Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 September 2024

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Planning Policy: Traveller Sites

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites.

It is a pleasure to hold this debate with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. My constituents are reasonable people; they totally understand and appreciate people’s wanting to live alternative ways of life, including nomadic lifestyles. I have lived all my life in my constituency, and the Travelling community has been part of the constituency for that whole period of time. We respect the contribution the community makes to our society, as long as communities are law-abiding and let other people peacefully enjoy their property, settlements and communities.

The real concern in my constituency is about a number of planning applications, and whether planning policies apply equally to local people and to other communities, including Travelling communities. The basic principle is that there is one law for all, rather than one law for one person and another for another person: the law applies equally to everyone in our communities and society. With some of the applications, there is a real feeling that that is not the case, and that contributes to a feeling that we are moving to a form of two-tier society, which would be a dangerous state of affairs.

Where some applications are being made, our local communities do not understand why planning policy is not being overseen equally, and there is a deal of anger about that. That is the case with a number of applications, including one at Sheriff Hutton, one near Rillington and a number of potential others. The applications are being considered, and in some cases recommended for approval, on the basis not of planning law but of other laws, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, as well as the European convention on human rights, which obviously has other consequences in different parts of our system.

Normal, law-abiding citizens go about a planning application in the appropriate way: they first find a site that suits their needs, before looking at planning policy and probably instructing an agent to act on their behalf, and they then submit an application before doing any work to that site. The application must conform to planning policy, or they will not get consent. They go through the various iterations of the planning process. It may take years to get planning consent for the property development, but hopefully at some point they get it. Most of my constituents respect the planning process and its outcomes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise to you, Dame Siobhain, and to the hon. Gentleman, because I have other engagements and cannot stay. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delicate balance to be struck between allowing travellers to carry on their way of life and ensuring that the community around them is not adversely affected relates not just to planning policy but to all policies? We want to foster Traveller communities that feel engaged in and a part of our communities; that can be achieved by building relationships and through a little bit of understanding.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is very reasonable. That is exactly the position that my constituents and I take: this is about fairness and applying the law equally. The Human Rights Act contains a requirement to consider the rights not just of the individual but of other people in such situations, but it seems that some applicants’ rights are given greater consideration than those of others. That is my biggest concern. This issue has been dealt with to some extent through planning policy, but that has not been sufficient to deal with some of the problems.

I have set out how someone who respects the law and the planning process might set about applying for planning permission. In some applications it has not been done that way. Some applicants purchase a site first, probably a roadside site, with or without access—they might create access. Sites in Sheriff Hutton and Rillington are in open countryside and not in a location where someone would normally get planning consent for such developments. The site is prepared with the access and hard standing, for example, which is not a major contravention of planning policy and not something the planning department might have too big a problem with at the time. There might be an agricultural building on the site, for example, and water and power put into the site. Preparation occurs.

Then one evening—overnight or on a bank holiday weekend when the people who look after these matters might not be in their offices—the site is occupied unlawfully without planning consent. Caravans might move on to the site, along with other equipment, and maybe toilet blocks are built overnight, which happened at one of the sites, and the site is occupied with a view to being occupied permanently. It is not a temporary position; the people occupying the site intend to occupy it permanently.

Then the planning authority has to go through an enforcement process following complaints from local people about the application. The planning authority’s wheels turn pretty slowly, which I think the people occupying the site are aware of, and enforcement measures take place. That might take months, during which time the community might experience some disturbance and real concerns are expressed.

When enforcement measures are taken, the owner of the land will submit a planning application retrospectively. Despite the flagrant breach of the proper planning process, the application is then considered as if it were made using the proper process. That is where it fundamentally goes wrong: the fact that the retrospective application is considered on the same grounds as though it were a normal lawful process is what is wrong. The application is made, of course, on the basis of the rights of the people occupying the site. The Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights are all cited in relation to the rights of the occupants—generally the families on that site who need healthcare and education. No one would doubt the need of the children and the people in need of healthcare to access such facilities. That is the basis of why the application should be considered, despite the fact that it is retrospective.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for graciously allowing a second intervention. Is he aware of the latest Irish Traveller accommodation strategy 2020-2025? If he or the Minister are not, may I suggest that they access it? It sets out guidelines to provide, in this case, Irish Travellers

“with access to good quality, culturally appropriate housing accommodation which fosters a sustainable, vibrant Traveller community”.

That allows the Travellers to enjoy their own lifestyle but at the same time consider the possibility of integration. Does he agree that perhaps those guidelines, which are from a different jurisdiction, might be helpful?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Perhaps understandably, this is not my policy area. I am holding this debate because it is a constituency issue. I am not particularly aware of the Irish rules that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But it is right to say that local planning authorities have a requirement to facilitate the peaceful enjoyment of people who live nomadic lifestyles. I support that totally. North Yorkshire should provide such facilities, and it does. That site is occupied despite the fact that there are available places on a designated Traveller site nearby. That is one of the concerns: there are other facilities available, but the person who made this application does not want to be on them. I believe they are misusing the planning policy. I have no objection to people’s right to live alternative lifestyles and to live in different ways in their own communities; what I object to is the misuse of the planning process.

The issue was dealt with, to some extent, by my very fine colleague—sadly, my late colleague—James Brokenshire when he was Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary. In February 2019, he published some new recommendations for planning authorities, stating that the intentional unauthorised development of a site should be considered a material point within a planning application. That is absolutely critical. He was saying, therefore, that the local planning authority had grounds to refuse the application on the basis that there was an intentional unauthorised development. Despite the North Yorkshire planning authority’s awareness of that requirement, it still recommended approval on this site, which I find astounding.

I find the whole situation astounding, and so do many of my constituents. It is important that we look at the facts. Members engaging in this debate and people watching it on Parliament TV may look at the application on the North Yorkshire portal—the planning reference is 22/00102/FUL. The things I am saying are based not on local rumours and concerns, but on the actual documented situation with the planning application.

The site in question is on Cornborough Road, about half a mile out of the village of Sheriff Hutton. It is in open countryside, and is outside the development plan. The application is for eight units of accommodation—four permanent breezeblock-built units, and permanent static caravans—and 12 car spaces. It has been occupied for three years without planning consent by a family with six children. Obviously, we respect their right to go about their lives in a way they feel appropriate, and we have every hope that those children will be properly educated and receive proper public services.

The planning officers, in their wisdom, decided to recommend the site for approval, with one significant condition: occupancy of the site was to be restricted to the family and their dependants—the adults on the site, the owners of the site and their children. Of course, those children will be adults one day, which means that the site could be occupied for many decades. The application also says that there could be a variation in the application for an extended family, for example, which could mean that the site is occupied for a very long time. Remarkably, the agent for the applicant objected to that condition, again on human rights grounds. It is clear that the site will be occupied in the very long term, and that there will be the ability to sell it on to someone else.

I think it is absolutely wrong that people can effectively drive a coach and horses through the planning system. My law-abiding constituents would not go about it in that way. Unless we deal with this situation properly, it will breed a sense of unfairness—the idea that there is one law for one and another for others. Unless we deal with the problem by clarifying the planning guidance, to ensure that anybody who is guilty of a flagrant abuse of the planning system cannot ever get planning consent on a site in that way, we will see more and more such applications, not in just my constituency but in constituencies around the country.

I know the Minister is freshly in the job. I welcome him to his place. He is a good man, and we have dealt with many things in the past, when our roles were reversed, so I know that he will look at this seriously. We have engaged on this particular matter already. Furthermore, my colleague the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is also experienced in these matters.

I urge the Minister to tighten the rules to ensure that our constituents, law-abiding citizens of this country, feel that we are on their side. Law-abiding people go about the planning process properly, and should not feel that we favour people because of abstract laws, laws potentially imposed on us by the UN convention on the rights of the child or the European convention on human rights—now embedded in our own Human Rights Act—which mean that some people are treated more fairly than others during the process. It is important that we act and that we clarify the planning process, so that people who act in that way can never get planning consent. That is the only way we will stop such rogue applications being submitted.

09:45

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this debate on a subject with which I am sure many hon. Members are familiar, although sadly that familiarity does not always come from a good place. Often it is driven by casework.

My understanding of the issues has been enriched by listening to the Traveller community in my constituency and hearing about the problems that they have experienced. I have heard the concerns about a two-tier system in planning, but it was interesting to hear, in a discussion on a long-standing site run by the council in my area, that they are not eligible for the right to buy, even though some of those families have lived there for 40-plus years. The idea that there is a two-tier system in planning ignores the fact that there is also a two-tier system for this very prejudiced-against group of people.

Too often our familiarity comes from lurid headlines that generate a lot of heat rather than shedding light on the problems experienced by a community facing discrimination and disadvantage across the board. It is important that we bear that in mind when we talk about the issue in the context of the planning system, and it is important that we are honest about the context of those problems. It is difficult to have a sensible discussion about how we best serve Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities when words like “incursion” are used and when groups of Travellers are repeatedly characterised as ruining picturesque landscapes, towns or villages, creating nuisance and disturbance, or somehow being above the rules.

Given that context, we need to be explicit in saying that, far from the invalidation and demonisation of such communities that we often see in the media, the planning system should support this group to live in the way that they choose. There has been an absolute failure to provide adequate sites for those who do travel. Stopping places simply have not been available, so it is no wonder that families are looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, that means a huge shortage of sites and pitches across the UK, particularly in England. As a result, in 2019 some 13% of caravans were on unauthorised land, as the organisation Friends, Families and Travellers reports. What we are seeing is not an incursion, but rather a forced displacement due to the lack of available sites for those who choose to travel.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely agree that sites should be made available, but may I reiterate the point that I raised? For the family I mentioned, sites were available. In fact, the family occupied a site at Tara Park in Malton until they moved on to that particular site, so it is not the case that no sites are available. There are also nearby sites in Osbaldwick in York. It is not as if there are no alternatives to occupying the site unlawfully. It is important to understand that.

[Olivia Blake]

That is why I think it is important that local authorities work with the community to understand their needs. There are many reasons why individual families may not feel able to be on a site. They may also want to create their own space and home, which I completely understand.

Rather than creating more sites, the previous Government moved to criminalise GRT communities through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Those laws should be repealed, in my view. We should be tackling the root cause of the issue: the failure of the system to support a diverse group of people who already suffer prejudice and discrimination. There is a lack of understanding about the realities for this group.

It is not just that we need new sites and more pitches; the ones that we have are not up to scratch. That is certainly true of the sites in my constituency: they are often segregated from settled communities and suffer problems with access to services, transport and schools. There is no path to reach the community that I represent, so children have to walk down a 60 mph road to get the bus to school. When the street lights were updated, for some reason the contractor did not realise that the council owned the properties, so the community has been living with poor-quality street lighting rather than LEDs. I hope that that will soon be resolved on the site.

That is the kind of suffering that we see in those communities. They are often seen as other, as different or as difficult to deal with. That is not true, in my experience. If we listen to the concerns of the community, we will see progress and clarity of responsibility, not only from the community itself but from the services that are meant to serve it. Decisions are often made to place sites in unsafe areas next to main roads, refuse destructors, traffic-laden areas, intersections of motorways, busy highways or railway tracks. There are many reasons that people would not want their children to be near those things. That has contributed significantly to the health, education and other social inequalities that we see in the community.

We have to acknowledge that the isolation and segregation are partly due to political pressure. We know that local authorities have not achieved what they should in terms of sites, options and working with the community as best they can. That is why this is not just a technical debate on planning laws; we have to talk about tackling attitudes as well. When the Caravan Sites Act 1968 gave councils a statutory duty to create sites, many people opposed having them in their area. To put it bluntly, the location of many sites today is a consequence of anti-Traveller racism. The site in my area is right on the edge of town, away from many services.

We need more sites and pitches, and we need to end the criminalisation of people living in a legitimate way, but we also need to work with the community and listen to their needs, understanding that they are individuals and have individual rights, as we all do. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton probably disagrees; he alluded to European human rights putting one group ahead of another. I disagree. I think that those rights protect us all and allow us all to have the individual rights and freedoms that we so richly deserve.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the principle. My point is that that is how the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act are framed, but it is not how things operate in practice. My constituents cannot occupy a field and build a house on it if it is in open countryside and not within the development limits of a village. They operate on that basis. Why should somebody else from a different community be able to occupy that site and develop it in a way that my other constituents, who work on a lawful basis, cannot? Why should that be the case?

[Olivia Blake]

The hon. Member highlights an important issue for his constituency that points to the failure in this space. I am not disagreeing, but I think we have to recognise that these rights come to the fore because of that failure, not the other way around. We really need to focus on that in our planning policies. We need to communicate with the community, work with them to understand their needs and make sure that those needs are being adequately met. We should not hold it against communities that have bought their own land; we should work with them to ensure they can go through the planning process adequately for their community needs and family needs.

We also need better integration within communities of amenities and services, and we need to end the criminalisation. To do that, we need to challenge anti-GRT attitudes and the lurid headlines that drive them. That would be a good start to ensuring that the planning system works for the community. I do not disagree with the idea that the planning system is broken, but I think there is certainly a better way into the conversation that starts with an understanding of all our communities, not just one or the other.

09:55

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. Sadly, this is an issue that creates perennial problems up and down the country; we never seem able to fix it. In my previous career as a journalist, I very often had to travel to areas where there was tension between local residents and Traveller groups, because the groups were established in a site that was inappropriate, was not legally designated and did not have planning permission. The local residents felt that it was not appropriate, that their lives were being disturbed, and that the behaviour was not what they were used to and they did not like it.

It still happens. Only this summer, we had an issue in my constituency with a Travelling community who parked close to a local community centre. That caused a great deal of concern in the local community, and it caused tension. It was unfair to both: it was unfair to the Travellers, because there was no designated site nearby—there is an insufficiency of such sites up and down the country—and the local residents had to put up with behaviour that made them extremely unhappy and caused them distress. It was the Travellers’ way of life, which they did not understand. That is not good enough. Neither community is right; neither community is wrong. I feel that they often blame politicians for failing to grasp the problem. Frankly, I think they have a point: we do fail to grasp the problem.

As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has recognised Gypsy and Irish Traveller communities as a distinct ethnic group, protected under the Equality Act 2010. But here we are in 2024 and nothing seems to have changed, so is it enough?

A part of me does not blame communities for being distressed or Travellers for being frustrated, because it seems like a hot potato that is just that fraction too hot to grasp; we would much rather just push it to one side. What that means is that nothing gets done until, as in my constituency this summer, there are problems and tensions. There were complaints about how animals were being treated, about human waste, about fly-tipping and about illegal parking, and then action was taken, but nothing was done beforehand. That should not be the case.

There is a problem with the alternative designated sites. The only option seems to be to wait, which is not good enough. In Scotland there is no specific legislation that protects people’s ability and right to live a travelling lifestyle. Yes, local authorities have powers to move communities on, but only when they have parked somewhere without the consent of the owner, under the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865, the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, there is no specific legislative framework and no specific planning permission framework that enables communities in particular areas to feel that their rights and way of life will be protected, or that enables Travellers to feel that their way of life is protected, as it is supposed to be under the Equality Act.

What is the solution? I have heard about the problems in England; they are slightly different in Scotland. In England, as I understand it, councils have to identify sites, but there are no consequences for them if they do not. I believe we need concerted action by the Governments in Holyrood, where appropriate, and in Westminster to ensure that local authorities have the resources, the backing and the legislative framework to provide a network of suitable legally designated sites across the UK with facilities in appropriate places, for the Travelling community to live the lifestyle that is protected under legislation, and for local residents to feel that they are protected from Travellers arriving and parking in an inappropriate place because there is no alternative.

It is time we stopped beating about the bush. We need to stop saying, “We won’t deal with it just now; we’ll deal with it next summer.” The first time I covered this story as a journalist was more than 30 years ago now, but very little has changed. Neither community feel in any way that the situation has been improved for them. It is time our Governments acted to do something about it.

10:00

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate. He spoke about a two-tier society. He spoke about one law for all of us. He spoke about being “on their side”—the side of the law-abiding community. I seek a one-tier society, frankly. I represent all citizens, as we all do in this House.

I declare my interest: I serve on Rugby borough council. All citizens, including the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, have an equal right to their housing needs being met; I have had that confirmed by officers, and I think we are all aware of that fact. Their right is equal to that of every other group within society—every other citizen. We should reflect on that.

I want to reflect briefly on a case that I was involved in, and it talks to some of the issues that have been raised by other hon. Members in this debate. Six applications relating to a site in my constituency came before the planning committee, which I served on. They were rejected, but the context is critical. Rugby borough council had not met its obligation to provide sufficient pitches for the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. They have a statutory obligation to do the surveys and ultimately to provide those pitches. They have failed to do that over many, many years.

They have tried calls for sites, as I am sure colleagues will be aware of, and those resulted in no sites being offered by local landowners. As I said, applications then come in. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to the case in his constituency. I appreciate that he said that proper sites are available and I accept that point, but in this case there were not.

Inevitably, the local community was very exercised and angry about these applications. The then Conservative-run local council, which had a majority on the planning committee, rejected those applications. I would argue that the rights of those citizens were not respected by that decision. Their rights to housing were not respected, and their additional rights, which have been referred to by other Members, were also not met. In a sense, they became second-class citizens.

Local authorities, such as the one I still serve on, need to be strongly encouraged—required, even—finally to provide the proper sites that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community need. I would be very interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Minister on this. Those sites need to be near amenities and services for education, transport and so on. Those need to be provided because if they are not, the situations that I experienced as a member of that planning committee, and that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton experienced, will reoccur, and the two communities will be in a continual state of conflict, which is bad for everybody.

Finally, let us listen to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community and do things in accordance with their needs. Let us not just do things to them—almost as if they were people who can just be dumped in particular sites because of the inconvenience of providing them with proper facilities and places to live—but treat them with dignity. Let us also listen to the settled community, whose needs and views are important as well, and do everything we can to bring communities together. But that simply will not be possible until local authorities, backed—I hope—by the Government, provide pitches and places where the GRT community can live with dignity and as equals within the communities that we, as Members, represent.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this important debate. We need a planning system that respects the rights of the Traveller community but also provides local authorities with the power to support good development, while being able to enforce their planning policy. When I served as a district councillor for 10 years and leader of a district council for five years, I saw the difficulties in securing adequate sites and integrating Traveller communities in areas where they were looking to settle.

I welcome the steps the previous Government took to strengthen the planning system, including passing the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which extended the period during which enforcement action can be taken against unauthorised development to 10 years in all cases. I also commend the last Government for bringing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which strengthens powers available to the police to tackle unauthorised encampments that cause damage, destruction or distress.

As my hon. Friend outlined, there are many examples across the country where the careful balance between Travellers, local communities and the environment appears to be incorrect. As a Member of Parliament, I do not intend to comment on routine planning applications as they are a matter for Bromsgrove district council. However, there is an ongoing case in my constituency that perfectly highlights many of the challenges associated with planning applications for Traveller sites. Travellers bought land and moved on to a rural greenfield site that had long been designated as amenity land, then retrospectively applied for planning permission. The local community are against the proposal and nearby parish councils have raised serious concerns about the suitability of the site, including poor and dangerous road access, loss of biodiversity, and a significant impact on a long-standing public right of way that runs through the land, where local residents are being harassed with antisocial behaviour and are unable to follow their usual route.

More importantly, and to the considerable worry of my constituents, in recent months there has been a large upswing in rural crime. That started in a minor fashion with the theft of chickens from a farm and we have seen theft of items from gardens, a massive surge in general antisocial behaviour and abuse of local residents, as well as the emergence of some much more significant elements of crime. As a result, I have engaged with local police and residents to try to tackle that specific issue, but of course the nub of the issue comes back to the fact that a piece of land was bought and a change of use application submitted, and residents are concerned that the system and public agencies often pass the buck.

