rapidly during prolonged heat, reducing oxygen levels and contributing to fish deaths and declines in freshwater biodiversity. Wetlands dry out, placing pressures on amphibians, insects and water birds, while prolonged heat and drought weaken woodlands and leave ecosystems more vulnerable to pests, disease and wildfire.

Those impacts come on top of decades of habitat loss and ecological decline. The Wildlife Trust warns that climate change is amplifying the nature crisis, while the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has highlighted that important habitats, including peatlands, salt marshes, heathlands and wetlands, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to prolonged heat and drought. The problem we have is a lack of real time data on ecological impacts.

All of that matters, because healthy ecosystems are part of our national resilience. The Climate Change Committee increasingly describes healthy ecosystems not simply as environmental assets, but as part of the nation’s resilience infrastructure. Healthy ecosystems store water, cool communities, reduce flood risk and support biodiversity. Peatlands store carbon and retain water during periods of drought. Wetlands help to regulate river flows, reduce flood risk and provide cooler refuges during heatwaves. Trees and woodlands lower surrounding temperatures, helping to cool both urban and rural environments while supporting biodiversity.

If we continue to lose the natural environments that regulate water, cool our towns and cities, retain fresh water and sustain biodiversity, we will become progressively less resilient to the impacts of climate change. Protecting and restoring nature is therefore not simply an environmental ambition; it is an essential part of preparing Britain for a hotter future.

In conclusion, the costs of extreme heat are already being paid. Dame Emma Howard Boyd, chair of the National Heat Risk Commission, has described extreme heat as a “force multiplier”, because it increases healthcare costs, disrupts transport and energy systems, damages crops, raises food prices and places growing pressure on water supplies and wildfire risk.

The June 2026 heatwave alone is estimated to have reduced UK productivity by at least £2.36 billion and, as that figure reflects only productivity losses, the true economic impact is almost certainly higher. If current trends continue, annual productivity losses could reach £25 billion by 2030. The Climate Change Committee estimates that around £11 billion a year is needed to strengthen the UK’s climate resilience, with around a third of that invested in protection from extreme heat. Adaptation is an investment in resilience, and prevention will always be cheaper than recovery.

What is lacking is not evidence, but co ordinated delivery. Britain needs a heat resilience strategy that is led from the Cabinet Office, with clear ministerial accountability, ensuring that decisions on housing, infrastructure, health, energy and land use are all designed for the climates that we now face. Heat health warnings, public information and targeted support for vulnerable people should become routine before heatwaves strike. Green infrastructure is among the most effective adaptation measures available, but adaptation alone cannot protect us from unchecked warming, and mitigation cannot protect us from the warming already locked in. We need both.

A world that warms by 4° would bring dire consequences beyond the limits of adaptation, making climate resilience and decarbonisation inseparable. The challenge before Parliament is therefore not whether to act, but whether we act quickly enough and with enough ambition to prepare Britain for the climate in which we must now live.

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. It was the 1976 New Forest fire in your own constituency that woke me up to the dangers of climate destruction. Just last weekend, on Sunday night, I heard about a fire raging in the area of Acomb, on the edge of my own constituency. A field of wheat had caught ablaze, causing fear to residents; I really thank the police and fire service for their rapid response, but the fire obviously came at great cost to not only the farmer, but the community, and it makes us all so alert to the challenges we face in our time.

From discussions about the challenges that our city faces, it is clear that we are not climate resilient. We do not have the necessary strategies and plans to address the urgent needs of our time. The city has done well by focusing on flooding, but heat resilience is a new area to which we must now pay all our attention. Over the last month, schools have had to close, and many of the hospital’s wards have overheated. Across our city, we have felt a real and massively challenging swathe of heatwaves.

We recognise that, if we are going to address the issue of flooding in our city, we have to get the hydrology right in the upper catchment area. That means that we have to make certain decisions: can we afford grouse moor shooting any longer, since it drains the land and as a result makes it more prone to catching light? There is much thought that needs to be given to the infrastructure needed, both in agriculture and across our buildings, our public services and so much more.

I want to focus on a few points around health, that being my speciality, and to look at the scale of what we are talking about. We have heard already about the 2,700 deaths so far this year from the climate emergency due to heat alone. We think particularly of the most vulnerable—babies, children under the age of four and older people, whose bodies find it harder to regulate—and those who have cognitive dysfunction, who will find it difficult to make the necessary adaptations to keep themselves safe. Of course, we also know that the challenges bear down hardest on those in lower socioeconomic circumstances.

As a result, we need to look at this in a way that ensures justice, equality and real fairness. Many people can go out and buy an air con unit or a fan to keep themselves cool, but those without resources clearly do not have that advantage and their health is placed at even greater risk. We know about not only the distress that this causes—respiratory or cardiovascular distress—but the serious risk of kidney dysfunction and so much more we could name. We have heard about the pharma impact and the impact of exhaustion cramps—and then there are the risks of cancer; we have not heard about that in this debate, but greater UV exposure will increase those risks, too.

We also have to think about the environments that people then go into. Our hospitals are just not equipped for this heat. York hospital, built in 1977, is just not heat resilient—it is a greenhouse, as has been highlighted. Anyone struggling to breathe will find it massively challenging in those environments. Therefore, the urgency with which we need to make our public buildings resilient cannot be overstated.

I therefore call on the Minister—I appreciate that this goes way beyond her brief, but it is a cross Government function—to look at how we build resilience across the board. What resources are we going to invest in our climate resilience? Will we have a single Minister, leading cross departmentally, to ensure resilience? How will we ensure that we are not just looking in Westminster? We know that real change and impact happen on the ground in localities, so how are we empowering our local authorities with the resources and the plans to make a difference now, not just in the future?

How are we ensuring that the people working in those facilities have the support they need to say, “Tools down, we can’t work any more”? Of course, that is very difficult when we are talking about health facilities—we think back to covid and the conditions in which people were working in extreme heat there—but we need plans to support workers who are at risk of many of the same health challenges.

What I am really asking from the Minister is this. What are the resources and how will we ensure that devolution is part of that? How will we institute comprehensive planning, so that we do not continue to face the risks, the closures, the real discomfort and, tragically, the deaths that we have seen this year?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Sir Christopher; it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. Let me say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for highlighting this issue. Whether people like it or not, it has to be addressed. It is a key issue for many people. The temperature rises across the United Kingdom cannot be ignored either, and they set a trend. The experts tell us that we have to be prepared for that.

When we think of heat planning, we must think in bigger terms than—I am not being facetious, by the way—having enough ice lollies in the freezer. It is about the pressure of running the freezer, and about the additional fans and cooling systems, which are running in a nation that is better equipped to store heat and not let it escape, which suits us 90% of the time. There are also some practical things we have to address. I want to talk about two things, health and agriculture. I believe we must also highlight a blind spot in our national resilience planning: the unique, devastating vulnerability of rural, coastal and agricultural communities to heat stress events. I want to ground this debate in my own beautiful constituency of Strangford, which stretches across the Ards peninsula and mirrors many coastal communities across the United Kingdom.

In the Ards and North Down area, roughly 20% of our population is aged 65 or older, so, from a health point of view, thousands of those elderly constituents live in older traditional stone or poorly ventilated rural properties, which act as little storage heaters during a heatwave. In my office in Ards, when it is warm in the summer, it is like a sauna bath, and when it is cold in the winter, it is like a freezer. That is the nature of the building; the walls are about a foot and a half thick, and they were built for a purpose—to hold the roof up—but they were never built for ventilation or for heat. We have those buildings across the Ards peninsula, where I live. An isolated pensioner living in a village in the Ards peninsula cannot just pop out to an air conditioned shopping centre or a cold public building, so there is a personal health concern as well.

Furthermore, our agricultural sector, the very backbone of the Strangford economy, faces unprecedented strain. Vegetable and crop farmers are already grappling with intense summer droughts and skyrocketing water demands to keep yields alive. Our livestock are also highly susceptible to heat stress, threatening food security and farmers’ livelihoods alike.

Our critical infrastructure is, I believe, also hanging by a thread. Just last month, I tabled a parliamentary question on the resilience of our electricity grid during extreme weather. When a heatwave strikes, transformers overheat and water treatment facilities face immense pressure. In a rural area such as Strangford, if a water pump or power line fails because of extreme heat, entire communities are left vulnerable and cut off from basic utilities. The impact is on not just one but multiple households.

Although environmental adaptation is heavily devolved, the strategic funding and macro infrastructure backing must be an all of the United Kingdom effort. We cannot treat heatwaves as an occasional summer novelty. I love heat, but I am not sure that I like 40°C; I can probably just about take 30°C. We had our Twelfth of July parade yesterday, and it was a lovely sunny day and I really enjoyed it; it is nice to have that heat now and again, but maybe not at the constant level that we now have.

I ask the Minister what cross departmental work has been done with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the UK Health Security Agency’s heat health alerts and emergency response playbooks are seamlessly integrated into rural healthcare networks. We have the system in place and we need to make sure that healthcare centres—whether that means GPs, clinics or hospitals—and health workers and carers are all integrated and working better together.

It is my belief that we need specific capital funding to be made available to modernise rural electricity grids, so that they do not buckle under the twin pressures of winter storms and summer heatwaves, and to support our agrifood sector in transitioning to heat resilient farming practices. Of course, those improvements all take planning and funding, but if the Government truly believe in the environmental concerns that are seeing green taxes levied on those who can least afford them, that funding must come to these industries at the same time.

In conclusion—ever mindful of your timescale of about five minutes each, Sir Christopher—we must act now to ensure that national heatwave preparedness protects every citizen, whether they live in the heart of London or in my constituency on the shores of Strangford lough, and to ensure that our farmers and our agrifood industry are prepared to deal with any continued periods of heat. If that is what is to be expected in the future—the Government tell us that that is the way things are going—we have to be able to respond to that, and I gently say that we need to be more prepared.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that the Minister is always very keen to ensure that the regional Administrations and Westminster work together. My hope is that that will be exactly what we do.

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for raising such an interesting and timely topic as extreme heat. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

We were warned more than 20 years ago that extreme temperatures would be the consequence of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions, and what did we do? Not enough. Not enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and not enough to adapt to climate change.

Across the UK, new high temperatures are being set. In my constituency, the highest temperature was recorded at a mere 26.7°C in 2018, but I would not be surprised if that were surpassed soon. What used to be a one in 100 or 200 event has, as we were warned, now become the new normal. While we ask ourselves how to get through this summer, I gently suggest that we need to heed the warnings of climate scientists and think about what the heat map of Europe and the UK will look like over the next 20 years.

Short term fixes such as air conditioning will set the average household back several thousand pounds, but also add to the demand for energy. As a regular visitor to London these days, I can see how much more extreme the heat is here compared with in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North. My constituency benefits from a more northern latitude, wide open spaces, lower population, lower density and a mix of urban and rural areas. My constituency will always be cooler than London, at least on the thermometer.

