Westminster Hall

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 26 November 2024

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Electricity Grid Upgrades

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the delivery of electricity grid upgrades.

It is wonderful to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to have the opportunity of this debate.

I chair a cross-party group of MPs from Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. We are working to promote the Clean Power 2030 objective, but we want to deliver it more cheaply and quickly, because it is becoming increasingly clear that undergrounding high voltage direct current cables is the way forward for the great national grid upgrade. Undergrounding will carry public consent and will avoid delays, and will therefore be cheaper as well as better for the countryside. Relying on new lines of pylons for the entire upgrade, as proposed, will delay decarbonising the national grid, because they arouse such hostility and will end up costing more because of the delays.

This debate is therefore not just local. Decarbonisation is one of the great national challenges that the United Kingdom faces. How it is achieved, how quickly and at what cost is an issue of national importance. The National Energy System Operator’s “Clean Power 2030” report is welcome, but it highlights the scale of the challenge. NESO is clear that public support is critical to achieving those ambitions, but its response to the Secretary of State in that document warns that losing public consent is a significant threat to delivering projects on time and within budget.

Fintan Slye, the executive director of NESO, made the importance of engaging community support clear on Radio 4 when the report was launched on 5 November:

“I am acutely conscious that building infrastructure, pylons, does impose on people and their locality.”

He also emphasised that

“it is really important…that we bring people and communities with us on this journey”,

and that the transition to net zero only works

“if we can bring society with us”.

He is clearly saying that infrastructure solutions must align with community priorities.

The challenge to install new capacity is enormous. The UK has around 14 GW of offshore wind capacity but, to meet future energy demands, that capacity will need to grow nearly threefold by 2030 and continue expanding so it can handle 125 GW of wind by 2050. That is a much faster rate of investment than we have seen so far, but projects for 2030 are already falling behind. Given the strength of public opposition to overhead pylons, it is highly unlikely that any pylon proposals will be delivered on time.

The “Clean Power 2030” report sets out how delays are already affecting key projects such as the one from Norwich to Tilbury, which is 184 km of pylons across Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. NESO says that it will now be delayed by a year to 2031, and that delay is very costly. NESO estimates that the cost of delay is £4 billion a year—far higher than previous estimates—mainly because of the constraint payments that have to be paid to wind power generators.

Given the public opposition to the Norwich to Tilbury project, the funds being amassed for legal challenges, and the opportunity for judicial review at least twice during the process, it is likely to be delayed for far longer than just one year. That risk is likely to apply to the other 17 pylon schemes proposed in the great grid upgrade. Nevertheless, National Grid plans to use overhead pylons as the primary infrastructure for the massive reinforcement of the national grid. I put it to the Minister that the current concept is not deliverable.

The implication is clear. The way to secure public consent is by pursuing strategies that respect and protect local communities and what they value—their property, their livelihoods and the countryside.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has done a fantastic job in this area. He has been very persuasive in setting out the damage done to his constituency. Does he agree that the strength of the OffSET group—the offshore electricity grid taskforce—demonstrates that the issue is going to affect communities right across East Anglia, including Margaretting village in my constituency, and that therefore the opposition he talks about is likely to be very strong across the whole region?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. It affects other colleagues, including some present here today representing, for example, Lincolnshire. We know that there are concerns in north Wales, and on the east coast of Scotland in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is representing the Opposition Front Bench. This is a very widespread problem.

Undergrounding HVDC cables is not only technically viable, but the most sensible and sustainable solution for the future of our energy network—that is, if we cannot have it offshore. I acknowledge that quite a lot is going offshore, but it rubs salt in the wound that other areas, from Scotland to north-east England, have the luxury of offshore schemes, but we in East Anglia do not. Our countryside is not worth the investment.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is interesting to hear the hon. Member talk about delays and the issues with floating offshore wind. Does he agree that we should look at why we have such delays? After 14 years of Conservative Government, one might have thought that many of the challenges would already have been dealt with. Does he acknowledge that many of the current issues are because of a lack of action over the last 14 years?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I accept that the present Government have inherited a planning system and a philosophy of upgrading the national grid that is out of date.

When we were in Government, we were very slow to recognise that such a big, strategic upgrade needed a proper strategy. We started moving towards holistic network design. We commissioned a report from Charles Banner KC to look at streamlining the planning process—I will come on to putting that streamlining in place—and I very much welcome that the Government have commissioned a spatial review of the entire network, which should have been done years ago. I think we were blind to the failings of the structure inherited from the Electricity Act 1989; we should have moved much sooner.

That report should make it easier for the Government to change the out-of-date policy of a presumption in favour of pylons, which we said in our manifesto that we would review. I am very happy for the Minister to blame the previous Government for the difficulties he is facing and to change the policy accordingly, but it will be very odd if he comes to the Dispatch Box to defend what the previous Government were doing, after what the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) just said—but I suspect that that is what he will do.

I put this issue forward in a bipartisan manner. We should all be able to agree that the great grid upgrade is not going fast enough, and that we need to streamline the planning process and speed up delivery. However, we also need to mend our ideas about how we deliver it, because as I have said, undergrounding high voltage direct current cables is not only technically viable, but the most sensible and sustainable solution for the future of our entire energy network.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I would like to return to the hon. Member’s point about international comparisons and other countries nearby perhaps having a presumption in favour of overgrounding. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that Germany’s Opposition recently said that using overhead lines instead of digging underground could save the country €35 billion, and that the German political parties that previously, as part of Angela Merkel’s coalition, backed underground cables have now called for overhead lines to be given priority. Does the hon. Member agree that the picture is not quite so clearcut in mainland Europe?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

What is interesting about Germany is that its presumption was in favour of undergrounding, so the idea that that is a great big experiment and we do not know what it means is incorrect. There is plenty of expertise in Europe. When we look at cost comparisons between undergrounding and pylons, it also depends on the territory we are dealing with.

Our problem is lack of community consent, as Fintan Slye, the executive director of the National Energy System Operator, rightly says. It is a question of swings and roundabouts, but in the case of Norwich to Tilbury, the consequence of delays from trying to run roughshod over the very widespread and well-funded public opposition will be to put up the cost, which makes the cost of undergrounding advantageous over pylons. That is my point.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the principle of what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) says, but undergrounding DC cables has great advantages. The latest estimated cost of just one year’s delay for Norwich to Tilbury is four times more than the additional £1 billion cost of undergrounding HVDC— I hope the hon. Gentleman was listening to that: £4 billion a year for delay against £1 billion extra for DC undergrounding. I think that puts this into the field of a no-brainer. Why would we spend all that money fighting through the courts for a very unpopular scheme when we could save time and legal expense by going for a different method?

In the National Energy System Operator’s East Anglia network study, which was published earlier this year, undergrounding HVDC was set out as alternative option 8. The great advantage of undergrounding HVDC is that there will be far less public resistance. Moreover, as I have said, the planning procedures could be streamlined— as recommended to the Government recently by Charles Banner—to conform to the regime for installing new major water pipes. If we had the same planning regime for underground cables as we did for water pipes, we could speed up the process for undergrounding cables.

Underground HVDC offers a scalable, future-proof solution that can be delivered with far less environmental impact, with public support and much more quickly. Schemes without pylons that are already planned by National Grid—for example, in north-east England—are being delivered without public opposition or long delays, which seems to be an enormous advantage for the Government’s objective of decarbonising the grid. There is no comparable resistance from campaign groups, which is clear evidence that underground HVDC gets public support, making it a far more practical and feasible solution.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hard work that the hon. Member has done cross-party on this issue for many years, and I am grateful to be joining that as another east of England MP. The issue of public consent is important, because the proposals could have such a huge impact on local communities. Developers suggest that they could provide community benefits, but with all due respect, the idea of having a community hall 5 miles down the road does not mitigate having massive pylons going past someone’s back garden. Does the hon. Member agree that the problem with regard to public consent is that people who are very well organised will understandably continue to kick up a fuss, which will delay the creation of the renewable energy that we absolutely need and certainly support?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. As the new Liberal Democrat MP for Chelmsford, she demonstrates that this is a cross-party campaign, supported by people who are as committed to decarbonisation as anything else.

As has been said, there is no comparable resistance from campaign groups in the north-east of England. That is clear evidence that underground HVDC receives public support, making it a far more practical and feasible solution.

In East Anglia, the opposition to overhead pylons is not subsiding; it is growing and becoming more intense. Campaign groups are united in their resistance to this outdated approach to infrastructure. The Government, including the Minister, have made it clear that local campaigners will not be able to block their nationally important mission to build clean energy infrastructure across the UK. We are not blocking; we are trying to help. In my constituency, one local group wrote to National Grid, in response to a consultation, saying:

“By all means, build closer to our houses and shorten the route, just put it underground.”

That demonstrates that communities are not opposed to infrastructure or the objectives behind it. They are just against bad decisions to achieve it.

I mentioned streamlining the planning system to bring it into line with what is required of water companies laying major water pipes. There is a massive underground Anglian water pipe being installed from Bury St Edmunds, across my constituency to Abberton reservoir in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). That includes digging a trench through the sensitive landscape of Dedham vale across the Stour valley, almost exactly where the pylons or alternating current undergrounding will go. Nobody is objecting to that underground scheme. I have not had a whimper of complaint about that pipe going in.

Why stick to pylons when that method is slower and delays will make it far more expensive? The Government may argue, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned, that community benefits will compensate for the disruption to affected areas caused by pylons, but those ideas will not buy off the hostility to pylons and other unwanted infrastructure. Solutions that respect communities and their interests, as well as deliver for our energy network, are the future.

For Norwich to Tilbury, the onshore undergrounding HVDC proposal will cause significantly less environmental damage than overhead cables and AC undergrounding. Let me expand on that. For a start, the entire route would be underground, not just through the sensitive landscapes. The cable trenches required for undergrounding HVDC cables are far narrower than for AC cables.

AC undergrounding is proposed for the area of outstanding natural beauty, the special landscape area that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). That requires a 120-metre-wide trench, because AC cables need to be spaced out. That means a very wide swathe of destruction, as that vast trench is dug and refilled, and everything in its path is destroyed.

It is extremely expensive to avoid going through archaeological sites. The Stour valley is an archaeological site of the same importance as Stonehenge. If there had been stones in the Stour valley, we would have a Stonehenge, because there is evidence of a wooden henge. Ancient tribes lived there in prehistoric times and it was a significant area throughout Roman times and the middle ages.

All of that is at risk, in addition to the massive destruction of trees, ancient woodland and hedges, in order to install AC underground cables. I am all for mitigating the effect of pylons by undergrounding, but let us not kid ourselves that it is a solution for the most sensitive areas of landscape. It is also much more expensive to underground AC cables than DC cables. I would very much like the proposal to underground cables to be extended to other areas, such as the Roman River valley, which is technically not in the special landscape area but is just as special. The Government have an obligation to respect sensitive countryside, so that could be another cause for a judicial review. A much better solution would be to underground DC, not AC, cables through that sensitive landscape.

Another reason why this proposal is so advantageous is that offshore DC to onshore AC requires huge DC-to-AC converters at the cable end points. When DC current generated by a wind farm lands somewhere such as Friston in the constituency of Suffolk Coastal, there has to be a massive DC-to-AC converter for it to go into the AC grid network. If we started building a DC grid network—for example, if energy ran all the way from Norwich to Tilbury on a DC line—all those connections could go straight into the DC network, avoiding the need for extra infrastructure. Incidentally, that would apply to the interconnectors for energy coming from the continent. Electricity arriving from the proposed Tarchon Energy interconnector would be DC, so we would not need a massive DC-to-AC converter at Ardley in my constituency; we could have just one DC-to-AC converter at the point at which the electricity needs to be converted to AC much nearer London—at Tilbury or even the Isle of Grain.

It is clear that HVDC is right for many parts of the United Kingdom, not just East Anglia. Wind power stations are increasingly located along the coast or just off our coastline, and a DC transmission network would reflect that. Converting power to AC at landfall is inefficient and duplicative. A properly designed onshore and offshore HVDC network would reduce the infrastructure needed, cut down on converter stations and enable us to focus on building for real demand, rather than just peak production.

Globally, HVDC is becoming the standard for modern energy networks. By investing in HVDC now, the UK can maintain its leadership in renewable energy, create jobs and develop skills that will keep us competitive. The alternative is clinging to outdated, mid-20th century technology that will leave us falling behind other countries. Germany will not give up HVDC undergrounding altogether, but that is the presumption in our planning system, which I suggest the Government need to revise.

The Government must show decisive leadership and embrace an HVDC future. This is about more than just reducing costs and avoiding delays; it is about ensuring we meet our renewable energy goals in a way that works for communities, the environment, the economy and the planet.

09:53

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. This debate is an opportunity to discuss how to upgrade the grid in the best way possible, because currently, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the rules do not work. Despite the fact that we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and the most depleted in the G7, our planning system does not take nature into account.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgment that the previous Government did not adequately reform the energy system. I am also struck by the fact that he mentioned the 1989 Act. He has been in the House since 1992, when all the Government Members in the Chamber, with the exception of myself, were in school. I have been an ardent monitor of this House and energy policy more widely, and I have not seen him quite so enthusiastic about energy market reform until now, so I am somewhat sceptical about his conversion to the idea that we need to change our planning system. I am here to change the rules, and I am glad that he is, but we need to agree on exactly how to do that. We need to preserve our nature, while increasing our efforts to restore it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge it was the previous Government who commissioned the Banner report on streamlining the system? Let us approach this on a bipartisan basis—we are all on the same side, trying to achieve the great upgrade of our electricity grid—and stop scoring party political points, shall we?

[Ms Billington]

I am perfectly happy to acknowledge when the Opposition are right and I am afraid to say that on this one they are not. We need to preserve the nature we have, while increasing efforts to restore nature. To restore nature by 2030 by 30% is one of our manifesto commitments, and that has to be taken into account with planning and national infrastructure projects. We will not reach our ambitious climate targets without it. I am disappointed there was no reference to the impact of this kind of infrastructure on nature by the hon. Gentleman. Reaching our targets will require a strong land use framework that intersects with an energy special plan, to which we have committed, and an updated national planning policy framework. I am delighted that the Government are currently working on all three of these documents and I look forward to seeing more detail on them.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the importance of public consent and support. For anyone who is aware of my work before I came to Parliament, public consent and support are absolutely vital for us to be able to undertake the transformation that we are discussing. That also involves benefit for communities, and ownership and accountability for those communities, in the form of local energy projects to help us build a more resilient grid.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

As a former Energy Minister and therefore someone who has been involved in strategic energy policy, including introducing, through the Energy Act 2013, the capacity market—still a critical part of what is used to determine from where we get our energy—and through my long experience in this House, although not as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), I say that public support for these things, linked to public benefit, is often an illusion. I have seen many developers, not just on energy projects, who have promised great public benefits and then they disappear like dandelion seeds on the wind.

[Ms Billington]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is unusual that we agree—it is certainly the first time, although perhaps not the last—that developers end up having far too much say in these things and that the community does not have enough. I agree that we need to talk about how we change that.

An important part of the assessment by NESO and by the Government is that 8 GW of energy could be generated by local and community projects, reducing the need for further strengthening of the grid and enabling smart, local, flexible energy. That would increase our resilience and, if we stop the idea of developers simply trying to buy off local communities with either compensation or spurious benefits, instead having proper, locally owned energy projects, would build public consent and support. Putting energy closer to where it is used will alleviate stress on the grid and help to handle bottlenecks. It is crucial to point out that that needs to be done as well as grid upgrades.

The idea that grid upgrades will not happen is wrong. GB Energy is crucial in helping to develop those projects across the country. I note that Opposition Members voted against GB Energy. I would be interested to know how they think we are going to be able to achieve our goals without it, especially when the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentions the vagaries of private developers and their ability to bulldoze local communities.

Locally led energy is going to be crucial, and GB Energy will be able to do that, embracing a locally led approach to building grid infrastructure. By integrating a focus on local place-based energy projects, we can build the grid we need by working with local authorities and communities across the country.

A locally led approach is crucial for building consent among communities, whose members want to see infrastructure built—the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned that—but want to be included in how it is built. That is why the rules need to be changed. I am pleased to see that there is at least consensus on that. If we are talking about the risks of damage to the environment as well as public consent and support, we need to be aware that a significant amount of undergrounding is more damaging for our climate goals and for protecting nature than some of the proposals on pylons.

This is not a debate about if we upgrade the grid; it is a debate about how we build it. I am assured that the Government will hear my representations on combining our ambitions on a clean energy superpower with restoring nature by 2030.

09:59

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I and many Conservatives hope and aspire for a clean energy future, but I wish to make three points that the Government and the House should consider when contemplating the upgrade of our electricity grid.

First, similar to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), are we basing our decisions on the expedient technology of today or on the ideal technology of the future? High voltage direct current is increasingly used around the world. It means only six cables instead of 18, and there are no heat issues, which means they can be closely spaced. Many other countries favour this approach over pylons and, here in the UK, National Grid itself has favoured it in Lincolnshire, concluding that it is cheaper, quicker and less risky than overhead lines. Relying on old-fashioned technology is increasingly a fool’s errand. We see it in defence, social policy and now in energy.

Secondly, can we allow for a moment the notion that preserving our national heritage is a fundamental part of meeting our net zero commitments? After all, we do that in other parts of policy. We demand—sorry, I have lost my place. Can I take a moment?

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Emma Foody.

10:01

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, which matters a great deal in his constituency and mine. Although there may be disagreements on how we make the improvements, it is great to hear commitment from all sides. As we pursue ambitious goals to decarbonise our economy and expand green industries, we must confront an undeniable reality: the delivery of secure and cost-effective grid connections is not merely important, but essential.

The clean energy needs of green and decarbonising industrial clusters, particularly in regions such as the north-east, depend on reliable grid connectivity, and the problems that many face in being unable to get connections, or only with significant delays, are holding back growth. Without timely connections, we will struggle to meet the demand for renewable energy, deter inward investment and miss opportunities to utilise fully key industrial sites that could be central to our future prosperity. Grid connectivity is essential, particularly in areas poised to lead the way in offshore renewables. Power supply to port and quayside sites, which are critical for the infrastructure underpinning the growth of offshore wind energy, is essential.

The north-east has the capacity to lead the way in green, clean industry, but we are being held back due to grid connectivity and delays in projects and investment. As outlined in the Mayor of the North East’s response to the national industrial strategy Green Paper, national grid connections are central to offshore wind developers. They provide much-needed certainty to private investors, manufacturers and supply chains, creating thousands of clean energy jobs. For many industries, particularly in the north-east, the costs and long waiting times for grid connections are simply too high. The current capacity is insufficient to support the renewable energy generation that we require, and the delays in securing grid connections hold back business growth and leave sites underutilised when they should be driving forward our regional economies.

Let us take Newcastle international airport as an example. With a solar farm that already supplies 100% of its terminal’s electricity on sunny days, the airport generates more power than it needs. It wants to export its surplus electricity to the grid, yet it has been told that it cannot do so until next year at the earliest. It has been informed that, even then, a full connection may not be possible until 2035, which would mean a full 10 years to wait. It is an unacceptable situation. Like many businesses across the region, the airport has been forced to delay millions of pounds-worth of investment in sustainability schemes simply because it is uncertain as to when it will be able to connect to the grid. With a target of becoming carbon neutral by 2035, Newcastle international airport cannot reach that goal without access to the grid.

It is not just businesses such as the airport that are facing difficulties. Throughout the region, the barriers to grid connection are stalling industrial growth, limiting renewable energy delivery and even restricting economic activity in rural areas, where grid vulnerability remains a persistent issue. What is the solution? First, the Government’s upcoming planning reforms need to be fully implemented to improve the ability to approve critical infrastructure. This is essential to accelerate the decarbonisation process and secure long-term energy stability. It is also crucial that the approval processes for grid connections are streamlined, cutting the time it takes to link key industrial sites to the grid. Secondly, we must have better co-ordination between the national grid, the Crown Estate, distribution network operators and the offshore wind supply chain. Co-operative working is key to ensuring that delivery is timely and effective.

In the north-east, the strategic energy board, established through the deeper devolution deal, is already addressing grid challenges at pressure points. By aligning businesses’ future grid-connection needs with regional planning, we can ensure that grid reinforcement happens in the areas we need it the most, particularly at key industrial sites and renewable energy projects. Grid infrastructure must not only be viewed as a utility; it must be seen as a strategic tool for economic development. The north-east can lead the way in clean, green energy production, but we need the grid infrastructure in place to support it.

The Government can act now to ensure that our grid can support both our industrial ambitions and our green objectives, driving the growth that is rightly at the heart of the Government’s agenda. This is not just about providing power: it is about jobs, investment and the future prosperity of our regions. By working together and prioritising the needs of the grid, we can accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy system, boost growth, unlock the potential of our industries and provide the jobs of the future.

09:30

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and to speak in this debate. I am going to speak about five things: the environment, efficiency, energy, economics and ergonomics.

I will start by talking about the environment, because this debate is clearly couched in a critical and shared understanding that the environment matters. But what is the environment? At a philosophical level the environment is, in a sense, our connection with reality. It is our link to the natural world through the experience and character of the places we live, and the places we live matter because they inspire us or disappoint us; they encourage us or leave us wanting.

Everyone deserves their chance to experience beauty. I make no apology for making the case for beauty; I have done so many times as a Minister, shadow Minister and Back Bencher. Everyone deserves their chance to experience beauty because, as Keats understood, beauty and goodness are inseparable. Beauty and truth are indelibly imprinted one upon the other. So when we speak about the pylons, let us speak about the effect they have on the places in which people live.

