Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 December 2024

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the explosive ordnance disposal community.

I am delighted to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate. It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I welcome the Minister to his place. The United Kingdom’s capacity in explosive weapons disposal and victim assistance requires the utmost Government support, particularly at a time of extreme geopolitical unrest.

Two weeks ago in Parliament, I met specialists from our explosive ordnance disposal community, the military, the police, the commercial sector, academia and related non-governmental organisations. Among other things, we discussed the United Kingdom’s enviable global reputation for expertise in search and disposal and victim assistance. As well as a global reputation, we have global reach: impacted countries around the world turn to the UK to provide search-and-disposal assistance, policy advice and training. We also have a vibrant EOD equipment production and export sector.

Our humanitarian mine action delivery, through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s global mine action programme, sees our major charities working on almost every continent. With a budget of £14.8 million for 2023-24, the programme is the UK’s main vehicle for tackling the threat posed by landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war. We have all seen the photographs of Princess Diana in a minefield in Angola, but there is so much more that the United Kingdom does to make the world safe from explosive weapons, including within our own borders.

At our meeting, we agreed that the UK certainly has the capability, but our capacity to cope with the major conflicts that are currently happening and those that are in danger of flaring up may well be stretched. These conflicts will result in an overwhelming need for explosive weapons disposal expertise once any form of peace is allowed to descend. Explosive weapons are being used in modern conflicts to an extent that we have not seen for generations. The number of people killed and injured by explosive weapons is mind-numbingly high. In the past three years, there has been a 70% increase in civilian casualties, with the conflicts in Ukraine and the middle east as the major cause. Ukraine now has more amputees than the UK has military personnel.

In 1999, the anti-personnel mine ban convention, also known as the Ottawa convention or the mine ban treaty, came into force. The UK was one of its first signatories. It was soon followed by the convention on cluster munitions in 2010. Neither Russia nor the United States signed either convention; Ukraine did. The USA is now offering Ukraine the use of anti-personnel landmines—weapons that Russia has been using since day one of the conflict. Aggressors throughout history have never let the rules of war or international probation interrupt a good night’s sleep, while those countries that hold the rule of law dear are forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

We are not in any position to stop Ukraine using landmines or cluster munitions, but we can help it to clear up the mess once the hostilities are over. Landmines are not a new weapon, but technological advances have made them increasingly sophisticated and dangerous. The sheer variety of weapons being used in Ukraine—from cold war-era landmines to airdropped Russian munitions, which are now triggered seismically by recognising approaching footsteps—poses a huge challenge to those sent to clear them. Many new smart weapons are battery-powered, and the claim is that once the battery goes flat, the weapon is no longer a threat, but there is still a piece of explosive material stuck in the ground and it still needs to be cleared. It will take decades to make the land safe again. The task of search and clearance will be vast, but the UK is in a strong position to play a leading role in helping Ukraine to clear the explosive threats.

Since my meeting in Parliament with the professionals, I have had an online briefing with a British EOD specialist based in Ukraine. I asked him what his particular concerns were and where he felt the UK could make a difference. His first response was about the lack of trained personnel required to address the magnitude of contamination in Ukraine. Some 150,000 sq km of land is considered at risk and in need of survey before clearance can take place. Even with the likelihood of 75% to 80% of that area not being physically contaminated, it would take at least 10,000 de-miners working all year round for 10 years to make the land safe, at a conservative estimate. Currently, we think that there may be 2,000 de-miners in Ukraine. That led us on to discussing the availability of suitable equipment.

The EOD specialist’s major concern is the lack of co-ordination among equipment donor countries and companies. The operators know that equipment is available, even in-country, but they do not know exactly what or where. That leads to a lack of clarity on what is still required and what specific training needs to be on offer. There are land clearance machines from various countries, including Armtrac machines from the UK, but they can be used only in very particular terrains, and there are a multitude of different terrains to be cleared.

The lack of donor co-ordination is not unique to Ukraine. It is an issue on which the UK is in a good position to lead at a diplomatic level in donor co-ordination meetings at the UN. Also of concern to the operators, and not unique to Ukraine, is the issue of export, import and control licensing. De-mining equipment is being supplied to Ukraine, but the licences to use it are not being issued by the Ukrainian authorities. Our de-miner said:

“I can guarantee that there is equipment in a warehouse somewhere that should be in the field. Equipment like this will be collecting dust because of the lack of licensing and suitable training.”

There is a role for the UK to negotiate an easing of restrictions with Ukrainians.

I asked about the role of emerging technology in survey and clearance work. Our de-miner’s response was that technology was a useful additional role, but nothing could provide a perfect solution for every context. Total assured clearance can only really be achieved by suitably trained human operatives on the ground.

I might add at this point that a number of UK academic institutions are at the forefront of research into highly sophisticated de-mining technologies, such as drone-mounted ground-penetrating radar, chemical signature analysis and ground anomaly analysis. If we are to improve the pace and scale of de-mining operations, we must ensure that research into de-mining technology receives support.

On assistance to the appalling number of victims of exploding weapons, we discussed the possible role for de-mining operators to take on injured former combatants and retrain them as de-miners or equipment technicians. This would give the veterans a sense of purpose in the continuing defence of their country. The Revive campaign here in the UK is working to co-ordinate a PhD programme with Imperial College and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy to investigate the link between blast injury and self-identity in civilians and the military. The results of that research will inform our approach to victim assistance in many other conflicts and contexts around the world.

As a final point about UK specialists operating in complex environments, our de-miner said that the role of the UK insurance industry was vital to allowing them to operate in areas such as Ukraine or the middle east. Our UK regulatory framework on insurance companies ensures that specialist policies for de-mining activities are considered fit for purpose.

Returning to our theme of the UK’s capability and capacity, explosive weapon clearance is not just about saving lives and land release. Our EOD activity can be a tool for peace building, economic development and reconstruction in post-conflict countries. It can be a powerful diplomatic tool. At a time when there is a seismic shift in geopolitical power, the UK needs a suite of effective and impactful diplomatic tools. Our EOD specialism is one such tool.

The UK Government are rightly focused on bringing the conflicts to an end. We are supplying much-needed equipment and materials to Ukraine, and our defence industries are heavily supported by our trade and export Departments. But are we overlooking our post-conflict services? How much consideration is there in Whitehall for the EOD task?

When conflicts are over, there is a need to return the land to its previous use—in the case of Ukraine, often agricultural use. This brings jobs, enables individuals to support their families, and supports the local economy and global food security.

I have mentioned that the rise in victim numbers was huge. Victims, both physically and psychologically, are scarred for life. At the meeting two weeks ago, I had the privilege of speaking to three victims of explosive weapons: one who was a refugee from Ukraine and two who had taken their children to a pop concert in Manchester. They had similar stories, although from very different contexts.

When an explosive weapon is cleared, a threat has been removed, a life has been saved and a job has been well done, but for a victim of an explosive weapon, their whole life has been changed. What we hear from victims is that there is plenty of support and medical attention at the time of impact, but over time they become forgotten. Hard-stretched local health services and charities are left to care for them—not just civilian but military victims. I have already referred to the psychological trauma associated with an injury in Ukraine and the research into the impact on self-identity.

One of the voices at my meeting was that of a leading surgeon at the Centre for Blast Injury Studies at Imperial College, a UK institution leading the field of research into understanding the impact of blast on the human body and developing the tools to protect the body from blast and the prosthetics for those who fall victim. It is only relatively recently that, through Centre for Blast Injury Studies research, we have started to learn about the differences in the impact on male and female bodies. For de-miners, the one traditional size of protective gear does not fit the female physique. Last year, the centre produced a field manual on paediatric blast injury, which was quickly translated into Ukrainian and Arabic. That document tragically highlights the fact that children are increasingly becoming the victims of explosive weapons.

We are privileged in this country to have some of the best facilities for dealing with the physical and psychological impacts of blast, but do we have the resources and political will to provide the lifelong support that many victims require? How much consideration is given in Whitehall to long-term victim assistance, both globally and domestically? Clearing the millions of explosive remnants of war will take a huge effort and will cost billions of pounds, and supporting the victims needs the same level of attention.

I began this debate by saying how positively we are seen in the world for our explosive ordnance disposal capability. I related a story from a de-miner in Ukraine, I explained the importance of long-term victim assistance, and I have asked two questions of the Minister. I am currently drawing together a new all-party parliamentary group on explosive weapons and their impact. I hope that this debate will be the first of many conversations with the Minister and his colleagues on the issues that I have raised today.

09:41

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. You are a friend of everyone in this House—but you already know that. We all appreciate your humour and social engagement. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for setting the scene so very well.

I want to talk about something that has happened in my constituency in the past four months to show why the issue is so important, and I will then refer to the international stage. The hon. Lady has clearly set out the reasons why this debate is important. It is unfortunate that more hon. Members are not here to support her, but there are many demands on Members, so they may have reasons for not being here.

It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place. Given his personal experience, I know that we will get a positive response to the things we ask for. It is also nice to see the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas); we look forward to their contributions.

I will speak about my recent experience of the issue, not the experience that unfortunately my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I have of the 30-plus years of the troubles in Northern Ireland—we can talk about many things that happened. Just slightly over four months ago, we had need of Army expertise in the main town in my constituency, Newtownards. I received a message saying that there was a bomb in the town. When we hear such things, as my hon. Friend and I have done over our lives—we have probably had longer lives than most people in this Chamber, so we can talk about many things that have happened—our hearts sink. I said, “Oh, goodness me. Not again!” We thought that somebody had decided to carry out a terrorist bomb attack somewhere in the town.

The last bomb that I knew of in Newtownards was in 1993. I remember it very well: it was an IRA bomb that devastated the centre of the town. That night, I was at my Orange lodge meeting in Kircubbin, some 10 miles down the road, but we heard the bomb explosion. As soon as we heard it, at that distance, we were mindful of what was taking place. The devastation to property and the mental health of those around it was substantial. It destroyed businesses; some did not come back. Some people were injured, and they still have those scars.

When I received that message four months ago, my heart definitely sank. I probably had a large dose of butterflies in my stomach as I tried to ascertain exactly what was going on. After a quick phone call to the local police, I was able to ascertain exactly what had happened. The munition was from a different war: it was identified as being an airdropped SC 500 German bomb from world war two. That did not lessen the impact, because of where it was. The German bomber dropped that bomb on desolate land and farmland, but now, some 83 years later, it has been built on.

As the builder was excavating, he suddenly realised what he had come upon. The bomb was understood to be about 83 years old, but it still posed a significant risk to public safety even after all that time. It was found as developers were digging foundations at the third phase of the housing development, and the action was quick and decisive. I want to put on record my thanks to the bomb disposal experts and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They were able to respond in a decisive, impactful, quick and urgent way, because they understood the risk.

The people there had only just bought their houses. I went to the area immediately to speak to residents after they had contacted me. They all had to move out and were worried about their quite substantial new houses. It was a highly complex operation, which prompted the evacuation of hundreds of homes within 400 metres of the bomb’s location.

Local police officers worked around the clock to engage with those impacted. There was a cordon in which all the houses going down to the new development were caught. That is another matter I want to speak about: when there is an unexploded bomb, what does it mean? Some people are not able to move out of their homes because they are disabled. That is unfortunate, but it tells us about life. There were people with terminal cancer on medication. Others had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, whose very breath of life was in an oxygen bottle in their house, where they were cared for 24/7. That is the impact that those incidents can have.

I spoke on the Sunday to a lady at the cordon whose house was nearest to the bomb. She said that she had just bought the house, with the windows only put in the previous week. She was due to go in the next week to sort out the décor. She wondered whether her house would still be there after the authorities had done what they had to do. That is the personal knowledge that I have to bring to this debate. I understand why it is important and the sort of things that go through people’s minds. I would have those same thoughts about the people who are ill and have health conditions that mean they cannot move out.

Others want to stay in their houses to look after their dogs and cats. Those are elementary but decisive concerns for people. Thanks to the goodness of many people in Newtownards and district, we were able to find Airbnbs and other places for people to stay with their family. We were even able to find someone to look after the dogs and cats. I never fail to be encouraged and moved by people’s generosity and goodness in putting their hands up and doing their best to make life easier for others.

The highly complex operation prompted the evacuation of a large number of homes. The disposal team comprised members of the Army’s 321 EOD & Search squadron, which alongside the PSNI led the major operation. They were assisted by other emergency services and partners, who provided expert knowledge in managing a high-risk emergency.

We had hoped that such things would not happen again, but all of a sudden it was back and we were confronting it. People’s questions are really important. Local council services were also made available at the Ards Blair Mayne leisure centre, if people needed somewhere to stay and had not been able to find accommodation. Other authorities were there, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Department for Work and Pensions and the PSNI. Everyone was available; it became a gigantic effort of response from the whole area.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our thanks are due to all the EOD personnel who act, not just in the United Kingdom but internationally, as we heard from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)? In Northern Ireland today, even in the post-ceasefire era that we are in, we have 100 to 200 incidents every year in which EOD personnel are called out to deal with landmines and other devices that are planted; some are not genuine, but they are called out anyway. All of us owe a debt of gratitude to those personnel, who put their own lives at risk while trying to protect others.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to underline that issue and its importance. While recognising that everybody came together to do their best and to make it happen, I want to move on to speaking about Ukraine, if I may.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I would like to say that he has spoken powerfully about the work that was undertaken by British armed forces personnel during the troubles, and subsequently in addressing the unexploded ordnance threat in Northern Ireland. When I was the Armed Forces Minister, I had the privilege of visiting one of those units and seeing for myself the incredible work that it did. Would he join me—and, I am sure, all Members this morning—in paying tribute to those incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives day after day to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly will, and so will we all: the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has said it, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said it, I have said it, and the shadow Minister has said it. I think everyone in the House will reiterate it. We owe them a great debt and it cannot be underlined enough.

The last thing I want to say about the Ards incident is that the residents’ group came to me and asked, “Could we have a public meeting to try to address some of the concerns?” To be fair, McDonald’s, for instance, just up the road, had given 100 or so vouchers to people as well. People’s generosity was incredible. It was not just a trip to McDonald’s, which my grandchildren love; it was a meal for someone who had not got a house in which to make a meal. That was the importance of it.

I remember that when I went to the public meeting— I say this even though it had nothing to do with me, but I do try, as an MP, to be representative—one of the guys said to me as I arrived, “Are you going in there?” I said, “I am, because I am the MP. Of course I’m going in.” He said, “You know, there’s almost 100 people in there.” I said, “Well, I have to go and speak to people. They’ve asked me to come down, and I don’t run away.”

I went into the meeting, and everybody was saying, “Oh my goodness.” We need to remember that when people are under pressure, they deserve to have someone to help them. I was able to do that. It was not because I am better than anybody else; it is never to do with that. It was because I was able to hopefully give them some answers to the questions that they had.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has secured this debate. I think it is all part of what the ordnance do, but it is about the importance of the project.

It was with no thanks to me, but three quarters of the way through the meeting, guess what? A phone call came in and it was a girl who works for me. She said, “By the way, Jim, it is all over. The bomb has exploded.” I could not say that I delivered that, but it happened coincidentally. I immediately saw the relief on people’s faces and the weight lift off their shoulders, as about half the people in the meeting went out of the room to get back to their house.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

To finish their McDonald’s.

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, they all got their McDonald’s chippies before they left. Honestly though, it was a relief. My goodness, I have never had a relief quite like it. It was wonderful.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell highlighted Ukraine. Information that I have received highlights that every day 15 people are killed or injured by landmines and other explosive ordnance. Civilians account for 84% of casualties, and more than a third of those are children. My goodness! I think most of those children are under the age of 10. Imagine starting off life with a prosthetic limb—if they can get one. The hon. Lady mentioned that in setting the scene.

By the way, I was not aware, until I heard the hon. Lady say it, that prosthetic limbs for men and women are different. It should have come to my knowledge long before she said it, but I did not quite understand it until she said it. I thank her for reminding us of the greater job that must be undertaken.

About 60 countries are contaminated with landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive ordnance. Those include countries where conflict has ended, such as Angola or Cambodia, and those with recent or ongoing conflicts, such as Lebanon, which is very much in the news, and Ukraine.

Sometimes we need to be reminded of the conflicts in the world, including the impact of conflict on Ukraine. I am not saying that the impact on Russia has not been equal. It is not about them and us; it is more about everyone who has been killed or injured. However, many people have been killed in Ukraine. I do not want to cite the figures, because they are rather worrying; one newspaper says one thing one day and another says something different another day. Nevertheless, of the perhaps 300,000 people injured in Ukraine, I understand that half have had to have limbs replaced, as the hon. Lady said, so there is a great need to help.

I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I would really appreciate it—I know that the hon. Lady would appreciate it as well—if he could give us some idea about how we can provide more help to those who have lost limbs. Children especially, if people do not mind my saying so, and men and women have to deal with life without an arm, without a leg or perhaps without two legs. We want to give them hope. When we have debates, we always have to give people hope. It is important that we look towards the future.

The UK has long played an active role in tackling this threat, with diplomatic efforts and by providing funding for mine action programmes. The UK currently supports that work in 11 countries, primarily through the FCDO’s global mine action programme. I always do this type of thing, because it is the right thing to do, but I thank the Government—both the previous Government and this Government, who will continue the work—for the global mine action programme. Its work is important and will hopefully continue for the foreseeable future, because there is a great need for it.

What help can the UK give to the victims of conflict who have lost limbs, such as by providing prosthetic limbs? We lead the world in that regard because of the war in Afghanistan. The hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who served in Afghanistan, is present. We thank him for his efforts and we thank many others for their efforts, too.

It is incredibly important that we give people hope. I look back at what has happened in the past couple of years, including Prince Harry’s efforts and the Invictus games. What an example that event gives the world of those who have prosthetic limbs and what they can achieve! I always watch such events, because it is incredibly encouraging to see people overcome disabilities in a positive way.

There is also the Paralympics. Again, there is a mix of life. All the athletes have disabilities. Some of them have lost their limbs for reasons other than conflict. Nevertheless, all the athletes achieve so much. When we see what can be achieved by someone with a prosthetic limb, when they have the opportunity to re-engage in life and have some sort of normality, that is so important.

The debate that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has secured has a twofold purpose. One relates to the experience of Newtownards just four months ago; the other relates to where we are in this world today. I have hope about the years to come, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister will be totally committed to achieving the goals that we hope to achieve. I am fully supportive of the global mine action programme and urge the Government to continue to support it. In Newtownards, we struggled in a small way for a week with fear about unexploded ordnance, but through the programme we can try to take away that fear from those around the world, particularly in Ukraine, who live their whole life with it.

I suppose I am the eternal optimist. President Trump is now the President-elect, and has said that he will do his best to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end. I observe that there seems to be movement, and President Zelensky seems to understand that an agreement will come. Whenever peace comes, and we hope it will, we will have to rebuild Ukraine to how it was and help people to re-engage and restart life—which is where prosthetic limbs come in. We also have to remove all the ordnance in Ukraine that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell referred to. It will take many years for that to happen and for the agricultural land to be returned to the green fields that feed the world, and Africa in particular. That is why this debate is important and why, today, we ask for all those things.

10:00

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak following my late arrival, Mr Dowd. I understand that I have perhaps not followed normal procedure.

I start by acknowledging the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate to support the explosive ordnance disposal community. The work of that community saves lives, enables economic recovery and helps to rebuild societies that have been devastated by conflict. It is a critical aspect of our national and international security and it deserves our utmost attention.

As we have heard, the global threat of explosive ordnance—including landmines, cluster munitions and unexploded bombs left behind in the aftermath of conflicts—results in the deaths of 15 people every day. Civilians account for 84% of those casualties, and over a third of them are children. Those tragic figures remind us of the enduring danger that explosive ordnance possesses long after the fighting has ceased.

Contamination spans 60 countries, affecting regions with recent conflicts such as Ukraine and, in particular, Gaza, as well as those with decades-old legacies including, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Cambodia and Angola, which are particularly afflicted. Those weapons are not just remnants of violence but barriers to progress, safety and prosperity, and they disproportionately impact the lives of women, who have to traverse the terrain to sustain their families. We must not overlook that when we discuss the unexploded ordnance detritus that is left after war.

Mine action goes beyond clearing explosive ordnance; it restores hope and opportunity. Studies show that every £1 spent on mine clearance yields a fourfold return in economic benefits, as well as unlocking land, agriculture, infrastructure and the roots of normal daily life, particularly for women and children in education. For example, in Lebanon, the clearing of landmines has enabled safer farming and access to critical resources such as water, benefiting thousands of families. Explosive ordnance clearance also supports global humanitarian objectives. It aligns with sustainable development goals, fostering food security, economic growth and safer communities. That work exemplifies the transformative power of collaboration between Governments, NGOs and local communities.

