Westminster Hall

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 17 December 2024

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Old Oak Common Station

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of Old Oak Common station on rail services to the West and Wales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. We all know that opinions on High Speed 2 are many and varied—whether or not that line is a good thing is not up for debate today—but nobody would have expected that the development of a high-speed rail line heading from the north to London and back again would have a negative impact on trains heading west. Something about that statement seems entirely illogical. Unfortunately for people in the west and Wales, it is indeed the case that there will be widespread disruption to trains between London Paddington and the west and south Wales for the next six years, and after that six-year period is over, every train between the west and south Wales and London will be slower.

The reason for the delays and slower services is the new Old Oak Common station, which is being built to serve HS2. At this point, it is important to state that today’s debate, and indeed the wider public discussion, cannot be about whether HS2 happens at all or whether Old Oak Common station is built. HS2 is happening, and anyone who has travelled on the Great Western line recently will know that Old Oak Common is being built. But there are three points that we must all take up on behalf of our constituents. The first is how the impact of construction work at Old Oak Common can be mitigated. The second is how Old Oak Common can become a useful station for our regions. The third is how the Government can use their power to mitigate the long-term impact of slower trains heading to and from the west and south Wales, by improving services in other ways. I will ask a number of questions, and although I am sure that some of them do not yet have answers, I hope the Minister will at least be able to address each one to confirm the Government’s position and their intentions.

First, I will deal with the construction phase. Most people who are aware of the new station will know it as the place where the previous Government had intended to terminate HS2. That was before the new Government decided to bring back the suggestion that HS2 will end at Euston. But it is much more complicated than that. Old Oak Common is being built on the Great Western line, as I mentioned, and consequently a decision has been taken that all trains using the line will eventually stop at Old Oak Common.

That decision makes sense to those in charge of big transport infrastructure, but it will not necessarily make sense to the people we serve in the west and south Wales. Rail industry experts tell us that it will add between four and seven minutes to each journey in the long run. During the period of disruption while construction takes place, we will endure 29 days of disruption in this current operational year—that disruption has already begun—30 days of disruption in 2025-26, 41 days of disruption in 2026-27, including 14 days when no trains run at all, 34 days of disruption in 2027-28, including 11 days when no trains run at all, and 47 days of disruption in 2028-29, including 18 days when no trains run at all. The disruption for the following year is not yet known.

The majority of the impact will fall on Sundays and at Christmas. We might assume that Sunday is a quiet day on the railways, but since my election and my need to travel to London, sometimes on a Sunday evening, I can tell Members that that is not the case, particularly when Great Western Railway is unable to run most of its timetable. The number of constituencies that will be impacted by the work is absolutely huge. Starting from furthest away, it will be every constituency in Cornwall and Devon, most of Somerset, Bristol, parts of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, south Wales, Gloucestershire—my own area of the country—Wiltshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire. That is a lot of people whose journeys will be slower for a long time, and a lot of people who will have to make alternative arrangements when trains are cancelled.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My constituency, which includes Penzance station, will be deeply affected. We are five hours away from Old Oak Common and will experience much of the pain with no gain. Just a fraction of the £67 billion being spent on HS2—for example, just one two-hundredth of that budget—could address the issue in Dawlish, which is three hours away from Penzance. Those kinds of things need to be addressed if we are to see some kind of compensation.

[Max Wilkinson]

I absolutely agree. Although joining up London with the north and the midlands is a laudable aim, there is a real risk that the west and south Wales could be left out. The amount of money being spent on HS2 is not matched by rail investment towards the west, as those of us who represent constituencies there are well aware.

My first question to the Minister is: what assessment has been made of the fixed-term construction disruption to the economies of the constituencies affected, including my own in Cheltenham? What assessment has been made of the clear risk that the disruption caused by construction is wider than that which is currently being reported, with perhaps extra days of construction work leading to more cancellations? What discussions have Ministers had with Network Rail about whether the speed limit associated with the construction work could be 80 mph rather than 60 mph?

The second area to explore is how Old Oak Common might become a station that serves our constituencies, rather than simply making things less convenient. That is a much more complex discussion, and those of us who have seen the maps will know that that is still up for debate. Rail industry professionals suggest that there is an opportunity to either improve services or significantly mitigate the impact of the potential disruption, but the core problem is clear. At a time when the national rail network is struggling so badly and the Government are promising a brighter future under Great British Railways, our constituents must be able to see benefits.

I am certain that most Members present will agree that those additional four to seven minutes must be offset, and Old Oak Common has the potential to become a significant interchange, enabling travellers from the west and south Wales to switch to the London transport network earlier, perhaps via the Elizabeth line or London Overground services. Achieving that aim would ensure smooth onward journeys, not just into central London but, if it is done right, elsewhere. What assurances can the Minister give us that the station interchange will be just as convenient as Paddington, if not more so? Is the convenience of the interchange with the Elizabeth line as secure as Members have been led to believe in some of the briefings, or is that not yet guaranteed?

If an interchange to the Elizabeth line is secured, can the Minister tell me the anticipated journey time to central London to and from my Cheltenham constituency after those works are complete? Can the Minister also confirm whether technical studies on interchanging with overground services have begun, so that we can work out what is possible? Nothing that Members are hearing so far suggests that the technical work has been properly considered, or even whether it has been started at any level. If studies have begun, what work has been done to cost future works? If they have not, when will those studies take place?

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

The rail Minister has expressed the view that enabling those of us from the south-west to connect to the midlands and Birmingham would be one mitigation, but does the hon. Member agree that that is not a good enough result for the overground services? Frankly, we need connections into London, because we can already get to the midlands and the services that HS2 would be offering.

[Max Wilkinson]

I can see why the hon. Member’s constituents in Devon would not be interested in going to London before going to the midlands. She makes a very good point.