This case has been stuck in the planning process for many months now, and the delay in any decision is causing significant further uncertainty and the emergence of community tension. It is clear to me that the system as it currently stands is not working for any of the parties involved, but that is in this specific case. I want to put on the record that I know there are thousands of Traveller communities across the country who are law abiding; they want to identify plots of land that they can occupy with their families and wider communities and where they want to integrate into the areas they are looking to settle.

I was elected on a mandate to protect the green belt across Bromsgrove, and my constituency was formerly 89% green belt. I am deeply concerned about the prospect of losing that green belt, which gives Bromsgrove its rural identity, including in greenfield sites of the kind I have already described. I fail to see how permitting unplanned Traveller sites on the green belt will do anything to protect the identity and cohesion of the rural communities that exist there. It has already been noted by hon. Members that the sites are often far away from local services, become car-dependent settlements, and suffer from a lack of footways and nearby schools. One important topic, which I saw during my tenure as leader of Wychavon district council, is that many of the Traveller families have children that need to go to school and they want their children to be able to go to school, but there is often a lack of local provision already, which puts an unsustainable strain on services and local amenities across our communities.

Those problems isolate communities, which are already remote from the services they access and may have a different social or economic identity relative to the areas they are looking to settle. That is all exacerbated by the broken planning system, which needs to work better with local police and other services to allow for a coherent public response, rather than having, as it seems to residents and as I have already mentioned, different public agencies passing the buck between each other, with no one able to get clear answers on where the responsibility lies for tackling the pressures that arise from the emergence of Traveller sites. Those sites are often outside of the conventional planning process where sites are identified, and problems emerge when new sites are bought and a retrospective planning application is put in.

The current regulations around the sites do not seem to support a culture in which permission is sought. Instead, quite often the culture appears to be one in which an action is taken and the sentiment is more of forgiveness being sought, rather than going through the usual process that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens follow—one in which we do our due diligence, put in a planning application, allow for communities and those affected to submit their comments in the usual way and go through the proper planning process. That is what frustrates my constituents the most. They go about their lives in a law-abiding fashion: if they want to put an extension on their property, they will apply for planning permission in the usual way, if it is not subject to permitted development already. There is a general feeling that a small number of Traveller communities—I stress “small number”—appear to ride roughshod over the system. That is not just to the detriment of affected communities: it really undermines the integrity of the planning system as a whole.

The planning system needs to work better across the board and with public agencies. We need to have a much more joined-up response to how we tackle this issue, particularly the impact of antisocial behaviour and rural crime. Residents and developers must work carefully within green-belt policy in the same way that Traveller communities must. We must get away from this perception that, whether it is because of a retrospective application, just a general disregard for planning policy or even, more broadly, a disregard for the law, people are able to queue jump while providing some of the worst forms of development. I sincerely hope that as the Government review planning policy over the coming months, they will look closely at all these issues and ensure we have a system that promotes good development in the interests of not just existing communities, but those Traveller communities looking to integrate and settle into our existing and quite often rural communities.

10:13

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for bringing forward this important debate. I have also listened carefully to the other hon. Members who have spoken today, and I appreciate that in some cases there is a misuse of planning. It is clear that we need the system to work better to tackle those attitudes.

I appreciate what the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) said, in that this is often seen as a difficult matter to deal with. But that should not be the case, and we need to ensure that sites are put in the right place to avoid segregation and isolation. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke passionately about how we have simply not progressed. Neither community feels represented, and we must seek to change that. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) spoke about the risk of the GRT community becoming second-class citizens and the need to find appropriate sites to stop the reoccurrence of conflicts. Let us engage with and listen to the GRT community and treat them with respect and dignity. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) raised his concerns, which I think we all share, about agencies passing the buck and the emergence of tensions.

In the space of a month, I have received correspondence about illegal Traveller sites from concerned constituents in Wincanton and Glastonbury, towns that are at the opposite ends of my constituency. The complaints are a symptom of the fact that Somerset, like most counties in the country, is facing huge challenges in properly supporting our GRT community. Friends, Families and Travellers, a national charity, received a response to its engagement campaign this summer which called for an increase in

“site provision for nomadic people, transient and permanent.”

I do not know if that respondent lives in Somerset but I would not be surprised if they did. Somerset has no transit provisions—none at all.

Members of the Gypsy and Traveller community, like all of us, have to travel across the country to attend funerals and weddings and to see family, but because we have no transit sites, and therefore nowhere for them to legally stay for short periods, the only way they can stop when passing through our sizeable county of Somerset is in the form of an unauthorised encampment. We only need to look at my casework to see that such encampments inflame tensions between my constituents and Travellers—some of whom are, of course, my constituents—and reinforce dangerous stereotypes.

With 91% of English local authorities having some form of GRT presence, we are unfortunately not alone in that, so it is alarming to see the trend growing nationally, either because local authorities are selling off sites or because they simply cannot afford to maintain them. I worry that we could soon find ourselves with huge distances between transit sites, which would make it impossible for Travellers to legally travel. That also harms our relationship with the GRT community, because then the only response that local authorities are left with is enforcement.

Not only do we need more transit sites; we need permanent pitches where members of the GRT community can stay longer than just three months. There are well-known, documented and dangerous knock-on effects of not providing the community with stability. While the community is naturally transient, it needs access to a permanent base. Without a permanent pitch or a brick and mortar address, it can be a struggle to access mental health support and GP appointments, which forces more people to use our overburdened accident and emergency services to access healthcare. It is tragic, but not surprising, that life expectancy for members of the GRT community is 10 to 25 years lower than for the general population and that the suicide rate for Traveller men is seven times higher than for settled men. We also know about the reduced attainment rates for those in education, with only 18% in GRT communities meeting the expected standard in their SATs last year.

Councils could avoid huge additional costs if they did not have to waste officer time dealing with complaints and cleaning up encampments. The case for providing permanent pitches is clear, and local authorities have a quota for delivering Traveller provision, but there is nowhere for them to obtain funding. Funding has recently taken the form of ad hoc grants that are too small and oversubscribed. If we expect local authorities to be able to maintain a constant and consistent number of sites, we must provide them with consistent and adequate funding. The Liberal Democrat manifesto pledged to ensure that all development has appropriate infrastructure, services and amenities in place, by integrating infrastructure and public service delivery into the planning process. This should also include the development of permanent pitches.

I was recently elected vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, which wrote to the then Government in the last Parliament to urge them to increase site provision. That Government failed to deliver sites, but the new Government could. The Liberal Democrats have a strong record of supporting the GRT community, but we want to work with colleagues to bring about an end to these systemic problems.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is making a very valid and interesting point, but she seems to think that it was central Government’s responsibility to provide Traveller sites—I think that is what she said.

[Sarah Dyke]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Okay, I have misunderstood. Perhaps she will clarify that she accepts that it is the local planning authority’s responsibility to provide these sites.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he misunderstands. I am fully aware that it is local authorities that provide Traveller sites, but the funding is not there for them to provide it. That is my case. As we know, over and over again, many local authorities find themselves on the brink. They are under such pressure at the moment. The crucial point is that they are unable to provide the resources within their remit. That is what was lacking in the last Parliament, and that is what we need to see from this new Government, to ensure that local authorities have the resources and the capabilities they need to provide sites for our Traveller community.

It was confirmed in the King’s Speech that this Government intend to reform our planning system. When they do so, they must not treat Gypsy and Traveller provision as an afterthought to bricks and mortar housing. Looking after this community is a housing requirement, not an add-on that can be addressed when there is more time and money. I would like the Government to introduce a statutory duty to provide sites, along with proper funding measures. With a reasonable approach to location and funding, this could be the single most transformative measure for Gypsies and Travellers in England. Our planning regulations and guidance are not fit to serve the community. The guidance dictates what local authorities need to deliver on a site, but it is not properly delivering that provision, which leads to the GRT community being viewed negatively and the community feeling less safe. The Government should make updating those documents a priority.

Finally, not all these problems can be solved with reforms or increased funding. The narrative from the previous Government was not constructive and made it challenging for local authorities to build meaningful dialogue. Over the last decade, Somerset and much of the rest of the country has seen a reduction in publicly owned sites, fewer community liaison officer roles in local authorities, a lack of new private sites, an increase in unauthorised encampments, a reduction in funding for site development, and political inertia slowing down pitch development. We need this new Government to provide real leadership and ensure that the needs of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community are met. We should engage with and treat our Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community with respect and dignity, and provide them with the sites they need to live their lives.

10:25

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing the debate. The contributions of all hon. Members have helped to illustrate both the complexity of this issue and its importance at community level.

Every local authority has a quasi-judicial role as a planning authority, in that it has to follow planning law and the relevant statutes, and my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have called for everyone to be treated equally before the law for the purposes of the planning process. That is clearly a complex challenge for our local authorities, which also have various statutory duties as housing providers. When considering an application, the local authority has to ensure that planning law is fully upheld, but it also has a role in designating sites on which Traveller pitches and other development may take place. Most of us will have experience of that matter—the situation at Jackets Lane in my constituency is almost identical to that described by my hon. Friend. Like many Members, I am fortunate to have two local authorities with full housing revenue account, local authority-maintained Traveller pitches, as well as privately designated sites.

However, it is understandable that, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—I have experienced this in my own home—the sites can cause a great deal of community concern, given some aspects of the behaviour of individuals associated them. We cannot simply say that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community is one community. In my constituency, there are settled Travellers, who have chosen to occupy a bricks and mortar home and may require family members who are travelling to be able to stay close to them at certain times of year. There are people with much more ancient lifestyles, particularly among some of the Roma and traditional Gypsy community, whose requirements are very different. All our local authorities need to be flexible, and communities need to be aware of those distinctions, so that the responses that we put in place are appropriate.

We all accept that provision will be inadequate for some individuals, and that there may not be a spot on a local authority-provided site when they arrive. Indeed, the behaviour of some, who may not even be UK residents but who can arrive in large numbers and undertake unlawful and illegal incursions, can significantly affect the reputation of other members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked an important question in the context of parliamentary proceedings: how can something that is either unlawful or, in some cases, specifically illegal in planning law be rendered lawful by other considerations? If a property developer were to purchase the field and seek to build a mansion, there would be rigorous enforcement against them. If a developer sought to build family homes, or a care home, there would be rigorous enforcement against them. Why is it, therefore, that other elements of our law allow one individual to bypass the statutory planning process and rules, especially when the site may subsequently be sold to another occupier? How can we ensure that those elements do not create a back door to flouting the planning rules? I have personal experience of a developer who cited diplomatic immunity as a reason why the local authority could not carry out enforcement action against structures built on agricultural land.

Given the enormous remediation costs associated with abuses of the planning process, it is not surprising that many local authorities are extremely concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, with his experience as a local authority leader, described. We can all think of examples. A site may be used for housing development after illegal occupation, or it may, for example, be used for waste disposal. Buckinghamshire council, on the border of my constituency, was faced with having to clean up a site that a group of Travellers had purchased from a farmer and then used to dispose of asbestos and hazardous waste, which was removed at enormous cost—a multimillion-pound cost—to the taxpayer.

In all such cases, there is a common issue: the local authority’s inability to use swift and robust enforcement powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, once a site is occupied and the use becomes established, it is very difficult to change that in the way the community would expect. During the recent general election campaign, I delivered leaflets to properties that formed part of an illegal encampment— because those individuals had been there for so long, they were on the electoral roll. Other residents in the community asked, “How is it that all these processes that are designed to make sure everyone follows the law can come together in a way that enables those rules to be flouted?”

On behalf of the official Opposition, I extend an offer to the Minister, who has taken an incredibly constructive approach to all the issues in his portfolio. Members on both sides of this debate have made constructive contributions and have set out ideas about how we can more effectively address the broad sweep of concerns that arise from this issue. My constituents are affected by an unauthorised encampment in the Hog’s Back, and have expressed great frustration that the local authority planning notice that applies to the site has effectively been bypassed as the individuals have moved to another part of the site. Those kinds of things understandably create a public backlash, as people feel that the law is not working effectively and is not on their side.

It is one thing for local authorities to have to resort to section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with illegal and unauthorised encampments that are causing a nuisance, but activity that can become established through the passage of time needs to be dealt with differently. I suggest to the Minister that, as we work together on that, we should also consider the operation of things such as the planning conditions that apply in national parks. My hon. Friend has the North Yorkshire Moors and the Yorkshire Dales national parks near his constituency. It is common to apply to national parks specific planning conditions that do not operate in other areas, such as conditions around the occupation of new homes by agricultural workers. Again, that provides scope for abuse of the planning system. For example, a developer could build a property purportedly for agricultural worker use and then say they wish to convert it to a holiday let or an extended family home.

There is also the wider issue of ancillary uses, which my hon. Friend referred to. When a piece of land is in the green belt, perhaps with agricultural designation, there are always opportunities for a prospective applicant to say that they need a barn for their farming business or a sports pavilion because they hope to use the land for sporting activity. That potentially enables a property footprint to be established. In planning terms, conversion of that—legalisation of the occupation—follows later, to the dismay of local residents, who then question the effectiveness of the planning system. The scope for the use to become established and the property to be sold on for profit in a way that is not available to developers who seek to work within the system remains a significant cause for concern.

I thank all Members who have contributed to this balanced debate, which has highlighted many angles to the way in which this policy interacts with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller and settled communities. I urge the Minister to make the best use possible of the expertise of Members across the House and ensure that, as we move to update planning law, we have effective enforcement powers in place so that all our residents—all our constituents—have confidence that they will be treated equally before the law in the way that Parliament expects.

10:34

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I formally congratulate you on your honour—I have not had the chance to do so yet.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate and thank him for the characteristic clarity with which he made his case. I also thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Rugby (John Slinger) for their contributions. Lastly, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his thoughtful remarks, and warmly welcome him to his place. I will certainly take away the specific points that he raised. More widely, I look forward to working with him, as he said, on a constructive basis wherever possible.

I must make it clear at the outset that, while I noted the specific case that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised—and indeed other cases that have been raised today—I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual plans or applications due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister. I therefore propose to make some general comments about national planning policy as it relates to Traveller sites and specifically the role of local planning authorities, including in respect of enforcement, within that national framework, thereby addressing many of the points that have been raised today, while recognising that this is an incredibly complex area of policy and law, particularly as it relates to individual cases.

Turning first to national planning policy, the Government’s approach to Traveller site provision is set out in the planning policy for Traveller sites policy paper, which should be read in conjunction with the national planning policy framework and has the same policy status as it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam, and others, raised a number of wider issues outside the subject of this debate, but I reassure her that the Government’s overarching aim is to meet the housing and accommodation needs of all communities in our society, and that we are committed to ensuring fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life, while respecting the interests of the settled community.

The policy paper in question makes clear that local planning authorities should set pitch targets for Gypsies and Travellers to address the accommodation needs of Traveller communities within their area. Specifically on the points made around human rights law, that is often engaged when a proposed development is closely linked to a particular person’s interests. In the case of Gypsy and Traveller developments, the right to respect for private and family life under the European convention on human rights, and in relation to the rights of the child, under the Children Act 1989 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, are often engaged. However, such considerations can be addressed by planning adequately for Traveller pitches to meet needs, and that is ultimately through the local plan process.

I think that that touches on a wider issue. In respect of the community that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton represents, for example, the North Yorkshire emerging local plan is in its very early stages. We need to see local plans across the country come forward in short order. We want to achieve universal coverage, but we need to see those plans progress because they are the best way that local communities can shape developments in their areas.

I noted the points made by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on funding, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby regarding the concern, which I do recognise, that local planning authorities do not face sufficient consequences for failing to adequately plan for those pitches. That is a concern raised in other areas, and, typically, as I am sure my hon. Friend will know, the penalty for not having a local plan in place—for not adequately providing for sites—is that a local authority will leave itself open to speculative development or retrospective applications. However, I appreciate that that does not address the specific challenges covered in this debate in the way that it does with more conventional planning applications.

The policy paper also states that local planning authorities should consider the existing level of and local need for sites, and the availability of alternative accommodation, among other relevant matters, when considering planning applications for Traveller sites.

I appreciate that the specific case that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised did not concern a green-belt site—as far as I understand it—but hon. Members may find it useful if I provide some detail on the proposals that we have set out in relation to Traveller sites as part of our proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system.

As hon. Members are aware, we are consulting on a range of policy changes to ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose, supports the right development in the right places, and is able to deliver on the Government’s growth agenda. They include changes to green-belt policy to enable the targeted release of low-quality grey-belt land to meet unmet housing and other development needs. Those policy proposals will not compromise our environmental objectives or undermine the overall function and purpose of the green belt, but will support opportunities for development in areas of highest need and deliver tangible benefits to local communities and nature through our golden rules.

We intend that the proposals will address unmet need for Traveller sites and we are seeking views, through the consultation, on how the policy will operate. To be clear, that is a departure from the current policy position on the green belt set out in both the NPPF and the planning policy for Traveller sites policy paper, but we believe that it better supports the development needs of our communities and contributes to sustainable growth.

However, we will consider all these matters carefully and will finalise our position after considering the consultation responses and following targeted engagement with the key stakeholders, including specialist planning consultants, charities representing the interests of the Traveller community and professionals working in this space.

As part of wider changes to national planning policy, we will also consider how planning policy for Traveller sites should be set out in the future, including which aspects need to form part of the suite of proposals for national development management policies introduced in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

I now turn to the role of local planning authorities. Although the Government are responsible for setting the legislative and policy framework within which the planning system operates, including the national planning policy framework and the planning policy document for Traveller sites, it is for local planning authorities, who know their communities best, to prepare local development plans and make decisions in accordance with such adopted plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

I hope hon. Members appreciate that when it comes to police enforcement of unauthorised encampments, that is a matter for the Home Office and not for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, I can certainly pass back some of the concerns and the comments made to my colleagues in the Home Office.

When it comes to enforcement more generally, local planning authorities have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove mentioned, these powers were strengthened by reforms introduced in the 2023 Act, which were implemented earlier this year. Those reforms included longer time limits for enforcement action, and action to address a loophole with retrospective development, so that there is only one opportunity to appeal.

On the basis of the available powers, it is for local authorities to decide what action, if any, to take, depending on the particular circumstances of each case. That would include intentional unauthorised development, which would be weighed by decision makers in the determination of planning applications and appeals, as I recall the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioning. Ultimately, however, it is for individual local planning authorities to determine what weight they should afford to a relevant consideration based on the circumstances of a particular case, rather than Government mandating them to follow a particular course of action.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I support potential revisions to enforcement powers to give perfect clarity about how enforcement can happen in these circumstances. However, I want to touch on the Minister’s last point about intentional unauthorised development. Currently, that is dealt with as part of planning law, through a ministerial statement, rather than being formally in the NPPF—nevertheless, that does apply. Is he happy to maintain that situation, or will he look at that again? It is very important that that does form part of planning policy. Otherwise, planning authorities would have even fewer levers at their disposal to make sure that this kind of development does not happen. The problem is not planning policy; it is people who subvert the policy through other devices.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. To answer him directly, on national development management policies, which I mentioned, we stated in the NPPF consultation—which is still open and closes on 24 September—that we were committed to creating NDMPs to provide more certainty and consistency about decision making in a range of areas. As part of that, we will look at all existing national policies, including the policy in relation to unintentional authorised development, as set out in the 2015 written ministerial statement.

I hope that gives the hon. Member some reassurance that as part of bringing in those NDMPs, we are looking at that particular issue, which I do understand. Those NDMPs will have to consulted on, so hon. Members from all parties will have an opportunity to feed in their thoughts about whether we have got the policy right in any particular area.

I thank the hon. Member again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss these matters, and I thank other hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I genuinely welcome and look forward to further engagement on this issue with Members across the House. In the interim, I encourage all hon. Members with an interest in how national planning policy relates to Travellers to respond to the consultation on a revised NPPF before the deadline of 24 September.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call Kevin Hollinrake to wind up.