Having missed the opportunity over the past 20 years, we need to look forward, with short term relief and long term strategies to retrofit buildings, emphasising design and construction techniques that reduce the impact of extreme heat, and to look to the circular economy. We need to consider embodied carbon in buildings, the topic of last night’s interesting Adjournment debate from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). As I mentioned last night, local authorities need to look at how buildings are demolished, so that cleared sites do not hypothetically hold embodied carbon and are not adversely affected by industry benchmarks, such as the Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method—BREEAM points are impacted by poor and thoughtless demolition practices. In conclusion, I stand ready to help the Government meet our 2030 and 2050 targets on climate change and greenhouse gases.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for introducing this important debate.

The reports this week have been horrifying. That thousands may have died in this heat shows how ill equipped we are as a country to deal with this kind of weather. I represent the rural and coastal constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, with a disproportionately elderly population, and the underlying health inequalities that often go with an area of its character. When the heat comes, my constituents are among the first to suffer and the least equipped to cope.

I wish to highlight plainly where preparedness has failed them. In part of my constituency, not only has this period not been managed, it has been completely mismanaged. Some children cooling off in the River Exe on hot summer’s day, as any of us would want to, fell ill because of an alleged discharge into the river. The children’s father kayaked up the river later yesterday evening and reports encountering a pungent sewage odour in the vicinity of one of Tiverton’s sewage treatment work sites. He witnessed what appeared to be active discharge, which the company’s tracker failed to reflect, because it had not been updated. A monitoring system that does not monitor is worse than useless; it is a fig leaf.

There is a hosepipe ban, although the company had months of warning. A wet start to the year gave way to weeks of record heat that was forecast and foreseeable. Yet, when the pressure came, South West Water was not ready. The imposition of the ban is on mid Devon and parts of east Devon but nowhere else in the region. My constituents want to know why they alone are paying the price of a company’s failure to plan. Where was the investment? Where was the foresight? That is not bad luck, it is dereliction of duty.

It is hard to shake the distinct impression that to South West Water stakeholders come a distant second behind shareholder interests, which is unacceptable. The consequences go beyond garden hoses. At a slaughter site in Willand, water pressure was cut to a quarter of its normal levels, leading to an unfolding animal welfare crisis. It posed a potential public health risk, as a site that cannot access adequate water cannot maintain hygiene standards.

As the MP for the area, it took me five phone calls yesterday before someone from South West Water picked up the phone. I found the lack of urgency and concern to be outstanding. I am assured that some water pressure has now been restored, but this is on a cliff edge, and major welfare issues remain a concern. Despite what I heard from its new chief executive in a breakfast meeting just a few weeks ago, it seems as though South West Water has not learned any lessons.

Finally, heat preparedness is also as much about the everyday infrastructure that people rely on. Buses, in particular, are used disproportionately by elderly residents, the very group most at risk of heatstroke. Too many buses still lack adequate air conditioning. That has to be part of the preparedness conversation. This heat will come again and again. We need a system and the infrastructure that meets it head on and corporate entities that put people first, not profit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate.

I recently attended a screening of the national emergency briefing in my constituency. One sentence stuck with me, which was, “this is the least extreme climate we will experience in our lifetime.”

As we swelter through another heatwave, many people are welcoming the hot and sunny weather, but it is unprecedented to have record breaking temperatures three months in a row, and that is only set to continue. Experts estimated that there were more than 2,700 excess deaths during the May and June heatwaves attributed to heat related causes. We are now seeing dangerous climate change fuelled heat claiming lives, disrupting schools and hospitals, and shutting down transport and infrastructure. We need to adapt urgently.

In recent weeks, I have heard from teachers and workers across my constituency who have struggled to keep buildings at a comfortable temperature. Teachers cited the guidance from the Department for Education, which suggested opening windows as a solution, as deeply unhelpful. The National Education Union rightly criticised the Department for underestimating the scale of the problem. Although I welcome the £710 million of funding to improve school and college buildings, which includes funding to install solar panels to bring down energy bills, it must be coupled with measures to provide good ventilation and cooling systems such as air conditioning. Remember that not every school can simply open the windows, particularly not schools for children with special educational needs and difficulties, where it could be contrary to risk assessments.

I have also been contacted by train drivers, bus drivers and delivery drivers who have been working in extreme temperatures with no air conditioning. I have even heard that some supermarkets deliberately chose new delivery vehicles without air conditioning to reduce their costs. That is unacceptable, as workers’ wellbeing should always be a priority over saving a few pounds. I have long supported the campaign for a law on a maximum working temperature, led by all the major trade unions, but it must be matched with the mitigating adaptations to ensure that productivity and the economy can continue in the face of climate challenges.

When I worked in the operating department before coming to Parliament, maintaining temperature and humidity at certain levels was crucial to reducing infection risks while balancing the need to maintain a patient’s core temperature. Operating theatres are usually windowless rooms filled with electrical equipment, and even the best laminar flow and ventilation systems would struggle in hot weather. The lack of legislation on working temperatures and the pressures of waiting lists meant that we often had to carry on regardless and try to minimise the risk along the way.

We need to act now to adapt to extreme heat to outpace the health risks and impacts on daily life. That requires a combination of immediate operational changes and long term architectural upgrades to maintain safe and comfortable learning, working and living environments. What are the Government doing to adapt to this new normal, Minister? Will comprehensive guidance and support be provided to help schools, workplaces and public buildings mitigate the impact of extreme heat? Will the Government follow the lead of Spain, Belgium, Latvia and others, and answer the calls from trade unions to implement a maximum working temperature in this country?

This country is built for a climate that no longer exists. Without immediate action, we will see more health implications and more disruption. We are at a tipping point. Adapting to extreme heat will strengthen our national and economic resilience and improve everybody’s lives.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) not only for securing this timely debate but for his detailed and comprehensive speech, which took me back a few decades to my school days, when my biology teacher talked about global warming. The chickens have come home to roost. What is happening not just in this country but across the world, with additional flooding and a warmer climate, demonstrates that Governments of all nations need to react. It is interesting that there are no Reform parliamentarians and few Conservative MPs in the Chamber. They often use the phrase “Drill, baby, drill”, not realising that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can increase heat across the globe.

I recently visited my local hospital—unfortunately, a family member needed emergency treatment, so I was in an A&E department—and it was shocking. Hospitals and A&E departments are already in crisis. I looked at the live data to see which hospital in the area has the lowest waiting time, and pretty much all hospitals serving the city of Birmingham had an average wait time of four hours, but that data was not live, and in fact people were waiting far longer than what it said online. It was shocking to see vulnerable people, elderly people and people with significant injuries sat in a sweltering waiting area, although the NHS staff were doing their level best by providing water and trying to assist the patients. It is really shocking that, despite hospitals receiving an enormous amount of investment, they are simply not adequate for treating the most vulnerable and needy when they need critical support.

That experience brought home a simple truth: extreme heat is not a minor inconvenience, but a public health emergency. As hon. Members have said, during this heatwave alone, 2,700 people have died as a result of heat related causes. That includes 368 deaths in the west midlands, which experienced its highest rate of deaths per head during the June heatwave.

The buildings that are intended to protect us are unprepared. Although we do not yet have data from this summer, more than half of NHS trusts reported at least one overheating incident during the summer of 2022, and the number of NHS overheating incidents requiring risk assessments rose by 53% between 2016 and 2024.

Hon. Members have spoken about schools and other public buildings. During the recent heatwave, about 1,000 schools closed or shortened their days, and there were reports of teachers passing out in classrooms that reached temperatures in excess of 40°C. The answer cannot simply be to send children home or tell patients and workers to drink more water. We need a properly funded national heat resilience programme. We must audit every school, hospital and care home, and install effective ventilation, external shielding, reflecting roofs and energy efficient cooling where necessary. We should create accessible community cooling centres and establish clear maximum safe indoor temperature standards.

Extreme heat is already costing lives, and the Government must prepare for summer emergencies with the same seriousness with which we prepare for winter. Warm words and weather warnings will not cool a classroom, protect a hospital patient or prevent the next avoidable death.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this extremely important and highly topical debate. Having had three heatwaves in less than three months, we are all more than aware of the reality of extreme heat. We need to talk more about our preparedness, or rather our lack of preparedness, for extreme heat. We do not yet have the figures for the latest heatwave, but we have heard about the figures published this week on the thousands of excess deaths due to the heatwaves in May and June, which spell out in clear terms exactly what impact this has on human lives.

Like Members across the Chamber who have spoken today, I have heard from constituents about the direct impact that extreme heat is having on their lives. I have heard from parents who are deeply concerned, both about school closures and about schools not closing when their kids are struggling to learn in conditions of extreme heat, and from people who are desperately concerned about our health infrastructure, social care and homes. They are all struggling to cope with the effects, which is particularly important for the very young and our older community members, who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat.

I represent North Herefordshire, an absolutely beautiful constituency with farming at its heart. Farmers are at the forefront of the impacts of climate change—not just extreme heat but other weather extremes such as flooding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley pointed out, we are facing a situation in which climate change, or climate breakdown, is driving the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. As he pointed out, we have known about this for decades, but sadly Governments have effectively been asleep at the wheel on reducing climate warming emissions to the level we need them at, and particularly on adaptation and building our resilience.

Our farmers now face water shortages, and those working in public services, whether in health, education or public transport, are struggling to cope with conditions for which our infrastructure is simply not built.

The hon. Member highlights infrastructure issues, which my constituents are experiencing in Epsom and Ewell. Commuters to London have faced repeated train cancellations and delays, affecting their livelihoods and businesses. Does the hon. Member agree that it is really important that we improve the resilience of transport infrastructure so that people can continue to go about their daily lives and go to work, and that businesses can continue to function?

I completely agree. To do that, we need to think long term. We do not do well enough in this country at thinking long term, or beyond the next election cycle. We need to think of the next generation. What sort of world do we want to bequeath to them? What sort of country do we want to bequeath to them, and how will we build the country that is suitable for the climate that will be here in a few decades’ time? As has been pointed out, this is the coolest it will be in our lifetimes: the climate will only become more extreme, with more extreme heat and more extreme floods.

We need to change our ways as a country. Experts have been telling us this for a long time. The Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that we are not doing anywhere near enough to meet the adaptation challenge facing us. I call on the Government to grasp the nettle. This is investment in building a better future—it is a win win investment. Building houses that are suitable for the weather conditions that we will be facing is much cheaper than having to retrofit them afterwards. If we use materials and building methods that enable us to cool buildings naturally, we can create urban areas that are not such huge heat islands as they currently are. By building in such a way, including with lots of tree planting in urban areas, we can cool temperatures locally using natural methods. We have a real opportunity here, and we should grasp it with both hands. Tackling the adaptation and the resilience challenge is not about just sticking our finger in the dyke or using a sticking plaster approach, such as patchwork retrofitting air con in every building that is struggling with the heat; it is an opportunity to imagine and to build a better country for the future.

There are things the Government can do right now. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) introduced a private Member’s Bill yesterday to establish a maximum workplace temperature. We have a minimum workplace temperature, but we clearly need a maximum one. Minister, is this something that the Government will support? I hope they will. As we have seen, there is international precedent and huge levels of support across the country We also need to recognise that we must build the long term resilience that we require. As a country, we do not yet have an adaptation plan that is fit for purpose, or the co ordination that is needed. I raised that issue with the Minister a few days ago in a debate on national security and resilience and was told that Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for resilience in farming, and that the Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for resilience in health.