If those studies have not begun, what work has been done to cost the future works? If not, when will those studies take place? For those whose journeys are inevitably taking them to the area around Paddington, what reassurances are there that congestion west of Paddington can be dealt with in order to maintain capacity?

My third point is about restoring trust in our railways by making more general improvements to passenger experience—I want to mention some hyper-local issues, which I hope the Minister will listen to. Although there will undoubtedly be a period of disruption and uncertainty, there are also some clear opportunities to improve rail services. Five-carriage inter-city trains routinely run in excess of passenger capacity for large parts of journeys to the west. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the mitigation of the Old Oak Common disruption, more rolling stock will be found to ensure that passengers do not routinely have to endure journeys in which they are forced to stand for unacceptably long periods of time? I have stood with pensioners and vulnerable people next to the loo for longer than an hour on journeys west from Paddington.

Will the Minister confirm that those of us who use trains for business can expect wi-fi improvements? Although the current GWR service offers wi-fi on board, it routinely proves useless for large parts of the journey, which is definitely a drag on the economy.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I want to mention the shocking damage to tourism, given the number of people who leave Paddington and try to go west. My constituents are stunned to find that all this has only just come to light—my hon. Friend referred to six years of closure; I have heard seven, and we all know that projects overrun. I also want to reiterate his point that first-class travel is meaningless on GWR, because those trains are almost always overcrowded—people going west in first class have to stand in the corridor, sit on their suitcases or find somewhere else. Also, the Glastonbury festival finishes on a Sunday, and many people travel in and out of Glastonbury on a Sunday, so this will be incredibly damaging to that event.

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on tourism is felt by all our constituencies in the west, many of which are tourism hotspots. The point about connectivity is important. If we can have 5G on the Elizabeth line in London, which is already well served by public transport, why can I not have 5G in the countryside between Swindon and Stroud when I travel back to my constituency? It makes no sense. The benefits to business users would surely justify the investment.

I have already asked the rail industry whether progress might be made on the frustrating turnaround times at Gloucester, which delay Cheltenham passengers every day. I accept that it is unlikely that any progress will made soon, but what chance is there of improving rail infrastructure around Gloucester, to remove the need for the driver to switch from one end of the train to the other—a very 20th-century solution?

Finally, I come to the trains themselves. The current rolling stock is functional, but what plans do Ministers have to make the carriages more pleasant? Older constituents recall the days of comfortable seats and a buffet carriage with snacks. In other European nations, inter-city trains even have carriages with special family-friendly areas where children can play. A civilised and family-friendly nation should surely consider that.

It is no exaggeration to say that weekends are a nightmare. What are Ministers doing in the short term and during the period of disruption to ensure that a Sunday timetable actually runs between London and the west country?

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

My hon. Friend raises the need for improvements. The key issue for commuters in my constituency is that the existing GWR mainline is not fit for purpose. In recent weeks, we have seen significant delays and diversions caused by flooding and signalling failures, which has created even more pressure on other parts of the already overstretched network. Does he agree that work at Old Oak Common needs to be accompanied by immediate investment in existing infrastructure to improve the reliability of services for people from the west?

[Max Wilkinson]

I absolutely do. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made the point that, compared with HS2, the amount of money that needs to be invested for improvement in the west country is relatively small.

By way of compensation to Cheltenham for the disruption, can the Minister please ask Network Rail to stop blocking the long-awaited extension to the cycle path that links Cheltenham town centre to the station? Network Rail has been getting in the way of that development for years. It just needs to get out of the way to improve connectivity in my constituency.

I have asked a number of questions, which are intended as helpful contributions. I am sure that other hon. Members will have pertinent points about the impact on their constituencies. Before I finish, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the new Minister for the Armed Forces. Having researched this issue in the previous Parliament, he played a leadership role by passing on information to new hon. Members, helping to bring about today’s debate, for which we thank him.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members who wish to speak to stand, so that I know you wish to speak. When a speech ends, you must stand. I note that there are a number of people who want to intervene. I am happy for that to take place, but interventions must be brief. I will not put a hard time limit on speeches, but five minutes is about the right length of time to get everybody in. If you could stick to that timescale, it would be very helpful.

09:45

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The south-west is a region with enormous untapped economic potential. We already have a brilliant clean energy industry, which is growing. We have a fantastic defence industry, with lots of small and medium-sized enterprises. We have a thriving agricultural sector and a flourishing food sector. We have a tourism industry that welcomes more than 20 million visitors per year. Our economy depends very heavily, with all these things, on reliable transport links.

We in Devon are bucking the trend nationally. Since 2019, the proportion of rail journeys taken across the country has fallen by 6%, but in Devon, it has increased by 9%. Time and again, however, we have seen the west country miss out on rail investment, which has been concentrated in other parts of the country—in the midlands, the north of England and, of course, London. The south-west is left grappling with an underfunded and unreliable rail network.

The construction of Old Oak Common will exacerbate some of those challenges. Over the next decade, passengers travelling on mainline inter-city services serving the south-west will face severe disruption. Planned works will reduce the number of available seats on trains that are already crowded and have slow journey times. We will see a fall in the number of direct services to London Paddington. Last month, the Government pointed to a £30-million mitigation package. That is woefully inadequate. Compare it with the £6.5-billion cost of Old Oak Common —by contrast, £30 million is a pittance. Worryingly, that £30 million has already been committed to operational adjustments such as depot changes and electrification in London, with little or no regard for the south-west.

The Tories’ catastrophic management—or rather, mismanagement—of the rail system was exemplified by the two-year industrial dispute that cost taxpayers an eye-watering £25 million per strike day, and led to reforms that have saddled the public with hundreds of millions of pounds in additional cost. Nowhere is the previous Government’s legacy of transport failure more apparent than in relation to High Speed 2, where flip-flopping over the last 15 or 20 years has led to ballooning costs, neglected communities and misery for passengers.