The UK has made a proud contribution to that work, which is the subject of this debate. We have a long-standing and distinguished record of mine action. As one of the first signatories to the anti-personnel mine ban convention, and the convention on cluster munitions, our country has demonstrated unwavering commitment to upholding international humanitarian law. Through schemes such as the FCDO’s global mine action programme, the UK has directly supported explosive ordnance disposal in 11 countries, and that benefited more than 1 million people between 2018 and 2020 alone. Organisations such as the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, which I have been very proud to speak for and associate myself with, are headquartered here in the UK. They are global leaders and they showcase the best of British expertise and values.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for making an important and powerful point about honouring and supporting our veterans and their contribution. As we discuss the impacts of explosive ordnance globally, we must also turn our attention to the incredible legacy of our Afghan veterans, many of whom have been injured by landmines while serving our country. This is not a historical issue: it is an ongoing responsibility. Every day, we see veterans going about their business with prosthetic limbs. They have made a valuable contribution and they are a valued part of our community. The armed forces covenant is essential in reminding us of our moral obligation to support those who have sacrificed so much for our security.

This evening, gallant Members and I will meet Afghanistan veterans to hear at first hand their experiences and the challenges they face. Their courage and resilience reminds us of the importance of addressing their needs, from healthcare to employment and community support. Events such as the Invictus games celebrate and strengthen the determination of our injured service personnel, and they are a testament to what can be achieved when we come together to honour and support those individuals.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Army Benevolent Fund does outstanding work to help veterans and that we all should support it? I tabled an early-day motion yesterday to draw attention to that work. The fund has achieved remarkable things in helping former personnel.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his powerful and significant intervention. The service charities are critical in supporting our veterans. A powerful part of their work is in normalising veterans in the community and ensuring that people treat them as a normal part of our community. Veterans have left a visible and lasting legacy, and it is essential that the service charities continue to support our veterans long into the future. However, those efforts must be matched by real and sustained commitments from the Government. I welcome the presence of the Veterans Minister, who I know has been key to ensuring that these issues are addressed and that no veterans are left behind.

Our Government’s defence industrial strategy enhances our contribution by integrating explosive ordnance disposal into the broader framework of our national armaments. The strategy prioritises UK-based businesses, fosters long-term partnership and drives innovation at a wartime pace. It also ensures that regions beyond London benefit from job creation and economic growth. However, as a London MP I would like to see that opportunity opened up to all people, including the very bright and promising youth of London, as we produce thousands of personnel who are ready to engage with jobs and opportunities in science, technology, engineering and maths.

In addition, our approach aligns with our national security goals and the work of organisations such as the MAG. Its work in Lebanon accounts for the removal of live munitions decades after their use. That is a demonstration of how targeted landmine clearance can transform lives. Similarly, in Ukraine an estimated 1,500 sq km of land remains contaminated. This will increase massively and impact a country for which agriculture is central to its very existence. Our support must not just be humanitarian; it is also vital for global stability and for food-bearing nations such as Ukraine.

The lessons from Ukraine do not end there. On Tuesday, the Defence Committee heard about some of the lessons we were learning from supporting Ukraine. Our defence industry can rapidly integrate and provide the support that is most relevant to the battlefield situation that Ukrainians face. This is ultimately similar to the battlefields we need to prepare to face as NATO allies, given Russia’s ongoing strategy of escalating aggression. Will the Minister set out any thoughts he has on how that point can be applied to the ordnance removal mission that we share with our partners both in Ukraine and around the world? Surely, the broader point is that, whether in supplying military support or explosives removal, UK expertise can only grow in ways that benefit our own interest and those of our partners if we are responsive, and able and willing to learn quickly.

Explosive ordnance disposal is also an economic opportunity. The UK defence sector already supports 434,000 jobs, with 67% located away from the south-east. By aligning mine action with defence investments, we can ensure that UK regions grow and that all parts of the UK, including my constituency, benefit from this vital work. The challenges posed by explosive ordnance require a sustained and collaborative effort. I urge the Government to restore and expand funding for mine action programmes, particularly in heavily affected regions like Lebanon and Ukraine. This is about not just saving lives but demonstrating Britain’s values on the world stage.

We must also strengthen our partnerships with NGOs, industry, and academia to leverage the unique expertise that the UK has to offer. By doing so, we can ensure that our nation continues to lead in explosive ordnance disposal, delivering both humanitarian and strategic benefits. Let us reaffirm our commitment to explosive ordnance disposal and to the global fight against these silent and unseen killers. Together we can save lives, foster development and, most importantly, uphold Britain’s proud tradition as a force for good in the world.

10:13

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing forward this important debate. I have the honour of representing the Liberal Democrats as defence spokesperson in her stead.

I never served on the ground in Afghanistan and I never met Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid. He served in Afghanistan and disarmed 64 improvised explosive devices during a tour of duty in 2009. Undoubtedly, he saved many of our brave soldiers and civilians in doing so. He had been deployed to Afghanistan from his unit in Didcot, just a few miles from my own unit at RAF Benson. Staff Sergeant Schmid was killed while disarming his 65th device in November 2009. On the final day of his deployment, he was 30 years old. The day before, he had telephoned his five-year-old stepson, who had told him, “Daddy, it is time to come home.” It is one of so many personal stories of heroism and tragedy that our soldiers brought back from Afghanistan.

In truth, I do not know why Staff Sergeant Schmid’s story gripped me so tightly, but I used to drive past the Vauxhall barracks in Didcot every weekend from RAF Benson. I always recall that somewhere inside was Olaf’s family, whose hero never came home. One particular family of so many.

The words of my gallant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, stirred up some lost memories from my own career. She mentioned the enduring threat of the explosive remnants of war to the Ukrainian agricultural community. I recall a tour of the battlefields of France and Belgium in 2015, where I learned that even after 100 years, farmers and their cattle are regularly killed by leftover munitions.

In 2010 I served a deployment to the Falkland Islands. The drive between Mount Pleasant airfield and Stanley took me past miles and miles of land demarcated by warning signs alerting me to minefields. These mines do not always stay where they are planted; they can move over time, given the harshness of the weather systems in the Falkland Islands.

Having left the armed forces in 2023, I am proud now to stand with the Liberal Democrats, and together we stand for all victims of conflict—participants and innocents. Anti-personnel mines are a particularly sinister tool of war, often maiming and killing long after conflicts have ended. Often, those affected are civilians, including children.

Our Ukrainian sister party, Servant of the People, has continuously raised the issue of cluster munitions and their continuing impact on civilians since Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion in 2022. The “Landmine Monitor” report published in November 2024 shows that there were at least 5,757 casualties from landmines and the explosive remnants of war in 2023, an increase of 22% since 2022. I thank hon. Members from Northern Ireland for reminding me that this is an issue not just overseas, but here in the United Kingdom—something that our predecessor Lord Ashdown spoke so passionately and eloquently about.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that there are lasting impacts to being struck by an explosive device such as a mine or unexploded ordnance. Often, those impacts are lifelong, both for the victim and for their loved ones. We therefore call for a full programme of support to provide medical and psychological assistance to victims and families of those impacted by such devices. We celebrate the work of the explosive ordnance disposal community and praise their courage in supporting communities impacted by mines and other warfare. We call on the Government to restore the international development budget to 0.7% of national income, as it was the last time the Liberal Democrats were in government.

10:17

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd. Having read my Order Paper over coffee, may I offer you my congratulations on your appointment to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee? It is an extremely responsible post in which we all have utter confidence that you will do very well. Good luck, Sir.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

[Mr Francois]

Perhaps I should begin by declaring a personal family interest in this subject. My late father, Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, served on a minesweeper named HMS Bressay from 1943 until the second world war ended, so he was involved in bomb disposal of a sort. Perhaps more accurately it was mine disposal, but nevertheless he personally faced a threat from large explosive devices, albeit in a maritime context. As his son, I am proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on this very important subject this morning.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate and, if I may say so, for introducing it so ably. She made a very knowledgeable contribution, no doubt drawing on her own military experience. In particular, she illustrated the challenge posed to the international community by the sheer scale of this problem around the world.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about the threat from terrorist bombs in Northern Ireland, which is a subject to which I would like to return. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Calvin Bailey)—an RAF veteran, if I may call him that—also addressed the international scale of the challenge. Last but not least, I am supported by our shadow Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who as a former Royal Marine, like the Minister, understands quite a lot about the subject.

I would like to begin my own contribution with a historical perspective on bomb disposal operations in the British armed forces, before moving on to address both military and, increasingly, civilian operations in this crucial field of activity, right up to the present day. Bomb disposal, or, to give it its more formal title, explosive ordnance disposal—EOD for short—can be traced back for over a century. During the first world war, squads of men were assembled to help deal with unexploded bombs left after raids on London and the south east by German zeppelin bombers and their Gotha Giant aircraft counterparts—a bombing campaign that was very well summarised by Neil Hanson in his book “First Blitz”.

In addition, with the advent of truly industrialised warfare in the first world war, teams of engineers were needed to dispose of unexploded munitions, particularly high explosive shells that had fallen among the allied trenches on the western front but failed to detonate. Even at that time, this was highly skilled and extremely dangerous work—a characteristic that has remained true right through to the present day.

By the time of the second world war, although the need for bomb disposal on the battlefield was undiminished, with the advent of the mass bombing of civilian targets, the need for bomb disposal on the home front expanded accordingly. This led to a high death toll among those brave enough to undertake the task of dealing with unexploded bombs—or UXBs, as they were characterised at that time. Juliet Gardiner, in her book entitled simply “The Blitz”, describes the losses in the following terms, which I think are quite evocative:

“Sometimes a UXB might embed itself a few feet in the ground, or fall into a static water tank or a gasometer but many penetrated deep below the surface and were difficult to get at. The defusers’ survival would have depended on staying one step ahead of German technology, since as soon as they learnt how one time delay mechanism worked, it would be replaced by another. By the end of 1940, 123 officers and men of the bomb disposal squads had been killed and 67 wounded. The deaths did not cease with the end of the war, as UXB’s continued to be uncovered. By 1947, 490 had been killed in the battle to extract these great torpid iron pigs from their holes and render them harmless.”

The need for EOD workers continued as a facet of British military operations since the end of the second world war, right up to the present day. For instance, dealing with both republican and so-called loyalist bombs was a key facet of Operation Banner, the British Army’s campaign to support the civil authorities during the period of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A number of bomb disposal officers were killed and many were wounded during the course of the troubles, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly reminded us.

The scale of the task that they were up against was well summarised by Desmond Hamill in his book “Pig in the Middle” about the British Army’s role in Northern Ireland. He summarised the challenge as follows:

“Over the years the Provisionals have become expert at designing and manufacturing booby-traps. Only the week before, a bomb disposal sergeant had been killed by a bomb within a bomb in County Fermanagh. It had been packed into a milk churn, and when the sergeant had cleared the timing device and was lifting it out, a detonator underneath set off the second bomb which exploded.”

As the author went on to explain:

“The bombs were often very simple and very deadly. The components were readily available—a few pounds of explosives, a detonator, a battery and a couple of feet of wire. The triggering device could either be a plate buried in the ground or even a clothes peg.”

As the Minister will be well aware, hundreds of thousands of British soldiers served on Operation Banner during the troubles. Hundreds were killed, not just in bomb disposal, and many thousands were maimed or had life-changing injuries, from both republican and so-called loyalist terrorism. Perhaps when he sums up, the Minister could say a few words about why the Government still intend to abolish the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which will leave many Northern Ireland veterans open, yet again, to an endless cycle of reinvestigation, much of it politically motivated at the hands of Sinn Féin. Our veterans, who faced the threat of terrorist bombs every day of their service in Northern Ireland, really do deserve better than this from their Government.

Let me turn to the Falklands. Diffusing unexploded bombs is not just a challenge on land, as pointed out by Lord Ashcroft in his book “Falklands War Heroes”. During the 1982 Falklands war, chief marine engineering mechanic Michael Townsend was awarded the distinguished service medal for his role in assisting with the disposal of two bombs that had hit his ship, HMS Argonaut. The principal bomb disposal task with which he assisted was undertaken by Staff Sergeant Jim Prescott and Warrant Officer Second Class John Phillips, both of the Royal Engineers.

Assisted by Townsend and several of the crew, the two bomb disposal experts succeeded in disarming and disposing both Argentinian bombs that had landed on the Argonaut. Unfortunately, however, Staff Sergeant Prescott, from 49 Squadron Royal Engineers, was killed two days later while attempting a similar task with two further unexploded bombs that had landed on HMS Argonaut’s sister ship, HMS Antelope. His colleague WO2 Phillips was badly injured, losing one of his arms in the latter attempt. I mention that particular example not just to pay tribute to the extreme bravery of all three men involved, one of whom sadly lost his life, but also to point out that dealing with ordnance of this type is not purely confined to the land domain.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I would like to link that point back to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks, when he shared some powerful words about his grandfather—

[Mr Francois]

My father.

[Mr Bailey]

His father’s service—I did not want to age the right hon. Gentleman—in the maritime domain. That example was a powerful reminder that explosive ordnance disposal is not simply confined to landmines or the devices we see as bombs. Building on that, I want to highlight the contributions of the Royal Navy today—its divers in particular and its ongoing mine clearance operations in the Gulf, alongside our US partners and the French navy. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must ensure that we continue to highlight such valid and brave contributions?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words about my father. I absolutely agree with him about the very important role played by the Royal Navy in maritime bomb disposal, including by the brave divers he alluded to. For completeness, as the hon. Gentleman is a former RAF officer, we should place on record that a great deal of work was undertaken in the second world war defusing German bombs that had landed on RAF airfields, perhaps most famously during the battle of Britain—so the Royal Air Force played its part in the battle against bombs as well.

I turn to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the involvement of Britain’s armed forces, particularly the Army, switched from Northern Ireland through the Balkans and then into the middle east, including the first and second Gulf wars and the war in Afghanistan, again the threat from bombs—often referred to at that time as improvised explosive devices or IEDs—remained ever present. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, a former Chief of the General Staff, recalled in his memoir “Leading From The Front”,

“Initially the Taliban had taken us on with small arms, machine guns and rocket grenades, but as they tired of being killed in large numbers they resorted to the classic insurgent tactic of avoiding direct combat and attacking us instead with IEDs, in exactly the same way as the Iraqi militias and the provisional IRA had done before them.”

The Minister himself served in Afghanistan, and we pay tribute to him for his service. The need to respond to the IED threat, which was eventually responsible for a large number of casualties—both fatal and non-fatal, but none the less in many cases life-changing—was an important aspect particularly of Operation Herrick, the allied campaign in Afghanistan. As Simon Akam explained in his challenging book “The Changing of the Guard: the British Army since 9/11”,

“The IED became the signature weapon of the Helmand Conflict. No longer could troops move freely; instead they adopted the ‘Afghan snake’, painstakingly walking in a line behind a young soldier holding a Vallon Mine Detector.”

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, a former Milton Keynes MP and a previous Minister for the Armed Forces, worked on EOD disposal during Operation Herrick. We pay tribute to him and all his EOD colleagues for their service.

Even today, the task of explosive ordnance disposal—now carried out principally by 11 EOD regiments of the Royal Logistics Corps—remains as vital as ever, both in protecting our civilian population from domestic acts of terrorism and in permitting the conduct of military operations. Some of the savage fighting in Ukraine has included the widespread use of booby traps and other IEDs, and therefore the threat remains as live as ever on the modern battlefield. Indeed, in its helpful briefing note for this important debate, the Mines Advisory Group highlights that the Ukrainian Government estimate that about a third of their territory, or 156,000 sq km —an area bigger than England—remains potentially contaminated with explosive ordnance.

For the record, the previous Government invested in the latest EOD technology for our own armed forces, including the Harris T7 bomb disposal robot, which is the successor of the iconic Wheelbarrow from Northern Ireland, and, more recently, the T7’s highly nimble little brother, the Harris T4—a programme that was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) when he was the Procurement Minister at the MOD.

Let me turn directly to the speech by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who summarised very well the challenge still posed by unexplained ordnance in the present day—not just, as she pointed out, in Ukraine, but in a number of other countries around the world, including Laos and Lebanon. We should pay tribute to the work of two UK-led organisations, the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, which have led the world in seeking to step up and to address the challenge.

Given all this, in addition to responding to my point about the legacy Act, will the Minister answer three specific questions? First, are the Government minded to continue spending at least the same amount on overseas mine disposal in 2025-26 as they are spending in 2024-25? Secondly, much of that spending is deployed via the FCDO’s GMAP and the UK’s integrated security fund; is any of that funding from the MOD budget, and if so, could it be vulnerable to the strategic defence review? The third question is related to the second: when do we expect the outcome of the SDR to be published? I ask that this morning because rumours are now circulating that it could be as late as June 2025. While we have the Minister’s company this morning, could he provide an update about the likely timing of the publication of the SDR? As he knows, it is keenly anticipated.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to all those personnel, be they from the armed forces or civilians, who have had the courage to take part in the extremely dangerous task of explosive ordnance disposal across the decades. It is harrowing work, and not for the faint hearted. In risking their lives, they have helped to save the lives of countless others. Sadly, a number of those employed in that highly dangerous line of work made the ultimate sacrifice, and we rightly pay tribute to them this morning as well. We will remember them.

10:35

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

I would like to start with four thank yous. I thank you, Mr Dowd, for your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this exceptionally important debate. I thank all the hon. and gallant Members who have spoken today. Most importantly, I thank the individuals in the Chamber who have taken part in explosive ordnance disposal. Their bravery, courage and sacrifice at the very front of the line have been demonstrated to us all over the last several decades.

First, it is worth our while to talk about capability. There are about 700 EOD service personnel drawn from the British Army and the Royal Navy, as well as those transferred in from the Royal Air Force. There is also a highly trained unit at the Metropolitan police, staffed in particular by former members of the Army. These people operate in a state of exceptionally high readiness, 365 days a year. On average, they deal with a staggering 2,300 EOD incidents across the UK each year, not to mention their overseas operations. They deal with anything from legacy world war two munitions to the criminals’ and terrorists’ improvised explosive devices mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Our EOD operators are highly trained and world renowned. They are equipped to deal with a full range of explosive threats, including devices with chemical, biological, radiological or indeed nuclear payloads, all the way through to supporting allies across NATO and beyond. From my perspective, and that of all of us here today, they deserve absolute appreciation and thanks—from the Government, Parliament and the entire country.

Let me turn to the domestic impact. Over the years, our explosive ordnance disposal teams have dealt with countless potential lethal devices and incidents—from pipe bombs, car bombs and improvised mortars during the troubles in Northern Ireland, to devices produced by domestic extremists, all the way through to 500 kg to 1,000 kg bombs such as the one removed in February from the back garden of a residential property in the constituency of the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Other high-profile world war two bombs have also been discovered in recent months: in Newtownards in Northern Ireland in August, in Tilbury in November, and in Southsea just last week.

Explosive ordnance disposal capability is absolutely vital to warfare—to how we fight, to our troops and to protecting the civilian population. EOD experts were critical to, but not limited to, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—they also worked in Northern Ireland, the middle east and Africa. There are EOD operators from other countries across the globe and in every continent.

I remember my own personal experience of being sat in many a ditch in Afghanistan during extremely heavy firefights. The only individual who moved forward was the one in the bomb disposal suit, usually on his belly or with a dog, crawling forward towards the threat. That underlines a critical point: courage is not necessarily a reaction; courage is a decision. The EOD operators who I have worked with have to make that decision, and never once did they falter. That is deeply impressive.

At my Birmingham constituency surgery just this week, I had the privilege of talking to someone one of whose family members was killed in the Birmingham pub bombings. That really brought home the fact that the impact of the troubles was felt not just in Northern Ireland; it regularly spread all the way through the UK. That fact is often forgotten in today’s society.

I also thank the EOD operators I worked with in the maritime domain. Defusing an improvised explosive device or a mine on land is difficult; doing it sub-surface in the dark is exceptionally difficult. It is worth taking a moment to think about how difficult that would be, and about the courage required to do that while on a dive set underneath the surface of the ocean.

Let me move on to industry and economic growth. In addition to keeping us and our troops safe, our EOD capability also has an important economic legacy. It feeds our scientific and industrial base, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned, and helps sustain cutting-edge design, particularly in robotics and detection technologies. The MOD is working with the Department for Business and Trade to unlock export opportunities for British companies and grow our economy. I would like to discuss that in due course to see how we can move it forward faster.

