Westminster Hall

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 28 February 2024

[Derek Twigg in the Chair]

Funding for Youth Services

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered trends in funding levels for youth services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The significance of good youth services for our young people’s development cannot be overstated. They provide essential building blocks for a full and rewarding life, a safe place, acceptance, guidance, friendship, physical and mental health support, academic support and employment skills. Youth services set young people up for a healthy, happy and confident life as part of communities across Britain, acting as an indispensable component of our national infrastructure. I have seen that at first hand in my constituency of Luton South. I want to say a huge thank you to everyone in Luton supporting our young people. They are a credit to our town and play such an important part in giving the best start in life to our young people.

Luton Council does an excellent job working with our voluntary and community sector to ensure that all young people enjoy their lives and reach their full potential. Whether it is the Scouts, the Guides, Tokko youth centre, the Centre for Youth and Community Development, Next Generation Youth Theatre, Youthscape, various cadets or sports clubs and our excellent music service, our young people have a variety of activities that they can get involved in.

That support and meaningful activities for young people have arguably never been needed more, with challenges such as loneliness and societal pressures stemming from the global health pandemic and the cost of living crisis making it harder for our young people to get on. In some cases, youth services are about ensuring that a young person is guided away from being drawn into gangs or other negative activities. However, more often than not, they are about nurturing the confidence, resilience and skills of our young people.

The benefits of well-resourced youth services are obvious for all to see, but rather than just reel off stats and facts, I want to use this opportunity to amplify our young people’s voices. Here are some testimonies of young people, as given to the YMCA, about the importance of youth services. Sam, 16, said:

“I wasn’t keen on the idea of attending a youth club at first, it was quite out of my comfort zone but since I started attending, I have grown in confidence and have begun speaking to people more often...Attending YMCA has made a real difference to my life.”

Rachel, 16, told YMCA:

“It was around a year ago that I started to struggle with anxiety and depression and at first, I did nothing. My older sister was already attending the youth club at YMCA and invited me along. I love it here. I feel very safe and supported in the company of the youth workers—they are very caring and always sit and talk with me when I feel upset or need to cry. Without YMCA, my mental health would be way worse as I would have no one to talk to and nothing to do.”

Idris, also 16, said:

“I suffer from anxiety and anger issues. I tried to battle it alone, but it didn’t work. A friend suggested I come to YMCA. I always have fun when I attend YMCA and it makes me feel really happy. It has helped me as I can take positive memories away from my time here and when I am feeling low, I can remember that I have Monday’s youth club to look forward to.”

There is no better testimony than from those who actually use the services and are reaping the benefit.

Unfortunately, today’s debate is an opportunity not just to sing the praises of our wonderful youth services, but to recognise the reality of a severely underfunded, under-supported sector that has been deprioritised by the Conservatives.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has given fantastic examples of the importance of youth services and the work of the YMCA. Does she agree that one problem in society at the moment is that children in the more deprived communities are even less likely to be able to access the services that they need for the sort of support that she has described for her constituents?

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I wanted to have this debate so that we could press that point, particularly for constituencies similar to mine of Luton South.

After 14 years of the Conservatives cutting funding, local authorities are struggling under the substantial weight of funding pressures. Youth services are often one of the first services to be cut. Councils and councillors want to deliver high-quality youth services for young people, but the Conservatives have given them no choice. My local council, Luton, is a case in point: it has had £170 million cut from its budget since 2010.

The Local Government Association has stated that councils in England face a funding gap of £4 billion over the next two years just to keep services standing still. Significant budget pressures mean that there are few options available to maintain high-quality youth services. Children’s social care puts significant pressure on local authority finances, so general, more universal services for young people are compromised as the limited resources are targeted at ensuring that the young people most in need are kept safe and supported. It is a difficult decision that councillors of all party colours must make, but the Government are ultimately responsible, due to their swingeing cuts to local government finances.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. My experience as a serving Somerset councillor is that investing in youth services is often seen as a preventive measure to address future social and economic issues. Somerset has seen an 80% reduction in real-terms spending on youth services over the past 12 years. Does the hon. Lady agree that cutting such services leads to higher costs associated with problems that could have been mitigated through early intervention and support for young people, and that local government needs to be adequately funded?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for making an excellent point. I absolutely agree, and I will address that later in my speech.

During the Conservatives’ time in office, youth organisations have fought to keep delivering great youth work, amid a £1.1 billion real-terms cut to local authority spending on youth services. I thank the YMCA and the National Youth Agency for their support in preparation for this debate. The YMCA’s “On the ropes” report found that drastic underfunding means that spending per head on youth services in England has suffered a real-terms cut of 75% since 2010-11, which means that it sits at £48 per five to 17-year-old. Although cuts have been significant across the board, there are clear regional funding inequalities. In 2022-23, the lowest spend per young person was in the west midlands, at £24, followed by the east of England and the south-east, at £38. In contrast, in London it is £69 and in Yorkshire and the Humber it is £71.

I am also concerned about the funding cuts to my constituency of Luton South since the Conservatives took power. The YMCA found that real-terms spending on youth services in Luton has been cut by 73%, with spend per young person sitting at £34.60. In the central Bedfordshire part of my constituency, spending per head for young people is £25.17—a 53% cut. Although passionate youth workers continue to battle to deliver high-quality support, many have had to leave the profession: there has been a 35% reduction in full-time equivalent youth workers employed by local authorities in England over the same period.

This should not have to be said, but all children, irrespective of background or geography, deserve high-quality youth services to support their development. After 14 years of the Conservatives, youth services are at breaking point, and too many young people have no access to youth services at all. Our voluntary and community sector has brilliantly stepped up to fill the gap left by the Conservative Government cuts, but that is not a long-term solution.

The physical and mental health support previously offered by youth services has been shifted on to schools and overworked, under-resourced teachers. Schools have their own pressures. According to National Education Union research, in Luton South per-pupil funding has been cut by £751 since the Conservatives took power—that is more than £14 million stripped from our school system. The case for greater resources for youth services is compelling. Youth work has proven, positive impacts on improving young people’s mental health and wellbeing, behaviour, engagement with education and attainment. Youth workers achieve life-changing outcomes for young people through intervention and prevention, building voluntary, trusted and educative relationships with the young people they support.

If the Minister needs to hear an economic case for youth services, for every pound the Government invest in youth work, the benefit to the taxpayer is between £3.20 and £6.40. Youth work saves £500 million annually by preventing incidents of antisocial behaviour, knife crime and other associated criminal justice costs, according to UK Youth and Frontier Economics. To pre-empt what the Minister might say in response about Government funding directed at specific youth club buildings: as welcome as any capital funding is, there is a pressing need for additional support for training and sustaining well-qualified youth workers. There is an absence of a co-ordinated strategy across Government Departments, leading to fragmented and insufficient funding for targeted youth services.

The YMCA has set out the following recommendations to support youth services. It mentions:

“sustained and long-term revenue funding to bolster universal and open-access youth services, catering to all young people throughout the year”,

a cross-departmental strategy for youth services,

“fostering a long-term vision for nationwide provision”,

and enforcing

“a duty on local authorities to ensure that all young people can access youth services in their respective areas, with necessary government support and resourcing.”

Will the Minister respond to each of those recommendations in his closing remarks?

I want the impact of this debate to be that the Minister, his officials and other Government Departments reflect on the true value of our youth services. I do not doubt that the Government recognise the good those services do in our community, but I ask that additional actions be taken to ensure that they receive the support they desperately need. Will the Minister outline what recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Department for Education and the Home Department about long-term resources for youth services? Will he also outline what steps the Government are taking to increase the number of full-time equivalent youth workers across the UK to ensure that all young people receive the support they deserve?

Labour recognises the need for a long-term, co-ordinated approach to revitalise the delivery of youth services. At our last party conference, we announced a 10-year programme to bring together services and communities to support young people, providing new youth mentors and mental health hubs in every community, and youth workers and pupil referral units in A&E, along with a programme of public sector reform to help to deliver that. Communities will come together to transform the lives of children, giving them the best possible start in life. Will the Minister explain why the Government have not implemented such a scheme during their 14-year tenure?

I look forward to hearing the contributions of Members from across the House. Together, we must continue to call for Government action to ensure that young people in our constituencies get the best possible start in life. That means supporting our local youth services and youth workers.

09:42

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, I believe for the first time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on securing this important debate. It is a fact that, as a direct result of cuts, more young people are being enticed into crime, and we have seen a rise in antisocial behaviour across our communities. We have heard about the new YMCA report, which highlights the striking challenges in funding youth services. I have no doubt about the importance of those services for building young people’s confidence, resilience and skills.

Based in Darlington, Tees Valley YMCA plays a vital role in providing affordable housing and engaging youth programmes, and promoting overall community resilience. I pay tribute to it, and to other charities, churches and community groups that work with young people. Just as well that they do, because publicly funded services have been decimated by 14 years of Tory rule. Perhaps the fact that there are no Conservative Members here sitting behind the Minister to contribute to this debate illustrates where the Government and the Conservative party are when it comes to youth services.

The YMCA report shows that councils’ funding for youth services has been slashed by a real-terms average of 73% across England over the last 12 years, with an average of just £47.79 now being spent per child. The north-east has one of the lowest overall averages, at just £44. I am pleased to say that in Stockton-on-Tees the figure sits at £101.79 per child, but that is half what it was in 2012. In Redcar and Cleveland, it decreased by 79%, in Hartlepool by 84%, in Darlington by 89% and in Middlesborough by 94%. Meanwhile, in the City of London, average spending per young person is £493.67. Young people are our future, but the Government are not investing in them, particularly not in the north-east of England. Our young people are robbed of opportunities to learn, grow and, perhaps more importantly, play.

Between 2011-12 and 2022-23, the number of council youth centres in England fell by 53%, from 917 to 427. The number of council youth workers is down by 25%. Funding of youth services is not mandatory, and the localised nature of provision has meant a wide variation in spending on youth services across the country; I have already illustrated that. As reported in the Department for Education’s local authority and school expenditure for the 2022-23 financial year, local authorities increased expenditure on youth services by 3% in 2021-22, but that was easily swallowed up by inflation. Examining 2022-23 spending levels, the figures still represent a £1.1 billion real-terms reduction in local authority expenditure since 2010-11. In the north-east and the west midlands, for example, real-terms cuts over that time have exceeded 80%, while in Yorkshire and the Humber, the east midlands and the east of England, there have been cuts of more than two thirds, with a reduction of 68%.

In 2019, there was a debate on the Floor of the House on youth services. The Minister of the day, recognising similar concerns, spoke of what was being done to improve the situation for youth workers. She said:

“On training for youth workers, we will renew the youth work curriculum and national occupational standards. We will also renew the entry level qualifications into youth work, and I am pleased to announce today that we will establish a new level 3 youth work apprenticeship. We know that these are particularly valuable to frontline youth workers—paid workers and, importantly, volunteers—and we are doing this because we know the power of a trusted relationship between a young person and an appropriately trained adult. This can absolutely transform a young person’s life.”—[Official Report, 24 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1370.]

I ask the Minister of this day: how has all that gone? Have those things happened? Are the Government’s measures having the predicted impact? Sadly, I fear that there are no real positive answers to the questions I have posed this morning.

Youth services also play a vital role in tackling youth violence. In Home Office questions earlier this week, I told the House that

“Children as young as 12 are being”

paid “pocket money” by dealers in Stockton to

“deliver class A and class B drugs”—[Official Report, 26 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 8.]

No one else is offering them anything, and they are in thrall to these criminals, who act with impunity. Less wealthy communities see more crime and are more likely to be victims, creating a disparity and inequality. With an average of 3,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour recorded every day, communities feel abandoned by authorities and increasingly unsafe.

The Youth Endowment Fund’s November 2023 report says:

“Many teenage children are changing their behaviour due to feeling unsafe, with 1 in 5 saying they’d skipped school, and most that commit violence are not getting the support they need.”

Another key finding was:

“Children whose parents made some of the most difficult changes in response to cost of living pressures had higher rates of victimisation. Victimisation rates were 31% among those now using foodbanks, 29% for those whose parents asked them to wear old clothes, 25% for those not allowed to go on school trips and 23% in households where parents skipped meals or reduced portion sizes.”

The report also says that

“48% of perpetrators of violence were also victims. This increases to 64% for children receiving free school meals, 81% for children in gangs and 87% for those who had contact with the police about a suspected offence.”

Importantly, the report also says:

“Only 16% of children who perpetrated violence were offered support or training to control their behaviour, meaning that 84% received no support”

whatsoever, and that

“more vulnerable children…were even less likely to receive support (12%)”.

I know that there is cross-party support for improving youth services in recognition of their impact, but after 14 years of the Conservatives the country needs change. They have failed on the economy, failed on public services, failed on living standards and failed our young people.

A report from the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities entitled “Financial distress in local authorities” has stressed that a fundamental review of local authority funding must take place following the next UK general election. Our young people cannot wait, though. They are being exploited now. They are being criminalised now; they are being bored into antisocial behaviour. The Government have failed them. We need that election now. We really need action for our young people.

09:50

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on introducing this absolutely fantastic and timely debate. I endorse her comments and those that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) just made, including the figures and statistics that he provided about the challenges that we have with our youth services and with what is happening to young people, especially from working-class and poorer communities. He described a picture very similar to what is happening in my constituency of Bolton South East, which, in the indices of social deprivation, is 38th in the country, so I genuinely thank him for the facts and figures that he highlighted. I will not repeat them, but I agree with everything that my two colleagues said.

Many other Members will touch on this later. We know that youth centres and places like them provide support to young people as safe places to socialise, develop and learn new skills and gain new experiences. In Bolton, we are blessed with many fantastic youth services that do amazing work, but they are all voluntary. I have seen at first hand how these groups allow children in Bolton to go on trips that they might not normally go on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said, or to gain access to sports facilities, music and art equipment—an experience that they would not otherwise get.

We have national groups such as the YMCA and the Scouts, which are doing fantastic work in Bolton. The YMCA has just invested £6.1 million in its new Y-Pad building, which is providing community space and housing for young people leaving foster care. They are another group of young people whom we ignore massively; we do not have full and proper provision for them when they leave foster care. Those groups are filling gaps left by the cuts to local authority and Government budgets. We have also seen brilliant local services such as the Bolton Lads & Girls Club, Be The Change, in Farnworth, and Zac’s Youth Bar, in Kearsley. These services are driven by local need and run by dedicated volunteers.

These organisations and their volunteers help in combating antisocial behaviour and improving young people’s mental and physical health. Why, then, have we seen a stark reduction in their funding? The benefits of youth services are very clear. It is also clear that they are undervalued and have not been funded properly since 2010. In addition, as a result of covid, the levels of stress and mental health problems for young people have increased massively. Along with the elderly, they were one of the groups that in some respects suffered the most.

We need a sea change in the Government’s approach to youth services. Young people are a very easy target. We often hear that they are lazy, are glued to their Xbox, are social media addicts and other expressions of that nature, when we know that that is not correct. We need there to be safe outdoor and indoor spaces to enable young people to play sports, socialise and engage with the real world.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing my intervention. Volunteer-led Somerton library has recently been highlighted as excellent in a review of public libraries. It plays, as the hon. Member was suggesting, a crucial role in engaging young people. However, the national crisis in local authorities’ finances will threaten the future provision of libraries in places around the country, such as Somerton. Does she agree that this is a vital service, and that we need to ensure that our local authorities are adequately funded to provide those crucial services for young people and wider communities?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. We need properly funded youth services because they are the key to unlock the potential of many young people, especially in communities like mine. The young are our future. Most of us here are heading towards retirement—well, some are. We need young people to be the workers providing for us in 10, 15, and 20 years’ time. We need to invest in them because they are our future. If we do not want to do it for a moral reason, let us do it because of straightforward economic reality. We need good young people who have been trained properly and educated, and are able to look after themselves and contribute to our society.

I will end on one particular aspect of youth services. Throughout my life as a barrister practising in criminal law, I dealt with many young people coming through the criminal justice system. A lot of them had problems within their families, or were subject to violence or abuse, and had an addiction problem. Over the past 10 years or so, we have seen a massive reduction in provision for rehabilitation centres for drug and alcohol intoxication. At the moment, trying to get a place in drug or alcohol rehab can take months and months. I ask the Government to look at this, because when some young people unfortunately end up in the criminal justice system, it is often because of an addiction to alcohol and drugs. There are not facilities at the other end to help wean them off this drug and alcohol addiction. I hope the Minister is listening to us, and I hope that we get some real commitment to providing funding to youth services and to tackling the issues of drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres.

09:57

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on securing this debate. I do not think there is enough chance to talk about youth services in our parliamentary debates, so I am really glad to have this opportunity. Youth work is so important, and I am surprised not to see more Members here—there are no Members here from the Conservative party except for the Minister. It is an issue for all our constituents throughout the country.

I would like to pay tribute to some of the youth work that goes on in my constituency: Regenerate; Group 64 at the Putney Arts Theatre; Free2B for LGBTQ+ young people; the many church youth workers we have; the Ahmadiyya youth movement; the Girl Guides, Brownies, and Scouts; sea cadets; sports clubs; SW15 Music, which provides affordable music lessons; and Love to Learn, where I used to work, which provides youth work for children from an asylum-seeking refugee background. I also pay tribute to Wandsworth Council and all the youth workers, especially in Roehampton Base, for all the amazing work they do with our young people in increasingly difficult circumstances. I will focus on those difficult circumstances today.

In the 1990s, I was a youth worker. I worked for the Methodist Association of Youth Clubs, working with young people across the country. I have been a passionate advocate for youth services since then, because I saw the essential work that youth workers do to enable access to skills, mental health support, and support for families and good relationships. It can be a safe space to boost self-esteem, have fun, try out challenges and skills, and potentially help young people see a different future from the one they have around them, because they are meeting up with other young people and having a range of experiences.

Regenerate is a fantastic youth work centre in my constituency, and it describes a stool with three legs—families, school and informal youth work. We need all three of those legs, but I feel that currently one of those legs has been cut off. We have been hearing the statistics from other Members. According to reports by the National Youth Agency and the YMCA, youth services have been cut by an astonishing 73% since 2010. Annual spending has dropped by £1 billion and 4,500 qualified youth workers have been lost from the frontline. In London, over £240 million was cut from youth services budgets between 2011 and 2021, and those cuts continue. Half of young people across the country do not have access to a youth service and do not know what is available in their area. Where voluntary and community groups have sought to fill that void, there is a crisis in volunteer recruitment, which was made worse by the pandemic, with a shortfall of at least 40,000 adult volunteers.

That amounts to 14 long years of our young people being let down. There is no more damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative cuts than the closed and decaying Alton and Roehampton youth club buildings in the middle of one of the most deprived estates in Wandsworth and in London. Every day, we walk past a building where there used to be a youth club, but it is sitting there completely closed. Youth workers I have spoken to said they had built up great relationships and trust with local families that cannot be rebuilt quickly, if at all. It is going to take a long time to rebuild our youth services.

The Government cannot talk about social mobility and levelling up without also talking about supporting youth services. Not only have they failed to invest in youth services and community spaces dedicated to them, but their approach is fragmented and unco-ordinated. The Home Office funds some youth services aimed at reducing violent crime. The Department for Work and Pensions commissions some employment-focused youth programmes. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport funded some of the building of new youth centres.

There does not seem to be a streamlined strategy to look at this in the round. Add in all the cuts to local government, and there is a perfect storm of failure of our young people. There should be a streamlined strategy to ensure a base level of universal open-access youth services. Young people must be a priority; it is imperative that the Government act to prevent missed opportunities for young people to get the support they need, from which we all benefit as a society.

The real-world impact of the cuts and patchwork approach to provision of youth services is damning. Some 24% of young respondents to a recent survey by the youth charity OnSide reported that they do not have a safe space to go where they feel they belong. With nowhere else to turn, and without the guidance, encouragement and mentoring that young people crave and youth workers are excellent at providing, they are abandoned to those who do not have their best interests at heart, and often make bad decisions, lacking the support they need to stop crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities.

As the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime made it clear in a report, each reduction in the number of youth centres corresponds to an increase in knife crime. Research by the University of Warwick bears that out. It found that crime participation among 10 to 15-year-olds increased by 10% in those London boroughs most affected by youth centre closures between 2010 and 2019. Those cuts have mental health and skills costs, because they have gone hand in hand with cuts to careers advisers in schools, and they have a social cost. They have a deep economic cost, too, because youth work saves £500 million of public spending through crime reduction alone.

Instead of letting down yet another generation of young people, Labour has a plan. Young Futures will be a new cross-Government national programme aimed at giving Britain’s young people the best start in life. Each community will be offered a Young Futures hub, which I cannot wait to see opened in my constituency. They will bring together mental health specialists, youth workers and neighbourhood police officers to finally give young people the start in life they deserve but have been missing for far too long.