I raised this in Health questions this morning, but the issues we face are not solved just by retrofitting our hospitals. We have to enable everybody in the country to stay healthy in the extremes of heat that we are increasingly seeing so that they do not have to go into hospital in the first place. This is a cross Government requirement and priority, so will the Government put in place adaptation plans that the Climate Change Committee will itself declare are fit for purpose?

Finally, we must put the brakes on the problem at the same time. It is not an either/or between mitigation and adaptation; we still have more to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions that are causing climate breakdown, so that we save ourselves from the worst possible effects of runaway climate change. I call on the Government to go further and faster on real climate action, not least by holding the line on Jackdaw and Rosebank. We cannot on the one hand struggle with facing the consequences of climate change, such as extreme heat, and on the other hand continue to take more fossil fuels out of the ground and burn them. We need consistent Government policy across the piece. I hope the Government will provide that.

Pippa Heylings, you have three minutes.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this timely debate. As Britain experiences yet another summer of extreme heat, we cannot ignore the fact that the UK was built for a climate that no longer exists, as we have heard from all hon. Members here today.

Climate change is not a distant threat; it is here today. Minister, it is an issue of national security. It affects our constituents, damages our economy and, increasingly, costs lives. On our current trajectory, average summer temperatures in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire could rise by more than 4°C. Days above 30°C are expected to increase six fold, while summer rainfall could fall by more than a fifth.

Those are just statistics, but like others I have heard stories of children struggling to learn in overheated classrooms, older people becoming dangerously ill in care homes, critical incidents in our hospitals, farmers facing drought and water shortages, and communities and wildlife under threat from wildfires, yet despite these growing risks the Climate Change Committee has concluded that the Government’s approach to climate adaptation is clearly not working and we are woefully unprepared. Can the Minister confirm that the Treasury has now accepted the forecast of 2°C warming by 2050, and, if we now have an agreed forecast, whether each Department is doing what it should be doing and setting adaptation goals, given we can now model what that means for every sector?

Preparing for increasing climate impacts must be seen as an issue of national security and resilience. The Liberal Democrats are calling for adequate cooling to be installed in all NHS hospitals, care homes and schools in high risk areas in the next five years, and for work with local authorities and mayors to create a network of air conditioned cool hubs for vulnerable people. We also agree that we should have maximum workplace temperatures, as many of our European neighbours already have; increase green space and plant more trees to cool our towns and cities; and support households to insulate their homes and install heat pumps that can provide both efficient heating in winter and cooling in summer.

Without greater resilience, the foundations needed for our UK security will struggle to function, but we have all the answers in our hands. That is the message of the multiple people’s emergency briefings that the South Cambridgeshire climate and nature group arranged across my constituency and which I have attended, and which have happened across the country. Does the Minister support the call for a Government backed, televised national emergency briefing? People deserve the facts, and they need and want to be better prepared.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing a debate on this very important topic. His wide ranging speech highlighted the worsening climate outlook that we face; the impacts on physical health, mental health and sleep of the extreme heatwaves we have recently been suffering; and important issues about water storage.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly highlighted the impact that extreme heatwaves have on people with lower incomes, who may not be able to go and buy air conditioning units and so on. As well as highlighting the mitigation of putting ice lollies in the freezer, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the impact on the elderly population in older, rural properties.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) added to her comments in last night’s Adjournment debate about the importance of embodied carbon in buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) joined a number of hon. Members in highlighting the failures of water companies—South West Water’s failings in her case—and the need to improve the reliability of water supply. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) highlighted the fact that Department for Education guidance has focused on open windows. I will come on to whether opening windows helps, after some experimentation that I have done in my own house as to how to deal with this.

The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) rightly highlighted the fact we have had long term knowledge of climate change and we have collectively, as a human species, failed to take decisive action thus far. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talked about the impact of learning. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked with her customary passion and expertise on this topic. She said that the impact of climate change is here today and that it should be considered a national security issue.

We Liberal Democrats share the concerns of hon. Members in this Chamber. We are acutely aware of the serious public health threat posed by heatwaves, particularly to those with underlying health conditions, residents of care homes and people living in temporary accommodation. Back in summer 2023, an estimated 2,295 deaths were associated with five periods of heat. This year so far, more than 2,700 people may have died from heat related causes in England and Wales, as suggested by expert estimates. We have also seen wildfires. Very tragically, a wildfire led to the deaths of British citizens in Almeria in Spain, but I have also had fires locally in the Astons and West Challow in my constituency, although thankfully they have not led to fatalities.

My constituency has also faced the challenge of hot school buildings. At recent school visits, I have felt this for myself—for example, at the Stanford in the Vale Church of England primary school but also at Aureus secondary school, despite that building not even being a decade old. That shows how we continue to not get these things right. I have attended a community national emergency briefing in Wallingford, and there has also been one in Didcot. That shows there is rising popular concern about these topics and that we need to take more action.

Let us think about this issue through three categories. First, what can we do to prevent the root cause? Secondly, what can we do to mitigate it? Thirdly, what coping measures do we have in place? On prevention, I feel very strongly, as do several other hon. Members, that we cannot keep shunting carbon emission reductions down the road. We have made progress in a number of areas in the United Kingdom but there is a lot more to be done.

Globally, the same issue applies: when we are confronted with a choice between making further and faster progress on reducing carbon emissions and other factors, it is often the other factors that win out. Progress has been pretty stagnant on introducing electric vehicles and adapting our infrastructure, and the UK’s hopeless record on rail electrification, including under this Government, and on industrial production needs lots of attention. That is before we even think about rainforest loss and the destruction of nature both here and elsewhere.

That is why we, as politicians who care about these topics, must tackle net zero scepticism head on. We are directly seeing the impacts of climate change now, and we will spend far more money if we focus solely on mitigation—which, alas, we need to do because of our lack of progress—rather than on tackling the root causes of carbon emissions.

The second theme is mitigation. Building design is important. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire made embodied carbon in buildings the focus of her Adjournment debate last night, and we can also learn how to design our buildings better so that they are resilient for the future. We know from some of the buildings here on the parliamentary estate what a long way we have to go: elements of the Palace can be very cool, but Portcullis House is hardly a triumph of modern building design, given that the atrium—and frankly every room in that place—is a greenhouse. I am personally delighted not to have won a room in Portcullis House in the ballot. I am happy to be in Derby Gate where the air con actually works—for half of it anyway, but that is another story.

It is not right that so many people are left to endure dangerously high temperatures in poorly insulated homes and buildings. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, beginning with free insulation and heat pumps for low income households, while ensuring that all new homes are built to zero carbon standards. That builds on our recent success of getting the Government to commit to putting rooftop solar on all new builds, which was encouraged by the sunshine Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). When we are dealing with heat pump scepticism, it is important to remember that heat pumps have the capability to provide air con in summer.

Successive Governments have comprehensively failed to take climate adaptation measures seriously, guaranteeing misery for people and communities affected by heat stress, as well as flooding and wildfires. That is why we would prioritise protecting communities by implementing a comprehensive UK adaptation strategy, embedding climate resilience into decision making across all Government Departments and agencies—rather than the current siloed approach—to prevent problems before they happen.

We would deliver adequate funding to local communities to empower them to combat flooding, drought and heatwaves, including through nature based flood management, sustainable drainage, water supply enhancement, building retrofits and urban greening, backed by stronger planning and regulatory frameworks. People continue to ignore the evidence that even simple solutions, such as more trees and more shade in urban areas, can make an enormous difference to our ability to withstand heatwaves.

The Liberal Democrats would develop resilience standards for the energy, water, transport and telecommunications sectors, and support homeowners to install proactive adaptation measures against flooding and overheating. We also believe that no one should be expected to work in unacceptably high temperatures, and we support the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation to introduce a statutory maximum workplace temperature.

The third theme is coping measures, and cool hubs are our policy solution. They would be rather like warm hubs with areas of heating, which are popular in Ukraine in winter when Russia attacks infrastructure, but they are the summer equivalent. Community spaces with air conditioning, such as gyms, leisure centres and libraries, could provide much needed respite from soaring temperatures in summer months, following similar “cool bank” schemes in other countries.

We need to do more to make our transport networks resilient. We need to consider whether our current rail stress temperatures need to be increased, given a much wider range of temperatures and much hotter summers. The more modern railway electrification that we have in this country is much more resilient than older equipment installed in past decades. Melting tarmac can be an issue for roads and aviation.

Public health advice and information will be more and more important. We need to ensure that people understand good practice for keeping houses cool. I have realised from contributions to the Didcot community Facebook group that I have been doing this all wrong and that, actually, having the windows open often does not help. Somebody said, “You’re such idiots for opening your windows. Keep them closed when it’s hot.” I have tried that and, I have to say, it is a lot better. Perhaps that exposes my embarrassing lack of understanding of science, but it shows that we can do a lot more to help people to reach the best conclusions for their own houses.

Finally, we need a public information campaign on what we can all do to prevent fires and reduce the risk, particularly in the countryside where we should not be smoking, vaping or having barbecues in areas that have been subject to drought and are at much higher risk.

This is clearly a very challenging topic, and one that needs action across Government Departments. For that reason, I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate another valley MP, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), on securing this debate. He excellently outlined how many people have been affected by extreme heat over the last few weeks both in a personal capacity and in their work in schools, hospitals or farms. All of us will have had the experience of helping vulnerable groups in our constituencies in the last few months. Just last Saturday, I met an elderly couple with no fans or water who were not in the system. We have all helped vulnerable residents, and I commend everybody in this Chamber for the job that they do.

During the hon. Gentleman’s opening speech, I noted that a Doorkeeper was bringing in another fan. The irony of the Doorkeepers wearing very heavy woollen suits was not lost on me. I hope that we think about them as much as everybody else when we talk about the extreme heat.

Just before the debate, we hosted a solar powered ice cream van from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) in Speaker’s Court. Given the heat, it was very nourishing, and it was lovely that the Doorkeepers and those who work with Mr Speaker were able to come out and have some. It was fantastic to see Electrify Britain’s campaign to get bills down while we reduce emissions, and Styles Ice Cream’s fully solar powered ice cream production and ice cream vans gave everybody a bit of comfort.

I will leave that for the Minister to respond to, but I entirely agree that it is good that the Doorkeepers and House staff who support us so admirably were allowed to have a brief break. I did not manage to get a solar power produced ice cream, but perhaps I will pop down afterwards.

The hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) said that there had not been enough focus on mitigation over the last few years. They are absolutely correct, but I remind Members that we have seen a 40% reduction in total carbon emissions since 2010 and that the United Kingdom represents only 0.8% of total global emissions. If they had had longer to speak, I know they would have said that we have to tackle this internationally as well as domestically.

Last summer was the warmest on record in Britain. The UK Health Security Agency estimates that 1,504 people died as a result of the heat. Behind that figure are families who have lost loved ones. What is particularly striking is that the overwhelming majority were elderly: more than 1,300 of those deaths were among people aged over 75. Fortunately, that number was lower than the more than 3,000 deaths that had been predicted, thanks in part to the successful implementation of the adverse weather and health plan introduced by the previous Government. That demonstrates an important point: preparation saves lives.