As the threat to the UK and our NATO allies from grey zone Russian attacks and sabotage increases, so does the importance of our EOD capabilities. They need to evolve to contend with the evolution of warfare—the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the drones and battery technology used for delivering explosives. Globally, EOD operations are becoming increasingly complex. States and violent extremist organisations use a mixture of conventional and improvised explosive devices: fuses, switches, sensors and metal-less IEDs are becoming more intricate and advanced.

In Ukraine, whose EOD and search operations have received UK training, we have seen an increasing use of airdropped and improvised munitions from commercial drones. That illustrates how future conflicts will be characterised by a huge variety of explosive threats that will often blur the line between conventional munitions and improvised explosive devices. We should expect such weapons to be deployed in ever more diverse ways in the future of conflict, against troops, airfields, maritime assets and indeed civilians. The capabilities we need in order to respond will have to keep pace, which again talks to innovation and moving forward as fast as we can.

EOD capabilities will remain essential to freedom of movement on the battlefield and to combat effectiveness, and will reduce the loss of life. From a procurement perspective, it is important to ensure that EOD personnel have exactly what they need, when they need it, including the best technology. Members have my word that the MOD will continue to ensure that that happens.

From a policy perspective, our strategic defence review will make recommendations on the roles, capabilities and reforms we require in Defence to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities we face. The Government will review EOD policy and operational capabilities to ensure they remain fit for the future.

Let me turn to the questions I was asked, particularly by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I agree that our EOD capability can be used as a diplomatic tool. De-mining expertise primarily saves lives, and that must be the ultimate principle, but it also supports economic growth and reconstruction. People can reuse the land. Huge swathes of terrain across the world are rendered ineffective—I will not say “useless”—by mines or contamination. It also opens up urban areas and, importantly, reduces the impact to international shipping, which is often overlooked. That impact can translate into billions of pounds of lost trade. This work is best done collaboratively, and it is exceptionally difficult to do it unless we have a cessation of violence, so we must move towards that first.

We have some of the best medical research in the world on blast injuries, both physical and psychological. We are working with our Ukrainian allies and others to ensure that those lessons are learned and translated to our allies and partners. I would be delighted to work with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell if she has found licensing issues that we can progress faster.

To the hon. Member for Strangford, I say that this issue can often be branded as new, but the UK and Northern Ireland have dealt with it for the last 50 years and some. I recognise that the citizens of the UK and Northern Ireland, and the security services, have dealt with EOD issues over a huge amount of time. We owe a debt of gratitude to the individuals who have gone through that process and dealt with the very early stages of EOD and IED development and defusing.

The hon. Gentleman also put the problem in context by talking about Ukraine. It is worth noting that in the counter-offensive last year alone, Ukraine faced over 60,000 anti-tank mines and hundreds of thousands of anti-personnel mines, sometimes triple-stacked, and that 10% of all munitions fired in Ukraine, specifically Russian munitions, do not detonate. To put that in scale, when 10,000 to 16,000 artillery rounds are being fired each day, we are talking world war two statistics. This is not a problem that will go away today; it will last a generation. Investing in our EOD capabilities and championing the charities that do that work is absolutely front and centre.

How can we further help Ukraine? There is a relationship to share lessons learned as well as best practice in physical and psychological issues. Of course, we champion our veterans, specifically those that have been injured or are on a journey through recovery, through the Invictus games. The games are in Canada next year and are coming to Birmingham the year after, which is absolutely superb. I would encourage anyone in the House to support that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead made a pertinent point and highlighted that not just British casualties are injured by EOD or improvised explosive devices. A very close friend who I was in training with lost three of his limbs. A hospital just outside my constituency of Birmingham Selly Oak treated an Afghan casualty who had lost three limbs. The amazing work of the surgeons there kept him alive and now he is thriving in the UK, which is truly remarkable. It is also important to champion the charities and encourage both financial and physical support to those organisations, where possible, whether that is the HALO Trust or others. Again, I support my hon. Friend’s views on cadets and reserves, both from a social mobility perspective and, of course, on mobilisation.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) told the heart-moving story of an EOD operator with an unprecedented record of defusing capabilities—think how many lives he saved by doing that. I thank the hon. Member for bringing that to light.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) reinforced the impact of his father’s contribution in the second world war. It is often forgotten that mine clearing, as it was called then, was essential to the D-day landings, the Arctic convoys and our trade and war supplies from America and across the Empire. It was truly remarkable. I would say that, because in my last job as chief of staff to the carrier strike force, mine-hunting capabilities were integral to that strike force.

It is worth noting that mine laying at sea—there are huge maritime mine stocks across the world—can have a demonstrable impact on the world’s economy. Our economy is primarily based on overseas trade, so it is worth thinking about that. There are huge stocks with very sophisticated capabilities, so it is really important.

I have been clear throughout every debate in which I have spoken and every question I have answered that Members have my word that I will give Northern Ireland veterans legal and welfare support. I am a Northern Ireland veteran myself: I did six months there under Op Banner. I recognise the issues. Members have my word that, as the Veterans Minister, I will support veterans with everything I can.

We will continue to invest in mine disposal capabilities, from EOD all the way through to the more bigger capabilities such as a plough at the front of an armoured column in a division that digs the mines up with an armoured thrust or armoured movement. The details of that will come out in the SDR. I will not go into the exact details of the budget because we do not know, but as we move forward the SDR will produce that, and that will be delivered next year. Details will follow in due course.

In conclusion, from the early forms of bomb disposal—even following the gunpowder plot in 1605—to the 1,000 kg world war two bomb destroyed by the Royal Navy clearance divers in Portsmouth last week, our history has shown us that explosive ordnance disposal is vital to security at home and abroad. Although I cannot pre-empt the strategic defence review or the recommendations and capabilities that will flow from it, hon. Members should be in absolutely no doubt about the high esteem in which the Government hold our EOD professionals, our appreciation of the vital safety blanket that they provide over the whole country, and our appreciation of the need to bolster their capabilities in the face of morphing and multiplying threats.

10:49

[Helen Maguire]

I thank you, Mr Dowd, for your excellent chairmanship of this debate and I thank the Minister for his reassuring responses. I really look forward to working with him on these issues. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions during the debate. It was really helpful that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined the different domestic challenges that we have had and continue to have. I also personally thank the EOD community for all their hard work in keeping us safe 365 days a year. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) about all the countries around the world where we are working to de-mine, including Angola, Cambodia and Lebanon, as well as Ukraine. That work continues.

Hon. Members have highlighted the importance of continuing to support our veterans, especially those with prosthetic limbs, and civilians with prosthetic limbs as well. Among those of us who have served, many will know people who were killed or injured by explosive ordnance; indeed, many Members explained that today. It is therefore vital that we continue to support our veterans.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead also talked about how mines impact women globally and their ability to continue to work post conflict, and how important it is that de-mining supports our global humanitarian goals and the UN SDGs. The work there is vital. Again, I express thanks for the contribution of all the charities that help all the de-mining work globally. That includes the HALO Trust and others.

Finally, I want to talk about the APPG. I do not know whether Vicky McClure is listening today, but she raised the profile of the EOD community in her “Trigger Point” series. I hope that if she is listening, she can perhaps come along in January and help to launch the APPG. I extend an invitation to colleagues to join the new APPG, to engage with our planned inquiries and to support the incredible efforts of those in our mine action, explosive ordnance disposal and victim assistance communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the explosive ordnance disposal community.

10:52

Sitting suspended.

Dental Healthcare: East Anglia

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

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

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered dental healthcare provision in East Anglia.

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to colleagues from East Anglia for supporting this debate and, I hope, making some interventions. I am also grateful to the Minister for Care for coming yet again to Westminster Hall, because this is not the first time that we have had a debate on dentistry in the east of England, and in East Anglia in particular. The reason for those numerous debates is the significant problem of access to NHS dentists in particular, but also to private dentists.

Peter Aldous, who I am sorry to say lost his seat at the recent election, was a doughty campaigner on the issue. I pay tribute to him for the numerous debates he brought forward. Most recently, in September, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who is not here today, held a debate on the topic. Time is short, so I will not focus on the need as much as I normally would, but the Minister has been here before and knows very well how significant the need is for increased access to NHS dentistry in East Anglia.

I will give highlights, however, because the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has described Norfolk not only as a dental desert, but as the “Sahara of dental deserts”. The Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—confirmed in the other place on 25 November that the Norfolk and Waveney area has

“the worst ratio of NHS dentists to patients in England”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 479.]

In my last debate in this forum, I was shocked to report that in Norfolk and Waveney the ratio of dentists per 100,000 population was 39, when the national average was 52. Now I have to update those figures, because the Secretary of State has recently confirmed that the figure of 39 has dropped to 36 per 100,000 of population, while the national average has increased to 53. It is getting worse, not better.

The data from this month is even more concerning. The British Dental Association confirms that there are 3,194 NHS dentists in the east of England, which are the statistics we previously used. BDA’s further analysis last month reveals that that equates to just 1,096 full-time equivalent dentists in NHS roles. If those figures are run through the population, there are 17 full-time equivalent NHS dentists per 100,000 population in the east of England. Those are truly shocking figures.

The issue can be sliced and diced in another way. The amount of money that the Government spend on people’s mouths in the east of England makes for sobering reading. The national average is £66 per mouth spent on dental treatment by the NHS. In the east of England, that figure is just £39. What is it? Is it that our fillings and dental work are cheaper in the east of England, or are we doing less? It is not due to less demand; we have the greatest demand. We had more than 1,000 people presenting in the past year at NHS A&E with significant dental problems. I believe I am right in saying that dental concerns are the single biggest reason why primary school children present at hospitals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On that critical point, dental care must start in primary school. When I was at school—that was not yesterday, of course—they came in to check the children’s teeth. We had that the whole way through, but that process is missing today. Does the hon. Gentleman think that primary school should be the first stage of response?

[Jerome Mayhew]

This debate is about the east of England, not the east of Northern Ireland, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention anyway. He is right that we learn our oral hygiene habits as children. It is primarily the responsibility of parents to look after their children’s oral health, as well as their general health; that has always been the case, and that should always remain the case. However, we recognise, as did the last Administration, the increasing role of primary schools in reinforcing the role of parents.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is appalling that my constituents have had to resort to pulling out their own teeth because no NHS dentists in my constituency are accepting new patients, and that we need urgent action now?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am shocked to hear that. An example of that in my constituency was reported to me, but that was in the height of the covid lockdowns; I have not heard an example since then. However, irrespective of the headline-grabbing anecdote, it is almost impossible for new applicants to register to an NHS dentist, and I have the figures to back that up. Office for National Statistics data for November indicates that 98.4% of those who were not registered to a dentist but who wanted to access NHS dental care in the east of England were unable to do so. That is the worst rate of all English regions, yet over that period there was a £58 million underspend in the east of England’s NHS dental budget. That is not because the Government do not want to spend the money, and it is not because the money is not available; it is simply because we do not have enough dentists to satisfy the huge need.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the absolute early priority must be to sort out emergency dentistry? Everybody must be able to contact an NHS emergency dentist for terrible toothache or dental emergencies, and that will prevent so many children from being admitted to hospital for their abscesses to be drained, which I have had to do as an ear, nose and throat surgeon.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My answer is yes and no. Over the past 18 months to two years in Norfolk and Waveney, a lot of money has been spent on increasing access to emergency dentistry. Although I welcomed that and it has helped to deal with some acute issues, there is a much more fundamental problem. We must fix the system rather than decide on the least worst form of emergency care once the problem has become acute.

The big question is why the east of England is in this position. The wrong analysis of how we got here will lead to our imposing the wrong solution. Some people say, “Well, it’s because Norfolk is a remote, rural area with lots of coastline, and that brings problems. If you’re a newly qualified dentist, it’s probably a rather unfashionable place to go to make your new career if you’re not from that neck of the woods. It has a more elderly demographic, which may put off young dentists. It’s not where they want to go to set up their new home.”

Yet compare Norfolk with similar counties, such as Devon. I often use Devon as an example because it shares many characteristics with Norfolk: a slightly older population, a large rural coastline and a pretty similar population size. Look at the number of dentists in Devon: they have 49.6 per 100,000 people, which is far more than we have in the east of England. What is the difference? The answer is obvious. Since 2005, Devon has had a dental training school at Plymouth, which was the last one to be set up. The east of England made a bid for that contract and lost out to the Peninsula bid, and we can see the consequences of that in the teeth of Norfolk residents.

If someone wants to train as a dentist in Norfolk, Suffolk or elsewhere in East Anglia, the nearest place they can go to train is either Birmingham or London. That means that our home-grown talent has to go off somewhere else, several hours away, to train and qualify. The usual things happen: they develop their professional relationships in that region; they meet someone, fall in love and settle down; they put down roots in the community and they stay there and do not come back. The exact opposite is the case for people not from our region who qualify elsewhere. What is the incentive for them to come and set up home in a part of the world that they do not know and that is perhaps not attractive to newly qualified people in their mid-20s?

We also know that about 40% of graduates tend to stay where they train. We have that data from the University of East Anglia and its medical school, because each year it surveys graduates to see where they get their first job and each year about 40% of them take a job locally. This is the really important question for the Minister: do he and his Department accept that analysis? If they do not accept it, what is his explanation for the dearth of NHS dentists and even private dentists in East Anglia?

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate. I cannot speak for the Minister, although I certainly welcome the comments about the importance of a dental school. However, is the issue in East Anglia not a result of the region’s disproportionate failure under the previous Government’s dental recovery plan? It was said that East Anglia would miss its targets and that, even if it did hit them, it would still be 2.6 million dental appointments short of pre-pandemic levels. The hon. Gentleman was on the Government Benches in the last Parliament. Does he not understand why many people across East Anglia hold the Conservatives to account for the situation having become this bad?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I do not think that it is particularly helpful. We are trying to work out what the solution is now and going forward. A huge amount of money was spent by central Government on NHS dentistry. The problem we had, as we can demonstrate by the £58 million underspend of the budget that was available, is that there are physically not enough dentists now. That is not a short-term brickbat that can be chucked around for party political points in a Westminster Hall debate at 11.11 on a Wednesday morning. I submit that it is a rather more serious issue that deserves a slightly more serious approach.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will take an intervention from my other constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald).

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member recognise the support from all parties for a new dental school in Norwich? Does he welcome the £1.5 million that was announced last week by the Greater Norwich Growth Board in support of the bid for a new dental school?

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is the kind of intervention that I find constructive and helpful, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for making it. She is, of course, quite right. We disagree on many things, as I do with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), but there are some things that bring us together, and the need for a dental training school at the University of East Anglia is one of them.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Down the road from Norwich is the University of Essex, which is based in Colchester and already offers degrees in oral science. I think a collaboration between the two universities is really important, and I would be very happy to facilitate it. The University of Essex degree is not a dentistry degree, but an oral health degree. The university also has a community dentistry clinic that is already operating in Colchester, which could provide some very interesting examples of good practice. I invite the Minister and his team to come and visit both the university and the clinic.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is not about one organisation over another; there has to be a collaborative approach. We have plenty of dental need to go round, I am sorry to say, in Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk. The more we can collaborate and provide a synthesis of offers—some in dental health qualifications, some in straightforward dentistry and others in dental hygiene, another key part of this jigsaw that we have to put together—the better.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I am all for cross-party working, but I was struck by the hon. Member’s earlier comments about children. Does he accept that, because of the legacy of so many years of failure, any solutions will be much more difficult to find because we will have dental issues progressing as children grow older?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There is a difference between milk teeth and grown-up teeth, as I will call them, although I know that is not the technical term. I hope that that assessment is wrong, but undoubtedly there will be problems. If there is a long-term lack of access to dentistry, it builds up problems, whether in the teeth or in the gums, both for children and for adults.

We can all talk about how we got here, and I can defend lots of very good things that the previous Administration did, but did we get everything right? No, we did not. What I am more interested in is how we can encourage the Government and work with them across the parties to solve the problem in the very near future.

I hope we have got to a reasonable analysis of why we are in this position. If it is substantially because of a lack of dental training facilities in the east of England, an obvious solution, although not the sole solution, would be a school of oral health at the University of East Anglia. The Minister knows that the UEA is ready to go. He knows that there is a building under construction and that a large amount of funding has been applied for, some of which has been already agreed. He knows that the UEA is making an application for registration with the General Dental Council and that it will be completed within the next six weeks at the latest.

That brings us to the crucial next step, which is the Office for Students. I recognise that the Minister is important and impotent at the same time. He is important because as the dental Minister he sets direction and gives impetus to change, but I accept that in some sense he is impotent because the Office for Students is an arm’s-length independent body. I hope he will take these requests in the light of my acknowledgment of his constraints, but it would be helpful for the UEA and the residents of our area to have his confirmation on the following three points.

First, can the Minister confirm whether additional dental training places will be made available by the Office for Students in 2025? It is a political decision how much funding the Government are prepared to put into the overall number of dental training places in the country in 2025. What is the pot that the Office for Students has to work with? Can he confirm that the number will be increased to take account of increased need?

Secondly, if that is the case, will there be a regional allocation within that global figure specifically for the east of England, given that the need is not national? There are regional variations, and in the east of England it is worst of all. There is precedent for that approach: recently, medical training places had a regional allocation, although I accept that historically it has not happened with dental places. It is an important point and would be of huge encouragement to our residents.

Thirdly, can the Minister give some indication of the timetable on which he and the Office for Students will work to process the 2025 allocations?

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. Indeed, the funding for the dentistry school at the University of East Anglia is a welcome step in addressing our chronic shortage of dentists in the region, but we need to ensure that there are strong incentives for those dentists both to stay locally and to stay within the NHS, which means meaningful contract reform to make it economic for dentists to practise in the NHS in the long term. In addition to his points, does the hon. Member agree that we need the Minister to set out the timescales for the Government’s pledge to review the dental contract?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The school is not the only answer, but it is part of the answer. Part of how it will encourage graduands and then graduates to be sticky—to stay locally—is through its training process. From year one, students will be placed in local dental practices, so they will be providing benefits to real people right at the start of their practice, but also developing professional relationships with those practices so that they can walk into good-quality, local jobs. That should help with the stickiness, but the hon. Member is right that it is not the full solution. We need reform of the 2006 NHS dental contract, but that is not specific to East Anglia and it does not explain why we are in a particular pickle in the east of England. That subject would happily take up another debate, so although I recognise its importance, I will not get too distracted.

The other problem, which is slightly more recent in origin, is the imposition of national insurance contributions on dental practice. The British Dental Association has outlined that the recent Budget could have a devastating impact on struggling NHS practices. A local practice in Norfolk says that

“the recent changes to employers’ NI and raising of the living wage will lead to bankruptcy and breakdowns. We have been trying to keep our 100% NHS dental practice open under very difficult circumstances, being unable to fill our vacancy for a full-time dentist. This post has been empty since April 2023 and we can no longer go on with only one dentist and pay the bills.”

I recognise that it is above the Minister’s pay grade, but I do hope that in his advocacy to His Majesty’s Treasury he will ensure that it is fully aware of the negative impact of the NI increases on dentistry, as well as on GP practices, and that that will be taken into account in future decisions.

11:20

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for securing this vital debate on dental healthcare provision in East Anglia, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their important interventions.

The debate follows hot on the heels of a debate on 3 September that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) led on healthcare provision in the east of England. We know that huge swathes of the region are dental deserts. These areas are facing great pressures from challenges in the recruitment and retention of dentists, leaving patients struggling to access the NHS dental treatments that they need. As has been pointed out, it is a scandal—frankly, it is Dickensian—that the No. 1 reason for children aged five to nine to be admitted to hospital in our country in 2024 is to have rotten teeth removed.

Norfolk and Waveney integrated care board had 31.5 dentists per 100,000 of the population in 2023-24, which is the lowest number in England. That is why I have met with colleagues from the east of England, including the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, to discuss the specific challenges in the region and to discuss the University of East Anglia’s plans to open a dental school. The UEA’s proposal to begin training dental students is very welcome news. As I said to all the colleagues I met recently, and to the hon. Gentleman at oral questions last month, the Government strongly encourage the UEA to continue its progress towards establishing a dental school by submitting its bid to the General Dental Council as rapidly as possible.

The independent Office for Students is another key player. It has statutory responsibility for allocating funded training places to dental schools. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the OfS is independent from the Government. I cannot make specific commitments about allocating additional training places for future years, because to do so would be to cut across the independence of the OfS. The OfS makes decisions based on its own assessments, following guidance issued by Government. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that our guidance is influential, but I cannot guarantee its outcome.