I want to point out how that has affected people in some west-country communities. It might be supposed that it is only HS2 communities—people in the midlands and the north—who have been affected by some of the cost overruns and the indecision, but that is not so. When we saw the cancellation of HS2 by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), there was then some big announcement about Network North, and we were promised that HS2 money was therefore going to be ploughed into stations and the redevelopment of stations across the country.

In the constituency I represent, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton came to visit. He hired a community room in a farm shop—a sort of farm shop conference centre. He and other Conservative activists held up British Rail placards with the word “Cullompton” underneath, as if to encourage people that somehow there was money from HS2 that could be invested in our local rail transport. That was absolutely not the case, as has since been revealed. Now we can see that those were all empty promises.

Old Oak Common is one more step in this misadventure, with an additional 20 minutes that it adds to a journey from Paddington to the south-west. That could be enough to influence holidaymakers to choose other destinations overseas, which would be a tragedy for the south-west economy. I really hope that the Government look kindly on proper mitigation.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case, as did our hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). Of course, his constituency of Honiton and Sidmouth is three and a half hours away from Penzance, so a 20-minute delay for people at Penzance is not necessarily the issue. It is the disruption, the uncertainty and all the other factors on the route that make the current service completely inadequate. That is really why we want to see investment in improvement, to bring the service up.

[Richard Foord]

I recognise the particular plight of my hon. Friend’s constituents, who are as far south-west as one can go in England. My time is up, but I plead with the Minister to think again about the £30-million mitigation fund and whether it really offsets the costs that south-west residents will bear.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I call Ann Davies.

09:51

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

It is well documented that Wales is being robbed of £4 billion in consequential funding from HS2. Now we learn that Welsh passengers will be robbed of their time, as trains travelling along the Carmarthen—Caerfyrddin—to London line could be cut off from Paddington and diverted to Euston for at least seven years because of the construction of Old Oak Common. It is no wonder that HS2 is referred to as the Great Welsh Train Robbery.

However, it may not be only the passengers in south Wales who will be affected. It is likely that those travelling from north Wales to Euston will have to deal with even more crowded trains and disrupted journey times. Can the Minister tell us what meetings she has had with the Welsh First Minister to set out the near decade of disruption facing Welsh passengers, or have the Welsh Government made any representation to the UK Government on this issue? I find it unlikely that the Welsh Government have been standing up firmly for Wales regarding fairness for our passengers and railways. Only recently the First Minister of Wales said that she felt sorry for the Prime Minister after asking him for money from HS2. It is not the Prime Minister but Welsh passengers I feel sorry for, given that we are the ones being denied the investment needed in our railways.

Historically, Wales has had very low investment in our railways. Despite having 5% of the UK population and 11% of track miles, Wales has received only 1% to 2% of rail enhancement funding in recent years. The proportion of electrified route is 44% in England, 33% in Scotland and—wait for it—7% in Wales. That is shocking. Westminster Governments have broken promises for the electrification of the north Wales main line and for full electrification of the south Wales line up to Swansea. Can the Minister explain why the people of Wales should be denied a modern, fast and reliable railway like those of other European countries?

Old Oak Common is yet another example of how unjust the current arrangements are for Wales. The Government must change course, deliver the billions of pounds that Wales is owed from HS2 and ensure that there is proper mitigation for Welsh passengers because of the disruption at Old Oak Common. Diolch, Mr Efford.

09:54

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Following the failures of the last Government on HS2, Old Oak Common might have made sense as a terminus to HS2 from the north. It is no longer that and now does not make any sense at all. A 14-platform station that duplicates connections from Paddington and Euston is neither wanted nor needed. We know that the trains can go to Euston; we have already seen that at weekends. The new tunnel will make that faster, no doubt.

I do understand that the station is being built—it is likely too late to redesign it—but after a period of six years of construction delay, it is adding insult to injury to then have a delay of between five to 15 minutes on every train on the GWR network going into and out of London. Yes, there is a choke part of the lines going into Paddington, but HS2 will be going to Euston, via tunnel, and the Elizabeth line is already going to Paddington, so we gain no benefit. I understand that the ongoing plan for all trains to stop at Old Oak Common has been under discussion, so surely it is now time to revise that decision and stop this bizarre plan in its tracks.

There is an alternative. Fast trains should not stop at Old Oak Common. In addition, the south-west must see benefits, and not just be second class to midlands traffic. At the very least, we need a commitment to complete the Dawlish resilience works, and to have other schemes, including partial electrification on the route to Cornwall, to speed up the line to Penzance.

09:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate.

Wales is a proud industrial nation, which was built on the back of the railways, with the world’s first train operating at Penydarren ironworks in Merthyr Tydfil. It did not carry passengers—it carried coal—but it was a train none the less. However, Wales’s proud contribution to rail in this country has been diminished in recent years by both Government neglect and diminished services from rail providers.

As the development of HS2 continues, the work at Old Oak Common station in London may seem like an isolated project in the heart of England, with little consequence elsewhere. However, the implications for Wales are substantial and far-reaching. Construction work at Old Oak Common is set to impact services along the south Wales main line until 2030—five whole years during which Welsh travellers will face slower and more disruptive journeys into London. In addition to longer journey times, the disruption is expected to reduce the number of available seats, diminishing the already poor capacity and connectivity, with fewer direct trains to London reducing resilience to recover from any delays.

The disruption in services for residents across south Wales, including those in my constituency who use Great Western Railway services at Neath and Newport, comes without any significant long-term benefit to them. HS2 does not involve a single mile of track in Wales, yet the previous Conservative Government decided to class the project as an “England and Wales” project, a designation that Labour has taken an active political choice to keep, despite their own Ministers in Wales admitting it is deeply unjust. This means that Northern Ireland and Scotland both received consequential funding to spend on transport, while Wales received not a penny more—particularly none of the estimated £4 billion that it should have received as a result of the project.