10:44

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the Front Benchers for their excellent contributions. The tone of the debate was generally very constructive. I think we are all on the same page in terms of local planning authorities having to fulfil their requirement to make sure that suitable provision is made for people who live different and nomadic lifestyles. I thank the hon. Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for their points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) touched on the key point: we cannot have a planning system where it is easier to apologise than to ask permission. If that is the case, it creates chaos in the system. Everybody can play by those rules, and there will be chaos in terms of planning applications and wider society. It undermines faith in the system. That is the point I want to make. Whatever the protected characteristics of certain communities, it cannot be the case that in our society there is one law for one and another for another. That feeds the perception that we operate a two-tier society, and that cannot be right. It undermines the entire system.

I hope that the Minister will look at two things. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly said, we should continue to look at bolstering enforcement powers. I also make it crystal clear that the recommendation for the planning application I mentioned was for approval despite the fact that the written ministerial statement from February 2019 said that intentional unauthorised development should be a material consideration in a planning application. Nevertheless, the planning officers recommended approval, which I think was totally wrong. I congratulate the planning committee who still rejected the application, but that might well go to appeal. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to look at the full context of this. I hope he will make it even clearer in planning policy that somebody who is guilty of intentional unauthorised development will never be given consent for their application when there is such a clear abuse of process, and that that will not be tolerated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites.

10:47

Sitting suspended.

Rural Bus Services

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I will call Sarah Dyke to move the motion, and I will then call 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.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered bus services in rural areas.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain.

Bus services in rural areas provide a crucial lifeline to many of my constituents. They link communities to hospitals, shops, high street services, and leisure and social activities. They take students to school and college, and they take adults to work. But there has been a worrying trend of decline over the past decade. Research from Channel 4 found that bus provision has decreased by 28% across England since 2011. There has been action from the previous Government, such as investing £3.5 billion into services since the pandemic and introducing the £2 fare cap, but that has been insufficient to arrest the decline.

The loss of services is especially prevalent in rural areas, and it detrimentally impacts those who live there. Rural bus service users travel an average of 47% further compared with their urban counterparts. They travel for longer, and their routes are funded less per head than those in urban areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; the turnout here in Westminster Hall is an indication of its importance for rural areas. I commend her on her diligence in this matter. Strangford has issues similar to those in the hon. Lady’s constituency: we have students who must travel up to 45 minutes on the bus to get to their local secondary schools. For those doing GCSEs and A-levels, staying in school later to study can become increasingly popular around exam times. Does the hon. Lady agree that more needs to be done to support schoolchildren who live in rural areas who perhaps are required to be in school earlier and leave later due to exams?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is an issue that I will come to later.

Budgeted local authority expenditure per resident in rural areas is on average £11.68, compared with £20.22 in urban areas. A report from the County Councils Network partly blamed how the previous Government’s national bus strategy apportioned funding. It found that two thirds of the funding went to urban areas, despite these areas having seen lower declines in passenger numbers than rural areas. It also found that councils in rural and county areas were experiencing a £420 million shortfall in their transport budgets, impacting their ability to subsidise operating routes regarded by the operator as commercially unviable.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for that point and for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Where rural areas in Northern Ireland do not have a central bus connection or even a bus route at all, organisations and individuals rely on community transport organisations, such as South Antrim Community Transport in my own constituency, to pick up the slack. That organisation takes people to hospital appointments and makes sure they can get their shopping where there is not a central bus service supporting those rural areas at all.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Once again, I will come to that a little later.

I have spoken previously in this place about the rural premium that residents are forced to pay because they live in the countryside. The severe lack of decent bus services just increases people’s reliance on private cars, which they of course need to fill with fuel and maintain, thus increasing that premium. The Countryside Alliance research from 2022 found that rural households were spending almost £800 a year more on fuel than people in urban areas, and up to 6p more per litre of fuel.

Before I move on, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Somerset councillor. Somerset council receives around £25.15 per head from central Government to invest in bus services, while Campaign for Better Transport research reveals that 12 local authorities get around double that. One local authority receives more than £300 per head to spend on bus services.

Rural areas have a multitude of factors resulting in poor public transport connections. The lack of funding, sparsity of routes and smaller population centres have resulted in one in four bus routes ceasing to exist in county and rural areas over the 11 years between 2010-11 and 2021-22. A 2021 survey of rural residents revealed that only 18% felt they had access to frequent and reliable bus routes; 44% felt that bus routes had decreased over the previous three years; and 38% said that they did not use buses at all, due to the lack of frequent services.

That illustrates one of the issues that providers in rural areas consistently grapple with when trying to increase provision or save existing bus routes. Rural bus routes are less profitable, due to the smaller patronage. That means that routes are likely to be removed from service or be infrequent, so local people simply do not have the faith they need to use the local bus network. They do not trust that a bus will arrive, or know when it will arrive, so patronage drops, resulting in the route closing.

Key to improving the journey experience is providing easy access to information about bus timetables, clean buses, improved bus stops and bus stations, integration with other modes of transport, and giving priority to buses, especially in and around urban areas.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I just wanted to say—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I ask the Member to stand?

[Dr Opher]

Sorry. We have experienced a lot of problems with cross-border rural buses in our area. The hon. Lady mentioned local authorities. If there are two local authorities, it creates enormous problems. In Wotton-under-Edge, we have just lost the 84/85 bus service because we cannot get agreement from all the different local authorities to fund it. That is putting a severe strain on rural populations. I would ask for that to be considered.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree that collaboration with contiguous authorities is crucial. We must also provide confidence in bus services to increase footfall and make them more sustainable. I would like to thank the Somerset Bus Partnership for all the work it does to promote bus travel in my county.

In Glastonbury and Somerton, and across Somerset, we are facing a near-constant annual cycle where bus routes are threatened with closure and changes. Every year, the council and bus companies negotiate to come to an agreement to keep the route open for another year. If an agreement is reached, the bus route is saved for a whole cycle of events, until that cycle of events starts again, as a contract comes up for renewal a year later.

Earlier this year, I campaigned to save the 54, 58, 58A, 25 and 28 bus routes, which run through my constituency. Thankfully, Somerset council and First Bus South were able to reach an agreement to keep the routes, but some have had timetable changes imposed on them. Inevitably, some of those routes will be under threat yet again when the agreement needs renewal later this year. That is simply unsustainable.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

The reintroduction of funding for the Trowbridge to Bath bus service by Bath and North East Somerset council was vital for villages such as Freshford in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that cash-strapped local councils are going to need confirmed, long-term funding commitments to help support those vital services?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I could not agree more; it is crucial that local authorities are given the funding they need to provide these essential services. Local authorities are once again currently waiting for further information regarding the future of various sources of funding they receive from central Government. I submitted a written question to the new Government in July regarding the future of the bus service improvement plan and BSIP Phase 2 funds. While the response affirmed a commitment to improving bus services as part of their growth mission, it failed to provide specific details of plans.

Rural areas desperately need to see plans and to have those assurances of how vital services can continue to run. Earlier this week, the Government laid forward a statutory instrument that opened up bus franchising for all local authorities in England. I welcome the Government’s ambition to fix the country’s broken buses, but they must understand that bus services outside urban areas face different problems.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Of the 68 settlements in Huntingdon, eight currently do not receive a bus service at all, including Brington, Bythorn, Covington, Holywell, Keyston, Molesworth and Southoe. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s proposed introduction of bus franchising must make provision to ensure that those rural communities are included as the new routes are devised?

[Sarah Dyke]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Rural bus services need to be given proper funding. They are so crucial to our residents and must be aligned with those urban resources, because there are different problems, as I mentioned.

Rural areas often see low passenger numbers, but those who use the bus services are absolutely reliant on them. The previous Government, in their bus back better plans made a commitment to providing

“guidance on the meaning and role of ‘socially necessary’ services, expanding the category to include ‘economically necessary’ services”.

That did not happen, leaving more uncertainty about the future of the services and failing to provide the protection they need. Will the Minister provide specific guidance on the protection of bus routes for social and environmental reasons?

In my constituency and in other rural areas across the country, there are people for whom bus services are an absolute lifeline. One family from Templecombe told me that their daughter—a single mother who cannot drive due to a medical condition—relies on the 58 bus to take her children to school and college. They rely on the same bus to see their GP in Milborne Port and to get to Wincanton. Thankfully, that route is saved for now, but that one example demonstrates how crucial buses are for those who are reliant on them. That is why, in the last Parliament, I tabled the Public Transport (Rural Areas) Bill, which would have set a minimum service level for the provision of public transport in rural areas, ensuring that people have access to major sites of employment, education and leisure.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member on her efforts this morning. In Upper Bann this year, it is evident that rural children have been disadvantaged, with some children left standing on the side of the road without transport to school because of capacity issues and a lack a planning. Does she agree that that is unacceptable, whether in Upper Bann in Northern Ireland or in her constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton, and that rural people should not be disadvantaged in that way?

[Sarah Dyke]

That was the exact point of the Public Transport (Rural Areas) Bill: to make sure there is a service level agreement so people can travel where they need to go, particularly for education and work. The economic benefits public transport brings can be huge. Research from the Confederation of Passenger Transport measured the economic benefits buses bring, finding that every £1 that Government spend on better services and bus priority schemes can secure economic benefits of up to £4.55.

We must recognise that in rural areas alternative forms of bus routes can play a major role in ensuring that type of access remains. The Liberal Democrats made a commitment in our manifesto to supporting and encouraging alternative services such as on-demand buses. Those types of buses have already been rolled out across certain areas of my constituency to great success.

For instance, the Slinky service is a door-to-door demand-responsive transport service funded by the council. It operates in the Langport and Somerton area and the council is currently trialling a digital offering, aiming to make the service easier to access. The Liberal Democrats have also committed to keeping bus routes affordable by retaining the £2 fare cap while fares are reviewed. I invite the Minister to comment on whether an announcement will be made on the future of the bus fare cap post-31 December.

The Liberal Democrats recognise the need to support local authorities and bus companies to switch their offering to zero emission buses. Buses have a key role to play in tackling climate change and meeting our decarbonisation targets. Research commissioned by the Confederation of Passenger Transport found that if we all took the bus instead of the car just twice a month, we would create a reduction of 15.8 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2050.

Britain is at the forefront of the green bus transition in Europe, and bus services are outpacing other road vehicles such as cars, vans and trucks in decarbonising. However, take-up varies between regions and is more challenging for smaller and rural bus operators, which may struggle with the cost of financing new vehicles and the necessary infrastructure. The UK’s 2050 carbon reduction commitment relies on a transition to zero emission vehicles but also a modal shift to public transport, and we must ensure that rural areas are included in that. With assistance from the Government, we welcomed a new fleet of 25 electric buses to our roads in Somerset earlier this year. They are much needed, and we must ensure that the transition continues and rural areas are not forgotten.

I turn to the need to include buses in integrated travel plans across rural areas, especially those that are poorly connected to the rail network. The new Government have thrown doubt on rail projects around the country by cancelling the restoring your railway fund, and residents in my constituency who worked hard to bid into the fund are devastated that the proposed station in the Langport and Somerton area could be scrapped as a result. That area has the longest stretch of rail between London and Cornwall without a connection to the rail network, and delivering a station there would provide 50,000 residents with access to trains and drive economic growth. We must provide a train station in the area, but the journey to delivering a station must include integrating local bus services into existing train stations in Castle Cary, Bruton, Taunton and Yeovil, just outside my constituency. We know that there is demand for a train station, and we want the opportunity to prove it.

There is currently no direct bus between Langport and Somerton and Castle Cary, so people wishing to access rail at Castle Cary need to change, which makes the shortest journey time around one hour and 17 minutes. By private car, that journey would take no more than 30 minutes. There are also no public transport links between Street and Glastonbury and Castle Cary station. Taunton station can be reached by changing at Somerton. Many residents have reached out to tell me that they need a dedicated bus service from Glastonbury to Castle Cary station. Again, that route would take less than 30 minutes by private car, but the available bus options require using up to three different buses, taking two hours.

That type of offering makes it impossible for people to consider taking buses to access the rail network for work or education, making people more reliant on their private cars and making decarbonisation targets harder to achieve. We can take some quick steps, such as reviewing timetables to ensure that rail services are better integrated with local bus services, and we must work with local bus companies to put on services and create bus stops that are branded as rail links.

It has been proven that integration of bus and rail can grow patronage for operators of both while opening up new opportunities to connect communities across Somerset. There are good examples in Devon and Cornwall demonstrating that this works, and evidence shows that communities feel better connected to the rail network as a result. The new Government have promised to develop a long-term strategy that will create unified and integrated transport systems. Bus and rail links must be a central part of that strategy in rural areas, and local authorities must be given the support to work with key stakeholders to make this a reality.

For too long, buses have been in decline. They have been unsustainable, inaccessible and unreliable, and have failed to meet the needs of those who use them, but there is a way forward that can deliver opportunities for people in rural areas. I believe that the integration of public transport must form a major part of new plans, and I am eager to hear from the Minister how the new Government will provide rural communities with the services that we need in both the short and the long term. We must protect crucial existing routes, make bus travel fairer for rural residents and explore new avenues to make rural bus travel more sustainable, accessible and flexible.

In addition, any powers passed to local authorities must come with funding or any changes will, frankly, flop badly. It is not clear how areas that are not local transport authorities will be able to get involved. We must also recognise the crucial role that bus travel has to play in meeting decarbonisation targets, encourage modal shift from private cars to buses, and improve bus and rail integration. People should be able to get by bus where they want to go, when they want to go, and their journey should be reliable, comfortable and affordable.

11:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I want to start by thanking the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this debate on the important issue of bus services in rural areas. She has been a committed champion for her constituents when it comes to local bus provision. She has worked hard to try to prevent cuts to essential bus services in her constituency, as reflected in her speech.

Access to reliable and affordable public transport is a lifeline for communities across England, whether for getting to work or education, accessing essential services, or seeing family and friends. I want to make sure that no matter where someone lives—whether it is in one of our cities or in a rural area in England such as Glastonbury and Somerton—they have access to buses that they can depend on. Britain needs a modern transport network that reaches every corner of the country to help kick-start economic growth. Many people feel let down by bus services and that is often exacerbated in rural areas.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that rural voices are heard in their plans to empower local communities to influence and shape bus services, because of the specific issues that rural communities face in terms of the bus services they need?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Our announcement on Monday that all local transport authorities—not just those in mayoral combined authorities—will be able to explore franchising will enable just that. It will enable local leaders to take back control of their buses and set fares and routes, taking careful consideration of their local communities, including the rural aspects of some of them.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the Minister and his Department commit to working with me to bring back the 503 National Express service, which served my town of Launceston in North Cornwall and ran through to Exeter and London? The community in Launceston and other towns in North Cornwall have been left without any connection to Exeter and London.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will certainly explore that with the hon. Member. Obviously it is a decision for the commercial operator whether to continue that service, but I am happy to explore that with him outside today’s debate. I will crack on now, because I have limited time.

For too long bus users have been subjected to a postcode lottery when it comes to the quality of their services. That is not just an inconvenience but a barrier to opportunity and growth. Our plan aims to end that disparity and ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, has access to dependable public transport.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

Very briefly.

[Ellie Chowns]

The inequality in funding between rural and urban bus services that the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) highlighted is of enormous concern to my constituents in North Herefordshire. Rural bus services need more support per head than urban ones; they are less commercially viable. Will the Minister commit to reversing that inequality?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. We are committed to simplifying the plethora of different funding pots that are available for buses. We hope to deliver more long-term funding for local authorities and devolve to them the power to decide where the money is spent.

The Government have set out an ambitious action plan to deliver better buses, grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. A core part of that plan was announced in the King’s Speech: the passing of a buses Bill. We are introducing the Bill in this Session because we want to see change as quickly as possible. On Monday, we announced a package of franchising measures to support local leaders to deliver better services for passengers in advance of the buses Bill. The first measure is the publication of a consultation document, which will gather views on proposed updates to the bus franchising guidance. The second measure was the laying of a statutory instrument that will open up bus franchising to all local transport authorities and reduce barriers. Later in the Session, we will introduce the Bill, which will be designed to put power back in the hands of local leaders right across England and ensure that networks meet the needs of people who rely on them, including in rural communities.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I need to make progress.

The Bill alone will not remove all the challenges facing the bus sector, so the Government will take further steps to deliver more reliable and accessible bus services. Those will include giving local authorities more flexibility and control over bus funding, so they can plan for the long term and deliver on local priorities. We also want to provide safeguards over local networks, to raise the standard of the services that passengers should expect to receive.

The Government know that what each community needs from its public transport network is unique, and we want to empower local leaders to work with operators to design networks that meet their needs. It is great to see that that work is already under way in Somerset, with the trial of the Slinky digital demand-responsive transport service. Somerset county council has also introduced some great local schemes that aim to encourage people on to buses.

Through our plans, we will support and empower local transport authorities to take back control by working in collaboration with bus operators and passengers to deliver bus services for passengers.

[Helen Grant]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. In my Maidstone and Malling constituency, local bus companies Arriva and Nu-Venture tell me that a significant reason for the lack of services is the lack of drivers, and that speeding up the process for granting provisional licences could make a real difference. Will the Minister look at that?

[Simon Lightwood]

I pushed for that when I was in opposition, and we did some consultation just before the general election. We are busy looking at the feedback and will report on it in due course.

Under the Government’s action plan for buses, we will step in and ensure that local bus networks provide more accountability over bus operators, so that standards are raised wherever people live across the country. Making fares as affordable as possible is one of the Government’s top priorities. As the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton said, the £2 fare cap is due to run out on 31 December. We are looking carefully and at speed at what to do in the future to support bus networks.

Local authorities, bus operators and passengers are eager to hear more details of our plans, and I assure them that we are working at pace to consider how we might best support buses in all areas, including rural communities, in our upcoming spending review. We will work closely with local authorities and bus operators to understand what is needed to improve and grow bus networks.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am just about to finish, but go on—I have given way to everyone else.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister consider the health impact of rural bus networks? Rural settings are very different from urban ones, and given the serious health implications of isolation and loneliness, particularly among older people, good bus connections can have an impact. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) talked about balancing the rural-urban funding divide. It is so much more important that bus services are subsidised in rural areas.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said, it is important that local leaders get to decide—that they take back control of bus services, use the funding that is devolved to them and make informed decisions in their local areas.

We want to learn from the experiences and build on the successes, and I look forward to announcing more information on the buses Bill and the Government’s plans for bus funding in due course.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member needs to sit down. This issue is clearly of much concern in many constituencies across the country. It could be appropriate for a group of Members to get together and submit an application for a 60 or 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall, which would give Members the opportunity to make their cases and the Minister enough time to respond to their concerns. I am not formally requiring that of anybody, but I suggest that it might be a useful mechanism.

Question put and agreed to.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Rural Depopulation

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]

14:55

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call Torcuil Crichton to move the motion.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered depopulation in rural areas.

Tapadh leibh, Ms Vaz; thank you. It is an honour to have you in the Chair. I thank all colleagues for their attendance and support in what I am sure will be an illuminating 90-minute debate. Staging your first Westminster Hall debate is a bit like throwing a birthday party and wondering whether anyone will turn up—at least we know there is not a depopulation crisis in Westminster. I also thank the Minister for taking this debate. It may not seem obvious at first what the demographics of the Western Isles have to do with the Home Office, but if she bears with me, I will explain and expand on why this issue, which now affects the periphery of the UK, influences the entire economy and should inform the decisions that we make at national level on immigration.