As our climate changes, extreme heat can no longer be regarded as an exceptional event. It is becoming a recurring feature of British summers, and Government policy must adapt accordingly. Reducing emissions remains important, but adaptation must sit alongside mitigation. We have a duty to ensure that our homes, infrastructure, public services and energy system are capable of coping with the conditions we increasingly face. That begins with protecting the most vulnerable.

The Cabinet Office is the lead Government Department for severe weather and has responsibility for identifying those who require particular protection during periods of extreme heat. Last year’s resilience action plan committed the Government to publishing new lead Department expectations and updated guidance to help Departments to identify those who may become vulnerable during emergencies such as heatwaves. Yet a year after those commitments were made, neither of those things appears to have been delivered. Will the Minister explain when those long promised expectations and updated guidance will finally be delivered? Preparing for emergencies cannot simply be a slogan; it requires effective planning and proper co ordination across Government.

Preparation must also extend to the homes we are building today. Many of those homes will still be occupied at the end of this century, so they should be designed not simply for the climate of the past, but for the hotter summers that experts increasingly expect. In apartments in densely built urban areas or during prolonged periods of extreme heat, opening windows is often ineffective—as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), outlined from his personal experience—or impractical because of security concerns, pollution or noise.

Current building regulations may not explicitly prohibit air conditioning, but they require developers to exhaust every possible passive cooling measure before mechanical cooling can even be considered. In practice, that has created a system where air conditioning has become the exception rather than a realistic option. Indeed, there have been cases where families have installed air conditioning and have been instructed by councils to remove it.

At precisely the moment Britain needs to become more resilient to hotter summers, Government policy is too often acting as a barrier to the adoption of technology that could help people remain safe and comfortable. Research suggests that wider use of air conditioning could reduce heat associated deaths among those at greatest risk by as much as three quarters. This is not simply a matter of comfort; it is about public health and protecting vulnerable people. It is also about ensuring that children can learn effectively during hot weather, that workers remain productive and that families are able to sleep safely through increasingly warm nights.

Britain is increasingly becoming an international outlier. Around 90% of homes in both Japan and the United States have air conditioning, compared with only 3% to 5% of homes in the United Kingdom. We in the Conservative party have already committed to removing the regulations that effectively discourage air conditioning in new homes. I asked the Minister whether the Government will now consider doing the same.

There is another contradiction in current policy. At the very time that we are discouraging greater use of air conditioning, consumers are paying billions of pounds in energy bills to compensate renewable generators for switching off when there is excess electricity generation during sunny summer days. Air conditioning demand rises precisely when solar generation is at its strongest. Rather than paying generators not to generate, surely it makes more sense to allow households to use that electricity to cool their homes.

As electricity generation becomes increasingly dependent on intermittent weather conditions, maintaining grid stability becomes ever more challenging. This summer, the National Energy System Operator took the unprecedented step of issuing electricity margin notices following periods when supply became dangerously tight. That should concern every Member of this House.

Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not unusual for NESO to issue emergency measures? There are normally peaks and troughs during the day, such as when people come home from work, put the kettle on and turn on the air conditioning. NESO has stated that that is quite normal.

It may be quite normal, but it should still concern people that our electricity supply is vulnerable and that we are becoming increasingly dependent on weather conditions.

Preparing Britain for a changing climate means much more than setting emissions targets. It means protecting vulnerable people, ensuring that Government Departments are properly prepared, building homes that are fit for hotter summers, embracing practical technologies that improve resilience and maintaining an electricity system that is capable of supporting them. Adaptation is not an alternative to tackling climate change; it is an essential part of responding to it, because whatever path the climate takes over the coming decades—and we all know what path that will be—our responsibility today is to ensure that Britain is ready.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, in this debate on a matter that has affected a great many of our constituents and all Members who are struggling through the London heat. I am grateful to Members for their valuable contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing the debate. I hope to give all Members some confidence that we are making progress in what is an extremely complicated and interconnected problem. It is not only interconnected in this country; it requires action locally, nationally and internationally, and it cannot be solved easily or quickly.

Despite some of the issues and considerable challenges—they are considerable—that hon. Members have pointed out in their contributions, I want to cheer people up slightly with the statement that the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), made on the Floor of the House yesterday. She pointed out that before the Paris agreement, the world was on track for 4% of warming, but we have now got it down to 2.5. That is still way too high, but I use that example because I want to inject a little bit of confidence that if we can get our processes right—internationally as well as nationally—we can do something about this. Such issues are so complex and interrelated that it is easy for people to think that the problem is too great and we cannot possibly deal with it, and then be despairing about it, so I wanted to inject that little bit of optimism. We have made progress, and we have to make sure that we carry on making progress.

The Government recognise that extreme heat fuelled by climate change is no longer a rare seasonal event to be managed with temporary emergency measures; it is a chronic, recurring, structural risk to our economy, public health and national security. Every hon. Member who has contributed today has recognised that point. Our response to extreme heat is built on a combination of tried and tested plans and capabilities that have been refined over time, and also longer term programmes to meet the specific challenges of climate change.

Evidence suggests that without action, the physical impacts of climate change could cost England’s economy between 1.1% and 3.3% of GDP by 2050, and at least 7.4% by the end of the century. We are taking action now in recognition that it is economically beneficial to invest early to reduce emissions. As Nicholas Stern said many years ago, the more money spent on investing to prevent, the cheaper it is to deal with the consequences.

The Government have put clean energy and climate action at the heart of their agenda, which includes showing global leadership by setting a world leading target to reduce emissions by at least 81% by 2035. Cutting emissions remains our first line of defence, but it is harder when the political consensus that existed about climate action has broken down globally and in this country. There are still people who claim that climate change does not exist and that we are spending a load of money for no particular reason, when we know that scientists are universally agreed that the increase in heat and changes in climate that we are talking about have been caused by human effects on our planet’s climate. The sooner that everybody recognises that globally, the easier it will be for the great ingenuity of the human race—when it is in a good mood—to deal with the consequences of what was done in the past with industrialisation.

We are taking action as well as mitigation to prepare the UK for the impacts of climate change. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, we maintain a robust climate change risk assessment, and through the national adaptation programme, DEFRA co ordinates a rigorous cross Government response to ensure that our sectors remain resilient.

Might the Minister comment briefly on the Government’s approach to water? In the recent heatwaves, South East Water reported that water usage went up by 15% because people were taking extra showers and so on. She will know that South East Water has had huge problems with resilience in the network; that pushed it right to the brink. What are the Government doing to get a grip on this so that we build in resilience to areas such as Kent, which will be in a water deficit by the end of 2027?

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), the Minister for Water in DEFRA, is probably in a better position to give the hon. Member details on that. The water White Paper will seek to create a more coherent system than the one that we inherited, which we know is inadequate.

The Government are strengthening long term climate adaptation by setting stronger objectives based on common planning assumptions, informed by the guidance that we requested from the Climate Change Committee. Yesterday, in the statement given on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Nature Minister on the state of climate and nature, she announced on climate adaptation that we are building our resilience for a minimum of 2% of warming by 2050 “and supporting combined authorities to increase their resilience to climate change, too.” —[Official Report, 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 649.] The Government will take forward that minimum temperature increase as an assumption in our adaptation planning; I think that is what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) was asking me about.

I presume that we are talking about degrees of warming. I want to confirm that we are looking at going beyond—keeping warming below 1.5°C, and that 2°C is not a minimum but a forecast that we would not like to see but is probably happening. If we do not do more, it will rise by 4°C by the end of the century.

I absolutely accept that, and so do the Government. It is not ideal that 2% is the minimum that public authorities must plan their adaptation assumptions on. We want to avoid getting to 2%, but the fact is that the way things are going, that is a realistic assumption for our planners to incorporate into their work.

It is so important to clarify that we are talking about 2°C of warming, not 2%. The average pre industrial temperature was 14°C; it is way more than 2%.

I was hoping to deal with a lot of these issues, but I want to leave the hon. Member for Waveney Valley enough time to say a few things. I have many more things to say, so perhaps we can resume this debate in the future.

I thank all hon. Members who have come along to take part in today’s debate. It shows how much interest there is across the House in this issue, which affects our constituents’ day to day lives now, and that is before the changes that could come in the future.

I thank the Minister for that information. She suggested that she has more to give, and I would welcome a written response to see what more there is, especially if she has gone to the trouble of preparing it. In particular, I would like to hear more about the cross departmental work that is planned. That is why I called for the Cabinet Office to be the answering Department in this debate. As much as I respect and work with DEFRA Ministers, this is a cross Government issue, and it is extremely important that it is led by the Cabinet Office.

I was also looking forward to the Minister talking about what immediate actions can be taken this summer, given that many measures that will take longer to deliver—in particular, increasing support for tackling wildfires and for A&E departments. If she has more to add on that, I would welcome it.

I want to underline what two or three other Members said. I too hosted a screening of “National Emergency Briefing” in my constituency recently. It would be immensely powerful if the Government got behind a public information screening of that film. Alongside that, information could be provided about measures that people can take to adapt as best they can to the changes. We need systemic measures—it is not about what individuals can do—but giving people that information would help to raise the profile of this issue and give them the sense that we are working together.

I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) made: if we are to get a grip of this problem, we must first stop making it far worse, which the granting of new licences for oil drilling in Rosebank and Jackdaw would do. Rosebank would produce emissions equivalent to 28 low income countries; we cannot possibly justify that if we are to get to grips with the scale of the problem.

It was reassuring to hear that Members from across the House are concerned about the degree of warming that is already happening. We need to tackle that to protect people—especially the most vulnerable, who are affected the most. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the range of actions that the Government have planned.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

I beg to move, That this House has considered expenses rates for employees travelling outside the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am calling on the Government to ensure that serious consideration is given to reassessing the scale rates for expenses and subsistence paid to employees who by nature of their work are required to travel outside the UK. My constituency of Crawley is home to Gatwick airport and many workers, including pilots and cabin crew, who are required to spend considerable time abroad with the flights they crew. That can last from several hours to several days for those working long haul flights.

Time spent away from home in foreign cities, without access to kitchens or other domestic utilities, can be overwhelmingly expensive, particularly for junior members of the cabin crew, whose salaries, according to the National Careers Service, begin at around £19,000. It is right, therefore, that employers pay tax deductible subsistence payments to their employees, to cover the costs associated with travel necessary to do their jobs.

Under the previous Government, to save companies having to check every single receipt that an employee accrues while abroad, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs introduced a benchmark expenses rates for employees travelling outside the UK. Those were first published on the Government’s website in 2013, with unique rates produced for almost every one of the world’s major cities, setting out the average cost of drinks, breakfast, lunch and dinner, a night in a hotel room and even the journey from hotel to office. Each city had also been given broader non specific subsistence reimbursement rates. Demarcated across specific time boundaries, that is a rate for when employees spent more than five hours in a given city, with another for when they spent more than 10 or 24 hours there.

The detailed task of producing those rates over a decade ago is evidenced by the fact that HMRC went to the effort of making unique assessments city by city, and that the increase in reimbursement between five, 10 and 24 hours is not only non linear but unique to each city. Despite the time and effort put into producing those bespoke rates, they have been upgraded significantly only once in the past 13 years—in October 2014, a year after they were first produced—and that only included a fraction of the cities listed.