Even ignoring HS2, Wales is already underfunded, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) has mentioned, when it comes to investment in rail, receiving just 1% of rail investment in the UK despite having 11% of the country’s rail network. That is having tangible real-life impacts. In my own constituency, the already limited service along the Heart of Wales line is being cut further.

Altogether, it seems that, despite Labour promising a change in how Wales is treated from when the Conservatives were in power, they have continued with a business-as-normal approach. It is completely inappropriate that my constituents, and people across Wales, are now expected to deal with a further reduction in services for several years, for a project in London that will provide no benefit to them, while they continue to be robbed of investment in their own local services. This Labour Government must listen to the Welsh people and ensure that this disruption is minimised and that Wales receives its fair share when it comes to rail funding.

09:59

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. This is the second debate in a week that we have had on railway lines. I will not repeat everything that I said in last week’s debate, which was just about Devon, but we touched on Old Oak Common last week and I am keen to do so again today.

It is worth reminding anybody who is listening or reading the Hansard report that it was the coalition Government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives who first published the White Paper for HS2 in 2010. There has been quite a lot of Conservative Government-bashing in this debate so far, but let us be realistic that it was a coalition decision. However, I will remain friends with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, with whom I work across Devon, and speak about the topic before us.

I will repeat one thing I said last week, because it is important: Devon and the wider south-west are not just holiday destinations. As the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) says, we have a thriving local economy. We are keen to make sure that it grows. Anything that hinders rail travel in and out of the south-west will have a problematic impact.

It is also worth noting that in the past few years we have celebrated achieving a three-hour train trip between Plymouth and London. I benefit from that when I get the 6.55 am train on a Monday, and no doubt many businesspeople and others travelling to London benefit in the same way. It is incredibly disappointing that that much sought-after shorter journey time will be put to one side over the next few years. My constituency of South West Devon is in exactly the same position as the constituencies of other hon. Members who have spoken. I can see no material benefits at the moment, except perhaps easier access to the Elizabeth line and, I suppose, Heathrow airport, for those of us fortunate enough to go on holiday from time to time.

The point to which I want to draw the most attention has already been covered, but is worth mentioning again: the £30 million mitigation, which the Government seem so proud of, to reassure people and compensate those who will be disrupted by the works at Old Oak Common. As has already been made clear, that will essentially pay for depot changes and electrification closer to London, so I struggle to see how it will compensate my constituents and others who live in the south-west.

Last week, not knowing the breakdown, I gave the Minister some suggestions for what that money could be spent on to make a material impact, including wi-fi. Finalising the business case for the Tavistock-Plymouth line, which would create a great horseshoe around the far reach of Devon, would need £1.5 million, which is not that much out of £30 million. Perhaps some of those things would be adequate compensation. CrossCountry currently refuses to stop at Ivybridge in my constituency, because it claims that the platforms are not long enough. I am not convinced that that is actually the problem, but would it not be great to use the money to extend the platforms at Ivybridge? Can the Minister commit this morning to reassessing the £30 million mitigation pot so that the south-west—and Wales, which other hon. Members have mentioned—see some benefits?

I am also very concerned about the communications. The rail Minister in the other place came back to us very quickly after a meeting about communications, but the works will have an impact on a variety of weekends and days. I am struggling to get my head around that; no doubt other Members are, too. We need a commitment to making sure that the changes are explicitly communicated to residents and tourists alike.

My final thought is about a subject that has come up in the Transport Committee, of which I am a member. Great Western Railway is a big user of delay repay. Ultimately, delay repay is at the cost of the taxpayer. I do not want to be completely negative, but there will be inevitable delays on top of the lengthened train trips as a result of construction work. Who will pay for the inevitable increased delay repay claims? I assume it will be the good people of the south-west and the rest of the country. It is worth looking at the issue in the round and acknowledging that there is not just inconvenience, but huge cost.

10:04

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

I am pleased to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate.

As we have heard, the work at Old Oak Common will be hugely impactful on the south-west for at least the next seven years. A month from work starting, however, councils, MPs, businesses and interest groups are only just being notified of the impact on services. That is a totally unacceptable approach to public consultation. This work is meant to last for seven years or more. For us in Frome and East Somerset, it follows 10 years of disruption to our rail services from the electrification of the main line and the construction of the Elizabeth line. The new project will affect approximately 56 million passenger journeys a year through Paddington and will push people on to other lines, such as South Western Railway, which cannot handle the passengers it has at the moment, let alone the numbers it would need to handle to avoid disruption.

My constituents have been left in the dark about how the project will affect them. There has been little to no consultation with local businesses or groups about the disruption. That is unacceptable. This Christmas, our railways are already being delayed thanks to essential work happening in Westbury, leaving many struggling to get from Frome to London. Furthermore, many people and businesses relocated to places like Frome and East Somerset during covid, partly based on the time and regularity of services. They will not have been aware of the plans when they made that decision.

The Prime Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) at Prime Minister’s questions on 27 November was welcome, but his comments that services are unaffected between Exeter and London Euston show his lack of understanding of the situation. Many of my constituents use Bath Spa station. The train from Exeter does not run through it, and it travels through Frome a maximum of twice a day. We are lucky that we have a stop on a main line, but many people will not even have access to that.

The planned work will leave the south-west with some of the slowest inter-city services in the country. It will severely reduce the number of trains running and the number of seats available. It will be a direct hit on the economies of the south-west and Wales; it will affect people not only now, but far into the future, as they adapt their investment and business decisions accordingly. We already have unreliable services with frankly rubbish wi-fi and mobile signal, which hampers people’s ability to work on the train. Millions of passengers will be displaced as a result of the work, which will increase journeys on roads and push services to other stations. Regular users of the M4 and M5 will dread the prospect of more cars on those motorways, particularly at weekends.

No one is denying that the work needs to happen or is going to happen. However, it seems that there has been little to no consideration of the impact on the south-west. I urge the Government to look into a programme of measures, many of which were brilliantly set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, that would mitigate the impact of the disruption caused by Old Oak Common and ensure that the south-west is not being left behind.