First, let me give some context. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Western Isles, we are in the middle of a depopulation crisis, and I am here to sound that alarm. We are painfully aware of what is a rapidly changing population. An older, strongly Gaelic-speaking demographic is passing on, and we see the rapid out-migration of younger, economically active families. They sometimes face insurmountable challenges: being priced out of housing and facing failing transport connections, stuttering health provision and childcare and a host of other issues, which weigh heavily in the scales of deciding whether to stay or go. And while we sound the warnings at home, the lights should be flashing on the dashboard in this place, too, and in offices across Whitehall. That is why I am staging this debate—to highlight the fact that we are simply running out of people to take up key public sector and private sector posts to keep our islands going. That affects the viability of vital services and it ill serves the local economy and the national one, too.

Just to give some further context, the estimated population of the Western Isles is 26,200. That represents a 5.5% decrease since the 2011 census and the highest percentage decrease in Scotland. According to estimates from the Western Isles health board, which has an obvious interest in this issue from a staffing and care point of view, the working-age population of the islands is set to decrease by 6% by 2028, while the over-75 population with the highest levels of comorbidity—people who have more than one illness—is set to rise by 25%. The situation is frightening. According to the board, these population changes will result in a year-on-year reduction in the available workforce—nurses and care staff—to attend the most important, most vulnerable people, and ultimately undermine the ability to sustain services.

I say we have to address this with local responses, Scottish responses and action at UK level to prevent the situation from entering that downward spiral. We know that an ageing-population pattern is part of a Europe-wide trend, and somehow we kid ourselves that this is an over-the-horizon event that we will deal with later, but for us in the islands, it is an urgent reality, and our breakfast will become everyone else’s lunch; if we do not address these issues on the edge of Europe, they will become structural problems for the rest of the country and the rest of the continent.

More than worrying about an ageing population, I worry about the exodus of a working population, particularly the female population. Since 2007, the number of women aged between 25 and 44 on the islands has dropped by 15%, from 3,289 down to 2,787. There are many reasons for that rapid decline but, for most parents, they can be encapsulated in one word—childcare. Of course that is a challenge for parents everywhere, but the lack of a working-age population, as well as the burdensome regulation, has strangled childcare in the islands. I am sure that is the experience of colleagues across the board. Working parents and primarily working mothers, of course, find it hard to return to work—to balance childcare and careers—and despite the many strong family connections and networks they have on the islands, ultimately they give up in frustration, and ultimately they speak to me, as they spoke to me during the election campaign, about giving up and moving to the mainland. And when we lose families, we lose the working-age population.

During the successful election campaign, I was joined by the then shadow Business Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, on a visit around some of the key ports in Stornoway. We went to a shellfish export company that was successful, with a £4 million turnover and rising, which was a great investment by the port and the parent company in the local fishing fleet. But the actual processing of the product in the chill of the packing room could not operate were it not for the Ukraine war. Most of the staff that packed the products were refugees from that conflict. They are a welcome and valuable addition to the workforce and the islands, but we cannot have our economic growth dependent on a conflict on the other side of Europe.

At a seafood processor on another island, a £3 million business at the end of a single-track road, there were sustainable stocks and work for perhaps 30 employees, but only 15 workers were available because there are simply no workers to be found locally. This was an operation that, pre-Brexit, had a large and well-integrated European workforce. Now it cannot find a local workforce, and the regulatory and bureaucratic challenge of sourcing staff is almost overwhelming.

In the fishing industry offshore, the present immigration requirements as I understand them require staff employed under the sponsored visa scheme to pass stage 4 English language tests. That is quite a high academic bar for an industry that seeks crewmen who are primarily experienced in working in noisy and challenging conditions where hand signals are often as useful as linguistic ones.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Member will be aware that this is a matter on which a number of us have campaigned over the years. Essentially, the problem is that the definition of what constitutes a skilled migrant worker is narrow and brings in skills, as with the English language test, that are not central to the jobs that those people are going to do. We have safely had migrant workers in the catching sector for years without that level of English language. Will the hon. Member and others join me in encouraging the new Home Office team to have yet another look, and this time take the issues seriously?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member. The language requirement is just one aspect of the present visa system that is unsuitable for our fishing industry, the islands, and rural economies, and which we have until now been unable to navigate around. Hopefully it will undergo a fresh review under a new Home Office team.

The new Home Office team and immigration policy are rightly the reserve of the UK Government. I do not seek to break up control of the system. I stood on a platform of a properly managed, points-based immigration system that links up the needs of the workforce, the economy and the country. But I counter the narrative, which this summer was in danger of becoming the prevailing one, that the country is somehow “full up”. There are parts of the UK and Scotland where we are crying out for skilled workers to come and be part of our workforce, and to then stay and become part of our communities.

Scotland has specific needs for our skills base, and the islands and rural areas of Scotland and the UK have some very specific asks of their own. The lesson of policy in almost every area—not just immigration—be it administered from here or Holyrood, is that one size does not fit all. What works at a UK level may need more flexibility at a Scottish level, and again at a rural and island level.

In the past, the UK Government in other guises have worked with the Scottish Government to show flexibility. The former First Minister Jack McConnell, now Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale, promoted the fresh talent initiative for post-study work visas for overseas students at Scottish universities, enabling them to stay on for a period. There is, and should be, interest in reviving that plan, and the idea of rural visa projects, which was advanced by the Scottish Government with the Migration Advisory Committee before the previous UK Government stamped on the idea.

There are many levers of Government that are not at the hand of the Minister, but that bear mentioning because they are part of local and Scottish solutions to rural depopulation. In the islands, we are lucky to have a system of crofting tenure, a uniquely Scottish system which has kept generations in their home community, but crofting has been hollowed out by political forces that neither understand nor value its work. Crofting tenure, properly regulated, should be a defence against the property market, but instead it has become an enabler. The sale of croft tenancies at inflated rates has become a critical factor in the housing shortage.

Crofting needs urgent reform. I commend the Shucksmith report, “The Future of Crofting”, now more than a decade old but an excellent piece of work, which sought to rebalance—or restore the balance—between crofters’ right to security of tenure and their responsibilities to keep the market at bay. It should be dusted down and re-enacted, but that is probably a subject for another debate and another place.

The lack of affordable housing, however, is an issue that many other Members here and elsewhere will recognise. I hope that it will be taken up by other speakers in the debate. In many of our areas, it is impossible for anyone with modest means to secure a house, which is a pretty basic precondition for retaining a working-age population and keeping the economy spinning.

We therefore need action on housing and on crofting regulation; we need access to land; and we need access and action on depopulation. As I said, the dashboard lights are flashing. More than anything we need focus. We need economic focus on the peripheries of the north and west of Scotland, those areas of continued depopulation. We need economic incentives, state aid, perhaps a reduction in VAT on construction, and enhanced capital allowances. I do not want the Minister to worry too much about those issues, because they are for the Treasury and other Departments, and I will take them up with them.

My time is running out, and I do not want to end on a note of despondency. There is hope. There is hope in community ownership of the many crofting estates in the Western Isles, a quiet revolution that has injected not just a new wave of development, but a growing sense of confidence and assurance that, given the tools, we can tackle the issues for ourselves. There is the vast opportunity of community ownership of, and a community share in, the wealth of wind in onshore and offshore developments, which are due offers. That change is so tantalisingly close and could be so transformative in terms of finance and confidence that it cannot be ignored as part of the UK Government’s GB Energy strategy.

There is also hope in individuals, families and communities and their resilience, which make the islands not just a great place to visit, but a precious place to stay. There are examples of local initiatives like the Uist repopulation zone, which has provided training opportunities and much-hallowed childcare provision to parents. It is led by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and has received £60,000 from the Scottish Government. I commend the work of that project and of many other individuals and communities who focus themselves on the issue of depopulation at a local level.

As I said, we have a sense of urgency about this in the islands: we are experiencing a depopulation crisis. I hope now that that can find an echo not just in the contributions to this debate, but in the UK Government’s awareness and response to the issue.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to call the Lib Dem opposition spokesperson at 3.28 pm.

14:43

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this debate. The issue is as important to me and my communities as it is to him and his.

The yardstick by which I have for many years now measured any proposal for anything to happen in the Northern Isles is to ask a simple question: will this make it more or less likely for people to want to live here? Without a healthy and growing population, we risk losing the critical mass and, within that critical mass, we do not have the mix. Every population—every community—needs to have a mix of the professional, the technical, the skilled and semi-skilled, and the unskilled. In a city, where there is mobility within the different districts, we can take that sort of thing for granted; when we live in an island community it is a different story.

In some ways, I am the living, breathing example of how depopulation happens. I was born and brought up on Islay; I left as a 17-year-old to go to university and I eventually qualified as a solicitor. Islay has a population of between 3,000 and 3,500 people. It would not have been possible for me to return to Islay to go into legal practice with a population of that sort. I have lived most of my adult life in Orkney, where we have a population of about 22,000, which is big enough to sustain that professional community. The legal and accountancy firms, the wide range of doctors and the bigger hospital are things that allow us to maintain that mix so that we can keep our community functioning properly.

The history of Orkney and Shetland is slightly different from that of the Western Isles. Our population in Shetland was down to about 16,000 in the mid-1970s, at which point the oil industry came. Since then, the population grew quite rapidly, and it rests at around 22,000 or 23,000. That tells us that the critical thing to grow a population is the availability of a good mix of well-paid and varied jobs in the local economy.

Fifty years later, as we enter a period of decline in oil and gas as part of our economy, the just transition matters to us more than anywhere else. We see opportunities for our community in the development of, for example, marine renewables, tidal power and tidal stream generation, but if we push oil and gas off a cliff before the technologies are mature enough to come on stream, people will not hang around in places such as Orkney or Shetland, waiting for something else to happen. They have a history and a legitimate expectation of working in good, well-paid jobs, and they will take their skills elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of housing, which is probably the single biggest constraint on economic growth in the Northern Isles. I had an interesting conversation recently with the chief executive of Hjaltland housing association in Shetland. He was talking about a proposal he had put to a significant contractor, which was going to employ a significant number of people for a good number of years. He said, essentially, “If they pay the rent for us in advance”—this was a big corporate so it was rich enough to do it—“we will build the houses. Then, at the end of the time, the housing stock will revert to us and be available for other use in our community.” That was a brilliant idea—absolutely fantastic, not least in its simplicity. I think that the corporate would be up for that, but it was not seen with favour by the Government in Edinburgh and has subsequently been discouraged. That sort of creativity—coming up with solutions to problems that are appropriate to the community—is critical if we are to halt the reverse in numbers.

The infrastructure available for people in island communities is also essential, including digital infrastructure such as modern broadband and the availability of mobile phone coverage, given the problems that could be faced by communities such as mine when the copper wire switch-off happens for landline technologies. Other infrastructure is essential as well, such as the physical infrastructure of a ferry service. The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him about the problems that come from the lack of a reliable ferry service, because his constituents have endured that. But even within Shetland, and increasingly in Orkney as well, the internal ferry services have been problematic, as fleets get older and need to be replaced. Again, we need to listen to the communities. Those in Unst, Yell, Whalsay and Bressay are all keen to say, “Actually, for the next generation, we don’t want to rely on ferries. We want the construction of fixed links and tunnels, which would offer us opportunities to build and grow businesses.”

I spoke to one woman in Yell recently who told me that she would love to go back and have her home in Yell—she was born and brought up in Unst originally—but she has two children with medical conditions, which means that she does not want to take the risk of having to rely on a ferry journey, possibly in the middle of the night, should her children need medical attention at the hospital. Therefore, somebody who would like to live in Yell or Unst is forced to live on the Shetland mainland.

The problems of population decline for Shetland as a whole—if we look at the headline figures—may not be as acute, but the smaller island communities in Shetland continue to see that decline. This is about giving every community the empowerment to come up with solutions that are appropriate to them in their communities. I know that others want to speak, but I could say a lot more about this, and I hope that we will return to it at some point in the future.

14:50

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this debate and on the eloquent way in which he introduced it. He said that it was like coming to a birthday party; the only problem is that he did not think to bring any cake for all of us attending.

Depopulation in rural areas is, of course, a live and pressing issue. The hon. Member captured most of the real issues that we constantly live with in rural areas across Scotland. We took this issue very seriously on the Scottish Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, and we produced two reports on the subject. One was about Scotland’s population and demography, and the range of issues that the hon. Gentleman presented came up regularly in our proceedings. And, just before the Dissolution of the last Parliament, we concluded a report on the cost of living crisis in rural areas, which was very gratefully received by a number of people who were looking at this as a means to address some of the issues that he raised.

We have known our problem for a while: Scotland is facing population decline. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that is projected to have a population decline. By 2033, our population will start to go down again. That is after making a bit of progress in the last 20 years, which I think everybody welcomed. Most of that was down to people coming to Scotland from eastern Europe, which boosted so many of our communities. The hon. Gentleman was right to reference the contribution that so many people made to our communities, right across Scotland, under freedom of movement. It is an absolute disaster—a tragedy—that we have lost the ability to get that type of immigration going because of the refusal to review the disastrous consequences of leaving the European Union. Particularly, the opportunities of freedom of movement have left us.

In Scotland, we have a falling birth rate and an increasingly ageing population, and the issues following Brexit have created particularly difficult issues. We have acute labour shortages in all sectors, whether that is in our NHS, our care sector, hospitality, tourism or agriculture, and that is even more pronounced in Scotland’s rural areas. The declining population makes it harder to fill the available vacancies that are available. Even if every school leaver opted to work in Scotland’s social care sector, there would still be vacancies left for people to fill, such is the scale of the difficulties that we have.

I am not sure what Labour’s new policy is on immigration. I have listened very carefully to the Home Secretary when she has spoken about this in debates, and I have followed what the Prime Minister has been saying, but I am still not sure what Labour is trying to achieve. I think that they understand, respect and get the problem, but it is just that they are not prepared to do anything about it. We still hear the same old language that immigration is a burden and asylum seekers are to be demonised. No clear and concise routes to UK citizenship are being offered and opened up to people who hope to come to our shores.

Labour really has to do better on this issue. It has to acknowledge the value of immigration. For goodness’ sake, look what it has done to our communities; look how it has driven economic growth. I was here when Tony Blair opened up the route to the UK to the accession nations. It was a massive success, and, if anything, it contributed to the economic growth that we got in the late 2000s before the economic crash, such was the vision of the previous Labour Government. Please show us some of that same vision, too.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to reference the Fresh Talent scheme. A Labour Government delivered that fantastic innovation, in partnership with a Labour-Liberal Executive in Scotland. Fresh Talent gave us some advantages over the rest of the United Kingdom. It allowed us to retain Scottish-educated foreign national students so that they could stay and consider Scotland to be a home. If only we could see that type of imagination being deployed once again, but even introducing something like Fresh Talent would barely touch the sides of the difficulties that we have just now.

There is general consensus among all the political parties of Scotland and across Holyrood that something needs to be done and that we need to address this issue as a priority. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar referred to some of the welcome things that the Scottish Government have done, but the one thing that we need—I cannot for the life of me understand why this has not been seriously looked at—is a Scottish visa. We need to look at the option of a sub-national immigration system that caters for the nations and regions throughout the whole United Kingdom and allows the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and other constituencies around Scotland to get the immigrants they require. Such systems work perfectly and effectively in other nations. The Scottish Affairs Committee visited Quebec last year and saw its system working perfectly. Quebec has an arrangement with France and is able to recruit people in shortage areas. Montreal is now one of the fastest-growing cities and economies in the whole of North America—imagine having just a bit of that in Scotland.

I was immensely encouraged during the general election campaign to hear Labour talk about a Scottish visa; I listened carefully to Labour’s deputy leader, Jackie Baillie, talk about the idea glowingly. I spoke to representatives of businesses and sectors in my constituency, who really appreciated that and thought, “Maybe at last we will be able to make some sort of progress,” but that has all gone. What has happened to it? What happened to this idea? Now all that Labour talks about is tinkering with the shortage occupation list. That will help, but it will not do anything to address our real needs, so we need some serious solutions.

People tell us that we need to get more people from the United Kingdom to come to Scotland. I remember being lectured by previous Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament, who said that people will not come to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom—apparently, they are put off by our lower council tax, free prescriptions, free childcare and lack of tuition fees. Apparently, that was also a disincentive to immigrants from eastern Europe and further afield. Those MPs said that people refused to come to Scotland because they would pay a few pounds more in tax. That was absolute and utter rubbish, and we now know that because the latest figures from the National Records of Scotland show that there is net migration to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to do more, but let us get away from that nonsense. I hope we do not hear anything like that from the Labour Government.

Yes, there are problems; yes, there are real difficulties. Rural Scotland is suffering, but it is now in the hands of a Labour Government. It is not the Conservatives any more, with their cultural resistance to things like immigration. Labour has the opportunity to respond with its values. Please, for goodness’ sake—for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and for all of us who represent rural constituencies—do something about it. Get it fixed. Help us. Bring forward the solutions.

14:57

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) for securing this important debate. I associate myself with his comments about the challenges his constituents face.

I want to address an issue that deeply affects rural communities across the United Kingdom, one specific aspect of which particularly affects my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale. This is a matter that strikes at the heart of our villages and rural areas, where we are seeing an alarming trend: young people, the lifeblood of our communities, are being forced to move away. One of the key reasons for that is a lack of affordable housing. Today I will speak about building homes, and tomorrow I hope to speak in this Chamber about the impact of short-term lets on my constituency.

In Morecambe and Lunesdale, rising house prices and a chronic shortage of affordable homes are pushing young people to relocate to urban areas in search of housing they can afford. They want to stay and contribute to the communities they grew up in, but many simply cannot, and the result is a steady drain of talent and energy from our villages. That has serious consequences. We see it most clearly in our local economy, particularly in key sectors such as agriculture and hospitality—industries that have been the backbone of our rural life for generations. Farms, restaurants, hotels and pubs across Morecambe and Lunesdale are struggling to find the workers they need. Without young people staying in these areas or moving in, the workforce shrinks and businesses are unable to expand or even survive.

Let us be clear: rural depopulation is not just a social issue, but an economic one. The lack of workers drives economic stagnation and, as businesses falter, fewer opportunities remain, fuelling further depopulation. It is a vicious cycle that we must break. The solution lies in providing more affordable, energy-efficient housing. By building homes that young people and families can actually afford, we can keep our communities vibrant and growing. Affordable housing does not just keep people in our rural areas; it attracts new investment, brings vitality back to our villages and strengthens the local economy.

We must ensure that these homes are energy efficient. In the face of both the climate crisis and soaring energy costs, it is imperative that any new housing meets high environmental standards. By doing that, we are not only addressing housing affordability, but preparing our rural areas for a sustainable future.

I must mention the Lune Valley Community Land Trust, which, in collaboration with South Lakes Housing, has built beautiful, affordable, energy-efficient homes in the village of Halton in my constituency. I believe they are looking to build more in the area. I welcome this approach and urge the Government to support it.

If we are serious about tackling rural depopulation, we must take decisive action. That means working closely with local authorities, developers and communities to ensure that we have the right mix of affordable and social housing built to the highest standards. It means creating jobs, fostering economic growth and ensuring that young people want, and can afford, to live and work in rural areas such as Morecambe and Lunesdale.

I urge the Government to prioritise affordable and energy-efficient rural housing as part of their broader strategy to tackle rural depopulation and enable economic growth. Our villages and rural areas deserve nothing less.

15:02

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, for what I believe is the first time during this Session. I am sure it will be the first of many, and I look forward to working alongside you.

It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge). She is here in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am! I look forward to many more contributions from her.

I say to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—that is my Northern Ireland pronunciation of the name of his constituency; I hope it was somewhere near to what it really should be—that it is a real pleasure to see him in this debate, and I am here to make a contribution to support him.

As one who is thankful to live in a rural community and to feel part of it, I speak with some personal knowledge. I come over here on a Monday, and I leave on a Thursday. London will never be my home, because there is too much concrete. I need green fields, grass and fresh air. That is just a personal opinion; I have nothing against the people of London. I am sure they are very happy here, but I know I certainly could not be here any longer than I have to be. But that is by the way.