Despite assurances that the Government keep under review all taxes, including overseas subsistence rates, if we check their website, we see that rates payable to an employee who has travelled to Zagreb for work are listed in Croatian kuna, even though Croatia joined the euro on 1 January 2023. The subsistence rates for at least 15 European capitals, including Athens, Madrid, Lisbon and Dublin, have never received an update. Due to more than a decade of inflation, those benchmark values have been eroded in real terms.

Ahead of this debate, using the total residual rates produced in 2013, and nation specific consumer price index inflation figures from the World Bank Group, we have calculated today’s expected subsistence rates for European destinations. Amsterdam’s total residual rate in 2013 was set at €71; a year later it was raised to €72, where it remains today. According to World Bank Group data, prices in the Netherlands in the 12 years since have risen by an average of 2.6% a year. That compounds to a 36% increase over that period. Had the 2013 rates for Amsterdam increased in line with inflation, workers who had spent more than 24 hours in the city would now receive more than €96. The fact that those rates have been ignored for so long means that cabin crew and pilots—including constituents of mine and those in adjacent areas—are losing out on subsistence payments of more than €25.

I represent Horsham, an adjacent constituency, and very much experience the same problems, so the issue is not rare. I have many cabin crew in my area who say the same thing. One of the people affected is trying to get leave to remain, but the visa application is made extremely complicated by going back and forth out of the country, so I very much support the hon. Member and emphasise to the Minister that it is not a small problem.

I take that fully on board. I am delighted that the hon. Member is here for this debate.

There are cities in Europe where the situation is even more pronounced than in Amsterdam. In Budapest, the total residual rate set in 2013 and unchanged since 2014 has been eaten away by a compound inflation rate of 67% in Hungary. The current payment of 16,000 forints is well over 10,000 forints, or 40%, lower than it should be. The worst example among European capitals, however, is in Ankara. In the years since the overseas subsistence rates were first set, Turkey has experienced huge inflation. Prices have risen at an average of 22.5% every year. Despite that, Ankara’s residual rate remains at 240 lira, as set in 2014. If it had increased with inflation, it would be over 2,500 lira today, which represents an unrealised tenfold increase.

In these situations, as a direct result of the Treasury not having revisited those rates over the last 12 years, airlines and other organisations are able to justify under compensating their staff by pointing to what is essentially Government guidance. When I wrote to the Treasury with those concerns last year, the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), informed me that in situations where expenses rates do not cover the actual costs of needing to eat, drink and sleep while abroad for work, the employers can instead choose to “pay actual expenses incurred”. Unfortunately, not every company chooses to do that for their employees, with many of them instead choosing—I do not think this will be a surprise to any of us—to pay the lower rate, the Government’s fixed rate.

The issue has a real and detrimental impact on the working lives of cabin crew. A constituent of mine working for an airline operating out of Gatwick airport was blunt about this, telling me that the fact that the rates are so far behind reality means that they have been forced to “miss meals” while abroad for work.

Another constituent stated that “current scale rate allowances do not reflect the real costs we face on these trips”, and reiterated that “the allowance provided does not cover even the most basic meals.”

It is evident, therefore, that overseas scale rates must be raised. That is why I was delighted when, in his written statement, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury committed to reviewing and uprating them last month. This has been a long time coming. While simply increasing the 2013 rates in line with inflation would be welcome, I hope the Treasury takes the opportunity to undertake a full review of how subsistence rates can be systematically improved.

Having secured this debate, I was contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which, among other things, raised concerns that there are some destinations where the current rate might not reflect the full cost of subsistence for an individual visiting or living in the city. For instance, it provided the example of Lagos where safety restrictions require pilots and cabin crew to remain in their hotels and rely on higher cost room service or onsite dining. It is its view—one that I share—that any review should give consideration to those concerns and ensure that safe accommodation is made affordable under new rates.

I am well aware that questions related to tax pose difficult decisions for Governments, particularly in times of global economic uncertainty such as these. But I would hope that we would all accept that people should not go without meals while undertaking travel essential to their work, particularly where those individuals might already be on a very low wage. I will closely follow the outcome of the Treasury’s review of overseas scale rates, and I hope that the various issues I have highlighted today are reflected in its outcome.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for raising this important issue today and for the work that he and neighbouring MPs, on a cross party basis, have been doing to highlight the concerns that their constituents have raised with them.

I can see that hundreds of people in the Crawley constituency have signed the petition. It is similar in Horsham and people near Heathrow and other major airports have signed it, too. The issue clearly affects many staff who work in the airline industry and, as my hon. Friend points out, particularly affects those who are on lower wages. Yes, they might enjoy and love the travel and going to visit so many different places as part of their work, as well as the benefits that come from a job working in the sky and working for airlines, but there are costs associated with being away from home. It was right to have the overseas scale rates system in place back in 2014, but it is not right at that the system has not been updated since then.

The OSRs play an important role in reducing administrative burdens when employees incur subsistence costs while travelling overseas, and the key thing is that they provide a practical alternative to reimbursing and evidencing every single expense. As a result, if they were abolished at any point in the future, that could place a significant burden on airlines, which is certainly something we want to avoid.

As my hon. Friend set out, the rates have remained more or less frozen since 2014. I was doing the maths earlier today in preparation for the debate, and I came up with a similar figure to him. If they had been uprated in line with inflation in the UK, they would have increased by 40% since 2014. Of course, inflation rates vary across the globe, but that gives us a sense of the size of the gap that has opened up over the last 12 years.

The Government have been listening to representations made by airlines, individuals and Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend. As we announced just a few short weeks ago, we will review both the OSRs and the benchmark scale rates, which are the domestic equivalents that set out the scale rates for lunches and dinners that employees may have when they are in the UK on business.

We will also look not just at uprating the rates but at whether there is scope to simplify the OSRs. We want to engage in detail with businesses on such a proposal, and officials in HMRC have already begun that work. Rather than having hundreds of individual rates for individual countries that need to be updated in a painstaking and administratively costly way, and that are also difficult for businesses to administer, we may find that having buckets or bands works better for employers and employees. That is something we will want to look at as part of this review, so I would really welcome representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on what changes their constituents would like to see.

Let me be clear: we have not taken any decisions on where we would like to go, and our mind is not made up. We are convinced that we want to review the rates to make the system better, but we want to consider the issues carefully and gather evidence from those who are affected before a decision is made. Just last week, I met the CBI, which represents some of the large airlines, and it welcomed the announcement of a review. I look forward to receiving further representations from the private sector.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is important for the Government to strike the right balance between supporting businesses and maintaining fairness in the tax system, while also protecting the Exchequer to ensure that, in the round, we raise the necessary revenue to fund and put right our public services after the last 14 years, when too many were cut back. We also need to ensure that any administrative arrangements such as these remain straightforward and proportionate.

Of course, there is political change in the air, but I hope that this review will conclude in time for the Budget. We do not want to be in a place where, in years to come, we are still waiting for these changes. I hope that we can make swift progress in the coming months, so that my hon. Friend’s constituents, as well as employees of airlines across the country, can see some improvement.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham for his intervention. I will take the strength of feeling in their representations back to the Department, for as long as I will be there.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank Members for coming to the debate. To say that the UK’s pig industry is worried is a gross understatement. The sector has always experienced ups and downs, but the current trough and range of difficulties faced by our pig farmers is sustained and significant, and there seem to be few routes to stabilising the sector.

The current downturn is considered to have begun back in the autumn of 2025, and has been driven by a combination of factors, including an oversupply of pigs, stagnant demand and falling prices in Europe, which have put downward pressure on UK pig prices. The situation has been exacerbated by constraints in the processing sector and by rising costs. Next came the substantial backlog of pigs at the start of 2026; at its peak, as many as 100,000 pigs were left on farm.

Although the worst of the backlog cleared, the standard pig price fell markedly and has remained low: it has fallen from about 208p per kilo in August 2025 to 178p per kilo now—a 15% fall. In the context of profit margins across agriculture that are sometimes only 1%, it is understandable why the fall in price over such a sustained period is causing issues for the sector.

However, it must be acknowledged that the standard pig price is very much an average price metric. Many producers are receiving significantly less than that—sometimes in the region of just 130p to 140p per kilo, which is significantly below the farm’s break even point. Indeed, a farmer I recently met in my constituency is losing about £50 per pig, and across Scotland, the industry has lost £5.7 million since January. Unless farmers are paid a price that at least covers the cost of production, there can be no future in the sector. It is as simple as that.

Lower welfare standards and the attractiveness to UK retailers of the flood of cheap pigmeat from the European continent is a key factor dictating the low UK price. Here lies a significant problem: the undercutting of UK pig farmers by retailers, food manufacturers and providers, be that in the food service sector or in local authority procurement, is making the viability of the UK pig sector even tougher. While I absolutely understand and appreciate the fine margins in hospitality, not least due to rising costs and seemingly ever increasing taxation, and the tight budgets of our local authorities, more needs to be done to ensure that local British produce, be that pork, beef, lamb or other farm outputs, can be prioritised and offered to British consumers.

Fairness in the contracts for independent pig farmers is also a well voiced concern. I recognise that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025, which are designed to improve fairness and transparency across the UK pig supply chain, will come into effect for the sector next month. The regulations were introduced in recognition of the imbalance in bargaining power between individual pig producers and the relatively small number of large processors and purchasers. The changes will include principles such as mandated written contracts, a clear pricing mechanism, mutually agreeable term lengths and fair notice periods.

Those regulations will not immediately resolve every challenge facing the sector. The industry still has concerns, and has requested that the Government undertake an assessment of whether the fair dealing regulations are truly robust enough to address the pricing and margin concerns of producers when dealing with processors. Is that something the Minister would consider?

Biosecurity concerns are never far away from the pig sector. Indeed, the outbreak of African swine fever in Spain and elsewhere on the European continent and the impact that that had on the export market, including to China, is partly responsible for the oversupply and depressed prices we are currently seeing. There is real and growing concern about the emergence of diseases such as African swine fever and about foot and mouth entering the UK and infecting our livestock—no one needs reminding of the devastation that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak had. Every possible effort must be put into ensuring that these diseases do not arrive on our shores.

In winding up, I ask the Minister to comment on what proactive and robust steps the Government are taking to ensure that diseases like African swine fever do not spread to the UK, because more robust checks are needed. His answers to my recent written parliamentary questions and a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in the main Chamber last week show that these robust provisions are not in place. It feels like we have been lucky not to see cases of African swine fever, foot and mouth or any other significant livestock disease enter the UK. The UK’s biosecurity system cannot rely on luck, because the consequences of any of these diseases entering the UK and our livestock is hard to overstate.

Before I conclude, I want to reflect briefly on the situation in Scotland. Although I appreciate that agriculture is devolved, a robust agricultural sector and supply chain and strong food production and biosecurity controls are relevant UK wide. Indeed, the UK pig industry, of which Scotland plays a significant part, is worth £2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales and, considering food service and export values, £14 billion in total. As I said, Scotland does contribute to that. The Scottish pig industry is facing even more acute pressures than those in England. With just one single processor in Brechin and distances too large to transport the pigs for processing south of the border, Scottish pig farmers are seeing an even lower standard pig price than their English counterparts.