In Lincolnshire, particularly in my constituency, a row of huge pylons as big as Nelson’s column in a flat landscape will have a devastating effect on the vistas and views of not just the people who live in their immediate proximity but people from miles away. We will see those structures across the flat fens for 5, 10 or perhaps even 15 miles, which is unacceptable. It is an imposition on a flat landscape that historically has never enjoyed tall structures, with the exception of the churches, and they were built to the glory of God. The pylons certainly are not that, and I do not think even the Minister would defend them on that basis—their holiness, that is. So when we think of this immense row of pylons stretching down the east coast, let us understand their connection to the day-to-day environment and the things that affect people’s local sense of wellbeing. I hope the Minister will recognise that, for that reason, the more we can mitigate their effect, the better.

[Patrick Spencer]

May I put on the record my apologies for fluffing my speech a moment ago? One of the points I wanted to make is that we take into account our natural environment when we look at housing and planning policy. The reality is that when we want to build a development on the side of a village, put an extension on a house or expand our housing stock, planning authorities demand that we take into account the natural environment. That importantly includes the aesthetic, which we talk about a lot, as well as the preservation of our landscapes.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an intervention, not another speech.

[Patrick Spencer]

If the Government choose to solve the housing crisis by taking into account our environment, why can we not do that with energy policy as well?

[Sir John Hayes]

We can and do. Contrary to what was said earlier, the existing planning policy does take into account the effect on the environment. That is why, for example, we do not build unsuitable things in areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is also why sites of special scientific interest matter in the planning system, as we mitigate what we can do by them, in them and near them. By the way, these pylons will run alongside one of the most precious natural environments in our country: the salt marshes that run along my constituency. They are a site of outstanding importance because of the bird life they sustain, which makes them a unique environment.

Let us be clear about the need to mitigate all else in the pursuit of maintaining those things that are already embedded in our planning system as highly significant, such as those of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) in his pithy and powerful intervention.

[Ms Billington]

Salt marshes are very much a unique environment. Does the right hon. Gentleman have concerns about the possibility of trenching through salt marshes as opposed to using pylons, which actually have less impact on the environment, particularly given the climate sink value of salt marshes? Would he concede that there might be a need for us to reconsider the way in which we tackle fragile environments such as salt marshes, rather than simply trenching them, which has done long-term damage?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a good point, and it is why Lincolnshire county council’s submission to National Grid specifically takes into account the trenching problem that the hon. Lady raised. It suggests an offshore grid, but obviously one that avoids the damage she mentioned. I recommend that she studies that submission—it is in the public domain—to see how we can offshore that grid without damaging the salt marshes in the way she suggests.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made the relevant point that there are balancing factors. First, once cables are undergrounded, they are maintenance free, but pylons require constant maintenance, which therefore adds to their carbon footprint. Everybody has seen that. Secondly, salt marshes are very often Ramsar sites and migration bird sites, and we do not want overhead power lines interfering with the migration of birds. We often see that scores of swans have been killed on power lines because they are not very good at navigating around these things.

[Sir John Hayes]

With the insight for which he is known, my hon. Friend has anticipated two of the points that I was going to make. The problem with pylons being so close to SSSIs is that the birds do not know boundaries. Of course, the salt marsh in Lincolnshire matters because, exactly as my hon. Friend said, it is important as a site for geese and duck in particular. To run the pylons so close to that is at best highly contentious and at worse wholly destructive. The offshore grid that my hon. Friend describes can be run further out to sea, which is what we do with cables routinely. If we were able to see the ocean bed around our islands, we would see any number of trunked cables that run through them, which provide vital power and communications infrastructure.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

There is an interesting discussion about the balance of trade-offs. One of the other considerations is cost, and the cost of undergrounding is multiple times the amount of overhead pylons. The previous Government were not able to demonstrate that they could do it at the same cost, so how does the right hon. Gentleman balance that factor? Does he not think that his constituents, and constituents throughout the country, might consider the loading of those costs on to them unacceptable?

[Sir John Hayes]

There is a big argument to be had about costs because we are planning a project that will last decades—perhaps even longer. When I was the Energy Minister, I was very conscious of the fact that we might be making 100-year decisions. It is very hard to gauge costs over time because of two things. First, there are the ongoing maintenance costs associated with any line that runs above ground, and given the changing climate, it is likely that extreme weather events will become more frequent, and extreme weather events will have an effect on anything above ground. Secondly, the relative costs of underground and overhead cables vary according to the kind of cable laid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said; and indeed some of the evidence from other places in Europe and elsewhere suggests that the cost of trunking cables underground is falling, whereas there is no similar reduction in the cost of overhead cables, which, on pylons, have been at the same cost for a very long time indeed.

The final point is about consent. The longer these things take, the more they cost. Certainly in Lincolnshire—and I imagine this is true in Essex, Suffolk and other places—there will be protracted legal challenges to the pylons, whereas, with local support and the support of local authorities like Lincolnshire county council, undergrounding would be a much more straightforward affair. Factoring in those costs is complex, but it needs to happen.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Very briefly, the ESO review of the east of England network demonstrated that there is a higher up-front cost for undergrounding of an extra £1 billion from Norwich to Tilbury, but in the longer term it saves money. It is just not correct to say that undergrounding is automatically much more expensive. That is a departmental mantra that is now discredited—just read the ESO and NESO documents.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention—he is being very generous in giving way—can I just say that we have to move on to the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am and there are many people who wish to participate? I have not imposed time limits; all I am saying is that there are 13 minutes left and probably seven people who want to speak.

[Sir John Hayes]

On that basis, Sir Christopher, I will not give way again, for as you have noted, I have been immensely generous. I will abbreviate my remarks without missing out any of the other four subjects that I promised to speak about. Let me deal with them very rapidly. Efficiency is critically important in delivering energy policy. As I have already said, if we want to get that policy pursued and delivered quickly, we need an approach that avoids the protracted debates and disputes I have described.

Let us speak more strategically about energy policy, on which the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made a powerful point; we need to understand that bringing supply closer to demand is vital at a strategic level. Successive Governments have failed at this. A lot of people have made comments about the previous Government—the previous Government would have done a lot better if they had listened to me more often. I hope this one will; then they will not go wrong. It is important to reconsider the relationship between supply and demand. No Government have done that with sufficient vigour, and I hope this one will.

On economics, putting in the pylons will also have a displacement effect, because Lincolnshire is perhaps the most important county of all in respect of food production. I understand that about 30% of the fresh produce we consume goes through my constituency. South Lincolnshire produces 20% of the vegetables we consume, 20% of the sugar beet, and so on. The displacement effect of energy infrastructure, including pylons and solar, will have a devastating effect on food production and therefore food security. I simply say to the Minister that energy security must not be made the enemy of food security, and vice versa. That is why the economics are more complex than they perhaps first appear.

Finally, on the cognitive ergonomics of Government, it is really important that in winding up, the Minister assures this Chamber that the Departments across Government are working closely together. We have talked about land use studies, and that is a good thing, but given the commitments that the Planning Minister has made to beauty and the commitments that the Environment Secretary has made to food production and security, it is important that we do not simply pursue a policy that is invidious because it contradicts the other priorities of Government. In my long experience as a Minister in a variety of Departments, I have found that lateral thinking in Government is a rare and precious thing; I simply recommend to the Minister a more lateral approach in combining those critical priorities.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is right: we need to approach this in a bolder than partisan way, because we are speaking about fundamental decisions in the interest of our country. This is a matter of national interest, but it does not have to be a matter of national interest that compromises the common good.

10:20

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will speak briefly because I know that many of my colleagues also wish to speak.

I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). This does not have to be a partisan issue, but equally we have to acknowledge the situation as we find it, not the fantasy that we wish it to be. The reality is that we have had 14 years in which decisions could have been made.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Here we go.

[Jack Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman says, “Here we go”, but it is absolutely relevant to this debate. Yes, the Conservative Government passed the Banner report—well done. That is the big achievement of the last 14 years. There was a fundamental opportunity over the last decade to recognise where we were going as a country, and what we needed to do. Those decisions were consistently kicked down the line, and now we are here.

The window in which we have to operate is incredibly narrow. We essentially have five years to meet the transition, which we have to do. Yes, underground cabling will cost more, but also there is a significant time delay, too. It is not a 2030 timeframe; it is a 2034 one. Let us get over the fantasy of a magical offshore grid connection that will solve everything way more cheaply and quickly. It just does not exist. We have to be honest with people.

There will always be opposition to any development. I grew up in Suffolk; I know that there will be opposition to the grid upgrades. There is also opposition to solar farms in the west of the county. Obviously, there is opposition to Sizewell C and things like it, but that cannot get in the way of progress. There is also the Green party bingo card—opposing all the projects; well, we definitely cannot go down that route either.

This is about opportunity. There is an opportunity to say that we will be transitioning to renewable energy to fulfil our mission and the guarantee that we made to working people at the election. It is our chance to seize the opportunity for greater energy independence, and for us—including my home county of Suffolk—to seize the opportunity to be world leaders in the energy transition. We cannot keep going around the houses, dithering, delaying and pretending that this stuff will not happen. It might sound good to constituents back home, but I grew up in that area—

[Patrick Spencer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Abbott]

I will finish my point because it is directly related to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Central Suffolk. We already have pylons running through that part of the world. We have Mendlesham mast, which can be seen from miles around. We also have Eye airfield, big business parks, warehouses and farm buildings. We already have infrastructure in place.

[Sir John Hayes]

We already have horror; let us have more.

[Jack Abbott]

It is not horror at all; it is infrastructure that people desperately rely on. The right hon. Gentleman might want to live in a fantasy in which costs do not matter and there are no trade-offs. Well, that is not the case.

I also say to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex: East Anglia and the fenlands, which he mentioned, are critical, because if we do not build the energy transition infrastructure that we need, guess what? There is no landscape. We will be surveying everything from a boat. That is the reality.

[Patrick Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman talks about speed and the need to do the transition quickly. May I draw his attention to the work of Bent Flyvbjerg? He wrote a book last year called “How Big Things Get Done”, in which he noted, having looked at infrastructure projects across the world, that less than one in 10 are delivered on time and on budget. Part of the problem is making bad decisions in the planning process and not making the right decisions. If we want to get things done, we should take our time now and get the planning right.

[Jack Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman has just made a case for why we must crack on, and stop dithering and delaying. There is a history of doing bad things slowly, and that should never be repeated. It is not an excuse to do nothing now. We cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road. We cannot keep relying on our constituents to foot the bill for an inefficient, unstable energy system—which is exactly what we have inherited. We can be as bipartisan as we like, but we have to accept the reality. We cannot keep heaping costs on to our constituents and businesses for our failure to invest properly in the system, which we now have five years to do.

To conclude—I am conscious that I want to bring my colleagues in—this debate has illustrated the choice we face between two competing visions for the future. We can choose whether or not we are prepared to stand up for Britain’s energy security; we can choose whether or not we are prepared to throw away billions of pounds in taxpayers’ money on fantasies that will never come to pass, or act now to slash bills; and we must choose whether or not we are prepared to destroy vast swathes of land, which underground cabling would do, and commit lasting ecological damage. I know which I would prefer, and which my constituents prefer, and I am unapologetic about choosing opportunity over wasteful fantasy projects.

10:25

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I welcome the chance to discuss matters like this in Westminster Hall—where, in my experience, there is an opportunity to look at the issues and options calmly and without party political point scoring. We must deliver the energy transition at speed, and with community inclusion. The upgrades to the electricity grid are vital for net zero, but how this is done will shape public trust. We can, and must, achieve rapid progress and meaningful community engagement.

My constituents in Waveney Valley—like much of East Anglia—face floods, droughts, and farmland at risk of submersion: they understand the urgency, and voted for action in the election. The grid upgrade is essential to connect renewable energy capacity and end reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, I have spent the last 10 years leading national environmental charities advocating for and advancing renewable energy, speeding up the transition, and advocating for strengthening the grid. The question is how we can best do that.

There are significant concerns over this proposed pylon route, as we have heard—concerns about the impact on sensitive nature and heritage sites, including the rural landscape, about the impact on farming, and about the implications for local traffic. This is not just about convenience. We need to make decisions that are right for the long term and resilient to the future climate changes that we face.

I want to zoom out, as other speakers have done, and talk about the overall climate emergency and climate breakdown that we are grappling with and working to address. We have seen in Parliament over recent decades a broad consensus on the need for action to be taken: the Climate Change Act 2008 was passed with cross-party support, and the 2050 net zero target was embedded by a later Government, with broad support across the House. We have not had the kind of polarisation that we have seen in the US, and we need to maintain that strong support and to avoid the issue being weaponised so that it becomes divisive and is used for political point scoring, but we risk that happening if we do not take people with us and if people are not heard.

The energy transition must be done with communities, not to them—communities need to feel engaged and heard to maintain their support. People want to see action taken. Speed and proper community consultation can go hand in hand; indeed, they must. The best way to accelerate the energy transition is for communities to feel consulted and involved from the outset. If people believe projects are imposed on them without proper engagement, there is a risk of slowing progress and undermining trust in the renewable energy revolution—a revolution that must happen.

That is why I want to see us use the time that we have right now. The National Grid consultation closed in July and we face a long delay until a planning application is expected at some point next year—we are not sure when. During this time, other options can be properly considered, and that is all I am calling for: a proper consideration of all the options. National Grid has acknowledged that undergrounding is possible—it is doing it in two small sections of the route—but there remain significant concerns.

[Jack Abbott]

Will the hon. Member give way? That is an important point.

[Adrian Ramsay]

As the hon. Member knows, we are about to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople, so I would like to finish my points. These issues need to be properly considered and the alternatives must be properly examined, including undergrounding more or all of the route, as we have heard, or an offshore grid. Such things are being done in other countries. Indeed, a 2020 National Grid study indicated that an integrated offshore approach could be more cost-effective than piecemeal alternatives. That is why all the options need to be properly considered, and why constituents need to be listened to. People are saying that they feel let down. One of my constituents said:

“So far, we have been subjected to a series of lies, called NIMBYs, and told our rural area is unimportant.”

Another said that there is a failure

“to engage with the local community and…to prove the pylons are better than other more sensible alternatives”.

They want the Government to start listening.

The rapid deployment of renewables must happen. The principle is clear: decisions about infrastructure must be made with communities, and we must maintain and build public trust. All connectivity options must be properly assessed. My constituents are keen to support the energy transition, but they need respect and consultation, and to be shown that the impacts are being properly considered and any compensation packages are clearly set out. The energy transition is not a choice between speed and community support. With thoughtful planning and meaningful engagement, we can, and must, achieve both.

10:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this debate, and I thank all of those attending—it is good to see representation from most parties.

Let me start with the good news that there is considerable consensus in the room, despite a couple of testy exchanges. Members from across the House have agreed that decarbonising our electricity generation is critical to meeting the UK’s contribution to tackling global climate change. A less centralised and more distributed electricity network is also essential for economic growth, and to ensure that our various businesses and homes continue to have power.

The hon. Members for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), as well as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, have all articulated the decarbonisation challenge very well. Members have also agreed on the need for a planning system that strikes the right balance between national needs and local voices. That recurring challenge comes up in so many debates in the House, and I will say more about it shortly.

It is welcome that the new Labour Government have committed to delivering

“the largest upgrade to our national clean energy infrastructure in a generation.”

It is in all our interests that they succeed, particularly, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex conceded, in the context of the previous Conservative Government not acting with anything close to the speed or ambition that the challenge demands. But as we have seen with past goals, such as the previous Government’s original goal to end the sale of full combustion engine cars by 2030, aspirations will remain lofty ideas without a solid plan to achieve them. In that context, around 40% of projects face a connection wait of at least a year, according to National Grid’s figures. Indeed, according to Electrical Review, 75% of energy sector experts identified timely grid connections as the principal obstacle impeding the growth of renewable energy in the UK.

It is therefore essential that the Government show the leadership that is needed not just to upgrade our electricity grid, enabling its decarbonisation and providing greater value for money for consumers, but to tackle in a sensitive and inclusive way the recurring challenge regarding the balance between listening to the voices of local communities and achieving national objectives. The hon. Member articulately highlighted the role of community consent and engagement in delivering the infrastructure that we need, although I would assert that his figures on the cost of buried versus overhead cables are somewhat disputed by a number of sources.

The Liberal Democrats also want to see the electricity grid network reformed to support businesses’ transition to renewable energy sources and to permit local energy grids to supply power to communities who need it most. We support the expansion of the grid network through a strategic land and sea use framework to facilitate an optimum balance between electricity generation, food production and nature recovery. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the hon. Member for Waveney Valley have articulated the challenge of ensuring that we balance the demands on our land and use it appropriately.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see more done on a rooftop solar revolution by expanding incentives for households to install solar panels, including a guaranteed fair price for electricity sold back into the grid. We believe that upgrades to the national grid are essential to ensure that electric vehicles are cheap to charge and are an accessible step in making everyday lives more sustainable.

Making schemes for community benefit from new infrastructure compulsory will be essential for local buy-in, and we have tabled an amendment to the Great British Energy Bill to that effect. Keeping energy bills affordable, at a time when many are struggling to pay their energy costs, is important, particularly in the context of Government cuts to the winter fuel payment and the forthcoming 1.2% increase to the energy price cap. The Labour Government need to take more radical action to ensure that consumer energy bills remain affordable.

As several Members have said, consent and dialogue are essential. I particularly applaud the observation from the hon. Member for Waveney Valley that consultation needs to be more than just a technical process. It is important to build trust and dialogue so that people believe in the process.

I face some of these challenges in my Didcot and Wantage constituency in Oxfordshire, where Thames Water proposes to build the second largest reservoir, claiming that studies suggest that it is needed to meet long-term water demand. A key challenge is that my constituents simply do not trust Thames Water’s motives and its ability to deliver such a large scheme. That is a strong illustration of the challenge of balancing national goals and local concerns.

I do not have the answer to how we strike the right balance, but it is something that we all need to think about, and particularly the new Government. I call on them not to think that their unassailable majority in terms of seats in this place gives them the power to override those concerns. Perhaps they should think more in terms of vote share, and they should recognise that many people did not buy into this Government. It is therefore important to have dialogue and to find the right balance in the planning process between national and local goals.

My constituency has seen huge population growth in recent years, with more than 4,000 further homes planned for Valley Park near Didcot. The science and technology sector has a major presence at Milton Park, Culham and Harwell campus. Harwell campus has a major current and future demand for electricity to power globally important synchrotron and neutron beam equipment and spin-off businesses. In that context, confidence is needed that future affordable energy supply will happen.

If the electricity grid is upgraded, local and community energy projects can provide even more help. Community-owned projects can help with the challenge of getting local buy-in, and may have a return on investment and businesses in local areas. Flexibility in local energy systems can allow local energy trading, meaning energy pricing at lower than market rates, allowing more money in bill payers’ pockets and reduced overheads for businesses.

I am pleased to see many examples of solar panel roof schemes in my constituency, but would like more, particularly on new houses. Thames Travel, Didcot Girls’ school, Chiltern primary school, Hagbourne school, Fir Tree junior school in Wallingford and Malcolm Building at Ashurst Court in Sandford have all invested in solar panel roof schemes. Just outside my constituency, in Oxford West and Abingdon, the Sandford lock hydroelectric plant uses Archimedes screws to generate electricity from the flow of the river, generating clean renewable power for local community benefit. We need more such projects. I call on the Government to create the electricity grid and wider regulatory framework to empower our local communities to benefit.

The key challenge we face is a national one—the balance between national goals and hearing local concerns and getting local buy-in. Dialogue, and ensuring that things are done with, not to, communities, is essential. I hope that the Government will not let their majority go to their head, but will engage in the challenge of getting an effective, consenting planning process.

10:38

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. It has been a pleasure, as a shadow energy Minister and a constituency MP with similar issues, to have discussed these issues to try to find a way through. It has also been a pleasure to share notes on the experiences of the communities that we both represent—indeed, there are many such communities represented by Members in this room and beyond.

It is good to see so many people attending this debate. It shows the groundswell of feeling outside this Chamber on what we need to do, whether that is on upgrading the grid and making our way to our net zero, cleaner future—everybody in this room acknowledges that we need to upgrade the grid in order to do that—or in representing communities who are concerned about the pace and direction of travel, and the inability, or refusal, of those in positions of power to consider alternative technologies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

As ever, I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member. He said that all parts of the United Kingdom are keen to achieve and be part of this goal. Renewable energy in Northern Ireland makes up 50% of the electricity generated, but it has to reach 80% by 2030, as I know he is aware. That is six years away. When it comes to scale, pace and complexity, does he agree that there is a need for the whole of the UK to have additional support and funding to reach these goals? That means Northern Ireland needs to be part of this process as well.

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Gentleman knows well, I hope, that my commitment to our entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is just as firm as his, and when I speak about the UK, I reference Strangford and Northern Ireland more widely. The situation in Northern Ireland is unique in that the number of homes that are off-grid far outweighs the number of off-grid homes in mainland GB. That brings its own complexities with regard to decarbonisation, moving away from gas or oil, and boilers for heating and other such purposes. I completely understand the unique complexities of decarbonising in a Northern Irish environment, and he is absolutely right that when the Government take decisions on UK-wide infrastructure projects, they should be cognisant of Northern Ireland’s unique situation, being in an all-Ireland grid and having so many off-grid properties. That should never be far from our minds.

I thank the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer), the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), as ever, and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for their contributions. I did not agree with all of them, but they were all very thought through. I know that everybody in this room, whatever their perspective on how we achieve a cleaner future, agrees that upgrading the grid is important. How we go about that is the issue concerning us today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex eloquently highlighted the strength of feeling among communities across the country being asked to take on the burden of what is being proposed. I mentioned that we shared notes, and that is because my constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, faces the threat of huge energy infrastructure bills over the next few years. Communities fear the genuine threat of industrialisation sweeping rural landscapes and the impact on communities as a result.