The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—I always give a Northern Ireland perspective to these things—publishes an annual “Key Rural Issues” publication. According to the 2023 edition, 36% of Northern Ireland’s population lived in a rural area in 2020. The population of rural areas grew by 20% between 2001 and 2020, while the population of urban areas grew by 7%. Perhaps what we are seeing in Northern Ireland is a reverse of what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar referred to; more people seem to be moving to rural areas for whatever reason.

I can see this happening. Although I still see the people I went to school with and their children in Kircubbin and Greyabbey, the two nearest villages to my home, I also see many, many new faces on my constituency door knocks throughout the year. I do not just knock doors at the election; I will be doing it next week in recess, and I did it the whole month of August. I do it because it is a good way to hear what constituents are saying. In August, when everybody goes out, it was also a good way for people to know I was back again after the 4 July election. It shows an interest. It is how we know what people want, so that is why I do it.

I also see that the footprint has expanded. That is due not simply to children having children and moving to their own places, but to historical family connections no longer being in place. In my opinion, that adds to the character and abilities in the community.

I will quickly refer to the community and what it means to me and the people I live alongside. I have lived in the Ards peninsula since I was four, over 65 years ago—now hon. Members know my age—and yet there are those who still consider me, and label me, a blow-in. How many times have we rural people heard that? There is a joke that if someone’s great-grandparents are not buried in Ballywalter graveyard, they are a blow-in. That would take them back before their birth, but that is by the way. That has not stopped me from being an integral part of the local community and from being proud to be known as the wee boy from Ballywalter.

This is a message that people need to understand: although someone may not be born in a rural community, they will be made a part of that community if they understand and embrace all that that entails. That means farmers ploughing or spraying fields at 1.30 am, because that is the best time—perhaps the only time—they can do so. It means being delayed behind a tractor or by a farmer moving cattle across the road. It means being woken up by the sound of a bird scarer, which is how the farmer protects his field. Those are the things of the countryside, but we embrace them. They are parts of daily life for people who move to a home in the country.

By the same token, living in a rural community means a farmer may drop off a bag of groceries when someone is snowed in. It means that when someone has a new baby, they will receive at least 10 ready-made meals from the local community, and possibly many more. That is the community that I live in. It is probably the community we all live in—I know that it is certainly the community that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) lives in. Living in a rural community means that if someone is delayed in getting to the school, people will wait with their child. It means that people are part of that community. For me, community means all those things. If someone new comes in, welcome them; if someone needs help, reach out.

We need to do better at some things if we are to encourage more people to take up rural living and to bring their skills and qualities to rural life. We need to ensure that there is adequate broadband for home working and small businesses. We have to move with the times: when people want to work from home, and have businesses in their homes, we need to encourage them and make that happen. We need to ensure that there are places in small rural schools. We need to enhance public transport connectivity.

We also need to encourage, by any means, our banks to realise that their face-to-face obligations to rural customers come first. I do not think that there are any hon. Members who have not spoken about bank closures. It sickens me that when banks make more money than they did the year before, they close branches in rural areas. I am not a socialist, but I cannot comprehend how banks can close branches in rural areas and then produce more dividends for the chief executives. That is seriously morally wrong. If any banks are listening, please note my words, because they are not just my words—they are the words of many others.

We need to ensure that rural medical practices have adequate facilities for physios, nutritionists, sexual health clinicians and dentists, so there is adequate provision for rural communities. Those are all things that people who come to live in the countryside wish to have.

A lot of people want to speak, so I will finish with this. Living in a rural community offers so much and, with sensible planning and forethought, there is space for more. There is nothing quite like country life. I say that not just because I am a shooting man, but because I just love the country. We need to protect our country life while encouraging people to reap the health benefits of living in the country, such as fresher, cleaner air. My goodness, who could say there is anything wrong with that?

15:09

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) for securing a debate on this very important subject. We were previously on opposite sides of the great newspaper divide. I was on the true blue Tory side supporting the Daily Mail, and he was on a red rag called the Daily Record, but we will not dwell on that.

Depopulation is the curse of rural areas—a blight that creeps up and strangles the lifeblood. It can precipitate a crisis, after which shops and schools close, and so communities wither and die. It is a multiheaded hydra of a problem, and we are hearing that today. There is no one cause; therefore, there is no one solution. There is no magic wand here. Bright lights and big cities will always have their charms. As a proud country boy myself, I think all that is overrated, but we need to make moving away from a rural area a choice, not a necessity.

Some of the issues are common to rural areas across the UK and the whole globe. First among them is jobs. If someone cannot find work, their choices are stark: move, if they can, or linger where they are. That can be a miserable existence, for rural deprivation is real. Issues with connectivity, especially public transport, can add genuine isolation to the burden. Scenery in rural areas such as my Dumfries and Galloway constituency is lovely. It is a delight for locals and tourists alike, but you cannot eat the scenery.

Another layer of difficulty, peculiar to Scotland, lies in the fact that we have two Governments: one here in Westminster and one at Holyrood. The arrival of the devolved Parliament was designed to shorten the distance between the people and the Government and deliver a light-on-its-feet legislature able to deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, such as depopulation. The theory was marvellous, but the reality perhaps less successful. Much great work has been done by MSP colleagues, but problems persist, not least when one side of the equation is not the willing partner it ought to be.

From previous experience as a special adviser in the Scotland Office, I found that the SNP Scottish Government were capable of foot-dragging, with little interest in making joint projects with the UK Government a success. Take the A75 road—critical to connectivity between Northern Ireland, Scotland and the rest of the UK. Carrying perhaps as much as 60% of Northern Ireland’s trade, it is a sorry cattle track of a road, very often dubbed “the road to hell”. The UK Government earmarked money for improvements, but the Scottish Government cried foul because transport is devolved. The result? No action on the road that is the very spine of my rural constituency.

How can we attract young families to rural Scotland when the quality of schools is such a lottery? Why, with one so-called “Curriculum for Excellence” in Scotland, are 32 local authority heads of education delivering that in 32 different ways? Why is there a postcode lottery, where one school may offer nine exams while one 25 miles down the road may offer 10? Regardless of pupils’ ability, some are at an instant disadvantage.

Housing is a problem. Someone may find a job, but can they find a rural home within affordable commuting distance? Probably not. Housing sits with the Scottish Government. We are told that there will be a reset in relations between the new Administration here and the one in Edinburgh.

[Pete Wishart]

I will take the chance to add to his list. He knows that immigration is a matter exclusively reserved to the UK Government. When he was special adviser, what did he recommend to one of his Secretaries of State about how immigration routes to Scotland could be improved?

[John Cooper]

Our advice was that things like Scottish visa projects have a fundamental problem, in that if someone arrives in Scotland with a bit of paper that says they can be there, there is nothing to keep them there. We have found difficulties with the black economy. People disappear rapidly, and again, it’s bright lights and big cities, so there is a fundamental problem. We on our side think that the UK should have one immigration policy and not break it up piecemeal. As we say in Scotland, the proof is in the preein. We will see what this new relationship brings and whether it is fruitful. Perhaps we could all be friends between Westminster and Edinburgh. I certainly hope so but, again, as we say in Scotland, I hae ma doots.

Housing is worthy of debate entirely on its own; it is a sprawling subject and we simply do not have the time to dwell on it today. Having touched on many of the difficulties, I will turn briefly to some of the solutions. If depopulation is one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse for rural Britain, then indifference is coming up on the rail, and that is something that we as politicians can tackle. We can, as we are doing today, raise these issues. We need to lift the profile of rural Britain. We can rail against the urban-centric policies of those who do not understand what rural life, with all its challenges and all its benefits, is truly about. Most importantly, we can fight for the three j’s—jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. We will start the wind-up speeches at 3.28 pm and we have three more speakers, so hon. Members can do the maths.

15:14

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz; I will be brief.

I applied to contribute to this debate because I wanted to speak not just about my experiences, but about the experiences of people I grew up around, people I was at school with and people who, in many cases, were forced to leave my constituency of Hexham, which colleagues will be surprised to learn is the largest in England. As the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about the beauty of his constituency, I feel compelled to remind people of the beauty of my constituency, which is in the county of Hadrian’s Wall, and to note that we will be marking the anniversary of the loss of the Sycamore Gap tree during the conference recess later in September.

When I go through so many towns and villages in my constituency, I see that they are marked by exactly what Members have spoken about today: a lack of younger people, who have been forced—they have not chosen—to move away. They have been forced, by a lack of jobs and opportunities, to seek to make their lives elsewhere, often leaving behind families and caring responsibilities, which means large amounts of travel back home to meet those obligations. The last Government failed to grapple with this issue, which we know is a huge, inherited, generational and demographic challenge, and one that I urge our Government to take on fully.

I spoke to some of the businesses in my constituency on the campaign trail. They want to take on more people, but they simply cannot find the skills they need or people who want to work and can afford to live in such an overheated and over-inflated housing market. That leads to a decline for those businesses and, for some of them, a slow death. One of the larger employers told me during the election that if they take on someone and train them up, but then they cannot afford to live in my constituency and move somewhere else, they bear all the training costs, only to see that individual go and work in a far more urban part of the country. We have spoken a lot about the rural premium and the rural cost of living, but there is a rural cost of doing business as well, which we should note very carefully.

As the representative for the Hexham constituency—the first Labour representative for the constituency—and as someone who was privileged to be out knocking on doors with my school friends and my schoolteachers, I know that we are not just letting our young people down, but letting our older generations down. I am privileged to be able to go back to visit my grandma every week when I am back in the constituency, but I have friends who now live three or four hours away and are unable to do the same. This is having a genuinely devastating impact on a lot of families, particularly given the acute social care crisis that this Government have inherited.

Ultimately, only by addressing this issue and the really biting crisis of rural depopulation can we turn our communities around and ensure that they can become the thriving engines of growth that the economy needs them to be.

15:18

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) very much indeed for securing a debate on such an important subject. He consistently hits the nail on the head by bringing forward subjects that really matter to us.

We have talked about accommodation, and the Highland council, on which I was a councillor, has £1.2 billion of borrowing, yet 40% of our housing budget is spent on interest payments. That is a catastrophe. Basically, we cannot borrow any more money to build more housing. The utility companies that are building renewable energy projects across the whole of the highlands need to build properties that will remain there for generations rather than modular housing for the extent of the jobs or projects, and the same should go for the owners of fish farms. It would make a big difference if the private and public sectors worked together, because I fear that public sector housing will not be able to fill the gap.

Scotland has a £3.4 billion transport budget, but it is not coming to the highlands. The A82 up Loch Lomond must be one of the worst roads in the world; trucks cannot get past there. Mowi, the fish farm company, and BSW Timber just cannot operate safely, and it is extremely bad for the area. The railway from Glasgow to Mallaig has an average speed of just over 40 mph. This HS2 thing is a joke, and the ferries make Scotland a laughing stock.

The Scottish Government have done no favours to the highlands and Scotland on connectivity over the last 17 years, and the same can be said for schools in the highlands. Schools such as Mallaig high school and Gairloch high school are less than 50% full—there is a complete collapse. As the numbers drop, we are losing the breadth of subjects taught by the teachers, so we are desperate for computing, mathematics and engineering teachers—they are the jobs of the future. The attainment gap in Scotland is a great shame for our country. Again, the Scottish Government’s management of our educational system has been catastrophic.

Broadband coverage in Scotland is 96.8%, but in the highlands it is 86.6%. That is a disparity of almost 15%. Of course, we cannot have the jobs of the future if we do not have the connectivity. Places lose their population if the public sector pulls out, and that is what we are seeing. Eight care homes closed in the highlands in the two years that I was a highland councillor. People are getting shipped from the west coast of Skye up to Thurso or Inverness. There is a collapse in the care home sector. Care workers are being paid £12 an hour, which is less than they would get in the hospitality sector, and that is an increase on what it was before April. No wonder we have an absolute catastrophe in our care sector. Of course, we all know that the availability of dentists in the highlands is also a disaster.

We have heard about the importance of allowing immigrants to come to Scotland. We are losing more than 50% of our young. They choose not to work in the highlands; they want to leave home. We need to keep these guys. We need to offer them well-paid jobs and good accommodation, and cherish them, otherwise they will leave. At the moment, they cannot get accommodation and they are not being taught for the jobs of the future. We are not helped by the Scottish Government, and we all have a big job to do together.

15:23

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

Thank you, Ms Vaz, for the unexpected pleasure of contributing to this important debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on bringing it to this Chamber. I thought I would offer a Welsh perspective, to ensure that all the nations of these islands are spoken about in this debate, although I fear that much of what we have heard rings true in Wales, too.

I represent Ceredigion Preseli. At the last census, Ceredigion—the majority of my constituency—recorded a 5.9% decrease in its overall population, and the communities in Preseli or Pembrokeshire that I now represent saw their population flatline. This is a problem that we are very much living with today. What does it mean? In practice, it means that we are having very difficult discussions about, for example, the provision of public services and whether the school estate is sustainable for the future. We are talking about the lack of GPs and the fact that we do not have an NHS dentist any more in much of the constituency. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned bank closures. I shall not name them now, but there are three well-known banks in the UK that no longer have a single branch in the two counties that I represent. This is the real consequence of depopulation.

I very much align myself with the comments made by all colleagues on what needs to happen to try to reverse this trend. However, I will add that a Labour predecessor of mine in what was then the constituency of Cardiganshire, the great—and sadly late—Baron Elystan-Morgan, talked in his maiden speech about how the outmigration of young people sapped the vitality of rural communities. He was speaking in the 1960s, but I fear that that is as true today as it was then. As well as sapping the vitality from private enterprise and having a detrimental impact on the provision of staff for key public services, this outmigration is also sapping and undermining the viability of our rural communities.

This is something that the UK Government can help with, and it should be on their radar. When the Cabinet Office looks at the range of risks it must monitor as part of its remit—something that the Public Accounts Committee discussed in the previous Parliament—it should look at how the discrepancies in demographic trends across these islands might have an impact on key public services, because in certain areas of rural Wales we will, I am afraid, see a collapse of public services. That will have a knock-on impact on more urban areas, which are themselves struggling with different demographic pressures.

This is an important debate, and I would ask the Home Office Minister to consider, as part of her important work in this new Parliament, the lessons to be drawn from experiences across the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the experience of Quebec. As west Walians, we often turn on the radio to hear adverts from the Government of Western Australia trying to attract many of our young doctors and nurses to migrate to that part of the world. Are there incentives we could use to persuade more of our young people to stay or to attract those from other parts of the world? There are many benefits to rural living, as all hon. Members have outlined today. Perhaps we could be more creative in grasping this problem by the scruff of the neck, because I fear we do not have much time left to deal with it.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

15:26

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my neighbour from across the Minch, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), on bringing this important subject to the attention of this place.

I am old enough to remember a time, when I was at school in Tain, when my father said to me, “Your future will lie in the south. Go south, young boy, because that’s where the jobs are.” Then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) so wisely said, the oil came—and come it did. In my case, that meant working in the Nigg yard, as so many others did—at its height, there were 5,000 people employed there.

I married and brought up my children in my home town of Tain. I was one of the lucky ones. Indeed, it could be said that, in Caithness, the advent of Dounreay was equally important in not just halting but reversing depopulation. Even today, Dounreay keeps the lights on in Strath Halladale and Bettyhill, because many people have a croft, but they also have an income from Dounreay. To be plain with colleagues, I come to this from the issue of high-quality employment above all else. As my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) just said, that is crucial, because without jobs, depopulation will continue.

I congratulate all speakers; all the important points have been touched on. My neighbour across the Minch made an important point. He said that there is a perception that the highlands and islands, and indeed many other parts of the UK, are full up. That is absolutely not the case. One only needs to travel on what we call the Causeymire—or the Causewaymire—across Caithness from Latheron to Thurso to see the myriad empty ruined croft houses either side of the road. Those once upon a time supported families but that is not the case now. It will be exactly the same across the Minch.

My neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire mentioned schools. Just north of his constituency, we have a problem with recruiting and retaining staff for some of our primary and secondary schools. That is becoming a big issue. Such problems are a disincentive for people to come or employers to move to the highlands and offer employment.

I am very taken by what my Welsh friend, the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), said about Western Australia. If incentives can be put together that will encourage qualified staff—dentists, doctors, teachers —to come to these areas, that would help so much. As my hon. Friend from across the Minch mentioned, there is a carers’ crisis. We see that in west Sutherland. We have an ever dropping number of carers, so who will look after the old people? People are giving up. The Government could tweak the rules governing the taxation of mileage that carers are burdened with. It is a very big disincentive indeed.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) talked about the loss of the migrant workers, as did the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). The fact that we do not have those people—they have gone—makes a huge difference. I can remember Polish people in Easter Ross asking me, “Do they hate us? Why do they want us to leave?” That was very sad. Also, when I travel in Wester Ross and west Sutherland I see the old European signs with the stars on them saying, “This stretch of road was paid for with the help of EC money.” That was a huge loss to us all. Whatever we might think of the EC, the structural funding or something like objective 1, which was designed to reach the most disadvantaged areas including those that face depopulation, was a great loss to us all. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will look at the issues.

Time is short. There is a massive problem that matters hugely to my constituents. I could talk about health, which has been mentioned already in this debate. The fact that Caithness mothers have to travel more than a 200-mile return trip to give birth in Inverness is a piece of nonsense. That is one of the reasons that people are leaving Caithness and heading south. It is as simple as that.

Good Government treats the different parts of the UK fairly, whether they are remote, depopulated, or what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has left us now, referred to as the concrete of London. The point is that a good and fair Government will give people an equal chance in life to prosper and do well. It is not all doom and gloom, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said. There are hopes for the future. We could look at other models of recruitment, imaginative ways of providing housing and incentives to get employers to come to remote areas. I very much hope that this will be the start of a constructive dialogue with the Government, and between the Scottish and UK Governments, on how we can, as has been said, grip the issue, shake it out and sort it once and for all.

15:32

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. The hon. Member told us about his deeply rural and very special part of the world and the unique challenges that it faces in terms of childcare and labour shortages.

I echo right hon. and hon. Members’ comments highlighting just how important our countryside is to the United Kingdom. We heard about the challenges of ensuring that young people are not forced out but can afford to live locally with access to jobs and housing, and about the challenges of access to schools, doctors, banks and other public services when there is no longer a critical mass.

Not only does the countryside make up 90% of the UK’s land, as well as being home to millions of people, it contributes over £270 billion to our economy in England alone. As many speakers have observed, our labour market in rural areas has for a long time been constrained by a lack of supply, particularly with regard to certain skills. The supply of financial capital has also been limited by the structure and regulation of financial services. Historically, poor connectivity—both physical transport links and digital infrastructure—have added to the challenges in rural areas. That is why the last Government made it their core mission to level up parts of our country that had been traditionally overlooked, and I was proud to support the previous Administration’s investment in rural communities.

In government, we introduced local skills improvement plans and a new local skills improvement fund to counter rural depopulation. We delivered the £3.6 billion towns fund, boosting investment to create jobs and opportunities across the country and grow the economy. We committed £110 million in extra investment to rural areas as part of the rural England prosperity fund to create jobs across the country. We invested in rural economies by helping farmers with an investment of £2.4 billion a year while EU land-based subsidies were phased out and new schemes were introduced that aimed to work for farmers, food producers and the environment. The farming investment fund will help to improve productivity and efficiency within farming businesses and animal health and welfare in the years to come, and bring forward more environmental benefits.

As well as supporting farmers, ensuring they have access to training to meet the needs of local communities and backing Britain’s farmers, the last Government also made progress in tackling challenges to living in rural areas. I represent some of the most beautiful rural communities in the country—although not as deeply rural as others—so I know the challenges of poor broadband connections, limited public transport and rural crime only too well. Poor broadband connections create huge challenges for youngsters in education, impede rural businesses and put blocks on remote working. There is a long way to go on broadband roll-out but we are making huge progress. The last Government invested £5 billion to roll out and it is expected that by 2025 85% of homes will have high-speed gigabit broadband.