According to data that I have seen, the price being paid has barely got above 140p a kilo since April. At present, Scottish pig farmers have no formal contracts, so there is no guarantee that their finished pigs will even be taken. Having spoken to pig farmers in my Gordon and Buchan constituency—most recently just yesterday—there is genuine fear for the future of the sector. Just since January, Scotland has lost 15% of its pig herds and the average price per kilo has fallen by more than 20%. The pig sector in Scotland is down £5.7 million since January this year, with continued losses almost guaranteed if prices remain suppressed. Almost half of those losses—more than £2.5 million—are in my constituency.

In closing, I want to ask the Minister just a single question, in the hope that it will be the most beneficial way to help the sector to address the challenges it is facing. My understanding is that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last met the National Pig Association or the pig industry in November 2024. Will the Minister commit to meeting the NPA and, when he does, making sure that there is a substantial package brought forward that can help support the sector? The best way to support the sector, which is complex and facing a wide range of issues, is to meet those who know most about it. That is the best way that we can support our pig farmers going forward.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

My constituency spans Doncaster and North Lincolnshire—two very proud agricultural areas with a long and important connection to British pig farming. We are part of a region at the heart of British pork production. Yorkshire and the Humber accounts for around 40% of England’s pig population. Pigmeat contributed £499 million to the region’s agricultural output in 2024. The Isle of Axholme also has deep roots in the farming and food traditions of Lincolnshire. Few products symbolise that heritage more clearly than the Lincolnshire sausage, yet consumers cannot always be sure that a product carrying a Union flag, British branding or a traditional British name actually contains pork from pigs born, reared and slaughtered in the United Kingdom. We must address that problem.

Unprocessed pork must already carry origin information, but once that meat becomes bacon, ham, sausage or gammon, the picture becomes far less clear. Pork can be imported and then cured, sliced or packaged in Britain, while the finished product is presented to shoppers as British. The place where food is packaged is not the same as the origin of the food itself. For pork, the origin is where the pig was born, reared and slaughtered. That is the information that consumers want to know and should be able to see clearly.

The hon. Member is making a really important point about the need for consumers to be clear about where their food is produced and reared. I draw his attention to my private Member’s Bill on that very topic. I hope that he and others across the House will support it.

The hon. Lady has my full support—and, I am pretty sure, that of my farmers.

My farmers have told me how much this issue matters to them. When consumers can easily identify British pork, they actively choose to buy it. That supports British farms, British jobs and our rural communities, while rewarding producers who meet the high standards of animal welfare, environmental stewardship and food safety that we rightly expect. There is nothing wrong with imported food being sold in Britain, provided it is labelled honestly. What is wrong is allowing the true origin of the meat to be hidden behind British branding. The principle should be simple: the Union flag on a pork product should mean British pork, not simply British packaging.

I therefore ask the Minister to genuinely consider—I was going to say genu swine ly, but I will not do that—extending mandatory country of origin labelling to processed pork products, requiring that information to appear clearly on the front of the packet, and ensuring that unqualified claims that a product is British are reserved for pork from pigs born, reared and slaughtered in the United Kingdom.

Pig farmers do not need another expression of sympathy; they need practical action that helps consumers to identify British produce and choose it with confidence. When shoppers pick up a packet carrying the Union flag or drawing on the proud reputation of UK farming, they should not have to search through the small print to discover where the pork came from. British branding should mean British farming.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important and timely debate.

Pig farming is an important part of our rural economy in West Dorset. Alongside several family run pig farms, we are home to a large integrated producer and businesses that support local employment, veterinary services, feed supplies, agricultural engineering, haulage and food processing. We are also fortunate to have Dorset’s last remaining independent abattoir, which processes around 100 pigs a week and provides a vital local route to market for small family farms.

Since August 2025, the standard pig price has fallen from around 208p per kilogram to approximately 178p. However, many independent producers have said that they are receiving far less—in some cases, only 130p to 140p per kilogram. Some farmers are losing as much as £50 on every pig they sell. That is unsustainable. Once again, it is independent farmers who have borne the greatest burden. Around half of the UK’s pig herd is owned by independent producers. If they disappear, rebuilding the capacity will take many years. We should remember that the United Kingdom is only about 58% self sufficient in pork. We should never accept a situation where British farmers, who produce to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere in the world, are undercut by cheaper imports produced to standards that would not be permitted here.

No future trade agreement should weaken UK food safety, undermine British farmers or lower our animal welfare standards. West Dorset farmers are proud of the standards they have achieved. Every farmer I have spoken to wants to see further improvements in animal welfare. I want to see, as they do, an end to farrow crates and to inhumane or distressing methods of slaughter, such as carbon dioxide stunning for pigs, through the implementation of DEFRA’s 2025 recommendations by the end of this Parliament.

We should work together to prevent unnecessarily painful practices in farming, but it must be properly funded. Farmers operating on small, or in many cases, non existent, profit margins cannot absorb further mandated changes unless they are properly funded and accompanied by practical support. One pig farmer in my constituency told me that they fully support moving towards better systems, but estimate that a realistic transition could take up to 15 years. For many family farms already carrying debt from previous reforms, unfunded regulation is not an option. If we move too quickly without proper support, we risk reducing British production and replacing it with imported pork products produced to lower welfare and food safety standards.

Small and medium sized abattoirs continue to disappear at an alarming rate, with fewer than 200 now remaining across the United Kingdom. Rising inspection costs, energy prices, waste disposal costs and increasing regulatory burdens have all contributed to their decline. For independent pig farmers in West Dorset, our local abattoir is essential infrastructure. Without it, transport distances increase, haulage costs rise and farmers lose access to local markets. Supporting local processing capacity is therefore every bit as important as supporting primary production.

Farmers manage more than 70% of our land. They underpin our food security and sustain the economies of rural communities such as West Dorset. All they are asking for is fair markets, fair treatment, practical regulation, acknowledgment of all their hard work and the confidence to invest in their future.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Around one in five pigs in the country are reared in my part of the world: Norfolk and Suffolk. That means that when we talk about the future of the pig sector, we are not talking about an abstract issue; we are talking about thousands of local jobs, family farms, and a sector worth billions to our local economy. The industry faces plenty of challenges. Rising costs, global competition and pressure on farm incomes have been covered, so I want to focus on the one issue that could undo everything else if we get it wrong: biosecurity.

African swine fever remains the single biggest threat facing our pig industry. It has spread across Europe and Asia, but thankfully has never been detected here in the UK. We have a window of opportunity to keep it that way, but only if we take border biosecurity seriously. If ASF got into this country, the consequences would be devastating for farmers and could cost the industry an estimated £100 million. Once it is here, we cannot simply rewind the clock, so prevention has to come first. What consideration has the Department given to providing the public with more information about the risks of bringing meat products into the UK, strengthening checks on personal imports and introducing measures such as amnesty bins before customs clearance?

The previous Government created what many in the industry see as a weakness in our border arrangements by moving customs checks to Sevington, over 20 miles inland from Dover. That leaves a significant stretch between the port and the inspection site. Will the Minister look again at whether that arrangement provides the level of biosecurity our farming sector deserves? I would suggest that it does not.

Good biosecurity is not just about stopping disease at the border; it is also about making sure that farms are as resilient as possible if the worst should happen. The animal health and welfare pathway is a good example. It provides funded veterinary visits, including dedicated biosecurity advice, yet I understand that uptake remains at only about 7%. What more is being done to ensure that farmers know about the scheme and feel confident in accessing it?

Finally, I want to touch on vaccines. When witnesses from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I asked about the resilience of veterinary vaccine supply chains. Their evidence highlighted the risk posed by manufacturing disruption, changing demand and wider global shocks. What is the Department doing in support of international efforts to develop an effective ASF vaccine and to ensure that, when one is available, we have resilient supply chains capable of getting it to farmers when they need it?

Our pig farmers produce world class food to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere. They deserve a Government who match their effort by taking biosecurity just as seriously. If we get this right, we will protect livelihoods, strengthen food security and avoid an entirely preventable crisis. I hope the Minister will continue to make that his priority.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. We do not hear about pig farming as much as we hear about other farming sectors, but it is essential to our food system and rural economy. While this debate concerns the UK sector, I want to focus on the pressures facing producers in Scotland.

As we have heard, the Scottish pig sector is under enormous strain from low market prices, rising costs, processing constraints and competition from imports. Many farmers are now selling pigs well below the cost of production. NFU Scotland estimates that Scottish members of the United Pig Co operative lost around £2.7 million in the first four months of this year alone. Some producers were losing up to £37 per pig, while a typical 500-sow unit could face annual losses approaching half a million pounds. Those figures are unsustainable for family farming businesses.

The consequences extend beyond individual farms. Scotland’s pig sector contributes around £300 million to the economy and supports around 2,200 jobs, as well as haulage firms, feed merchants, vets, processors and other rural businesses. Once that critical mass is lost, it will be exceptionally difficult to rebuild. In my constituency, farmers such as Adam Marshall in Berwickshire have spent decades investing in high quality Scottish pork and adding value through local enterprises, including Reiver Country Farm Foods and Oink. That entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged, but even innovative, well run family businesses cannot absorb sustained losses indefinitely. If businesses such as Adam’s are struggling despite doing everything right, that should alarm us all.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition of the crisis through their £2 million emergency package for independent producers, but the industry is clear that it does not go far enough; the losses being sustained are far greater than the support on offer. Further assistance will be needed to protect Scotland’s pig sector, rural jobs and domestic food production.

The UK Government must act too. Ministers should urgently convene an industry roundtable and resume regular engagement with the National Pig Association. It is concerning that no bilateral meeting has taken place since November 2024. The Government should review whether the fair dealing obligations are providing the protection that producers were promised, and farmers must not be left carrying an unfair share of commercial risk. We should also strengthen country of origin labelling, particularly in food service, so that consumers can support Scottish and British pork produced to high welfare and environmental standards.

Finally, biosecurity must remain a priority. African swine fever poses a serious threat, and robust border controls and disease preparedness are essential for protecting food security and the rural economy. Our pig farmers are resilient and innovative. They are asking not for special treatment, but for fair markets, sensible regulation, meaningful engagement and support proportionate to the crisis. I hope the Minister will listen and act.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.

I am very proud of the more than 500 farms in my constituency. Since I was elected, I have been delighted to meet with more than 100 of them. Many of them are predominantly arable, as one might expect in Norfolk, but we also have plenty of farms that include pigs as either a significant or a smaller part of their operations. Farmer Ed Lankfer, based at Wereham in my constituency, was kind enough to host an NFU roundtable that covered a whole range of issues facing the farming industry. It has been said that there are more pigs than people in Norfolk, so when there are issues in the industry—as there currently are—communities like mine very much feel the impact.