In my West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency, the energy industry is omnipresent. It is home to the subsea capital of Europe and on the edge of the oil and gas capital of Europe. Many of my constituents work, or have worked, in the energy industry. Many are involved in the design, construction or installation of underground or offshore pipelines for oil, gas or electric cables. If someone digs deep enough in my constituency, they will find national gas pipelines buried underground. The only indication of them being there are the little yellow marker signs on the surface warning people to beware and not to dig anywhere close.

I say that because I stress that my constituents and so many others around the country who are raising this issue are not doing so because they are being needlessly obstructive. They are not doing it because they are being anti-net zero, or because they do not agree the grid needs to be upgraded. They just know, due to their experience working in the industry, that there are other ways forward. It is for this reason, and the overwhelming desire on the Conservative side of the House to exhaust all the options in our pursuit to find the best technology at the best cost that would deliver our decarbonised grid—and not, as the National Energy System Operator report suggested, that we favour pace over perfection—and to do so in a way that does not blight so many communities and our great British countryside, that we committed in our manifesto to take a different approach.

[Tom Hayes]

We have heard in this debate about the importance of expediency. Does he agree that, uniquely, we live in a world in turmoil? We see growing international threats, and one of the surest ways in which Britain can protect ourselves against them is by being energy independent. As a consequence, we need not just to move quickly to meet our climate crisis—our energy defences are down, and it is important that we can protect ourselves in the future.

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more. Indeed, I long for a day when we are much more energy independent. That is why I take such issue with Labour’s position on the North sea and the wilful destruction of our oil and gas industry, leaving us open to further outside influence and reliant on hostile states. That is one of the reasons why I think that we need to increase our energy security, and why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to improve it.

This is not about whether we do that; it is about how we go about it and about taking decisions now in the best long-term interests of people and of the energy security of this country. I do not believe that the way that the Government are proceeding at the minute is in the best long-term interests of the communities of this country. If we get this right, work together, get to a solution where communities feel they have a stake in the energy transition, deliver the clean future and become energy independent, as I used to say when I was the Minister, that is a win, win, win—but we are a long way from that just yet.

I mentioned community benefits briefly. In June 2023, I visited East Anglia to begin the consultation process on the community benefits package. On 7 December 2023, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the framework of that package. I wonder whether the Minister present might be able to give us an update as to where the process is and where the Government have reached on community benefits—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

That was almost a year ago.

[Andrew Bowie]

Quite. Regardless of the technologies that are selected, of whether the pylons and associated infrastructure are built and of any right hon. or hon. Member’s view, communities out there want to know what the community benefits package and the trade-offs will be, and what they will receive as a result of having to host infrastructure in the national interest. An update on that would be delightful.

[Ms Billington]

I am struck that we have heard a lot about community engagement and consultation, but what does not seem to be clear is exactly what is meant by it, despite the fact that all of us do a lot of community consultation and engagement through the process of democracy. In particular, given how people talk about it, we could quite well end up with a veto by a small number of people of a transformation of our country to increase resilience, reduce costs and tackle the climate crisis. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is not desirable. That is why we need to change the planning process, so that we can support the transformation we seek.

[Andrew Bowie]

I respect the hon. Lady’s position and welcome her intervention, but it would be reprehensible if hon. Members elected to this House to represent their communities did not do so. For her, it might just be a small number of people complaining about this, but for many Members of this House and representatives in other legislatures across the United Kingdom, huge numbers of people in communities that they represent are very concerned about the impacts that the plans will have on their landscape, their land, their house prices and so on. It is incumbent on us, as the elected representatives of those people, to bring those concerns to the House to debate and discuss, and for a decision then to be taken by the Government. Whether we like it or not, a decision will be taken by the Government about the best way forward, which is why I asked about community benefits.

The consultation that I mentioned a minute ago was focused specifically on the community benefits package, and I asked whether we might see more detail on it in the near future, and whether it might be statutory— I know that that was something being looked at by the Department, but it has been looking at it for some time.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I have little time, but I will.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned protecting landscapes. Does he agree that it is rather audacious for those in his party to refer to that, given that after 14 years they have left us with nature targets that they failed to achieve, still drilling for oil and gas, with backing for fracking for a significant amount of time, sewage in our rivers and seas, and plastic bottles across the country because they refused to implement environmental schemes on that front? Does he agree that he has a cheek to mention protecting the landscape? Furthermore, does he agree that many of his arguments today are a delaying tactic? We need that power in west London.

[Andrew Bowie]

No, I do not agree.

Before I conclude, I will say this. Noticeable today and in discussions on this subject in the recent past, is a certain tone that is being adopted by some Labour Members. While we might disagree about the ways to reach net zero and to best upgrade the grid, there are people out there who are genuinely worried about what these plans might mean for them and their communities. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to please engage in this debate with an element of respect for the views expressed on behalf of those people and communities up and down the country.

I know that the Minister recognises this. Indeed, he has always engaged in this debate with due respect for those communities. There are people out there concerned about the way forward and the pace at which this change is coming. Please remember those people, consider other options, and listen to those communities. We can then bring the country together, and everybody can contribute to this transition, which we all agree needs to happen in the national interest.

10:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure, Sir Christopher, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for introducing the debate, for his approach, and for the engagement we have had on the topic in the short time that I have been in this job. While I suspect we might disagree politically on a great many things, his repeated commitment to the need for net zero is important, and separates him from some hon. Members who might make the issue of grid updates part of an excuse to avoid dealing with the climate issue. I welcome that, and I was pleased to meet him and his colleagues recently to discuss the matter.

I also thank all others who have contributed to the debate. I welcome the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) to his new role. He is not just a shadow Energy Minister now, but shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. Clearly, he did not have enough on his plate before. I do not know what it says about the Scottish group of Conservative MPs that he has two jobs, but I will leave that to one side. The debate this morning has been wide-ranging, although I confess I did not anticipate an existential question from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) about the nature of beauty and the environment. I learned a lot from that, but I will leave the theological debate about pylons to others in the House.

I want to pick up on the general context first, and then some of the specific issues that have been raised. When it comes to the security of our energy future, few matters face us as a Government more important than the delivery of network infrastructure. It was the topic of the very first meeting I had as a Minister, and has been the topic of almost every other meeting I have had in this job, with a range of different people looking at it. Our network infrastructure is in dire need of upgrading.

I will start with the point that the shadow Minister finished on. I recognise that the impact of delivering these upgrades, while important to our national infrastructure, will be felt in individual communities; that is the nature of this. I recognise that there will be communities across Great Britain and Northern Ireland that will have to host energy infrastructure. We thank them for doing so and, while recognising the importance of upgrading infrastructure for the whole country, also recognise the need to get the balance right.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is always incredibly helpful with questions that I or anybody asks, which I appreciate and thank him for. For Northern Ireland to be successful, it needs support from Government here. The shadow Minister reiterated that. I ask the Minister to say something perhaps similar for the record, so that it is in Hansard. We in Northern Ireland need to be very much part of the strategy for the future. As others have said, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are always better together, but there are advantages—let us see some of those advantages.

[Michael Shanks]

While I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, me repeating “better together” is sometimes tricky in my political party. I do, however, reiterate my commitment to the whole of the United Kingdom. He will know that I take that very seriously, and I have had a number of meetings on the topic with the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, who is responsible for energy. Clearly, the role I have is different in Northern Ireland, given the transferred nature of energy policy and the whole island grid, but I take the issues very seriously and commit to that today.

The delivery of a reinforced modern electricity network is critical for every home and business across the country. It is a critical enabler for our Clean Power 2030 mission, which is designed to deliver not just energy security but economic growth, skilled jobs and cheaper energy, which the country so desperately needs. In short, transforming the network underpins our shared commitment to energy security, prosperity and the low-carbon future that the country needs. It is fair to say that this transformation is extremely long overdue. The last significant modernisation of the grid took place in the 1960s. New investment into industries of the future, such as data centres, will play such an important part in the economy of the next few decades. We need to deliver jobs around that, unlocking growth, but electricity demands will increase by an expected 60% by 2035 and double by 2050.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I want to bring the Minister’s attention to issues being faced in west London. He mentioned data centres; we recently had confirmation of a great investment from CyrusOne, but it has to get power from Enfield because there are huge constraints on the energy system in west London. Does the Minister agree that we need to ramp up the work on connecting these new investments to the grid? We must not allow the tactics of the Opposition, which are about delay and going back 14 years to decisions they should have made but never did. Now is the time to take action; people should not be required to pay higher energy fees than they should, which is another aspect of this issue.

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that important point. Connection dates on both the generation and demand sides are much too far in the future. We need to build more of the network structure across the country and reform the way we deal with connections, which is ongoing.

I am conscious of time and want to give the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex time to respond. We have heard from a number of hon. Members about the impact of grid expansions on their communities. I want to make three key points. First, I do not accept that grid expansion is riding roughshod over communities. Communities will have a say in these projects. Secondly, I take a less dismissive view than some hon. Members about the importance of genuine community benefits. If communities host infrastructure and generation, they should benefit. The shadow Minister referred to work under way, which he said the previous Government spent a year on and we have moved on in five months. We are moving quickly to work out what effective community benefit looks like. We are developing guidance on that, particularly for hosting transmission network infrastructure, which will be published in due course.

On the point about modern technology, delivery of the network is underpinned by the latest technology, tailoring it to locations that urgently need reinforcement. It relies on upgrading existing power lines first, and uses innovative strategic design and options to find solutions that balance ecological impacts and, crucially, cost. That is important, given that the cost is borne by billpayers across the country.

Hon. Members will be under no illusion that we have to expand the network considerably, rewiring and connecting to new areas of demand in future. That is why we have outlined our mission of clean power by 2030. We will publish our response to NESO’s report soon. The mission will be achieved by investment in renewable generation, including onshore and offshore wind, solar and storage. There can be no transition to that clean power future without the grid upgrade. That work will take us to 2030 but, given the increase in demand to 2050, it will have to continue far beyond that.

I want to pick up a point about NESO’s advice on cost. NESO’s advice on the project in East Anglia concerns whether it will be cheaper or more expensive. A number of hon. Members should review that advice more carefully. I would have gone into more detail but I have only 40 seconds to wrap up. It is worth clarifying that delays in delivering the undergrounding part were not factored into some of the points that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex made.

To conclude a wide-ranging debate, we are on the edge of an industrial and energy revolution. We want to reduce bills and deliver energy security. To do that we need to upgrade the grid infrastructure, which must be hosted in some communities. We want to bring them with us but that work has to be done, and that is the commitment of this Government.

10:59

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thank the Minister for his engagement and for the meeting he had with MPs. It would be very kind if he could write to me with the further detail that he has not been able to put on the record today. I would also point out that the only orange flag against ultrahigh voltage direct current undergrounding in the ESO review in the spring was about cable availability. It was not a red flag but an orange flag. With streamlining of the planning process, this could be sped up. It is a possibility, and I hope the Minister will continue dialogue on this issue, because I think he will need this as a solution to the problems he will run into.

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

Fly-tipping

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for local councils to tackle fly-tipping.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. We have only 30 minutes for this debate, and I am keen to take as many interventions as possible, so I am looking forward to hearing many contributions from across different sides of this Chamber.

Fly-tipping is a major scourge in the local areas of many constituents, not only in my constituency, but across the country. It is the illegal dumping of waste in public or private spaces, often in areas that are designated for waste disposal. As people will be aware through the news and other online sources, fly-tipping has become a significant environmental issue, with millions of pounds being spent annually on cleaning up waste and countless communities affected by the unsightly and hazardous consequences. This problem not only affects the aesthetics of the environment, but poses serious health and safety risks.

In today’s debate, I hope to explore the nature of fly-tipping, its causes and consequences, and where we need further Government action. There have been regular debates on this topic in Westminster Hall over the last number of years, including recently in September. I acknowledge that all Governments have struggled with this issue and that solutions have been piecemeal, with successes but also concerns. I welcome the announcement this week of respect orders and this Government’s focus on antisocial behaviour; I hope that, alongside those, this Government will focus on and challenge those who persistently fly-tip in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward and for giving me permission to intervene when I asked him before. There is pressure on councils everywhere; is he aware that the tightening of restrictions on general waste, in order to meet recycling targets for councils, has made them more difficult to follow? In some instances, it has led to greater examples of fly-tipping. Does he agree that the Government must support local councils and streamline the process to find and deal with this issue effectively in every postcode throughout the United Kingdom?

[Tristan Osborne]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. We are having this debate not only to discuss how we can better support local councils, but to acknowledge some of the successes of local authorities around the country where they have been challenging this issue, and hopefully to share that expertise. I agree that fines need to increase for those caught, and councils need to be given support from central Government to pursue that. One reason I am bringing forward this debate is that farmers and communities in rural areas in in my constituency have seen significant increases in fly-tipping, specifically around the villages of Wouldham, Burham and Capstone. We have had a long legacy of urban fly-tipping, but this is not just an urban blight; it also affects rural areas.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for organising this debate on such an important subject. In my constituency, Foxcote Lane is regularly used by fly-tippers to dump fridges, building waste and all sorts of other detritus. We think that is appalling—absolutely awful—and I welcome the Home Secretary’s move on respect orders to tackle some of those issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that the people involved in fly-tipping should be asked to clean up their own waste?

[Tristan Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Around the country, we see community payback initiatives whereby individuals who commit the crime are then sanctioned to go and clear up the mess either in that location or in parks and other green spaces. I think that restorative justice approach is absolutely a solution to this issue. Of course, this problem remains one of the biggest challenges for council enforcement departments, and the causes are multifaceted.

First, there are the economic factors. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, a key reason people engage in such behaviour is the expense of private waste management companies. People try to avoid disposal fees, and fly-tipping is a convenient alternative. Secondly, we have seen a reduction in waste disposal services; in some areas, councils have had to close household waste recycling services and/or introduce charges. Thirdly, there is a lack of enforcement. Enforcement numbers have been reduced in many council areas due to local government budget cuts and the non-statutory nature of enforcement in councils. In my view there is a correlation between the enforcement potential, the reduction of staff and the increase in fly-tipping.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to Westminster’s attention. It is something I have already raised on a number of occasions. The frequency of fly-tipping is going up in every location, but in many cases the number of prosecutions is static. In my local authority area, there were nearly 1,000 incidences of fly-tipping last year, but only one prosecution. We have to accept that much of it is carried out by organised criminals, not people trying to dispose of their domestic waste because the tip is closed or it is too difficult to book an appointment. Is it time for the Government to provide more support for local councils so that they can increase their rate of prosecutions and deal with the problem once and for all, rather than leaving residents, farmers and others to clear up the mess?

[Tristan Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In my local council in Medway there were seven prosecutions in 2022-23, which is extremely high and shows the success in that area, but she is right that it is not the same across the country. Environmental waste carrier licences need to be scrutinised, and where we see illegal activity on a commercial level, the Environment Agency and others need support to engage.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

This issue was brought into sharp focus in my constituency following a high-profile case. A large pile of debris, comprising furniture, rubble and wooden panels, was disgracefully left in place for over a year. Local residents reported the issue. It attracted vermin and posed health risks to nearby children in the schools. I am concerned that fly-tipping statistics, which are already alarming, do not reflect the severity of fly-tipping on private land, which can fall through the cracks despite the best efforts of local authorities. I raised the issue previously and was told that the Minister had concerns that the carrier, broker and dealer regime that the last Government put in place was not fit for purpose. I was glad to hear that the Government are actively thinking of measures to tighten up controls, so I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Government for the action they are taking in this space.

[Tristan Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. An element that is not mentioned is untidy land in private space, an issue that is very difficult for councils to enforce. Again, that is a non-statutory service. Some councils deal with untidy land in gardens and other private spaces, but many councils do not because of local Government cuts and reductions in funding over the last 14 years.

The statistical basis for fly-tipping is complicated. Different Governments over the last 14 years have measured it in different ways. Between 2010 and 2017 we saw a significant increase, according to BBC statistics, of around 40% in fly-tipping across the country, and that has remained static in recent years. The ways of calculating these things vary, so one question I have for the Minister is whether we should have a standardised, data-driven approach to recording fly-tipping incidences.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Fly-tipping in Greater Manchester is on the rise, costing local authorities more than £6 million in 2022. Although the practice is frustrating for my constituents, it is often caused by lack of awareness of the implications of fly-tipping and how to properly dispose of waste. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must improve environmental education and recognise that we all have a responsibility to safely and legally dispose of waste?

[Tristan Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The Labour council in Ilford has very successfully led an enforcement and education campaign, with community hubs and enforcement hubs. Love Medway Hate Litter, in my area, and Love Essex are successful campaigns that challenge litter and fly-tipping, so education is critical. As a former secondary school teacher, I know it is important to get into schools early to raise awareness about the challenges of fly-tipping.

The lack of enforcement is concerning. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) mentioned the reduction in court fines issued. Their value fell in 2022-23 to £785,000 in total, which just touches the tip of the iceberg. To be fair, although there are no Conservative Members here for this debate, the previous Government did act, increasing fines from £400 to £1,000 under the antisocial behaviour plan, increasing court fines by £526 and abolishing local authority charges—so they were aware of the issue.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and near neighbour on securing this important debate. Fly-tipping clearly affects all parts of our country, rural and urban, and certainly my residents in Dartford. In the second quarter of 2024, there were 476 fly-tipping incidents—an increase of 21% on the first quarter—including in Leonard Avenue in Swanscombe, which has been the scene of no fewer than 26 incidents in the past 12 months. He talks about fines to be levied, and we recently discovered that Dartford borough council has chosen not to levy the maximum £1,000 fines that have been legally allowed since August 2023, unlike the neighbouring councils of Gravesham and Medway. Will he join me in calling on Dartford borough council to get serious on fly-tipping and impose the maximum possible fines on perpetrators?

[Tristan Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a postcode lottery across the country on how councils are managing this issue. I want to celebrate the example of Medway council, my local authority, which has done outstanding work. We have introduced free bulky waste collection for residential waste, working with our contractor, to reduce the quantity of mattresses and other residential waste left on streets across the town. The Love Medway Hate Litter scheme, which followed the Love Essex programme, has raised awareness among the public. We have increased fines to the top level, and it is important that councils send a message by using Government powers to increase fines. It is right that he challenges his council leader on this matter.

We also work across boroughs. Local authorities are not islands unto themselves, so it is important that Medway works with Gravesham, Swale and other local councils on cross-boundary issues. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) is sitting behind me.

We also have a wall of shame in Medway, to publicise people who are conducting this environmental crime by naming and shaming those who are caught and fined. We work very closely with our probation and community payback service to ensure that those who commit the crime clear up their mess. We have increasingly used CCTV technologies in hotspot locations to catch perpetrators. Those schemes in Medway have resulted in successes in challenging fly-tipping but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said, that is not the same across all Kent areas.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. The new respect orders that the Government are introducing are extremely welcome. I entirely endorse the approach undertaken by the Home Office and others to curb antisocial behaviour, including nuisance biking and other persistent behaviours. Will the respect orders include those who engage in persistent environmental crimes, or will the Minister look at other enforcement approaches?

Courts can give different fines for fly-tipping, depending on the size, but many councils have a standard fine approach. Will that be reviewed to take into account the size and nature of the fly-tip to dissuade people from commercial fly-tipping? Will the Government monitor the number of fixed penalty notices and court enforcements occurring in each council area, because there is a postcode lottery in this country?

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I very much appreciate the opportunity to have this debate. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about raising fines and reviewing magistrates court decisions in this matter, but does he agree with me that the simplest, easiest and cheapest way to deal with fly-tipping is to take the waste out of the system in the first place, and therefore looking at mandatory take-back schemes, whereby people bring back their goods when they are finished with them and get money back, and at genuinely recyclable products, is the way forward? Therefore, does he welcome the Government’s steps to bring forward the “polluter pays” principle in the extended producer responsibility regulations that are currently being laid, and also the deposit return scheme for glass and plastic bottles, which will help to reduce fly-tips that are in black sacks?

[Tristan Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the principle of the circular economy, which I entirely endorse. The linear economy that we have, which relies on waste disposal, should be challenged. I am very encouraged that, finally, the EPR guidelines that the Government are pursuing are being enacted. We should be encouraging councils to recycle, and that needs to be looked at in relation to the variations of postcode lotteries that we get. In one of the two local authorities in my area, recycling is done on a two-weekly basis, and in the other it is done weekly. Education is also needed on what can be placed in the bins as well. The producers need to be responsible for their packaging and making it recyclable, so I agree that there needs to be some work in relation to corporate interests on that.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

Massive congratulations to my hon. Friend and near neighbour on securing this debate. I am very supportive of everything that has been said so far. One thing that I think has not been picked up yet is just how long it takes to investigate these sites. Many of them are organised crime and many are on private land. The investigations are complicated and often cross lots of boundaries, including institutional boundaries. Frankly, it just takes too long to investigate them to the right level to be able to implement a lot of the enforcement actions, so I would be very keen to hear what my hon. Friend and then the Minister have to say about that.

[Tristan Osborne]

Absolutely. Much commercial fly-tipping is associated with organised crime. I know from the outstanding work of Ian Gilmore and his team at Medway council that they are regularly having to challenge those quite complicated cases. They are multifaceted, involving other elements of organised crime as well. I will not talk about specific locations, because sub judice rules apply. However, we know that in Kent specifically, there are a number of sites where some of this is alleged to involve organised efforts at disposal. As well as local authorities, national enforcement agencies need to be engaged on that to target the gangs that are pursuing that commercial agenda.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows councils to use camera technologies, but sometimes there have been restrictions on the use of camera technologies, specifically in areas of hotspots. Can we look at that again, to allow local authorities to use camera technologies in a way associated with challenging this issue?