Another huge concern for those I represent in rural communities is public services, particularly public transport and bus services. Limited services prevent youngsters from getting to school, adults from getting to work and elderly people from accessing health services and social activities. The obstacle to commercially sustainable services in some of those communities is obvious, but we cannot leave rural communities cut off and isolated. There is much more to do. The last Government put forward an additional £150 million to local authorities to help them to introduce new routes to unconnected areas or introduce demand-responsive transport services, such as my local Tees Flex service. We also established a new national rural crime unit, delivering our plan to crack down on crime and make our rural communities safe.

Yes, the previous Government invested and made progress in tackling the concerns and challenges facing many rural communities, but there is a lot more to do. I hope the new Administration will continue to look at how we support those communities, maintain investment, mitigate challenges and spread opportunities. The signs so far are not promising. Under the previous Labour Government, rural unemployment doubled in the last year of their Administration; at the general election, Labour’s manifesto barely mentioned rural communities; and barely two months into the new Administration, we hear that Labour is looking to claw back £100 million from the farming budget.

Given today is Back British Farming Day, will the Minister provide some clarity on the Government’s intention for the farming budget? The Government can make a substantial difference to our rural communities through protecting their distinct way of life. In the light of recent proposals to change house-building targets, will the Minister clarify how the Government will listen to rural communities with the new planning framework so those communities have a say in their future? There is much more still to do to support our rural communities. It is vital the new Government continue to work quickly to build on the work of the previous one and develop a vision for the countryside, to spread opportunities to all areas of the United Kingdom.

15:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on his successful securing of this debate. I am extremely grateful to him and to right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I will mention those who have made substantial contributions: my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Hexham (Joe Morris), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). I acknowledge the contributions from the Opposition leads as well, including the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).

I want to address many of the issues raised in today’s debate, which has focused on a range of key points and has brought together the challenges and consequences of depopulation in an important and effective way. I am heartened by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar also saying that he recognises this is an issue that goes way beyond the Home Office and that he plans to raise a number of the challenges with other Departments. I encourage him to do so.

The Government recognise the importance of this debate, and the challenges faced by rural and island communities in Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland and more widely across the United Kingdom in Wales and England. Those challenges are now coming to workforces, and are about supporting local and national economies, as well as encouraging young people to feel that they have opportunity in the areas where they grew up. A range of issues was raised and important points were extremely well made, including on some of the generational shifts that are having impacts on families, as well as community cohesion, wider integration and the continued success of local services, the challenges in recruitment across primary local sectors and public services, and the running of our local communities.

One of the points raised was in relation to the fishing and fish-processing industries, which is of concern to many colleagues in Scotland. We recognise the contribution of those industries to the lifeblood of our nation, including to coastal and rural communities. Those industries generate almost £2 billion in exports. We recognise the challenges of recruiting domestically. Those and other valuable jobs are often done in difficult circumstances. As has been discussed, there has been a reliance on migration over recent years.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

Under the last Conservative Government, too often we saw rampant exploitation of migrant workers in the seasonal workers scheme. Does the Minister share my concerns about such labour exploitation, and will she work with me on novel ideas to tackle it?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that serious point, one that I will draw on in my remarks. I will continue to work with him and others on how we tackle that serious issue.

Migration has been an important part of the history of our nation, as was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will know, as I do, that for generations people have travelled here from all over the world, contributing to our economy, studying in our universities, working in our public services and being part of our communities and the way we have built our nation together. All of us here are alive to the demographic challenges that remote communities particularly are facing. We are also committed to ensuring that the immigration system works in the interests of the whole of the UK.

We have seen net migration treble in five years, driven largely by a big increase in overseas recruitment. We are clear that net migration must come down, and that the immigration system needs to be properly controlled and managed. I make that point because it is for that reason we are setting out a new approach, which is integral to tackling some of the challenges outlined today. We will link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I have to make my remarks, and the right hon. Member has spoken. I will come back if I have time.

On the vision of developing more sustainable alternatives to labour market issues, I am sure that we are all keen to work together. There is no other way. That is why I have asked my officials to work closely with Seafish, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and across Government to address the issues facing the sector and our rural communities, and to make sure we are building together a more sustainable workforce and community.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome the Minister to her position. I apologise for not doing so earlier; I wish her well in her job. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I have pursued the issue of visas for fishermen across the sea—in Northern Ireland, my villages of Portavogie, Kilkeel and Ardglass are examples —as has the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). Along the line, we have always had verbal commitments, but we have never seen action to make visas more acceptable for skilled workers so that small fishing villages such as Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel can survive. The Minister might wish to continue pursuing that, if it is agreeable.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I make the point that it is important that we work closely across Westminster and with our devolved Administrations. This is part of an important reset, and it is important that we look at how we tackle these challenges together. Many of the issues that have been raised are matters for the Scottish Government and for local authorities in Scotland, but it is important that we look at how we work together across Westminster and with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have shared projects that are a success.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have said often enough that the medium to long-term structural problems in the catching sector for deckhands have to be solved by a better training programme, to make sure that we recruit from our own fishing and coastal communities. In the meantime, working together with the Scottish Government, where the responsibility lies, to bridge the gap with the availability of visas for incoming crew seems to me the perfect way in which the Governments here and in Edinburgh can work together to provide the industry with what it needs.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I shall be coming on to some of these issues in my remarks, but let me first talk briefly about the regional visa schemes that have been alluded to. I am aware that the devolved Government in Scotland retain a key interest in this, and in 2022 the Migration Advisory Committee suggested that the Government could explore the issue further. It is important to say that the MAC must hear the voices of our devolved Administrations across the country.

Proposals have included measures to restrict migrants to certain areas, but there is currently no legal basis to do so, even if we wanted to. Fundamentally, overseas recruits are likely to be affected by the same factors as anyone else when making decisions about whether to move into or remain in remote parts of the country. That means that jobs must be available that offer sustainable salaries and attractive working conditions, but we must also ensure affordable housing, transport links, suitable local infrastructure such as broadband, and childcare. So many of those issues affect where people choose to settle and to make communities their home.

Addressing such concerns, and thereby making challenging careers more attractive, has to be the focus of the work to tackle depopulation. Otherwise, even migrants drawn to the UK to perform these roles can leave their jobs and the area as soon as a more favourable opportunity becomes available. In some of the analysis of the Fresh Talent experience, that has been part of the story. It is important to learn lessons—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman can come back to me later, but I need to continue my remarks, because I want to make the point that it is important for us to learn what has and has not worked in the UK, as well as learning from abroad.

The arguments in favour of legislating to enable rural communities to recruit and retain international recruits more easily are well intentioned, but could risk placing international recruits in a particularly vulnerable position, especially at a time when, as has been mentioned, we are looking to protect workers against exploitive practices in the care and fishing sectors and elsewhere in the economy. Previously suggested schemes for devolved migration controls would restrict their movement and rights. However, immigration is a national system, not a local one, and although we have routes and flexibilities in our immigration system, a range of issues have contributed to depopulation—a point that has been raised in this very effective debate—so we need a much more integrated strategy across Government and with the devolved Administrations. That is why it is important that it is taken further.

On housing, the Government have set out an overhaul of the planning system, and we have introduced new mandatory housing targets. We are looking at prioritising brownfield sites, and it is a key mission of ours to build 1.5 million affordable homes across the country. That is essential for the reasons that we have talked about, including stability for families and for our local economies.

I mentioned the need for a coherent link between our labour market and migration. Since the new Government came in, we have been working to establish a framework in which the Migration Advisory Committee, Skills England, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions will work together to address the issues facing the UK labour market, including skills gaps—

[Ben Lake]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, but I may answer his question with my next point.

Those bodies will also look at pay and conditions, economic activity and the role that migration can play in supporting that. In order to deliver on the Government’s missions, we need to tackle these challenges in all parts of the United Kingdom. The bodies must work closely with our devolved Governments, our combined authorities and local government to address these matters.

[Ben Lake]

The Minister has gone halfway to addressing the point that I wanted to raise. Australia, which has a federal system, operates a single immigration system, but the territories and states can nominate key critical shortage occupations to encourage and boost them. In her discussions with the devolved Administrations, will she bear in mind the experience of Australia and see whether its approach can be brought into the UK system?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I was pleased to visit Australia very briefly in May to talk about the work that is being done on skills there. I think it would help him to know that we have announced a new council of the nations and regions, and we are starting the process of establishing local growth plans and encouraging local authorities to take on more devolved power. He may want to contribute to some of those discussions.

I do not wish to test your patience, Ms Vaz, so I will conclude.

[Pete Wishart]

Just before she does, will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I need to conclude in a couple of minutes.

A point was raised about the English language. The English language requirement is fundamental to successful integration into British society, as it helps visa holders to access services, participate in community life and work. Workers who do not have a good command of English are likely to be more vulnerable to exploitation and less able to understand their rights. The level that we have set is B1 on the common European framework of reference for languages: lower intermediate English, which is more of a functional understanding. But there are gaps and we have more to do, beyond what we inherited.

On the broader point about depopulation, there are many ways in which the previous Government’s levelling-up agenda did not integrate and did not have a strategy for tackling all these issues together. That is why the work that we are doing across the country on devolution is an important part of how we move forward.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar again for securing this debate. I have heard and am grateful for the points that he and other Members have made. As I have made clear, the Government will work to continue to understand the issues that Members face in greater detail and will consider how best to work collectively to address them. We must and will remain open to international skills and talent, but I suggest that immigration is not the solution to depopulation, nor must it be used as an alternative to the important job of tackling skills and labour market failures here in the UK, around which we have set out a new approach.

15:54

[Torcuil Crichton]

I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to this debate. It was not bad for a birthday party—it turned out quite well.

I particularly welcome the Minister’s suggestion of a reset of the thinking on immigration and the hint she gave of a more integrated strategy across Government, involving DEFRA, Seafish and the Home Office working together on the fishing visa issues that we raised. I also welcome her suggestions about the council of the nations and regions and about more devolved and sophisticated approaches to immigration. What she says is true: the problem of depopulation is a multiheaded hydra, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) put it, and responsibility for it does not lie at the Minister’s door, but some of the solutions can come from this place and other Governments and local authorities working together.

I thank all Members for their contributions, which were lyrically encapsulated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He spoke very movingly about sense of place, belonging and community, which I think is what we all want to retain when we talk about depopulation.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) talked about the drift from villages into towns. I warn them from my own experience in Na h-Eileanan an Iar that it is then only one more step on to the ferry, on to the mainland and out of the constituency.

Housing and jobs were highlighted by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is my Westminster Hall tag-team buddy—we seem to be in every debate together! These are the solutions. No jobs means no people. No people, in the case of my constituency, means no language, culture or sense of belonging.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the necessity of a multi-agency solution. There was understandable tension between him and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who brought a great deal of expertise and knowledge gleaned from his chairmanship of the Scottish Affairs Committee. We thank him for that, as the chairmanship passes on.

There is understandable tension over the idea of a separate Scottish visa. I think the solution lies in an integrated visa and perhaps in more sophisticated, more regional and more local visa requirements. After all, my phone knows exactly where I am, my bank knows exactly where I am and most of the time my online shopping cart knows where I am, so why cannot the Government know where skilled migrants work, onshore and offshore, most of the time as well? It will require local, national and regional solutions. It also requires a great deal of care and sensitivity because of how host communities feel about migrant communities and the importance of retaining the traditional communities, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and many others spoke about.

In conclusion, Ms Vaz, I thank you for your chairmanship, I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for their responses and I thank all hon. Members who took part. I hope that we can move this debate on. We face a depopulation crisis on the edge of Europe, but here at the centre of power, the lights on the dashboard should be on as well. We should start addressing these issues now, before they become structural problems that affect the entire economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered depopulation in rural areas.

Oswestry to Gobowen Railway Line

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I will call Helen Morgan to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Oswestry to Gobowen railway line.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. This is an important subject for my constituents in the lovely town of Oswestry and the nearby village of Gobowen. Oswestry has a population of approximately 17,000 people. It is the second largest town in Shropshire and is of huge importance to the border region, but economic potential there is being stunted by poor public transport, which plagues the whole of Shropshire.

People who live in Oswestry are forced to rely on a bus or car to get to Gobowen railway station just up the road to access connections to larger economic centres, such as Shrewsbury, Liverpool or Manchester. What about someone who does not have a car and works in Chester? They will need to leave home by 7 am to get to the office for 9 o’clock—a journey that takes about 45 minutes in a car. Someone travelling further afield and returning late would need to get a taxi back from the station because the buses do not run outside regular hours, and that is if they can track down a taxi, which is another problem for another debate.

Oswestry was once a proud railway town. The railway station was on the main line of the Cambrian railway and, at one stage, it housed the headquarters of the Cambrian Railways Company. Unfortunately, it was a victim of the Beeching cuts, and there has been no connection to the main line from Oswestry since 1966. That is why the news that the restoring your railway fund would be used to reopen the line between Gobowen and Oswestry was so well received locally; and why the news that the Government wanted to scrap the funding, without even examining the new business case, has been such a huge disappointment. From healthcare and high streets to the environment and the economy, I cannot overstate what a transformational impact reopening the line would have on our area.

Poor public transport removes opportunity. It hinders young people, limiting their options for further and higher education and restricting their access to culture and leisure. In short, barriers to mobility are barriers to social mobility. During a recent visit to the jobcentre in Oswestry, the brilliant staff there told me that the No. 1 barrier to people accessing work is poor public transport. Meanwhile, I have spoken to businesses in Oswestry that have reported real difficulties in recruiting. They need to be able to attract people to work from a much wider area than Oswestry and not just those who have access to a private car. That means we are in the ridiculous situation where employers cannot recruit and jobseekers cannot find jobs to match their skills because of the same problem of poor public transport.

Let us take the outstanding Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital near Gobowen: it has such a fine reputation that it has no trouble attracting high-quality staff, but the problem is that it cannot get people to and from their shifts early and late because there is no public transport, so if they do not have a car, the job will not work for them. Reopening the line would include a halt at the hospital. That would help to swell staff numbers and ease access for patients, many of whom are elderly, do not have access to a car and have to rely on the good will of friends to get to appointments on time. The hospital is a national resource: people come from across the country to access the excellent care there, including from the veterans’ centre, and railway access for them would be a huge bonus.

It is not just me who thinks that this is a great project. Feedback from the Department for Transport on the strategic outline business case acknowledged the importance of all of this:

“Oswestry is the second largest employment area in Shropshire, and unemployment in Oswestry is higher than the average in Shropshire. Productivity—the ability to match jobs with labour across North Shropshire—is a particularly pertinent issue. The growth in vacancies has been significant in Oswestry and Gobowen in recent years, which is exacerbated by the low population density and ageing populations of these areas.”

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many railway reopenings in the last 20 years have seen significantly higher use than expected? They include the Ebbw Vale line, which achieved year four ridership by the end of year one, Larkhall in Scotland, where demand was 26% higher than forecast, and the Borders railway, which saw a doubling of demand in the first month, compared with plan, and extra coaches and car parking needed.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his really good intervention. It is true that we tend to underestimate the passenger numbers on the newly reopened lines, and the benefits are probably in excess of the business cases that have supported them. I will come to further developments on this line later, so I am grateful to him for making that point.

Public transport is critical to the issue of productivity, growth and matching jobs with people who want to do them, so this line will be really important for job creation, education opportunities and economic growth in a rural area that has huge potential but is currently not meeting that potential. It will also be a huge boost to the regeneration of Oswestry’s beautiful and historic town centre. Oswestry already boasts a large number of independent shops and a relatively low number of vacant units. On the border between England and Wales, the town has a rich cultural history, a large number of native Welsh speakers and the potential to really thrive in the future.

The area surrounding the station is planned to become a transport hub for the town, and the listed station building is undergoing works to ensure that it is structurally sound and fit for the future, but it will need tenants inside it. A fully operating station has the potential to unlock private investment in the area, to regenerate this important transport gateway to Oswestry, only a few minutes’ walk from the centre of town, and to provide crucial facilities, such as public toilets and a café, that would make connecting bus services into the rural area beyond much more viable. One of the big issues that local bus providers have with providing services in the area is that there is not a public toilet for their drivers to use when they stop over. That really hinders the ability for them to provide a decent bus service.

People who live in Oswestry are largely dependent on their car. Linking local bus and rail services will reduce congestion and emissions and open a world of opportunity for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to access a car or drive one. As I said, it is not just me who thinks the reopening is a good idea. The DFT’s feedback on the strategic outline business case was extremely positive, saying that it was a “strong strategic case”, that the

“proposal aligns to various local plans over the past decade”,

and that the

“appraisal outputs presented in the economic case show that all options yield ‘Very High and Financially Positive’ value for money”.

Crucially, the project is expected to bring in more cash than it would cost to set up. That clear value for money is in stark contrast to the three other restoring your railway schemes approved by the previous Government last October, which were judged to offer poor value for money at best. It was the strong business case that persuaded the DFT to commit to funding the project through to delivery. To come to my hon. Friend’s point, when the business case was put together, it did not factor in the likelihood of the new Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company to provide a direct service on the line from Gobowen to London. If that service goes ahead—I very much hope that it will—the benefits for Oswestry will be even greater.

There has been some local opposition. Some people have argued that we could just run a shuttle bus, seemingly unaware that there already is one. But the shuttle bus has not worked: it does not run in the evening or early morning; it is frequently delayed by congestion on the A5, which has to be crossed to get to the station; and sometimes it just does not turn up at all. It certainly will not unlock the economic regeneration of the transport hub in the centre of Oswestry that the rail reopening promises. It is also really expensive to travel by bus and train, because people need two different tickets. Perhaps most importantly, whether it is for an urgent appointment at the orthopaedic hospital or an overnight shift at nearby Derwen college, people cannot trust a bus that will not get them there on time.

I welcome this week’s announcement that local authorities will be given the powers to franchise their own bus services. If that happens in Shropshire, we will see huge benefits across the whole of my constituency—for the many villages that have no service at all, and towns such as Market Drayton and Ellesmere, for which reconnection to the railway is desirable but not realistically possible. But we cannot pin our hopes on that. Given that the funding for all this brilliant new public transport remains unclear and uncommitted, it seems highly unlikely that Shropshire’s Conservative-run council will take on the revenue strain of start-up bus services. The council forecasts that it will balance its books this year by using up all its reserves, unless it can find a further £38 million of cuts, which would be on top of £58 million last year and £30 million already delivered this year.

The ambition should also be to link rail and bus services, so that people can genuinely consider leaving their car at home because the alternative is reliable, convenient and affordable. The Oswestry to Gobowen line uses a railway line that is already there. It obviously needs to be upgraded if it is to be usable once more, but because it has not been built over, there is space for a footpath or cycle path to go alongside. The benefits of active travel are well documented, and they could be exploited here if the scheme goes ahead.

The project has a capital cost of between £5 million and £15 million, and ongoing operating costs of £196,000 per annum. Critically, it is forecast to be cash-positive over the appraisal period. Local critics have highlighted the potential disruption caused by it crossing the A5, but it is important to emphasise that nobody is proposing to run a slow, steam heritage train over a major level crossing. The proposal involves very little disruption and many benefits. Indeed, it is difficult to see any justification for axing the project.

The Government have said that they want to grow the economy, improve education, clear NHS backlogs and clean up the environment, but they are potentially blocking a scheme that would help to achieve all those objectives. Shropshire is one of the worst-served counties in England for public transport, with only one bus route running on a Sunday in the whole county, and the loss of more bus miles since 2015 than any other county in England. There are huge barriers in place to realising Shropshire’s potential, and the project would help to remove one of them. It would enable local businesses to find quality candidates for the vacancies that they cannot fill, it would remove a huge barrier for those without a car who are seeking work beyond the boundaries of their immediate area,and it would enable young people and those wanting to develop new skills to access a far greater range of educational provision.