The UK pig sector is going through a difficult period due to an oversupply of pigs, stagnant demand and falling EU prices that have put a downward pressure on UK prices. At the same time, there are rising costs, exacerbated by the conflict with Iran, as well as the constant risk of disease such as African swine fever. We may not have seen the worst of it yet. As I highlighted at DEFRA oral questions last week, the National Pig Association anticipates that by November we could see 10,000 to 15,000 pigs per week without an outlet to be sold, placing a significant financial burden on farmers and risking animal welfare issues.

Sadly, as in so many aspects of farming, there is a huge unfairness in the pig industry. That unfairness in the supply chain is hitting independent pig farmers, including those in my constituency. Independent producers are responsible for roughly 50% of the pig herd in the UK, and very often they lose out first and are the most financially squeezed in the industry.

So often when I meet farmers, we talk about issues that directly connect with my Labour values, particularly around fairness and justice. I urge the Minister to consider those values when discussing what can be done to support the pig industry. There is a huge power imbalance in the supply chain, and a lack of credible contractual relations between far too many pig sellers and buyers. Specifically, will the Minister review whether the fair dealing obligations are being upheld and whether they are robust enough?

Tackling the power imbalance, not just in the pig industry but in farming more generally, needs to be at the forefront of this Labour Government’s fightback to support British farming. The commitment to co operatives included in the farming road map could support a change in that direction, and I very much welcome that approach, but we need to move quickly to achieve the change we seek. Smaller family farms are increasingly being squeezed out of operation, and we must act before it is too late.

We should do this not just because we recognise the importance of food security, but because of our commitment to achieve economic growth in every postcode, including in rural communities like mine. There is huge growth potential in rural areas, and so often it is the family farm that underpins that growth. If the farm is doing well, it will invest in new machinery, undertake repairs and maintenance to buildings, and reinvest in the local environment. The lack of profitability and weakened resilience in the industry is hampering that growth and, by default, diminishing the prosperity of rural communities.

Later today, the Labour rural research group, which I am proud to be a member of, will publish its latest report, “The Future of the Rural Economy”. I will not give too much away, but it confirms that there is huge public support for farming, and for the Government to do more to support the industry, and it recognises that food security is national security. Some 87% of respondents to our survey agreed that it is very important to sustain a strong UK farming industry, and 77% welcomed increased Government investment in the farming sector. As a Labour Government, we have an opportunity to do much more to support the pig industry, farming more generally, and our rural communities. I look forward to the Government grasping that opportunity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.

Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Melksham and Devizes, I have been extremely fortunate to visit a number of farms, including pig farms, and meet many outstanding local farmers, including Cameron Naughton at West End farm, an independent pig farm with an attached farm shop. Cameron recently wrote to me to share his thoughts and to ask me to represent him, as an independent farmer, in this debate. He told me that his business is losing about £5,000 a week. Operating a high welfare, outdoor bred, RSPCA assured farm like Cameron’s inevitably carries a much higher cost of production, but what he finds incomprehensible is that prices to the consumer keep rising while the supermarket supply chains continue to make substantial profits that are not reflected in what farmers are paid.

Independent producers like Cameron are bearing the brunt of a market that has been declining since 2025, driven by a combination of factors: an oversupply of pigs, stagnating demand and falling prices to the farmer. With the UK pig breeding herd at a historic low, high quality British products like Cameron’s risk being replaced by lower welfare imported meat, which brings with it a heightened risk of diseases such as swine fever and foot and mouth disease. The European Food Safety Authority has reported a 76% increase this year in African swine fever outbreaks among pigs in the EU.

I urge the Government, and particularly the incoming Prime Minister, not to forget our farmers and our rural communities. I ask them to sit down with the industry, particularly with independent farmers like Cameron, to determine what can be done to secure the survival of this vital sector and to help secure our country’s vital food security.

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate, Sir Christopher, and to have the Minister in his place.

I agree with practically every word that has been said by colleagues across the House about the importance of the pig industry. It is the largest agricultural output of Yorkshire and the Humber and worth more than half a billion pounds a year, but as colleagues have set out, there has been a gradual concentration into what is now no more than about four major processors across the United Kingdom. That puts up the costs of transport. More importantly still, it means a loss of competition and the potential for that imbalance in market power to be used in a way that is counter to fairness—as the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) mentioned when talking about Labour values—and to the interests of the consumer. If there is one thing the Minister needs to do, aside from keeping our pig industry safe from biohazards, it is ensure that there is healthy competition in the market so that the consumer is well served.

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke to a local Holderness pig farmer who was at the Great Yorkshire Show. She told me that she has had notice on contracts for the processing of the pigs, and she no longer has anywhere to send her pigs from 13 August. The pigs are literally going to be backing up on the farm, with nowhere to go.

13 August is obviously a very important date, because it is when the fair dealing regulations come in. There have been warnings from the sector that that sort of thing will happen and about why it is so important. I ask the Minister for a proper review of these obligations to assess how they are working for the sector, so that we do not have situations like the one that my right hon. Friend has just mentioned.

I have represented pig farmers in Holderness for 21 years—it has always been volatile, and the farmers accept the volatility, but never has there been quite such a concatenation of issues all at the same time, including the introduction of the regulations and the closure of abattoirs. Scotland was hit first, as my hon. Friend will know, with the closure of abattoirs there. The abattoir at Spalding has now gone. This is a very serious issue, which I hope the Minister will be able to look at.

Processors are also buying out the independents. Again, looking at the raw political elements of this situation, the truth is that independents who are struggling to find anywhere to have their pigs processed become more vulnerable and can be bought out, in which case competition will be further reduced.

I ask the Minister to use his good offices to get his officials to engage with major processors to ensure that no independent farmer is left unable to have their pigs processed, because that would create not only an animal welfare crisis, but a financial crisis for farmers, making them easy meat—pardon the language, Sir Christopher—for others to buy them out.

This genuinely is a crisis; the danger is that one hears that word too often, but this situation absolutely is one, not only for pig farmers, who are very important to my constituency, but for consumers in the long term. I hope the Minister will take that very seriously on board and will look to intervene, to ensure that every farmer has somewhere to have their pigs processed.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. The financial pressures facing pig farmers—indeed, farmers in every sector of our rural economy—are serious. Independent producers have seen prices collapse and contracts withdrawn, and it is important that we take time to recognise those challenges.

I will focus on something that is fundamental to the future of the pig industry and indeed to the health of our nation: biosecurity. Last month I asked DEFRA whether it had met the National Pig Association since the last recorded meeting, more than nine months ago, the response confirmed that Ministers have not met the NPA directly for a bilateral meeting. Perhaps if they had, they would be more aware of the NPA’s stark warning that the UK remains poorly protected when it comes to biosecurity.

An outbreak of disease here would devastate British agriculture and our supply chains, impacting the taxpayer to the tune of billions of pounds. We must learn from the past. The 2001 foot and mouth outbreak cost the public and private sectors the equivalent of almost £15 billion in today’s money. An outbreak of African swine fever would immediately close export markets worth around £500 million each year. Yet despite those risks, the NPA warns that large volumes of illegally imported meat continue to enter the UK from countries where those diseases are present.

I hope that the Minister recognises the severity and urgency of this matter. I urge him to set out what steps the Department is taking to ensure that staff at borders and checkpoints are appropriately resourced and trained to manage the risk of imports, and how DEFRA Ministers are working with colleagues from across Government, including the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, to ensure a cohesive and joined up approach.

As the Government negotiate a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union, we need reassurances from the Minister that the Government will not cave in any way on our world leading biosecurity standards in an attempt to placate and pacify the EU. Reduced border checks under any future SPS agreement could undermine our market and increase the risk of animal diseases entering the UK.

Does the Minister recognise that risk? Would he consider providing multi year funding for the Dover Port Health Authority and other agencies that protect our borders, to strengthen enforcement and deter criminal activity? British pig farmers have shown real leadership: they have reduced antibiotic use by almost 70%, invested in higher welfare standards and continually improved animal health. They are doing their part. DEFRA must now step up, match their commitment to our food security and wellbeing, and act accordingly.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for setting the scene incredibly well.

It is a pleasure to champion a sector that is not only vital to my constituency, but a cornerstone of the entire economy of Northern Ireland: our fantastic, resilient yet deeply struggling pig industry. When we talk about agriculture in Northern Ireland, we are talking about the lifeblood of our rural communities. There are some 27,000 family farms across the province and our intensive sectors, particularly pork and poultry, punch vastly above their weight. Northern Ireland holds the highest density of pigs and poultry anywhere in the United Kingdom, and for a nation of some 1.9 million, we produce more chickens and pigs than Scotland and Wales combined—that is not to boast, but it is a fact of life and a statistic I want to put on record. We feed millions of people across the United Kingdom and the globe with world class, top quality, traceable pork products. As I stand here today, however our independent pig farmers are facing an existential crisis.

As the hon. Member knows, small abattoirs are at breaking point in almost every imaginable way. One big issue is contradicting and inconsistent inspections. Does he agree that the Government urgently need to set out a clearer plan to streamline the regulation system?

I certainly do. That is one of the things that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan and others have asked for, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Sadly, pig farming cannot simply be switched on and off like a tap. It requires immense long term investment, precision and dedication, but it has been squeezed to the absolute limit. Our farmers have battled skyrocketing input costs: feed, energy and fertiliser prices have gone through the roof. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which has been forced to hold emergency meetings with major processors such as Sofina Foods at its Cookstown site, because of severe contract reductions and reductions in weekly slaughter volumes. Our independent family farms are being left adrift in a sea of commercial uncertainty and Ulster Farmers Union has had to take those concerns directly to major retailers.

I ask the Minister in his speech to take up the issue of cost, and specifically what farmers are getting for their products and what Tesco—I name it—and other large supermarket chains are getting. The supply chain is simply broken, and we need intervention. The Northern Ireland Executive have to deal with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home, but macroeconomic stability, supply chain legislation and national food security are firmly the responsibility of this Government.

Our family farms need protection from immediate financial ruin and the Government must engage with the major supermarket giants to ensure that they are paying fair and reasonable prices. If we do not support our pig farmers right now, we will see generational family businesses shut their gates forever. Let us remember this one thing: if there are no farmers, there is no food.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this timely debate.

I grew up on a sheep and beef farm, and when I was about 11 years old, I bought 13 pigs from market to take home. They became more like pets; I used to play football with them—

You used to kick them around?

No, I used to play football matches with them. They were a lot of fun, and I learned that of all livestock, they are potentially the most intelligent and certainly some of the most affectionate animals. I had a particularly interesting visit to Sparsholt agricultural college in Winchester with the National Pig Association. I used to love going there when I was a vet to treat the animals; now I go there as an MP to look at its teaching and facilities. It has a fantastic indoor, high welfare unit that delivers piglets without the use of farrowing crates, and I pay tribute to the staff there for their teaching and the welfare standards that they maintain.

To touch on something that many Members have spoken about today, one of the top issues threatening the pig industry is biosecurity at the border. I have been to Dover and met the vets and border inspectors there who look at the potentially illegal meat coming in and the tonnes of it that get seized. The crazy thing is that currently, if I were caught smuggling meat into the UK, I could not be arrested and my vehicle could not be seized, but the meat would be confiscated and my vehicle would have to be cleaned, because it would be a biosecurity risk. The only deterrent to trying to smuggle illegal meat into the UK would be that I might get my van cleaned for free at the taxpayer’s expense. That is absolutely ridiculous. I totally understand that enforcing biosecurity at such a busy border is difficult and comes with huge challenges, there are not even suitable deterrents in place for people who get caught. I urge the Minister at the very least to look at implementing some.