10:06

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate. I agree with colleagues that it is important that we look predominantly to the future, but I want to reflect a little on how we have got here and on how Old Oak Common station even came to be.

As I understand it, Old Oak Common was intended as a substitute for a direct link from HS2 to Heathrow airport, which remains one of Europe’s busiest. What a bizarre solution, given that Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt, Copenhagen and Amsterdam Schiphol airports are all served by direct connections to their high-speed or inter-city network.

The decision to stop all trains at Old Oak Common is also bizarre, but it will be necessary if there are only to be two fast-line platforms with no relief line. I understand from a timetabling perspective why that is necessary, but we continue to lack a direct western link to Heathrow airport that enables inter-city trains from the south-west and the west to connect to Heathrow directly. That is a scheme that has been on and off more times than I can count.

Having said all that, as is so often the case with British infrastructure schemes, we are where we are. There is no point in crying over spilt milk, or in this case spilt concrete. What else can be done to ease the disruption impact? Colleagues have asked whether there may be an opportunity to improve the construction schedule to reduce the impact. I also call on the Minister to ensure that the train operators properly examine options for more or longer trains on alternative routes. For example, between Reading and London Waterloo four trains an hour could easily be accommodated in the timetable. There could also be longer and more frequent trains between Oxford and London Marylebone.

Given that we are going to have this station, how can we make the most of it? I would like to add to the wish list of my colleagues for compensatory improvements, which, it must be said, probably exceeds in length the Christmas lists of all of the offspring of Members of this House. I would like to see electrification completed to Bristol and between Didcot and Oxford. Bi-mode trains are not very reliable in comparison with all-electric trains. We are constantly afflicted by five-car trains—even on long-distance routes, for example between London and Swansea—stopping at Didcot Parkway in my Oxfordshire constituency. As colleagues have eloquently outlined, we need Sunday to be part of the working week. Sundays can no longer be treated as some sort of bizarre and exceptional time for people to travel.

My colleagues in the south-west have articulately made the case for investment in the resilience of the Dawlish sea wall to improve the reliability of the only rail connection south-west of Exeter. In my constituency, I am campaigning hard for a new railway station at Grove and Wantage, serving the growing population in that area.

My colleagues are quite right to say that we should make the most of Old Oak Common’s location to improve connectivity to north and south London on the west London and north London lines. We must also make the most of its potential to create a much easier connection between GWR trains and Elizabeth line trains, which would ease passenger congestion at London Paddington. On the face of it, the new station will provide limited benefit to users of GWR in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, but I hope that the Minister will use every opportunity to make the most of it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Amos, you were not here at the opening; I must remind you that you should be here for the opening speech. However, as we have made good time, I will allow you to speak, because I appreciate how important the issues are to our constituents.

10:11

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

My apologies for joining late, Mr Efford. I attempted to explain that to you through the Doorkeeper at the beginning of the meeting; I apologise if there was some mix-up. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this important debate. The wide range of constituencies represented in the debate and in other discussions on the subject shows just how many parts of the country are affected negatively by this proposal, and why it needs to be thought through again.

The proposals underlying the original HS2 Bill were very different from what we have ended up with. I think we can all understand why parties across the House supported the original HS2, but they did not expect it to mean that almost every journey to almost every station in the west of England would be delayed, with a long period of diversions as well.

Taunton and Wellington sits at a transport fulcrum, 99 minutes from Paddington and 33 minutes from Bristol Temple Meads. Although we are further from London than Bristol, we are actually closer in terms of journey time. Decisions taken by businesses and by people deciding where to live are changed by differences of a few minutes’ journey time and the distances that they need to travel, so the Old Oak Common project would have a major negative effect on our local economy in Taunton. One of the biggest factors in our local economy is the connections at the fantastic railway station, designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, in the heart of the town. As hon. Members across the west country have said, these decisions are important to all our local economies.

As well as the six-year diversion, which seems totally unnecessary, the key point that I hope the Minister will address is why it should be necessary for every single train to stop at Old Oak Common. I have been told in meetings that even if not every train stops, the journey time will be increased by trains having to slow down as they go through the station. I have stood on many station platforms, and I am absolutely certain that trains have not slowed down a jot as they have sped through, leaving the wind blowing across the platform. I do not understand why all trains need to be slowed down. We are undermining the strength of the Great Western line, and the speed to stations across the whole of the west of England. It seems totally unnecessary, and it is totally unacceptable to me and my constituents.

The history has been well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) as a misadventure in rail planning over recent years, and the inadequacy of current services exacerbates the problem. Sunday services are treated like a voluntary sector operation, in which passengers might get a driver if they are really lucky. A catalogue of cancelled trains on Sundays is a certainty. That has to change. It is totally unacceptable in the 21st century.

I also reiterate the comments of hon. Members about the lack of wi-fi, the shortage of carriages, the shortness of trains, and the fact that it is normal for passengers to sit on the floor outside the toilets when they may have paid more £200 for a ticket. How can that possibly be justified? I am grateful that the Minister for Rail in the other place has met with hon. Members. I know he is concerned, and I hope that the Government will continue to strive as hard as they can to mitigate some of those effects.

Somerset has not been blessed with enormous amounts of investment in transport in recent months. We have had the cancellation of the A303 and the A358, which has reduced investment in the area by £2 billion, so it really is time that we saw some transport investment coming into Somerset, not being taken out. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth wants to see the Cullompton and Wellington stations project go ahead, which is also my dream. With a benefit-cost ratio of 3.67, we believe that it is the most economically important station reopening project in the country. Let us see some compensation for that project, and let us ensure that not every single train to the entire west country has to be slowed down. I urge the Government to think very hard before disadvantaging such a huge region of England and Wales.