It would also unlock investment and regeneration in an important regional town centre. We cannot regenerate growth, jobs, skills and investment if a town is isolated from the rest of its region. That is why the previous Government promised to fund the project, and why the new Government should, too. I urge the Minister to come to Oswestry to see the wonderful potential of this historic market town and the additional value that the railway would bring to it. She should urgently reconsider the decision to remove funding from this fantastic project.

16:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing today’s debate on the Oswestry to Gobowen project, and I thank her for the thoughtful and important points that she made both today and in her previous campaigning work on the issue. I have read her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail and with previous Ministers in the Department.

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument about the problems with connectivity between Oswestry and Gobowen, particularly for those who have no access to private vehicles or do not wish to drive. I appreciate the importance of good public transport connections in the area, including for patients, staff and visitors travelling to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital, whether from the local area or from further afield. We want to ensure that people can access the public services they need, and they should not need private transport to do so.

My Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government. We aim to support economic growth by transforming infrastructure so that it works for the whole country, and we aim to improve connectivity to promote social mobility, as the hon. Lady said, and tackle regional inequality, particularly in terms of access to healthcare, jobs and homes. She described the difficulties that her constituents face in reaching the places where they can obtain opportunities for work, wider opportunities for study and education, and, indeed, enjoy leisure and culture activities. That is why transport is so important—because of the opportunities that it opens up for people, including to improve their wellbeing.

However, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her speech to the House on 29 July, the Government have been forced to address the economic inheritance that we have been left by the last Government, which includes that £22 billion black hole in the country’s finances this year alone. That includes £2.9 billion of transport projects that were committed to despite the last Government knowing, full well, that they were unaffordable. I completely understand that the announcement of the difficult decision to close the restoring your railway programme has caused disappointment. I assure the hon. Member that that decision was not taken lightly.

As the Chancellor set out, individual restoring your railway projects will be considered as part of preparations for the spending review and wider spending decisions for the Department. But as the hon. Member will know from her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail, it will not be possible for all transport projects, particularly those not yet in delivery, to continue. I am afraid that that is the difficult reality of the position that we find ourselves in, and I wish that it was not so.

The restoring your railway programme attracted considerable interest when it was launched by the last Government in January 2020, and the Department for Transport received more than 140 individual applications for funding to help to support the development of early-stage business cases. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) that new services can be very popular and successful; there is a real appetite in communities up and down the country for new public transport services, in order to better connect people to the places that they want and need to go to. At the close of the final funding round in September 2021, the programme was heavily oversubscribed.

In the case of the Oswestry to Gobowen project, the previous Government announced, under their Network North initiative, that the project would proceed to delivery, subject to successful business cases. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has previously set out, there was a clear gap between promised projects and the money available to deliver them. The previous Government should have been up-front and frank about this, and they absolutely were not.

I want, of course, to thank all hon. Members who sponsored and campaigned for individual former restoring your railway projects for their patience and efforts over the years. I completely appreciate the frustration expressed about the lack of news on next steps—and that is reflected in the hon. Member for North Shropshire’s previous correspondence with the Department under the previous Government—because, undoubtedly, it felt incredibly slow at times. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ordered a review of the Department’s capital spend portfolio. That will move quickly to produce recommendations about current and future schemes and end the uncertainty that the previous Government created.

We also need to be clear that this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best what projects to pursue in order to further the needs of their constituents. It is absolutely crucial that local stakeholders work together to provide affordable and reliable services for the communities they serve, and that should include better integration between different modes of transport. The hon. Member highlighted the potential of an integrated transport hub and the desire for better walking and cycling provision, which of course would provide not only transport benefits but health and wellbeing benefits. I hope that her local authority can explore those options further.

The hon. Member made strong points about the quality—or rather, the lack of quality—of bus service provision in her area. As we both know, under the last Government thousands of bus services saw reduced frequency or were cut altogether, leaving many towns and villages without adequate, reliable and affordable public transport. We recognise that situation and are determined to do something about it.

I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member’s welcome for the Government’s pledge to deliver better bus services for passengers, which includes making franchising easier and quicker, removing the ideological ban on new municipal bus companies, and reforming funding for bus services to give more control and flexibility to local leaders to deliver their local priorities. I understand what she said about the Conservative-led county council and its appetite for such change, but I am sure that she and her constituents will make their point very clearly to those who seek to represent them at that level.

[Helen Morgan]

Bearing in mind that local councils are a hair’s breadth away from issuing section 114 notices and are only likely to deliver statutory services in their area, what kind of additional funding will be available from the Government for them to be able to franchise their own bus services? I ask that because it seems to me that it is all very well councils having the power to deliver such services, but unless they have the funding to do so, it will not bring about the results that we would like to see.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her question and of course she is absolutely right to highlight the very difficult position that many local authorities find themselves in after 14 years of Conservative Governments. That is precisely why growing the economy and the ability to improve our public services is one of this Government’s key missions. To achieve that, we need to make sure that the foundations are strong, and setting our economy on the right track is the first part of that process.

However, we will of course say more about support for transport as part of the spending review and we will work with local authorities to understand what is needed to improve and grow their bus networks, learning from their experiences and building on their successes to ensure that local networks can meet the needs of the communities who rely on them.

As we undertake vital reforms to the sector, including through the introduction of the Buses Bill, we will ensure that stakeholders are properly engaged with the proposals, and I look forward to the hon. Member participating in the debates about how we can do that as we go forward.

I thank the hon. Member again for securing this debate and offer her my support and that of my ministerial colleagues to work with her to improve the transport network in her constituency, and right across the country. As she recognised, transport is a vital enabler of jobs, opportunities and growth, and I am sure that we share the desire to see that for North Shropshire and indeed the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.

16:23

Sitting suspended.

Financial Fraud and Economic Crime

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of financial fraud and economic crime.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the House for allowing me to secure this debate. I also welcome the Minister to their place, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan), for attending.

I must start by declaring an interest. In my previous role before entering this place, I was head of fraud and compliance for a fintech firm, responsible for screening billions of dollars of transactions a year. When it comes to dealing with financial criminals, unfortunately I have seen it all. From the use of artificial intelligence—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Apparently, there is an acoustic problem for everybody sitting in the front row. Could the hon. Gentleman move to the back as the mics are not working?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Always best to be a Back Bencher, Ms Vaz!

[Mr Charters]

May I continue, Ms Vaz?

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I am really sorry, but Hansard may not have picked up the earlier part of your speech, so could I ask you to start again, please? Thank you very much. You are doing a grand job for your first attempt.

[Mr Charters]

With apologies to right hon. and hon. Members who will be hearing the same thing, I will start again.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the House for allowing me to secure this debate. I also welcome the Minister, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, for attending.

I start by declaring an interest. In my previous role before entering this place, I was head of fraud and compliance for a fintech firm, responsible for screening billions of dollars of transactions a year. When it comes to dealing with financial criminals, unfortunately I have seen it all. From the use of artificial intelligence avatars to bypass biometric screening, to sophisticated shell companies and complex layering, to spearfishing and parasitically targeting legitimate companies to advanced cloning techniques, I cannot overemphasise the danger that fraud and financial crime now pose or the complex layers that exist behind it.

Fraud places an emotional burden on victims. It ruins lives. We all know that as MPs from our surgeries. I will touch on a case that I heard about recently. The criminal aspect of fraud is not just about hobbyists in basements; we are increasingly talking about nation states who in some cases are working alongside advanced organised crime groups that are taking the mantle. They are often experienced professionals who work to circumvent the systems we use. Criminals are smart and frequently shift their modus operandi to get around our systems.

Although the responsibility to be smarter and take that proverbial step ahead falls to Government and firms, the situation is more complex than that. The risks are real, and if scams continue to increase exponentially we will have a dangerous environment for businesses. We will have more constituents telling more stories about how they have fallen victim to fraud, and the national cost could become so undesirable that we may well become the worst developed country globally per capita when it comes to fraud rates. If we do not act, there is a risk that fraud and economic crime could suffocate growth.

We currently suffer from relatively weak national co-ordination in tackling fraud and economic crime, which is made more complex by the fact that the perpetrator is often not in the same geographical location as the victim. This can cause local police forces to deprioritise fraud reports, but if we can fix that, we may be able to fix the foundations. Although the online fraud charter introduced by the last Government was a positive step, it is non-statutory and voluntary. Nothing in the charter addresses the issue of compensating consumers who have been defrauded by content originating online. There are no penalties for non-compliance, and that must be thought through, but we can turn the page.

While this Government are in their early stages, I believe it is time to smell the coffee and grasp the nettle —whichever analogy hon. Members prefer—so that we can become a world leader in anti-fraud and protecting consumers and businesses, and become a country where companies want to do business and will not be ripped off. The prize is that our fintech, regtech and financial services sector will want to become ever more internationally competitive if we truly get to the heart of fraud and economic crime.

Before I go any further on how we can make some fixes, I will quantify the challenges that we face. Fraud accounts for more than 40% of crime in the UK but receives only 1% of police resources. That statistic is chilling, but wait until we hear the cost of payments fraud to the UK economy: it is roughly £1.2 billion. There is also a cost to individuals. I have a constituent who attended an advice surgery just this weekend and told me that they had lost life savings, to the tune of a five-figure sum. Fraud often hurts the most vulnerable, either those on low incomes or those with lower tech proficiency, who are also more likely to fall victim.

However, more than three quarters of authorised push payment fraud originates online. Research from Innovate Finance on fintech illustrates the challenge posed by online purchase scams. It found that Facebook Marketplace represented a staggering 51% of all fraud cases for the firm in question. After I secured this debate, a main UK bank got in touch with me outlining similar statistics in which a huge part of the fraud that it encountered originated from Facebook Marketplace, so we must get better at stopping fraud at the source. There are some positives to consider: tackling payment fraud could contribute £6 billion to the UK’s GDP over five years, which would really strengthen our economy.

A smorgasbord of issues are causing our downfall, so I will outline seven positive steps to begin to tackle fraud and economic crime. They come from meetings that I have had with trade bodies, consumer groups, banks and payment providers and from many industry reports. We can become a world leader in anti-fraud and economic crime. Little investment is needed from the Government, but a new regulatory apparatus and new levels of co-ordination are needed. I stand as a firm friend to the Minister and the Government in making that change happen, so I will outline some positive suggestions for tackling fraud.

Recommendation 1 is that the new Government should set an anti-fraud target. In June 2023, the previous Government published their fraud strategy, saying that they would cut fraud by 10% on 2019 levels by December 2024. They achieved that, but the target was not ambitious enough and, importantly, excluded businesses, so the Government should commit to a fraud target that is genuinely ambitious and do so in collaboration with business. I do not want to pick an arbitrary number, because it is about focusing on action rather than aims, so one option is to set a target that we should have a lower fraud rate per capita than international peers—for example, an ambitious target that the per capita rate of fraud should be lower in the UK in five years’ time than that in France, Germany and other countries.

Recommendation 2 is for the creation of a new national anti-fraud centre. We need a strong new anti-fraud centre to face the complex interdisciplinary challenges that fraud poses. Action Fraud has skilled individuals, but regrettably it is no longer fit for purpose. That is my view, and often the view of industry. We need to reform it, and that means a review of its shortfalls, as well as the ways in which we can build on some of its successes in receiving reports. During my career, I came across a case in which a UK business was scammed out of more than £200,000. It submitted dozens of pages of detail to Action Fraud, and did not even get a call back from the police.

We should look to Australia and create a national anti-fraud centre to drive forward the Government’s fraud strategy with a clear vision and clear accountability. It could be part of the Serious Fraud Office or the National Crime Agency, or it could be its own entity, but it should be able to bring charges. The Australian Labour Government launched a cutting-edge national anti-scam centre in 2023. They rightly recognised the scale of the challenge, and took it on directly. The first action was to tackle investment scams, before disrupting criminal gangs who were advertising non-existent jobs. It is time to refresh the ecosystem that will fight fraud for decades to come, with a strong new national anti-fraud centre at the heart of Government. That would join up the SFO, the Financial Conduct Authority, Action Fraud, the NCA, the Met police, the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and local police forces, and it would do that with a central leadership, because our institutions are currently too fragmented to properly deal with fraud.

Recommendation 3 is that this Government should replicate the previous Government’s appointment of an anti-fraud champion in Parliament. The appointment of an anti-fraud champion would ensure better co-ordination across Departments and could be a precursor to a new national anti-fraud centre.

Recommendation 4 is that we should support data sharing between sectors. We have to create a framework to enable data sharing between social media companies and payment participants. If information can be shared between the two, there is an opportunity to stop transactions at the source. Because of GDPR, there is no clear mechanism for data collaboration, but if we can find a way to create a precedent, that would provide regulatory certainty.

Recommendation 5 is to create a new framework that requires banks to share payment data. If we are to make progress, we need to find a way for banks to work collaboratively on payment data sharing. I regularly meet banks and industry leaders who are receptive to that recommendation.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: prior to entering Parliament, I worked at Pay.UK, the payment system operator for the UK. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He raises an important point, not just about the cost of fraud to people and businesses, but about data sharing across banks. Does he agree that a modernised payment system might allow us to collect more data, which could be used across the industry to identify, tackle and prevent fraud at the source, saving businesses and customers lots of money in the future?

[Mr Charters]

It is brilliant to have Members such as my hon. Friend, with his experience at Pay.UK, in this place, and I completely agree about the renewal of the payments architecture. If it had risk analysis and artificial intelligence monitoring at its heart, we could detect payments fraud at the very centre, which could save banks billions of pounds in compensation and be a better result for consumers.

Industry innovations such as “money mule insights” prove that the latest data analytics allow for much more sophisticated ways of targeting of criminals via data sharing between payment providers. Lloyds Bank got in touch with me this week to highlight that its mule-hunting team had identified a 44% increase in money mules over the past year. Data sharing between banks is critical in targeting money mules. At present, banks file suspicious activity reports, but they are often unable to share suspicious payment transaction data with each other. If they did, there would be an opportunity to harness suspicious payment data to detect and block fraudulent and criminal transactions in real time. I now believe that we have an unmatched opportunity to rebuild fraud and economic crime analysis with the renewal of faster payments and a new payments architecture. In conclusion on this recommendation, much greater payments data sharing is crucial if we want to stop fraudulent transactions from being processed.

Let me turn to recommendation 6, on the obligations on social media companies. The Government could introduce a shared responsibility and liability for social media and telecommunications firms to tackle fraud origination and incentivise them to invest to prevent fraud. A new anti-fraud centre could govern regulatory powers over social media companies and impose penalties or issue guidance to reduce fraud. That would tackle the things we heard about earlier, such as fraud originating from Facebook Marketplace.

I turn to my final recommendation: to expand the Financial Conduct Authority’s powers over the Post Office, which is the biggest cash provider in the country, through its everyday banking service, and has always played an integral role in providing access to cash for the nation. That should continue. As banks close their branches, the importance of the Post Office is growing. However, following the Horizon scandal, its reputation has been damaged. The Horizon system is still fundamentally being used today for the everyday banking service, which processes billions in cash deposits and withdrawals each and every month. To give banks and consumers confidence in the Post Office, the FCA should gain direct regulatory oversight of the everyday banking service. That is critical for resilience and managing financial crime risks. I can confirm that I am in the process of writing to the FCA’s CEO to encourage them to provide an update on their work on money laundering via the Post Office.

In conclusion, those are seven recommendations that I would like to implement. I think they would have a huge impact on our ability to better target fraud and economic crime. I will write to the Government outlining the recommendations, which are the culmination of meetings across industry, and I stand willing to work closely with them on implementing them, should they be interested in doing so. I look forward to hearing from colleagues across the House in the debate and to working constructively with Government and other hon. Members to tackle fraud. It is crucial we do that for financial credibility, for our constituents and for our country.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Member for his assistance. I expect to take the first of the Opposition spokespersons at 5.08 pm. They will have five minutes each and the Minister will have 10 minutes. If hon. Members wish to speak, they should bob.

16:47

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this massively important debate. This is a subject that I have been more than aware of throughout my entire professional career. In the light of that, I also declare an interest: I have been working in the financial services industry for many years.

According to the UK fraud costs measurement committee, the level of fraud in the UK directly affecting consumers in 2023 was estimated to be a staggering £8 billion. The former Conservative Government did not prioritise economic crime sufficiently, according to the Treasury Committee. Now, it is up to the new Government to take action to improve the supervisory system and combat economic crime, which is growing. Improvements need to be made to assess the extent of economic crime and fraud in the UK—it is telling that there are no clear measures of the true impact of fraud on individuals, businesses and the economy. Some of my hon. Friend’s suggestions will help us to get a real understanding of the impact.

A wide range of crimes fall under the category of fraud and economic crime, and the sums of money involved range from small to huge. To give a personal example, only last month in my constituency in Southend, some of my constituents were left feeling tricked, over—believe it or not—an inflatable fun day. They bought tickets in good faith, but it was a fictitious event. Some parents were left out of pocket after buying a number of the £15 tickets online, and clearly children were left very upset. Those sorts of things should not happen, but it is one small example of how fraud can impact families on a day-to-day basis.

The police force in my county of Essex has a serious economic crime unit, which seized £2 million-worth of assets and made 15 arrests in February alone after an intensive, month-long investigation. The squad investigates offences including romance scams, online marketplace scams, rogue traders, investment fraud, bribery and corruption.

As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer mentioned, fraud can have a devastating impact on individuals and their families, affecting not only their finances but their wellbeing, leaving them feeling manipulated and deceived. Of course, there is the long-term impact on their finances, which has a knock-on impact on the economy, as people no longer have their hard-earned savings to spend on much-needed goods and services, or just on enjoying themselves.

As I have mentioned, my background before coming to this place was in financial services, most recently in mortgages. With your indulgence, Ms Vaz, I will share a different type of fraud, where the consumer often unwittingly targets the lender. It is not usually out of malice, but done with the desire of achieving their housing dream, which for many can be seen as out of reach due to loan-to-income restrictions and high deposit requirements. Mortgage fraud can include overvaluing properties, overstating a salary or income, concealing a second mortgage from the primary lender or mis-stating the use of a property to either benefit from a more preferential rate of interest or to borrow more than the lender assesses that a client can afford.

The UK’s leading fraud prevention service, Cifas, revealed in January 2024 that one in six of UK adults—16%—admitted that they or somebody they knew had misled mortgage companies about their annual salary in order to buy their home. I agree with Cifas that more needs to be done to raise awareness of how serious a crime mortgage fraud can be. Not being honest about one’s income, debt history, employment or the value of the property is a serious matter. Being caught will have long-term effects on one’s ability to gain a mortgage, and could have other financial consequences.

I call on the Minister and the new Government to work with the relevant partners and stakeholders to strengthen and expand the fraud strategy that was announced in May 2023 to combat the ever-growing and more sophisticated fraudulent schemes that target individual consumers. Equally, awareness needs to be raised among consumers about the consequences of them falling unexpectedly into the world of fraud when applying for finance, especially mortgages. I would like to see collaboration between banks and other lenders, the regulator and the Government, to drive awareness of mortgage fraud through misrepresentation. That, of course, would be complemented by the Government’s plans to make the dream of home ownership more accessible for all.

16:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Ms Vaz.

I thank the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for setting the scene so well. One of the great things about debates with new Members is that they bring their expertise, knowledge and interests in various subject matters to our debates, which enriches the House greatly. I very much look forward to contributions from other hon. Members when the time comes.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. He and I have been friends a long time while on the Opposition side of the Chamber, as it was. I am pleased to see him in a place that is a well-deserved honour for him. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), in his place.