There is a serious crisis in youth work, caused by years of cuts and of not valuing youth work, youth workers and young people. That has stopped young people achieving their potential. Youth work reduces crime and enables access to skills, engagement in education, good relationships and whole-family support. It improves mental health, physical health and, yes, happiness. Action must be taken to value and invest in youth services.

At the end of my speeches in this Chamber, I normally say to the Minister, “Please can we hear your plan?” However, I do not believe that he will have a good plan, so I can only hope for a Labour Government to start changing our youth service investment as soon as possible.

10:05

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I place it on the record that my husband is the chair of YMCA Liverpool, which is a non-paid role. I pay tribute to all the organisations and volunteers who provide youth services in my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree and the city of Liverpool, in particular Harthill Youth Centre, which does incredibly innovative work in my constituency.

I also pay tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who spoke eloquently about the desperate need to reinvest in youth services. I agree with her that we must nurture the confidence, skills and resilience of our young people and ensure that they get the best start in life.

Austerity has been a political con, and we live with its consequences today. We see them everywhere in our communities and in our public sector’s depleted resilience. Our children and young adults have borne the brunt more than most. The economic decisions taken post 2010, particularly between 2010 and 2015, have gutted the ability of the state to help people to help themselves. Local authorities have become beleaguered vessels of the British state: owning nothing, running nothing and commissioning everything—and very little at that. In the bonfire of austerity, young people and the services they relied on were always the most expendable for the coalition Government.

The record of the last Labour Government on children and young adults is a proud one. The likes of Sure Start and the Connexions service were truly radical ideas, which showed the value of a social democratic Government that prioritised the needs of future generations.

In the late 2000s and in government, the Conservative party droned on and on about dependency and waste in the public sector. That was rather insulting for those, like me, who worked in local government at the time. The rhetoric never matched the reality of the well-funded services that my colleagues and I worked hard to deliver. Youth services were about career advice, housing support, assistance for those with learning disabilities and so much more besides. They were about social inclusion, removing barriers, and helping young adults to get into education or training in a post-industrial society in which a job in the local factory was no longer guaranteed.

The economic vandalism of austerity was most pronounced in our cities. I suppose it was those pesky Labour funding formulas that, according to the Prime Minister, used to stuff all the money into deprived areas rather than into the likes of Royal Tunbridge Wells. According to the YMCA, the cuts have meant that Liverpool City Council has lost 86% of its youth service provision since 2010. That has brought its spending to just under £40 for each young person. In comparison, the Prime Minister’s North Yorkshire constituency can spend over double that: £89 per young person. This is not about playing one area off against another, but those numbers betray the fact that this Government have no regard for and no interest in equality of opportunity, despite all their claims to the contrary. Young people in Liverpool, and across all our cities and towns, deserve better.

Behind those numbers is an entire generation of young people who are blissfully unaware of what they have lost and what their predecessors were afforded. Whether they are gen Z or millennial—or, indeed, just under the age of 40—our people know that for 14 years they have been subject to a Government whose ability to cement intergenerational inequality has never been surpassed, with no youth clubs or youth services, violent crime up, social isolation, a lack of mental health provision, tuition fees trebled, no homes, a housing crisis, people unable to afford to buy or rent, minimum wage discrimination, no action on the gig economy, precarious work, underemployment, and a low-wage economy. The age-old offer that each generation will have it better than the last is in the dustbin, and now we have the grim spectacle of over 136,000 of our young people homeless, with nowhere else to go. There is no plan to tackle the scourge of youth homelessness that the likes of Centrepoint and the New Horizon Youth Centre in north London are calling for.

The cuts to youth services and youth provision have been the tip of the iceberg for the prevailing attitude that many politicians do not care about young people. The young people of the noughties have gone on to become the 30 and 40-year-olds waiting so very keenly to vote in this year’s election, and they, like the people in my home city of Liverpool, have exceptionally long memories. The same will no doubt be true of gen Z, who will not have any reference point for the likes of Connexions or the importance of the youth club and youth workers in their local communities, but they are angry for other reasons. Quite frankly, they have every right to be.

10:10

[Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) for securing this important debate and highlighting this key issue, which all of our constituents are facing.

I would like to start by paying tribute to what the voluntary sector is doing in my area—but it is just not enough. I grew up in Birmingham, where youth services were a lifeline for many young people. Those services provided lifetime friendships. They were a place to keep warm, eat, do homework, play, listen to music or just talk; a place to help young people develop cooking skills; a place to think, read or just have time alone, if that was what you wanted to do. Those places do not exist today. Young people are locked in bedrooms on their computers through no fault of their own. It is undoubtedly one of the hardest times in history to be a young person. They have lived through the covid pandemic, they are struggling with the cost of living, and they are unable to afford to rent or buy. That is why it is vital that we invest in youth services and support.

Since the last Labour Government, real-terms spending on youth services has fallen by 73%, which equates to £1.1 billion lost. Since 2011, youth services operated by local authorities have reduced by 53%, and since 2012 there has been a 35% reduction in full-time equivalent youth workers employed by local authorities in England. At the same time, and under the same Tory Government, child poverty has soared. It is shameful that 4.2 million children are now growing up in poverty in the UK. That is nine children in a classroom of 30 who are growing up without consistent access to warm homes, a warm dinner or a warm coat.

Like many colleagues here, I have been contacted by numerous constituents about how their children are facing the cost of living crisis. One contacted me as her disability means that she cannot walk her children to school, and the school is not able to assist with pick-ups. As a single parent, all her income goes on paying for a house that leaks, rising gas and energy bills, and a high premium on her car insurance. She is constantly cut off by the gas supplier, which takes days to switch the gas back on after she has spent ages on the phone to it. She uses her local food bank, as she spends all she has trying to keep her home warm. It is a sad fact that that case is not unique to Erdington, let alone the rest of the UK. Each of those circumstances is a reason why constituents like mine need access to better funded child services to give them the support they so desperately need.

In 2021-22—I know more recent figures were highlighted earlier—the west midlands was the region where the least was spent on young people’s services. In that region an average of £33 was spent on every young person aged 11 to 19, compared with a figure of £77 in the east midlands. Eight councils since 2018 have issued a section 114 notice, signifying severe financial distress.

The Tories have wrecked our economy and plunged Britain into recession, and it is left to underfunded councils to pick up the pieces. It is therefore welcome that the Government’s response to their youth review provided further details on plans to level up and expand access to youth provision through a youth guarantee. However, people in my community know those promises too well. It seems that everywhere the Government promise to level up gets left behind, including in communities such as Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale. Make no mistake: people in constituencies across the country will be holding the Government to their pledges—they are what children in our communities deserve.

Labour has a plan to break down the barriers to opportunity for young people, and child poverty reduction specialists are at the heart of our plans to support people from every background. There is absolutely no question of the value of youth services; they provide huge amounts of support and care for young people across the country. They need to be funded properly, sustained over the long term, and made accessible to everyone regardless of their background. Our young people deserve the best, which is what they will get under a Labour Government. I am confident of that.

10:17

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins); she made a really good speech, as did all her colleagues who followed, and she has secured a debate on this really important topic.

Funding for youth services has experienced a downward trend, and that has been the case for a couple of generations. That trend in funding is a representation of a trend in the priority and value that society gives youth services. They are Cinderella services—local authorities of all colours often think youth services are the part of the budget for young people that they can cut most easily. It is easier to cut funding for those services than, for example, cutting funding for school provision and other forms of formal education.

At central Government level, youth services are not seen as significant or important enough, but the importance of youth work cannot be overstated. They provide a vital third space between home and school where young people can feel safe and experience new things to expand their horizons. The trend in the reduction of the provision of youth services around the country matches trends of increasing criminality and mental health crises among young people. I am not saying there is an absolute direct correlation, but there are massive links between the two.

When we are looking at a mental health crisis—and I think that we are at the moment—investing in something that builds the resilience of young people so that they can deal with the stuff that life throws at us when we are young, and not so young, is of enormous value. I am sure somebody has tried, but it is hard to put a price on the financial savings for the criminal justice system when young people are led into areas that are profitable—away from a life of crime and into one where they make a useful contribution to their communities. Youth services also provide a place where people can develop role models that may not be available in the home. Over the last two generations, there has been a slow decline in youth work, largely because its importance has been belittled, but when big financial shocks come, such as the 2008 financial crisis, it is the last thing to be saved. There is a reason why: too many people at the centre of Government and local government do not value it enough. Others have alluded to this.

I chaired and helped to run a youth club in my village just before I became an MP, when I was a local councillor in the village of Milnthorpe. One thing I picked up on was that the kids who do not come are the ones who actually need it. All the stats prove that people who come from relatively comfortable and well-to-do backgrounds have a much greater chance of attending some kind of youth organisation, whether to do sports or music club or whether that is one of the uniformed organisations. That is great; it is fantastic to have parents who have the time and the resource to encourage kids to do that and it is fantastic to be in social circles where that is the norm. The reality is that youth work fills the gap for so many people who do not have those opportunities. When youth work is in decline, those who miss out are the young people from the poorest backgrounds—always, always, always. The value that we can provide for younger people who come from more difficult backgrounds by providing decent youth work in those communities is absolutely enormous.

A couple of things occurred to me when we put together the Milnthorpe youth group 20-odd years ago. This was a setting where there was not a lot of public intervention; this was the early noughties, so there was probably more than there is now but certainly less than there had been previously. One of the issues we found was that we needed to be realistic in our ambition. To raise the money for a new youth centre, lots of kit and lots of staff would have held us up and taken us months, if not years, to achieve. We had low ambition and that allowed us to get good outcomes quite quickly.

We brought in a team of 20 volunteers and then tapped into organisations that already existed. Back then, the organisation we tapped into was Crusaders, now known as Urban Saints, which is the Church of England’s youth wing. It was absolutely invaluable to us. That it is a reminder that, today, after a period of cutbacks over many years, so much provision comes through faith groups of different kinds around the country. That is partly out of necessity because of the way in which the state has withdrawn to a large degree from this area, and partly because those people are motivated to provide that provision because of their faith. I hope that one thing we have learned from how much we relied on faith provision during the pandemic, not just for youth work, is that local authorities, health commissioners and central Government should be less sniffy about youth provision and be celebrating those people who, because of what they believe, work so hard at providing for those in their communities, including young people.

There are people who have spoken in this debate who represent areas far more deprived than mine, but one of the challenges that we face in our communities is rurality and the dispersed nature of populations. It is said that it takes a village to raise a child. That is kind of difficult if the village has been hollowed out and is full of second homes, and there is not that much community left to support young people. There is then the issue of the distance people need to travel to get from where they live to where their nearest youth provision is.

The lack of genuinely affordable housing and investment in social housing is a major problem in an area such as ours and around other parts of the country as well, as is public transport. I give absolute credit to the Government for the £2 bus fare—but a fat lot of good that is if there is no bus to spend it on. We need to make sure that we are investing in public transport and new routes in communities to connect young people to the provision nearest to them.

Housing and the cost of living is an extra burden for us in Westmorland, because trying to recruit youth workers to a place where the average house price is 11 or 12 times the average salary will not attract people. Westmorland and Furness Council does a brilliant job in offering fantastic free youth worker training, which helps to upskill people and bring them into the sector, but if people cannot afford to live in these communities they simply will not take up those jobs and provide the support that we desperately need.

What funding there is—this issue is mentioned by lots of youth providers around my constituency, both voluntary and full-time providers—is so often short-term. Youth providers can spend all their time applying for funds. For example, talk to the people who run Kirkby Stephen Youth Centre, which is absolutely amazing. So much of their time is spent chasing the next round of funding, the next short-term bid, rather than being able to rely on core funding that would enable them to serve the young people in their care. If every pot that people bid for is only for three years at most, there is a constant worry. Providers might build up relationships, as colleagues have already mentioned, and do wonderful work, but then it ends, just because that pot has dried up and funding has moved on to the next thing. And that is the situation at best.

I chair the steering group of the Kendal Youth Matters project, which came about because two or three years ago the police approached me as they were deeply concerned about young people in the town of Kendal, the largest town in our area, who were at risk of becoming involved with criminality and were not in training, education or work; indeed, some of them were too young to be in a position to make choices about those things. The police asked what could be done to reach out to those young people, on the understanding that very often the kids who do not go to youth provision are the ones who desperately need it the most.

I say a massive thank you to everybody who has been involved in the Kendal Youth Matters project, including different organisations, businesses, charities and youth workers, and in particular Brathay, which runs the outdoor education centre based near Ambleside. Its staff do a wonderful job in their day jobs, so to speak, by providing outdoor education provision for young people from the most difficult parts of the UK, giving them outstanding—indeed, life-changing—experiences in the heart of the Lake district. And their doing that work now for kids in Kendal has been an enormous blessing and an enormous advantage for us.

What we have been able to do through the Youth Matters project is to provide a regular base for young people in the centre of town, in order to bring forward existing and bespoke youth provision: ski club, climbing wall and uniformed groups. Some of these things already existed; other things were specifically created. The funding has mostly gone on detached youth workers to get out there and proactively find the kids who would benefit the most. If we just open the doors, frankly, only the middle-class kids will turn up. We need to go out and look for the kids who would benefit the most. So I say an enormous thank you to Brathay and everybody involved with it.

There are so many other groups as well in Kendal: Kendal Youth Zone, Kendal Lads and Lasses Club and all the other outfits that offer wonderful provision in Kendal. I have mentioned the Kirkby Stephen Youth Centre and there are things going on in the Kent estuary as well. However, places such as Windermere, Appleby and Ambleside lack such provision. It is because we rely so much on the voluntary sector that we depend on having people in the right place.

There is undoubtedly a mental health crisis. During my time in Parliament, the thing that I have noticed the most is the spiralling numbers of young people suffering from tragic mental health crises. The impact on them and their families is literally heartbreaking. I want us to provide support through child and adolescent mental health services that we are not able to provide at the moment; the investment in CAMHS is woeful. Why are we not spending more money and focusing more on investing earlier, so that we build the resilience of young people in ways that mean when a crisis comes, they are much more able to sustain themselves? We put effort into stopping people smoking and getting people to do physical exercise, so that they remain physically well, so why are we not investing in the same way in the things that we know will keep people mentally well throughout their lives, which undoubtedly start with youth work?

Before I come to a conclusion—I promise—I will say another quick word. I take advantage of the fact that I am among colleagues from the Labour party and a Minister from the Conservative party by making a plea—both in this place and, using colleagues’ contacts and colleagues, in the Senedd in Wales and in the Scottish Parliament. Sam Rowlands, a Member of the Welsh Senedd, and Liz Smith, a Member of the Scottish Parliament—they are both Conservatives as it happens, but please don’t hold that against them—and I are all presenting private Members’ Bills that seek to make outdoor education residential trips a guaranteed and funded opportunity for young people at primary and secondary schools. In that way, we could connect people with the outdoors, build their resilience and do those things for them that we know outdoor education does so well for everybody, and not just for those schools and kids who can afford it. I encourage Members here to encourage their comrades in both the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament to back those Bills, and I encourage the Minister to back my Bill in this place.

Finally, I have been involved in youth work in a voluntary capacity for a couple of decades or more now. I know that one of the dangers—probably second only to the lack of funding—is patronising people. We end up with people in their fifties designing youth programmes. It is so important that young people co-design new youth facilities. We should let them choose and let them come up with answers so that the provision meets their needs. A lot of what we are doing in the Youth Matters project is about connecting people to training and work so that there is real hope for the future.

Youth work is an investment. It is always seen, as I say, as the least important thing—the thing that gets cut first—yet the value to our society, the individuals, their families and our wider community is immense. Let us reprioritise youth work. It will pay us back in droves.

10:30

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on securing the debate and on her excellent speech setting out the value of youth services and the devastating funding situation they face. I also thank all Members who have made the powerful case for youth services and paid tribute to those who provide them.

Over 85% of a young person’s waking hours are spent outside of school and formal education. Young people tell us that they want somewhere to go, something to do and someone to talk to. The importance of youth services and the value that they bring to young people, particularly those in disadvantaged communities, is widely acknowledged. YMCA talks about youth services as

“a vital resource for building young people’s confidence, resilience, and skills.”

The National Youth Agency says:

“Youth work has proven impacts on improving young people’s mental health and wellbeing, behaviour, engagement with education and attainment.”

I know we have all visited local youth clubs and heard from young people themselves about how youth services and youth workers have changed their lives. Members have rightly highlighted the many community, voluntary and faith organisations in their constituencies that are working to support young people. Their work is invaluable in every part of the country.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport also recognises the importance of youth services. Its statutory guidance to local authorities, issued last September, states:

“Recreational and educational leisure-time activities can have a significant effect on young people’s development and well-being….Those activities can…support them to build their skills…improve trust and tolerance…help them become active members of society…champion their voice.”

We do not believe that youth services matter just because people tell us they matter: there is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates their positive impact. A Dutch longitudinal study highlighted the positive impact of youth work on socially vulnerable young people. Those who were recipients of youth work support for more than six months had significantly more extensive support from their social network, participated more in society, such as by volunteering, developed better social skills and had higher self-esteem. “Better Together”, the National Youth Agency’s 2023 independent review of youth work with schools, found that youth workers can support schools by:

“Engaging or re-engaging young people in learning and school, reducing exclusions and persistent absenteeism, and improving their wider wellbeing.”

It is well recognised that youth work can play an important role in preventing and reducing crime, including serious violence. A study by Carmen Villa-Llera at the University of Warwick’s Economics Observatory project the found that the closure of youth centres in London led to a 10% increase in crime among 10 to 15-year-olds and that young people in the affected areas were 12% more likely to be suspended from school. In 2020, the all-party parliamentary group on child criminal exploitation and knife crime found that a reduction in the number of youth centres corresponded to an increase in knife crime.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South highlighted, 2022 research by UK Youth and Frontier Economics found that for every £1 that the Government invest in youth work, the benefit to the taxpayer is between £3.20 and £6.40, and that youth work saves £500 million annually by preventing incidents of knife crime and antisocial behaviour and other associated criminal justice costs. I think that is the number the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) hoped someone had calculated.

Again, as the Department’s own statutory guidance states:

“Young people’s involvement in such activities can also make an important contribution to other objectives, such as economic, social and environmental improvements, community cohesion, safer and stronger neighbourhoods, better health and increased educational attainment and employment.”

That is precisely why it is so important that youth services are properly resourced and that every young person has the opportunity to access them, and why this debate is so necessary and timely. As we have heard, since 2010 local councils’ expenditure on youth services, whether delivered directly or in partnership with charities and voluntary organisations, has been cut to the bone. There has been a £1 billion real-terms cut in spending by local authorities in England, which the House of Commons Library briefing confirms

“have most of the responsibility for providing youth services, but are not obliged to fund them.”

It would be easy to say that youth services have been decimated, but that would be massively underplaying the scale of the reduction. As we have heard, funding has been cut not by a tenth but, as the National Youth Agency reports, by 73%, with more than 4,500 youth work jobs lost and hundreds of youth centres closed. As the financial crisis in local authorities intensifies, youth services face still deeper cuts. The National Youth Agency found that a third of local authorities reduced their youth provision spend between 2021-22 and 2022-23, with Worcestershire spending zero in that year. It is reported that Kent County Council is planning to cut its entire youth offer from April.

Youth work now faces historic national underinvestment. As the YMCA reports, half of young people do not have access to a youth service or do not know what is available in their area. The reduction in funding has very real consequences for young people and society more broadly, because it is entirely short-sighted and counter-productive. The small savings that may be made initially will always be outweighed by the loss of facilities, damage to young people’s social development and far higher costs that result from an increased need for additional interventions. As the Department itself explicitly acknowledges:

“Not securing such leisure-time activities can mean young people miss out on opportunities to reach their full potential. Those activities can act as a supportive measure that can prevent costly interventions later on. This is true for all young people but is particularly important for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable young people who might need specific, additional, or early support.”

It is not like the Government do not know exactly what is going on.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) noted, the savage cut to youth services has coincided with an unprecedented increase in the challenges faced by young people. There is a mental health emergency with, according to the NHS, as many as one in five children and young people in England having a probable mental health disorder; there is rising social isolation and loneliness; and there are serious problems with school attendance, with one in five pupils persistently absent, according to the Office for National Statistics.

There is a growing risk of online harms, particularly as the possibilities of artificial intelligence increase exponentially; a cost of living crisis and financial worries; and, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) spelled out, the risk of exploitation and crime, with too many young people carrying knifes and county lines and gang conflicts affecting too many young people where they live. These challenges demand more, not less, investment in youth services, but it needs to be effective investment.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is promising to level up and expand access through its “youth guarantee”, but it is doubtful whether that can begin to fill the gap left by more than a decade of cuts. Where the Government have provided funding for youth services, it has been mostly in the form of funding for capital costs or short-term initiatives and pilot programmes. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted the extra drain on voluntary organisations, which have to constantly bid to secure new funding.