The guidance for the 2026 academic year will be published in due course. Provided that the UEA meets those requirements, it would absolutely be considered for Government-funded dental training places. That would certainly help to retain local dentists in East Anglia. As a Member for a rural constituency, I absolutely understand how important that is to the hon. Gentleman and to the many other hon. Members present who represent his part of the country.

We also need a clear-headed diagnosis of where we are. It is beyond doubt that NHS dentistry was left in an appalling state of disrepair by the previous Government. As the Prime Minister said last week, the precious contract between the state and the British people has been broken. He rightly said that our public services are

“in crisis, unable to perform their basic functions”

and that they are

“unable to provide the timely care and dignity that Britain relies on”.

Almost five years on from the beginning of the pandemic, NHS dentistry has still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Only 40% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months to June this year, down from almost 50% before the pandemic. Although 34 million courses of dental treatment were delivered in England in 2023-24, that is down from almost 40 million courses five years ago. As I say, it is disgraceful that having rotten teeth removed is the single most common cause of hospital admissions for children aged five to nine, causing them untold pain and suffering and affecting their ability to sleep, speak and socialise.

On the subject of the general state of dentistry, I thank the National Audit Office for its recent investigation of the previous Government’s dental recovery plan. Its report lays out in black and white something that was already apparent to millions of people across the length and breadth of our country: the dental recovery plan that we inherited did not go far enough. We are reflecting on every line of the NAO report as part of our efforts to rebuild dentistry, get it back on its feet and make it fit to serve people of all ages. We have launched the largest ever national conversation to inform our 10-year plan to reform the NHS, and our workforce will play a central role, because they are key to unlocking improvements across our communities.

The golden hello scheme offers dentists £20,000 to work in underserved areas of the country for three years. The recruitment process is well under way, with posts being filled by dentists in those areas as we speak. As of 7 November, 64 posts had been advertised. Our manifesto pledged 700,000 more urgent dental appointments, and we are working to ensure that patients can start to access them as soon as possible. They will be targeted at the areas that need them most.

Strengthening the workforce is key to our ambitions, but for years dentistry has faced chronic workforce shortages. We have to be honest that bringing in the staff we need will take time. To rebuild dentistry in the long term and increase access to NHS dental care, we will reform the dental contract with a shift to focusing on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists. There are no perfect payment systems, and careful consideration needs to be given to any potential changes to the complex dental system, so that we deliver a system that is better for patients and the profession.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s commitment to reforming the dental contract. Please will he set out a timescale for that work commencing?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I was just going to say that we are continuing to meet the British Dental Association and other representatives of the dental sector to discuss how we can best deliver our shared ambition to improve access for NHS dental patients. We are working on this as a matter of urgency. I cannot give a specific timeframe, but it is a top priority for the Department.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I understand that the Government have inherited a big problem, but the situation is urgent. I have a constituent who has heart problems, so his oral health is really important to him. He cannot get an NHS dentist, so constituencies such as Ely and East Cambridgeshire need urgent action.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I share the hon. Lady’s belief that we need urgency and focus. We have a big mountain to climb, but we have to crack on. I completely take her point about the need for urgency.

We need to ensure that the process to register a dentist in the UK is as efficient and fast as possible, while retaining robust safeguards for patient protection. The Department regularly engages with the General Dental Council to understand what it is doing to improve the waiting times for the overseas registration exam. Earlier this year, the Department ran a consultation on introducing a further piece of legislation to give the GDC powers to provisionally register overseas qualified dentists, which will help to address some of the workforce challenges.

In summary, this is an immense challenge. There are no quick fixes or easy answers, but we will choose change, not because it is easy but because it is what we have to do. We have to do the hard yards, and I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham and other colleagues to deliver what is needed.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

14:30

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to have secured this debate on housing developers and the challenges that my constituents face around the multiple housing developments that are currently taking place in our area.

Housing developers have a huge impact on local communities and our national potential. We are all acutely aware of the challenge of our national housing supply. It is vital to supply the right houses in the right places and to the right people, and without developers that would not be possible, but new housing also has a huge impact on local people. Done poorly, new developments can completely change the existing settlement. They can reduce access to local services and make it harder for a child to secure a school place. They may also make it more difficult to get a doctor’s appointment, or they may add to traffic congestion. Those practical effects make a huge difference to people’s lives. For towns such as Silsden in my constituency, a perfect storm of planning regulations can change the character of the local area.

From a town of a few hundred properties, Silsden has grown by hundreds of houses in just 10 years and looks set to grow even further. Given the huge power that local developers have in both urban and rural communities in areas like mine right across Keighley and Ilkley, it is vital that we regulate them and ensure that they act responsibly. We must not forget that developers are businesses and must rightly consider their profitability first, but it is beholden on this place and local councils to ensure that the desire to make a profit does not come at the expense of local people.

I want to talk through some of the challenges that my constituents face when developments take place. I will start with early consultation. It is vital, when new housing schemes are developed and initially thought through by a developer, that consultation with local people takes place before a planning application is submitted.

Since I became an MP in 2019, Silsden has seen Persimmon, Harron Homes, Countryside Homes, Barratt Homes, the Lindum group, Newett Homes and Skipton Properties all developing houses. Those multiple developments took place in one town. It is right for the local authority to look at the masterplanning associated with the whole town when looking at the collective impact and the level of services provided, and therefore work out any negative consequences of those individual developments.

The planning system currently struggles to take separate developments properly into account when consulting with the public. Proper early engagement is vital. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend speaks well about the challenges in Keighley and Ilkley. On the point about consultation, residents in my area might not object to the location of a development, but they are concerned about the impact on doctors and schools. When those concerns are raised with the developer, it pushes back and says that that is not its problem, but rather a matter for the local authority and the Scottish Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that balance needs to be changed? Developers should take greater cognisance of the impact that their developments will have on services, working with the local authority to address those concerns as part of the consultation stage.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend’s excellent intervention gets to the nub of the point that I want to make. When multiple applications or developments are coming down the pipeline, they must all be considered duly and properly by the local authority. Bradford council, the unitary authority for my area, does not do that, which is incredibly frustrating because in order to work out the negative consequences, or indeed the positive impacts, that multiple developments will have on a community, those issues all have to be considered in the round. Residents need to feel that infrastructure and services are being properly considered.

That brings me on to a point that I had planned to make later about section 106 money and community infrastructure money. All too often, a local authority awards planning consent and then enters into a negotiation with the developer to agree the section 106 moneys that must then be paid to the local community, via the local authority, to mitigate any negative effects of the development. Unfortunately, in my constituency Bradford council is not taking a sufficiently robust negotiating position with the developer to extract as much financial benefit as possible for the local community so that that money can be spent in places like Silsden, Keighley and Ilkley and properly set against any negative impacts of the development.

I will give an example. With the development on Occupation Lane on the outskirts of Keighley, it was agreed that Barratt Homes would put in play facilities for children of all ages, up to the early teens. But what did we see when the development was complete? We saw play facilities that were more suitable for one or two-year-olds. The developer did the very bare minimum, which was obviously not what the residents expected when they purchased the homes. I could give other examples.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Many of these planning issues hark back to the Eric Pickles reforms, which the hon. Gentleman will remember all too well. One issue that I find in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes is that when it comes to section 106 funding, the power lies with the developers: they have much more negotiating strength. They do not want things like social homes as part of their developments, because they think that they will impact on the profits that the hon. Gentleman says are so important to securing the developments in the first place. Does he think that we need to regulate to ensure that the section 106 funding goes to the areas it was intended for, and ensure that local authorities are properly supported to acquire the expertise that they need to work against these developers?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The reality is that section 106 money should be spent within a closely defined community area to mitigate any negative impacts resulting from the development. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, has the power to hold developers to account so that they ringfence money for the specific communities in which it should be spent. My worry is that the local authority is not spending that money in Silsden or Keighley; it is taking it back to Bradford city and spending it within the city heartlands, rather than allowing my constituents to benefit from it. That is a real challenge.

I would like a specific response from the Minister on how we can make sure that we hold the developers, and indeed the local authorities that have these powers, to account in order to ensure that section 106 money and community ownership money are spent in the communities where they should be spent.

My next point is about on-site conditions when a development takes place. Unfortunately, in my constituency I have far too often seen new developments—I will give the examples of Harron Homes in Silsden and Accent Properties in Long Lee just outside Keighley—where the quality of the build has been so poor that I, as the local MP, have had to chase the developer on snagging-related issues. Indeed, there have even been challenges with highways or drainage. A Long Lee resident contacted me to say that their property, which bordered on the development, had been negatively impacted by the work of Accent Homes, because the developers had not taken proper access provisions or proper boundary-related issues into account. That resulted in huge holes appearing in the gardens of neighbouring properties. Those properties had nothing to do with the development taking place, but they were still negatively impacted.

This should not be happening. Conditions of build should be properly assessed, and the developers should be held to account by the local authority through the enforcement powers available to it. Again, I fear that Bradford council is not being robust enough, when it has awarded planning consent for a build to take place, in going on to hold the developers to account throughout the build process. I have repeatedly raised that issue since becoming the Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

This is a timely debate, because I have just written to Solihull council about the Arden Triangle in my constituency and the lack of sufficient detail around the masterplan that is being put forward and considered tomorrow. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about this? One of the points I raised was that developers need to give consideration to infrastructure such as GP surgeries, but also to the road network, so that it can deal with the increase in housing.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. All too often, we see little pockets of development taking place on the outskirts of relatively small towns, without due consideration of the wider challenges with traffic congestion on highways, schools, doctors’ surgeries and indeed the retail offering. Crikey, how many huge developments do we now see taking place where no thought is given even to having a local corner shop within easy access of the residents? Masterplanning and properly considering the impact of these developments on communities such as mine are vital.

That brings me to the next issue, which is that when a development has gone through the planning consent process and been built, and residents start moving in and to reside in the development, there is a challenge around how the site is maintained. I will use the example of the Miller Homes development in Eastburn, which is just next to Silsden and Steeton in my constituency. Miller Homes had completed the development, and then all residents were expected to pay a levy charge to a maintenance company, for the maintenance company to then use that money to instruct a contractor that would carry out any maintenance of the grassed areas or hedging within the development. What we were finding was that a resident had no control, necessarily, over how much levy they were paying that maintenance company, but neither did they have any control over the quality of the work being undertaken or over how regularly grass was being cut or hedges were being maintained. The system was not working.

I have had many meetings with residents on the issue. I have written to Miller Homes; I have also written to the management company dealing with the matter, because I feel that the situation is geared up for it to be able to make too much profit, and the quality of the service delivered for residents in Eastburn is so much less sufficient. In effect, those who have contacted me are trapped: they are paying for a service that they are not receiving and they cannot escape the situation without moving entirely. That cannot be fair. Better regulation of maintenance levy money for carrying out works on the ground and having a proper quality of work being carried out need to be looked at.

As I have said many times in this place, local people are not opposed to new housing, but they want guarantees that services and infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate the new influx of people. We should be encouraging our housing sector to see the benefits of extra engagement and extra investment in order to open up public support so that more developments are able to take place further down the line. We must also convene developments and developers that work collaboratively with communities, so we can ensure that local communities are getting what they want. Based on the ambitious targets that the new Labour Government have released for increasing the number of houses and on their willingness, effectively, not to take into account local consideration and local consultation, I fear that there will be a dramatically negative impact on many small communities.

I will give a further example. In the village of Addingham in my constituency, people went through a very long process of negotiating their neighbourhood plan. They came to the conclusion that over the next 15 years Addingham would be able to accept about 75 new homes being constructed. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, comes along and effectively says, “No, no: we are going to ignore what you have spent the last God knows how many years developing, and say that another 181 new houses in Addingham would be far more appropriate.” That goes against all the work that the local community had done and against any need assessment that had been properly established for that community to grow. I urge the Government to ensure that they always take into account local need and local assessments, as well as the negative impacts on local communities.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I would like to make two quick points. Constituents of mine who live in the Brockhill area have been waiting 20 years for roads and areas of grass to be adopted, for upkeep discussions to happen and agreements to be made. That has happened under both blue and red local administrations, so I do not think this is a party issue. This is about a system that has been failing residents for a very long time.

Secondly, at the last election the Labour party proposed 1.5 million houses, but the hon. Member will remember that his party’s manifesto proposed 1.6 million houses. When we are talking about building houses that people need, we should also have honest discussions about the fact that homes will need to be built.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but he started off by saying, “I’m not going to make this political,” and then went on to make a very political point.

I secured this debate to raise the concerns that residents have been raising. I robustly say to this new Labour Administration that communities like mine in Keighley, Silsden, Addingham and Ilkley, across the Worth valley, are fed up of having housing development after housing development approved by our Labour-controlled local authority without any due consideration of the negative impacts on our communities and infrastructure. There will be impacts, for instance, on our community’s ability to get a doctor’s appointment and on the development of our proper road infrastructure. This is political if Labour’s ambitions are to effectively get rid of the green belt and open up the grey belt when there is no due consideration of the local impacts that that will have.

My constituents and people across the country will want to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to address the concerns that I have raised. The public must have confidence in the housing process. Otherwise, they will resist new developments, and quite rightly so. If the Government are truly ambitious in their plans to build new homes, they must tackle the issues that I have raised before the impacts are exacerbated and have negative consequences on, I suspect, most of the constituencies of hon. Members speaking in today’s debate.

It concerns me deeply that the rhetoric from the Government now seems to be that we need to loosen the housing and planning systems even further, yet we have heard no comments so far from the Government that address the existing concerns about the current system and the services and infrastructure being put in place. As I said, no one can object to the right houses for the right people in the right places—that is why local consideration is so important. If we want to achieve that, we must ensure that our developers behave responsibly and do not damage the vital link of trust between them and the public. Towns like Silsden in my constituency, villages like Long Lee and, indeed, the whole of the housing market rely on it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid I will have to put a three-minute limit on speeches, because this debate is so popular and oversubscribed. For new Members and those who may have forgotten, there is a clock on either side of the Chamber to encourage you to keep to the time limit.

14:48

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for raising this important issue. I will try not to be too party political, but that is maybe working against instinct. I will do my best, anyway.

The key point is that it is very obvious that the planning system is broken from top to bottom. It is not delivering for anybody, and a lot of the anger that the hon. Member brought to this Chamber is reflected by my constituents. There is a particular focus on frustration with the developers and their contributions and a lack of trust. Trust has broken down, and a lot of residents doubt whether any of these contributions will ever be delivered. It is eroding faith across the board.

One of the things that is missing in planning is planning. We seem to have lost the grip of strategic planning being able to look at whole neighbourhoods, networks and regions to see what is needed. When the modern planning system was started in the 1940s, one of its central aims was to look at places and ask whether they could be structured so that all the required services were included. That was part of health delivery as much as anything else. I was pleased at one point in my career with the NHS to work with the healthy new towns programme, which brought a lot of testing and research to what is really needed in new developments, and what can enhance the health and wellbeing of residents.

Sometimes that works. In some areas of my constituency, planners and developers have come together to deliver things, such as a new ground for Sittingbourne rugby club. Demelza children’s hospice has used its developer contributions to extend its site. These are way beyond things that just local people need as a local resource. However, far too often, as was the case with the proposed Bell Road development, the option for a new health centre or new GP surgery is gradually whittled away by the developer to the point where the NHS no longer needs it. That has eroded faith and that is what needs to change.

I welcome a concerted effort from the Government to look at planning, particularly at whether we can improve training for planning officers, but we also need to bring the responsibilities of central planning in Whitehall closer to the ground. Hopefully the devolution settlement will help with that, but I look forward to seeing the actual detail. I genuinely think that that is a massive opportunity that we should all get involved in to ensure that devolution meets our needs.

Beyond that, I want to hear from the Minister how we will guarantee that the things that developers promise are actually delivered. I want it in writing—in blood—from those developers. If the Minister can help with that, it will be really appreciated.

14:51

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing today’s debate.

Housing developers have a duty to create communities, not just buildings, yet the current planning system prioritises developers over the very people who live, work and raise their families in the areas. Chichester district council, where most of my constituency lies, sits within the South Downs national park to the north and Chichester harbour to the south, which is a national landscape with protected status. That leaves a belt of only 20% of the land available for housing. The limited space has led to high-density developments that stretch infrastructure to breaking point.

I commend Chichester district council’s focus and determination to get its local plan to inspection stage, but I am worried that Labour’s new ambitious target will take it back to the drawing board, with developers proposing unsuitable land outside the plan. Over in Bersted and Pagham, covered by Arun district council, the housing target is the highest of any planning authority outside Greater London. The area is currently experiencing repeated catastrophic flooding as a low-lying coastal plain.

People feel as if decisions are being made for them, not with them, and trust in the planning process over many years has been completely eroded. Our planning authorities feel as if they are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs, because if they refuse applications for very reasonable reasons, such as the site being a designated floodplain or key agricultural land, there being next to no local infrastructure, or the water companies saying that they have no more capacity at their local water treatment sites, developers then take the authorities to appeal and the inspector finds in favour of the developers.

If a local authority refuses 10% of large-scale developments, it risks being designated, which gives developers the right to totally skip the local planning process and go straight to appeal. To add insult to injury, developers in my constituency regularly deliver sites with far fewer than the mandated 30% social and affordable homes. The homes that are being built are not for local people, and developers are regularly not delivering the infrastructure promised in the lovely glossy brochure.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for meaningful reforms. We propose a “use it or lose it” system for planning permissions to end the practice of land banking. There are currently over 1 million homes across the country with planning permission that have yet to be built, which suggests that the responsibility to deliver homes lies with those developers, not the planning authorities. We demand stricter accountability for developers who build their homes poorly to ensure that the burden of remediation does not fall on those already struggling residents. Critically, we call for a planning system that truly engages with communities, placing their needs and voices at the heart of the process.

14:55

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this much-needed debate, and I will try to avoid party politics, because I do not really think this is about that. Although it is less often said, I see a responsibility that housing developers ought to fulfil post construction: the appointment of reliable management companies to ensure the upkeep of estates. One of the reasons why I am here today is to talk about that.

Developers should ensure a smooth transition to reliable and reputable management companies but, as I am sure hon. Members know from their casework, that job is often not completed. Unfortunately, for a number of my constituents in Rochford, some housing developers have failed to do their due diligence and appoint reliable and accessible management companies. For example, residents in the Elizabeth Gardens estate on Hall road in Rochford are being forced to pay a lump sum in excess of £300 in annual service fees. They are asked to pay that in one go, rather than in instalments, which is one example of how inflexible some management companies can be with new residents who move into certain communities.

As I am sure we have all heard before, grass is not being cut, areas are not being maintained and fees are unaccounted for, and the list goes on. Thus far, residents have not been offered the opportunity to pay in monthly instalments, which goes to show that again they are not necessarily being listened to. Although the service is supposed to be for them, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, they are not really part of the decision-making process. That is a real source of frustration, and residents would not mind so much if they were getting the services they were promised. Does the Minister agree that it is important that housing developers take responsibility and appoint reliable, reasonable management companies?

Another key issue that I am keen to raise is the over-zealous housing developers who maintain a financial interest in the properties to the detriment of residents. A housing developer in my constituency is maintaining their financial interest by imposing an annual fixed rent charge of £1. That may sound insignificant to many people, but some mortgage lenders are reluctant to lend on the said properties due to such technical financial interest. That prevents young families looking to either remortgage or move out of their property from doing so. Residents can request a deed of variation, which is one way in which they can come out of that situation, but the fees for those deeds are £1,200, so it is prohibitive. This is about being responsible and reasonable with residents’ money.

I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

14:58

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate. I echo his comments, especially on early consultation and problems with maintenance companies. In West Suffolk the population has increased by 5.3% over the last decade. The population of Haverhill, the biggest town, has nearly doubled over the past three decades, and the size of Newmarket has grown by 50%.

Some of the developments have been contentious but, on the whole, people are not opposed to new house building in West Suffolk. We have had around 3,000 new homes built in just the last five years, and one of the things that our whole area has in common is the relationship with the economic geography of Cambridge, which is obviously only going to develop in the decades ahead. Most of the residents I speak to support the need for new, attractive family homes in the right places. Recently, I had a very constructive meeting with small developers in West Suffolk who are keen to grow their market share, and who often provide homes that are more attractive and sensitive to the community than some of the bigger companies. That is part of a new approach that I would like to see, but a new approach should go wider than that.

I want to cite some examples of the experience in my constituency. In Mildenhall there is a proposed development of more than 1,000 new homes to the west of the town. We are going to need a relief road there to help manage the extra traffic that will inevitably follow the development. There are similar issues in communities such as Kentford and Red Lodge, where residents are worried about the growing volume of traffic because of the number of houses that have been built nearby in recent years. In Haverhill, residents have felt let down because the relief road that was promised with the large development that was constructed over the past few years is still not open to use.