One thing that the pig industry has done phenomenally well is to reduce antibiotic use by 72% since 2015—just over 10 years. That is hugely important, not only for animal welfare, but for public health. Antimicrobial resistance is like a slow pandemic; it never gets media attention, but it will kill 39 million people by 2050 if we do not take action. It is important that we do not undercut our high animal welfare and farming standards with products from countries that have lower standards. Countries that use antibiotics as growth promoters are not only farming with lower welfare standards, but contributing to this huge public health crisis, so we must do our bit to tackle that issue.

The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned labelling. It is hugely important that we can identify where meat has been produced. Consumers are currently being hoodwinked; they believe that they are buying products from animals reared in the UK, but it turns out that they were only processed in the UK. They want to support British farmers and high animal welfare standards, so it is completely wrong that they are being hoodwinked into buying products that potentially undermine UK standards.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made a very important point about the lack of small abattoirs in the UK. Their closure is a huge animal welfare issue, as animals have to be transported further than necessary to be slaughtered, and a huge economic problem too.

I urge the Minister to see how the Government can work with the pig industry to move away from the CO₂ stunning of pigs. It is a big welfare concern, and the British Veterinary Association and others are keen for the industry to make a sustainable transition away from it. It causes a lot of concern to a lot of constituents, and it really upsets me as a vet.

Finally, I urge the Minister to meet the National Pig Association as soon as possible to look at supporting UK farmers, maintaining high animal welfare standards and improving our nation’s food security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.

The British pig sector is in crisis, and our pig farmers need our help. My hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and Buchan and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly spoke the challenges north of the border. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) rightly called on the Minister to ensure that no independent farmer is unable to have their pigs processed. That is absolutely the crux of the issue.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The British pig sector contributes about £14 billion to our economy—£2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales, and exports to 88 counties worth almost £500 million. It is a major part of our farming industry, and we cannot afford to let the current financial challenges go any further.

The hon. Gentleman is right to outline the exports from the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, we export almost 80% of our product, so it is even more critical for us.

Absolutely. There must be a UK wide approach.

The warning signs have been there for months. Since last autumn, the sector has been hit by oversupply, stagnant demand, falling European prices, factory disruptions and rising costs all at once. At one point earlier this year, around 100,000 pigs were backed up on British farms. That backlog has largely cleared now, but not without cost. The standard pig price has fallen by around 30p a kilogram, from roughly 208p to 178p.

That is only part of the picture, because the vast majority of independent farmers will be receiving much less than that, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. No market can survive on those terms. Without urgent action, the sector faces being pushed towards collapse. It is our independent producers who are bearing the brunt of the pressures faced by the sector, with thousands now seeing their contracts terminated early by major processors. Somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 pigs a week are affected by notices being served on producers.

The Government simply cannot stand on the sidelines and hope that the market corrects itself, because by autumn, the industry fears that up to 10,000 to 15,000 pigs a week could have no market at all. If nothing changes, we know what follows—more farm closures, more herds reduced and more businesses walking away from the industry altogether.

The fair dealing obligations for pig contracts were brought in to fix the problem exposed by the last crisis—unequal bargaining power, poor contracts and a lack of fairness between producers and processors. We can all agree that those were worthwhile aims but if, during the implementation period, producers are still seeing contracts terminated early in record numbers and our farmers are still losing money on every pig they sell, the Government have to ask whether the regulations are doing what Parliament originally intended. Will the Minister commit today to an urgent assessment of whether the regulations are fit for purpose?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) noted, there are also longer term challenges. The threat from African swine fever and foot and mouth disease is real and ongoing. Protecting our borders from illegal meat imports and strengthening our disease defences must be a priority. What are the Government doing to work across Departments, including with the Home Office, to make sure that these live issues are addressed?

The industry also needs a sensible workforce strategy. Like much of agriculture, pig farming is struggling with labour shortages. It needs a strategy that builds a workforce based on domestic skills and apprenticeships.

We must also address the issue of transparency. Customers want to buy British and retail labelling has come a long way, but food services still rely heavily on imported pork, often with far less clarity about where that pork comes from. British producers deserve a level playing field and British consumers deserve to know what is on their plate.

That is why the Conservative party has proposed closing the loophole that lets imported food, once merely processed or packaged in the UK, carry branding that many shoppers reasonably mistake as British. What progress has been made since the Government’s response on the food labelling consultation? Do the Government intend to strengthen country of origin rules?

British pig farmers are not asking the Government to solve every single commercial challenge, but they are asking for regulations that genuinely protect producers rather than leave them exposed. Above all, they are asking the Government to recognise the strategic importance of British food production before more independent producers simply disappear for good.

We cannot lose more of this vital industry. For the sake of our farmers, our rural communities and our country’s long term food security, the Government must engage with key stakeholders. It is disappointing to hear that the last bilateral meeting between Ministers and the National Pig Association was back in September 2025. I call on the Minister to have an urgent meeting—I understand there may be one tomorrow. If that is the case, will the Minister guarantee that those meetings will continue at pace and at regular intervals with the British Pig Association, so that we can make sure that this vital industry is protected long into the future?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this incredibly important debate, and on the constructive manner in which she contributed this afternoon.

I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate and for the thoughtful way in which they have raised a number of concerns currently facing the pig sector and their constituencies. As my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) passionately alluded to, the pig sector is woven into the fabric of the UK’s food system, underpinning food security, sustaining rural communities and driving agricultural productivity across the country. Beyond its economic importance, pork has long held a place at the nation’s table, from cherished regional specialities and traditional Sunday roasts to the everyday meals enjoyed by millions of families. As both a source of nourishment and a part of our culinary heritage, British pig production remains integral to what we eat.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk said, however, this is a moment of considerable pressure for the sector. Pig producers are navigating a period of profound difficulty, confronting a range of economic and structural challenges across all nations of the UK. I thank my Scottish and Northern Irish colleagues for their contributions this afternoon.

Recent reports have highlighted concerns about processors seeking to reduce pig numbers and producers—particularly independent producers—receiving notice that their contracts will be terminated. Those developments reflect a difficult market environment. A combination of increased production in recent years, changing consumer patterns and wider pressures in European pork markets has resulted in excess supply across parts of the sector. We recognise that this market adjustment is creating uncertainty for producers, particularly those affected by changes to supply arrangements.

That is why the Government will continue to engage with the industry as it responds to the challenges it faces. I personally assure all Members that I have prioritised meeting with the sector and, indeed, am meeting with the National Pig Association tomorrow to discuss the pressures that the sector is facing. I also note the NPA’s request for ongoing dialogue in its briefing for today’s debate. I hope tomorrow is the start of that relationship.

Turning to intervention powers, in the event of exceptional market disruption, the Government have powers under section 21 of the Agriculture Act 2020 to provide support to farmers in England. Agriculture is a devolved matter, and there are similar powers available to devolved Governments should they consider intervention in the sector appropriate. The powers under the Agriculture Act in England are intended to deal with unforeseen short term shocks to agricultural markets, where there is a significant adverse effect on price achievable for one or more agricultural products. Section 21 powers were previously used during the exceptional disruption faced by the pig sector in 2021, when a combination of reduced processing capacity, the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, interruptions to CO₂ supply and a shortage of skilled butchers led to a substantial backlog of pigs on farm.

We recognise the challenges facing the sector today, but our assessment is that the circumstances are materially different from those seen in 2021. The current pressures reflect broader market conditions rather than a breakdown in processing capacity or market function. As such, the threshold for intervention in England under section 21 of the Agriculture Act is not currently met. As it is a devolved matter, it is for devolved Governments to take a judgment on intervention.

I congratulate the Minister on the meeting he will have tomorrow and his offer to engage. I gently press him on reaching out. He has made it clear that he does not think that the current situation matches that of 2021. I accept that, but could he reach out and use his good offices to ensure that no farmer is left with pigs backing up on their farm? Could he lean, in the most genial manner possible, on the processors to ensure that farmers get those pigs off the farm and processed? They would be very grateful if the Minister could do so.

I am very alive to the issues. That is why engagement with the sector is very important. I have powers available to me, if necessary, but we are keen to monitor the situation. That is why today’s debate has been so important.

We are aware that the sector experienced a temporary backlog on farms earlier this year. The industry took action to address the issue, including through increasing processing capacity, and the backlog has now been cleared. Although that was a welcome development, wider pressures remain and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Turning to points made by Members about Government actions to strengthen fairness and resilience in the pig sector, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan rightly raised the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025. They are designed to end unfair contract practices and give British pig farmers greater transparency and certainty in their commercial relationships. I will reflect on her points. The regulations will be fully in force from 13 April this year, when all contracts for the purchase of pigs will need to be compliant. While we are aware of some processors serving notice on their producers or reducing contract volumes, our understanding is that these notices are being issued in line with contractual provisions. The fair dealing regulations are enforced by the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, which producers can contact if they are concerned that their contracts are not compliant with the regulations. I assure the hon. Member that the regulations will be subject to statutory review processes that will assess their effectiveness and whether any changes may be required in future.

Alongside the UK wide fair dealing obligation regulations, support is also available to pig farmers in England through the animal health and welfare pathway. Pig farmers can receive £648 for a vet on farm to look at general animal health and welfare issues and carry out testing. Farmers can receive up to £1,087 for further testing and advice if their farm has PRRS. In 2026, £50 million was made available through the farming equipment and technology fund to help farmers in England to improve animal health and welfare, productivity and slurry management.

On the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, the ambition of our farming road map is not simply to help farmers weather immediate challenges, but to create the conditions for a farming sector that is productive, resilient and profitable for generations to come. That means backing innovation, improving animal health and welfare, strengthening fairness across the supply chains and ensuring that farmers are better equipped to respond to changing and challenging markets. A strong domestic pig sector has an important role to play in delivering food security, supporting rural growth and maintaining the high standards that British consumers rightly expect.

By investing in productivity and resilience today, we can help to ensure that British pig farming remains competitive and successful in the years ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan raised the important issue of African swine fever. I assure her that to help to prevent the uncontrolled movement of meat products into the United Kingdom, DEFRA has introduced safeguard measures that prohibit personal imports of pork into GB from the EU. The commercial import of pork from areas under African swine fever controls is not permitted. We are also funding the Port of Dover to ensure that illegal movement of meat into England does not take place. Since 2022, we have provided over £14 million of operational funding to the Dover port association.

I thank Members again for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. The concerns they raised have reinforced the importance of continuing to work closely with producers, processors and the wider industry. Our commitment is clear: to support a farming sector that not only is able to withstand future shocks, but is confident, profitable and able to seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

Given that there is a Division in the House, I will keep this very short. I thank everyone for participating in the debate. I hope the Minister’s meetings will be constructive. I ask him to go in with an open mind and listen to what the NPA is saying. It is not sounding a false alarm; it is genuinely very worried about the future of its sector.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers.

Sitting adjourned.