The lack of sustainable, long-term support for universal youth work services means that providers do not have enough funding for the staffing and other resources they need to deliver youth services. In my city of Nottingham, as in many others, we have youth centres lying empty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, the Government’s approach to youth services is fragmented and unco-ordinated, with the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, DCMS and DLUHC operating in silos.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) reminded us, it was not always this way and it does not have to be. Last October, Labour announced our plan for a national network of Young Futures hubs to bring local services together, deliver support for teenagers at risk of being drawn into crime or facing mental health challenges, and, where appropriate, provide universal, open-access youth services. It will be a major reform that focuses on prevention rather than sticking-plaster policies. It will bring together services and communities to support young people and ensure that they all have access to the opportunities they need to thrive and get ready for work and life.

10:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) for securing this important debate, and all other Members for their extremely passionate contributions.

I recognise the importance of youth services. As the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, more than 85% of a young person’s waking hours are spent outside school, and it is during that time that thousands of youth workers and volunteers make a tremendous difference to young people’s lives. The unique nature of youth services—one that builds a long-term, voluntary relationship with a trusted adult—is incredibly important. Youth services have been proven to have positive impacts on young people’s wellbeing, confidence, social skills, political awareness and citizenship, and they can help with the development of specific skills.

I am glad that a number of Members mentioned our important work on loneliness. As the Minister responsible, I know how important it is that we look at loneliness, particularly for young people. In fact, this week—it may even be today—we are launching our latest campaign, which is targeted at helping young people who are particularly affected by loneliness. We are particularly looking at the issue of stigma; loneliness is part of life, and it is fine for somebody to admit that they are feeling lonely and seek help.

Last year, I had the privilege to visit the Lift youth centre in Islington, where I saw at first hand how transformational youth services can be. I spoke to youth workers who had previously attended the youth centre themselves and were so inspired by their own youth workers that they had entered the profession themselves. I also spoke to a number of young people, who definitely put me to the test when it came to table tennis. They told me that the youth centre gave them a safe space to meet friends, try new activities and speak to trusted adults. The impact of such activities, safe spaces and trusted relationships cannot be underestimated.

Ensuring that all young people have access to youth services is a top priority for me and the Secretary of State, but before I turn to the details of Government funding, it is important that I set out the wider context. A wide range of youth services operate in this country, funded from a wide variety of sources. UK Youth estimates that there are 8,500 organisations involved in delivering youth services, with a total expenditure of up to £2 billion. I thank them all for what they do. In addition, much of the funding delivered through our public bodies, such as Sport England, Arts Council England and the National Lottery Community Fund, benefits young people, although it is not formally counted as youth service spending.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am a big fan of what the lottery has achieved in so many parts of the country, and it supports many sports clubs in my constituency. Despite those clubs’ work and outreach, many of the most vulnerable children never get the opportunity to go to them, and nor can they afford the small subs. Does the Minister agree that we need greater outreach from clubs that are benefiting from the money that we all spend occasionally on a lottery ticket?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I was going to come to later but will touch on now. One of the important things we are doing in the Department is our sports and physical activity strategy, which looks specifically at people who are not particularly active or engaging. We have established a taskforce that brings together the national governing bodies of various sports, which have a huge network that includes grassroots sports organisations up and down the country. The taskforce will see what more we can do to reach those who are not participating for a variety of reasons, one of which may be the cost.

As colleagues have said, local authorities play a key part in delivering youth services. That is reflected in their statutory duty to provide sufficient leisure time activities and facilities in line with local needs. Some areas have faced challenges in meeting that duty. In recognition of the pressures, the local government settlement was increased to more than £64 billion this year, and an additional £500 million will be dedicated to ensuring the continued provision of crucial services and early intervention for communities, in particular for children and young people.

We are also committed to ensuring that disadvantaged young people have holidays that are full of experiences and opportunities. We are providing £200 million a year to local authorities and their local partners through the holiday activities and food programme. Through our reforms to social care and family help, the Government are investing in new approaches that will see spending rebalanced towards more preventive measures. I want youth services to contribute to and benefit from those reforms.

We are also taking further steps to support local authorities to uphold their duty. As was mentioned, we recently updated the statutory guidance that underpins the duty for local youth service provision so that we can support local authorities to better understand their duty and how to deliver it. We are also funding a peer review programme, which provides local authorities with the opportunity to learn from each other and share best practice. By working alongside organisations in the community and voluntary organisations, local authorities can secure high-quality youth provision that meets the needs of the young people in their areas. The programme is working especially well in areas that have developed local youth partnerships, which we are continuing to support.

I am keen to find solutions to some of the problems that have been highlighted today. That is why I recently met with the Young People’s Foundation Trust, which brings all the local organisations together and does joint bids for grants. That eases the burdens mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I want to roll that work out, so that we have effective local provision.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment to youth services, but I ask him gently what conversations he has had with his opposite number in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It is not as if local authorities do not understand the value of youth work or do not want to provide youth services. It is that they simply cannot do so: so much of their funding is now directed to statutory services for social care, child protection and homelessness that they do not have the money to provide the services that we desperately need.

[Stuart Andrew]

I have regular conversations with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up. That is why I was mentioning the local youth partnership work. The response from local authorities up and down the country to the updated guidance we gave them was very positive, and in some areas the sharing of best practice is going extremely well. I want the valuable work of bringing people together to share best practice to be rolled out across the country.

We also have an ambitious goal: our national youth guarantee that, by 2025, every young person will have access to regular out-of-school activities, adventures away from home and opportunities to volunteer. That came as a direct request from young people themselves; we contacted thousands of young people to ask them what their top priorities were, and those were the ones. That is why we are investing over £500 million in services to deliver that ambition, which builds on a £1 billion investment in England since 2015. Our funding is designed to complement the existing provision that local authorities and dedicated voluntary and community organisations are already providing.

We want to level up opportunities and ensure that every young person has somewhere to go, someone to talk to and something to do, as the hon. Member for Nottingham South said. We are creating and redeveloping up to 300 youth facilities through the youth investment fund. More than £250 million has already gone out of the door, supporting 226 organisations, to give thousands more young people access to opportunities in their community. We have also reformed the National Citizen Service programme into a year-round offer, with 120,000 young people taking part last year and thousands more already taking part this year.

We recognise the benefits of greater join-up between formal education and the youth sector. We are working with the Department for Education to expand access to the Duke of Edinburgh award in schools and communities across the country. More than 400 new organisations have already started delivering the programme, giving more than 30,000 young people the opportunity to challenge themselves, support their communities and learn new skills.

In addition, we are supporting uniformed youth organisations to recruit more volunteers, as has rightly been mentioned during the debate, to increase their capacity sustainably. More than 7,500 young people already have a new place in an existing group or one of the new 250 groups we have helped to establish. We are also supporting more than 10,000 young people to take part in outdoor learning that supports their personal development, through the adventures away from home fund.

[Alex Cunningham]

I suspect the Minister is coming towards the end of his speech. I am concerned that we have all on this side raised the link between youth services and crime, so will the Minister address that before he sits down?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will certainly come to that in a minute. It pre-empts the rest of my speech, but I am happy to take that intervention, as I have reached that point now. Many hon. Members have raised issues of antisocial behaviour and crime. There were interesting points about addiction services; I will raise that with colleagues in the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care.

In partnership with the National Lottery Community Fund, we are providing £22 million to youth organisations to deliver additional hours of support and positive activities for young people in areas where they may be at risk of antisocial behaviour. We have already invested £3.7 million of the million hours fund, supporting more than 400 youth organisations. We are also continuing to invest in the #iwill fund, to create around 60,000 opportunities for young people to make a difference in their communities through social action.

We recognise that some young people need additional support to reach their potential. That is why we are investing in dedicated programmes, where youth workers build that trusted relationship with a young person, helping to steer them along the right path. We have put £2.5 million towards disadvantaged children and young people accessing green spaces.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome all funding for youth services, but will the Minister accept that this is a piecemeal, project-by-project approach rather than a place-based strategy that asks what young people in one area have access to? A more joined-up strategy for youth services is required.

[Stuart Andrew]

I will come on to further work that we are doing. The hon. Lady is right, which is why I am listening to those areas that have joined together and are working in the same direction, rather than trying to find different pots of money and struggling. There is that local strategy, and I am interested to learn from those areas where that is working well, and see what we can do to roll out something similar in future.

Our summer jobs programme, which we will launch this year, will also support 2,600 young people at risk of becoming involved in youth crime, alongside the UK Year of Service, which will also provide meaningful work placements for those at risk of falling out of education, training or employment. I have met some of the young people who have been involved, and it has been so inspiring to see how their lives have completely turned around. In addition, we have invested £60 million in the Turnaround programme, which improves outcomes for up to 17,500 more young people on the cusp of entering the youth justice system.

I recognise that we have to do more in working with our workforce. I am glad that so many people have raised that. We are funding the National Youth Agency to maintain and improve youth work qualifications and to provide guidance on issues such as safeguarding. We work with it on the attractiveness of the career, but I recognise that there are challenges. When youth workers want to start a family, it becomes challenging financially for them to sustain that career. These are areas that I will be keen to continue to work on. It is why we are also continuing to fund bursaries for those who would otherwise be unable to undertake youth work qualifications because of cost. We have already awarded more than 2,000 bursaries, with a further 500 expected this year.

With all that said, to deliver the services that young people want and deserve, central Government, local government, and community and voluntary sector organisations—as well as the young people themselves—all have to work together on this. We need that collaboration in order to ensure that high-quality experiences are accessible for young people, no matter where they live or what their circumstances are. I can assure the Members here today that cross-Government work does happen. In fact, just yesterday I chaired the latest inter-ministerial group on youth, and I particularly wanted us to talk about giving youth a voice in relation to policy decisions and encouraging colleagues in other Departments to do what we have done. Whenever we talk about youth provision, whatever it may be, I always ensure that there are young people around the table, because this middle-aged, grey-haired man does not really know what they want today. I hope that I have been able to show that I am as passionate as other Members here today about increasing access to youth services and improving the outcomes for young people, because I recognise its value. I have seen it for myself, and the positive impact that it makes.

I conclude by saying thank you to everybody who does so much to support our young people in this country.

10:57

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for his closing comments. I do not doubt his sincerity in what he wants to achieve. However, it is notable that it was predominantly Members from the Opposition who wanted to come and raise important issues about youth services and youth workers here today. It was perhaps more by chance than design, but we have representation from the north-east, the north-west, London, the midlands, the east and the south-west, so this really is an issue that needs attention up and down England.

We are talking about the importance of a safe place to go and to be—to be a young person and feel safe—and one that is open access and universal, but also targeted, particularly at those who need it most, in some of our most deprived areas. Importantly, that means rural areas as well as urban areas. This is so important, and I hope that the Minister continues to work on that cross-departmental basis so that we really can see improvements in our youth services, because too many young people are missing out on things that could give them the best start in life. The Minister referred to the importance of the youth voice. As a middle-aged woman, I also want to champion the voices of our young people, who are our future, as so many other people have said today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered trends in funding levels for youth services.

Cycle Trails

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of cycle trails.

As always, Mr Twigg, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I sit on the board of British Cycling Events, which is a subsidiary of British Cycling. That has no direct relevance to this debate, but I thought it safest to refer to it.

This debate is inspired by a young constituent of mine, Harrison Crick, who emailed me last year with what I thought at the time was a simple request to help him improve local mountain bike trails:

“I am wondering whether you could help me with putting forward an idea to improve mountain bike trails in Medway as there are no decent parks or trails that include jumps, berms and drops. As a teenager I can’t travel far on my own without it being very expensive and even if I can get driven some of the closest places are over an hour away. The Capstone trails”,

which are in my constituency,

“are alright but could use development and implement new features or possible new lines or areas. This is what I was wondering if you could help me with to see if this idea is possible as it would give me and many other teens proper facilities to ride our bikes locally.”

As an enthusiastic cyclist who always welcomes and applauds young people’s contributions to local politics, I did not think that that was an unreasonable ask. However, it came in just before the local elections, so I advised Harrison that I would do some investigating and get back to him once the local political situation had settled down.

It was really an excuse to jump on my gravel bike with Luke, who worked for British Cycling at the time, and with Stewart Vanns from Community Cycleworks, an incredible organisation that has done wonders with young cyclists in and around Snodland, a town in my constituency that had an issue with antisocial biking that seems to have calmed thanks to a new pump track and Stewart’s amazing energy for taking kids out on trails. The three of us met at Capstone and headed out on the trails before venturing into the wider Medway towns. It was fun, but the fact that I—a complete trail novice on a gravel bike, not a mountain bike—felt comfortable on the adventure made Harrison’s point that the trails needed some improvement.

I wrote to the council to make those points. For once, it was not about the money; our Conservative police and crime commissioner had given money to the council for exactly this kind of initiative. It took some months to get a reply, but eventually I received one:

“Medway Council is not able to offer such an extent of land in our ownership in the area of Capstone that would include that type of riding challenge with respect to both distance and gradient.”

The reply was helpful in that it directed to other trails in Medway, but sadly it also reinforced Harrison’s point:

“I have been riding mountain bikes off road for over 40 years all over the UK, so I speak with some experience of this matter. When I advanced my riding skills I had to travel much further from home either by taking my bike on the back of my car or planning a route from my home that took in local bridleways, trails and roads over a much further distance as I had outgrown what was on offer on my doorstep.”

The reply was meant kindly, and the officer clearly wanted to highlight that his own experience and interest in this area had enabled him to respond intelligently. But the Minister has visited Medway on many occasions and will be aware of the deprivation in the towns, so he will appreciate that for some people, advancing their skills further afield is not possible.

I am now looking at other areas that are near Harrison but not actually within the Medway local authority, where the PCC’s generous funding could be better used. That is not within the Minister’s remit, but loving cycling and accessibility to good cycle trails is. Harrison’s tale inspires a wider discussion of active travel schemes.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

In Batley and Spen we have the amazing Spen Valley greenway, which is a much-loved and well-used part of the national cycle network and is used by many groups, including the fantastic Streetbikes. The greenway is run by Sustrans, which does an excellent job. Does the hon. Lady agree that what we really need is a national strategy for cycle trails, to enable them to reach their full potential?

[Tracey Crouch]

I agree with the hon. Lady, as I often do. I will come to that point later on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate and for all her endeavours and her commitment to sport. We all appreciate her work. She has also been a guest at one of my Strangford dinners, and I was very pleased to have her there. She visited Comber Rec women’s football team; that is just an example of her work with sports.

Does the hon. Lady agree that by encouraging cycling trails, of which my constituency has many, we are also encouraging improved health, socialisation and understanding of our natural environment? It is certainly worth the focus of this House and the funding that is required from this Government.

[Tracey Crouch]

I agree wholeheartedly. I am a passionate advocate for the outdoors and all that it can bring, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I think that cycling is just one way of bringing that natural wellbeing. It does not have to be cycling; it can be walking, rambling, climbing or canoeing—there are all sorts of wonderful activities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am hosting an event next week with the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) on bringing the outdoors to everyone. Cycling is an important part of that story.

The more I travel around on my bike, on and off-road, the more I despair. I know that the Minister shares my desperate desire to get people out of their cars and on bikes, but the roads and cycle lanes around my constituency and beyond are dangerous. I certainly would not let my son ride his bike on the road; instead, I would willingly accept the wrath of those he negotiates on a path. Where cycle lanes do exist, they are often left unswept and covered in debris, meaning that cyclists have to cycle in the road. There are potholes that not only damage bicycles but are frankly dangerous on many routes.

In some situations, section 106 money has been offered to improve existing cycle routes, whether they are trails or lanes, that are pleasantly away from traffic, such as those between Aylesford and Larkfield. Instead, however, it is being used to create cycle paths that share the road with enormous lorries and delivery trucks. Sustrans, which the hon. Member for Batley and Spen mentioned, was kind enough to send me a note before this debate, pointing out route 17 in my constituency. I know parts of that route very well. This morning, I invited Sustrans to cycle it with me, because personally I do not think it is a viable route, especially in the winter months.

There is the most wonderful path between Aylesford and Maidstone, which I had the pleasure of opening in 2017. It was much loved and well used; it was flat and perfect for teaching little people how to ride a bike. Unfortunately, a small section of the Aylesford river path crumbled and part collapsed into the river at the beginning of lockdown. I have been campaigning constantly ever since, to the point of exasperation, for it to be fixed. It is a regular grumble on local residents’ pages. The Minister has been the unfortunate victim of my ear-bending about how the path needs some funding—not least because, as the main off-road walk from Aylesford to Maidstone, it had several thousand users per month at one point. It feels like such a wasted resource for walkers, riders and runners alike. Any news from the Minister today on the path would be very welcome.

Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) led a debate in the House, to which the Minister responded and I contributed, that highlighted the health benefits of learning to cycle. Kent’s Bikeability stats are woeful. Just 13% reach the required level against a target of 50%, which is well below the national target of 50%. Medway’s is better, at 47% against a target of 60%, but it can be much improved. Both appear to have had central Government investment. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what more he could do in Kent in particular to scale up provision.

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

The hon. Lady refers to statistics on provision in Kent. To get good statistics on cycle trail provision in our constituencies, consultation is necessary. A consultation opened yesterday on the Cullompton and Tiverton local cycling and walking infrastructure plan, which is very welcome; I encourage people to get involved. Does the hon. Lady, like me, pay tribute to people in Sidmouth in the East Devon constituency, who provided more than 185 responses to a questionnaire from a Sidmouth cycling campaign?

[Tracey Crouch]

I pay tribute to the people who responded. I was speaking last week to my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) about it, because he wanted some advice on cycle trails; he is clearly passionate about providing cycle trails and routes. I fondly recollected that the first people I met when I did the recent Ride the Night charity ride from Windsor to Buckingham Palace and back were a couple from Honiton. Cycling is obviously important in Devon, as is having the appropriate routes.

It is really important that we have routes that people want to use, rather than ones provided by local authorities without any consultation. One of my frustrations is that planners quite often put a line in and think it is the appropriate route, when they have not engaged with people on whether it will be used. I definitely welcome the consultation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and in the neighbouring constituency of East Devon.

It would be really helpful if the Minister outlined what he thinks good provision for cycle paths and trails looks like, because there is no point in learning to cycle if we have nowhere safe to ride. Cycling is great for physical and mental health, and it is also good for the environment. Establishing a proper trail network benefits everyone, but it requires a proper strategy that connects transport and planning. It is so infuriating to see cycle routes being retrofitted to new developments as an afterthought. The Minister, who shares our love of the outdoors, would be the perfect person to lead a trail strategy that recognised the health, economic, tourism and environmental benefits of a safe network of trails.

Finally, we have some inspirational elite riders who we hope will dominate the Paris Olympics this summer. What message does the Minister have for local authorities to provide to youngsters such as Harrison who wish to take their trail riding to the next level?

I love my bikes; I have a special room for them. I know that I am fortunate to have more than one, but I love the freedom that cycling gives me on and off the road. It can take us into the fresh air away from our trials and tribulations and forge new friendships, build resilience and tackle antisocial behaviour. The more we can do to open provision up to all levels for all types of activities, the better. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

11:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), a fellow ardent cyclist, on securing this important debate. Although I have a very good speech written by the Department, I will try to respond to the individual points that she made.

I will start with the origin of the debate, which is Harrison. My hon. Friend told the tale of a young man getting in contact with a Member of Parliament in the probably slightly sceptical hope that he could make a difference—both locally and by getting through to the MP. Clearly, that is why we have this debate. I hope that I will be able to give some good long-term news to both Harrison and the wider Medway community of which my hon. Friend is part. That is a great story—it really is—and I for one want to put on record my personal thanks as, frankly, this is what Parliament and representative democracy are all about. I sincerely hope that Harrison not only wins various future cycling competitions, but contemplates running for the local council and being a Member of Parliament. I look forward to welcoming him to the green Benches and, ultimately, to him becoming Prime Minister in about 25 years.

That is my first point. The second is that I must also make a declaration as an ardent but slightly fat cyclist, who has done everything from the Rye 100 to the Dunwich Dynamo as well as a variety of interesting cycle routes, including through most parts of Kent. I took the train down to Margate and cycled all the way back to London along the coast on the amazing trails that Kent has. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is a fantastic opportunity to get out and about, get into the fresh air, try to fight the flab, get fitter and do all the things that we want to do. She is right to highlight the interesting differences in Bikeability stats in Medway and Kent, and we would like to work on them. I will come on to that in more detail. The figures for year 6 pupils of 13% in Kent and 47% in Medway are not too bad, but we would like to make that bigger. I encourage local authorities to get behind that supportive scheme, and we have to ask why they are not fully behind such things.