I will quickly make a few points in principle. First, we need new homes in this country. My points are not about nimbyism, but about ensuring that homes are sensible and in the right places. We should be building for families, not just transient tenants. Secondly, developers should be required to contribute more to the communities that they profit from building in. Thirdly, new infrastructure should arrive in advance of expansion; residents should not have to wait years for the benefit.

Fourthly, we need to build communities, not just “units”, which is the dreadful word used too often by council offices. We need communities that build a neighbourly spirit and encourage trust—not antisocial behaviour and crime. The quality of the housing needs to be much better than some of what has been thrown up in recent years. There should be no more building on floodplains, and we need proper accountability, so that when developers do not do what they promise, there are proper consequences for them.

15:01

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I rise to raise a specific issue in my constituency: the Clee Meadows estate, which is just off Ladysmith Road. It is an ex-industrial site that previously held the Birds Eye factory and was left to fall into a derelict state. It is in the heart of Grimsby town, and for years local residents complained about the lack of development and the fact that nothing was happening. Under the previous Labour council, decisive action was taken to start to build on that site and very nice housing was put up.

This debate is so relevant because it is about the long-term responsibilities of housing developers; despite the homes on that estate being very nice, the shortcuts taken by the developer have had long-lasting consequences. I was there the other week and I saw collapsing driveways, poor quality paths and paving, and pothole-ridden roads. It is only now, after I have raised the issue once in this place already, that the developer has started to get back in touch with the local authority and to take action to remedy some of the problems that residents have put up with for far too long.

I have been struck by the rest of the area that the estate sits in. It is a plot for 101 houses, but the rest of the area is a complete and utter bombsite, exactly as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) put it. It is ripe for fly-tipping, which happens on a regular basis. There are storage facilities for the developer’s other activities, such as the Strawberry Fields development, just outside my constituency, which has taken the developer’s interest and means that he has taken his eye off the ball with Clee Meadows.

The thing that strikes me about the discussion around section 106 funding is that we do need houses in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, but the question is: what kind of houses? My local authority is Conservative-run at the moment, and the people there say to me, “We can’t sell some of the houses on these new developments.” I say, “That’s because they’re five-bedroom executive homes. They’re not the homes we need.” If we did not need the houses that we do, we would not have houses in multiple occupation popping up all over the place, we would not have massive waiting lists for housing associations, and we would not have people stuck in temporary accommodation. But that is exactly what we have.

There is a massive opportunity for social homes. There must be a better way of working out which housing sites have planning permission and the housing need in local areas. There is an opportunity for the Minister to share her wisdom on that with us today.

15:04

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this very important debate. Natalie Harrison lives in my constituency of Wokingham and, along with other leaseholders in Mulberry House, faces constant challenges due to the failure of her former managing agent, Eagerstates, and its associated company, Assethold. I recognise that neither of those companies is a housing developer, but the situation faced by my constituents could very well apply to properties leased by a housing developer, so I hope it is treated with the same principle. Natalie tells me that Eagerstates’ two-year tenure as managing agent of Mulberry House has turned the leaseholders’ lives into a living hell. It increased the service charge by 48% in its first year of management and by over 200% in its second. After the leaseholders secured a successful right to manage application, Eagerstates continued to bill residents over £16,000 despite no longer being appointed.

Another constituent is in a top-floor apartment in the same property and is now forced to live in damp conditions surrounded by mould due to the poor quality of the roof. The roof, which was fully replaced six years ago, carried a 30-year warranty that is no longer covered, due to a failure by Eagerstates to commission a once-yearly inspection. Eagerstates has left the property in a shocking state of repair, forcing residents to pay an additional £29,000 between 12 flats for roof repairs and £45,900 for a completely new lift. My constituents feel that they are being robbed and left completely unprotected by a system that is seemingly unable to protect people who are being ripped off by companies that have the money to intimidate them.

Can the Minister tell me, Natalie and the residents of Mulberry House what plans the Department has to get the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 fast-tracked as quickly as possible? People need action to protect their livelihoods. They would also be grateful to know how the Government’s plans will stop the abuses by Eagerstates that they are facing from happening now and in the future. Will the Government ensure that undue power is taken from housing developers? Finally, will the Minister investigate the cases I have talked about and provide me with a written response that I can pass on to those affected?

15:07

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this wide-ranging and important debate. Colleagues have made salient points about the need for more housing, and more housing in the right place. I will focus my comments on the responsibility of developers to build quality, safe homes.

When it comes to development, I am quite straightforward: I want developers to build more housing and I want them to get on with it, but they have to build good, safe homes. Too many do not have their own house in order, and I worry about them being awarded contracts in the future to build more as part of Labour’s ambitious plans for 1.5 million more houses. The time for asking nicely is over; we have to demand that people’s safety is put first. We do not want to be here dealing with the same issues in 10 years’ time under new developers.

This is also about ensuring the wellbeing of the very people we are talking about, namely our constituents—those on waiting lists, and those saving hard to buy their first home or put down rent deposits. Their overall wellbeing and financial stability have been compromised too much in the past. We are putting right the mistakes of the past. In my constituency of Southampton Itchen, I have met constituents who have painstakingly shared stories of how their families are struggling. They set out with these great new developments—they have bought or rented houses that they could afford—only to now be saddled with unscrupulously high service charges to cover the cost of remediation works for leasehold buildings. Some of those constituents are young couples and families who have bought their dream first home but now find themselves in a long and drawn-out nightmare.

I have met the building safety Minister to discuss some specific cases in my constituency: Oceana Boulevard and French Court, among others. They require immediate attention and they are getting it, for which I am grateful. But let us be clear: the housing industry has to act very differently in future on the issues that hon. Members have raised, to ensure that we avoid the gross mistakes of the past. I want the industry to learn those lessons from my constituency, and to ensure quality in what it builds from here on.

None of us wants to be here in a decade, clearing up a different housing mess—whether that is to do with location, quality or form of ownership. It is the developers’ responsibility now to guarantee that quality and get it right the first time, rather than remediating later. It is the Government’s responsibility, of course, to hold developers to account when they do not get it right, so I would appreciate the Minister’s assurances on how we will ensure that those things are right the first time. On that, and on other issues rightly raised by hon. Members, we cannot allow developers to wash their hands of their responsibilities.

15:10

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate. I agree with his comments at the start of the debate about pre-consultation on planning permissions, and about developers learning from consultations that are carried out on regen projects, where communities’ aspirations are often captured and then delivered, whereas they are not on brand new applications.

I also declare that I am a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Prior to entering the House, I worked in social housing for 15 years. My experience in the housing sector showed me the importance of community infrastructure being at the heart of developments. I am concerned that current planning processes do not prioritise the essential facilities needed for communities to thrive.

In many developments, primary schools, community centres, recreational areas and other facilities are delivered later into the phase-in of the developments. That leaves families on the estates—many, for years—with nowhere near what was promised in the glossy vision and the sales catalogues. This reduces the chances for new communities to come together to form that important bond needed for those communities to be sustainable. I believe that the Government can do more to support the delivery of crucial infrastructure—from updating their planning policies through to helping with funding vehicles to ensure that new communities get the infrastructure delivered at the earliest possible time.

Another pressing issue is the maintenance of roads in new developments. I recently visited Lancaster Park in Hungerford, in my constituency of Newbury, where residents shared their frustrations about unadopted roads. In Lancaster Park, residents now face management costs for the upkeep of the roads, on top of paying their council tax. The developer does not want the roads to be adopted, and the council—already underfunded by central Government and under financial pressure—is keen not to take on new cost liabilities. That just is not right, so I am proud that my party, the Liberal Democrats, is calling for a change so that all local authorities must adopt roads. That will guarantee the roads’ standard, and stop those costs being passed directly to a small group of residents. Developments must reduce homelessness, and improve standards and lives, not place additional burdens on those they are aimed at helping.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about the decent homes standard. Currently, 3.3 million homes do not meet the standard. Social landlords are leading the way on improving their stock, but in the private sector more than half a million homes contain the most serious hazards. The Government must get on and consult on the decent homes standard, and enforce its implementation across all homes in the private and social sector.

15:13

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard—[Interruption]—in the company of the John Deere air horn orchestra.

This debate is very important to me. I have met Persimmon, Oakgate, Banks Group, Joseph Rowntree, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt, David Wilson, McLaren and countless others. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing the debate. I greatly respect him as a fellow Yorkshire MP, so let me be Yorkshire, direct and bold and say that he forgets an important point: it was the last Government who oversaw the broken planning system.

That brings me to the challenges we face in York. Housing developers have struggled to build good homes over the past 14 years, but it is not for lack of trying. I am afraid to say that some councillors in certain parties have been the blockers for too long. Let me tell hon. Members a story. New Earswick was the brainchild of Joseph Rowntree. For Members familiar with model villages, it is the Bournville or Saltaire of York—a place built on the principle that better housing can be provided for lower-income families.

Recently, there was a proposal to build 14 new affordable houses. It was compliant with the national planning policy framework. No need to worry, right? Unfortunately, that was not the case. If Members want to know why, I will need to refer to one of my son’s favourite films, the 2006 animated comedy “Over the Hedge”. The plot, for those who may not know it, is about a group of woodland animals led by a cautious turtle named Verne. The problem is that Verne’s overly cautious approach has bled into the local authority’s cautious planning approach for too long. I hope Members will forgive that slightly unexpected reference, but the reason why those 14 homes were delayed for three to six months was that planning committee members from a certain party did not want to go ahead over a hedge. Families had been left waiting for months for housing—over a hedge.

Let me move on from that harrowing tale and make a slightly bold suggestion: rather than just focusing on the responsibilities of housing developers, we must focus on the role of local councillors. If committee members are homeowners, they should have to declare it as an interest. It is easy to block the homes of the future when you have one yourself.

[John Lamont]

I find some of the hon. Member’s remarks quite extraordinary. Is he genuinely saying that if concerns about wildlife, the environment or what is proposed are put forward by local residents, and particularly by the Environment Agency, they should simply be ignored in pursuit of this house building agenda?

[Mr Charters]

Absolutely not. The example I gave was—to go back to that 2006 movie—about a hedge. The power that planning committees have must be exercised with restraint. We must consider the opportunity costs. Disabled families and other families, my constituents, have been left waiting six months because of a landscape issue over a hedge.

There are a couple of practical considerations I would like to raise. The future homes standard is great, and developers have a responsibility there, but we cannot just focus on air source heat pumps. We must have battery storage linked to photovoltaics as well—that should be the new home standard. We must also have extra planning committee resource so we can properly hold developers to account. I would really welcome the Minister updating us on when the 200 new planning officers are likely to be in place. They are desperately needed in York.

Let me also touch on pre-application discussions. These are important to let developers get on and consider local need in the right way and at an early stage.

[Nick Timothy]

We are sent here not to consider anecdotes and individual case studies, but to consider legal frameworks and systems. If the hon. Gentleman wants to remove some of the systemic barriers to house building, which regulations—particularly pertaining to the environment and biodiversity—might he be interested in seeing removed?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are part of our regular work, and it is entirely up to the speaker to take them. However, when an intervention is taken, it adds one minute to the speaker’s time slot, which takes time away from others.

[Mr Charters]

Forgive me, Mr Pritchard, but I thought that the intervention was on my point about the pre-application process, which should be welcomed on all sides. It can be really helpful to developers and local authorities, because additional resource—an independent resource that the local authority agrees to—can be brought in to provide support, enabling things to be scrutinised more closely and in due time.

I hear so much from developers about statutory consultees, and orchestrating them—landscaping, drainage, water, highways and so on—is a critical part of the planning process. But so often in the planning process, when one respondent is late, it has a knock-on effect on everyone else. We realistically must ensure that planning authorities are better at orchestrating those statutory consultees.

I would welcome the chance to meet the Minister to discuss some of these ideas further. York Outer is a unique place in terms of the concept of grey belt. I welcome recent NPPF statements. I really believe that we will be turning Tory stumbling blocks into Labour’s building blocks.

15:19

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I am glad that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) secured the debate, because this issue is vital. I will focus on the premature handover of sites from housing developers to management companies before the developers’ responsibilities are fulfilled. I will do that by giving a couple of examples from the area I represent: Pebble Beach in Seaton and Acland Park in Feniton, both in east Devon.

In Pebble Beach, construction began on a site for 220-odd homes in 2014. I saw the Bovis Homes advert on YouTube earlier, and it shows drone footage over beautiful Seaton. It is absolutely stunning. Who would not want to live there? Sadly, the experience of people who have moved to the site is that it is very much incomplete. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley talked about a play area that was never finished; well, these people had a play area that was never started, despite having been pledged. The kerbs are so high that a child could sit by the road and eat their lunch off the pavement—such is the incompleteness of the construction.

There are trip hazards and blocked drains, and the site has been more or less handed over to the property management company FirstPort without the developer having fulfilled its responsibilities. That has resulted in poor maintenance and the deflection of responsibilities, with the property management company pointing at the developer and the developer pointing back at the property management company. The residents are stuck in the middle, not knowing quite who is accountable.

Last week, Liberal Democrat MPs met FirstPort and took the issue up with it. Also last week, the Business and Trade Committee met Vistry in Exeter. Vistry takes on board its responsibility as a developer, but it needs to get back to the site and fix the things it said it would. I will have to leave to another day my comments about Acland Park, which I have talked about in this Chamber before.

The key point that I would like the Minister to take away is that we cannot have a situation where property management companies essentially take responsibilities from developers, and developers are therefore not held accountable.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call James Naish. [Interruption.] Yes, I called you.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It didn’t sound like my name.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

The Clerk doesn’t know it and I don’t know it, but I hope you know it.

[James Naish]

It is James Naish for Rushcliffe.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I apologise for my Hereford-Shropshire accent. Some of us from the west midlands are still in this place.

15:23

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for calling me to speak, whether I know my name or not. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—I do know where Keighley is—for securing this important debate on the responsibilities of house builders.

I want to speak briefly to highlight the fantastic work of one of my constituents, Sarah Postlethwaite, who is a senior planning ecologist. In March this year, in her own time, Sarah conducted a detailed audit on the implementation of ecological planning conditions in her home village of East Leake. I have a copy of her report here, and it makes for fascinating reading. She looked at 11 built-out sites from the past decade, and the headline figure is that the overall compliance rate for ecological planning conditions was 9.5 out of 36 conditions, or a meagre 26%.

At one development by Persimmon Homes, which had 294 homes built out, there was an inadequate number of bat and swift boxes, which were badly installed and/or in inappropriate locations. It was also not possible to determine whether the promised meadow grassland and flowering lawn mixes had been sown appropriately. At sites by other developers, hedges were removed, despite commitments to retain them. Grassland areas were not created as required, and sustainable drainage systems were not fully built, despite people occupying nearby houses.

I acknowledge that time has passed since the audit was completed earlier this year, but I thought it would be useful to highlight the bottom-up work taking done by constituents such as mine who are keen to see house builders deliver on the conditions that are agreed when planning permission is granted. I commend Sarah’s work, which was reported by the BBC and which, as a result, secured apologies from both Barratt Homes and Persimmon Homes. Miller Homes said it was finalising its ecology measures at the time of reporting.

I sympathise to an extent with the position of local authorities that have neither the resources nor the expertise to hold developers to account, as they would wish. None the less, councils need to take their enforcement responsibilities seriously and to be appropriately financed and resourced, so that we can make sure that developers meet their ecological and other varied and important commitments; if not, swift and effective remedial actions should be taken. I would welcome hearing more from the Minister on how we empower councils to do that.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I am afraid that we are down to two minutes each for the last two speakers. I call Olly Glover.

15:26

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

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I join my colleagues in praising the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate. I am going to focus my remarks on the challenges of estate adoption, generally unaccountable management companies and fees. I thank the House of Commons Library for its comprehensive briefing on this subject, but I confess it rather blew my mind. The legal and contractual concepts are quite bewildering, and I do not know whether to be saddened or reassured by how many colleagues have raised similar issues to the ones that I am about to describe.

Since our election in July, I have been contacted by people across my constituency about issues relating to estate adoption and management companies, including Highcroft and Winterbrook Meadows in Wallingford, Fuller’s Grove and Hamilton Drive in East Challow, Dida Gardens and Great Western Park in Didcot, Kingsgrove in Wantage, and Cholsey Meadows in Cholsey. With 30,000 more homes planned in the surrounding area by 2041, which will account for 20% of all the housing stock, it is important that we collectively get a grip of the issues so that we prevent their recurrence in future.

Problems experienced by my residents include huge and disproportionate hikes in estate management fees, which they pay in addition to council tax, endless arguments between parties, and a lack of accountability regarding who exactly is responsible for maintenance on some of these new estates. They also include lack of timescales for the adoption of roads and other items, a lack of transparency and clarity on how to influence and hold to account the management companies, and complicated ownership and financial models, which vary from estate to estate.

I lack the legal and contractual PhD needed to understand all of the framework, but I can be clear on the simplicity that my residents seek: a simpler approach to planning and development, clear and consistent adoption policies and processes, the ability to hold developers to account, value for money, and proper funding for local authorities to remove any perverse incentives around planning agreements and adoption decisions.

15:28

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, may I say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate? I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for setting the scene.

The UK is screaming out for new homes for large families, small families, single people and first-time buyers. I am fortunate to have a first-class working relationship with numerous developers in my constituency, and I think that that makes a difference. Whether it is Fraser Homes, Hagan Homes, Dunlop Homes or Rock Developments, I support them and they support me. In the constituency of Strangford, they have helped transform the towns and provided forever homes to so many people.

I want to see urgency in the planning process, which clearly is not there. There is an issue with the adoption of roads and footpaths. In Northern Ireland, we insist on developers providing a bond. Should they go bust, that bond can be used to finish the roads, footpaths or drainage system. But as costs have risen, as they clearly have, there is a need to have a bond that is satisfactory. That is the first thing.

The subject of snag lists comes up all the time. When residents move into their newly developed house, they want it all to be perfect, but suddenly it is not perfect, because there are snags that need to be addressed: cracks in the walls, unfinished woodwork, plumbing, electrics and perhaps subsidence. Communication is a large part of addressing those snags, so developers need to tighten up in that regard.

An effort must be made with buyers and third-party organisations to ensure that processes are done and that local planning, the Department for Infrastructure back home, private developers and purchasers—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Gideon Amos.

15:29

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on their contributions.

Too often, in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, big housing developments are not completed as they should be and fail to come with the infrastructure that is needed. In one close in Taunton—a development substantially completed over a decade ago—the developer still has not finished the road surfacing, making the adoption of the close by the local authority impossible and meaning that there are no streetlights there.

Liberal Democrats support the construction of more homes. About 5,800 homes in Taunton, and about 1,000 in Wellington, have been approved or constructed since 2012, but we believe that the focus and priority should be the 150,000 social homes a year that the country needs. It would therefore surely be right for private developers to be given “use it or lose it” permissions—losing them, for example, when they have not completed developments to the required standard and with the required infrastructure. A “use it or lose it” system might mean ensuring that developers that do not comply are not able to avail themselves of subsequent permissions.

Despite the construction of over 6,000 new homes in Taunton and Wellington, no new doctor’s surgery has been provided. Although local councillors are working hard to secure land and buildings for a surgery, there is a real worry that no doctors will be available to fill it; the Blackdown GP practice in my constituency is closing in the afternoons to save money in the face of higher national insurance and staffing costs.

As we have heard, estate management agencies often charge large sums to freeholders for the upkeep of shared areas or assets. Such arrangements are often referred to as fleeceholds, given that the charge paid to the management company is so high and it is effectively a form of leasehold arrangement. Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for it to be the norm for shared assets in freehold estates to be adopted by the local authority, rather than by housing developers or estate management companies. If an estate has been constructed by a rogue or cowboy developer, freeholders can often pay extortionate fees for the upkeep of infrastructure that has not been properly completed or is not even fully in place. In addition, residents do not receive any reduction in the council tax that they are expected to pay to account for the estate charge or to reflect the specific services offered, because of course council tax is collected to deliver a broad range of services.

As we have heard, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 received Royal Assent in May, with the aim of strengthening the regulation of the housing sector. Will the Minister give us a clear date when the relevant sections will be commenced to give residents the powers of redress that they urgently need? Liberal Democrats have called for further regulation of management companies such as FirstPort, including to ensure that they respond to all correspondence and hold regular AGMs. If they fail to do so, we have called for residents to be given the power to take ownership for themselves.