In relation to public awareness and celebrating the “wall of shame” approach, can the Government use Medway and other councils as a template example of how we can use “wall of shame” approaches to annunciate to the public that we are challenging this issue, and those who commit this crime, robustly? Many councils already announce those whom they are fining for litter dropping and other types of environmental crime, yet there is an inconsistency in relation to fly-tipping.

With regard to waste disposal options, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) on the idea of the circular economy and providing more recycling options, but I also think we need to support the Environment Agency, which saw budget reductions under the previous Government, and allow it to prosecute more illegal waste carriers. We also need to promote further collaboration among land managers, local authorities, police and the Environment Agency to establish ownership of the issue. Many farmers in my area are struggling, and the National Farmers Union has raised with me the concerns among its members that they do not necessarily know who to go to when fly-tipping occurs. They believe that the local authority approach of simply sending them a web link in relation to a fly-tip is not the best solution and is not giving them a solution, and therefore they are having to seek private sector options.

I thank the Library for providing me with the datasets for today’s debate and I thank all those Members who have contributed. I look forward to the ministerial response.

11:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for tabling this debate, the second on fly-tipping in just three months. How extraordinary it is that not a single Opposition Member has turned up to listen and contribute; that tells us something about the party of the countryside, and the party that is on the side of people who want to do the right thing and keep their areas clean and tidy.

I thank all colleagues for their thoughtful contributions—fly-tipping is a serious crime, and we know it blights local communities. I have been reading about the horrendous case of the front garden on Peach Avenue in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), and we appreciate the difficulty it poses to all landowners. Local councils reported over a million fly-tipping incidents in 2022-23—that is a significant burden on the UK economy, and was an increase of 10% on the three previous years. During that time, we had covid, where we were not allowed out for several months at a time, so I think we can say it is increasing year on year. What we are here to say is enough is enough. Things have to change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has said, there have been years of Conservative failure on this, and we have a plague of rubbish on parks, streets, front gardens, farms, rural estates, and industrial estates. I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) yesterday and was sending him texts on the way home because I could see some illegal burning going on as I drove back from the beautiful Hainault forest.

We want to end our throwaway society: stop this avalanche, increase recycling rates, reduce waste, and crack down on waste crime. To the point about the circular economy made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), yesterday we laid the deposit return scheme regulations in Parliament, and we have a statutory instrument on extended producer responsibility tomorrow. There are colleagues in the room who will participate in that debate to show the three legs of the stool—simpler recycling, EPR, and DRS, all of which are going to drive up our recycling rates, with the intention of getting to 65% by 2035.

I looked back at some news items from 2002, when the last Labour Government was trying to get the recycling rate up to 50% by 2015. That tells you something about the progress that has stalled over the last 14 years, that we are still hovering around a 43% to 44% recycling rate, and actually going backwards in some areas.

We have committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess that they have created as part of a crackdown on antisocial behaviour, and I look forward to providing further details on that commitment in due course. I met the Prisons Minister, Lord Timpson, to discuss how we can equip prisoners for their release and rehabilitation through some of the environmental work in this area.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

One of the initiatives in Hull is “bring out your rubbish” days, which clearly reduce fly-tipping. It is an initiative from Labour councillors, using the ward budgets. Is that something the Minister might consider encouraging other councils to take up across the board?

[Mary Creagh]

I think there is a really interesting philosophical reflection there, because one person’s rubbish is another person’s treasure. I remember leaving a beautiful Italian leather bag outside my house—it had a hole in it, and had come to the end of its life with me—and I thought I would put it on the doorstep and see what happens. Someone knocked on my door and asked if that bag was to go, and I said yes, and she was so pleased. Maybe she was going to take it away and sew it. There was also a tradition when I lived in Belgium of the braderie, where people put their stuff out—got rid of things from their granny’s attic, got rid of different things, like a massive car boot sale, because people like to get a bargain—and I do think there is a role for people to do that. We do not want to stop people putting things out for other people that might be useful, but I encourage people to ask, “Is it going to rain? Is the item going to be destroyed?” It needs to be done in a sensible way. On the council clearing things up, one often finds that other people come along and clear it up before the council even gets there.

Councils have enforcement powers to punish those who harm our communities and to deter other would-be offenders, and I encourage them to make good use of those powers, including their power to prosecute. I pay tribute to the council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for their actions. Fly-tipping can lead to a fine, community service or even imprisonment.

Sentencing is a matter for the courts, but the national fly-tipping prevention group, which is chaired by officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has produced guidance to support councils to present robust cases to court. I urge colleagues to encourage their councils to join that group, because there is no monopoly on wisdom in this area and it is good to share initiatives such as the wall of shame.

Instead of prosecuting, local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 to those who fly-tip or of up to £600 to those who pass their household waste to someone who does not have the proper licence. They also have powers to stop, seize and search the vehicles of those suspected of fly-tipping. They have the powers; whether they have the finances and resources after losing almost two thirds of their budgets after years of cuts to local authorities is a different question. Ahead of the previous fly-tipping debate, I wrote to those councils that reported no enforcement actions in 2022-23, and I will consider what further action is needed to encourage more councils to increase their efforts to bring them all up to the level of the good.

We are under no illusions about the scale of the funding pressures that local authorities face, and I know that many colleagues have served on local councils. We are committed to resetting the relationship between local and central Government, and we will get councils back on their feet by providing multi-year funding settlements, ending the competitive bidding for pots of money and reforming the local audit system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford raised the issue of rural fly-tipping, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). Some 80% of farmers have been affected by fly-tipping on their land. We will continue to work with the National Farmers Union and others to promote and disseminate good practice on how to prevent fly-tipping on rural land.

The public have a vital role to play in tackling this, because 60% of fly-tips involve household waste. Householders must check the register of waste carriers to avoid giving their waste to rogue operators who promise quick, cheap waste collection.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The Minister will not be surprised to see me in a debate on waste, which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for securing. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to constituents of mine like Norma in Red Street and Jane in Bradwell for their commitment to safe and clean streets and for their consistent reporting of fly-tips to both me and the council? I assure the Minister of my complete commitment and support for her zero-tolerance approach in tackling fly-tipping and waste crime in our communities.

[Mary Creagh]

It is good to see my hon. Friend. I have been travelling in Azerbaijan where I could not get his texts and phone calls, so I have had a week off, but I am glad to see that he is back, as an almost permanent shadow. I have not had my latest Walleys Quarry update, but I am sure that will come shortly after the debate. I pay tribute to the persistence of his constituents, Jane and Norma; from their Member of Parliament, I see that the Newcastle-under-Lyme persistence is contagious, and I pay tribute to him for everything he has done on behalf of his constituents in this area.

It is important that we educate householders about their duty of care in this area. I am considering reform to the waste carrier, broker and dealer regime to make it easier to identify rogue operators. I have met representatives of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management to talk about how we can introduce qualifications around licensing. I am keen to do as much as we can in that area.

Whether they live in the countryside, a town or a city, people should walk through their community feeling proud of a clean environment that is free of rubbish and litter. That is why, with councils, communities and local authorities, we will work together with regulators to force offenders to clean up their mess, put a stop to the waste criminals and keep our communities clean.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we finish this debate, I remind the Minister and Members of paragraph 19.45 of “Erskine May”, in which it says:

“A half-hour adjournment debate is a personal debate between the Member who has secured the debate and the Minister who is to reply…Interventions from the Opposition frontbench are not allowed. Opposition spokespersons may participate, from the backbenches, on matters which do not relate to their portfolio. Equally, because the debate is personal to the Member and the Minister, no reference should be made to the absence of other Members (for example, an Opposition frontbench spokesperson).”

References in this debate to the absence of anybody from the Opposition Front-Bench team were out of order, and I apologise for not having raised that at the time. I think it is important that we remind ourselves of the rules of procedure and the fact that, in half-hour debates, there is no opportunity for Opposition parties to participate.

[Mary Creagh]

Thank you for that clarification, Sir Christopher. I am happy to withdraw my remarks. We are all learning in our new jobs, and we are grateful to you for your wisdom, advice and guidance on these areas.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for that courtesy.

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

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Online Safety: Children and Young People

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

11:19

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered online safety for children and young people.

Just give me one second to get my notes in order, Mr Dowd.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lola McEvoy]

I will!

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady has called a debate on a really important issue. Could she set out why she thinks that now is a really important time to discuss this vital topic?

[Lola McEvoy]

I will—and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It is my great honour to open this debate on online safety for our children. I welcome the Minister answering for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), answering for the official Opposition. I tabled this as my first debate in Westminster Hall, because I believe this issue is one of the most defining of our time. I promised parents and children in my constituency of Darlington that I would tackle it head-on, so here I am to fulfil that promise.

I would like to put on the record that I have long been inspired by the strength of the parents of Bereaved Families for Online Safety—a group of parents united by the unbearable loss of their children and by their steadfast commitment to get stronger online protections to prevent more children’s deaths. I say to Ellen, who is here with us this afternoon: thank you for your courage—you have experienced unimaginable pain, and I will do everything I can to prevent more parents from going through the same.

The consensus for action on this issue has been built, in no small part due to the incredible drive of parents to campaign for justice. It is felt in every corner of the country, and it is our job as a Government to step in and protect our children from online harm. In my constituency of Darlington, at door after door right across the town and regardless of background, income or voting intention, parents agreed with me that it is time to act to protect our children. I am taking this issue to the Government to fight for them.

I am standing up to amplify the voice of the girl who sends a picture of herself that she thought was private but arrives at school to find that it has been shared with all her peers; she is not only mortified but blamed, and the message cannot be unsent. I am standing up to amplify the voice of the boy who gets bombarded with violent, disturbing images that he does not want to see and never asked for, and who cannot sleep for thinking about them. I am standing up for the mother whose son comes home bruised and will not tell her what has happened, but who gets sent a video of him being beaten up and finds out that it was organised online. I am standing up for the father whose daughter refuses to eat anything because she has seen video after video after video criticising girls who look like her. I say to all those who have raised the alarm, to all the children who know something is wrong but do not know what to do, and to all those who have seen content that makes them feel bad about themselves, have been bullied online, have seen images they did not want to see or have been approached by strangers: we are standing up for you.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on online safety for children and young people. I have a keen personal interest, as a father of two young children. Earlier this year, Ofcom published 40 recommendations about how to improve children’s safety online, including through safer algorithms, and the Government rightly pointed to the role that technology companies can play in that. Does my hon. Friend agree that these companies must take their responsibilities much more seriously?

[Lola McEvoy]

I absolutely agree that the companies must take those responsibilities seriously, because that will be the law. I am keen that we, as legislators, make sure that the law is as tight as it possibly can be to protect as many children as possible. We will never be able to eradicate everything online, and this is not about innovation. It is about making sure that we get this absolutely right for the next generation and for those using platforms now, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

The first meeting I called when I was elected the MP for Darlington was with the headteachers of every school and college in my town. I asked them to join together to create a town-wide forum to hear the voices of children and young people on what needs to change about online safety. The first online safety forum took place a couple of weeks ago, and the situation facing young people—year 10s, specifically—is much worse than I had anticipated.

The young people said that online bullying is rife. They said it is common for their peers to send and doctor images and videos of each other without consent, to spread rumours through apps, to track the locations of people in order to bully them through apps, to organise and film fights through apps, to be blackmailed on apps, to speak on games and apps to people they do not know, and to see disturbing or explicit images unprompted and without searching for them. They also said it is common to see content that makes them feel bad about themselves. This has to stop.

The last Government’s Online Safety Act 2023 comes into force in April 2025. The regulator, Ofcom, will publish the children’s access assessments guidance in January 2025. This will give online services that host user-generated content, search services and pornography services in the UK three months to assess whether their services are likely to be accessed by children. From April 2025, when the children’s codes of practice are to be published, those platforms and apps will have a further three months to complete a children’s risk assessment. From 31 July 2025, specific services will have to disclose their risk assessments to Ofcom. Once the codes are approved by Parliament, providers will have to take steps to protect users. There is to be a consultation on the codes in spring 2025, and I urge everybody interested in the topic—no matter their area of expertise or feelings on it—to feed into that consultation. The mechanism for change is in front of us, but my concern is that the children’s codes are not strong enough.

[Dan Norris (North East Somerset and Hanham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Could she comment on the use of artificial intelligence to create child sexual abuse materials? That is a key issue now. Many years ago, I trained with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as a child protection officer, and what I learned back then is that we have to get ahead of all the technologies in order to deal with the challenges effectively. Does she have any thoughts on that point? She may be coming to it in her own remarks.

[Lola McEvoy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that great threat. My area of expertise on the issue is children’s and service users’ voices. There is definitely space for Ofcom and the Government to try to regulate the illegal manufacturing of images through AI. When I asked children in my constituency whether they had ever seen something that they knew was made by AI, they said yes—they had seen images of people that they knew were not real—but the notifications and warnings to tell them that it was AI were not as explicit as they could be. In other words, they could tell for themselves, but the notifications were not comprehensive enough for other children, who may not have noticed. This is a real danger.

There will always be content created online that we cannot police. We have to accept—as we do with any other piece of legislation—that there will be criminal actors, but I have called this debate because there are ways to protect children from harmful content, including by using the right age verification model. I am keen to focus my contribution on trying to protect children from content, in the round, that is harmful to them.

As I said before, the mechanism for change is in front of us, but my concern is that the children’s codes are not strong enough. The children in my town have told me—and I am sure everybody here knows it—that the current age verification requirements are easily passed through, and that content on some sites is deeply disturbing and sent to them without them asking for it. That means that the sites are hosting content that is deeply disturbing for children, and that the age verification is not fit for purpose. We need to talk either about stopping those sites from hosting that content, which is very difficult, or about changing the age verification process.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I want to talk about the scale of the problem that the hon. Lady touches on. The Children’s Commissioner for England reveals that 79% of children under 18 have encountered violent pornography before the age of 18, with the average age of first exposure being 13. Everything the hon. Lady is saying is very important, but this is not a niche problem; it is something that parents in Winchester have spoken to me about repeatedly in the four months since I was elected.

[Lola McEvoy]

It is indeed prolific, for all our children—the whole generation. It is interesting that, among the different experts I have spoken to, there is consensus; the argument has been won that children are unsafe online and that is affecting them deeply, across the country. It is our job—it falls to legislators—to rectify the issue. I do not wish to defend online platforms, but they will do what the law tells them to do. They want to operate in this country. They want to make money. There is nothing wrong with that; they just have to adhere to the law. It is our job to make sure that the law is tight to protect our children. That is the crux of the issue.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is powerfully illustrating the responsibility on all of us to step up to the needs of this moment. Parents in my constituency—at schools including William Ransom and Samuel Lucas—have been leading the way in taking further proactive action, signing up to a smartphone-free pledge to delay the age at which their young people have access to smartphones. Hundreds across the constituency have already signed up to the pledge. Does my hon. Friend agree that that underlines the strength of parental feeling on online safety and some of the wider associated issues, and that it highlights our responsibility to legislate—not just to celebrate the benefits of technology, but to do all we can to protect young people from the very real dangers it presents, too?

[Lola McEvoy]

A smartphone-free pledge is a great idea, and I will take it to Darlington. Parents are further down the line than we are on this; children are further down the line than we are; campaign groups are further down the line than we are. We are lagging behind. We have taken action—the last Government passed the Online Safety Act. I think it is time for us to make sure that there is nothing missing from that Act. In my view, there are some areas where we could go further.

Children in Darlington have said to me that they are getting these unsolicited images—from the algorithms. These images are being fed to them. They are not from strangers, or bogeymen from another country, although that might happen. The most common complaint is that the algorithm is feeding them content that they did not ask for, and it is deeply disturbing, whether it is violent, explicit or harmful. Once they have seen it, they cannot unsee it.

That is why I am arguing to strengthen the codes. I am not sure that we should be retrofitting harmful apps with a code that may or may not work, and having to tweak a few bits of the algorithm to check whether it will actually protect our children. I think we can take stronger action than that.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

Numerous mental health charities and a number of civil society experts have raised with me that there are powers within the Online Safety Act that must be used by the regulator. Indeed, the Secretary of State for DSIT made it very clear last week that he backed the Act and those powers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulator could and should act with more powers than it has?

[Lola McEvoy]

I am loath to tell Ofcom that it does not have enough power. As I understand it, the powers are there, but we need to be explicit, and they need to be strengthened. How do we do that? The reason I outlined the timelines is that the time to act is now. We have to explicitly strengthen the children’s codes.

There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say, but one of the simpler ways to do this would be to outline the audience that the apps want to market to. Who is the base audience that the apps and platforms are trying to make money from? If that is explicitly outlined, the codes could be applied accordingly, and strengthened. If children are the target audience, we can question some of the things on those apps and whether the apps are safe for children to use in and of themselves.

[Mr Dhesi]

With children able to access online content a lot more easily nowadays, many of my Slough constituents feel that it is critical that the content itself is appropriate and safe. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the rise of extreme misogynistic content and its impact on young people, especially considering that research has shown that it is actually amplified to teens?

[Lola McEvoy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the really important—indeed, deeply concerning—issue of the rise of anti-women hate, with the perpetrators marketing themselves as successful men.

What we are seeing is that boys look at such videos and do not agree with everything that is said, but little nuggets make sense to them. For me, it is about the relentless bombardment: if someone sees one video like that, they might think, “Oh right,” and not look at it properly, but they are relentlessly targeted by the same messaging over and over again.

That is true not just for misogynistic hate speech, but for body image material. Girls and boys are seeing unrealistic expectations of body image, which are often completely fake and contain fake messaging, but which make them reflect on their own bodies in a negative way, when they may not have had those thoughts before.

I want to drive home that being 14 years old is tough. I am really old now compared with being 14, but I can truly say to anybody who is aged 14 watching this: “It gets better!” It is hard to be a 14-year-old: they are exploring their body and exploring new challenges. Their hormones are going wild and their peers are going through exactly the same thing. It is tough, and school is tough. It is natural for children and young people to question their identity, their role in the world, their sexuality, or whatever it is they might be exploring—that is normal—but I am concerned that that bombardment of unhealthy, unregulated and toxic messaging at a crucial time, when teenagers’ brains are developing, is frankly leading to a crisis.

I return to an earlier point about whether the parts of apps or platforms that children are using are actually safe for them to use. There are different parts of apps that we all use—we may not all be tech-savvy, but we do use them—but when we drill into them and take a minute to ask, “Is this safe for children?”, the answer for me is, “No.”

There are features such as the live location functionality, which comes up a lot on apps, such as when someone is using a maps app and it asks for their live location so they can see how to get from A to B. That is totally fine, but there are certain social media apps that children use that have their live location on permanently. They can toggle it to turn it off, but when I asked children in Darlington why they did not turn it off, they said there is a peer pressure to keep it on—it is seen as really uncool to turn it off. It is also about being able to see whether someone has read a message or not.

I then said to those children, “Okay, but those apps are safe because you only accept people you know,” and they said, “Oh no, I’ve got thousands and thousands of people on that app, and it takes me ages to remove each person, because I can’t remember if I know them, so I don’t do it.” They just leave their location on for thousands of people, many of whom may be void accounts, and they do not even know if they are active any more. The point is that we would not allow our children to go into a space where their location was shown to lots of strangers all the time. Those children who I spoke to also said that the live location feature on some of these apps is leading to in-person bullying and attacks. That is absolutely horrifying.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On that point, is the hon. Member aware that if someone toggles their location off on Snapchat, for example, it constantly—in fact, every time the app is opened—says, “You’re on ghost mode. Do you want to turn your location back on?” So every single time someone opens the app, it tries to convince them to turn their location back on.

[Lola McEvoy]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, because there are lots of different nudge notifications. We can understand why, because it is an unregulated space and the app is trying to get as much data as possible—if we are not paying for the service, we are the service. We all know that as adults, but the young people and children who we are talking about today do not know that their data is what makes them attractive to that app.

[Dan Aldridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. In my previous role as head of public policy at the British Computer Society, the one thing that my colleagues and I talked about a lot was the lack of focus on education in the Online Safety Act. I commend the previous Government for passing that legislation, which was very brave. The Act has tried to do some wonderful things, but what is missing is that we have failed to empower a generation of young people to act safely online, to be able to take back the power and say, “No, I am not going to do that.” We have failed in that so far. How do we build that in for the future?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I would like to bring to the attention of Members that we have had a huge number of interventions and we are 20 minutes into the debate. The Minister and Opposition spokesperson will get up at just after half past 3. It is a matter for the speaker whether she takes more interventions, but that does mean that the amount of time for those who have asked to speak will be significantly more restricted than I originally planned. That is just a housekeeping matter to be aware of. There is also an issue about the length of interventions: they are getting a bit long. On a matter of this importance, I do not want to restrict interventions and contributions, but I ask Members to please bear that in mind.

[Lola McEvoy]

Okay, I will make progress. On the live location element, which I have discussed, I am not sure that there is any advantage in children using that, unless it is a specifically regulated live location app where the parents have given consent for their child.

I do not know whether chatting to strangers on games is suitable for children. Adding peers to a group and enjoying playing with them on games is fine, but there could be strangers from other countries, with no indication of their age. One child told me that he had found out, after about three weeks, that the person he had been playing with was a 50-year-old man on another continent. That man was probably mortified, as was the child, and they stopped playing together. Why are we leaving it up to them? That is such a high-risk strategy for those apps; we need to think about that.