We should put on record our thanks to Luke, Stewart and the PCC for getting behind the individual cycle trails and then putting forward the money for the initiative locally, which sounds eminently sensible to me.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Minister that he is supposed to be addressing the subject.

[Guy Opperman]

I apologise, I was focusing far too much on my hon. Friend.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Mr Speaker is very clear about that.

[Guy Opperman]

That is a good point. I apologise unreservedly for not addressing the House and for speaking too much to one individual colleague. As I say, we put on record our thanks to the individuals involved.

I will now return to the cycling and walking investment strategies of 2017 and 2022 and the establishment of Active Travel England. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) led a debate on active travel in the main Chamber, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford spoke, and, as we said, we are on a journey in this country, without a shadow of a doubt. Countries such as Holland have a whole host of state-of-the-art cycling infrastructure that has transformed their cities, yet decades ago they looked exactly the same as the UK. Those countries had the same problems and difficulties of trying to build infrastructure, segregated lanes and so on.

First and foremost, we have committed more than £3 billion that will be invested across Government in active travel up to 2025. That includes money from the city region sustainable transport settlements and the levelling-up fund. I should declare that I have a £9 million project in my constituency of Hexham. There are also other opportunities through the local transport fund, which was the money announced for northern and midland regions through the termination of the second leg of High Speed 2. It was announced on Monday, and many billions will go to local authorities up and down the country to ensure they can drive forward infrastructure, which can include cycle trails and all manners of road improvements.

On delivery, Active Travel England has been providing capital funding to local authorities for active travel infrastructure through the active travel fund. Since then, £515 million has been provided to local authorities for the development and construction of almost 1,000 permanent schemes, of which 299 have been delivered. In May of last year, we announced £200 million of capital funding for walking and cycling schemes to improve road safety, ease congestion and ultimately improve the health and wellbeing of the millions of people we want to choose active travel.

To turn specifically to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, that funding included £138,976 of dedicated capital funding from the fourth tranche of the active travel fund that is being used to fund two school streets in the area, among other projects. Since 2020, over four tranches of the active travel fund, more than £12 million of dedicated capital funding has been provided for active travel within Kent and Medway. Indeed, Kent and Medway have also received £1.3 million of revenue funding through the capability fund and I am pleased to say that both are in the process of developing authority-wide local cycling and walking infrastructure plans.

On the Aylesford river path, it is fair to say that my hon. Friend has been extremely assiduous—that is how I think they describe it in the House of Commons—in standing up for her local community as a Member of Parliament, as we all should do. I am aware that Kent County Council has been working with Active Travel England to undertake further design and assurance work to put the scheme forward under the active travel fund 4 extension programme. I can confirm that I have approved ATE’s recommendations for allocating funding through the programme. Although I cannot announce the funding for the scheme today, we expect to announce further capital and revenue funding allocations very shortly. I sincerely hope that I will be jumping on my bike and coming down to Aylesford to meet my hon. Friend, Harrison and anyone else so that we can formally announce the Aylesford river path and the work that my hon. Friend has so assiduously sought.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

When the Minister makes that visit to Aylesford, will he also come to the west of the county of Kent and visit the Bedgebury forest, where there is a much-used network of cycle trails? It is used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) as well as by me. The Minister will enjoy that, but he will also see that it is quite isolated from public transport and towns such as Tunbridge Wells. It may give him pause for thought about how we can make cycle trails accessible for people who live in towns and may not have access to cars.

[Guy Opperman]

My right hon. Friend makes a very serious point. I have the great honour and privilege of being asked to visit a whole host of cycle trails, whether they are in Tunbridge Wells, Batley and Spen, or Strangford, all of which possess amazing countryside that I would be very happy to visit. However, getting to and from these locations, particularly for children and those on a low income—with all those complications—is not easy, bluntly. We must take that on board.

This and future Governments need to wrestle with a whole host of challenges, as do local authorities. Some of that is funding, but we also need to have a different sort of vision about the community we are looking after. There are examples of train companies that will not allow bicycles on trains, and of bus companies that are reluctant to have bicycles on their buses—I could go on. Frankly, that sort of stuff must stop.

When I took this brief on, I specifically made the strong point that although, yes, I would be looking after roads and buses, there was relatively little point for the active travel aspect not to be integrated with other parts of the portfolio. The beauty of that is that if we are having a conversation with local authorities or bus companies about trying to do things in a different way, we are also trying to integrate active travel and accessible travel so that the system is joined up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford know the great joy of being a Minister—it is amazing—but any Minister knows that joined-up Government is a holy grail that we all aspire to and cannot always achieve. Getting different Departments and parts of an individual portfolio to talk to and integrate with each other is utterly key.

[Richard Foord]

There are places where we have public transport links and good rail services, such as in my Tiverton and Honiton constituency. Does that suggest that perhaps the Department would be more welcoming of constructing cycle trails around places such as Tiverton Parkway, the new railway station at Cullompton, and Feniton, Axminster, Honiton and Whimple?

[Guy Opperman]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this amazing Government brought forward the new railway station at Cullompton.

It is clear that I want to see more people on a bike, and more accessible and active travel. The best bit of that is Bikeability. I will just talk about that very briefly, because it really matters. The Government have given £21 million for Bikeability, which has delivered almost 500,000 places and reached 51% of year 6 children in 60% of primary schools. I genuinely believe, however, that we can do a lot more. Local authorities really need to step up to the plate, because this matters. Learning to cycle from a young age is a life skill. Aside from all the health benefits and independence that it provides, and aside from the fact that it is so much cheaper in the long term, cycling gives individuals great confidence in their capabilities and develops our children in a game-changing way.

Over the coming years, we will invest a further £50 million in Bikeability to deliver training for over 1 million more children. We believe that, by 2025, 80% of year 6 children will be taking part in on-road cycle training before leaving primary school. Turning to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, although teaching kids in school how to ride a bike is great, we also need local authorities to use their local cycling and walking infrastructure plans and development funding to ensure that it is easy for kids to cycle to school, as we discussed in the debate on active travel in the House last week. That is the holy grail. With no disrespect to individual parents, we want kids to walk or cycle to the local school. That is why so many of us support 20 mph zones outside schools, which make total sense and support ongoing cycling.

I echo the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for the national cycle network and the work of Sustrans. The network is clearly a national asset; it provides more than 12,000 miles of signed paths and routes for walking, wheeling, cycling and exploring the outdoors. The Department has supported the upkeep of this national asset to the tune of £75 million. I take my hon. Friend’s point about cycle trails, and note her example of cycle trails funded by the police and crime commissioner. Without a shadow of a doubt, we want to do more, and I am keen to look at that. I will engage with Danny Williams and the Active Travel England team in York to see what more we can do.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The Minister is making fantastic points about the amazing work of Sustrans, but will he commit to looking at its funding? It is a charity, and unfortunately the lack of funding means that we have lost the warden for the Spen valley greenway, which is in my constituency. The warden did a fantastic job of making people on the greenway feel safe and ensuring it was a clean and tidy space for people to work.

[Guy Opperman]

I am not going to get into the question of funding decisions for charities, but this Government have backed active travelling and cycling to a degree that no other Government ever have, and are continuing to do so. My respectful view is that this House should welcome the journey that we are on.

I look forward to visiting Aylesford in the near future. We are here only because Harrison stuck his hand up and had the courage to do something that we wish everybody would do: write to their MP, in a respectful, kind and constructive way. I put on record the due thanks of the House to him. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for securing the debate, and look forward to driving forward greater cycling infrastructure in her part of the world.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Leasehold Reform and New Homes

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered leasehold reform and new homes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Yesterday, we had an excellent Report stage debate on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. I was really encouraged to hear from the Minister that the Government are looking at going further on two of the big things that we need to improve in the Bill: ending forfeiture and ending the private estates, or so-called fleecehold estates, model. I once again thank all the different bodies that have worked so hard to get us to this point, the Minister, who managed to get the time for this legislation, the ministerial team that came before him, and all the different bodies that provided useful evidence in Committee, including the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the National Leasehold Campaign, Harry Scoffin and Free Leaseholders, HorNet, the HomeOwners Alliance, and many more.

I do not want to just repeat all the points we made yesterday, but I will briefly touch on some, because my speech flows on from them. Yesterday, I quoted my constituent Karen, who said that dealing with FirstPort, her fleecehold company, is

“like having a part time job”,

and who is being charged for, among other things, terrorism insurance for a fence. I quoted my constituent James, who says that he spent

“about 50 days’ work over the first couple of years”

dealing with his unadopted estate and trying to put right some of the mistakes made by developers.

I quoted the residents of Hursley Park, who managed to get control over their residents management company because of a legal mistake by the developer, but years on are still fighting to avoid being lumbered with the cost of botched work by Mulberry Homes. Disappointingly, that developer will not even meet them to discuss it. I also quoted one of the residents of the Farndon Fields estate, who has had a long battle with a faceless fleecehold company called Chamonix that billed people for large sums, did almost no work, repeatedly billed people several times for things they had already paid, and generally behaved appallingly.

I want to bring out how some of those stories show the different ways that we can intervene to get rid of this awful, scamming industry, which sees councils and developers effectively colluding to stiff residents with big bills and poor services. The first step is to look at how homes are sold. Numerous Members in yesterday’s debate talked about constituents who had not realised what they would be liable for. That seems to be particularly the case where people are bribed by the developers to use their lawyers—oddly enough, developers’ lawyers do not always point out the big bills that people will face. That is the first thing we should look at.

The second step is to look at the whole planning process and the fact that permission is often given before there is clarity on adoption. That is a bizarre way of going about things. The residents of Devana Way in my constituency, who I did not mention yesterday, found that out the hard way. They bought beautiful, expensive homes on a nice tree-lined street, but during the process of haggling with the county council over adoption and who was going to look after the trees, the developer concluded that it would be cheaper to simply rip out all the trees—and that is what it did one morning, to the horror of residents. I do not blame councils for wanting funds to look after trees; in fact, I think we should make it a priority in local government finance to make sure that all residential streets come with trees. However, there needs to be clarity about the rules of adoption up front, not after the fact.

Likewise, we need to stop developers wriggling out of planning conditions more generally through variations, as one developer is trying to do at the top of Kettering Road in Market Harborough—it is trying to get rid of a bus service it promised when it was trying to get planning permission. One of the most common abuses is that developers promise that there will be a new GP surgery as part of a new estate, but in fact have no plan, no intention or no way to deliver it. I am afraid I know several colleagues who have had that happen in their constituencies.

The Minister has promised to make progress on forfeiture, one of the most important things we have to deal with. That is important across leasehold and on fleecehold estates, too, because the disproportionate threat that someone might lose their home over a tiny unpaid sum enables the fleecehold cowboys to terrorise people into paying up. People are being conned about what they are buying. As we said yesterday, Margaret Thatcher said that there was no prouder word in our language than “freeholder”. Many of those people believe they are freeholders, but do not realise the threat hanging over them. My constituent Karen said that purchasers on her estate were not told that they would have to pay an annual rent charge:

“the word ‘rent’ wasn’t used by anyone we spoke to. It was referred to as a ‘maintenance charge’—if it was referred to at all. I didn’t fully understand what ‘rent charges’ meant until about four years after we bought.”

That is another way that people are being mugged by the fleecehold estates model.

We need to do two things. First, we need to help the 3 million to 4 million people who are stuck on fleecehold estates. We could do that through something such as a right to manage, or better still we could give them the opportunity to have their estates adopted by the council, which is what many of them want.

Secondly, we need to end this model for the future, which again could be done in numerous ways. We could do what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) suggested and prevent companies from charging for things that are usually provided by councils. Alternatively, we could use guidance to ban the model except in extreme and exceptional circumstances. I do not mind how we go about it, but we have to end the model.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech—I do not always say that to Government Members—but does he agree that this is about fairness? The current leasehold system is not fair, and it is certainly not just. In 2022, my Battersea constituency was area with the 18th highest number of leasehold transactions. The hon. Gentleman is part of the governing party, and the Government have really missed an opportunity to do away with this outdated system and bring about fairness and justice for leaseholders. Thousands of my constituents, like his, have been calling for that.

[Neil O'Brien]

I got a sense from the Minister yesterday that the legislation will go further. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is already a great achievement. It is the first time since 2002, I think, that we have legislated on this matter. According to the Opposition, there were some big missed opportunities when we passed that legislation, which has never been commenced—I think everyone across the House agrees with that. The Bill is already good, but I think I detected from the Minister that there are ways we can make it better, and I hope we will collectively be able to do that. To be clear, the people who have been stuffed by the fleecehold estates model do not want a marginal change; they want to end this fundamentally rip-off model.

I asked for this debate to be about new homes as well as leasehold, because sadly fleecehold is just one of the issues affecting buyers of new homes. I have been conducting a survey across Harborough, Oadby and Wigston of buyers of new homes, and I am struck by how widespread the problems are. In two different streets in different places in my constituency, residents have faced sewage in their street and even flowing up into their sinks, dishwashers and showers. There have been occasions when they have been unable to wash because of that.

In the first location, which I visited the other day, the problems have been going on for about four years. The developer plugged the sewage system from a new estate into a sewer for an older estate, causing the older sewage system to overflow with rain water. After four years of denials from the developer, the residents have proved, with the help of Severn Trent, where the problem is coming from. The developer has, in fairness, finally fessed up to causing the problem, and the new person in charge locally seems serious about fixing the problem, so I will not name them for now.

In the second case, Meadow Hill in Wigston, the problem has been going on for about six years. The sewage system in the new estate is simply inadequate. The homes were originally built by Westleigh Homes and were taken over by Countryside Partnerships after completion, which itself has been taken over by Vistry Group. Vistry continues to deny the problem and will not take responsibility, even though I have seen for myself bits of toilet paper in the road that have come spurting up from overflowing sewers. Vistry does not fix the problem. It occasionally sends people to clean up, but mainly it is left to residents to clean up the faeces. I would like to invite Greg Fitzgerald, the chief executive officer of Vistry, to come to see the filth for himself, and I will perhaps ask him how much he would like to have it in his street and coming up into his home. Stephen Teagle, who runs Countryside Partnerships, would also be very welcome to join us to see that disgusting case.

Those are extreme cases, but I am struck by how often British developers sell homes with serious problems, either with the property or with the new estate. For example, a constituent in Wigston has faced a bill of about £10,000 to fix problems caused by his developer, which left his garden at a very steep angle. After two years of fighting, the developer, David Wilson Homes, has agreed to pay about 20% of the cost—a tiny fraction.

A constituent who moved into a new development in Kibworth faced numerous rat infestations due to the pipes in her new home not being fitted correctly. She also experienced mould in the bathroom because the bath was also not fitted correctly.

A constituent who moved into Wellington Place in Market Harborough had more than 200 snags on their property. The toilets did not drain properly, and the downstairs toilet did not work at all for many months, which meant that their disabled daughter had to go upstairs to use the loo. The entire garden needed to be excavated to be fixed and, alarmingly, the fire alarms did not work properly. My constituent found it difficult to get hold of the developer, Davidsons, to get any of those issues addressed, because it had sacked the people responsible for aftercare on the estate.

There are reasons such things happen. On the surface level, some developers are simply more serious about ensuring quality than others. It is not impossible to get it right in the current system, and many do. The Government’s creation of the new homes ombudsman service is a big and very welcome move towards tackling the problems directly. However, some of the problems also reflect wider problems with this country’s model of development: the so-called fast-turn model. In Britain, so much of the profitability of the industry turns on its ability to play our dysfunctional planning system rather than its ability to build in quality.

I was going to make this point today anyway, but as it happens the Competition and Markets Authority’s monumental investigation of the housing market, which was published earlier this week, gives us a huge amount of further evidence that the current model is dysfunctional. Naturally, the sharing of information and cartel-like behaviour between firms was the headline of the report, but many of the other findings are just as explosive. The CMA notes that

“housebuilders don’t have strong incentives to compete on quality and consumers have unclear routes of redress.”

It also notes:

“We see evidence of a statistically significant increase over time in the proportion of homeowners reporting higher numbers of snags, with 35% of respondents…in 2021-22 reporting 16 or more different problems.”

The report brings out what some of those “snags” look like in the real world. One homeowner notes:

“After moving in, my attic hatch fell completely out of the ceiling of its own, because the joiner had only used three screws to fix it instead of sixteen”.

Another says:

“The stairs collapsed while walking up [them] with my son.”

The CMA notes the growing volume of complaints about hidden charges. Among the CMA’s recommendations is

“requiring councils to adopt amenities on all new housing estates.”

That is a very good idea, which takes us back to the issue of leasehold, and I hope that the Government adopt it.

One of the great strengths of the CMA report is the way that it draws the links between the broken planning system and the industry that results from it. Following the conclusions of the Letwin review, the report concludes:

“The evidence shows that private developers produce houses at a rate at which they can be sold without needing to reduce their prices”.

In a paper that I wrote for the think-tank Onward six years ago, I tried to set out some of these dysfunctions. The complexity of the planning system increases market concentration directly and also indirectly, by amplifying the land price cycle, which leads to fewer and fewer developers in each economic cycle, as the small players go bust and are forced out of the market. I am encouraged that the Government are taking great strides towards a better model of development in this country by fixing those deeper, underlying problems.

The vision for more purposive urban regeneration set out in the long-term plan for housing is a good one. The recently passed Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 creates stronger compulsory purchase order powers and requires the dark market in land options to be replaced by a register of land options. I look forward to us cracking on with the secondary legislation needed to bring that about. I also look forward to the Government taking further steps towards creating a more purposive, less passive planning system, in which deliberate, plan-led development becomes a greater share of development and small, speculative development, without the necessary infrastructure, becomes a smaller part of development. The Government are sold on that vision and are making big strides towards it. The current ministerial team—the Secretary of State and our brilliant Housing Minister, who is here today—have that vision and experience these issues in their own constituencies.

I am confident that we are moving in the right direction. I hope that, when the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill arrives in the House of Lords, the Government will proactively take steps to improve it to address these issues. If I read the Minister’s body language right, he clearly understands those issues and wants to act on them. I hope that we can agree to act as quickly as possible, because the issues that I have described in my constituency are horrendous. People have worked hard, saved up a lot, done all the right things, and bought a new home, but they are getting mugged by an industry that, although also having some good players, has some real cowboys. As I said yesterday, the people in my constituency want a new sheriff—in the form of our current Housing Minister—to ride into town on his white horse, blow some of those bad guys away, put right what is being done wrongly and address the glaring injustices that my constituents are experiencing.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak.

14:44

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) for securing the debate. He is doing a great service to leaseholders in every constituency and I can see that the Minister is determined to improve the situation for them. All Members receive loads of emails about this issue from constituents, who are often in very stressful situations regarding their leaseholds, and I hope that the wide-ranging reforms that the Government are pushing through will change that. Of course, for many, those changes cannot come quickly enough.

I want to raise one discrete issue that I urge the Minister to consider. When constituents contact me about an issue with leasehold, be it a service charge dispute or a problem with lease extension or parking, a theme that comes up far too frequently is that the leaseholder is required to receive advice on their purchase from a conveyancer recommended to them by the estate agent, who is of course the representative of the seller-freeholder. Although I understand that there is nothing unlawful or improper about that arrangement, its practical effect seems to be that the buyer does not get the robust and impartial advice that they need.

We have a particularly upsetting case in my constituency involving the purchase of a new build shared ownership flat using solicitors that the seller told the leaseholder to use. At no point was the purchaser told that if they wanted to extend the lease, they would have to do so before it dropped below 80 years—the marriage value threshold. They have missed that chance and now face a huge bill to extend the lease. That case may yet be greatly assisted by the abolition of marriage value, although I think the Minister should consider some of the unintended consequences that may come from that—but that is a separate question. The point remains that leaseholders, and particularly first-time homeowners, need clear and impartial advice about their rights and responsibilities, and any pitfalls and possible expenditures, during their lease term.

When I wrote to the Minister on this point, I was told:

“We can also say that we would expect conveyancers to deliver an effective service to their clients, including making them aware of any changes or conditions attached to the property before a purchase is finalised. It is essential that conveyancers deliver an effective service to their clients.”

Of course it is, but the problem is that few people have the means to take action when they do not receive an effective service, so the opportunity to hold conveyancers to account is limited for many people.

The Government should act to ensure that leaseholders have access to high-quality, unbiased legal advice. It must be relatively straightforward for the Government to prevent sellers from recommending conveyancers, simply leaving buyers to choose their own conveyancer, as most purchasers do already. One possible route to achieving that, alongside looking again at the rules relating to referrals to conveyancers—we actually need tougher rules—is an enhanced role for the Leasehold Advisory Service. As many people will know, that organisation provides brilliant advice to many leaseholders, but with additional resources it could perhaps do more to provide bespoke support in cases where it appears that the legal advice has somehow been dud. There does not necessarily need to be a cost to that; it might operate as a deterrent and straighten people up a bit.