Liberal Democrats have often called for zero-carbon homes and better standards. We welcome the decent homes standard proposed in the Renters’ Rights Bill, but we want it extended to military service family accommodation. Why should those people be excluded? We also want to see local authorities better funded to enforce those planning conditions that can be enforced. Somerset council has been handed what the outgoing Conservative leader of the county council has called a “ticking timebomb” of social care costs—which are falling on local authorities across the country. According to the National Audit Office and the BBC, the promised £1 billion of funding for social care was taken away exactly 12 months ago, leaving many councils, especially Somerset—with its historically low council tax base—having to make massive savings and often heartbreaking decisions.

Finally, it is important that we do not leave the provision of homes just to the private sector. It has a role to play, of course, but housing need will not be met unless we build 150,000 homes for social rent per year. That is the Liberal Democrat focus: genuinely affordable homes for local people, with properly funded local authorities to look after the infrastructure that needs to come with them. Unless Government support is provided for social housing and social care around the country, councils will be unable to cope with the need to properly regulate housing developers and ensure that they meet the obligations placed on them.

15:35

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate. I am delighted that the tractor beeps have stopped, partly because anyone watching the debate might have thought that the beeping was in case I swore pre-watershed. I assure people that it was the tractors outside.

I thank hon. Members for their important contributions. I will pick out a few, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and then address a number of issues raised by Members around the Chamber. My hon. Friend made several important points, which many Members understand because we go through the same things. As in his constituency, there is an excessive amount of development in mine, where it is being led by the Liberal Democrat local authority. We know there are similar cases around the country, and we know that developers do not always stick to the standards that we need them to and that consumers are entitled to when buying something as big as a property that they expect to live the majority of their lives in.

My hon. Friend also mentioned early consultation, which is an important concept, and talked about local plans. It is important that the new Government take a strong line, like the previous Government, to ensure that local authorities deliver a feasible local plan. I hope the Minister, in keeping with the Minister for Housing and Planning, will reassure us that she will stick to the importance of neighbourhood plans. Local people know what they want in their area, and they deserve the Government’s protection from excessive and speculative development.

It was interesting to hear hon. Members talk about their constituencies and housing. I worry that many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley will be exacerbated by some of the policies announced by Ministers. I am worried that the centralising zeal of the new Government will take power away from local councillors. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said that he wanted planning decisions made closer to the ground, and by people who know their local area. Unfortunately, the policies announced this week will take planning decisions away from locally elected councillors, who act on behalf of his constituents.

The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) wants a bolder and more ambitious offer in his area, which I know well because he is my constituency neighbour and we served on the same local authority together. He might want a word with his ministerial colleagues who have reduced housing targets in his city from 1,450 to 1,100, while doubling or tripling targets in neighbouring more rural areas. If he wants bold and ambitious plans for his area, perhaps he should speak to his Government about taking targets away from Labour areas and putting them in Tory and Liberal Democrat ones.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned hedges and local features of his constituency. I am sure it is beautiful, but I say the same to him: if he wants more resources for planning departments across the country, he should have a word with his Ministers, who are taking power to say yes or no away from local authorities and putting it in the hands of Ministers in Westminster.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Residents of Watery Lane in Lichfield know fine well that these powers already exist. There was significant local objection to a 750-home development right on the edge of the city. It went through every single possible stage of objection from the local authority and local residents, and it was still just signed off by a Minister in Whitehall. These powers have existed for a long time, so will the hon. Gentleman ensure that he does not make the point that some type of new power is being brought in?

[Paul Holmes]

That is not what the Minister for Housing and Planning said in the Chamber on Monday. He said that local authorities and councillors can make decisions about their area as long as the Minister is able to call applications in. It is a bypassing of locally elected councillors and a bypassing of local authorities, and the Government need to look again at the power that they are taking away from people at the grassroots and putting into the hands of Ministers at their desks in Westminster. The last Government would never have done that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley also mentioned section 106 agreements. It is really important that we make sure that section 106 funds are allocated to local areas as much as possible. Experts have criticised systems such as section 106, with Professor Christian Hilber of the London School of Economics describing them as “inefficient—even counterproductive” and arguing that they potentially drive up house prices instead of delivering the affordable housing and public goods that they are meant to provide. Research by the Home Builders Federation highlighted that, troublingly, local authorities in England and Wales are holding on to £8 billion of unspent developer contributions. Those funds could transform communities: 11,000 affordable homes could be built, 12 million potholes could be repaired and 126,000 new school places could be created.

We agree that it is time for policies that empower local councils and deliver tangible benefits for residents when it comes to the standard of developments. It is vital that local authorities have up-to-date local plans to ensure that people have a say in shaping the vision and framework for their communities over the next few years. That is why I am concerned about the centralising structures that this Government have introduced. They are bringing forward planning reforms before the revised national planning policy framework, which we think will be released tomorrow, has been published. That does not seem transparent, and it does not seem like joined-up government. They really need to look at bringing in wider reforms together.

There are also fears that the Government’s ambition to build on the green belt could extend to undermining local democracy itself—that even includes hedges. In their reform of planning committees, the Government are planning to strip back the democratic role of local government and impose top-down reforms at a later stage. How will the Minister ensure that the local voices of elected councillors are heard in this process? Her constituents and the constituents of every Member in this House elect councillors to represent them, and I do not understand why the Government seem not to have confidence in local authorities, even those controlled by the Labour party—because its local authority leaders have said that these plans are not deliverable—to make decisions themselves.

We must ensure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor services from developers, especially when it comes to the management of their homes and estates. The Government must work hard to ensure high standards among managing agents and hold them accountable for their actions. It is essential that any reforms under this Government enable our communities to take positive steps towards building more homes, regenerating local areas and supporting economic growth. The last thing we want is for these reforms to inadvertently create barriers to progress or leave communities disempowered.

I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley about the fees charged to maintain estates, particularly where communal areas remain under construction. The law is clear that service charges must be reasonable and the work or services paid for must be of a reasonable standard. Leaseholders have the right to ask for a breakdown of these charges and the evidence supporting them, such as receipts, and it is a criminal offence for a landlord to withhold that information. If leaseholders believe a charge is unreasonable, they have the right to apply to the tribunal.

I say to the Minister that we will work together on leasehold reform. The last Government made great strides in making sure that leaseholders are looked after and that they have protections under the law. The Minister has announced further measures. Will she confirm when she will bring those proposals to the House? Another Minister in her Department said that extra leasehold protections may not take effect for the lifetime of this Parliament. We ask the Government to move faster than that and to introduce those powers as soon as possible.

On infrastructure, I encourage councils to make use of the powers available to them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their communities. However, I do not believe in imposing overly prescriptive mandates from the centre. There are instances in which a more tailored approach may be necessary.

Finally—many Members may be happy that I am winding up my contribution—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley again. One thing I will say about this debate is that despite our political disagreements, everybody around the Chamber has the best interests of their constituents at heart. They want their constituents to have accessible housing of a good standard, whether that is private housing, socially rented housing or housing for affordable rent. All of us in this Chamber have a responsibility, across parties, to ensure that the houses built across this United Kingdom are fit for purpose, and that they are ones that are wanted by local people and not imposed by central Government.

15:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate and on his introductory speech. He made important points about the importance of consultation, the responsibilities of housing developers and the need for quality service provision, community infrastructure and a range of other issues. Those are important points that we can all relate to from our own constituencies.

Other Members raised the important issues of housing supply and the housing crisis. We can all agree about the need to address the housing shortage in our country. It was helpful to be reminded of the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment of 1.6 million, along with my party’s commitment of 1.5 million over the next five years. On this important agenda, there is much that we can agree on. It is vital that national Government, regional government, local government and, of course, developers, on which we rely to deliver good-quality, safe and secure housing fit for communities and our country, work closely in partnership. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—the first since the developments of the 1950s—to provide the housing that our country desperately needs.

We are in the middle of the most acute of crises in living memory; I see that first hand in my work as homelessness Minister, given the pressures of the housing shortage in many parts of our country. For too long, too few homes have been built and even fewer have been affordable, putting the dream of home ownership out of the reach of too many. That is creating an intergenerational set of tensions. Today’s under-30s are less than half as likely to be homeowners as those of the same age in the 1990s. There were only 210,000 first-time buyers last year, and they were particularly concentrated in the younger generation. That is the lowest figure since the global financial crisis.

We have seen house prices rise during that period, too. I know that across parties we can agree that we need to ensure that the younger generation have the hope of home ownership, should they wish to be homeowners, and that those who want to live in other forms of housing can get access to good-quality, affordable accommodation, be that shared ownership or other types of accommodation. We have inherited a set of challenges that we must address. That requires serious work across parties, where possible. There are 123,000 households, including 150,000 children, in temporary accommodation, which affects communities and constituencies up and down the country. We have a shared responsibility to tackle those issues.

As for the points made on planning and local consultation, we take those very seriously. The suggested changes to the national policy and planning framework, which we consulted on this summer, are first steps to correcting some of the issues that have arisen. By strengthening the housing targets and allowing development on poor-quality grey belt land, we will get Britain building again to kick-start our mission for delivering those 1.5 million homes. We are clear that our mission cannot be at the expense of quality. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and others have made important points, and although I will not be able to address them all, I will make sure that officials pick them up. Colleagues have raised a number of specific constituency cases, and I am happy to pick those up in writing as well.

[Robbie Moore]

I want to pick up on the point about the grey belt. I will use an example from my own constituency where we have challenges. The local authority is developing its local plan, but genuine concerns have been raised that where houses are being allocated, the need is not being identified—in other words, green belt or grey belt is being prioritised over brown-belt land. Could the Minister outline what conversations she is having with the likes of Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, so that brownfield sites can be prioritised rather than green belt and greenfield, which has negative implications?

[Rushanara Ali]

I will come to that point, which picks up on the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point about consultation, proper partnership working and engagement. We very much want to see that partnership with local authorities and communities, and I will come to the points about planning requirements as well.

We have been in government for only just over five months, but I hope colleagues can see that we have hit the ground running on a number of agendas, including leasehold reform and decent homes, which have been mentioned. We recognise that there is an urgency and a backlog of issues that need to be addressed. I hope that we can work on those issues collectively, because our constituents desperately need us to bring improvements.

Since coming into government, we have taken immediate steps to support the rapid delivery of homes by launching the new homes accelerator and establishing the new towns taskforce. We believe that the generation of new towns will provide new opportunities for millions of people and unlock much-needed economic growth. The construction sector, for instance, will generate additional jobs for communities up and down the country. These are important opportunities for our country.

We have also secured investment through the investment summit, including £60 billion and £0.5 billion on housing specifically. We need to see that investment in housing in our country. The Government have also put a down payment on our commitment, announcing £5 billion towards a housing supply package for England over the next five years, including £0.5 billion for social and affordable housing schemes.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is absolutely right about developers. We need to ensure that developers fulfil their responsibility. He is very aware of safety, and other colleagues also raised that issue. The remediation action plan, following the recently published Grenfell phase 2 report, set out some of the issues relating to quality and safety. It is vital that the next wave of housing that is built is safe and secure. The legislative programme that will come with the remediation action plan and the response to phase 2 is critical to ensure that we address those issues.

More widely, it is vital that we do not compromise on the quality of housing when increasing the supply. We are mindful that we need to address both issues. The points about the contributions made by the community infrastructure levy and section 106 planning obligations are well made. In particular, section 106 delivers nearly half of all affordable homes per year. The hon. Gentleman made some important points about the need for local communities to benefit, which is crucial. He will be aware that local authorities have that strategic role. We have seen some great examples in different parts of the country—I have seen it in my own constituency—of how well that can work if communities are engaged and involved. I hope that happens with the hon. Gentleman’s local authority and with others, whether they are Labour or Conservative-controlled. We all want to see that benefit to our communities.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues related to consultation. Local planning authorities are required to undertake local consultation as part of the process of preparing a plan for their local area, to comply with the specific requirements in regulations 18 and 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. He will be aware, as will others, of the requirement to consult and involve communities, including the commitment to a statement of community involvement.

We are committed to the devolution agenda. Contrary to what the shadow Minister said earlier, that means giving more power to local communities, including devolved budgets, to empower local leaders and mayors to work strategically with national Government, in order to deliver on the housing agenda. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also raised issues in relation to section 106, which I have already addressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a point about 200 planning officers. The Government have already committed £46 million to boost the capacity and capability in local planning, which will be crucial in local areas.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

I am afraid not, because I need to wrap up my remarks, but I am happy to pick up afterwards.

We have already invested significant resources to tackle the housing crisis. As a Government, we are very aware that we need to make sure that the national planning policy framework is fit for purpose, and that communities are engaged and involved with it. I hope that the work under way will be an opportunity for hon. Members to engage early on to make sure we get the process right and they can feed in the concerns and interests of their constituents. I look forward to continuing the conversation and to making sure that we can develop an agenda grounded in the interests of communities up and down the country, with local leaders and national Government working collectively.

Due to time constraints, I am unable to address all the points made but I am happy to pick up on any that I have not addressed, either in writing or in follow-up discussions. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for securing this debate and for raising the issues. I should say that work, including a written ministerial statement, is already under way to tackle the concerns about the responsibilities of leaseholders, as well as in relation to housing standards.

15:58

[Robbie Moore]

As Members of Parliament, I often think that our role is to be both problem solvers and place makers. That is why today’s debate has been so important.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The common themes have been obvious: early consultation is really important, as well as addressing the challenges around multiple developments and their cumulative impact on wider communities. We also talked about section 106 and community ownership moneys and the importance of the quality of build when it comes to place making. It is right that we get the right homes built in the right locations, designed around the need that has been identified.

We have been joined by the farmers protesting outside Parliament, whose noise has been coming into the Chamber. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) rightly said that he welcomed the John Deere orchestra. I only hope that all Government Members are listening to the reasons why those farmers are here today.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

On behalf of right hon. and hon. Members, I thank the broadcasting and sound team for an excellent job this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.

Financial Inclusion: Rural Areas

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

16:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered financial inclusion in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for granting this debate.

Financial inclusion is the ability of people to access, understand and use financial services to manage their money and reduce poverty. I hope the Minister will agree that we need better financial inclusion across the UK. I have been heartened to hear the new Government talk about financial inclusion, but more rural areas face a whole host of issues that make the challenges around financial inclusion even greater, and that is what I will focus on today.

My constituency of Frome and East Somerset is a predominantly rural area, with a number of market towns such as Frome, Midsomer Norton and Radstock, and 150 villages and hamlets. Frome has recently been allocated a banking hub, after our last bank branch announced that it would close. Thankfully, Midsomer Norton still has two bank branches open, but they serve surrounding areas as far as the city of Bath, meaning that residents in the surrounding villages still have to travel miles to reach their nearest bank.

Access to cash and face-to-face banking is vital for about 5 million customers across the UK who may be vulnerable because of low income or age, and in rural areas many people are dependent on cash for their livelihoods. When bank branches close, which is already more likely in rural areas, residents are increasingly vulnerable because the alternatives are more physically spread out, and after losing free-to-use cashpoints, rural residents have to travel three times as far to get cash as those in urban areas.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Large banks are leaving our high streets at an alarming rate. Ystradgynlais, the biggest town in Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, has been denied a request for a banking hub, despite the billions of pounds of profit that Lloyds bank made in 2023. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that communities such as Ystradgynlais, which has some of the most deprived areas in Wales, should be at the forefront of moves to expand banking hubs across the UK, and that the big banks should treat their customers well and deliver a fair share of services for local residents?

[Anna Sabine]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I do agree. I will come on to talk about the criteria that Link uses in allocating banking hubs.

In Frome and East Somerset, an average of £630,000 is withdrawn in cash each month, showing how vital access is for people in these areas. The two main groups most affected by lack of access to cash are the deprived and the elderly. For people on low incomes, cash can act as an effective method to budget efficiently. Many elderly people feel excluded by the increasing reliance on digital services. With BT set to swap from analogue to digital landlines for millions of customers across the UK, there are concerns that that will lead to more isolation for elderly people who rely on landlines for their access to the outside world, and in many rural areas they may not have good broadband or mobile signal either.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Unfortunately, in my Strangford constituency, 11 banks have closed, I think, so the impact on rural dwellers is very real. Does the hon. Lady share my concern? If people do not have a bank or the face of someone to talk to, what do they end up doing? They can look towards unregulated moneylending and not receive the appropriate financial advice that they need. With that being the case, the banks and the massive profits they make mean that the ordinary person is suffering even more.

[Anna Sabine]

I totally agree. I had not considered that for my speech, but I will take away unregulated moneylending as a point to note.

Since the Financial Conduct Authority changed its regulations, Link has been able to do some valuable work to provide cash access to local areas. However, I urge the Government to look at how to make the regulations for Link more flexible to allow it to work on a case-by-case basis, as the current criteria do not take into account certain geographical and other barriers that affect rural areas. We know that 93% of people live within 1 mile of an ATM, which on paper sounds good, but it does not take into account issues that might come up in rural areas. For example, if someone lives in a village or hamlet, that 1-mile walk might have no safe walking routes and no bus connection. That is why we want to see the legislation expanded to include specific geographical, physical and societal barriers, so that they are taken into consideration.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about both the accessibility of banks and other financial services and the challenges faced by residents in rural areas. In my Reading Central constituency, we face similar challenges with the large village of Caversham, which is now part of Reading. Many Caversham residents struggle because they have to go into Reading town centre. Although it is pedestrianised, it can be quite an intimidating journey for someone who is disabled, and perhaps involves a bus journey for someone with limited mobility. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a valid point about the location of banking services in terms of how close they are to parking and residents homes, and that short journeys are much better for disabled and vulnerable residents?

[Anna Sabine]

I totally agree with the hon. Member; that is exactly the point that we are trying to make. I believe Link wants the flexibility to make more subtle judgments, rather than working on a flat assessment structure.

With the closure of bank branches, banking hubs are becoming a lifeline for many towns, reinvigorating high streets and increasing football—footfall, even. They probably increase football as well. Frome residents are excited to have their banking hub open soon.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Does my hon. Friend agree that banking hubs are key for financial inclusion? Does she share my concern that the Government’s plan to build 350 banking hubs over five years across the entire country is not enough to ensure proper access to in-person banking and cash services in rural communities? Does she also share my frustration that the town of Ilminster in my constituency has just been denied a banking hub by Link’s reassessment? Will she join me in calling for Link to reconsider its decision?

[Anna Sabine]

I am sorry to hear about what is happening in Ilminster; it sounds very frustrating. I will talk a little more about banking hubs and why they are a good thing that we need more of.

Prosper Frome, an organisation in my constituency that focuses on improving financial accessibility, had been advocating for a banking hub for over a year before it was announced by Link and Cash Access UK in September. That was a great relief to residents, who were about to see their final bank close, but Jean and Sam at Prosper Frome believe that the scope for banking hubs is too narrow, and have been lobbying hard to get a banking hub included as part of a much wider community project, enabling the hub to be multi-purpose. Making banking hubs more diverse widens their appeal and can make banking and financial inclusion the anchor of the kinds of community third spaces that many towns currently lack.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She is right to say that banking hubs are about more than just access to cash. In the market towns of North Norfolk, our small businesses need access to banking services, which full banking hubs can provide. Does my hon. Friend understand why residents of North Walsham are so frustrated that the outcome of their recent cash review was simply to give them a cash and deposit machine located in the local fried chicken shop?

[Anna Sabine]

That sounds very frustrating; I am sorry to hear it. I will talk about the importance of face-to-face contact in banking.

Shutting branches and opening banking hubs is currently financially efficient for banks, but there is a real risk that those banking hubs could close after a few years once the banks stop saving money and see the hubs as a drain on their profits instead of a benefit. We need reassurance about the long-term provision of banking hubs and a requirement on banks to keep funding them on an ongoing basis.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In Wokingham, our application for a banking hub was declined, despite the hard work of one of my constituents, Lynn Forbes. The work of Link, within the current legislation, can help to encourage the protection of face-to-face banking. However, it is not explicitly empowered to take that into account, and it is therefore not considered in Link’s final decision-making process for a banking hub. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to introduce further legislation to require the protection of face-to-face banking services?

[Anna Sabine]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to tighten up and look again at the criteria to which Link is working, to make sure that banking hubs are in the right places.

To turn away from banking hubs, I would like to raise the role of the post office, which is a vital service in many rural areas. In the village of Rode in my constituency, the post office sits within the local shop and café, doing vital work in not only posting parcels but supporting the local community. We have pop-up post offices in communities such as Freshford and Mells. For the elderly, the post office is a vital support in providing information on how to deal with bills and understand their pension credits, as well as generally giving them someone to talk to. Post office branches provide basic banking services, and in small towns where a banking hub is not viable, post offices are often the only remaining financial institution for customers and small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an eloquent speech and has been generous with her time. I have talked before about the need for a banking hub in Haltwhistle, in the west of my constituency. It has, unfortunately, lost banking services. Local businesses tell me that the Post Office van that stops there infrequently is simply not enough to regenerate the local economy.