It is down to Parliament to decide what is safe for our children, and to enforce it. Asking platforms to mark their own homework and police themselves will undoubtedly lead to more children seeing inappropriate, harmful content and sharing it with others. I would like the Government to strengthen the children’s codes, and consider changing the onus from reactive safety measures that make apps safe for children, when we suspect they are children, to proactively making apps or platforms safe for all children in the first place, and creating adult-only apps that require strong age verification, because adults can consent to giving their data.

A number of ways to protect children online are being debated, as I am sure we will hear this afternoon. I feel strongly that retrofitting apps once children have been exposed to harmful content or strangers, or have shared things they should not, is not the safest or most effective way to do this. A number of options around age verification are on the table, but I would like the Government to consider that being a child is tough and that children have a right to make mistakes. The issue is that those mistakes involve mass communications to peers and a permanent digital footprint, because someone has consented, aged 13, to give away their data.

We need to see whether any child can consent to give away their data, and therefore whether apps that identify their audience as children should be allowed to keep data at all. Should children be in chatrooms with strangers across the world? Should children be allowed to share their live location with strangers or people they have accepted as contacts? Should children be allowed to view unregulated livestreams or addictive-by-design content? Those questions have been raised not only by children themselves but by parents and national advocacy charities and leaders in this space. There is a consensus that we have to take action on this issue, so let us make the most of it.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

14:53

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I could talk for hours on this subject, Mr Dowd, but, do not worry, I will not. There are a number of things that I would like to say. Not many Members present sat through the majority of the Online Safety Bill Committee as it went through Parliament, but I was in every one of those meetings, listening to various views and debating online safety.

I will touch on one issue that the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) raised in her excellent and important speech. I agree with almost everything she said. Not many people in Parliament have her level of passion or knowledge about the subject, so I appreciate her bringing forward the debate.

On the issue of features, I totally agree with the hon. Member and I moved an amendment to that effect during the Bill’s progress. There should be restrictions on the features that children should be able to access. She was talking about safety by design, so that children do not have to see content that they cannot unsee, do not have to experience the issues that they cannot un-experience, cannot be contacted by external people who they do not know, and cannot livestream. We have seen an increase in the amount of self-generated child sexual abuse material and livestreaming is a massive proportion of that.

Yesterday, a local organisation in Aberdeen called CyberSafe Scotland launched a report on its work in 10 of our primary schools with 1,300 children aged between 10 and 12—primary school children, not secondary school children. Some 300 of those children wrote what is called a “name it”, where they named a problem that they had seen online. Last night, we were able to read some of the issues that they had raised. Pervasive misogyny is everywhere online, and it is normalised. It is not just in some of the videos that they see and it is not just about the Andrew Tates of this world—it is absolutely everywhere. A couple of years ago there was a trend in online videos of young men asking girls to behave like slaves, and that was all over the place.

Children are seeing a different online world from the one that we experience because they have different algorithms and have different things pushed at them. They are playing Roblox and Fortnite, but most of us are not playing those games. I am still concerned that the Online Safety Act does not adequately cover all of the online gaming world, which is where children are spending a significant proportion of their time online.

A huge amount more needs to be done to ensure that children are safe online. There is not enough in place about reviewing the online safety legislation, which Members on both sides of the House pushed for to ensure that the legislation is kept as up to date as possible. The online world changes very rapidly: the scams that were happening nine months ago are totally different from those happening today. I am still concerned that the Act focuses too much on the regulation of Facebook, for example, rather than the regulation of the online world that our children actually experience. CyberSafe Scotland intentionally centred the views and rights of young people in its work, which meant that the programmes that it delivered in schools were much more appropriate and children were much better able to listen and react to them.

The last thing that I will mention is Girlguiding and its girls’ attitude survey. It is published on an annual basis and shows a huge increase in the number of girls who feel unsafe. That is because of the online world they are experiencing. We have a huge amount of responsibility here, and I appreciate the hon. Member for Darlington bringing the debate forward today.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will keep this to an informal four-minute limit. Regrettably, if Members speak beyond that, I will have to introduce a formal figure.

14:58

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Some 20 years ago, I started a new job with an as yet unbranded mobile network operator. At the time, the network had no masts, no handsets and no customers. Text messaging was just catching on, the BlackBerry was in its infancy and wireless application protocol was the new kid on the block. For those who do not know what WAP was, it was a bit like having Ceefax on a handset; for those who do not know what Ceefax was, I cannot really help.

My counterparts and I at the four mobile networks were acutely aware that the introduction of 3G would change how we used our phones. I will, however, confess that understanding what that change would look like—all while using dial-up at home—was something of a stab in the dark. Nevertheless, no matter how challenging, we knew that the advent of 3G required the mobile industry to take greater responsibility to protect the safety of our customers, in particular those under the age of 18. The networks moved from walled garden internet, where access was controlled by age verification and personal identification number, to a world where internet was freely available.

The mobile networks published the first self-regulatory code of content on mobile. It was a world first, and something that UK mobile operators were rightly proud of, but the pace of change was rapid; within months, we networks published a further self-regulatory code to govern location-based services, which, as we have heard already, present a clear danger to young people. We knew then that location tracking could be used in grooming and other predatory behaviour. We published the code, but the pace of change over the past 20 years has been unrelenting, and we now arrive at a point at which almost everything we do happens online.

The role of the mobile network is no longer as a gatekeeper to services, but rather as a pipe to over-the-top services such as YouTube, WhatsApp and TikTok. Those services can be more readily controlled by both the service provider and the handset manufacturer. That is not to absolve the networks of responsibility, but to acknowledge that they operate in a mobile value chain. I might pay £25 a month to my mobile network, but if I renew my handset every two years at a cost of £800, I am paying far more to the handset manufacturer than to the mobile network operator. I believe there is a strong argument that those who derive the greatest financial value from that value chain bear far greater responsibility for keeping children and young people safe online than is currently the case.

I turn now to one specific aspect of online harm. Having worked closely with the Internet Watch Foundation during my time in industry, I am fully aware of—and I thank it for—its important work in assessing child sexual abuse image material and removing it from the internet. I have visited and met the IWF teams who have to view and assess some of the most upsetting content. Their work is harrowing and distressing, but, sadly, it is essential.

Last year, the IWF assessed more than 390,000 reports and confirmed more than 275,000 web pages containing images or videos of children suffering sexual abuse. Each page contained hundreds, if not thousands, of indecent images of children. The IWF reported that 2023 was the most extreme year on record, with more category A sexual abuse imagery discovered than ever before, 92% of it self-generated child abuse. That means that the children have been targeted, groomed and coerced into sexual activities via webcams and devices with cameras.

For the first time, the IWF also encountered and analysed more than 2,400 images of sexual abuse involving children aged three to six. Some 91% of those images were of girls, mainly in domestic settings such as their own bedrooms or bathrooms. Each image or video is not just a single act; every time it is viewed or downloaded is another time that that child is sexually abused.

That is why I conclude my remarks with a clear ask to both the online and offline media and broadcast channels of our country: please stop describing these images as “kiddie porn” and “child pornography”. I did a search of some online news channels before I came to this debate; that language is still prevalent, and it has to stop. These images are not pornography. They are evidence of a crime and evidence of abuse. They are not pictures or videos. They are depictions of gross assault, sadism and bestiality against children. They are obscene images involving penetrative sexual activity with teenagers, children and babies. If there is one thing we can agree on in this debate, it is that the media in this country must start describing child sexual abuse material for what it is. Language matters, and it is time the seriousness of the offence was reflected in the language that describes it.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I am going to have to introduce a formal time limit of three and a half minutes.

15:05

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) on bringing forward this important debate. The internet has undeniably introduced a valuable resource for learning that has transformed society, but technology has also brought with it significant risks that I believe we in this House have an urgent duty to address. Nobody knows that more acutely than all those parents who have tragically lost their children after online abuse, who are bravely represented today here in the Public Gallery by Ellen.

The statistics are sobering. Recent figures from Ofcom reveal that one in five children in the UK has experienced some form of online harm, including cyber-bullying, exposure to inappropriate content and exploitation. The NSPCC reports that more than 60% of young people have encountered online bullying, but I think the risk goes much further than that. We know that the average age at which a child first views pornography is estimated to be 12, with some evidence now suggesting it is as young as eight years old. Free and widely available pornography is often violent, degrading and extreme, and it has become the de facto sex education for young people.

The pornography crisis is radically undermining the healthy development of children and young people, and contributing to increasing levels of sexual inequality, dysfunction and violence. That reality represents how children’s lives are affected by those dangers, and as parliamentarians we have a duty to keep our children safe and free from harm—online as well as offline. Nine in 10 children are now on a mobile phone by the age of 11, and around a quarter of three-year-olds now have their own smartphone. I do not know about you, Mr Dowd, but I find that statistic particularly troubling.

I believe it is crucial to differentiate smartphone use from the broader digital environment. Smartphones, as we know, are engineered to be addictive, with notifications that stimulate the release of dopamine, the same chemical that is linked to pleasure. It is too easy for children to become trapped in a cycle of dependency and peer pressure, addicted to feeds and competing for likes on social media. Addiction is exactly what the tech companies want. Research from the Royal Society for Public Health shows that social media harms mental health—we all know that—particularly among young users. Around 70% of young people now report that social media increases their feelings of anxiety and depression.

The Children’s Commissioner, Rachel de Souza, believes that Ofcom’s children’s codes, which the hon. Member for Darlington talked about, are not strong enough and are written for the tech companies rather than for the children. She says that we need a code that protects our children from the “wild west” of social media. In South Devon I often hear from parents overwhelmed by the digital environment their children are navigating. They want to protect their children, but they feel ill equipped to manage those complexities. Hundreds of them have signed up to the smartphone-free pledge, and are pressuring schools to take part as well. We need to give them support, by backing what they want to do with legislation.

I believe we need a legislative framework that will restrict the addictive nature of smartphones, tighten age restrictions and restrict access to social media platforms for all children under 16. We have to protect them. Those measures are crucial for online child safety, and I believe there is a broad consensus in the House that big tech must be held accountable for the harm it perpetuates. We must abide—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Jess Asato.

15:08

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I welcome this debate, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy). Prior to being elected as an MP, I spent almost a decade working in organisations supporting vulnerable women and children. My experience in that area over those years was very much a case of one step forward, two steps back.

Efforts to make our children’s increasingly online lives safer have been constantly outpaced by technological change. The law, the police and the courts have been unable to keep up with that change, and in its wake children have been the unwitting guinea pigs in a huge social experiment. The Online Safety Act has the potential to reset the relationship between children and the internet if the principles of safety by design are truly followed by tech companies and our regulator Ofcom. Of course we welcome age verification, which will finally come into force next year and will prevent children from accessing violent and harmful pornography.

There remains much more that we need to do in this space. That is why I am pleased to co-sponsor the safer phones Bill—Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill—sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). Smartphones, and social media in particular, are clearly negatively impacting on the mental health of our children, as well as their sleep and learning. Only last week, in an evidence session hosted by my hon. Friend, we heard that smartphones are contributing to a significant increase in short-sightedness among children, who are glued to their phones and seeing a decline in outdoors activity. We risk creating a generation suffering from myopia, and yet—perhaps because as adults we are also glued to our phones—we have not yet acted in the best interests of our young people. We regulate the toys we give to children so that they do not contain harmful lead and are age appropriate, yet no such regulation applies to smartphones. What international board of child psychologists was consulted? What paediatricians? What parents? What children?

A particularly worrying new trend that is outpacing our ability to counter it is the rise of nude deepfakes, or AI-generated sexually explicit images. They are becoming an increasingly worrying issue in schools and more than half a million children already have experience of them, according to new data from Internet Matters. Despite the fact that creating and sharing nude deepfakes of children or non-consenting adults is illegal, the programs that make them are still readily accessible. We would not ban the possession of zombie knives without banning their sale; that is why last week I called on the Government to ban nudifying tools and apps.

We seem to be setting up our children to fail, to be harmed and to be criminalised. Some 99% of the images created are of women and girls—indeed, the apps often do not work on boys. The Government have an ambitious target to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, a target that can only be achieved if we tackle the root cause by looking online. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at how nudifying apps could be banned as part of this Government’s commitment to keep women and children safe.

15:12

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) on setting the scene so very well and on her insightful knowledge of the subject. I am very much a supporter of the Online Safety Act, and I have spoken about it on many occasions in the past. I believe we need strong protections for our children and young people; there is just so much danger out there, and it only seems to be getting worse. I have heard some horror stories of the dangers online, so it is great to discuss such matters and try to get answers from the Minister, who I wish well in the position she now holds.

Many will be aware—my staff are certainly fully aware—that my knowledge of the world of social media is somewhat limited; I am just about using text messages on the phone. However, social media and AI have brought tremendous advantages. The Office for National Statistics revealed that 83% of 12 to 15-year-olds now own a smartphone with full internet access. It is rare to see a young person who does not have one. My grandchildren, young as they are, seem to have all the knowledge that this old boy does not.

Cyber-bullying, grooming and online exploitation are, however, at the forefront of the dangers. The Police Service of Northern Ireland revealed that, in 2023, crimes involving children being contacted online by sexual predators rose by nearly a third. Officers working with the specialist unit say that they had the busiest year since its establishment in 2010. How worrying is that trend? Grooming can happen anywhere.

Another issue of importance that I want to focus on is self-harm and suicide among younger generations. Suicides in Northern Ireland are up by 8% from what they were last year for those people in the younger category—and last year they were horrendous. More than three quarters of people saw self-harm content online for the first time at the age of 14 or younger, and individuals with a history of self-harm report being 10 years old or younger when they first viewed it. Such things are incredibly worrying. We need to see safeguards against those as young as 10 seeing that damaging content, including on self-harm.

I am aware that issues regarding content on eating disorders are also prevalent. My office has been contacted about them by countless parents; it is a massive issue for my office. There is a clear danger to life from some of this content, which has led to hundreds of young girls and boys being referred to specialist clinics and counselling to help them through it. For any parent or family, that is just heartbreaking.

The online safety strategy and action plan was brought to the Executive in Northern Ireland by the Department of Health in 2020 to last until and be reviewed in 2025. Thankfully the Online Safety Act 2023, led from Westminster, applies to Northern Ireland, and with 40% of young people using social media there is a clear need for that legislation. Again, I hope that it can be strong enough to combat the dangers that are out there.

Ever mindful of your timescale, Mr Dowd, and to give others the opportunity to speak, I will conclude. The online world and its advancements are truly a wonderful thing—even for someone like me, who does not know how it works—but there are clear problems with some of the aspects surrounding it. I hope that we can work together, alongside Ministers and large social media companies, to do our best for our young people, to use the online world to their advantage and to give them the best start in life. We want them to have that best start, but we want them to be safe—that is what we are asking for. I look to the Minister for her input and her reassurance that the things we have asked for can actually happen.

15:15

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) on securing this debate. Her daughter was born just a few months before mine, when we were both mere parliamentary candidates trying to juggle our election campaigns and family life, and failing. Just last night in the voting Lobby, we swapped notes on how it is going now that we are Members of Parliament, and I think we are both failing on that as well, but we are trying our hardest. Having spoken to her in depth about this issue, I know that she is keen to champion it and that she will be successful in doing so.

My daughter is just 15 months old, and when I look at the online world around us, I have deep concern and worries for her and children growing up across the country. The issue of online safety must be grasped urgently, and I hope that this Parliament will finally seize the initiative. Many of the hundreds of new MPs come to this issue afresh. It is great to see new colleagues and friends here today. This is a generation who have, to some extent, grown up online, are aware of the huge benefits that technology and social media have offered and are adept, to some extent at least, at using those networks—I am still not wholly sure how TikTok works—but who have also seen the increasingly toxic results for young people as technology has developed, and that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

I have been in numerous schools across my constituency of Rother Valley to speak with students, teachers and teaching staff, and the pupils I meet are impeccably behaved and interesting and interested in my role as their MP, but when I have a cup of tea with the teachers afterwards, they so often tell me about the negative effect of smartphone apps, online bullying and the frankly shocking content that youngsters are exposed to. I speak to parents across Rother Valley who are deeply concerned about the content available to children, whether it be sexual or of an addictive or exploitative nature. Many feel that they are losing parental control, to some extent at least, to the magnet of online activity. I have run an online survey for constituents about the issue of smartphones and online safety for children over the last few months and have been inundated with these worries. This is an epidemic, which is why this debate and this subject are so important.

There is good work happening to combat the worries. Recently I met a group in my constituency that is run by Sara Cunningham and works in schools across the country in combating misogyny, online violence and pornography. That incredible organisation is doing brilliant work, but it cannot be left to the third sector to regulate this issue or pick up the mess. It is surely time for Government and regulation to take a greater role. I hope that that can be done on a cross-party basis, because this issue crosses the political divide. I would like personally to praise former Prime Minister Theresa May for at least beginning to champion the issue. I hope that, now, this Government and the Minister who is present today can take the issue forward.

15:18

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who made really powerful and impactful comments, as have all those who have spoken today. I join her tribute to the bereaved families who have done such incredible work to campaign on this vital issue. I should, before anything else, direct everybody to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who was the architect—the genesis—behind the Online Safety Act. I was one of the many Ministers who took over that baton for a couple of years and pulled the Act together.

As the hon. Member for Darlington said, only when we meet families who have been deeply impacted by online dangers and online harms does the impact of this really land with us. For me, meeting Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life in 2017 as a result of the content that she had seen online, underlined how incredibly disastrous for young and vulnerable people the harms of the internet can be.

As the hon. Lady said, it is not just about the sites that are hosting inappropriate content; it is about the algorithms that take someone’s fears and anxieties and put them into an echo chamber where they are normalised and reinforced, which is the most dangerous part of this. Unfortunately, it is the algorithms that social media companies prize above everything else; they are the most jealously guarded parts of their organisations. Molly was one example resulting from that, but there are so many other examples of suicide, self-harm, anxiety, eating disorders and body image issues that come out of that world.

A year on from the Online Safety Act, it is interesting to see how it is fully implemented, particularly against the backdrop of the speed at which technology is evolving. It is frightening because, virtually every week in our constituencies, we see examples of the harms that are out there. In my constituency, just in the last couple of weeks, junior-age children were using the online world to bully and harass each other. That is something that used to stay within the school gates. Bullying still happened—I am so elderly, and it happened when I was at school—but it was something that was left behind at the school gates; it did not follow you home. Also, 27% of children have seen pornography by the age of 11, which brings a very toxic view of sex and relationships.

The Online Safety Act will hopefully encourage providers to do what they say they are doing when it comes to protecting children online, but the Minister has a huge responsibility to make sure that that happens, and to hold not just them but Ofcom to account to make sure that it is robustly implementing the guidelines that it is setting up. There are some amazing champions of that—Baroness Kidron has made incredible strides in the other place—but we need to make sure that Ofcom has not only the powers but the capacity. It has a huge amount under its jurisdiction and there is a huge amount of pressure. I know that the Minister will work very hard to ensure that it is held to account and equipped with what it needs.

15:22

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Huge congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for securing this debate, which I know is of grave concern not only for my constituents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, but for parents and caregivers throughout the country.

I am concerned that there is a disproportionate impact on girls and young women regarding online harm. Take, for example, the report just mentioned regarding exposure to harmful content; that recent report stated that 60% of girls aged 11 to 16 said that they had received negative comments about their appearance online, so I am very concerned about that growing impact on young people, particularly girls and young women.

Even more troubling is the increase in severe online abuse, such as grooming. In cases where the victim’s gender was identified between 2023 and 24, an overwhelming 81% of the children targeted were girls. I believe the increase in online harm to be directly connected to the increase in violence against women and girls.

I therefore join calls for significantly enhanced rules on social media platforms to safeguard our young people. That must tackle both the blunt and sharp ends of online harm: the insidious exposure to harmful content and the more direct and egregious abuses, such as grooming.

15:23

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) not just on securing this debate but on the way in which she made her case. I want to focus on a couple of the more technical aspects of the Online Safety Act, which are important in fulfilling the objectives that we all share this afternoon, which, as she rightly said, are to make sure that the vehicle that we now have in the OSA delivers the right outcomes for the safety of children online.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage); she is right that I had ministerial responsibility for the Act. I think, frankly, it is harder to find Conservative Ministers who did not have responsibility for it at some point or another, but what we all tried to do was make sure that the structure of the Act would support the objectives that, again, we all share.

I will mention two specific things, which I should be grateful if the Minister would consider. I do not expect her to respond to them this afternoon, but if she would consider them and write to me, I should be very grateful.

It seems to me that we need to make sure that as responsibility for implementing the Act moves from us as legislators to Ofcom as the regulator, Government and Parliament and the regulator are on the same page. There are two areas where I am concerned that that might not be the case. The first is the question whether harm to children is all about content. I do not think it is. We have heard this afternoon that many aspects of risk and harm to children online have nothing to do with the specific nature of an individual piece of content.

The Act is important, and I believe it does support Ofcom’s ability to act in relation to harms beyond specific matters of content. For the Minister’s benefit, I have in mind section 11 of the Act on risk assessment—as she will know, because she knows it off by heart. For everybody else here, section 11 deals with risk assessment, and on that a great deal hangs. If we do a risk assessment, the obligation is to do something about risks, and that hangs on what risks are identified in the assessment. So the risk assessment matters.

As I read the Act, section 11 says that, yes, we must risk-assess for individual harmful pieces of content, but under section 11(6)(f) we also must risk-assess for the different ways that the service is used, including functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service—which goes back to a point made earlier. Those are the sorts of things it is important to underline that we expect Ofcom to attend to.