Alongside new legislation, access to impartial advice and support when things have gone wrong would hugely empower leaseholders across my constituency, particularly in areas such as Denton and Springhead, and indeed across all constituencies, and we would spend less time late at night answering emails from people who find themselves in an unhappy and stressful situation.

14:49

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I thank the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate. I want to focus on the issue of maintenance charges, given that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill gives homeowners paying charges for the maintenance of communal areas the right to challenge the reasonableness of those charges and the standard of the service provided.

This Parliament has run out of road on so many issues. The Government have in deed, if not in word, taken the decision not to meet many of the challenges that people in my constituency face—problems I see every day—with measures such as social care reform, special educational needs and disabilities expansion, and fair changes to small and medium-sized enterprises taxation. However, I am glad that they are finally willing to tackle maintenance charges. Whether that is due to the particular passion of the Secretary of State will mean little to my constituents, many of whom are leaseholders and freeholders on new build estates who so desperately need this place to sit up and take notice of their plight.

The present system of maintenance charges and management fees is outrageous. A cowboy system with limited regulation has taken root and left residents with no transparency over how funds are used and no clarity on whether services provide value for money, and the fees charged are exorbitant and quite frankly offensive in the context of a crippling cost of living crisis and the highest tax burden on working people for 70 years. My constituents, as well as many of the constituents of Conservative Members, are being fleeced by these charges.

In the seven months since becoming the Member of Parliament for Selby and Ainsty, I have seen many instances of these charges being levied unfairly on local residents. I have already written to the Minister about a particularly egregious example in Carlton, so I will refrain from mentioning that case to give him adequate time to respond. However, I will mention the Harron Homes estate off Flaxley Road in Selby. The estate has been built for five years and is still plagued with problems. Residents still do not have working street lights, with families not able to go out in the dark. They have to put up with roads that have literal craters in them, ruining the cars on which people rely for work, since public transport in my area is so poor. I spoke to one resident who cannot even lock her front door at night, due to shoddy building work, and has to prop her door closed with a chair so that criminals do not break in and steal her possessions. That is all while each resident on the estate is shackled with eye-watering maintenance charges.

The lack of transparency and accountability in the new build homes sector has led to countless issues. From construction defects to unfair lease terms, homeowners are left feeling helpless, hopeless and at the mercy of developers who are seemingly determined to squeeze every penny they can out of hard-working people. That is a sad part of life in modern Britain. On new build estates across the Selby district, working people live in a broken system, being asked to pay more and more for less and less in return. They have been waiting for the Government to come and help them.

Perhaps the Bill will be the answer, but I caution against any watering down of its provisions; rather, I encourage ambition to ensure that it goes further and gives residents the support that they so desperately need, as the hon. Member for Harborough so eloquently outlined. I am sure that my constituents regret the lack of ambition that we have seen in the past, and although the Government are not going the whole way to provide leaseholders in my constituency with the help that they need, I am glad that they are taking action after 14 years to deal with the problem that, as the hon. Member outlined, has existed since at least 2002.

We can and should go further on this issue, and I am proud to support Labour’s plans to make it a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charges, to give homeowners the accountability and responsibility that they deserve. I support the implementation of the Law Commission’s proposals on the right to manage, covering both flats and houses, as well as the proposals on enfranchisement and on commonhold reform. It is imperative that we address these challenges head on and enact meaningful reform to ensure fairness, transparency and security for all homeowners. The Government have started the job, but ultimately it will be a Labour Government who finally liberate leaseholders from the mercy of an arcane and discriminatory industry.

14:54

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) and to the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather). They both spoke well yesterday on Report on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) for his contribution and, if I may do so through you, Mrs Harris, I pay tribute to his late father, Rev. Roger Holloway, who got the OBE for services to whisky.

The problem of rentcharges that has been brought up matches the problem with estate management charges. Even today, in Durrington in my constituency, Terry Woodjetts has to make it a full-time job to get the developers to do what they said they would and justify their charges. I hope that the developers will co-operate fully. They say they will. They have made some progress, but why can they not get it right first time? If they do not get it right first time, why can they not get it right the second time when attention is drawn to it?

One of the issues that was rightly brought up in the debate yesterday is whether developers should lay down a bond that is available until an impartial local authority can say whether or not they have delivered. There should be ways of making it in their own self-interest to act in the interests of those to whom they sell homes.

I turn to rentcharges. The Rentcharges Act 1977 said that, except in limited circumstances, new rentcharges could not be created after 1977, and that existing rentcharges would evaporate in 2037. One of those “limited circumstances” is when a freeholder has not paid a due cost, in which case the owner of the rentcharge, who might have no other interest, can apply to a court. The court has no discretion; it must grant a 99-year lease on a freehold property. Unwinding that can be expensive because there is no limit to the charge that the rentcharge owner can make on remedying the situation. I believe it is time for the Minister and his advisers to work on what they know is a difficult problem and deal with it.

Let me read what the Government themselves say about rentcharges. Their website states:

“A rentcharge is not the same as ground rent on leasehold properties. Find out more about leasehold ground rents.

Please do not send applications to redeem leasehold ground rents as they cannot be redeemed under the Rentcharges Act 1977.

If you are not sure if your property is freehold or leasehold, you can find out by looking at your property deeds or by visiting the HM Land Registry website.

Please do not send applications to redeem estate rentcharges or rentcharges that have been created after 22 August 1977, as these cannot be redeemed under the Rentcharges Act 1977.

Please do not apply if the rentcharge has already been redeemed directly with your rentowner (known as a private redemption). The Rentcharges team cannot provide a redemption certificate where a private redemption has occurred. Contact your rentowner or HM Land Registry”—

and it goes on.

It seems to me, having read that, that it ought to be possible for the Government, with or without the help of the Law Commission, to remedy the situation. If rentcharges should not exist and the powers of the rentcharge owner should not continue, the Government should act—deal with it, resolve it—and do so now. Anybody buying a freehold home where there might be a rentcharge liability has to get their seller to deal with it or take it on, with the consent of the mortgage lender if a mortgage is involved, which it will be, either for the new purchaser or the person they are going to sell to.

When they see these problems, Ministers should not delay or regard it as NIMTOO—“not in my term of office”. They should take responsibility and deal with it. The Government should get a social survey of people on new estates to see the problems that they have with estate management companies and estate management charges, and they should do a survey of solicitors, all of whom deal on their websites with the problems of rentcharges. They should get them together, have a roundtable, work out what would be effective and act. That would make people happier, take away the risks and take away half the fun that lawyers will have in trying to sort out the problems when they eventually come to court.

14:58

[Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate. I am sure we all have constituency issues that emanate from this issue and I echo the points that he made yesterday and in today’s debate. In particular, I want to mention the issue of developers wriggling out of planning commitments. I have several examples of that and one, which I have discussed with the Minister, that is particularly egregious. I am sure I will mention it again in this House.

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will help every leaseholder in Hertford and Stortford and beyond, throughout the country. I know the Minister is more than aware of the problems with leasehold ownership. They are there for all to see: no control over agency fees, how the value of the property dwindles as the lease begins to elapse, how tricky and often expensive it is to extend a lease and how, in essence, it is not true property ownership.

I have heard the argument that if prospective leaseholders do not want to endure all those issues, they should simply not sign on the dotted line to become a leaseholder. That frame of mind shows a misunderstanding of the system and the lack of choice in it. To begin with, becoming a leaseholder is practically a rite of passage in climbing the property ladder nowadays. Many young people buy flats to begin with because they are smaller and cheaper, and try to use them as a platform to climb the property ladder, upsizing as they can, which is how I started. I should declare that I am the owner of a leasehold property now, although my freeholder is as wonderful and fair as they come. Perhaps that makes me the lucky one.

In many cases, people become leaseholders only to have the wool pulled over their eyes. For instance, I have heard stories of first-time buyers signing up to be leaseholders, accepting the estimated service charge amount when they do so. They then exchange contracts and, when they receive their leases to sign a few days before completion, the service charge amounts have more than doubled. What are the leaseholders to do? They have already exchanged contracts by that stage, which is the legal point of no return. Are we asking them to throw away their life savings—their deposit—or are we asking them to find hundreds or thousands of extra pounds out of their back pockets to cover the difference? I appreciate that advertising a lower than anticipated service charge might get more sales over the line, but I am sure that everyone would agree that more than doubling the amount on completion day shows how managing agents are seldom on the side of leaseholders.

I want to share a couple of examples from my constituents. One Hertford resident bought his flat seven years ago, with 109 years left to run on the lease. He has, however, received a quote from the freeholder of £10,000 to extend—not money he would find down the back of a sofa. That is an extraordinary amount. The other side of the coin is that, as the years of a lease become fewer, the value of the asset dwindles. My constituents have worked extraordinarily hard to buy their homes, and now they have to face headaches not that far down the line. It goes without saying that if someone owns a house by freehold, they do not experience any issues like that. They own a property and that is it.

Another constituent owns a flat with a doubling ground rent, which is currently £750 a year. They want to sell the flat but are having issues, as very few mortgage companies will lend against the property when a buyer’s affordability capacity is hampered so significantly by such ground rent levels. That leaseholder asked the freeholder for a quote to have the lease amended and a reduced ground rent. The freeholder flat out refused to negotiate. Why would they engage in negotiations? Ground rent is literally money for nothing for them. Meanwhile, either my constituent is stuck in a property that will become only more problematic over time, or they will manage to sell it to someone else who will simply inherit the same issues, not solving the problem. The greatest irony is that the leaseholder in question works as an estate agent. That totally dispels the notion that all one needs to avoid leasehold’s fundamental flaws is to be savvy in the property market.

I tell those stories to show how too common they are, and I know that the Minister is very engaged in these issues. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is the greatest opportunity in 30 years to put things right, and I support and welcome it. Personally, I would love to be more radical. I would like to see all leaseholders in flats turned into commonholders overnight, but I appreciate the complexity of doing so. Will the Minister mull over and comment on a two-stage plan? Even then, I know that it will not happen overnight. The first part will be to ensure that all future flat sales come with a share of the freehold. That will be a much-needed stopgap until the second stage, which is the total abolition of leasehold ownership in this country, turning leaseholders into commonholders.

We should commit to the total abolition of leasehold. It is time to be radical and ambitious, and to liberate millions of leaseholders from the myriad issues they face. With such an objective we can turn millions of people into proper homeowners overnight. It would give leaseholders more security and peaceable enjoyment of their tenancies, and it would truly give them a proper stake in society.

15:05

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). I am very glad that she mentioned the question of a share of freehold: we pushed for that in Committee, and it is one of several measures necessary to pave the way for the commonhold future that so many of us in the House want to see.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate, on opening it as compellingly as he did and on the persuasive argument he made yesterday on Report on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. He spoke in support of greater ambition in addressing the many inequities of the leasehold system. Although I disagree with his assertion in yesterday’s debate that that Bill is our one chance to end the arcane and discriminatory practices that leaseholders and residential freeholders are at the mercy of, it certainly represents our only chance to do so in this Parliament. On the Labour Benches, we wholeheartedly agree that the Government should go further than the Bill does.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Those contributions, like yesterday’s debate, highlight that there is widespread support across the House for ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform. Once again, I want to put on record the thanks of those on the Labour Benches to all those who have campaigned tirelessly, often over many decades, for an overhaul of leasehold law. In particular, I thank the leaseholders and residential freeholders who have resolutely refused to accept the inequities of the flawed system they are so often at the mercy of, and who have taken it on themselves to vigorously make the case for change.

In responding to the debate, I do not intend to revisit yesterday’s many principled arguments and exchanges on leasehold reform in general. Instead, I will simply provide some further detailed thoughts on some of the specific issues that have been raised this afternoon, starting with the management of private and mixed-tenure estates. The distinct set of problems faced by residential freeholders on those estates with charges and fees is well known and well understood. The Government have publicly recognised for at least six years that it is a very serious problem, and we welcome their decision to use the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to introduce statutory protections for freehold homeowners that are equivalent to those enjoyed by long leaseholders in respect of service charges.

As the Minister will recall, in Committee we pressed for specific changes to strengthen the new estate management regulatory framework, not least to rectify some of the obvious deficiencies of the existing leasehold regulation regime that it mirrors. We hope that the Government will give them further consideration. In our view, of particular importance is the need for a right-to-manage regime for freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates. It is not enough merely to give residential freeholders on those estates the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges and to hold estate management companies to account. They should enjoy the right to take over the management functions on their estate, and we believe there is appetite among freehold homeowners to exert more direct control in that way. In yesterday’s debate on Report, the Minister made it clear that the Government understand the strength of feeling on the issue and are considering it further. Will the Minister provide a little more clarity today and tell us whether the Government are seriously considering tabling amendments in the other place to provide parity between residential leaseholders and freeholders when it comes to the right to manage?

As the hon. Member for Harborough rightly argued yesterday, ensuring that residential freeholders on existing private and mixed-tenure estates are better protected is one thing, but reducing the prevalence of the arrangements is another. The Government must act to do the latter, as that is the best way of addressing the root causes of so many of the problems that residential freeholders face. However, we believe it would be wrong simply to force local authorities to adopt such estates without corresponding changes to ensure that the public infrastructure and amenities built on them are built to a determined, adoptable standard, so that financially hard-pressed councils are not forced to repair and maintain poor quality roads and common services at great cost. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some assurances—we touched on this on Committee—that the Government are actively exploring the mix of legislative and policy changes that will be required to make progress on both of those fronts, adoption and common adoptable standards.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise that I could not be here when I was supposed to be, Mrs Harris. I was meeting some people from Hong Kong on issues of human rights and freedom. I thank the shadow Minister for letting me intervene. Leasehold reform has been the subject of much discussion, such as in yesterday’s debate in the main Chamber. Does he not agree that there is a real need for urgent leasehold reform? It affects so many of our constituents—from young people, who are starting their lives, to older people, who are trying to downsize. We must make this change, especially at a time when every penny counts for most people, whether they are young or old.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was starting to get troubled when I could not see him out of the corner of my eye; I am glad he has attended the debate and made that point. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know Labour’s position: our concern is that the Bill does not go far enough by any means. It is distinctly unambitious. However, it does make important changes, and we think it is important that it receives Royal Assent before the end of the Parliament. For the reasons he outlined, we want to see it make speedy progress.

Let me turn to the issue of forfeiture, which the hon. Member for Harborough raised in his speech. As hon. Members will know, throughout the passage of the Bill, Labour has made the principled case for abolishing forfeiture and the windfall it provides to freeholders. As I argued in the debate yesterday, forfeiture is a wholly disproportionate and horrifically draconian mechanism for ensuring compliance with a lease agreement. Its continued use, and the chilling effect that results from its mere existence, continues to put landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes with leaseholders. That is why it is routinely used by landlords as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears of payments from leaseholders, and why the threat of it is invoked so often to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.

Yesterday’s debate reinforced the fact that there is clearly a broad consensus in the House for getting rid of forfeiture. Although Labour is understandably disappointed that the Government resisted our second attempt to achieve that, we welcome the Minister making it clear that the Government are

“working through the detail of the issue”—[Official Report, 27 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 197.]

and intend to report back to the House shortly. Can I encourage the Minister to do so as quickly as possible, and to provide us with assurances to that effect today? Determining precisely what, if anything, the House will put in place of the existing system of forfeiture is an extremely complicated undertaking. Given that the Government have had years to develop considered proposals in this area, it would be unfortunate if hon. Members were asked to take a view on complex and technical proposals without the time necessary to properly scrutinise them.

As the Minister considers the matter of forfeiture, can I also press him to review the issue of rent charges? I am glad that the Father of the House and, I think, the hon. Member for Harborough mentioned it in their contributions. We must ensure there are no unintended consequences, but in our view there is a cast-iron case for abolishing section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 altogether. The remedies provided for by the Act, which amount, in essence, to freehold forfeiture, are a wholly disproportionate and draconian legacy of Victorian-era property law. Through clause 83 of the Bill, the Government are seeking to make palatable methods of enforcing legitimate and reasonable rent charges that are simply not justifiable in any form, and must be removed. I urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s position on rent charges.

Before I conclude, I will touch briefly on ground rents, which the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned. As Labour argued in Committee, over the past two decades, we have seen a system develop that is increasingly focused on generating assets by gouging leaseholders through ground rents that are, in historical terms, high to start with, and that escalate over the term of the lease. Leaseholders who have worked hard to purchase their homes in good faith are being asked to pay ever more money for no clear service in return, and many are experiencing considerable financial distress and difficulty selling their property, all to sustain the income streams of third-party investors. Unregulated ground rents of this nature in existing leases cannot be justified in our view. As I have previously made clear, I personally share the Secretary of State’s preference to cap ground rent at a peppercorn.

Although we do not discount the risks involved in any of the five options outlined in the recent Government consultation, Labour is clear that the Government must act to protect leaseholders from ground rent exploitation, and that, as I said in Committee, they should be courageous in determining which of the consultation proposals should be enacted.

The Minister made it clear in yesterday’s debate that the Government are considering next steps and were moving at speed in doing so. I will not press him this afternoon for any further detail, as I accept he will not be able to say any more today. However, can I press on him again, as I did on forfeiture, the need to share any detailed proposals with the House at the earliest possible stage, particularly given the implications of the range of options consulted on for the Bill that has now been sent to the other place? It will, as the Minister knows, involve the rewriting of several substantive clauses in the Bill, so we need that detail early on. I look forward to his response.

15:14

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate and those who are listening to it. The fact that we are talking about this issue for the second time in two days shows how important it is. It is clear, as we discussed yesterday, that Members on both sides of the House recognise that this area badly needs attention and reform. Thankfully, the general consensus across the House is that we have to move in that direction, so I hope the Bill, which went to the other place yesterday, will make fast progress there.

To be clear, the Government absolutely acknowledge this issue. We did so on Report yesterday, in Committee, on Second Reading and before that. Hon. Members have made very important points today, and have raised similar issues previously, about the iniquities in the system. They have spoken about the historical problems on the leasehold side and, more recently, but just as iniquitously, on the estate management side. Even those of us who believe that the Government should be very temperate in intervening in markets know it is right that when markets are not working, we should take action to straighten them out and remove the distortions within them. That is exactly why we introduced the Bill and are trying to ensure that it makes progress in the months ahead. We welcome the Opposition’s commitment to getting it on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity.

There are problems within the leasehold part of the discussion. The estate management issues have come into much sharper relief over the past couple of decades, particularly for those of us who have had significant amounts of new building in our areas. We can see, on a day-to-day basis, that a set of issues with individual estates clearly needs to be resolved.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) and the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) outlined, there is a particular issue with new homes, which I will talk about in a moment. Without rehearsing some of the previous arguments and discussions, I want to read into the record, for about a minute, the real progress that the Bill makes. It is important that the House and the other place do not forget that, as a baseline, we are making the biggest and most significant change to property law in this country in a generation; we absolutely need to acknowledge that.

We are making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freehold. That is a significant intervention. We are increasing the standard lease extension term from just 90 years to 990 years, with ground rent reduced to zero. That is an extremely significant intervention. We are removing the requirement for a new leaseholder to have owned their house or flat for two years before they can benefit from these changes. We are changing the thresholds and non-residential limits within properties, and for the first time allowing leaseholders in buildings with up to 50% non-residential floor space to buy their freehold and take over its management.

Yesterday on Report, we added protections on top of the Building Safety Act 2022 to make the purchase and sale of leasehold and freehold estate properties quicker and easier by proving a maximum time and fee for the provision of information. Vitally, we are requiring transparency over leasehold service charges, which hon. Members talked about a moment ago. We are replacing building insurance commissions for managing agents, landlords and freeholders so that we get away from the frankly outrageous situation whereby there is little clarity about what is being paid for, who pays for it and whether there are kickbacks in the background.

We are scrapping the presumption that leaseholders will pay the freeholder’s legal costs when challenging poor practice. That is another absolutely outrageous historical iniquity that needs resolution. We are rightly extending redress schemes to managed estates. I know that some hon. Members would prefer them to be abolished, but it is absolutely right that there is a redress scheme in place.