10:16

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this debate. As we have heard from cross-party colleagues, there is understandable worry and concern about current and upcoming work. This is an important issue; the disruption is impacting the lives of millions of people, and it is good that we can shine a spotlight on it today.

I start by outlining why, however, this is clearly a positive in many ways. After years of neglect by the Conservatives, it is clear that our public transport is not in a fit state, and nowhere is that more keenly felt than our railways. Therefore, notwithstanding what we have heard, and the overspending and mismanagement, HS2 and the associated work at Old Oak Common are an increasing but welcomed rarity. A new rail project of that size is needed and should be lauded for building the vital infrastructure that we need. The new station, when built, will provide a vital interchange that west London is currently lacking. Old Oak Common is vital for us to achieve the full range of economic benefits of HS2 and it will form a vital transport hub for millions of journeys, including those for future passengers from the west of Wales.

The impacts that the project will have on people’s lives and the economy in the meantime should not be overlooked, and we have heard the real concerns of hon. Friends, particularly those representing constituencies in the south-west and Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Cheltenham and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about the widespread disruption. That is a real issue and we need the Government to see what they can do to address it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) spoke about the effect on tourism in Glastonbury and on the economy. How are we going to mitigate those things? My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) spoke about the resentment out there at the failure to invest for many years in the south-west and in Wales. We must address the inadequate service and the failure to invest. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke about the inadequacy of the mitigation fund—£30 million is not enough. Can more be put there, and can more be done with it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) spoke about the failure to carry out electrification. We need to electrify more of those rail lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about the failure to invest in railways in Wales. That is a problem that has gone on for years and years—a constant failure to invest in Welsh railways. We need to do more.

The Department for Transport must keep a very close eye on this project, for all those reasons. With work taking place in such a vital part of the Great Western Railway mainline, we cannot afford greater disruption than is already planned. In fact, we need to minimise it. While we all accept that disruptions caused by the construction are inevitable, it is essential that the Government show us that they doing all they can to minimise them. To ease disruption, changes need to be clearly communicated with the full arsenal of resources, from noticeboards to social media. We as MPs, and other elected officials, have communication channels of our own. We should play our part in ensuring that constituents know when disruption will occur. That requires the Government and the Department for Transport to talk to us, and communicate in good time all the things that will happen and the delays that will occur.

As the hon. Member for South West Devon said, we must strengthen the delay repay scheme to compensate for disruptions, while also ensuring that ticket prices reflect the disruption to services. Customers should not have to pay the same price for a journey that has been impacted by these works. Given the disruption, it is important to maximise the utility of Old Oak Common station by ensuring that it connects to Chiltern main line services, and on to the newly named Mildmay line. As the hon. Member said, we must maximise the potential of Old Oak Common and ensure that it is fully exploited, particularly in connections with London.

There is a lot to be done and, to mix my metaphors horribly, it will not all be plain sailing. Public confidence in this project has been undermined by various management mishaps and overspends, and the planning mistakes that were so articulately mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). But as he said, we are where we are. The loss of confidence now extends well beyond HS2, with widespread public scepticism about the UK’s ability to manage any infrastructure projects. I feel that that will only get worse unless the industry uses this opportunity to prove itself.

Ensuring that this project is well managed, on time and clearly communicated is key not only to minimising disruption and reducing the economic impact, but to rebuilding public trust in large-scale infrastructure projects across the UK. We must begin tackling other failings in our transport network, including the unacceptably poor provision of transport in Wales and the west. That is why it is critical that the open access rights that FirstGroup recently purchased for Carmarthen to London Paddington services are protected under rail nationalisation, and why the Government must invest in other railway schemes in the south-west, the midlands railways hub, and the north Wales main line.

Let us be clear: the Liberal Democrats and I support building infrastructure, ensuring that our railways receive the vital investment they need. However, we must remember that these projects are ultimately for passengers, who should always be at the centre of the decision-making process. Disruption is inevitable, but passengers and politicians must be convinced that it is being kept to a minimum.

10:22

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford; thank you for chairing this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing the debate. We can see by the level of activity and the number of people who have wanted to speak and intervene how important this is for the region, and how enlightening the debate has been. There has been a huge amount of unanimity about the criticisms and suggested solutions for the upcoming interruptions to the service to the south-west and Wales.

The hon. Member identified three different areas: mitigation, improving services for the west in the long run, and how to make Old Oak Common useful for passengers travelling on GWR. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) also focused on the mitigation sum, and wondered whether the £30 million identified by the Government would be enough adequately to compensate and mitigate those users who will have their travel disrupted for the next five years as a minimum. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) noticed that the Welsh rail network has only 7% electrification, and she was essentially demanding Barnett consequentials for the HS2 project. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) was one of a number of Members who highlighted that all trains were due to stop at Old Oak Common, and that that would add between four and seven minutes, depending on the estimates, to everyone’s journey. He also highlighted the need to spend a portion of mitigation sums on the Dawlish works.

The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) highlighted what he described as under-investment in Welsh railways, largely because of the designation of HS2 as an England and Wales project, rather than just an English project, and the consequential lack of additional payments under the Barnett consequentials.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) focused on the need to reassess the use of the £30 million compensation payment scheme. Since the debate on this subject in this place last week that she and I participated in, the Government have provided further information on how they intend to use that £30 million. She believes that the money is being focused on the wrong areas. As if it made the point for her, she also highlighted the need for better communication of delays and other changes. She made a very interesting point when she put a question to the Minister, and I hope that the Minister will reply to it in her response to the debate. My hon. Friend also asked who will pay for the delay repay scheme—will it be the taxpayer, or is there another mechanism for funding those compensatory payments?

The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) again focused on better mitigation. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) did too, and he made an interesting point—that it is no longer correct to say that Sunday is an exceptional day of transport; it is actually part of the general use of the railways. Finally, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) questioned the need for every train to stop at Old Oak Common.