I am grateful for the Government’s statement of strategic priorities, but the point made about this being a fast-moving landscape is fundamental. Again in the Act, the codes of practice are vital, because they set out the things that platforms ought to do to keep children safe. If the platforms do the things set out in the codes, they are broadly invulnerable from further regulatory intervention. We need to act urgently to ensure that the codes of practice say what we want them to say. At the moment my concern is that Ofcom may simply talk about current good practice and not urge advancements in good practice to be maintained by the platforms. Those are the two areas that I hope the Minister will think about in relation to the draft codes and the need for an ongoing relationship between us in Parliament and Government and Ofcom to ensure that the Act continues to deliver as we want it to.

15:27

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) on securing this important debate.

I would like to say a few words about the context of this debate and the parallels between it and some of the debates in the last century, specifically to do with road safety. Despite the car being a relatively common feature on our roads from about 1900, it was not until the 1930s, when there were already 1 million cars on the road, that we decided to introduce any age limit on driving. It was not until 1983 that wearing a seatbelt became compulsory. At that time, many people, including MPs here in Parliament, argued that the law would be impossible to police, was an overreach of the state and would not save any lives. In fact, when it was introduced, deaths dropped dramatically and we got the best out of the rise of the motor vehicle. There is a strong parallel between the introduction of seatbelt measures and what we now need to do as a Parliament on online safety.

The Online Safety Act was an incredibly welcome piece of legislation, but it was the very first measure and must be seen as a stepping-stone piece of legislation rather than a destination in its own right. Most people involved in the creation of the legislation and those at Ofcom themselves would probably recognise that description. Where we need to go next, I believe, is to address issues of excess screen time, social media use and the wider harms that come from the fact that the average 12-year-old is now spending 21 hours a week on their smartphone. There are obvious harms from that. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington highlighted social anxiety and peer-to-peer comparison and the mental health impacts of that. There are very clear impacts on sleep and on the classroom, and the evidence behind that is growing. There is also an enormous impact in that those 21 hours a week used to be spent by children doing other stuff. Children used to do other things that they now do not do because they spend time on their devices. That presents a complete generational rewiring of childhood, which needs to be considered closely.

That is why it is really welcome that last week the Government announced that they will commission a study into this area. The evidence has moved on considerably since the chief medical officer last looked at this in 2019. With fresh eyes looking at the evidence now, I believe that the chief medical officer will give very different advice. That is why I have introduced the safer phones Bill—the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill.

I would like three things to happen. First, the age of digital consent for data sharing should be raised from 13 to 16. That would put not just Ofcom, but the Information Commissioner’s Office in a position to regulate this, and I would like extra powers for parent groups to come together to ensure that that is enforced. Secondly, Ofcom needs additional powers to make sure that it can go beyond just the content, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned. Finally, we need to look at this as a public health issue, as well as a tech regulation issue.

15:31

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It has also been a real honour to be part of this debate, and I have been scribbling away because so much genuine passion has been put into it. Do I have 10 minutes, Mr Dowd?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Yes.

[Victoria Collins]

My cogs are turning—everyone in this debate wants to make a difference, and the time is now. That is the critical point. There is far too much illegal and harmful activity on social media and online, whether that is racist abuse, incitement to violence or the grooming of children—so much has been brought up.

Keeping children safe online is more difficult, but more important, than ever before. Several Members have mentioned that they spoke to their local parent groups and schools. I met children from The Grove school in Harpenden. One child said, “How old do you think I should be to have a smartphone?” And I said, “Well, how old would you like it to be?” He said, “Eleven.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Because that is when my brother got his.” It was really interesting that the teachers said, “We are discussing this as a school right now because the kids are asking those questions.” What also came through was the importance of listening to young people, because they are the ones who are crying out for change and saying that something is not right.

We have heard from many Members, including the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who set up the debate in a way that that none of us could follow, speaking with passion about the people behind this—the parents and the families. That is what we are all here for. We heard from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) about how covid exacerbated problems, which highlighted the importance of discussing this issue now. The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) talked about Ian Russell and Molly; I think most of us are aware of that story. Ian has come to Parliament many times to talk about the impact, and we must never forget his family and so many more behind them. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) spoke of the parallels between this issue and road safety, reminding us that we have to act now because, if we do not, we will look back and realise that we were doing a disservice to so many. We have to keep up on safety.

So much of this debate has been about identifying the issues with online safety, such as what the algorithms are sending us, location and chat features, the content and so much more. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about self-generated explicit content and the pervasive misogyny that so many have mentioned. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) mentioned young pornography being a crime and that we need to get the language right. That is key. Sexual inequality and violence are pervasive because of that content.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington spoke about the addictiveness of phones, and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) highlighted the fact that mobile phone use is impacting short-sightedness. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington mentioned sleep and asked what we are doing about the 21 hours a week spent on phones. So much of this is about what I call “digital mental health”, which refers to what is happening as a whole, beyond the algorithm and the impact of the content. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned self-harm, and I will certainly keep in mind the term “generational rewiring”, which the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington used.

When it comes to legislation, we have not acted fast enough and we have not gone far enough. As has been said, we need to move towards safety by design, but we also need legislation that is reactive and agile enough to keep up with the change. As Liberal Democrats, we were proud to push for the Online Safety Act to go further, and we successfully called for it to include online fraud and scams, as well as to outlaw cyber-flashing.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North talked about online games, and the fact that we need to stay up to date. The hon. Member for Gosport mentioned holding Ofcom to account. The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) talked about grooming laws, and how we need blunt and sharp elements in the instruments that we use. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) reminded us that behind all this, we must get the technicalities right in the Online Safety Act, highlighting that this is not just about the content, but about keeping up with the speed and agility of the change.

As a Liberal Democrat, I would like to highlight what we are calling for. The importance of being proactive has been mentioned many times, and that means calling for safety by design. We are also calling for an independent advocacy body for children’s safety online. We would like to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and online activity, such as revenge porn, threats and incitement to violence on social media. We would also like to include a digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online. That includes balancing the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and participation. The regulation of social media must respect the rights and privacy of those who use it legally and responsibly, but should not have a laissez-faire approach.

Another important element is education. The hon. Member for Darlington said that we cannot tackle all of this content. We cannot get all of this right, but it is important that we also empower young people and parents to be able to say what is right and wrong, and to help them to feel empowered to make a change, whether that is by using tools, or by speaking up and saying, “Actually, this is not right.” We should make sure that they feel they have that voice.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned that big tech needs to be held accountable—absolutely. We have to make sure that those who are building the platforms are the ones who ensure their safety by design, and that they keep up with that.

I close with a reminder that keeping young people safe online is more difficult, but more important, than ever before. We must act sooner rather than later and use all the tools at our disposal, whether that is through Ofcom and regulatory changes, by incentivising companies or by educating parents and children. Frankly, from the debate I have heard today, I have hope that if we work together, we can make sure that those changes are enacted swiftly and are kept up to date.

15:38

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for securing this debate. She spoke powerfully and knowledgeably on a wide range of issues, particularly on the children’s codes, and her requests for reform and improvements.

There were many contributions from hon. Members in this important debate, but one that really struck me, and which I would like to draw particular attention to, was the contribution from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). When hon. Members speak in debates, there are few times when all Members listen. She spoke rightly and powerfully about the awful statistics—I say “statistics”, but I really mean the number of horrendous acts of child sexual abuse that have been and are taking place, and the impact that that will have on those children and, indeed, all people who are exposed to it. All of us, as parliamentarians, need to be very mindful of that. Each and every one is an individual tragedy.

Protecting children from harmful or illegal content is something that all Members are committed to, and it is right that we work together to protect children. I welcome the Online Safety Act brought in by the last Conservative Government. That groundbreaking legislation had the protection of children at its heart, introducing effective, pragmatic laws and restrictions to combat some of the horrors we have heard about. It was great to have several of the architects of the Online Safety Act taking part in the debate and asking pertinent questions to the Minister, whose job it is to ensure that this piece of legislation works for us, our children and our families.

As a responsible Opposition, it is now our job to pose the questions and to support the Government in delivering protections for our children. I will make my speech in that spirit, particularly with a series of questions that I have for the Minister about the Act’s implementation.

I commend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology for meeting bereaved parents who have lost children to harmful online content, and for publishing the draft statement of strategic priorities for online safety. I pay tribute to those in the Gallery whose families have been tragically affected by online harms.

The Secretary of State has stated that the Government will implement safety by design to stop more harm occurring in the first place. We support the Government’s aspiration to deliver safe online experiences for all users, as we did in the previous Government. It is important that we consider whether the expectation should fall on users to take precautionary steps to avoid severely harmful content, and particularly those who are most vulnerable. But when the Government talk of safety by design, it is crucial that they place the onus on social media companies to ensure the safety of their users. Given the role that algorithms play in pushing themed content to users, what plans do the Government have to empower users to exercise greater personal control over the algorithms?

The Government outlined the need to ensure that there are no safe havens online for illegal content and activity. Although we wholeheartedly support that aim, to what extent will removing the ease of mainstream access push such content further out of sight and possible regulation? We support the Government’s desire to improve transparency and accountability across the sector, but while there is a desire to increase algorithmic transparency, how do the Government intend to improve regulatory co-ordination in the pursuit of achieving that? In addition, the inculcation of a culture of candour via the transparency reporting regime will be challenging. How will that be facilitated?

In January 2024, Instagram and Facebook announced that they would block under-18s from seeing harmful content relating to eating disorders, self-harm and suicide, but it has been highlighted that the content is so prevalent that it can still be found easily online. What steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that the existing legislation is enforced?

We must ensure that children are protected from material that is not age-appropriate, such as pornography. That is why the last Government tightened up age restrictions by requiring social media companies to enforce age limits consistently and to protect their child users. It is right that services must assess any risk to children from using their platforms and set appropriate age restrictions, ensuring that child users have age-appropriate experiences and are shielded from harmful content. Again, this should be followed closely to ensure that platforms—or indeed, children—are not finding ways around restrictions. Currently, age checks are not strong across all platforms. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government plan to do that. Restrictions introduced by the last Government are a good start but, as was noted in the debate, as technology changes, we must keep up.

The Government talk of ensuring that age assurance technology to protect children is being effectively deployed. How do they intend to ensure that that happens and to ensure that companies are investing in the most up-to-date technology to facilitate it? Will the Government proactively stress-test that capability?

We must stand against the harms that come our children’s way. We must build on the success of the previous Conservative Government by ensuring that all restrictions and laws work. We must embrace technology and understand that the internet and social media, in general, are a force for good, embedded in our daily lives, while also understanding that checks and balances are essential if we are to ensure a safe online environment for all users.

15:44

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) on securing this debate. As hon. Members can see, debates in Westminster Hall take a whole different form from debates in the House; they are a lot more informative and collegiate, and Westminster Hall is a much nicer place to debate. I welcome the parents in the Public Gallery and thank them for their commitment and the work they continue to do to make sure that this issue stays on our agenda and continues to be debated. I know they have met my colleagues, and I look forward to meeting them as well.

I am grateful to all hon. Members for the incredibly powerful and informative contributions to today’s debate. As the mother of two young children, I always have online safety on my mind. Every time I am on my phone in front of my children or want to keep them distracted by putting on a YouTube video, it scares me, and the issue is always at the back of my mind. It is important that we as parents always have the safety of our children in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) talked about being a parent to really young children while being an MP or candidate. As a mother who had two children in part during the last term, I can assure him that it does get easier. I am happy to exchange some tips.

The growth in the use of phones and social media has been a huge societal change, and one that we as parents and citizens are grappling with. I am grateful to all hon. Members here who are engaging in this debate. The Government are committed to keeping children safe online, and it is crucial that we continue to have conversations about how best to achieve that goal. We live in a digital age, and we know that being online can benefit children of all ages, giving them access to better connections, education, information and entertainment. However, we know that it can also accentuate vulnerabilities and expose children to harmful and age-inappropriate content. We believe that our children should be well-equipped to make the most of the digital opportunities of the future, but we must strike the right balance so that children can access the benefits of being online while we continue to put their safety first.

Last week, the Secretary of State visited NSPCC headquarters to speak to their voice of online youth group. That is just the latest meeting in a programme of engagement undertaken by the Secretary of State and my colleague in the other place, Baroness Maggie Jones. Getting this right has been and will continue to be a long process. Many hon. Members here will remember the battle to get the Online Safety Act passed. Despite the opposition—some Members in this place sought to weaken it—there was cross-party consensus and a lot of support, and so it was passed.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

On a number of occasions during the passage of the Online Safety Bill in this House, I raised the story of my constituent Joe Nihill from Leeds, who sadly took his own life after accessing very dangerous suicide-related content. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention that before Ofcom’s new powers are put into practice at some point next year, there is a window where there is a particular onus on internet service providers to take action. The website that my constituent accessed, which encouraged suicide, deterred people from seeking mental health support and livestreamed suicide, has been blocked for people of all ages by Sky and Three. Will the Minister congratulate those two companies for doing that at this stage and encourage all internet service providers to do the same before Ofcom’s new powers are implemented next year?

[Feryal Clark]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point and I absolutely welcome that intervention by internet providers. As I will go on to say, internet providers do not have to wait for the Act to be enacted; they can start making such changes now. I absolutely agree with him.

Many colleagues have raised the issue of the adequacy of the Online Safety Act. It is a landmark Act, but it is also imperfect. Ofcom’s need to consult means a long lead-in time; although it is important to get these matters right, that can often feel frustrating. None the less, we are clear that the Government’s priority is Ofcom’s effective implementation of the Act, so that those who use social media, especially children, can benefit from the Act’s wider reach and protections as soon as possible. To that end, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology became the first Secretary of State to set out a draft statement of strategic priorities to ensure that safety cannot be an afterthought but must be baked in from the start.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of suicide and self-harm. Ofcom is in the process of bringing the Online Safety Act’s provisions into effect. Earlier this year, it conducted a consultation on the draft illegal content, with one of the most harmful types being content about suicide. Child safety codes of practice were also consulted on. We expect the draft illegal content codes to be in effect by spring 2025, with child safety codes following in the summer.

Under the Act, user-to-user and search services will need to assess the risk that they might facilitate illegal content and must put in place measures to manage and mitigate any such risk. In addition, in-scope services likely to be accessed by children will need to protect children from content that is legal but none the less harmful to children, including pornography, bullying and violent content. The Act is clear that user-to-user services that allow the most harmful types of content must use highly effective age-assurance technology to prevent children from accessing it.

Ofcom will be able to use robust enforcement powers against companies that fail to fulfil their duties. Ofcom’s draft codes set out what steps services can take to meet those duties. The proposals mean that user-to-user services that do not ban harmful content should introduce highly effective age checks to prevent children from accessing the entire site or app, or age-restrict those parts of the service that host harmful content. The codes also tackle algorithms that amplify harm and feed harmful material to children, which have been discussed today. Under Ofcom’s proposal, services will have to configure their algorithms to filter out the most harmful types of content from children’s feeds, and reduce the visibility and prominence of other harmful content.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and others discussed strengthening the codes. Ofcom has been very clear that it will look to strengthen the codes in future iterations. The Government will encourage it to do so as harmful online technology and the evidence base about such technology evolves.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Feryal Clark]

I am short of time, so I will have to proceed.

For example, Ofcom recently announced plans to launch a further consultation on the illegal content duties once the first iteration of those duties is set out in spring next year. That iterative approach enables Ofcom to prioritise getting its initial codes in place as soon as possible while it builds on the foundations set out in that first set of codes.

My hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the issue of violence against girls and women. In line with our safer streets mission, platforms will have new duties to create safer spaces for women and girls. It is a priority of the Online Safety Act for platforms proactively to tackle the most harmful illegal content, which includes offences such as harassment, sexual exploitation, extreme pornography, internet image abuse, stalking and controlling or coercive behaviour, much of which disproportionately affects women and girls. All services in scope of the Act need to understand the risks facing women and girls from illegal content online and take action to mitigate that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) set out powerfully the issues around child sexual exploitation and abuse. Child sexual abuse is a vile crime that inflicts long-lasting trauma on victims. UK law is crystal clear: the creation, possession and distribution of child sexual abuse images is illegal. The strongest protections in the Online Safety Act are against child sexual abuse and exploitation. Ofcom will have strong powers to direct online platforms and messaging and search services to combat that kind of abuse. It will be able to require platforms to use accredited, proactive technology to tackle CSEA and will have powers to hold senior managers criminally liable if they fail to protect children.

I am running short of time, so I shall make some final remarks. While we remain resolute in our commitment to implementing the Online Safety Act as quickly and effectively as possible, we recognise the importance of these ongoing conversations, and I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to today’s debate. I am grateful to the brave parents who continue to fight for protections for children online and shine a light on these important issues. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), asked a host of questions. I will respond to him in writing, because I do not have time to do so today, and I will place a copy in the Library.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I call Lola McEvoy to briefly respond to the debate.

15:57

[Lola McEvoy]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the Minister for her response.

We have had an insightful and cohesive debate, and I thank all Members for their time and expertise. It is clear to me—and, I am sure, to all of us—that innovation has outstripped legislation, leaving our children and young people shouting for help. Crime is organised and exacerbated on these platforms, and the police cannot stop it without our help. Twenty-four-hour access means that content and bullying have caused school refusals, and our educators cannot teach our children without our help.

Children and young people never share everything with their parents, but the sheer quantity of material, along with the functions of content providers, means that parents cannot protect their children without our help. Children’s mental health services are drowning after huge surges in the number of those needing support. Many issues are caused or exacerbated by online platforms, and our NHS cannot get our children well without our help. Today has demonstrated cross-party agreement for action, as well as agreement that this is one of the great issues of our time. We have our consensus, so now let us use it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered online safety for children and young people.

Suicide and Mental Health of Young People: Tatton

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call Esther McVey to move the motion. I will then call 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.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of suicide and mental health of young people in Tatton constituency.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I would like to convey my appreciation to the Minister for replying to this extremely important and sensitive debate on the management of withdrawal from antidepressant medication, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and the profound impact that that process can have on the mental health and suicide risk of young people.

I would like to begin by conveying my sincere thanks to my constituent, Gina Russell, who met me and bravely shared the experience of her daughter, Olivia, who tragically took her life in September 2021, following withdrawal from SSRI medication. Olivia’s mum is unable to be with us in Westminster Hall today. However, I know that she and her family are watching this debate at home, as they are determined to help prevent others having to suffer the same fate as Olivia.

I would also like to place on record my thanks to the charities Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide, as well as to The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition and the House of Commons Library for the information provided to me before this debate. While the information was insightful, it was deeply disturbing, as it revealed that Olivia’s experience of declining mental health as medication was withdrawn was far from unique and was a known risk, which made me determined to pursue this debate on behalf of her family and thus bring Olivia’s story and her family’s suffering to a wider audience.

Let me start by painting a picture of Olivia, who was an intelligent, creative and hard-working 25-year-old who had just left Tatton to live in London. Her parents remember her as wonderful and vibrant—a loving daughter and a loving younger sister to her brother, Luke; a cherished and adored granddaughter; and a loyal, kind and supportive friend. She lit up a room and was admired by all who knew and loved her.

In November 2020, during the pandemic, Olivia became anxious. She began taking an SSRI—citalopram—to manage her anxiety. Initially, Olivia responded well to treatment. However, when the time came to discontinue the medication in June 2021, she experienced a rapid decline in her mental health, which was far worse than what she had previously faced. She then resumed SSRI treatment in August 2021, finally taking her life in September 2021. When she first came off her medication it was without consulting her GP, because she was feeling better. She should have been warned about stopping taking the antidepressant. The family was later to discover that citalopram is one of the most difficult antidepressants to come off.

Tragically, the Royal College of Psychiatrists suggests that between a third and half of people who take antidepressant medications experience withdrawal symptoms to some extent. The severity and duration of these symptoms, and whom they affect, is not certain. In Olivia’s case, the withdrawal symptoms were severe and the resulting deterioration in her mental state ultimately led to her taking her own life. Members should bear in mind that suicide remains the leading cause of death among young people under 35 in the UK, and the mental health of young people has declined alarmingly in recent years.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for the very sensitive way in which she is delivering her speech. In Northern Ireland, the worrying thing about suicides is that we have had an 8% increase in the last year. It worries me greatly that people are unable to cope with life. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that the inability of GPs—I think she mentioned this—to refer patients to early intervention on mental health is something that must be tackled? Early support for young people, and easy access to it, is the only way to give a lifeline to those who are struggling at a very young age.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my colleague and friend for that pertinent intervention.

The pandemic lockdown exacerbated the mental health crisis, as it brought isolation, uncertainty and disrupted routines at home, in education and in the workplace, taking an immense toll on young people’s wellbeing. During that period, the use of antidepressants, including SSRIs, rose significantly. Meanwhile, access to in-person medical support was often severely limited, which may have worsened the challenges faced by patients navigating their mental health and medication.

Last year, the closure of England’s only dedicated antidepressant withdrawal helpline, the Bristol and district tranquilliser project, left a further gap in support services for patients, at a time when mental health services are under immense strain. Analysis from the children and young people’s mental health coalition shows that 1.5 million children and young people could need new or increased mental health support as a result of the pandemic.

Those factors combined to create a perfect storm for young people struggling with mental health challenges, with many prescribed SSRI medication as a solution by their medical practitioners. It is important to note the life-changing and positive impact that such medication has had on many people across the country, and I do not seek to contest that or the ability of those medications vastly to improve the mental health of many patients. However, we must also acknowledge that the process of withdrawing from SSRIs can be fraught with challenges that leave patients vulnerable.

In Olivia’s case, her family believed that she was left in the dark. Her mother recalls that the information provided by her GP was limited and did not adequately warn of the risks of sudden or poorly managed withdrawal. As a result, following her death, the exceptional decision was taken by the coroner to produce a prevention of future deaths report. It found no evidence that Olivia was explicitly warned about the risks of relapse or the potential signs of withdrawal, or told that she might feel worse before feeling better. The report concluded that while advice may have been given, it was not conclusive and concern was expressed regarding the inconsistency of advice that each GP might give patients. The report could not say with confidence that every GP within Olivia’s practice was discussing the key risks associated with SSRI medication withdrawal.