As hon. Members know, yesterday we banned the creation of new leasehold houses. I do not like to ban anything at all because I think we have banned far too much in the United Kingdom over the past generation, but sadly, I am absolutely convinced of the necessity of a preclusion on leasehold houses, given the horror stories that have been outlined during the passage of the Bill and in the years leading up to it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman; I hope he is about to agree with me about the necessity of banning only very proportionately.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that I am going to have to disappoint the Minister, because I disagree that the Government banned new leasehold houses yesterday. He did not address this in his wind-up speech yesterday, because he did not have a huge amount of time, but I want him to respond to my concerns about new schedule 2 providing for exemptions that are potentially so wide that they could allow for the creation of significant numbers of new leasehold homes over the coming years. Will the Government review their position on new schedule 2? Are they convinced that it provides for only very limited exceptions in unusual circumstances, as the Minister said yesterday?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He and I have an active discussion about this, and possibly a slight difference of opinion about the potential impact of what we introduced. I do not wish to misrepresent him, but I think he accepts that some elements of what we brought forward yesterday, possibly those regarding the National Trust, are not controversial or contentious. There is a question about whether the measures should apply if, historically, organisations, entities or companies have agreements in certain ways. It is clear that this will be swept away; we are effectively discussing whether existing permissions on a particular type of prospectus, other than the small number of things such as the National Trust, should be swept away as well. I am sure that we will continue to talk about that, but we think that this proposition is a major intervention that honours the spirit of banning leasehold houses. Others may take a different view, but the Government’s view is that this is a significant step forward that adheres to the spirit of a ban or preclusion, and that will allow us to move forward.

I have highlighted the progress that has been and is being made, subject to what the other place does. I know, however, that hon. Members are very keen that we go further in certain areas, so I want to spend a few moments going through some of their suggestions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made a powerful speech—again, he is the reason why we are speaking about this matter today, and it is important that we continue to have this conversation. We have heard some of the examples, both named and referred to, of the realities created by the system. No system is perfect—we can never design it such that there will not be some attempt to prang it in some way, shape or form—but large holes in the system have clearly built up and been exploited. Those have resulted in, for instance, the removal of trees from a tree-lined street. Unless there is some other reality behind that, there is absolutely no reason for it to happen. We have to move to a place where that does not occur, and we hope that that will be achieved in part by the changes made by the Bill. We recognise that there are further concerns, and we are considering those, but we all agree that some of the examples mentioned are not where we want to be. I hope that we may be able to say more on that going forward.

As I mentioned briefly yesterday, I also recognise this issue personally. I am not speaking today as a constituency MP, but only in the last month I have been in meetings with constituents who raised concerns about a Persimmon development and the clarity of information about service charges. So in my part of the world, I see issues similar to those raised by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend also raised an important point about GP provision. I have been in this job for only four months, but I recognise the importance of this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is particularly concerned about that, and I have spoken about it with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). It is another clear iniquity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough says, people are doing the right thing, have worked hard all their lives and are buying properties, and although the sales particulars of those properties state that new GP provision will be on or near the site, suddenly that provision disappears into thin air between the point when the ink goes on the contract and the point when they move in, or within a few years.

We have already held a meeting on that issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, and we are committed to trying to make further progress. A detailed discussion is needed, because a number of different issues on GP provision need to be unpacked.

First, there is the physical ability to provide bricks—places for people to operate out of—which is obviously the responsibility of the planning system or associated with it. The second issue is whether there could be some provision, but for whatever reason, the configurations, the preferred designs and so on make that cost higher than it otherwise should be. If that is the case, that needs to be looked into again, because there is no reason for making perfect the enemy of the good. Thirdly, we may have the bricks or provisions to provide the bricks, but if we do not have the people to provide the services, it does not help in any instance the people who have been sold the promise in the first place. A number of different issues will need to be unpicked, and I am working with my right hon. Friend from the Department of Health and Social Care on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough talked passionately and importantly about new homes and the related issues. As he indicated, when someone has done the right thing, it is absolutely incredible and unacceptable that there are the kind of problems that he has highlighted around sewage, snagging and the amount of time people have to take to get their homes up to the standard they thought they were buying in the first place, or to solve the problems they did not think there would be. It is also fair to say that, as MPs, we only hear about the difficult issues, and there are many thousands of homeowners who move into homes on a monthly and annual basis who do not have those issues. That is absolutely great, but we can all see in our postbags that there are significant challenges with regards to new homes. As my hon. Friend indicates, I hope that the new homes ombudsman will make progress, and the New Homes Quality Board is currently seeking to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) is no longer in his place, but he raises an important point about conveyancing. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty made a similar point about people being encouraged to use a particular conveyancer, or a particular set of solicitors, and it may be that the output of that process, however it happened, meant they did not get all the information or certain things were not as clear as they could be. That is unacceptable. I recognise that we have to work through that issue. There is a very complicated interaction between standards, regulation and whether people are doing the right thing, even within a regulated industry. I think I should pick that up with my Ministry of Justice colleagues to see whether there is anything that we may be able to take forward.

The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty made an important and eloquent case relating to some challenges that he and his constituents have experienced. I was campaigning on one of his new estates just a few months ago, possibly for a different candidate. I will make two points. He raised an issue with regards to Harron Homes. I say this not to make any particular point, other than that I had a similar personal and constituency issue with Harron Homes on the Regents Green estate in Grassmoor in my constituency a number of years ago. It took quite a bit of pushing, but in the end, Harron Homes moved and we got hundreds of snags unsnagged. I hope he has similar success on that.

I know the hon. Member’s point was not about seeking advice on how to approach Harron Homes; it was more broadly about the reality that this should not happen in the first place, and he is absolutely right. I hope that some of the work in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and some of the things that the New Homes Quality Board is doing on a voluntary basis and the new homes ombudsman will do in the coming years will help to address some of those problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is not just the Father of the House but the father of many of the innovations and suggestions in the Bill, given how long he has campaigned on this issue. He raised the specific issue of rentcharges, and I would say to him that I am always happy to hold roundtables, but we must make sure they have utility. We are clearly making progress with the Bill, and I hope hon. Members accept that that includes progress on rentcharges. Both I and the Secretary of State continue to be keen to have the discussion around rentcharges to see what might be possible in the future.

It is important to note that there is a complicated interaction, as there always is in such difficult areas of law, between the clear problems we see with rentcharges and the overall structure of how rentcharges are used on a broader basis—rentcharges are, for example, part of the estate management system. That is something we have to try and work through in the round, but I am always happy to talk more and to hold roundtables. We do understand that there continues to be a challenge there.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I should have said that I am a leaseholder. Let us say that one of my grandchildren was buying a freehold property where there was a requirement to pay charges. The idea that the rentcharge holder can, if there is a slip in paying the charge, turn a freehold property into a 99-year lease, which may knock hundreds of thousands of pounds off the value of a London property, is absurd. The sooner we can please have the roundtable, followed by action, the better.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the current system, and I look forward to continuing to discuss that with him and those who are interested in this area and who wish to see further progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made a clear point about the importance of clarity of information for leaseholders. Given the preclusion that we are bringing forward, I hope she has seen that we have added clauses to the Bill to make it imperative that there is explicit clarity about whether leasehold houses are still being sold, in the limited instances where we think it is proportionate to do so. From a house perspective, there will be no ability for people not to know what they are buying because others choose not to make that clear.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—we have rehearsed many of these points already, so I will not seek to detain hon. Members—raised the issue of forfeiture. As I have said, and as I will happily repeat here again, we are working through the detail of that issue. We are very serious, and we recognise that it is an important issue and one on which the House has already indicated that it has a very strong view. We hope to be able to say something more on it shortly.

After we had had a number of Divisions yesterday, I saw on Twitter—I do read Twitter—that there was quite a lot of disappointment about the choice on forfeiture. I want to assure people who may be reading the Hansard of this debate or watching online that the Government are absolutely serious about this issue. We have been clear that we are looking at it seriously, and I hope we will be able to say something more. Many of us who have been in this place for a number of years now will know that there is some arcanity—if that is a word—or an arcaneness to some of the procedures. Sometimes things do not appear in exactly the linear sequence or sequential order that people would like, but I can assure those who are interested in this issue that the Government are looking at it seriously, and I hope to be able to report back to the House on it shortly.

Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is no longer in her place, but who raised important points about leasehold. I also thank, as ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who highlighted the importance of reform in general. That is one of the reasons why we are bringing the Bill forward and seeking to make as strong progress as possible.

I recognise the useful contributions today, which build on Report stage yesterday and on the progress that the Bill has made in the House already. I hope that hon. Members who have been in today’s debate or been part of the process so far recognise that this is a strong proposition that the Government have brought forward. It is the biggest change to property law in a generation.

The Government and I recognise the desire of Members here, and of the House in general, to go further. We have said very clearly that we are looking at a number of areas, and my Secretary of State—my boss and the person who ultimately makes the choice—has indicated very clearly that he is keen to improve the Bill further. As I said in Committee, we will not be able to do everything, and there is always a discussion and a decision about how we prioritise the limited time of this House and the other place. However, we think that the Bill is a strong start, and we hope we will be able to improve it further. We look forward to being able to make real progress in this important area, which has needed reform for so long. Finally, after 20 years, we will be able to deliver that as part of this Bill.

15:33

[Neil O’Brien]

Thank you for chairing this session, Mrs Harris. I thank all hon. Members for their interesting and important contributions during the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) raised the issue of conveyancing being done by someone tied to the developer, and the bad incentives that that sets up. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) welcomed the action on maintenance charges but gave us a terrifying example of constituents getting the charges but no actual maintenance.

The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), raised the case of Terry Woodjetts, and I really like his idea of a bond. I have long thought that, instead of councils having to take developers to court for infringements of planning conditions and building conditions, it would be much simpler if the onus was reversed so that a bond was held by the council and only released if developers did the right thing during the development process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) made important points about people finding out terms only once it was too late because they had paid the deposit or the whole whack, and about how even quite sophisticated people such as estate agents can end up being trapped by this complex system.

I have raised lots of harrowing cases in the debate, and lots of other Members have done the same. However, to end on a moment of light, when I think about the document I wrote in 2018, I am struck by the fact that, although politics—particularly this field—is not for the impatient, it is possible to make progress, and we are making progress. An example of that is leasehold houses. The promise alone that we were going to take the legislative action that we are now taking has driven down the number of leasehold houses very dramatically over recent years. I raised the issue of getting new GP surgeries in new estates, and we have already made progress on that through the new NPPF guidance. The conversation is continuing, and it is not a straightforward one. The Minister is right to read into the record the different elements of progress that have already been made in the Bill and to highlight the complexity and the fact that it is not straightforward to make further progress.

However, to end on a moment of optimism, I wrote about things such as the transparency of land options in 2018. I published my paper in 2018 and, as a Minister in the Department in 2021, I made the case for us putting that in legislation. We legislated in 2023, and we will be doing the secondary legislation in 2024. It takes a long time to do things, but we do eventually get there.

Capturing more land value for the community is something they do brilliantly in Hong Kong—the hon. Member for Strangford has been communicating with people whose human rights have been violated there. One thing they have always done well there is capture land value for the community, and we are making progress on that through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—not just the new infrastructure levy that we will roll out over the coming years, but the new compulsory purchase order powers, which I look forward to being used.

I have been making arguments for a long time about building in the wrong places without the right infrastructure. Again, we have made progress on that, whether that is the urban uplift, the objectively assessed housing need, which came in a few years ago, or the moves to liberalise brownfield development that have been mooted more recently. We have made progress towards all those things. I talk about the broken planning system, and we are making progress towards it being less broken than it was, but there is still a lot to do.

From that story of progress and of a lot of things needing fixing, I take an optimistic point, which is simply that, although there is a lot for the Minister to do, and it is not easy to make progress on these things, we have already made good progress, and we have another opportunity to make some big strides forward through the Bill. I am encouraged not just by the fact that the Minister is an able and brilliant Minister, but by his saying today that we will take the opportunity to go further on these things, which have caused such a lot of grief for my constituents. These are issues that we can fix.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered leasehold reform and new homes.

15:37

Sitting suspended.

Leighton Hospital Rebuild

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Kieran Mullan to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the rebuild of Leighton Hospital.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. My aim today is to take this opportunity to ensure that the rebuild of Leighton Hospital is front and centre of the Minister’s priorities, because a successful rebuild and management of the short-term challenges on the way there are vital to ensuring that my constituents, and residents across the region more broadly, can access excellent healthcare from their local hospital.

All of us involved in the campaign were delighted when we secured Leighton’s place in the £20 billion new hospital programme, which will see 40 hospitals benefit in the largest concerted effort in a generation to modernise our hospital estate. As part of that, Leighton Hospital will receive hundreds of millions of pounds in funding to be rebuilt. The current hospital is a crucial part of our local healthcare services. Built in the early 1970s, Leighton Hospital was opened by the late Queen in 1972. Generations of families have been born there and millions of people have received treatment there, and I know our local community is incredibly proud of its local hospital. Each year, the Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, of which Leighton is the primary site, has more than 100,000 A&E attendances and 290,000 outpatient appointments, and carries out more than 100,000 diagnostic tests. Leighton provides not just healthcare, but over 4,500 job opportunities to members of staff employed at the trust. Those fantastic members of staff cover a whole range of roles, including porters, cooks, receptionists, cleaners, occupational therapists, healthcare assistants, physiotherapists, nurses, doctors and many others.

Having worked in the NHS prior to becoming an MP, I know the difficulties that can arise working in buildings that are in need of refurbishment or, in this case, replacement. The physical infrastructure of the building being worked in is outside the control of the frontline staff, and they often have to do whatever it takes to make it work, but it would be better if they did not have to. Since it was built, Leighton has been expanded with new, modern buildings added on, including a new intensive therapy unit and theatre suite, campaigned for by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) when he represented Crewe and Nantwich.

More recently, I worked with others to secure £15 million for a new A&E department. When it was originally built, much of the building was made with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. RAAC is a lightweight, bubbly form of concrete, which was often used in schools, colleges and hospitals from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. It is usually found in roofs and occasionally walls and floors, and has since proven to be at risk of structural failure. Since that came to light, it was clear that something needed to be done to ensure that Leighton remains safe for patients.

By the time we started our campaign for a new hospital building, much work had already been done to manage that risk, but it was clear that remedial work would only take us so far and that the best thing to do—not least the better use of taxpayers’ money—was to have a whole new building, so the campaign was launched. Thousands of local residents signed our petition for a rebuild and shared their positive experiences of being treated at Leighton, often having been born there, and they very much wanted to see its future secured. The inclusion of Leighton Hospital in the hospital building programme is a win for its staff and the patients it serves. It has been a privilege to have played a part in securing it, alongside the hard work of so many other key players, including my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury, and the cross-party support we achieved.

My hon. and learned Friend very much wanted to be here today, but is on an important visit with the Justice Committee. As I know he has done already, I have been glad today to be able to sit down and discuss this important local issue with the excellent Chester South and Eddisbury Conservative candidate for the forthcoming general election, Aphra Brandreth, who is in the Gallery. I know Aphra will continue championing the cause if she is elected as the next MP, which I very much hope she will be.

Having spoken recently with the leadership at Leighton Hospital, I understand that the building programme is coming along well, and I want to thank all those working on the project at Leighton, in NHS England and in the Department of Health and Social Care for their hard work to date. I am delighted that the Leighton site has been selected as the national low-rise hospital 2.0 design template reference site. Procurement of technical advisers is ongoing, and there has been positive engagement with the Cheshire East planning department. The funding allocated for the purchase of the land required to enable a new build has been received, with the purchase expected to be made in the next few weeks. While the trust is waiting for full DHSC and Treasury approval, the current timeline for completion runs through to 2029. That achieves the Government’s goal of ensuring that the proposed projects in the hospital building programme are done before 2030.

However, as with any large infrastructure project, there will always be challenges and room for improvement. Most critically, the RAAC issue has not gone away. The hospital building programme is the long-term solution and we intend to have a whole new hospital to deal with the issue, but in the meantime, remedial works are absolutely necessary to ensure the continued safety of the building.

These challenges can be expected to persist for the next six to seven years. There has been encouraging support to manage them to date, with over £55 million spent in 2022-23 and £28 million in 2023-24, with further spending likely to be needed in the next financial year. A wide range of work has been undertaken, including the construction of a two-storey modular decant ward building. The development provides decant accommodation, which in turn has allowed the trust to undertake essential RAAC refurbishment and stabilisation works to existing wards, ensuring patient safety.

However, the remedial works inevitably create challenges for the dedicated team of staff. Access routes and clinical areas sometimes need to be closed, forcing staff to make large detours and creating a negative impact on the patient and staff experience. It can be difficult to deliver business as usual. Although I appreciate that disruption is at times unavoidable, it would greatly assist the trust if the Minister could talk to colleagues in DHSC and the local NHS to agree a clear, forward-looking timetable for the RAAC work, which will need to carry on and progress as the rebuild does. If there are elements that cannot be agreed in advance, perhaps there could be a smoother mechanism for sign-off to allow more timely decisions to be made.

My second ask is for the Minister to use his considerable skill to work with officials and agree the full cost envelopes and timescales for the whole rebuild as soon as possible, and agree a more streamlined approval process for the elements that are tentatively agreed locally but need sign-off higher up as the work progresses. His attention will benefit the rebuild process not only in Leighton but in other areas if changes can be agreed and implemented across the programme. I am confident that a deep dive by the Minister to understand how it has all been working to date would help identify where improvements in the process could be made.

While I have the Minister’s attention, I want to highlight the potential for Leighton and other NHS hospitals to be heated by deep geothermal resources. A recent study by the British Geological Society identified more than 100 hospitals that sit on deep geothermal resources. As the Minister knows, with a net zero target of 2040, the NHS and hospitals in particular face a considerable challenge to secure net zero heat. I have been working with the Carbon and Energy Fund to develop proposals for identifying the best public sector candidates for deep geothermal, with a focus on NHS sites. I was glad to have the opportunity to meet the Hospitals Minister from the other place, Lord Markham, and his team. We are continuing discussions with them, the Treasury and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to see what we might be able to achieve.

I conclude by again paying tribute to all those who were part of the campaign to secure a rebuild of Leighton Hospital, and to all those at the hospital and in the wider NHS who put in an enormous amount of work to secure the progress we have made to date. I know that the Minister will take my questions in the spirit in which they are intended—as positive suggestions as to how we might deliver even more efficient progress—and see what he can do. We remain very happy to have secured the rebuild. We just want to ensure that it is delivered as swiftly as possible, and that Leighton staff and patients are supported to keep on delivering and receiving healthcare within the existing building in the meantime.

16:08

[The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on securing this important debate on the rebuild of Leighton Hospital. He is a tireless campaigner for improving healthcare in his constituency and across our country. I commend him for the frontline service that he gave in our NHS as an A&E doctor before entering the House, and for returning to work on the NHS frontline during the pandemic.

Securing the rebuild of the hospital was a long-term team effort. My hon. Friend worked hard alongside the local hospital leadership, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and thousands of their constituents who signed a petition to show their support. I myself have spoken to Aphra Brandreth, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Chester South and Eddisbury, who has told me of the huge benefits that the rebuild will have for local residents.

The Government announced the rebuild of Leighton Hospital in May 2023 as part of the new hospital programme. Like Leighton, six other hospitals that we are rebuilding were initially constructed using reinforced autoclave aerated concrete, more commonly known as RAAC. We took the decision to rebuild those hospitals by 2030 not only to protect the safety of patients and staff but to give them access to the best facilities and the newest technology, which is progress that will allow our NHS to improve patient outcomes, cut waiting lists and deliver for another 75 years.

I was particularly delighted by that announcement because, as the MP for Pendle, I was campaigning, like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, for the full rebuild of my own local hospital—Airedale General Hospital, which is just “over the border” in the Keighley constituency—so I was incredibly pleased that its rebuild was also approved by the Government on the same day. For the sake of clarity, I was not a Health Minister at the time when I was campaigning for that rebuild, so all propriety and ethical rules were followed.

I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents are eager to hear about how the rebuild of Leighton Hospital is progressing and I hope to provide a comprehensive update today. I am pleased to say that the local trust is working in lockstep with the new hospital programme to develop designs for its new hospital, following the standardised designs that we have developed to accelerate construction and get patients better care faster. The trust is also working with the programme to prepare its strategic outline case, which will be submitted to my Department this year.

By providing more than £2 million of funding, we have already supported the trust to develop the business case for critical early works, which will prepare the site for main construction, including more than £350,000 to support upgrades to the new hospital’s electricity capacity and over £250,000 to support geothermal and solar enablers. The support that we are giving to Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust signals this Government’s commitment to rebuilding Leighton Hospital as quickly as possible; I will keep my hon. Friend updated as further funding is released and the strategic outline case progresses.

The rebuild of Leighton Hospital is just one part of this Government’s commitment to improve healthcare in Crewe and Nantwich, and across Cheshire. We have provided Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust with over £50 million to address RAAC at the existing hospital, £15 million to upgrade its accident and emergency department, and £19 million to build a new surgical hub at the Victoria Infirmary in Northwich.

I know that my hon. Friend is championing cross-Government work to utilise geothermal energy, which he referred to in his speech, and I also know that he has already engaged with the Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s chief executive officer and with my ministerial colleague, Lord Markham, on how geothermal energy could be used at Leighton Hospital and across our NHS. This is incredibly exciting technology and the Government are exploring how it could be used throughout our economy. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is working on proposals to do that and my ministerial colleagues will keep the House updated on progress.