I will return to the issue of Sundays. The Christmas period is coming up and we know that there will be a very significant impact on GWR trains. They will terminate at Ealing Broadway and then the passengers are supposed to use the Central line or District line. There will be no Elizabeth line and there will be a reduced service between Ealing Broadway, Reading and Heathrow. All of that will happen only if everything goes according to plan, because the assumption is that GWR will be able to run a full service, as planned, during the Christmas period, but that relies on ASLEF train drivers volunteering to work overtime. I assume that the Government have plans to make sure that happens, because this is now a Government problem; it is not a GWR problem. It is a Government problem because it was the Government who intervened in the pay negotiations with ASLEF and awarded train drivers a pay increase of £9,000 with no conditions attached. In addition, because that pay award was backdated, I understand—from social media, at least—that train drivers have received a payment of £16,000.

One would have thought that when the Government awarded that very significant pay increase, they would have made sure that holiday services were secured in return, but that is not the case. Nothing was secured in return. In fact, the Government intervention has made the situation worse, because if media reports are to be believed, there has been a reduction in the number of train drivers agreeing to volunteer to man Christmas and overtime services. So, because this is a problem created by the Government, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what the Government’s solution to it is over Christmas, new year, and indeed every Sunday in future.

That is in the short term, but there is also a need for long-term mitigation. Speaker after speaker today has focused on the inadequacy of the £30 million that has been identified for mitigation payments and questioned how the Government intend to spend that money. Therefore, my message to the Minister is this: listen to local representatives. They know their area, they know what is important to their constituents and they know much better than departmental officials how mitigation funding can be spent. If anything is to be taken away from this debate, it is that the local representatives who have stood up for their constituents in this debate have repeatedly highlighted the areas that need to be focused on to mitigate some of the worst impacts on their constituents and the rest of the travelling public.

That brings me, finally, to communication. We know that delays are inevitable. This is a huge infrastructure project and everyone—at least everyone who has participated in this debate—recognises that some delay is inevitable. What is important is that changes to services are well communicated so that passengers are informed well in advance, alternative services are run effectively—they run on time and have sufficient capacity to take the number of passengers who will be using them—and the Government supply adequate compensation for poor and reduced services, not just for a day or two, but for years.

Compensation can come in a number of different ways. As some hon. Members have suggested, fares could be reduced over that period to take account of increased journey times and unpredictability. Alternatively, increase the mitigation payments significantly above the current £30 million that the Government have identified, not as an additional cost but as a recognition that the quality of service to the travelling public in the south-west and Wales will be adversely affected. We need to do as much as we can to prevent that, but what plans does the Minister have to reduce prices or to increase the bucket of compensation to reflect the reduced services?

The key takeaway for the Minister is to listen to local Members of Parliament, hear their concerns about the impact of the reduced service on their constituents, and take very seriously their recommendations for mitigation.

10:30

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services to Wales and the west of England. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

This Government understand the important role the rail network plays in providing connectivity to support economic development, housing and employment growth, as well as access to jobs, public services and leisure. That is why we have made fixing Britain's railways one of our top transport priorities. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers for too long. Cancellations are at a 10-year high and punctuality is inconsistent across the network, so I will take no lectures from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew).

We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. We have taken immediate action, such as bringing an end to the long-running pay dispute with train drivers, and Ministers continue to meet managing directors of train operators and their Network Rail counterparts to address poor performance and demand immediate action to raise standards. If the shadow Minister’s Government were in power, we would still see drivers out on strike. Just last week, the Minister for Rail met again with Great Western Railway and Network Rail to ensure that they are progressing their plans to restore reliability on the route.

I will respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Cheltenham in a little while. First, I will address the subject of the debate. Old Oak Common station is a crucial enabler for the Government's growth mission. It will be not just a connection to HS2 for Birmingham and the north, but a destination in its own right, providing access to work and housing development alongside better connections to other services, including the Elizabeth line through central London, and to Heathrow airport. However, I recognise hon. Members’ concerns about the impact of the station and the construction works on rail services from Wales and the west.

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

The key theme set out by hon. Members from across Wales and the south-west is that we are all being kept in the dark. What will the Minister do to engage with MPs from across the region and tell us what plans for mitigation are being put in place in our constituencies for the planned works at Old Oak Common?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I will use the rest of my speech to do just that. My colleague the Minister for Rail has already had a meeting with a large number of MPs to discuss these issues, and he will continue to engage on precisely those points.

As you will appreciate, Mr Efford, a project of the scale and significance of Old Oak Common cannot be delivered without some disruption to existing services. Our challenge to HS2 Ltd is to keep the disruption to a minimum and to support Network Rail and train operators to keep passengers moving. The next phase of work takes place this Christmas, with changes made to Great Western Railway services from 27 to 29 December. The rail industry has been working hard to prepare for the work and has invested £30 million to mitigate its impact and keep passengers moving.

I will set out some of the things that that money has paid for. While some of the interventions are close to London, they are designed specifically to allow Great Western Railway passenger services during Old Oak Common works, such as electrification of the Poplars railway, which connects the Great Western main line and the west London line. That allows services to access their maintenance depot and for more Great Western Railway trains to terminate at Ealing Broadway. Investment has been made in Ealing Broadway and Reading stations so that they can provide better information to connecting passengers; in facilities at Euston to allow for the terminating Great Western Railway long-distance services, including the Penzance sleeper services; in alternative stabling for the Hitachi trains that serve Great Western Railway; and in other, similar provisions that are designed to help Great Western Railway services to continue operating during the period of disruption.

During these days, some inter-city services will divert to London Euston and some will terminate at Reading or Ealing Broadway. Extensive mitigations have been progressed behind the scenes so that trains continue to be maintained and can provide services again after the works. Passenger communications are happening now to enable people to make choices about how and when they travel. I recognise the importance of providing timely passenger information to enable people to do that. The next significant blockade had been due to take place in December 2026, but this is now being re-planned to a later date by HS2 Ltd. Further detail on the future works plan will be shared as soon as it is available in the spring.