That requires our immediate attention, as the principle of informed consent, which underpins our healthcare system, requires that patients are fully aware of the benefits and risks of any medical procedure or treatment. The General Medical Council’s professional standards for decision making and consent stipulate that doctors’ discussions should recognise the effect of the patient’s individual clinical circumstances on the probability of benefit or harm occurring.

Guidance from the GMC acknowledges that the amount of information doctors provide to patients can vary due to time constraints. Where such time constraints exist, doctors are encouraged to involve other medical professionals, such as clinicians, or to refer patients to the patient information leaflet accompanying their medication. Patients are legally entitled to a patient information leaflet with their prescriptions, but the responsibility for providing it lies with pharmacies. That places the onus on patients, potentially in a vulnerable position, to navigate complex decisions alone. The leaflets are often lengthy and rely on a patient reading and understanding information provided.

The issue is compounded by outdated guidance. Until recently, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—suggested that withdrawal symptoms typically last one to two weeks. That has now been updated to reflect the fact that symptoms can be more severe and prolonged, but the updates have not yet translated into comprehensive and systematic changes to ensure that patients are adequately supported. Inconsistent guidance on antidepressant withdrawal has resulted in many patients experiencing distressing and debilitating symptoms. Patients have been misdiagnosed as suffering from a relapse of their original mental health condition, and others have been left fearful about stopping using their antidepressants. That may have contributed to many individuals staying on their antidepressant medication for longer than is necessary, with a report in 2023 suggesting that 2 million people are taking antidepressants for five years or more.

What improvements can be made to ensure the better facilitation of SSRI withdrawal? Olivia’s family believe that there are measures that could be taken that would go far in protecting patients when withdrawing from the medication. A move as simple as placing a warning label on the packaging of SSRI prescriptions would be a straightforward way to convey the dangers of the medication. It would not replace the more comprehensive information provided in a patient information leaflet, or the guidance of a GP. However, it would act as a safeguard in circumstances should those fail. The safety of patients’ prescribed medications must be guaranteed, not left to change based on appointment time constraints or whether a patient has read in full the often lengthy patient information leaflet.

The story of Olivia and her family is a painful reminder of the urgent need to address the risks associated with SSRI withdrawal, and the broader mental health crisis facing young people today. While SSRIs have transformed countless lives, we cannot overlook the vulnerability of those navigating withdrawal. We owe it to families like Olivia’s to ensure that no one feels unsupported or uninformed when taking such important decisions. Simple measures, such as enhanced warnings on medication packages, improved guidance for medical practitioners and comprehensive advice can make the process of withdrawal palpably easier and safer, potentially offering better outcomes for individuals navigating the complex process of withdrawal from SSRIs.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s consideration of the issues I have discussed. Finally, in Olivia’s instance, the coroner produced a prevention of future deaths report, so I ask the Minister how such a report can become wholesale advice to the medical profession? Will he work with me to ensure that it does, in order to prevent lives like Olivia’s being cut tragically short?

16:12

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this debate and raising many important issues. I also thank her for sharing the tragic story of Olivia. My heart goes out to Olivia’s family and loved ones; it is a truly heartbreaking situation and process that they have gone through.

The right hon. Lady made a number of important points about withdrawal from SSRI antidepressants. A number of those points are quite specific, and I do not have in specific responses my notes. With her leave, I would like to write to her with responses on those points. She made a point about the coroner’s advice, which contained a lot of useful counsel on how we might address and tackle the issues raised. I will certainly look at that in detail, and will happily take those matters forward with her. We have a shared interest in addressing the issue. If the system is not working and people who are on that antidepressant are not being supported with withdrawal, we need to look at that in detail. We need to tackle it—I share her views on that.

I will turn to some more general points about the Government’s position on mental health. We have made suicide prevention and mental health a priority, especially for young people. Many of the issues raised today are symptomatic of an NHS that is broken. Looking at the figures, the challenges that face the NHS are truly sobering.

About 50% of lifetime mental health conditions are established by the time an individual is 14 and 75% by the time they are 24. Evidence suggests that the prevalence of mental health conditions is rising among children and young people. In 2023, 20.3% of eight to 16-year-olds had a probable disorder, compared with 12.5% in 2017. Of course, the covid-19 pandemic exacerbated needs, with analysis showing that 1.5 million children and young people under the age of 18 could need new or increased mental health support following the pandemic.

According to the Darzi review, 343,000 referrals for children and young people under the age of 18 are waiting for mental health services, including 109,000 referrals waiting for more than a year. Under the NHS Cheshire and Merseyside integrated care board, as of the end of September 2024, 10% of children and young people still waiting for first contact with NHS-funded mental health services were waiting for more than 951 days, equating to 1,301 people. Half of those still waiting had been waiting for more than 300 days. There are 13,010 children and young people still waiting for first contact with NHS-funded mental health services.

Until recently, there had been an upward trend in suicide rates for children and young people. For women between the ages of 10 and 24, the rate has nearly doubled since 2012, rising from 1.6 per 100,000 to 3.1 per 100,000 in 2023.

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

Over the past 10 years in England and Wales, one student has died every four days as a result of suicide. Despite that forlorn tragedy, the law remains unclear about the duties and responsibilities universities have towards their often very vulnerable young students. Will the Minister meet me and members of the LEARN Network and ForThe100 to discuss the introduction of a statutory duty of care for all higher education providers?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important intervention. I am happy to meet her and the LEARN Network. The Government cannot do all this alone; we need to work in partnership with all sorts of different stakeholders, including universities and the higher education sector. We would support any partnership working that we can do.

Until recently, there had been an upward trend in suicide rates for children and young people. For women between the ages of 10 and 24, the rate has almost doubled, but the trend for children and young people has flattened in the past year, despite overall increases in suicide. Although those rates are low compared with those for other age groups, children and young people are a priority group in our mission to tackle suicide. The Department is commissioning research via the National Institute for Health and Care Research to advance our understanding of why rates of suicide have been increasing in certain age groups.

We are committed to reforming the NHS to ensure that we give mental health the same attention and focus as physical health. It is unacceptable that too many children, young people and adults are not receiving the mental health care that they need. We know that waits for mental health services are far too long. We are determined to change that. That is why we will recruit 8,500 additional mental health workers across children’s and adult mental health services. We will also introduce a specialist mental health professional in every school and roll out young futures hubs to provide timely mental health support to our children and young people.

We are working with our colleagues at NHS England and the Department for Education as we plan delivery of those commitments. Furthermore, the Government are also committed to tackling suicide as one of the biggest killers in our country. The suicide prevention strategy proposes targeted support for priority groups such as children and young people. The Department for Education is reviewing the statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education, and the Secretary of State for Education is clear that children’s wellbeing should be at the heart of it.

Some 79 voluntary, community or social enterprise organisations up and down the country have been allocated funding through the Department of Health and Social Care’s £10 million suicide prevention grant fund over the two years to March 2025. These organisations—from local and community-led through to national—deliver a broad and diverse range of activity that will prevent suicides and save lives.

Early intervention on mental health issues is vital if we want to stop young people reaching crisis point. Schools and colleges play an important role in that early support, which is why we have committed to providing a mental health professional at every school. Mental health support teams help to meet the needs of children and young people in education settings; such teams, which are made up of mental health practitioners and education mental health specialists, are available in schools in Tatton.

However, it is not enough to provide access to a mental health professional when young people are struggling. We want the education system to set young people up to thrive, and we know that schools and colleges can have a profound impact in promoting good mental health and wellbeing. Doing this well takes a holistic approach, drawing in many aspects of the school or college’s provision. Many schools are already doing that, and my Department is working alongside the Department for Education to understand how we can support such good practice across the sector, and across the length and breadth of our country.

The opportunity mission will break the link between people’s background and their success. The mission will build opportunity for all by giving every child the best start in life: high-quality early education, early child health, home learning environments and family support. The mission will also support children to achieve and thrive, ensuring high school standards with a broad curriculum, excellent teachers and targeted interventions, an inclusive approach to special educational needs and disabilities, mental health support, access to arts, culture and sport, and youth services and provision.

In our manifesto, the Government committed to rolling out young futures hubs. This national network is expected to bring together local services, deliver support for teenagers at risk of being drawn into crime or facing mental health challenges, and, where appropriate, deliver universal youth provision. The hubs will provide open-access mental health support for children and young people in every community.

We are concerned about the widespread availability of harmful material online, promoting content on eating disorders, suicide and self-harm, that can easily be accessed by people who may be young and/or vulnerable. We have been clear that the Government’s priority is the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, so that those who use social media—especially children—can benefit from its wide-ranging protections as soon in their lives as possible. Earlier this year, Ofcom concluded its consultations on the draft illegal content and child safety codes of practice. We expect the illegal content codes to be in effect by spring 2025, with the child safety codes following in the summer.

I will turn to other aspects of our plans to improve mental health services. The Mental Health Bill, which was announced in the King’s Speech, will deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983 by giving patients greater choice and autonomy and enhanced rights and support, and aims to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect throughout their treatment. It is important to get the balance right to ensure people get the support and treatment they need when necessary for their protection and for that of others.

I am pleased to say that the Bill has been introduced in the Lords and will be coming to the Commons in the new year. The Bill will make the Mental Health Act fit for the 21st century, redressing the balance of power from the system to the patient and ensuring that people with the most severe mental health conditions get better, more personalised care. It will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people under the Act unless they have a co-occurring mental health disorder that needs hospital treatment.

I conclude by once again commending the right hon. Member for Tatton for securing the debate and colleagues from across the House, including the hon. Members for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for sharing their insight on the vital issue of suicide prevention and mental health care for children and young people. I am committed to working with the right hon. Member for Tatton and her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling, to take forward these issues, and I hope that we can, together—across the House—address this vital issue.

Question put and agreed to.

16:24

Sitting suspended.

Project Gigabit

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

16:34

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the rollout of Project Gigabit in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your unexpected chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

Broadband and internet access are as vital today as electricity and water. They underpin our daily lives, helping us work, learn, access healthcare and stay in touch with loved ones.

In my former career in healthcare, I saw the transformative potential of digital connectivity. From telemedicine to electronic records, fast and reliable broadband has revolutionised how care is delivered, making it more efficient and accessible, but for too many of my constituents in rural areas these opportunities remain out of reach.

Over recent years, the UK has made remarkable progress in expanding broadband access. Project Gigabit, launched as part of the Conservative Government’s national infrastructure strategy in 2020, aims to deliver gigabit-capable broadband nationwide. Nearly four years on, 81% of UK households have gigabit access, compared with just 7% in January 2019—a dramatic leap that highlights the success of the initiative.

In constituencies like mine, Farnham and Bordon, that progress has been essential. Faster, more reliable broadband has driven economic growth, created jobs, improved educational opportunities and enhanced social inclusion. However, the roll-out has not been without challenges, especially in rural areas where significant disparities persist.

The Conservative Government committed £5 billion to Project Gigabit to deliver the fastest broadband to homes and businesses across the country. That funding has supported 37 major projects worth £1.9 billion and reached more than 1 million premises. An additional 118,000 gigabit vouchers have been awarded, enabling rural households and businesses to upgrade their broadband infrastructure.

The rural gigabit connectivity programme, with £200 million-worth of investment, targeted the most remote and hard-to-reach areas. These upgrades have transformed connectivity in places previously left behind. Public sector buildings such as GP surgeries, libraries and schools have also benefited, ensuring that vital services have the infrastructure to support their communities. The resilience provided by gigabit broadband was especially crucial during the covid-19 pandemic, enabling remote working, virtual learning and digital healthcare.

For those not covered by Project Gigabit, the universal service obligation introduced in the Digital Economy Act 2017 provided a safety net. That legal guarantee of a minimum of 10 megabits per second ensured that no one was completely left behind.

Despite these successes, however, there remains a stark urban/rural divide in broadband access. Although 81% of urban premises now have gigabit-capable broadband, only 44% of rural premises can say the same. These statistics highlight the ongoing challenges facing constituencies like Farnham and Bordon.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

rose—

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Gregory Stafford]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right to identify the progress made in constituencies like his, Farnham and Bordon, or mine, East Hampshire. Does he agree, however, that improvement is all the more urgent and important in the most rural areas, where there is already very poor or no mobile signal and very poor broadband speed? They are not on the list for the commercial gigabit roll-out and some are not on the list for the second tier of gigabit roll-out. On top of all that, they hear the announcement that the PSTN—the public switched telephone network—is going to be switched off. In the event of an emergency, in the event of a power cut, they are in danger of being marooned.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily prescient point. That is a combination of factors that will leave many in rural areas, especially those who are elderly or have other caring needs, at a real disadvantage. That is why it is so essential to turbocharge this roll-out going forward.

[Ann Davies]

Gigabit availability in my constituency of Caerfyrddin in west Wales is just 42%. The Welsh average is 70% and the UK average is 79%; we are on 42%. The Public Accounts Committee has previously said that the 2030 target for full UK-wide gigabit coverage is not feasible, given the delays and the overreliance on commercial providers. Can the Minister reassure the people in rural Wales that they will not continue to be left behind, and that the target will actually be met? Diolch.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The fact is that many of our rural constituencies are so far below the national average that it is a real problem. In my constituency, gigabit coverage lags well below the national average, with 65.5% of premises connected in the old constituency of South West Surrey and 64.4% in the old constituency of East Hampshire. Both are over 10% below the UK average despite being just an hour’s drive away from London. In the villages of Tilford, Dippenhall and Greatham, broadband speeds are shockingly poor. In one Dippenhall postcode, 100% of properties lack speeds above 10 megabits per second. Similarly, in parts of Greatham, constituents are stuck with outdated speeds that cannot support modern digital demands. To put this in perspective, Londoners with gigabit connections enjoy speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second, while my constituents struggle with speeds 100 times slower.

These numbers represent more than just technical deficiencies; they have a real and profound impact on people’s lives. Take, for example, a resident of Dippenhall who wrote to me to share their frustration. Their home is deemed inaccessible by Openreach, leaving them completely excluded from the benefits of gigabit broadband. Another example is Victoria, a magistrate in my constituency who commutes two hours each way to London. Victoria’s broadband speed—1.5 megabits per second download and 0.8 megabits per second upload—makes it impossible for her to work remotely or participate in virtual court hearings. During the covid-19 pandemic, while her colleagues in London worked from home with ease, Victoria was left unable to contribute. This digital inequality places an unnecessary strain on her family life, finances, and professional opportunities.

Even Moor Park, in the east of Farnham, suffers from poor speeds of just 20 megabits per second download and five megabits per second upload—far below what is needed for modern working or learning. These residents, along with those in Beacon Hill, Hindhead and Frensham, feel increasingly left behind in a world that is becoming ever more digital.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Perhaps we should hear a bit of good news, as it is only right that we should do that. Whenever the DUP were in partnership with the Conservatives, part of that deal was a £200 million boost for Northern Ireland to ensure better connectivity. All of that has been spent. Some 96.42% of premises in Northern Ireland now have the most up-to-date connectivity. But connectivity for rural businesses is the issue—there are still some 60,000 businesses that need to be reached. When it comes to looking forward to the future, to see what we can do, does the Minister agree that small businesses need to be focused on?

[Gregory Stafford]

Absolutely; I agree. As Conservatives, I am very happy to work with the DUP on any matters that are in our interest together. It just goes to show that this is not just a regional issue—it covers the whole of the United Kingdom. We need to support small businesses.

That brings me to a number of those compound challenges that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) also talked about. According to a Lloyds bank report, 11 million people—nearly 21% of the UK population—are digitally disadvantaged. In Surrey, an estimated 200,000 people face digital exclusion. It is the same in Hampshire, particularly in Headley Down, Grayshott and Liphook. Even in more populated areas, such as Farnham town, broadband speeds are far below the national average, affecting businesses, schools, and families. For many of my constituents, the lack of reliable broadband creates barriers to accessing healthcare, education and job opportunities. It also isolates people socially, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable. I pay tribute to two county councillors in my constituency, Debbie Curnow-Ford and David Harmer, who are working hard to help with that.

In hard-to-reach areas such as Dippenhall and Moor Park, alternative technologies offer some hope. Satellite-based internet, for example, could provide connectivity to rural areas where traditional infrastructure is not economically viable. Competitive bidding within Project Gigabit has already allowed smaller telecom providers to target these underserved regions, breaking Openreach’s historical monopoly.

Earlier this week I met representatives from CityFibre, which operates in parts of Hampshire, including Bramshott, Liphook and Headley Down. Their involvement shows how opening the market to competition fosters innovation and provides tailored, affordable broadband packages to meet local needs. That diversification is critical for ensuring fair and affordable access for all.

Diversifying the network also encourages local internet service providers, such as Grayshott Gigabit in my constituency. It is an award-winning full fibre broadband service and the winner of the Internet Service Providers’ Association UK award in 2024 for best rural provider. Those smaller-scale operatives can only continue to expand if they have continued Government support.

While I recognise that the new Labour Government have pledged to deliver nationwide gigabit broadband by 2030, I want to hold them to account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) pointed out when he was the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, we must avoid recreating the digital divide seen in Wales, as referenced earlier, where only 76% of premises have gigabit access, compared with nearly 90% in England.

The Labour Government must ensure that rural areas are not left behind. We cannot repeat past mistakes, in which funding and resources disproportionately favoured urban centres, leaving rural communities to fend for themselves. To address those challenges, I join colleagues in writing to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology with the following requests: that the full £5 billion allocated to Project Gigabit is retained; that the funding is divided proportionately between urban and rural areas; and that rural areas where broadband is not commercially viable are prioritised for future investment.

As I have said, Project Gigabit has already transformed lives and communities, but there is much more to do. We owe it to constituents such as Victoria, the residents of Dippenhall and the families in Moor Park to deliver the connectivity that they deserve. Let us ensure that no community, urban or rural, is left behind in the digital age. It is time to close the digital divide once and for all.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called.

16:47

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

While it is a pleasure to speak in the debate today, I am hoping it is one that we do not need to keep having. Like many of us, I represent a rural community, and if there is one thing I am desperate to fix, it is sorting out t’internet for my constituents. I make no apologies for my local dialect because up north, we all joke about the rubbish internet signal in rural Yorkshire. It is a huge barrier for many.

There are unique perplexities in the geography of my constituency of York Outer; anyone who has seen it on a map will know that. Some call it a doughnut and some call it a Polo mint. Effectively, it is sweeping Yorkshire countryside with vibrant villages and closely knit communities. However, we see one challenge, and that is the focus of today’s debate: broadband.

Those unique perplexities do not just extend to the constituency’s map; there are cases within it. Take Haxby and Huntington. Forgive me the pun: because of the way my constituency is wired, quite literally, there are roads where a house on one side has fantastic connectivity, but on the other side the internet is terribly slow, and the last time that side got an update, Teletext was on the TV.

A quick roll-out of good internet really matters for our mission of economic growth, so I welcome the more than £500 million in the Budget, committed for 2025-26, to deliver Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. It will play a pivotal role in delivering full gigabit broadband coverage by 2030. However, the focus of my remarks is to feed back on an important experience for one of my constituents, and on why an important upgrade in York Outer is needed.

I start on a specific issue that I would like to pick up with the Minister separately, if he would be so kind as to meet me. I have a Ministry of Defence site in my constituency, in the area of Strensall, that recently missed out on a roll-out of hyperfast connectivity. There are nearly 100 military houses on that site that need an upgrade, and they need it badly. For context, some of the people there are suffering with speeds of less than 10 megabytes per second on copper cables, compared with some residential houses opposite that now have speeds of up to 1,200 megabits per second, and—colleagues, wait for this—at the same cost! Serving families deserve so much better. I am not sure whether it is the Defence Infrastructure Organisation or Openreach that is responsible for the project, but I would love to get it fixed, if possible, with the Minister’s help. If I could meet him, that would be brilliant.

I will draw on another case study. I have heard from residents in Haxby about Project Lightning, a 2019 initiative to bring full-fibre to the village. Although the work was completed, unfortunately some houses were missed out. The cost of that is felt by one couple who recently told me that they work from home, but are now struggling to join calls with clients. They cannot both go on calls with clients at the same time, and that is affecting their fantastic small business.

I have also had constituents write to me about the need for upgrades in Hopgrove, just four miles from York city centre. I am hopeful that Project Gigabit and the Government’s work on the internet roll-out more broadly can help my constituents, something I would like to discuss in detail another time. I am supportive of the Government’s work to roll out Project Gigabit, and my case studies hopefully illustrate a glimpse of why it is so important.

Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this debate, allowing me to raise those important constituency cases.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your forbearance. Please try to keep to three minutes. I call Tim Farron.

16:51

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on introducing a very important debate.

I will focus my remarks on my constituency. Project Gigabit has done an awful lot of good in Cumbria, but there are issues, even in postcodes within scope. For example, across Cumbria around 900 properties in my constituency are deemed within scope, but will not be connected because of their rural isolation. Many of those will be hill farms that desperately need to be connected, not least so that they can bid for funding through the environmental land management scheme.

Perhaps of greater concern are the places that are in scope, but in deferred scope. I want to name four parishes in my constituency, near Appleby: Hilton, Murton, Warcop and Ormside. Those are communities on very low speeds at the moment. Some people are forced, against their better judgment and almost against their will, to give money to Elon Musk to use Starlink instead of the very limited broadband opportunities that are available to them.