If I may, I will provide the House with a broader update on the new hospital programme. We are engaging with the market to build awareness of the programme among businesses, particularly main works contractors and those operating in the mechanical, electrical and plumbing markets. In all, we have held over 100 engagement events and spoken directly to over 1,500 businesses. What is more, later this year we will launch the full version of Hospital 2.0, which is our national approach to standardisation. That will be a major milestone for the programme and we will continue to develop our designs over time, in order to deliver better care for patients and better value for taxpayers.

I am also very pleased that four of our new hospitals are already open to patients: the Northern Centre for Cancer Care in Newcastle; the Royal Liverpool University Hospital; and Northgate Hospital and Ferndene Hospital, which are both in Northumberland. In addition, there is stage one of the Louisa Martindale building, which is also known as the “3Ts hospital”, in Brighton.

By the end of the next financial year, we expect to open another four hospitals: Salford Royal Hospital’s major trauma centre; the Dyson Cancer Centre in Bath; the National Rehabilitation Centre near Loughborough; and the Midland Metropolitan University Hospital. I am delighted that at another 18 hospitals, either construction is already taking place or early work has started—or been completed—to get the sites ready for construction.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for securing this debate on the rebuild of Leighton Hospital. He is right to hold our feet to the fire on this issue and he is also right to demand that patients and staff, both in his constituency and throughout the country, have access to world-class facilities and world-class care. This is what the new hospital programme will deliver. The Government remain absolutely committed to delivering every scheme that has been announced as part of this programme and we are also absolutely committed to delivering the rebuild of Leighton Hospital by 2030.

Question put and agreed to.

16:15

Sitting suspended.

Digital Exclusion

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

14:57

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered digital exclusion.

Prynhawn da, Mrs Harris; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. It is abundantly clear that we are living in an increasingly digital world where technology has become essential to the way we socialise, work, shop, learn, manage finances and gain access to vital services. Digital skills, connectivity and equipment are all now essential to enabling an individual to fully participate in modern society. For the majority of the population, that has made life easier.

Tasks that would have required someone to leave the comfort of their own house in the past are now performed at the tap of a screen or the click of a button. Information that might once have required significant research can be recovered instantaneously. For the most part, those trends do not pose problems for people, but for the minority who might lack the digital skills or confidence to gain access to those services, it can make the world more and more inaccessible.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Many of my constituents cannot work the system. They do not know how to or they give up, which means they miss out on vital NHS appointments and so on. Does the hon. Member agree with me that a back-up, offline system with a real voice at the end of a line would be a good idea?

[Justin Madders]

I agree. I will say no more about that because of the number of people who want to speak.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has clearly touched a nerve, given the number of people here. I think digital exclusion is often about rationing. I came across that with the legal aid cuts, where a lot of services are online and not accessed by people. It is now happening with GP services. There are 2 million people in north-west London who, from April, might have to go through a GP hub to access where they go. Already we have practices deciding that people have to send an online form and photographs before they can even get access to a GP. It excludes so many people from basic services.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon Friend for his intervention. He is right. Age UK conducted a survey in 2022 on the trends in digital technology for those over 65. It found that in total there are about 2.7 million people over the age of 65 who do not use the internet, which is about one fifth of that population group. Similarly, it was found that over 40% of the over-75s were unable to turn on their device and successfully log in, and 47% were unable to find and open programs. Those are people who had internet access. That aspect is sometimes overlooked. For someone who has grown up in the world of computers, using them seems like second nature, but to some people it is something that they just cannot deal with.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman has really touched on what a lot of people feel in their daily lives: digital exclusion. So much of life today talks about inclusion. Is it not time the Government and business looked for strategies to enable digital inclusion for the wider public? We know from our postbags and everything else that people have real difficulty with this. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for taking this matter forward because it is something that touches so many.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come on to some questions and challenges for the Government. The fact that we have so many Members here suggests that many things that we deal with as Members of Parliament are a result of digital exclusion.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I can give a live example of digital exclusion in my constituency. The local council is introducing a charge on emptying garden bins from 1 April. It has an early bird offer of £20 rather than £37, but that is available only to residents who pay online. That not only excludes people, but impacts them financially. Will he join me in condemning Erewash Borough Council and its blatant digital exclusion?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I suggest she talks to the leadership of the council to see whether an accommodation can be reached. Services should be available at the same price to everyone, regardless of their digital access.

I will not take any more interventions because I realise others wish to speak, but I will talk briefly about the banking sector, which has seen many branches close across the country, including in my own constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston. In Neston there are no banks any more and Ellesmere Port has lost some. The nearest offline options for customers of the banks are often a significant journey away. With public transport the way it is, it is not always easy. Banks now expect customers to switch to online provisions, but that is not possible for some people. Even if they can do that, there is increased hesitation because of concerns about online fraud. Being able to access banking facilities readily should be a basic tenet of our society. At the moment, it is too difficult for too many people.

Car parking payment is another area that has increasingly moved online. App-based payment systems are becoming commonplace, but those without smartphones can find that difficult. Even when they have a smartphone, they may not have the knowhow or mobile data to download the app, meaning they can sometimes struggle to pay for car parking. One of my constituents, Keith, said:

“My problem is with car parking. Everything is done through the phone, and if you have an old phone it is a problem downloading an app while standing in the rain, with an impatient queue behind you.”

He is, no doubt, not alone. This is mainly a problem with private parking outfits. To be fair, my local authority does offer the alternative of paying in cash for the machines, but they do not always work. In relation to local authorities, Age UK has highlighted the difficulties in making applications for blue badges, housing support and council tax reductions.

In London, Age UK used a combination of freedom of information requests and mystery shopping to see how offline services were provided. It found that 17% of those responding did not offer any of those services offline. One quarter did not offer online access to blue badge applicants, and almost one third did not offer council tax reduction services offline. It also found that half of those claiming to offer those services offline were unable to point the mystery shopper to the information that would enable them to access those services. There were problems with waiting times in phone queues, as well as call handlers not being aware of the offline offer for services.

I want to be clear that this should not be misconstrued as an attack on local authorities. I know the level of cuts they have had to face since 2010. I am delighted that my local authority, Cheshire West and Chester, has introduced a call-back service, which is available for those unable to complete online forms. It directs people to a number to secure assistance. That is an example of best practice that should be spread across the whole country.

Before I wind up, I want to touch on the impact that the issue can have on people. Age UK has noted that this trend has a profound impact on older people. It causes many more people to feel lonely, frustrated and overlooked. Those feelings are completely understandable. It is about time that society realised that not everyone walks around with a smartphone, nor has the confidence to use one. It is all well and good saying people can use their rights under equality laws to ensure they are not denied access, but even that is dominated by online processes.

I suggest that most services do have an offline option, but it can be extremely difficult to access. We have heard that many of the organisations offering those services do not tell people they exist. In reality, that could be taking someone to a computer and taking them through that system. That is not really offering an offline service; it is just pointing people to a computer. Will the Minister advise whether any consideration has been given to providing local authorities with some support, practically and financially, to promote best practice, to ensure that people are able to access services offline?

Charities, businesses and interest groups have long been calling for an updated digital inclusion strategy. The previous one is rapidly approaching its 10th birthday, and was due for an update in 2020. These calls were also heard resoundingly by the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, which said last year:

“The Government has taken its eye off the ball.”

It had no confidence that it remained a priority.

In defence, the Government claimed there was no need for a new strategy and that the principles remained relevant. I disagree: it is clear that the digital landscape has altered massively in the past decade, since the strategy was first written. Putting to one side the rapid changes in technology, the strategy has no mention of affordability, which is still a huge issue. It cannot have considered the rapid shift we are seeing to online services. Do the Government now accept that a new strategy needs to be created? Can the Minister update the House on whether they are considering doing so?

Will the Government also reconsider their approach to providing training? They do offer the essential digital skills qualification to provide some training free of charge. Organisations, such as the Good Things Foundation, believe those courses are too big a step, and are not meeting the needs of the digitally excluded. Many people are not interested in gaining formal qualifications. They just want to be able to undertake basic functions and access services in a community setting.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Justin Madders]

I give way one more time.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

It is not just those who are digitally excluded. There are various levels of digital exclusion. The other week I was in touch with my mobile phone company and I felt digitally excluded from EE, trying to get through the gates. The issue is not just about those who we assume are digitally excluded in all areas; some of us are digitally excluded in some areas, given the levels of sophistication that are coming in. As the hon. Gentleman says, things have changed so much over the past number of years.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, sometimes organisations will use that as a way of rationing access. Many hon. Members who have tried to cancel a contract will know that it is very difficult and they have to go through a series of gateways.

I will conclude because I know many other hon. Members want to speak. I do not want to stand in the way of progress, but we must be careful not to leave people behind. We need cast-iron, enforceable commitments that all services, whether public or private, can be accessed in person. There will always be people who, for whatever reason, will not be able to access services online, and there will always be situations where individual circumstances need to be explained in person. That right needs not just to exist on a piece of paper but to be exercisable in reality. Signposting to in-person options should be clear and easy to use and not something that should be squirreled away just to fulfil a duty that is not actually accessible in practice. We would not tolerate people being denied access to services on any other basis so we should not tolerate it on this basis either.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. As hon. Members can see, the debate is oversubscribed and there will therefore be a two-minute time limit. I remind colleagues of two things: if they wish to speak, they need to bob; and any interventions taken will cause other colleagues to lose time further on in the debate.

16:41

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this important debate. Digital exclusion is a social, economic and increasingly political issue. I came into politics to preserve what we should all be preserving in this place: the freedom of the individual. Sadly, those rights are being diminished day after day. I am not a luddite and I am not against the technological age—indeed, I welcome it. Yet with every advance, we must also make sure that the rights and freedoms of the individual advance at a similar pace.

Derbyshire Dales, where I live, is particularly affected because of the geography. We have had a lot of money from the Government and they have upheld their promises in a large regard. However, we still have patches of poor connectivity. I remind everybody of what Lloyds bank said in 2021: as many as 10 million people do not have the basic foundation skills to be able to access the digital world. That is one in six individuals. Putting aside other things that might disadvantage them, such as not having a smartphone or, as in Derbyshire Dales, not having technology that can work in the dales because of the difficulty with signals, that is a huge number of people.

Digital exclusion disproportionately erodes the rights of our elderly and disadvantaged people, along with the basic tenets of society such as small businesses. I have seen that quickly in Derbyshire Dales and with my experience in the campaign against the National Westminster Bank. The chief executive was not available to see me for months, so the managing director told me he was committed to helping people transition. He said, “We have 60% of the people in your area connected to our online app.” I said, “I am talking about the 40%; that is what I am concerned about.”

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Sarah Dyke.

[Miss Dines]

Thank you very much. I am very pleased that I was able to raise these issues because we have to protect the rights of the individual.

16:43

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this debate.

As we have heard today, the modern world is digital. We need digital technology to study, access banks, make health appointments and use local services and Government resources. However, in rural areas such as Somerton and Frome, access to the digital space is limited by poor broadband and mobile connectivity. Rural areas such as Somerset have an ageing population that is more reliant on diminishing in-person services and Somerton and Frome has an average age of 54 compared with the national average of 40. In Somerton and Frome, only around 40% of houses have access to full fibre broadband and 75% of my constituency is a partial 5G notspot.

I often hear from constituents that they feel disenfranchised from the modern world due to their poor broadband and mobile connectivity. A constituent in Sticklinch told me recently that they have a download speed of only 6 megabits per second on their broadband. For comparison, the shared rural network, which aims to roll out 4G to 95% of the country, estimates that the average download speed in rural areas when using mobile data will be 7 megabits per second. My constituents tell me that they want to be “dragged into the 21st century” and not left “isolated from modern communications”. Although we have seen some improvements in that area, we need to go further and faster.

A recent report from the National Audit Office on the shared rural network stated that it is behind where it is meant to be, and I know that my constituents are frustrated that they will be let down and left behind yet again. Rural areas have watched the modern world move online. They have been instructed to join in, but far too often they have been left without the tools that they need to participate. They feel excluded, they are let down and they are on the wrong side of the digital divide.

16:45

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing the debate.

In terms of digital exclusion, it really matters that we try to have digital by default; it is a modern way of doing business. However, the key request of many constituents who have emailed me is that Government services in particular always have an offline option, and that we continue to try to ensure that we roll out broadband in as many ways as possible, including on a mobile phone. There is good progress on the shared rural network, but I encourage the Minister to publish a map of where masts will be in the future, as well as where masts have already been placed, and to make it as easy as possible to get planning permission or whatever consent is needed.

On some of the other aspects, I must confess that I set up an email address for my mother. I do not do anything on behalf of my mother, because I do not have the legal powers to do so, but that is the way in which I facilitate somebody who is not used to using a computer in accessing the services that they can. We cannot rely simply on other members of the family doing that all the time. However, it is important that that does not become a barrier to getting the help that is needed by people; it is often in an emergency that they end up not being able to get that help.

I will also give some credit. During the time of the covid pandemic, in the Department for Work and Pensions we kept jobcentres open right around the country. That was done deliberately because we knew that not everybody would have access to digital. We know that online is not the only way that people can do that, and I commend the work coaches who came in and helped the most vulnerable. This issue really matters to our constituents: I know that the Minister cares, and I am sure that he will share that today.

16:47

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this important debate.

Members of this House, charities and trade unions have been warning for years that increasingly essential digital services are becoming out of reach for many. According to a survey for Citizens Advice, 1 million disconnected their broadband in the last year because they could not afford it, and people on universal credit were more than six times as likely to be disconnected. Age UK also told me that 6 million people aged 65+ are either unable to use the internet safely or successfully or are not online at all. Thatcher’s ambition for there to be “no such thing as society” is unfolding before our very eyes due to digital exclusion. Isolating and disengaging huge swathes of the public is not how we build a fair, equitable and equal society.

I have no doubt that one of the drivers of digital exclusion is the 14 years of brutal austerity imposed by this Government. The situation cannot continue. All public services, including the NHS and council services, must offer and promote an affordable, easy-to-access and offline way of using them. The Government must provide local authorities and public services with the funding to do that. Banks, including Lloyds, Barclays and HSBC, made record profits last year. They must provide face-to-face banking for many constituents and avoid leaving communities to become banking deserts. There is no excuse to continue closing branches with such profits being made.

As we have heard in this debate so far, broadband is an essential utility, and I was extremely proud to stand on a manifesto in 2019 that recognised that. It could and should be made free and available to every home in the country as a universal public service, if only the Government had the political will to do so. I hope that the Minister takes note.

16:49

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I am a Member of Parliament for a very remote rural constituency, and when I was elected our broadband roll-out was definitely behind the curve. I am delighted that we have seen dramatic improvements in North Devon during my time in this place, but our digital skills have been left behind the curve. Indeed, my constituency is home to the train station with the highest face-to-face usage in the country, and I am delighted that our ticket office is staying open.

I was approached at my constituency surgery on Friday and told that it was unacceptable that a Government agency did not have a phone app—that there was not enough digital availability. We need to bring people along with us on these digital changes, so that people are part of them and are not excluded from society. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and digital communication, which is looking to put forward a campaign to explain some of the coming changes in the digital landscape, as we did with digital TV switchover.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

On that point, when the Minister sums up, perhaps he can address BT’s plans for the switchover from analogue to fibre lines for phones. That will cause huge problems in constituencies that still have power cuts and poor mobile signal, such as my North Norfolk constituency.

[Selaine Saxby]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is a huge concern for rural constituencies that lose power at the time when they need landlines the most.

As we move forward, there is a need for education. I very much hope that people will take up offers at public libraries. An Age Concern report looked at digital availability for the over-70s and found that people who went to the library were far more able to get online. I thank Lloyds Bank, which is bringing its online training to Barnstaple library; anyone who would like to join should contact my office. In her mid-70s, my grandmother went on a digital training course at the bingo hall, so there is training out there. I know that it is difficult—my parents are digitally unavailable at this time.

If anyone does not get the opportunity to say everything that they wanted to this afternoon, I encourage them to join the all-party parliamentary group. We are putting together a digital manifesto, which we will send to all parties ahead of the election. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this important debate.

16:51

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. On the subject of digital exclusion, we should also look at the opposite: digital literacy. When I go home on a Thursday or Friday, I am struck by how very digitally literate the next generation is. My children and their peer group are way in advance of anything that I can do online or with computers. I make that point because we tend to think that it is older people who are digitally excluded. Yes, they are, but lots of other people are also less digitally literate. Recent years have seen a rush, even a stampede, in company boardrooms towards moving services online at the expense of doing things in person. That has been to the detriment of many older people, particularly in rural and coastal communities, such as those I represent.

I want to highlight one specific example and give voice to a constituent. Brian, who lives in Weston, a small coastal hamlet that is tucked away on the beautiful east Devon coastline, wrote to me to explain how he lives somewhere where there is such poor 4G mobile phone signal and internet access that he is completely and utterly dependent on a landline. As has already been said, losing copper will have a profound effect on some people in our rural constituencies.

Finally, another constituent, who lives in the village of Luppitt, has no mobile signal or fibre broadband connection, and is concerned about the landlines being phased out. He writes:

“Think of all those who are unaware, infirm or technically naive. Will we be cast adrift and simply forgotten?”

16:53

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Many will remember that I secured a debate on loneliness, isolation, and digital and financial inclusion back in December, and I want briefly to pick up on some of the topics that were raised then. On the digital phone switchover, which is supposed to be completed next year, what assurance can the Minister give us that communication will be possible in a power outage, particularly in rural and very isolated areas?

Since that debate, the Government have confirmed that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will continue to offer licence renewals in post offices. What further Government services can the Government return and put into post offices, so that we can provide the inclusion for which we are arguing today?

Finally, what can the Minister say about the ongoing cross-departmental, inter-ministerial work that was spoken about in the last debate? How is bringing all those Ministers together working to ensure that loneliness, isolation and exclusion are things of the past and can be addressed?

16:55

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on bringing this debate forward. Whether or not this is a generational issue, we cannot hide from the fact that there are people unable to use the internet in the ways necessary to engage fully in modern society. I will make three quick points on accessibility and affordability. On access, sufficient broadband is a requirement for people to be digital, and I have at least three ongoing cases in my office where broadband provision is the issue. As a quick example, my constituent runs a business from an address in an area in which he cannot get sufficient broadband, and that ultimately means that he cannot take card payments, issue receipts or invoices, and place online orders. Digital exclusion could be the ruin of his business.

Secondly, electoral registration has become increasingly online in the last couple of years, and the Northern Ireland Office is now offering a digital registration number for online applications. At the time of registering, many were unaware that that number should have be noted or required. As a result, people are being disenfranchised because they cannot vote digitally: maybe the Minister will come back on that one.

Thirdly, there is the issue of elderly people being forced to use online banking by the persistent closures in villages. They do not find it easy, with no access to broadband, no smartphone, and no community hubs available, and they are becoming financially excluded through no fault of their own.

I have done this in record time, with my voice, and I think I have got a ten-minute speech down to two. It is particularly our elderly generation who perhaps do not have the necessary support system, and it is important that they are reminded that our MP offices are there to help. The Government must do more to address issues such as rural broadband connectivity, so our constituents across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have the opportunity to be digitally included.

16:57

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this debate. Digital exclusion is a really important issue, and like other Members, I have been contacted by lots of constituents as part of the Age UK campaign on this. While it is of course true that the older generation are particularly affected, we should remember that young people can also be affected by digital exclusion. During the pandemic, we saw a big move towards digital education online, and ensuring that the right devices and broadband access were provided to young people was a key part of the challenge. In areas of digital notspots, those people would not have been able to receive the support they needed.

I have to say that the situation in my constituency has improved a great deal over the last 15 years. We have gone from having a number of areas that did not have digital access to now having 5G pilots and universal high-speed access in the city of Worcester. But it is a city, and I recognise the challenge for more rural colleagues.

I want to sound one note of caution about the drive to go ever more digital. The Education Committee are currently carrying out an inquiry into the impact of screentime on young people, and there are serious concerns about their mental health and the impact of too much screentime in that respect. We are often told that part of the challenge with telling young people to reduce their screentime is the modelling they see from adults—we are all walking around staring at our phones the whole time. The youngest children see their parents spending a lot of time online and in front of devices. UNESCO has recently changed its advice from a big drive towards digital education worldwide, and particularly in developing countries, to sounding some warning notes on the risks of too heavy a focus on digital. In this debate, we absolutely need to focus on eliminating digital exclusion and ensuring that there is support and offline services for those who need to access public services. We also need to think about the balance that adults, as well as children, need to strike between their digital lives and real lives.