I am pleased to speak in this debate in the short time that we have. I have heard of countless economic crime cases, including scams and frauds. Constituents must be aware of the dangers, so it is vital to give some background in discussion of such matters. When I speak, I always bring in a Northern Ireland perspective, and I wish that I could tell the hon. Member for York Outer that things in Northern Ireland are better, but they are not. When he hears the figures, he will probably be shocked at just how bad they are.

Last year, according to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, £23.1 million was lost to fraud over 13 months in Northern Ireland. Between December 2022 and January 2024, there were some 5,412 reports of fraud, with lost sums ranging from £5,000 up to almost—unfortunately—£250,000. I just cannot comprehend how that can happen, but it happened. Those sums were taken by criminals from people’s bank accounts. The figures give an idea of where the scams are and where we need to focus. In 2023 alone, there were 3,400 cases of economic fraud. In many such cases, frauds and scams are committed at a distance through social media, online websites, phone calls and text messages.

I will probably age myself by saying this, but I remember getting a message from a general in Nigeria. My goodness! Right away, my hackles were up, because I do not know any generals in Nigeria. When I was told that I had won $100,000 or whatever it was, I knew I could not have done, because I did not enter any competition, and I had no friends or relatives out there. It was clearly a scam, but they claimed that if I sent them my bank details, they would forward an astronomically large amount of money to me. The point I am making is that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. Someone turns up and says, “You have won this amount of money, just send me your bank details and we will transfer the money to you.” I am not smarter than anyone else—I do not profess to be and am not—but whenever someone comes along with something that is just that good, it cannot be good, so beware.

I want to give the example of an elderly lady who came to see me—I speak for the elderly and the vulnerable as my focus for the short time I have. Just last week, in my office I dealt with an issue where a lady clicked a link on Facebook to lodge money in an online pot to gain interest over a period of time. Her details were given and the £276 immediately taken from her account. The dangers of social media are broad enough, and online fraud and scamming seem to be at a peak. Unfortunately, I see that regularly in my office. We advised her immediately to put a block on her card and to contact the local PSNI to make a report. But she is only one example, unfortunately, of what so many people face on a daily basis, every week in my constituency.

I am just looking up something from Danske Bank, which I belong to. It sends such things regularly, as a wee warning perhaps, and a caution:

“We want to remind you that we are all at risk of fraud, even if you are scam savvy. Bank impersonation scams are on the rise”

—which the hon. Member for York Outer referred to—

“but remember, we will never call you to ask for log-on details, PIN numbers or passcodes, including those we send by text.”

My bank sends that to me every month or every six weeks. If banks did that as a reminder to people to keep it fresh in their minds, it would be very helpful.

The UK economic crime team is responsible for leading the industry’s fight against economic crime, but more needs to be done to support those who are not perhaps tech-savvy, which I profess that I am not: I sometimes do not understand the dangers that are out there. The online fraud steering group has numerous aims in tackling economic crime, including making the UK look like the least attractive place to commit such crimes, but they still happen with a regularity that tells us that that is not the case. Whether internally in the UK, or internationally where foreign actors interfere, we need to ensure that our constituents are protected and, most importantly, aware.

The PSNI back home in Northern Ireland has a crime prevention officer who specifically visits elderly and vulnerable people, including groups who meet every week. They go and talk to them and give them information. I would suggest that that could be done with greater regularity to remind people, because people do need to be reminded on a regular basis.

I will finish now because I am conscious that others want to speak. In terms of money laundering, we have seen terrible examples in Northern Ireland where, to be fair, the PSNI in conjunction with other police forces across the United Kingdom and further afield have been able to get on top of it, but it still happens. There are scams and fraud, so there is more work to be done. I look to the Minister with great respect. I know he will come back with the answers that will perhaps encourage us and give us some hope. I look to him for guidance on his updated plans to make our economic system run smoothly—it has to—and ensure that across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we have a good structure for dealing with the issues and also the means to do so.

17:00

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

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for securing this important debate and for shining a light on an issue that has been neglected for far too long.

A growing concern facing my constituents in Wolverhampton North East is the rise of fraud, particularly scams perpetrated from overseas. We often hear calls for more arrests and prosecutions of the criminals, and I fully support that. However, we also need to acknowledge that a significant and increasing number of these fraudsters are not operating from within the UK. Instead they are part of international fraud rings based in hotspots such as India, the Philippines, South Africa, Brazil and parts of eastern Europe.

With advanced technology we have machines capable of making thousands of calls or sending thousands of texts per minute. The criminals can easily target people here in Britain. Our country unfortunately is a prime target for such activity. We do much of our shopping and banking online, and the widespread use of the English language makes it easier for fraudsters abroad to deceive and manipulate their victims here.

The real question is what we do about this. I suggest that when we negotiate trade deals with countries where such criminal activity is prominent, we push for stronger co-operation in fighting fraud. Let us make fraud prevention part of the agreements, giving the countries a real incentive to work with us to tackle the issue. Without such action, fraud will continue to grow, impacting more and more families in places like Wolverhampton North East. It is time we took strong, global, co-ordinated action to protect our residents from the scourge of international fraud.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the spokesperson for the Lib Dems, Chris Coghlan.

17:03

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, in this brilliant and necessary debate. I commend the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for securing this debate on financial fraud and economic crime and for his professional expertise in this area. I should declare an interest: I spent 11 years working in financial services and also worked in the Foreign Office on counter-terrorism, so I know how vital this debate is.

The hon. Member for York Outer made really interesting points in his seven proposals, particularly on the link between tackling fraud and economic growth and his call for a national anti-fraud centre based on the Australian model. The Liberal Democrats called for an online crime agency in our manifesto, so it is something we would be interested in supporting.

We need a dedicated body to tackle online crimes such as personal fraud; our police forces are overwhelmed. Local forces lack the specialist skills required to combat the complexity of modern online crime. Although the National Crime Agency focuses on the most serious offences, we need an agency specifically equipped to deal with online fraud.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for making that reference to the NCA. I understand that just last week the NCA issued its first unexplained wealth order in Northern Ireland against a man suspected of involvement in serious organised crime. If anyone is living above their means, there should be questions about where the money is coming from. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there perhaps needs to be more emphasis on that as well?

[Chris Coghlan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree that there should be more emphasis on that area. I also thought that the hon. Member for York Outer made a really interesting point about the lack of FCA regulation of the Post Office, and I agree that that appears to be a gap in our existing regulatory framework.

We heard some really moving personal accounts about the cost of these online scams in the speech made by the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson). We are also calling for the naming and shaming of the banks that have the worst records on preventing fraud and reimbursing victims. They should be held accountable. Financial institutions have a duty to protect their customers and we need to call them out when they do not.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the power of social media scams, and we are also calling for a public awareness campaign. We need to empower everyone to spot, avoid and report fraud and scams. But let me be clear: the onus should not be on individuals to prevent fraud. Victims should never be blamed for falling prey to sophisticated scams. This issue is about building a society that protects citizens and not one that burdens them with responsibilities that should lie with institutions.

As we have heard, the numbers involved are staggering, both in terms of the billions of pounds that have been lost to fraud and the sheer volume of crime that is now online. Despite those facts, however, the previous Government’s response was lacklustre. I was moved by the hon. Member for York Outer’s point that 40% of crime is fraud, including online fraud, yet only 1% of police resources is dedicated to tackling fraud. The previous Government treated fraud with such little seriousness that they did not include it in crime statistics. Will the Minister commit to including fraud in crime statistics to demonstrate the new Government’s seriousness about this issue?

The Government must also recognise that economic crime poses a significant threat to our democracy. For too long, the previous Government allowed oligarchs to treat the UK as their personal playground, so that they could funnel dirty money into our economy and undermine our values. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to begin seizing frozen Russian assets and to use the proceeds to support Ukraine; to close loopholes in economic crime legislation, which allow associates of authoritarian regimes, such as Putin’s cronies, to funnel corrupt funds into our country; and to properly resource the NCA to ensure that it has the tools to tackle complex financial crimes. We are also calling for an audit of UK-based assets owned by officials from countries with troubling human rights records, such as China and Iran, to ensure that we are not enabling regimes that abuse their own citizens.

As a former counter-terrorism officer, I know how important cross-border co-operation is. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) really brought out the importance of such co-operation when she made the point that the people conducting these scams are not necessarily all in the same geographical location.

I also know the damage that Brexit caused to our cross-border co-operation on serious and online crime. Will the Minister commit to improving co-operation with our European allies and with other countries more widely on financial fraud and economic crime?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate. It was a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for this debate, Ms Vaz, and I again thank the hon. Member for York Outer for securing it.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister, who was appointed this morning, to speak.

17:09

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to be able to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition as a newly appointed shadow Home Office Minister, as of this morning.

I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate and thank him for giving us the chance to discuss the serious issues that he outlined. Also, may I put on the record my commiserations to the constituent he mentioned, whom he saw at his surgery last week, for the serious issues that she has faced? I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for as usual showing his knowledge of yet another subject.

Many of us will have been, or know someone who has been, a victim of financial fraud. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) outlined the various possible targets, from the pensioner who is tricked into giving away their savings by a rogue cold call, to an unsuspecting parent receiving a scam text purportedly from their child asking for money. All ages and sections of society are at risk.

As these criminal schemes become more sophisticated, nobody is immune. We have seen that bank accounts can be emptied in minutes and life savings lost. In 2021, victims reported losing £2.35 billion to fraudsters and scammers. We also know from statistics that it is elderly and vulnerable people who are most susceptible to scams and fraud. To the vile criminals who target them, they are seen as a means to enrichment and to profit from their misery. It is our duty to protect them.

In an astonishing statistic, Home Office figures indicate that the social and economic cost to the UK from economic crime is £8.4 billion a year. Those costs directly impact the lives and livelihoods of millions of citizens, and further exacerbate social and economic pressures. I look forward to hearing reassurances from the Minister, whom I welcome to his role, on how he will continue to make the progress delivered by the previous Government.

We also know, as the hon. Member for York Outer mentioned, that it is not just individuals who are targeted. In a time of increasing global instability, adversaries are constantly probing for weaknesses in our digital financial infrastructure, from cyber-attacks aimed at crippling software, to ransomware attempts to extort money. Our systems are constantly having to update and evolve to keep ahead in a technological arms race. I was interested to hear recommendation 1 in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I would press the Minister to look seriously at that proposal, which would get support from the Opposition, as he outlines his proposals.

The previous Government showed leadership in this area. They introduced a reporting mechanism that was bolstered by replacing Action Fraud with a state-of-the-art system for victims to report fraud, while a new national fraud squad, with more than 400 new specialist investigators, made fraud a priority for the police. Will the Minister look seriously at the proposal outlined by the hon. Member for York Outer for a new national fraud centre? That is an interesting proposal and I would like to know whether the Government would look at that, as well as at an anti-fraud tsar who would be a champion in this place, to whom hon. Members can go. I know the Minister is a champion and has many responsibilities. We could never go without another champion in this Parliament.

If we take a new approach, we can make a great deal of progress on the 13% reduction in fraud that we saw under the previous Government; indeed we can go further. The need to tackle this growing threat is clear. The economic crime plan, brought forward by the previous Government, for the first time introduced a more effective and joint way of working across various organisations, including law enforcement, supervisory agencies and the private sector, through the landmark Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Stronger tools were put in place to help us fight economic crime. We are all alive to the threats affecting our national security, with our economy being a prime target for rogue forces. The strengthening of our defences by widening our ability to freeze assets and to prevent abuses of our open economy proved to be key after Russia invaded Ukraine, and we must continue to strengthen our economic defence in the wake of rogue foreign entities.

Finally, we have seen the new Government make lofty statements about their desire to get tough on fraud, with a new expanded fraud strategy, which I welcome. Given recent policy decisions by the Government, going against promises and commitments in other areas made during the general election, I hope that this is not an area where we will let vulnerable people down. I hope that the Government deliver on those promises. We all agree on the need to tackle this issue. It is to be hoped that this Government are as committed and passionate as the previous one about dealing with this issue, so that we can make progress together. The Minister will have the Opposition’s support in tackling this issue.

17:14

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate on what is—there has been a clear consensus about this—a very important matter. I often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—perhaps too regularly—but I completely agreed with what he said about the expertise that we have seen among new Members. I think we have seen that very clearly today, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer because it came through loud and clear from his speech that he has a strong knowledge and comprehensive understanding of these issues. I think that, collectively, we owe him a debt of gratitude for bringing them to our attention this afternoon. I am also grateful to all those other hon. Members who have contributed to what has genuinely been a very sensible and constructive debate.

I am genuinely grateful to both the Opposition Front Benchers for their sensible contributions. I welcome the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan). He comes to this place with a lot of hugely relevant and credible experience, and I look forward to working closely with him. He made a specific point—an entirely reasonable challenge—about the importance of seeking to work closely with allies in Europe. I can absolutely give him that assurance. We understand the importance of doing so, and we are on the case with that.

I also welcome the shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), to his post. On behalf of the Department, I can genuinely say that we wish him well, and that we look forward to working closely with him. I have had quite a busy day, but I am sure that he has had quite a busy one as well in preparing for this debate. As he always does, he made a number of sensible and reasonable points, and I am happy to confirm to him the commitment and the priority that we attach to these important matters. I hope very much that we can work closely together as we move forward.

Based on the contributions that we have had in today’s debate, there is a clear consensus that economic crime and fraud are pernicious threats that ruin lives and damage our prosperity. They must be dealt with as a priority. I want to take the opportunity today to say something about the Government’s approach, as I seek to respond to the many excellent points that hon. Members have raised.

Economic crime threatens our national security and the prosperity of the UK. It covers a broad range of illicit activity, including fraud, money laundering, kleptocracy and corruption. It drives serious organised crime, which has a hugely damaging and corrosive impact, and causes immense harm to the public—to all our constituents. It affects the financial and emotional wellbeing of victims and the interests of legitimate businesses, and undermines our international reputation.

According to the crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2024, fraud against individuals accounts for 36% of crime, so it is by far the most common offence. That is a startling statistic, which underlines the scale of the threat and the challenge, but it does not capture the full horror of the misery and devastation that lies behind the numbers—the stories of life savings snatched, of confidence shattered, of emotional distress.

We know that nobody is safe from fraud; it can affect anyone, with one in 18 people becoming a victim of fraud in the year ending March 2024. Businesses are also under threat: the economic crime survey for 2020 estimated that one in five in the sectors surveyed had been victims of fraud in the previous three years. These figures are another striking illustration of the scale of the threat, and underline why it is so crucial that we eliminate any safe spaces for criminals to operate in.

I should note that the crime survey shows that fraud is down 10% on the previous year, which is encouraging, and I want to thank all those across Government, industry and law enforcement who work to turn the screw on fraudsters and criminals. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their important work. A lot of effort has gone into addressing these issues, and that is to be welcomed, but, to address the entirely reasonable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), we must now go further.

We know from experience that fraudsters are well organised. They are also opportunists and will try to perpetrate their crimes on anyone they can, including the most vulnerable in our society, which is especially callous. Given we are up against devious and resourceful criminals, we need to ensure that our approach is fit for purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer clearly has a very strong command of the subject matter, which he has translated into a number of insightful recommendations. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, rightly pressed me to ensure that we will take those seriously.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer will understand if I stop short of making policy commitments at this stage and in this forum. That being said, his seven recommendations—the internal mail is clearly working in overdrive because the letter dropped just as he mentioned the seven recommendations—have clearly been very well thought through and are backed up by his considerable expertise. I give him the assurance that I will take them away and come back to him with a response as we continue to shape this Government’s approach. Incidentally, I was particularly intrigued by suggestion No. 3 on the establishment of an anti-fraud champion. I wonder whether he had anyone in mind, but let’s leave that hanging there for now.

Underlying any steps that the Government take, we will be steadfast in our determination to combat economic crime wherever and however it manifests itself. We are committed to working with key partners across the public sector, the private sector and law enforcement to reduce fraud and better protect the public and businesses.

Estimates suggest that around 80% of fraud has an online element, much of which originates from overseas, which was a point very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge). Online platforms, as well as telecommunications services, are being exploited by fraudsters to commit their crimes. It is vital that we pull together with industry, regulators and consumer groups to consider what else can be done to close the gaps that criminals exploit.

The sector charter programme works to complement legislation and move in a more agile and targeted manner, and has improved collaboration with industry. It has enabled effective changes within sectors such as telecommunications, retail banking, tech and accountancy. We have seen telecommunications companies install spam shields, which have blocked over 1 billion text messages. The tech sector—I know my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer knows a lot about this—has introduced verification measures for marketplace sellers and advertisers to make sure people are who they say they are. Although we have seen strong action from companies, including via the sector charters, it is important to ensure that counter-fraud activity is prioritised. Recent legislation, such as the Online Safety Act 2023, will help to raise standards and best practice, but we remain open to the use of further legislation and regulation in the future, and that is a continuing conversation that we will want to have with my hon. Friend and with Members throughout the House.

There is still plenty more for Government and industry to do together, and I look forward to collaborating with our key partners in the coming months. We must also increase the disruption and prosecution of fraudsters. A national fraud squad of 400 new posts, led by the NCA’s national economic crime centre and the City of London police, will target the most harmful fraudsters. This will transform the law enforcement response by taking a much more proactive and intelligence-led approach to disrupting the most serious fraudsters, both domestically and overseas.

Another important element is public awareness. We need to ensure that people are alert to these crimes, and it is essential that we have the tools to protect people so that they have the confidence and trust to come forward and report cases where they have fallen victim to fraud. That is why we are working with the City of London police to create a new police “fraud protect network”, which will engage with local forces to provide consistent messaging and safeguarding advice to local communities. That is why there is a wealth of advice on how to spot and avoid fraud on our “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign website, although I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer about that.

As well as protecting individuals, the Government are committed to protecting businesses from fraud and other related crime such as ransomware. The Home Office supports a network of regional cyber-resilience centres to provide cyber-security advice and guidance to businesses across England and Wales.

We are also committed to improving economic crime legislation. The economic crime measures in last Session’s Criminal Justice Bill did not make the statute book before the general election was called. Since the election, the Government have been examining how best to progress action in a number of areas, including the reform of the criminal confiscation regime, the banning of SIM farms that can be used in fraudulent activity, accessing money in suspended accounts to further tackle economic crime, and improving corporate liability laws. We understand that those are important reforms to cut crime, but also that there will be others. We will set out our position in due course and, where necessary, introduce further legislation.

In closing, I thank all hon. Members attending for their contributions and once again thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer on securing the debate. We have covered a good deal of ground, all of it constructive and helpful. For all the statistics, policies and measures, it is the victims who we must always keep at the forefront of our minds. We must prevent more people and businesses suffering as a result of economic crime and fraud, and we must protect our society and economy from those threats. As I have set out, this Government are committed to doing just that, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on this critical endeavour.

17:26

[Mr Charters]

Thank you for chairing the debate, Ms Vaz. I am delighted that the House has been able to consider today’s motion. It is a matter of real importance and one that it is clear the Government will take seriously. I am grateful to the Minister for attending the debate, and to the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem Front Bencher for engaging, too. I am grateful to the Minister for considering my seven recommendations. The Members who have contributed are powerful advocates for their constituents. Many have experienced constituents coming to their surgeries and sharing harrowing stories of being scammed. I hope to work with some of the Members present on these issues over the months and years ahead.

I outlined in my maiden speech that under this Government there should be

“no safe harbour for fraudsters, no compromise in our pursuit of their schemes and”

—importantly—

“no escape from justice.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 124.]

More than that, I am encouraged by the Minister’s words and know that this Government take fraud seriously. By the end of this Parliament, I hope we can look back and see that we have made huge steps forward. We can become a world leader in tackling fraud once and for all.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I thank the audio technician for sorting the problem out earlier.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of financial fraud and economic crime.

17:28

Sitting adjourned.