While those communities are within scope but in deferred scope, they wait for the contract holder, Fibrus, to give them a date, and because they are within deferred scope, nothing is happening on the ground to connect them. Also, they do not have access to the voucher scheme, which would allow them to work with our absolutely brilliant Cumbrian Broadband for the Rural North, otherwise known as B4RN, an award-winning community interest company that has connected so many homes throughout rural Cumbria to gigabit and greater broadband speeds.

So I want to press the Minister—this is my one ask of him—on whether he will ensure that those parishes I have listed, Ormside, Warcop, Hilton and Murton, are either given a date for connection under Project Gigabit, or are descoped so that vouchers can be made available and B4RN can then step in and fill the gap. We had a public meeting in the snow in Murton last December—next weekend it will be 12 months ago—where BDUK made all sorts of promises of which it has fulfilled absolutely none.

Will the Minister give personal attention to either descoping those communities so they can get broadband through the B4RN and the voucher system, or give Fibrus—and more importantly BDUK—a kick up the backside to make sure they bring the communities into scope, and give a date in the next few months so that those communities, which are very remote in many other ways, are connected properly to gigabit broadband speed?

16:54

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this debate—although the mention of Liphook in his speech confused me, as I was always under the impression that my aunt’s MP was the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—

[Damian Hinds]

I was, but not any more.

[Joe Morris]

Clearly, I have got something wrong.

I want to address a few of the issues experienced in my constituency. As many Members here today will be well aware, it is the largest constituency in England, taking in large parts of Northumberland, going all the way up to the Scottish border and all the way across to the border with Cumbria. I am regularly contacted by constituents who are trying to enjoy the dream situation of living in England’s most beautiful county, but who are unable properly to work, attend meetings with clients or generate the economic growth that this country so sorely needs.

I speak to people in villages such as Stocksfield, Riding Mill, Hedley on the Hill or even Darras Hall, who I know have had frequent issues with getting the appropriate broadband speeds delivered to them. Residents of those villages are continuously working to try to get the broadband speeds that they deserve.

There is a real feeling that for the past 14 years many rural communities were left to sit in splendid isolation, abandoned by the Conservative party. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon eloquently said in his opening remarks, they were left to fend for themselves.

I am absolutely proud to be part of the Labour party that won a swathe of rural seats at the last general election, that is committed to ensuring our rural businesses can grow, and that can ensure that the world-class businesses across my constituency are able not only to access high-speed internet, but to do so in the very smallest communities. When I go out and meet constituents across the north Tyne area, internet is one of the bugbears most commonly raised with me on the doorstep, alongside a lack of housing and the state of the NHS. I hope the Minister will consider how we can get high-speed internet to those most rural constituencies and the hill farms that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned, to ensure that they are given the opportunity to benefit from Project Gigabit.

16:56

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.

I should start by saying that I have some sympathy with the Minister, because this is the second time today that he has had to suffer my representations on this subject. He kindly set aside 10 minutes this morning to hear all about Honiton and Sidmouth, and he will have to hear more about it now.

The village of Gittisham in east Devon illustrates the shortcomings of the rural broadband policy that we saw under the last Conservative Government. After four separate attempts by different commercial providers to lay fibre to some parts of the village, the connection still falls 100 metres short of many of the properties—and that is not an isolated example. Across the part of east Devon that I represent, I hear similar things from people in other villages, too.

Three weeks ago, Connecting Devon and Somerset, the local authority-led body charged with connecting commercial organisations, scaled back its full-fibre broadband roll-out. That provider, which four years ago said it would be able to deliver to Gittisham, is no longer able to do so. It was contracted to deliver broadband to over 55,000 properties across Devon and Somerset, but to date it has delivered to fewer than 19,000.

When I spoke with the Minister and his officials earlier today, it was very helpful to learn that, although national gigabit-capable broadband coverage now reaches 85% of the country, in rural Honiton and Sidmouth—the area I represent—we lag far behind at just 61%.

I will bring my remarks to a close, given that I have already had 10 minutes of the Minister’s and his officials’ time today, but I just want them to take this away: if coal was the fuel that powered the 19th century and oil was the fuel that powered the 20th century, then information—data—is the fuel that powers the 21st century, and in much of east Devon we are not getting it.

16:59

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for raising this important issue today. However, I wonder if he could come with me for a few seconds, away from Surrey, to Diracleit on the Isle of Harris, where I stood a few weeks ago. It is a small settlement, with only a few houses and a few social houses on the main road, but it is an internet desert. There are three tourism businesses in that settlement that know they are losing money, losing paying guests and losing their minds with frustration because of slow internet connections.

Despite superfast broadband fibre running along the main spine of the Western Isles, and many success stories—people can work for software companies in California from Lewis, and for insurance companies and accountancy firms in Glasgow and London—to be a few hundred metres off the beaten track is to remain in an internet desert.

In Harris, 10% of households are unable to get decent broadband, and the same is true across the rest of the Western Isles: 10% of households cannot get speeds over 10 megabits per second. Some of us are living life in the slow lane. Diracleit, small as it is, is not hard to reach; it is only one mile from the streetlights and sophistication of Tarbert in Harris—the ferry port and the centre of the Harris universe—and there are many other places in the Western Isles and rural Scotland just like Diracleit.

Scotland has a scheme similar to the UK gigabit voucher scheme: the Scottish broadband voucher scheme. Theoretically, that scheme would provide £5,000 to premises with speeds of less than 30 megabits per second and, theoretically, it was meant to be completed in 2021. However, it is still in the procurement stage. In response to a recent freedom of information request, the Scottish Government revealed that they expect the roll-out of superfast broadband through the R100, or Reaching 100%, scheme to reach everywhere by 2028. I do not know how many megabits per second there are until 2028 but, even in Scotland, the SNP manages to build ferries faster than that.

There are some successes. For example, the holy island of Iona has received superfast broadband. That is very good for Columba’s monks, who can now put down their quills and pick up their keyboards, but in the Western Isles, we feel we are waiting a long time. People and businesses in Diracleit and dozens of other single-track road settlements are staring at that never-connecting wheel of death. I know the Minister is under pressure to deliver for rural England, but I urge him to have words with Ministers in Scotland, who have let down the Western Isles and many other parts of rural Scotland. I hope he can press them to connect us—perhaps he could send them an email.

17:02

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. One of the very first pieces of casework I received after the general election was from a constituent living in a village called Tollerton, who wanted access to full-fibre for domestic and commercial purposes. He told me that he had been contacting Openreach on and off for two years, trying to find out when the upgrade would start, and that the proposed connection date had moved four times. He consequently described the roll-out of full-fibre as “shockingly slow”. You will not be surprised, Mr Dowd, to hear that he lived in one of the 6 million hard-to-reach properties classified as area 3 by Ofcom. I encourage the Minister to think about how to best accelerate work to connect hard-to-reach properties as a priority to ensure that we meet our nationwide 2030 target.

Thankfully, I have been able to confirm that Openreach has a customised installation plan for Tollerton that will sit outside the core commercial build programme. My constituent described that confirmation as “amazing news”, and work should start early in the new year. None the less, the volume of communication I receive about full-fibre tells me that residents are frustrated about perceived delays. I would therefore be interested to hear more from the Minister about steps being taken to remove barriers to roll-out, including flexible permitting and sharing infrastructure where possible.

I acknowledge the work of the previous Government in starting the roll-out of full-fibre, which is of national importance. However, as our manifesto clearly says,

“the rollout of gigabit broadband has been slow.”

I therefore welcome the new Government’s commitment to

“make a renewed push to fulfil the ambition of full gigabit and national 5G coverage by 2030.”

Full-fibre uptake to date in my constituency of Rushcliffe is very high, at 55%, which is above the national average. With a growing tech industry, significant house building and many people continuing to work from home, I believe demand will only grow further. But for parts of rural Britain, that is likely to require early investment in wireless and satellite provision for places where it may prove prohibitively expensive to provide a full-fibre connection. I would therefore welcome hearing more from my hon. Friend the Minister about his planned approaches for this.

17:04

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this debate. From the comments made today, there seems to be consensus across the board about the challenges faced by our rural communities —challenges that are obstructing the growth of rural businesses and ensuring that some of the most vulnerable members of our community cannot reach key council and health services. Most importantly, as a constituent said to me on Saturday at my advice surgery, “How on earth am I meant to complain to you every day if I can’t connect to the internet?”

My hon. Friend the Minister has kindly already visited my constituency to meet my constituents. He visited the fantastic Redditch town centre, but he knows that my constituency is overwhelmingly rural. Although picturesque, many villages can sometimes be labelled hard to reach. I would be interested to know what plans the Government have to support these more remote locations. It is vital that rural businesses that are developing every day, families who want to stay connected and people fighting social isolation have the level of connectivity they deserve. The benefits can be immense for all our communities.

Progress has been made by the previous Government and by my own, Conservative-controlled Worcestershire County Council, but there is much more to do, and as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) said, we really should not be having this conversation in five more years.

17:06

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I will start by saying that this is not really about fast internet. It is about fairness. It is about opportunity. It is about helping individuals and helping us as a nation to live up to our potential. How are we supposed to lead innovation on the national stage if we still have many areas where people cannot even make a phone call or children who cannot get online are left behind? We have been talking today about rural communities who feel left behind and have untapped potential. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) highlighted that. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the fuel of our economy.

This is really about the people behind the slow internet and the inability to get access. It is about the businesses that cannot get off the ground and the remote workers who cannot work. I have a constituent right in the middle in Ashridge who actually works for UK Research and Innovation, but he cannot even get 4G access. Someone just down the road has 20 times the speed, but he himself is not eligible for a voucher. It is about the children in Scotland who have to use their phones to get online. It is about the grandma who cannot stay connected to her family, because there is no way for her to see her grandkids online. It is about the parent trying to get healthcare sorted out for their child.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) highlighted the patchiness of provision in his seat and how one street is wired differently from another, which is actually the picture across this nation. For me, what comes to mind are the words, “Inequality, inequality and inequality”. In my seat, I have one area—Markyate, Flamstead and Gaddesden—of which almost 90% has the worst 10% in the UK, whereas 2 miles down the road in east Harpenden 100% have the fastest 10% in the UK. It is inequality that is there throughout.

The patchy roll-out was mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about those left in limbo. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth talked about those let down by the roll-out. This is about unlocking our economic potential, reducing those inequalities and connecting our communities. As Liberal Democrats, we are calling—as I am sure we all are—for no property to be left out of broadband connectivity. The Government must prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities. We also want to raise concerns about the inequality of provision in the 5G network.

I conclude with a series of questions. What is the Minister doing to ensure that there is roll-out to every home, including clarity on those who have slipped through the net or been let down by previous roll-outs? What work is he doing with local authorities and communities to ensure that those who are left out know what they can do? What work is being done with companies to drive innovative solutions, including on transport? I ask because many of these rural communities are connected by train and other transport, and once people leave, they still cannot get on the internet. What work is the Minister doing with new technologies, such as blockchain even, to drive connectivity? The other day I spoke to one of my friends, who had come over to the UK from Ukraine. He said, “I’m very happy that I have been really welcomed in this country, but the internet is slower here than back home in Ukraine.” We need to ensure that our country is leading on this issue and that we get the basics right for us to drive innovation.

17:09

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. As was clear from his speech and his diligent, razor-sharp focus on targeting the delivery of gigabit broadband in different parts of his constituency, he is a true community champion. His constituents are lucky to have him.

That is a theme of the debate. All Members have spoken about individual parts of their constituency where broadband is a challenge. That goes to show how important our digital backbone is in the United Kingdom. I will resist the temptation to mention parts of my constituency, such as Queen’s Road or Ellesmere Road in Weybridge, where we have done work to deliver gigabit broadband. The debate demonstrates how important the issue is. It is one that inevitably and invariably gets the attention of Members of Parliament, so that they advocate for their constituents and try to deliver it.

Project Gigabit demonstrates simply that where there is a will, there is a way. Back in 2019, 7% of properties had what is defined as “gigabit access” or 1 gigabit per second. In April 2024—the last official stats we have—that had reached 81%. In fact, it is believed that the 85% target, due to be reached in ’25, has already been reached. That is a huge roll-out of gigabit broadband to households over the past five years of a Conservative Government.

There are of course people who do not have gigabit broadband, and it is critical that we work to ensure that they can have that vital accessibility. That is absolutely not just about being able to watch this debate in HD—to listen to my dulcet tones and to see the spots on my face; it is about industry and connectivity, and the events of covid showed just how important that is. Look at the £5 billion investment allocated to the project; some data shows that that is probably a £60 billion contribution to the UK economy.

How do we go about rolling out the delivery of gigabit broadband across the country? We as Conservatives know that the way to do it is to get industry involved and work with it. That is why 80% of the gigabit broadband target is linked to industry bringing it through, although we recognised that to get to the further 20% of roll-out, we needed to bring in subsidy and break down barriers. That is where we move from the initial phase of Project Gigabit, which was to do with industry delivering, to now, with the public subsidy we have seen over the past few years.

A great concern, however, is future inequalities, in particular in delivery to rural areas versus urban areas. The great concern is that over the next six months to a year, there will be a reallocation of priority away from rural areas to urban areas.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that from.

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister chunters from his seat, but in his speech, please can he assuage that concern? The way to do so is to provide transparent data on the prioritisation of funding and the roll-out.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister.

17:13

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

Lord, I had not expected that so quickly—nor did you earlier, Mr Dowd. It is great to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing the debate.

I will say first that our ambition is no different from that of the previous Government, which is to get to precisely the same numbers by 2030 as was stated previously. I am pretty confident that we will be able to get there. There are significant challenges, which I will try to explain in a moment.

As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said, the whole idea of BDUK and Project Gigabit was to enable gigabit-capable broadband to be brought to nearly every property in the UK, primarily through commercial operators advancing on the basis of commercial viability. We knew that that would be impossible in some areas, which was why there would have to be a subsidy from the Government—or the previous Government knew it, and we subscribed to that, too. The difficulty is that that precise decision by the commercial operators as to where is commercially viable changes all the time. It is a moving target; county by county, they constantly revise decisions on the properties they will cover on a commercial basis. Therefore, the decision by BDUK about how many properties to include in the subsidised roll-out also vary.

That is happening at a time when the market is considering long-term investments. Openreach has decided to increase significantly the number of places it expects to roll out to on a commercial basis. Other operators are worried. In the south-west, operators have already been unable to fulfil their commitments, and other contracts have had to be entered into. That makes reaching secure outcomes in each constituency a difficult process.

I have made this offer before. Some of the dramatis personae of this debate are similar to those I have met in other quarters at other times. I am happy for any individual MP who has concerns in their patch to meet my officials and those from BDUK to go through this issue village by village and do a precise piece of work. I know these are very real issues. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said in his opening remarks, this is not a luxury that is nice to have; it is essential to people’s livelihoods, economy and sometimes their lives, whether we are talking about mobile connectivity or broadband. Many aspects of that have to be delivered over the next few years.

I issue one word of caution. A number of hon. Members referred to hard-to-reach properties. That is a very broad definition. There are properties that are very hard to reach where, frankly, a roll-out cannot be achieved by a commercial operator or the taxpayer. That is where, as several hon. Members have said, we must be imaginative over the next few years about alternative means of delivery. That might be a wi-fi operation or reliance on satellite. Some people have already taken up the satellite option at £75 a month, as has been mentioned, although I am not particularly advertising that. It is problematic that there is only one operator in that space. I hope there will be more in future because competition is good in this market. I would praise the previous Government for that. There is not just one operator; we have allowed competition to operate in the roll-out of broadband.

Members, including some on the Government Benches, have had conversations about ducts and poles. There have been rows about the inconsiderate roll-out from some operators that have brought in street furniture that is otiose, redundant or duplicates what is already there, or where they have chosen not to use ducts because they do not want to talk to the commercial operators. I have been trying hard to ensure that all operators work as collaboratively as possible, within the bounds of competition law, to deliver broadband without obstructions.

I feel as though I have had all the villages of the UK brought to mind, and I am not sure that I have managed to write them down correctly—I apologise if I get things wrong. I welcome the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon to the House; I believe a family member was also here for a while. I have good news for him, although he might already know it, so he may not think it is as good as I do. He has been worrying about connectivity at the Beaver industrial estate, and I think AllPoints Fibre is coming early in 2025 to sort that out.

I looked at the figures for superfast, ultrafast, full-fibre and gigabit in the hon. Member’s constituency. While his constituency is actually ahead of the rest of the UK on superfast—it gets more than 30 megabits per second —that is not going to be sufficient for most people in the next few years, so we want to get much higher than that. On all the other measures, his constituency is some way behind the rest of the UK. I accept that there is a challenge there, and I am thoroughly determined to meet it.

The hon. Member referred to digital exclusion, in terms of physical access to gigabit-capable, ultrafast or full-fibre broadband. There are many different factors that might lead to digital exclusion. If I had a criticism of the previous Government—well, I have quite a few criticisms, but one that even they would accept as fair—it would be that we did not have a digital inclusion strategy for 10 years. In that time, in many areas of the country, whether because of poor skills, poverty, disability or the physical exclusion that the hon. Member referred to—I know it well in the south Wales valleys—there has been a level of digital exclusion that makes it impossible for people to take part in today’s economy or society. We need to address all that. It is my hope that, before we get to the end of the year, we will be able to point to the next steps in digital inclusion that we as a Government need to take.

The hon. Member seemed to say that the previous Government were absolutely wonderful but left the country in a terrible state in relation to broadband, especially in his constituency. If I might gently say, Conservative Members, including the shadow Minister, have to decide which way they are going to go on that: were they a great Government or were they not really up to it? I know what the country decided.

There is no rural/urban divide on this issue. I fully accept that there are specific challenges in many rural areas—my own constituency is semi-rural—but in many urban areas, while superfast broadband or gigabit-capable fibre is theoretically going down the street, it is not going into every building because of a whole series of other issues that we also have to address. That does not mean that we are redirecting Project Gigabit money away from rural to urban areas; more than 90% of the money has been spent in rural areas and will continue to be spent in rural areas.

The fundamental misconception in the letter that the hon. Member signed, and which quite a lot of other Conservative Members signed, which was brought forward by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), was that Project Gigabit was always designed to take gigabit-capable broadband to wherever it was needed. There was not a specific definition of rural or urban, and I am not changing that. It is need that determines where the money is spent—nothing other than that—and I fully accept that the vast majority of that is going to be in rural areas.

I welcome the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) to the House; I have campaigned a lot in her seat—not very successfully. She makes a good point that many villages in rural Wales are some of the most disadvantaged in this area and in mobile connectivity, which is why I am pleased that we recently rolled out seven new enhanced masts for mobile connectivity in Wales, including, I think, in her constituency. That does not answer the broadband issue, but we hope to address that through Building Digital UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) referred to t’internet. On the defence site in his constituency, my understanding is that that is a Ministry of Defence responsibility, but we will chase that up and write to him on that issue. He is absolutely right—Defence families should not be at a worse disadvantage than those across the road who are not in Defence properties. I know that the Secretary of State for Defence is keen to address those issues, because I have spoken to him about it.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to Starlink, and he is absolutely right. He rightly gave a list of villages, which were Warcop, Hilton, Murton—with a “u”, not an “e”—and Ormside, about which BDUK is presently in the process of negotiating. I do not want to descope at this point, because I very much hope that we will get to a resolution in the next month, but he makes a strong point. If it proves necessary to abandon ship, as it were, he can come back at me on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) —we must stop meeting like this—was sitting in the same place in the Chamber last week when we had a debate about tourism in his constituency. He is right that the tourist industry cannot survive without proper broadband. To rectify some of the issues that he was talking about last week, including with some of the beautiful villages in his constituency, we need to be able to roll out broadband.

I need to be careful about this point, but there will be properties that are not commercially viable or viable for the taxpayer to fund, because they are simply too difficult to reach. I think everybody accepts that, but it will be a tiny proportion—probably 1% or fewer. As several Members have said, however, we at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology definitely need to accelerate the process of thinking about the alternative mechanisms we can provide. Some people are already relying on Starlink, but we may need to come up with other solutions.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), is absolutely right that we need to look for technical solutions. That is why, through UK Research and Innovation and the research and development side of DSIT, we are keen to look at those areas.

The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about villages where broadband stopped 100 metres short, which is absolutely infuriating for everybody. Obviously, that is the kind of thing that we want to address. I know that he has already had conversations, and we have another meeting with several of his colleagues coming up, so we will be able to address those issues then.

I know bits of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) well, as he knows, and I have visited where some of my family are from. We need to look for very creative solutions in his constituency, because he is right that if someone is making Harris tweed, they want to be able to sell it, but they cannot create a business unless they have proper high-speed broadband. I note that we have superfast on Iona. I do not think there are many monks left there, but there is a community. In fact, it has a couple of hotels that I have stayed in, which also want and need connectivity.

I will give the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon a couple of minutes to wind up, but I will quickly refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who is right that we need to do something about flexi permits. We have already written to the Department for Transport about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) has similar issues in his patch.

Finally, I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, to his post, as I failed to do when we had DSIT questions last week. He has to decide whether the last Government were absolutely brilliant or whether they completely failed in this area.

17:28

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank all Members who have contributed. Given that I have only one minute and 14 seconds to respond, I will not go through everyone’s villages. What has become clear today is that there is significant concern around the roll-out in rural areas. I am pleased that the Minister responded in the way that he did, and that he has offered to meet us to go through it “village by village”—I wrote that down. I am sure that many Members here will be taking him up on that.

I will go back to what I said at the start: the facility to have superfast, gigabit-enabled broadband is going to be essential, and it is essential that we reach the target by 2030. We need to ensure that those people who are living in the most rural areas are not left behind, and that with the Opposition and the Government working together, we can move forward so that every property that is able has gigabit connectivity.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the rollout of Project Gigabit in rural areas.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.