I have been pleased to hear the hon. Lady speak about the need for banking hubs to be decided on slightly more loose criteria. Does she agree that for rural areas in particular, where central towns can be the linchpin of local economies, we should look at how we underpin their economic growth when we consider where we can bring in banking hubs?

[Anna Sabine]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

In my constituency, cash deposits are valued at £2.1 million each month, which shows how reliant small businesses and charities are on having access to banking facilities that allow them to withdraw and deposit money.

I would also like to talk about digital inclusion. In a world that is increasingly moving online, many elderly and vulnerable people are being left behind. Older people are not necessarily comfortable using online or even phone banking. They are being forced on to those services, which reduces their financial inclusion and puts them at greater risk of financial fraud. Rural communities can find themselves doubly excluded as more banking services move online, with a lack of access to cash facilities locally and poor digital connectivity.

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

Residents have told me that they really valued paper statements. Some 6,000 bank branches have closed in the past nine years. Two of the new banking hubs are in the area that I represent, in Axminster and Sidmouth, but people cannot get hold of printed statements. Does my hon. Friend agree that they ought to be able to get them at banking hubs?

[Anna Sabine]

That is a great question from my hon. Friend. I believe people should. As I understand it, there is a challenge relating to banking hubs and printers because there is a data or GDPR issue with the different banks sharing the printer. That definitely needs to be looked into for banking hubs.

To return to poor digital connectivity, just this week I had an email from a couple in their 70s who run a small artisan business in Pilton. They are getting speeds of only around 1.5 to 3 megabits if they use a normal router, but when they asked to be connected to the nearby Glastonbury exchange they were told it would cost them £290,000, including VAT. I have heard about similar issues from farmers in my constituency who cannot get broadband past the boundary of their farm, which can be several miles from the actual property.

Financial and digital inclusion are critically linked. For those on low incomes, access to online banking can be costly, requiring a computer or mobile phone data. For people in rural areas, it is tricky to manage finances online with limited access to broadband.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I also represent a rural constituency, and one of the big problems is that many older-generation residents have lost their buses over the past 10 years—thousands of bus routes have been lost. Right now, some of my oldest residents in a rural area are facing the prospect of losing the 145 bus, which is their only connection to the banks that remain in the constituency. I hope the hon. Lady agrees that the Government’s recent extra funding will help us to protect those routes. I urge local councils not to risk older residents being cut off from key banking institutions.

[Anna Sabine]

I agree that bus routes are critical to rural communities. It would have been lovely if we could have kept the bus fare cap at £2—that has made it a bit harder—but I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about buses and their importance in those areas.

I am going to make some progress now. I urge the Government to think carefully about how they move forward with legislation on digital services for banking, especially in rural areas.

Finally, although this is not necessarily a rural issue, I would like to make the Minister aware of a specific issue relating to the identity requirements for a bank account. I visited my local food bank in Frome on Monday, and people told me that although the Government have a website designed to help those without an address to get the ID they need to open a bank account, there is a critical flaw in the process. The last stage of the website requires the applicant to get a professional, such as an accountant or lawyer, who is personally known to them to sign off on their application. Clearly, that is not possible for many of those who apply. Please will the Minister look at that? It is currently preventing many people from accessing the ID they need to get a bank account.

I am pleased that the Government’s plans talk about financial inclusion, but the Lib Dems want to go further and see a dedicated national financial inclusion strategy. That would require the Financial Conduct Authority to have regard to financial inclusion, such as by protecting access to cash, especially in remote areas, by supporting banking hubs, by expanding access to bank accounts and by supporting vulnerable customers. As technology and innovation evolve, it is critical that we bring everyone along on the journey. That is very much the case when it comes to finances. Rural areas deserve the same levels of financial access as everyone else, and I urge the Government to bear that in mind in their decision making.

16:14

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing her first Westminster Hall debate on such an important topic. Debates like this are very conversational; it is always nice when lots of people agree on the same thing. It is heartening when lots of people intervene and everybody agrees, so I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to these important issues that really matter to the lives of all our constituents.

Ensuring that individuals have access to the appropriate financial services and products that they need, when they need them, is a key priority for the Government. It is an essential part of improving household financial wellbeing and ensuring that everyone is able to participate in the economy and benefit from the Government’s inclusive growth agenda. I recognise that tackling financial inclusion issues is particularly important for residents living in rural areas who face specific geographical challenges in accessing financial services. In today’s debate, we have had good examples of the particular challenges that people face.

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

We tend to think of the issue as being principally about people having access to cash, but in communities like mine, where a lot of cruise ships come in the summer, tour guides get tipped in dollars, euros and other currency. For that, they need access to a bureau de change, which in our case is effectively the post office. Having a full range of post office services is particularly important so that they can pay their money in. When the Minister talks to her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade about the future of Crown post offices, will she remember the range of potential impacts on local communities?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a good pitch for a cruise ship to visit his constituency. It was a good advertisement, and he made an important point about the role and importance of the post office. I am sure that it will be noted by the Department.

I know that many rural constituencies are concerned about the availability of cash, especially when they rely on it to pay for essential goods and services. We recognise how important that is for many vulnerable people. Arguments have been made by some—not by the Government—that people are using digital more and more, so there is less need for cash. However, we recognise that for some people it is the only way of paying bills and accessing funds. It is important that we continue to have it, because many rely on it for essential goods and services.

Although it is positive that data from the Financial Conduct Authority shows that over 98% of people in rural areas are within three miles of free-to-use withdrawal facilities, I understand the importance of ensuring that cash remains available for those who need it. The Financial Conduct Authority introduced its regulatory rules to protect access to cash on 18 September. In fact, under a previous Government I was on a Bill Committee debating that very issue, so I am pleased that we mandated access to cash.

The rules require the UK’s largest banks and building societies to assess the impact of the closure of a relevant cash access facility and put into place a new service if necessary. That ensures appropriate access to cash for those who need or choose to use it.

Lots of people asked about banking hubs. I should probably declare that I am getting a banking hub in my own constituency soon, which is very exciting. How do people get a banking hub in their constituency? I completely agree about face-to-face banking services. It is not just about accessing cash; it has a wider role to play. If someone is accessing banking facilities, it can be a way to spot financial crime and financial coercion as well, so it is important to have that.

The locations are independently determined by Link, the largest provider of the ATM network. When a cash service such as a bank branch closes, or Link receives a request directly from a community, Link assesses a community’s access to cash needs. A couple of people mentioned how they were not successful in their appeal for a banking hub. If people have already made a community request to Link and it has decided that no banking hub is needed, they can ask Link to review the decision within 28 days of the original assessment, stressing their concerns and evidence. I urge people to take advantage of that appeal process.

[David Chadwick]

Can the Minister clarify whether Link is covered by the growth duty, which requires regulators to consider the economic consequences of their actions? A point has been made a couple of times about the impact of these closures on local businesses.

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. Link is covered by the Financial Conduct Authority, which has a duty to promote growth. The criteria on which it bases its decision include whether there is a bank branch remaining, the population size, the number of shops on the high street, the distance to the nearest bank branch, the public transport links and the vulnerability of the population. I urge Members to appeal if they find themselves unsuccessful the first time around.

Alongside access to cash, I know that constituents are concerned about challenges in accessing in-person banking. As has been highlighted in this debate, that is particularly an issue for individuals living in rural areas, where in-person services are less easily accessed than in urban areas.

[Matt Rodda]

Does the Minister agree that an important point is that disabled and vulnerable people want to speak to another person? Getting advice and guidance from a qualified person who represents the bank and can help them with their banking is something that particularly concerns my constituents. It can also apply to small businesses, many of which want the ability to engage with bank staff to discuss their own financial matters.

[Emma Hardy]

I absolutely agree that that is important. On the issue of vulnerability, sometimes in-person services are a way in which financial coercion can be identified, which is always a huge concern. That is why the banking hubs are so important and the Government are committed to rolling them out. It is completely in character for my hon. Friend to highlight the need to support vulnerable people in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is working closely with the industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the UK, which will provide individuals who need face-to-face support with critical banking services. As I say, I am personally hugely supportive of the banking hubs.

We are taking further steps to ensure that individuals can access the financial services and products that they need. Last week—I was very excited about this—the Government announced a financial inclusion strategy to further tackle the problems of financial inclusion. The strategy will be supported by a committee that the Economic Secretary convened for the first time last week. The committee brings together consumer groups and the financial sector to consider a range of barriers to inclusion for excluded groups, focusing on key policy areas such as access to banking, insurance and affordable credit, another huge problem for vulnerable people.

It is clear that there are significant challenges that need addressing. A quarter of adults have less than £100 in savings. Over a million adults are unbanked. There is a reported £2 billion of unmet need for credit, and over 8 million people are struggling with financial debt. Under the financial inclusion strategy, the committee will be working with consumer groups and industry to develop a strategy, considering a range of barriers.

To tackle the long-term issues effectively, we need to listen to the voice of experts. That is why we have convened this group, which will be tasked with drawing on relevant expertise across the sector and on lived experience. We will also be listening to people on the ground, because this will require a joined-up approach across Government, the financial services sector and frontline organisations. We will be engaging widely on this agenda to ensure that the strategy considers a wide range of frontline perspectives.

The strategy will be published next year, following extensive work by the Financial Inclusion Committee to consider the barriers to access and solutions to address them. It is important that we take the time to get this right and seek input from those who are most affected by the issue of financial exclusion. That is why the Government have made clear our commitment to going further in tackling it. While that work is in its early stages, I know that the Economic Secretary recognises its importance to our constituents and will keep the House updated as it progresses.

I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset again. It has been a pleasure to participate in her first Westminster Hall debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating. There is a lot of support in this room for banking services, and a recognition of the importance of face-to-face services and access to cash. It is crucial for everybody in our society to have access to the financial services they need, regardless of where they live.

Question put and agreed to.

16:24

Sitting suspended.

Rail Services: Devon

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of rail services in Devon.

I am delighted to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate, and it is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the Minister to his place.

I will start by setting out why rail services in Devon are of the utmost importance to my constituency of Exeter and the wider regional economy. Exeter is one of the fastest-growing cities in the UK. Indeed, in the 10 years from 2012 to 2022, it was the fourth fastest. It experienced an 11% growth in population, from about 117,800 in 2011 to 130,800 in 2021. That is higher than the overall increase for England, at 6.6%.

We have an estimated population of 130,800, and a travel-to-work area that includes more than 499,800 residents. About 35,000 people commute into Exeter daily for work and leisure. That wider hinterland is an integral part of the success of our economy. Exeter generates almost £6 billion in gross value added, meaning that we are the biggest economy west of Bristol and are in the top 10 cities for gross value added growth in the UK. Exeter has generated 8% in new businesses, with 5,147 registered for business rates, and a 3% growth in jobs. It was also ranked sixth in the PwC “Good Growth for Cities 2024” index.

At the heart of our dynamic economy lies the University of Exeter, which is world-leading in life sciences, material sciences, climate sciences, marine sciences and engineering. Exeter college is the best in the country and attracts students from across the region due to its excellent mix of academic and apprenticeship courses. The Met Office is world-renowned for its climate science and space weather work, and its oceanographic mapping is vital for many businesses. In addition, according to the ScaleUp Institute, Exeter is a growing start-up and scale-up ecosystem in climate tech, health and manufacturing. In short, Exeter’s economy is thriving in sectors that are important for the future of the UK economy.

However, we face challenges that will hold back our economy and our ability to deliver on those national priorities if we do not address them. One of the major challenges is the regularity and the resilience of our public transport system. I have much to say about our bus network, but today I shall limit my contribution to our rail service.

In many ways, our rail service is a success. The number of rail journeys in our region is now at similar levels to the pre-covid period, in contrast with other regions. Between April 2023 and March 2024 there were 50.9 million journeys to, from or within the south-west region. Of that total, 25.4 million were made within the south-west in the latest year; the rest were to London or elsewhere in the country. Devon counted 10.3 million journeys across 42 stations between April 2023 and March 2024. People in Devon have got back on the railways in great numbers. That shows their enthusiasm and the need for reliable, available and affordable rail services in our county. Rail is vital for sustainable economic growth that everyone can participate in, that delivers new, well-paid jobs and that is generated in an environmentally sustainable way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for highlighting this issue. At Christmas, rail and bus services are a massive problem. The alternative is extortionate prices for taxis, which are just not sustainable for the ordinary man or woman on the street. Does he agree that there is more the Government could do, alongside the rail and bus companies, to improve public transport services for those who depend on them late at night, for their employment or for leisure activities?

[Steve Race]

I absolutely agree that for many people in the lowest-paid jobs or who work night shifts, the lack of transport over the Christmas holidays and at regular times is a real challenge.

Research commissioned by the Rail Delivery Group shows that the rail industry generated £1.1 billion in economic, environmental and social benefits to the south-west over the previous year, and that rail customers contributed £2.7 billion through spending in local communities. If we secure 40% rail growth by 2035 by delivering improvements to our network, that could bring an additional £700 million in benefits to the south-west. Greenhouse gas emissions locally would decrease by 1,200 tonnes; congestion, which blights my city, would be reduced by 8 million hours; and 72 road traffic accidents would be prevented.

At the moment, according to projections by the Railway Industry Association, rail travel is expected to grow by an average of 1.6% annually over the next three decades. That would equate to a 20% increase in rail usage by 2035, potentially raising the industry’s contribution to regional benefits to about £1.5 billion. So, an increase of 40% might seem like a stretch, but it is not beyond our capabilities if we get things right in Devon. I hear those present asking, “How could we deliver such an increase?” As Members from Devon who are present will know, there are a significant number of projects at various stages of readiness that could be initiated to achieve that 40% increase.

First of all, there are the Dawlish sea wall works. Alongside considering expansion, we must consider the resilience of our current rail network, keeping the gains that we have already made. When the devastating storm of 2014 hit, the sea wall at Dawlish collapsed. Alongside the cliff wall collapses, that meant that the only rail line west of Exeter, Brunel’s magnificent main line into Devon and Cornwall, was severed, cutting off the majority of our peninsula from the rest of the rail network.

The south west rail resilience programme was enacted across five phases to repair and enhance the sea wall, repair the cliff walls and enhance the line. Phase 5 runs from Parson’s Tunnel to Teignmouth and is focused on stabilising the cliff face, so that it does not fall on the railway line again. It is a vital part of the project that is yet to be signed off. In the south-west, we are well aware that ever more numerous and ever more devastating storms are sweeping across our peninsula every year, so resilience must be prioritised to protect the rail system.

Secondly, improving our rail resilience in Devon and across the south-west means reducing total reliance on the Brunel line. We have an alternative that we can build upon—the partial restoration of the Exeter-Plymouth line north of Dartmoor via Okehampton and Tavistock. The reopening of the Exeter-Okehampton line has been an enormous success, opening up and connecting communities along the way. The previously mothballed rail line that runs between Okehampton and Exeter was restored in just nine months and delivered at £10 million under its £50 million budget. It opened in November 2021 and in the three years since it reopened, 775,000 journeys have been made on that line, far exceeding the expectations ahead of its reopening. Indeed, October 2024 saw 40,000 journeys to and from Okehampton on that line, which is a new monthly record. The appetite for rail journeys is clearly there in Devon.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I absolutely welcome the hon. Member’s comments about the success of the Exeter-Okehampton line; the figures speak for themselves. Does he agree that the success of that line highlights why the cost of keeping the Tavistock-Plymouth line going, as set out in its business case, is a really small ask—only 1% of the cost of the rebuilding railways project nationally—and that our little bit of that previous scheme would be very welcome in our region, particularly in Devon?

[Steve Race]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that what we need across Devon is to look at all these shovel-ready projects from business case onwards, to work out what will deliver the most economic value for our region and to support the mission to get economic growth going.

Connecting Okehampton to Tavistock, and connecting Tavistock to Plymouth—making sure that work continues —will create an alternative through route that will increase resilience in Devon and better connect the economies of both Exeter and Plymouth deeper into Devon, delivering much-needed growth and opportunity across our county.

Thirdly, the Salisbury-Exeter section of the South Western line is currently largely single-track; in fact, 75% of it is single-track. That has a huge impact on the available capacity of the line, and of course punctuality. Only about 54% to 66% of trains on that section currently run on time and the regularity of the service can really only stand at about one train per hour due to the constraints on the track.

Investing in passing loops through and around Tisbury, Whimple and Honiton west of Feniton, and investment in signalling that has not been updated for 40 years, will enable more journeys and better punctuality on a line that is vital for completing the Devon Metro project. That project aims to integrate and enhance rail services in the Exeter travel-to-work area, which will aid Exeter’s vital strategic position as the gateway to the south-west peninsula. It will bring communities across Devon together in one transport network that can deliver trains at least every half hour, and up to every 15 minutes. People in London may well raise their eyebrows at that.

Fourthly, I want to mention the North Devon Railway Development Alliance, members of which I met recently. They impressed on me the importance of their vision for a complete modernisation of the Exeter-Barnstaple line, allowing potential improvement outcomes.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing this debate on rail in Devon. Trains on the Tarka line from Barnstaple to Exeter are currently at overcapacity, partly because of one-way pressure of journeys. Large numbers of college students travel to Exeter in the morning and back in the evening. Those trains need an extra carriage, but platforms on the route are too short to accommodate it. Does the hon. Member agree that something as basic as lengthening a platform is likely to leave passengers in Devon feeling hard done by, given the significant rail investment elsewhere in the country?

[Steve Race]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The point about significant rail investment elsewhere in the country, which I will come on to, has an impact on how we see it and how we should be fighting for a better railway system in Devon.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am sure that we are all aware of and concerned about the recent report from Peninsula Transport that emphasises the problems we shall experience in Devon because of the impact of the HS2 development in Birmingham, which will close Paddington station for up to 10 years. Will the hon. Member reassure us that the Government might do one or both of the following: decrease rail fares to encourage people to come to Devon, even though it will take an extra 20 minutes, and give proper money to local government to invest in rail and road infrastructure, during that effective closure of the network from Paddington to Cornwall?

[Steve Race]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. Some hon. Members joined me and others at a recent meeting with the rail Minister Lord Hendy to discuss the impact of the works at Old Oak Common associated with HS2. I will not go into that too much in this speech, as it is a big topic. I am in favour of HS2 going ahead, and feel what has happened to that project over the years has been disgraceful. In the south-west we need to see effective management of that project to ensure that disruption is minimised. We also need to see investment in our local railway lines to ensure that we see the benefit of public transport, as well as the rest of the country.

Speaking of the Exeter-Barnstaple line, potential improvement outcomes of the project include significantly improved punctuality and reliability for both Barnstaple and Okehampton train services, with reduced knock-on delays to other parts of the national network. It would deliver materially faster typical journey times, with a fastest journey between Barnstaple and Exeter St Davids of no more than 55 minutes, with potential further material time journey savings. It would also double train service frequency from hourly to two per hour—[Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I will suspend the sitting for Divisions in the House. We expect three votes; 15 minutes are allowed for the first one and 10 minutes for subsequent votes. There may be two or three. If Members get back as quickly as possible, and the mover of the motion and the Minister are in their place, we will commence the debate. That is an encouragement for others to make it back tout de suite from the second or third Division.

16:42

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

17:21

On resuming—

[Steve Race]

It is a pleasure to continue serving under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

The third reason why the Exeter-Barnstaple line would be of benefit to Exeter and Devon is that it would double the hourly service to two trains per hour between Barnstaple and Exeter, and would provide three trains per hour for Crediton. It would deliver huge economic and growth benefits for north Devon, connecting the towns to Exeter so that commuters, small businesses and tourists have better access to opportunities across the county.

Two of my stations, Exeter St Thomas and Polsloe Bridge, have no accessibility arrangements. People can use them only by lugging themselves up significant flights of steps, which is an impossible task for the elderly or infirm, the disabled, and mothers and fathers with young children and buggies. Another station in my constituency, St James Park, has accessibility at only one side, so wheelchair users can get off the train but they cannot get back on to it to go whence they came, because there are steps on one side. That is clearly unacceptable, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the outstanding Access for All fund.