16:58

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and I give a huge thanks to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this debate. I simply want to talk about rural connectivity. Digital exclusion for many of us in rural communities is simply about not being connected at all. Let me focus on Project Gigabit in particular, which is a good thing and the Government are to be commended on its roll-out. However, it is important that we do not think that one size fits all. Project Gigabit is very good, but there will hundreds of communities in Cumbria, even those within scope, that will not be connected as a result of it. There is no sign so far of the Government having a plan to connect those houses and communities, which are often isolated properties such as hill farms.

I am also very concerned about properties, businesses and communities in what is referred to as deferred scope when it comes to gigabit. I will mention a bunch of places: parts of Sedbergh, Kaber, Murton, Long Marton, Winton, Warcop, Ormside, Hilton, Hartley and Bleatarn. If the Government restored the broadband voucher scheme to those few parishes, we would be able to connect every single property within them with gigabit upload and download speed with our work through B4RN—Broadband for the Rural North—which would be able to take up the slack. I encourage the Minister to intervene in those specific communities to restore the voucher scheme so that those places will not be excluded.

My final word is about Digital Voice, which others have mentioned. During Storm Arwen, we saw places and communities such as Coniston, Torver, Flookburgh, Allithwaite, Backbarrow and Haverthwaite completely disconnected from every kind of communication simply because if the copper wire has been lost, when the electricity goes down, so does the phone. It seems wrong that Digital Voice has been rolled out without thinking about the isolation and lack of communication available as a fallback for communities such as ours in the lakes.

17:01

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for your work chairing this debate, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on bringing forward such a popular and important debate.

I will focus my comments on the skills required to access digital. The access issues have been raised, and are incredibly important—I do not want to take away from that. However, on the issues with skills, by 2030, 5 million workers will be acutely under-skilled in basic digital skills. That is a significant number, and it must be a massive concern for the Government.

The skills that people require to access digital must be considered. There is a generational issue: younger people are better at accessing these things. However, that is not true across the board. There is an intersectionality of issues. People are less likely to be able to have digital skills if they are more vulnerable, older, or in poverty, or if they do not have the capacity or time to access them. Given the cost of living crisis, I am increasingly seeing constituents working multiple jobs who just do not have the time to work on their digital skills because they are too busy trying to make ends meet. That is a really big concern for me.

Covid and the roll-out of accessing things online were mentioned. During covid, the Scottish Government provided 72,000 devices and 14,000 internet connections to individuals, children and families that were at risk of being digitally excluded. That has massively increased—the number of devices was up to 280,000 in 2022. We are increasing that as we go in order to ensure that young people are not digitally excluded and are able to spend time typing up documents in Microsoft Word, Google Sheets, or whatever the school prefers them to use when they are at home, because it is so important that digital skills are available for people and that the workforce of the future has digital skills.

[Mr Robin Walker]

I recognise the good work the Scottish Government, and indeed the English Government —the UK Government—did on getting devices out to people. However, UNESCO highlighted to us, among other things, the cost of devices: having gone out to people, they need to be maintained and their security needs to be upgraded. One of the things we need to think about very carefully in all our Government budgets as we go forward is how to ensure that there is ongoing investment in the digital technologies that are needed both for the people receiving them and those distributing them.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. On continual access to the internet, a universal credit social tariff is available for people. Every time I meet with my local jobcentre, I make clear how important it is to stress that the social tariff is available so that people can access that reduced-cost internet access. It is important that we have that and that people know that it exists so that they can take it up.

Within my constituency, I have spoken to Virgin Money, which provides access to internet services. There is also an organisation called Silver Surfers, which provides older people with access to the services and advice they need to access the internet. We have heard about some of the negatives of the internet and some of the positives of online life. It is important to be able to access services online, particularly for people in rural communities who are a long way away from those services. It is important for tackling loneliness to be able to access communities online.

[Sarah Dyke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am really sorry but I will not; I am just going to finish.

As I was saying, it is really important that people can access those things, and like-minded individuals. When my son had Kawasaki disease, it was something that hardly anybody had ever heard of, but I was able to access other parents whose children had been through the same thing to find out how my son’s disease might progress and how things might change—so access to the internet is really important.

Lastly on disenfranchisement, if someone wants to get a voter authority certificate, the main way they can do that is online. It is possible to get a certificate by post, but the process of proving their identity in order to access a certificate—a requirement that the UK Government have brought in—is mainly online. Therefore, people who are disenfranchised and unable to access those services are even more disenfranchised by the fact that the service is mainly online. I encourage the Government to ensure that particularly things like voter authority certificates are as available as possible to people, and that they are not just available online.

17:05

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

At this moment I would usually thank everybody who has spoken, but because of time constraints I will have to hurry up. Far be it from me to suggest anything to the House, so I hope I am not out of order, Mrs Harris, in suggesting that maybe some Back-Bench MP would like to make an application for a debate on this issue to the Backbench Business Committee, because I believe it is of such importance that it requires more than just an hour. Like many others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing what has been a very over-subscribed debate. Even though we have had a number of very fast speeches, we have had some very good contributions.

Digital exclusion is real for so many people, whether in work, education or access to online services—from banking to benefit applications. Failing to take action here would be to say that digitally-excluded people are not as worthy of the opportunities enjoyed by people who have the skills, confidence and income to regularly get online. Some 7% of UK households do not have an internet connection at home. That figure rises to 23% when we look at households with an annual income of under £10,400.

In 1924 the challenge of lawmakers was to ensure that everyone could read and write; the challenge in 2024 is to ensure that everyone has the digital skills they need. As we have heard, full participation in modern life often requires a suitably fast internet connection, a reliable device and an evolving skillset. That reality does not mean that digitisation should be stopped; we cannot be like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. It means we need to take the necessary action to ensure that everyone is empowered to access what they need.

It is also important to recognise that not everyone falls neatly into the groups of “digitally excluded” or “online”. Lloyds Bank’s consumer digital index uses the Department for Education’s essential digital skills framework to establish how many people can do certain types of task. Such tasks include communication through email, buying goods and services, staying safe and avoiding scams, and using search engines to find information. The index identifies various skillsets and knowledge gaps, and a wide range of confidence levels.

Moreover, digital skills and confidence are not always the reason why someone is partially digitally excluded. As we have heard from many hon. Members today, someone’s broadband may not be strong enough in rural areas for them to fill out a form or stream educational content. People with particular disabilities face many barriers to accessing visual or audio content that does not support screen-reading or full captions.

The range of challenges demands a range of solutions that are centred around skills, affordability and accessibility, and—crucially—ensure that the individual is at the heart of the process. Such solutions can, where appropriate, involve ensuring the availability of an in-person equivalent to digital services. That can include community banking hubs where high street banking is no longer available—something that has affected me and you personally, Mrs Harris, in south Wales constituencies such as ours. Such solutions can also include financial support or the offering of skills. Public libraries in particular are brilliant; they do essential work by providing computers and a helping hand to their communities, but they cannot help in all cases, and they need funding and support to meet demand.

However, no amount of community-based upskilling can get suitable devices and quality broadband into the hands of young or elderly people at home. One in five children do not have consistent home access to a device suitable for completing schoolwork, and the potential consequences for their learning and their futures are rather obvious. Practically every week I have a conversation about how good tech policy needs to be nimble and up to date, and I find that sometimes we speak in clichés. Sometimes it feels as though we go to the doctor and say we are sick, and the doctor turns around and says, “Yes, you are sick, but what are you going to do about it?”

The last Government’s digital inclusion strategy was published a whole decade ago. We often talk about how fast technology moves on; that is now ancient history, and something must be done. In less than half that time, people have been through a pandemic, a cost of living crisis, and countless technological developments that all completely reshaped our relationship with the internet for work, school, leisure, our finances and access to public services. As somebody once said, we cannot act in an analogue manner in a digital world. It is vital that digital exclusion is given as much importance as we gave to literacy in schools over a century ago. Much has changed, but we are at a stage now where people are at a massive disadvantage. We have to do something to change that.

17:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

I thank you for your excellent chairmanship, Mrs Harris, of this over-subscribed debate on an important topic. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing the debate. I am grateful to him and other speakers for their insightful contributions. I am conscious of time, so I will be limiting the interventions I take, as I want to try to address as many of the issues that have been raised as I can.

Digital technologies offer extraordinary opportunities; if we take full advantage of them, we can grow our economy, create new jobs and improve lives for British people right across the country. They can have other benefits too, such as connecting communities, reducing loneliness and making public services easier and faster to access. All those points have been very well made today. Right now, though, too many people across the country cannot experience those benefits.

Digitally excluded people are less likely to be in well-paying jobs, and they have worse health outcomes and an overall lower quality of life. As a result, digital exclusion does not just create new inequalities, but exacerbates existing ones, making it more difficult to fully participate in society. That is why, even as we look towards investing in the transformative technologies of tomorrow, from AI to quantum, the Government remain resolutely committed to ensuring no one is left behind in today’s digital age. If Britain is to be a real science and tech superpower, our superpower status has got to deliver tangible benefits for every British person.

We are under no illusions: this is a difficult task that requires work right across Government to address the many complex barriers we face. That is why the 2022 digital strategy outlined work across Government that will promote digital inclusion, from accelerating the roll-out of gigabit broadband to delivering landmark legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. By doubling down on the four key principles we set out 10 years ago in the digital inclusion strategy—access, skills, motivation and trust—we believe we have the foundations in place to succeed. I will now take each of these principles in turn.

First, on access, we understand the importance of staying connected in the modern age. That is why we have prioritised access to fixed and mobile broadband, including wifi, affordable tariffs and access to suitable devices. To ensure everyone has the access they need, the Government introduced the broadband universal service obligation in 2020, which gives everyone the legal right to request a decent and affordable broadband connection of at least 10 megabits per second. To ensure the USO remains up to date, in October 2023 we launched a consultation to review the obligation and will be publishing a Government response later this year. In March 2021 we launched Project Gigabit, our £5 billion mission to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband to the hardest-to-reach parts of the UK, areas that would have otherwise been left out of commercial gigabit roll-out plans without Government subsidy.

Last week we announced that 1 million premises across the UK have received a gigabit-capable connection thanks to Government investment. The majority of these premises are in hard-to-reach locations where previously many people would have struggled to stream TV shows, access online services or run small businesses. I am happy to report that, as I am sure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston already knows, his constituency benefits from excellent broadband connectivity. In his constituency, over 99% of premises can access a superfast connection, while 93% can access a gigabit-capable connection.

[Selaine Saxby]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am very envious of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for having such high levels of connectivity. Those of us who find ourselves in the Project Gigabit type C contract are now seeing that the voucher schemes have been turned off. Would the Minister agree that we need that procurement system to be speeded up so that we can all get to at least 99%?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and I will come on to some of the issues that she has raised; I am also happy to have a conversation with her about what support her community needs.

We know that, in addition to excellent coverage, we have competitive pricing in the UK. The cost of a gigabyte of data is 50p in the UK; that is less than half the average price in the EU, which is £1.18. We have also worked closely with the telecoms industry to ensure the availability and provision of low-cost, high-quality fixed and mobile social tariffs in the market. In total, 27 operators now offer social tariffs across 99% of the UK to those on universal credit and some other means-tested benefits.

We have seen social tariff take-up increase by almost 160% since September 2022. Although this represents just 8% of the total number of eligible households, progress is being made and we will continue to work with telecoms providers to increase awareness of this provision. We have also supported access to devices and wi-fi. Around 2,900 public libraries in England provide a trusted network of accessible locations with free wi-fi, which is funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

The Department for Education has also delivered over 1.95 million laptops and tablets to schools, trusts, local authorities and further education providers for disadvantaged children and young people since 2020. This is part of a £520 million Government investment to support access to remote education and online social care services. To support those seeking work, our Jobcentre Plus work coaches can provide support to eligible claimants who are not online, with financial support to buy six months’ worth of broadband connection. This scheme is administered by the Department for Work and Pensions through the flexible support fund, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who did excellent work through the pandemic. I am sure that I must have written to her on behalf of my constituents during that very uncertain time, and I will certainly take away her points and ideas.

[Sarah Dyke]

Will the Minister give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will make some more progress, if that is okay.

That package, which includes free wi-fi, access to devices and affordable fixed and mobile tariffs for 99% of the UK, supports access to the digital products and services that are needed for modern life.

Now I turn to the issue of digital skills. As well as working to provide the right access, we are working to ensure that everyone has the right skills to be able to navigate their personal and professional lives. On a personal note, this is a particular passion of mine and something that I wholeheartedly believe in. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) mentioned digital skills in her contribution, as did other Members in theirs.

Digital skills are central to the jobs of today and the workforce of tomorrow. Ensuring that the workforce has the digital skills for the future will be crucial to meet the UK’s ambition to be a global science and tech superpower. We are supporting skills development at every level—or, as I like to say, at every age and at every stage.

The Department for Education supports adults with low digital skills through the digital entitlement, which fully funds adults to gain essential digital skills qualifications, based on the essential digital skills framework. Since the introduction of the digital entitlement in 2020, the Department has supported over 40,000 learners to study for a qualification in essential digital skills. We are working closely with the Department for Education, industry and academia through the digital and computing skills education taskforce, which was launched last summer to increase the numbers of students choosing digital and tech educational pathways into tech careers.

To inspire the next generation of tech professionals, we have also launched two initiatives: the Cyber Explorers platform for 11 to 14-year-olds, which has reached almost 60,000 students; and the CyberFirst Girls competition, which supported 12,500 12 and 13-year-old girls in 2023 alone.

The Department for Education also funds digital skills provision through Community learning, which is an important stepping stone for learners, particularly post-19 disadvantaged learners, who are not ready for formal accredited learning or who would benefit from learning in a more informal way.

In June 2022, the Government launched the Digital Skills Council, which I co-chair. It brings together Government and industry to strengthen the digital workforce. Last year, the Digital Skills Council partnered with FutureDotNow to fund the publication of the digital skills roadmap, which lays out collective commitments to ensure that all working-age adults have basic digital capabilities.

Finally, we are also supporting people to develop advanced skills in our priority technology areas. We have established the £30 million data science and artificial intelligence conversion programme course to broaden the supply of AI talent in the UK. It funds universities to develop masters level or data science courses suitable for non-STEM students and up to 2,600 scholarships for students from under-represented backgrounds. Just last week we launched a pilot advertising campaign designed to generate awareness of the benefits of learning advanced digital skills and to drive people towards a new website that has details on Government-funded digital skills bootcamps. These bootcamps are 16-week courses that are fully funded, with a guaranteed job interview at the end.

To support workers to understand and apply AI in their jobs, last year, in partnership with Innovate UK and the Alan Turing Institute, we published the first version of a new guidance document that helps businesses to identify what skills their non-technical workers need to be able to successfully use AI in the workplace.

The secondary barriers of trust and motivation, which I mentioned at the start, must be tackled to have a truly positive impact on digital inclusion, but those are harder to measure. We recognise that some people are hesitant to access online services because they fear they may become victims of fraud or that it is an unsafe environment for their personal data. We are taking a number of steps to improve the safety and trustworthiness of the online space, including through the Online Safety Act 2023. The Act will ensure that technology companies take more responsibility for the safety of their users online, particularly children. It is a major step in protecting UK citizens from the scourge of online scams. The motivation barrier requires influencing decision making and motivation at the individual level. That challenge is difficult to overcome and is best addressed through ensuring that access, skills and trust are in place, which is why those remain our focus. That is why we have supported work through libraries, charities and communities, including the digital lifeline fund, and why we continue to fund free public wi-fi in libraries across the UK.

There are many community-based initiatives at the local level, including work through libraries, as I have mentioned, and from the third sector, such as the National Digital Inclusion Network, run by the Good Things Foundation, which is a vital resource to many working in this space. The excellent work done by the Good Things Foundation, Age UK and others plays an important role in providing support with technology and the internet. Those charities supplement Government engagement by offering guides, training courses and volunteers to help people make the most of the internet.

I will address some of the issues raised around financial services. The Government recognise that digital payments play an incredibly important role for businesses and individuals, with many making payments faster, easier and cheaper. However, the Government also believe that all customers, wherever they live, should have appropriate access to banking and cash services. It is imperative that banks and building societies recognise the needs of all their customers, including those who still need to use in-person services. The Government legislated through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 to protect access to cash for individuals and businesses. The Act establishes the Financial Conduct Authority as the lead regulator and provides with it responsibility and powers to ensure that reasonable provision of cash withdrawal and deposit services is made, including free services for individuals.

The FCA recently consulted on proposals for its regulatory regime and expects to finalise its rules in the second half of the year. An alternative option to access everyday banking services can be made by telephone banking and via the Post Office or banking hubs. The Post Office allows personal and business customers to carry out everyday banking services at 11,500 Post Office branches across the UK, and banking hubs are a shared initiative that enables customers of participating banks to access cash and banking services in shared facilities.

The issue of local authorities was also raised. Digital inclusion interventions are included in a UK shared prosperity fund prospectus. That has allowed local authorities to allocate funding to digital inclusion interventions. That is because we know from key stakeholders that digital inclusion interventions work best when they are tailored to local needs and when support is provided in the community on an ongoing basis. I was surprised to learn of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who spoke about the disparity in non-digital access and cost discrimination. I did check, and I know that her Labour-led council are the ones in charge of this matter. I hope they are listening to this, and realise and appreciate that this is a priority for Government and that it should be a priority for them, too.

My hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) raised some important points about the switchover from the public switched telephone network. There was a wonderful plug for the all-party parliamentary group that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon runs, and I am sure that has been heard loud and clear. The fact is that the way that landlines work in the UK is changing. Communication providers, such as BT and Virgin Media, are upgrading their old analogue landline network—also known as the PSTN—to a new digital technology that carries voice calls over an internet connection, which is also known as Digital Voice. The decision to switch off the analogue landline network was made by the telecoms industry, and a transition to Digital Voice networks is an industry-led process, which is expected to conclude in 2025.

However, the Government were made aware of some serious shortcomings in how the telecoms industry managed the PSTN migration. As a result, the Technology Secretary convened a meeting in December 2023 with the UK’s leading telecoms providers to discuss ways to improve the protection of vulnerable households through the migration. In response, the major telecoms providers have now signed a charter committing to concrete measures to protect vulnerable households, particularly those using telecare alarms. That is a positive step, which we hope will ensure that safety continues to be at the heart of the nationwide switchover.

Let me turn to next steps. Digital skills permeate through every aspect of policy. I view it as part of a cross-Government agenda to integrate digital inclusion into all policy decisions, rather than a stand-alone issue. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) mentioned the cross-Whitehall ministerial group for loneliness; I can assure him that I attended a meeting last week. I chair the group on digital inclusion, and I will be addressing some of the issues that have been raised there. All Departments are considering the needs of people who are digitally excluded in their policymaking.

The ministerial group on digital inclusion first met in September. It discussed issues such as parking payments, website accessibility and device donation schemes. I am looking forward to hearing updates on those areas from my ministerial colleagues at our next meeting in three weeks’ time. Since our last discussion, the Department for Transport, which leads on the national parking platform, has already said that it expects the full features of the NPP to be available from late 2024, making parking simpler and less stressful. The group also agreed to undertake a departmental mapping exercise and to review the viability of each Department joining donation schemes. This work is an important step forward in our joint efforts to tackle digital inclusion, and I look forward to building on these conservations.

In closing, I again thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for raising such an important issue. I am hopeful that we can work together. We are working hard on this issue across Government and we have made some credible steps to tackle it. As the digital transformation picks up pace, we know that there is more to do to ensure that no one is left behind in our digital age, but we are already rising to that challenge. Departments forming the cross-Whitehall ministerial group will work hand in hand across Government, as well as with industry and our partners in the third sector, to deliver the benefits of a better digital future for communities all over the country.

17:27

[Justin Madders]

I thank all the Members who have spoken today. As the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), indicated, there is clearly a lot of interest in this area. A much longer debate would probably be in order, because we did not get enough time to fit in all the points that we wanted to.

It is worth referring to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee report last year, which said:

“Digital exclusion arises from a complex interplay of factors including age, socio-economic status, disability, geography, educational attainment, literacy and language, and housing circumstances.”

I think that covers most of the points that Members have raised today. In response, the Minister talked a lot about what the Government are doing in terms of access, skills and affordability, but the central point that I and a lot of other Members made was missed: some people, no matter how much the Government invest in these areas, will not be able to access services online, and there needs to be an offline, in-person option.

There is a significant group of people—whom we have all been talking about—who are in that category at the moment. They feel excluded from fully participating in society. It affects their independence and finances, and it can actually affect their health. What I ask for is a clear statement of principle from the Government, which we can all get behind, that all services—public or private—should be provided in-person where there is the opportunity to do so. Whatever we do here, there will always be those people who, for whatever reason, need to have that in-person dialogue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered digital exclusion.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.