I accept the rail infrastructure investment difficulties that the Government inherited at the general election; I know that a lot of the funds were mere public relations press releases and did not really have any funding attached to them.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him that, as he is my neighbour from Exeter—for securing this important debate. I want to take the politics out of all this. I know he is not raising this issue, but Old Oak Common will cause significant disruption to our county of Devon and the wider region. It is imperative that we work together to offset those issues as quickly as possible. He has spoken about the storms that we have every year. It is a cycle: we get cut off every year. I really fear, as I am sure that he does, that High Speed 2 and Old Oak Common will further compound those issues. Does he agree that we need to work together to get the best deal for Devon and the wider south-west?

[Steve Race]

I absolutely agree that we have a good working relationship across Devon on strategic issues, including dentistry, railways and pharmacies, and I hope that that continues, but we live in the world in which we live so we have to be pragmatic about what we can achieve. Acknowledging where we are starting from is important, but the Government are changing the way the railways operate. I welcome their focus not just on the bus system but on making our railways the pride of Britain again.

Devon and the wider south-west have huge economic potential. We have the skills and institutions that can help the Government succeed across all their missions, and yet the south-west received the second lowest spending on transport per capita of any region or nation, at £429 per head. Only the east midlands is lower, at £368 per head. London has £1,313 per head—more than three times as much as the south-west.

Ensuring that we have a resilient and growing rail network is good for Exeter, good for Devon and good for the country. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister and alongside my colleagues from across Devon and the south-west to identify funding to progress some, if not all, of these projects, so that we can also play our part in the economic growth and success of this country.

17:24

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing the debate. This is an extremely important issue for the people of Devon and the south-west of England.

Although issues with our rail services have been ongoing for many years across the south-west—mostly because of a lack of investment in public services from the previous Conservative Government—we have a new threat and challenge from the works that are being undertaken, as hon. Members have extremely ably pointed out so far, at Old Oak Common and the delays that we have seen there. In my many years of service to the people of Torbay as a local authority member, I have been somewhat sceptical of HS2 and the estimated £65 billion that it will cost, when we in the south-west have real challenges with the resilience of our network, particularly at the pinch point of Dawlish and when trains get to Cornwall, over the Tamar, and can go only at 65 mph. Our network is really challenged.

To go back to the issue of Old Oak Common, the fact that the section of HS2 between Old Oak Common and Euston will cost £6.5 billion is astounding. The mitigation of £30 million that I understand may well be on the table for the impact of Old Oak Common on the south-west is a drop in the ocean compared with the overall costs of the whole HS2 project.

I reflect on this as well: the south-west resilience project has cost the national taxpayer in the region of £150 million. The final part of the scheme is the Dawlish rail resilience programme, which will probably cost the same again, but that is small change compared to the cost of the big project that is HS2, and it calls into question the levels of mitigation. I am keen for my constituents in Torbay, and people in the greater part of Devon and Cornwall, to see us sorting out Dawlish and investing to save in the longer term.

I would highlight that one essential of travelling by train is the provision of a toilet. Now, our modern equivalent is probably having good access to the internet. We would not get on a train without a toilet, yet we have poor internet connection across Devon and the Great Western Railway network. I am well aware that there is an oven-ready scheme, good to go, that was raised with and acknowledged by the Minister a few weeks ago. That could be a really helpful way of mitigating the challenges that we face with the delays in relation to Old Oak Common, and making sure that people can be productive; my understanding, from research that I have done, is that we are looking at people in the UK having half the levels of internet access that our continental cousins have.

As the Member for Torbay, I want to be a bit parochial at this point and highlight the final piece of the Devon metro system, which is a very fine Devon county council plan. The final piece lies in my constituency, at Edginswell railway station. This is part of the town deal regeneration programme, which is extremely important for a couple of reasons: it supports a business park and regeneration in one of the most deprived parts of the south-west peninsula, which is sadly my constituency; and it helps our NHS.

We need to see investment in our health services, particularly Torbay hospital, including to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation for NHS employees. Part of that is about regenerating Paignton town centre so that those people can stay in Paignton, jump on a train and be dropped off at Edginswell, almost on the doorstep of a renewed Torbay hospital. That is joined-up government. I hope that the Minister will reflect on Edginswell, because I understand that the funding may have been withdrawn in the last few days—but, to me, the crucial part is supporting Dawlish and phase 5 of the rail resilience programme, because that will support the rest of the south-west peninsula.

17:30

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I am delighted to follow my colleagues from across Devon; I know that some others will be speaking shortly. Hon. Members who listened to my maiden speech will have noticed that I have committed to fighting for railway and transport in the south-west, so when I saw that there would be a debate today, I thought, “Well, I’ve got to come along and make sure I play my part.” Sadly, there will be no mentions of Kylie Minogue’s “The Loco-Motion” today, but if hon. Members want to read my maiden speech, they are welcome to.

What is clear in all things to do with the railway in the south-west, and particularly in Devon, is that we are looking for parity with the rest of the country. That has been alluded to particularly in the context of HS2. I know that HS2 has historically had cross-party support, but right from the beginning, I thought, “Hang on a minute, what about the south-west? Journey times that are a few minutes shorter on an already easy transport route from London to the midlands, versus what we get in the south-west?” I have never completely followed the argument, but we are where we are today.

It is important to acknowledge what the previous Government did in terms of taking responsibility for the south-west. We must not forget that £165 million was invested in the south-west rail resilience programme, and that got us almost to where we are today. We just need the final piece of the jigsaw to ensure that the line that takes us down into the south-west is secure. We must give credit where credit is due.

It is important to remember that, as I talked about in my maiden speech, the south-west is not just a tourist attraction. People live there and there is an enormous opportunity for even further growth. We are an incredibly vibrant economy: the blue and green economies are growing, and we are keen to grow, but without an adequate rail service into the south-west, that is massively hindered. Like Exeter, my constituency of South West Devon has a joint local plan that is already being delivered, but infrastructure is key, and I will touch briefly on that towards the end of my speech. My main question for the Minister is: what difference will public ownership of the railway make for the south-west? That is the big question overarching everything else.

I want to touch briefly on Old Oak Common, the Tavistock railway and Ivybridge, which is in my constituency. I want to touch on Old Oak Common because the recent helpful letter from the Rail Minister talks about a pot of £30 million for capital investments to mitigate the impact of disruption, which begs the question: what will it be spent on? It would be interesting to hear some detail. I think we can all make pitches for what that should cover: wi-fi has been touched on; and I will mention the Plymouth to Tavistock line—a nice project that would cost a fraction of the £30 million. We also have some challenges with platform lengths that prevent certain trains from stopping in my constituency.

At the moment, the benefits outlined in that letter, which says that we will be able to get connections to the north and the midlands, do not pass the “So what?” test, because we can already get to the midlands and the north from the south-west directly without having to go across to London in a triangle. Although it will help some connectivity, it does not stack up for constituents in Devon to know that they could go to London to get to Birmingham, when they could go straight to Birmingham from Plymouth or Exeter. I acknowledge that the easier access to Heathrow may be helpful, but again, it is of limited value.

That leads me to rebuilding Britain’s railway. The rail Minister provided a helpful answer that said that the Department is

“reviewing individual former RYR projects, including the Tavistock to Plymouth line.”

The ask has now been scaled back: they are asking for just 1% of the RYR budget, which is the seed money to finalise the business plan so that we can get to a point where we are shovel-ready for 2028. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) has already highlighted the appetite that we can see from the Okehampton line. It is also worth saying that it makes us more resilient, because we can ultimately create a circle that will go from Exeter all the way round to Plymouth and back, and that does not require Dawlish. In the next 10 or 15 years, that will be part of building rail resilience.

The project is just looking for 1%, which is less than £1.5 million and could be part of that £30 million capital—I do not know whether it counts as capital or revenue, but the question is when the decision can be expected and when the Department will feed back on whether that line is one of those that will be considered. That point links up, again, to the joint local plan. We have a metro rail plan for Plymouth that includes a station at Plympton in my constituency, which would be part of that circle that goes round to Ivybridge and up.

I wanted to mention Ivybridge, which is also in my constituency. At the moment, only 16 Great Western trains stop there a day. There are 29 CrossCountry services that go through the station but do not stop, and at the moment CrossCountry is refusing to do that. In light of the nationalisation plans, I would be interested to know what measures the Department might be able to take to put pressure on CrossCountry, so that 16 becomes 45 weekday services that my constituents could use to access the wider area.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

We come now to the Front-Bench speeches: five minutes for the Liberal Democrats, five minutes for the official Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister.

17:36

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing this debate.

I want to reflect on some of the things that hon. Members have said. It is plain that Exeter is a real hub for Devon and, as the hon. Member for Exeter pointed out, there are 500,000 residents in the travel-to-work area. That includes a large number of people who live in the Honiton and Sidmouth area that I represent, and I know they are eager to see the full development of this so-called metro rail project.

“Metro rail” makes it sound as though it is something like the Elizabeth line here in London, but we will not kid ourselves. It is about trying to ease the journeys into Exeter for those many people who are left waiting at cold stations on winter’s nights or early mornings like these in December, and trying to improve the reliability, punctuality and frequency of services. That is true for Axminster, Feniton and Honiton in the patch I represent on the south-west rail line, and it is also true for Cullompton, which desperately needs the restoration of a railway station that was closed under the Beeching cuts in the 1960s.

I want to go over those two points in more detail. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that we need the construction of a passing loop near Feniton, Honiton and Wimborne. That loop would make all the difference to the reliability of services on the Exeter-London Waterloo line. Often people find themselves stuck at stations along that route because of the single track, which does not allow trains to pass one another. Anecdotally, when I talked to the guy who runs the Railway Kitchen, a station café at Axminster, a few weeks ago, he told me that business is booming; hon. Members might think that that is a positive thing, and for his café it is, but it is not for the passengers who find their train delayed and hence use that hostelry.

I said that I would also talk about Cullompton station. Cullompton is part of a pair of stations that are very fit for development—Cullompton in Devon and Wellington in Somerset. The Wellington-Cullompton programme is very high on the list for Lord Hendy, the rail Minister, because of its brilliant benefit-cost ratio. That ratio of 3.67 is the highest in the country and it is reckoned that one reason for that is the economic activity that it will afford, specifically the proposed new town—Culm Garden Village, as it is called—at Cullompton. With so much new housing proposed, it is desperately important that there is a railway station to go with it and that we do not simply see housing without infrastructure.

Other hon. Members made some very good points. The hon. Members for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) talked about Old Oak Common. We will have a separate debate on that next week, so I will not expand on it now. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for talking up the importance of the final step—the fifth phase—of the south-west rail resilience programme in creating resilience on the Exeter to Newton Abbot line. We saw an eight-week closure of that line in 2014, which sent to Cornwall and a chunk of Devon the message “You don’t matter.” The region was completely isolated. We just would not allow that in other parts of the country, and we should not allow it in the south-west.

There was an appeal to put aside party politics, and on Old Oak Common I agree. I cannot help remembering, though, that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) came to my constituency and talked about funding for Cullompton station. We know that funding did not exist, but now we need to see it.

17:41

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in your position, Mr Pritchard. You remain an ornament of the Bench.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing the debate. I have learned a lot about the rail possibilities in Devon. A huge number of issues were raised, including both threats and opportunities for the area. I will read just a handful of those I have written down: the Dawlish sea wall works; the success story of the reopening of the redundant Exeter to Okehampton line; Old Oak Common, which I will talk a little about; accessibility challenges at stations; platform lengths, and the cancellation of the restoring your railway plan. However, that was all mentioned within the framework of the hon. Member’s initial assessment that rail is an enormous success in the area, and that is overwhelmingly due to the benefits of privatisation.

From the heyday of the railway, which is generally considered to be the early 1950s, participation trended inexorably downwards—people voted with their feet; the direction of travel was a straight line downwards—until privatisation, when it reversed. That is because of the enormous investment that privatisation allowed to be brought into the railway, and passenger numbers have doubled as a result. I therefore question what the Government’s position on renationalisation will do for passenger numbers and who will stand up for the passenger under the new system—but most of that is for another day.

I will touch on two of the issues that were raised, the first of which is Old Oak Common. There is deep concern in the region about the impact on GWR services, with diversion of services from the south-west, reduced track operations, closure of access to London Paddington, occasional redirection to London Euston—but when, and will it be predictable?—longer journeys and a reduced quality of service. I am sure the Minister recognises that, and the need for disruption is understood. My question is whether people will have to pay similar prices for a noticeably worse and disrupted service, and when they will have certainty about the timetable—not just a printed timetable, but one in which they can have confidence sufficient to book and rely on the service being delivered.

The other issue with GWR is Sunday performance, which is reliant on voluntary overtime from unionised drivers and other train operators. That is an extraordinary position to be in. I recognise that this is a long-standing issue, so I am not having a particular go, but how can we possibly have a mandated schedule that is reliant on people volunteering to staff it? I look for a Government response on that. Early signs are not particularly encouraging. The no strings attached £9,000 pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, with no Sunday working agreements or any productivity enhancing characteristics, is not a good start. I fear that nationalisation of the service as a whole will only make it worse. My question to Minister is: when the system is nationalised, and there is no incentive to go after extra customers, who will stand up for the customer experience? When the Minister for Rail—the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—says that he continues to press for resolution of the Sunday working issue, I ask the Minister how. We all wish it, but what active steps will the Government take?

Secondly, in my last 30 seconds, I want to talk about restoring your railway. The first thing the Government did in July was cancel it. It was an enormously popular project and we have seen how effective it was from Exeter to Okehampton. The Tavistock to Plymouth service is just as important. However, in his letter yesterday, Lord Hendy is now saying that the Department is looking at it again. Is that a U-turn? If they needed time to stop and think, why did the Government not do that, rather than take the precipitate decision to cancel the entire project back in July? If their answer is “Well, there was no money”, that is not correct. There was the entire £150 million of funding for that project, which was coming from the cancellation of the second leg of HS2—[Interruption.] If that has been gobbled up by something else, perhaps the Minister can tell us what has happened to the money.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I just remind Parliamentary Private Secretaries that they do not usually intervene, either officially or unofficially, if they do not mind my saying so.

17:46

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing this debate on the future of rail services in Devon, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, for his intervention.

I also thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who mentioned the issue of internet, and I just want to say that free wifi is available on GWR services. However, I am aware that there are certainly connectivity issues on parts of the network, and I have asked my officials to explore the feasibility of a range of technology options to improve passenger connectivity on the rail network. The Department is also conducting research to measure the strength of mobile signals along the rail network to understand fully where interventions are needed and the potential impacts. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith)—I was devastated by the lack of Kylie Minogue references in her speech, but I will come on to some of the issues that she raised. Her fantastic maiden speech had many a reference to Kylie Minogue tunes, including “The Loco-Motion”. I also thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).

This Government recognise the importance of rail services in Devon. As we have heard today, the transport network is key for providing the connectivity to support economic development, including housing and employment growth, as well as tourism. Since the pandemic, the south-west has seen a strong recovery in rail passenger numbers, especially in the leisure market. Passenger journeys in Devon are up by 9% compared with 2019, while nationally they remain about 6% lower. We know that many services in Devon are often very busy, particularly on Fridays and weekends. We have now authorised and funded additional trains that are due to enter service on CrossCountry routes from May 2025, providing improved connectivity across Britain.

[Rebecca Smith]

I welcome what the Minister is saying. On a point of interest, it would perhaps be worth looking at the numbers on a Thursday. In line with most of the country, Thursday is the new Friday, and I am sure that most of my colleagues in the room will testify to the challenge of getting a train out of London on a Thursday, because everybody wants to go back to Reading. With all due respect, it might be worth looking at the numbers on a Thursday, to help us with our case for more capacity in the south-west.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I am convinced that the civil servants in the Department for Transport will be looking at numbers across the week, just to reassure her. The reintroduction of daily passenger services on the Okehampton line has seen strong passenger demand since regular services were launched in 2021; these were enhanced to hourly services in 2022. This Government are committed to building on that success, with work progressing on Okehampton Interchange, a new station to the east of Okehampton that is due to open in 2026. The station will become a hub for trains and buses, with improved walking and cycling links. Another new station, Marsh Barton in Exeter, opened in July 2023 and has already seen nearly 130,000 journeys.

Although it is great to see more people in Devon using the rail network, the Government want to see further improvements. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers. Cancellations are at a 10-year high and punctuality is inconsistent across the network. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.

We have taken immediate action. Ministers continue to meet the managing directors of train companies and their Network Rail counterparts to address poor performance and demand action to raise standards. A resilient railway is crucial to the economy, not just in Devon and the south-west, but right across the country. That is why £165 million has been invested to date in the south-west rail resilience programme at Dawlish, providing better journey reliability for rail travellers in the south-west.

Industry studies are also under way to build the case for additional passing loops between Exeter and Salisbury at known locations where trains are delayed as they wait for other trains passing in the opposite direction. I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter to work with the industry, funding providers and other route MPs in supporting the work on these passing loops.

I am aware that several hon. Members have shown strong support for a number of the potential rail projects that have been referred to today. Ministers have been clear, however, that in the context of the financial situation that the Government inherited, it will not be possible to afford the delivery of all proposed projects. The Secretary of State is conducting a thorough review of the previous Government’s transport plans to ensure that our transport infrastructure portfolio drives economic growth and delivers value for money for taxpayers.

I am also aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has been campaigning for lifts at Exeter St Thomas and Polsloe Bridge stations in his constituency. The Government are carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme. I am unable to comment on specific stations at this point, but we remain committed to improving the accessibility of the railway and recognise the social and economic benefits that improving accessibility brings to communities. In the meantime, if any passenger cannot use a particular station, the train operator is obliged to offer alternative transport at no additional cost.

Finally, I want to address the impact of Old Oak Common on services between Devon and London. This new station is a crucial enabler for the Government’s growth mission. However, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about the impact of the works there on rail services for his constituents, both during and post construction. The next phase of the work will take place this Christmas and will see changes to the GWR services from 27 to 29 December. Some inter-city services will divert to London Euston; some will terminate at Reading or Ealing Broadway.

Passenger communications are happening now to enable passengers to make choices about how and when they travel. I am aware that the rail Minister has met many south-west MPs, including my hon. Friend, to discuss the matter. I confirm that the Government will continue working with industry partners to ensure that disruption for passengers using the Great Western main line is kept to a minimum, both during construction and once services are in operation.

I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate on the future of rail services in Devon. I fully acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the issue to him and his constituents.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), raised the issue of GWR’s performance, including on Sundays specifically. The Government recognise that performance on Great Western Railway services is not where it needs to be. This is due to a range of issues, including infrastructure and fleet reliability, as well as the availability of train crew, which has resulted in higher levels of Sunday cancellations in recent months. Officials and GWR are actively working to address the issue.

CrossCountry has also been mentioned. CrossCountry provides vital inter-city rail services linking Plymouth and Exeter with Birmingham, Yorkshire, north-east England and Edinburgh, as well as offering popular “through services” between Torbay and Manchester. Since September, it has seen its passenger numbers return to pre-covid levels. I acknowledge that CrossCountry services are often very busy, particularly on Fridays and weekends—and perhaps also on Thursdays. The size of the CrossCountry inter-city fleet has been an issue for some time; this has been exacerbated by the retirement of CrossCountry’s fleet of five high-speed trains in September 2023, which operated on the Edinburgh-Plymouth route.

The Government are determined to deliver improved train services for passengers. To reduce crowding, the Department has authorised and funded 12 additional Voyager trains, which are due to enter passenger service on CrossCountry routes in May 2025. This will increase the Voyager fleet by over 20% and will enable CrossCountry to provide thousands more seats per week across its network. The first three of these cascaded trains are already in service. The entire CrossCountry train fleet is also due to be refurbished over the next few years, offering new seats, additional luggage space and other improvements that will benefit passengers.

As the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) noted, there will be a separate Westminster Hall debate on Old Oak Common, so I will say no more about it at this time.

Hon. Members raised points about accessibility. Since the election, we have been carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme. Department for Transport Ministers are not able to comment on the next steps for Access for All’s projects at specific stations, including Exeter St Thomas station, but Members can be assured that we are committed to improving accessibility of the railway and we recognise the social and economic benefits that it brings.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter once more on securing the debate. I look forward to working with everybody to improve rail connections across the country.

17:56

[Steve Race]

Thank you very much for your chairmanship of the debate, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Minister for his responses. I restate my thanks to Lord Hendy for the engagement we have had from him so far and for the improvements that he appears to have delivered in the medium term, which have been communicated to us. I am grateful for the continued engagement from the entire Department for Transport.

The key message for the Department to take away is that there is a huge economic growth opportunity in Devon and across the wider south-west, and the railways can play a significant role in helping us to unleash that potential. I ask the Department to continue to think about Devon as it makes decisions on rail funding throughout this Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of rail services in Devon.

17:57

Sitting adjourned.