Old Oak Common station is being built to enable all Great Western main line and relief line services to call at the station. This is important for future-proofing, but while all trains will be able to call, the future timetable will be under development for many years, so it is still too early to say with any certainty which trains will call there or from when, but I will come back to that in a moment. We know that many passengers from Wales and the west of England value the faster journeys into London, and will have other options, not via HS2, to travel north. The Rail Minister and I have heard from many colleagues about the concerns of their constituents, and officials are working with the industry to assess the options for calling patterns at Old Oak Common.

[Martin Wrigley]

I was listening very carefully, and I think the Minister just said that not all trains will necessarily stop at Old Oak Common. Could she confirm that, please?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can confirm that the station is being constructed to allow all Great Western services to call, but no decision has been made on the future timetable.

None the less, building the station requires realignment of the Great Western main line to curve around new platforms. Unfortunately, that means that even trains that do not stop at the station will have a small increase in journey times. I know the Rail Minister has already asked industry partners to review current plans to ensure the impact of this is minimised. I will come back to this when I answer questions from hon. Members. I also recognise that this disruption comes on top of several years of poor performance on this route. The Government are determined to reverse that trend, improve punctuality and reliability, and rebuild a railway we can once again be proud of.

I do not think I can answer all of the questions that were posed during the debate, but I shall attempt to respond to a few of them. I know that my colleague the Rail Minister has met with many hon. Members to listen to their concerns, and that he is committed to finding the best possible solution that minimises disruption to services to constituencies in Wales and the west. He will continue to engage with hon. Members on this issue. A number of Members asked whether Great Western Railway services will stop at Old Oak Common and raised concerns about the impact on journey times. There will be a small but permanent journey time impact for all services passing through Old Oak Common without stopping. I recognise that that is a disbenefit to hon. Members’ constituents, and the Rail Minister has asked what more can be done to get that down from the estimated 90 seconds.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked about increasing running through the station from 60 mph to 80 mph, and Network Rail has already begun to develop proposals. They were discussed at the last Old Oak Common programme board, which the Rail Minister attended. If some or all services are to stop at Old Oak Common—as I said, no decision has been made yet on future timetables; that is some way off—it will, of course, add further to journey times. Four to seven minutes added to journey times has been suggested. That would slow down those services but would allow for potential interchange with the Elizabeth line and access to parts of London via the Elizabeth line and the London Overground. The London Overground does not connect directly, but work has begun on Old Oak Common connectivity and a range of options are under consideration, from improved walking routes through to more material interventions.

Various periods of blockade were discussed. The programme is currently under review, but there will be periods of disruption, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham set out, and those are likely to of the duration that he described or longer. As has been noted, there will be diversions to Euston when the blockades are in place, which will allow services to continue directly into central London for the many constituencies represented here today when the line between Ealing Broadway and Paddington is closed. That will add perhaps 15 to 20 minutes on to journey times.

The hon. Gentleman and others asked about short-form trains. He described clearly the impact on people’s journey experience, which is totally unsatisfactory. I know that the availability of sufficient fleet is vital. I recognise the inadequacy of the situation when the trains are over capacity and I know that the Minister for Rail is working to address this.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned wi-fi. Free wi-fi is available on Great Western Railway services, but I know from my own travels that there are connectivity issues on part of the network. The Rail Minister has asked officials to explore the feasibility of a range of technology options to improve passenger connectivity on the rail network. The Department is conducting research to measure the strength of mobile phone signals along the network to fully understand where interventions are needed and the potential impacts.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issues of Sunday timetables and cancellations. Problems with infrastructure, fleet reliability, and train crew availability have resulted in high levels of cancellations on Sundays in recent months, and I agree that that is unacceptable. We know these issues must be addressed. They were not addressed by the previous Government and we are working to do so.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned progress on the extension to the Honeybourne line active travel route in Cheltenham. I know it well, and I agree with his assessment that it would be a valuable extension. I understand that Great Western Railway, Network Rail, and Gloucestershire county council are working to progress the project, and if there is more we can do to hurry it along, I am sure the Rail Minister will be happy to do so.

[Max Wilkinson]

I am aware that I get another chance to speak shortly, but the reason I raised Network Rail’s blocking of that scheme is because of the way it has been done: by extending contract negotiations over years, to the point when a bit of cycle path is costing tens of thousands of pounds per metre because Network Rail demands ever greater levels of infrastructure to be inserted. I have raised this with Ministers and all sorts of people, but it is clear that Network Rail just wanted to kick it into the long grass by making it uneconomic. I know that the Minister is an advocate for active travel, so if she could intervene with Network Rail and just say, “Get it done,” I would be grateful.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As the hon. Gentleman says, this Government are committed to increasing the number of people who walk and cycle for short journeys. If there is something that my colleagues in the Department and I can do to unblock things and get them moving, we will do it.

Questions were asked about investment in Welsh railways. I assure hon. Members that the Wales Rail Board meets regularly and provides a forum for the UK and Welsh Governments to discuss matters of mutual interest. I understand the new Secretary of State is meeting the Secretary of State for Wales and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates, imminently to discuss transport in Wales. Transport Ministers regularly meet our counterparts in the devolved Governments.

I will close by taking this opportunity to confirm again that the Rail Minister is working with all partners to ensure minimum disruption to travellers on the Great Western main line, both during the construction of Old Oak Common station and when it is in operation. I recognise that these are difficult issues, which hon. Members are right to raise on behalf of their constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham and all hon. Members for their participation in this debate. I fully acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the issue to him and his constituents, and indeed to all hon. Members’ constituents. We will work to come up with a viable solution.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We have 14 minutes left, but that is not an invitation for a long speech from Max Wilkinson. I call him to sum up.

10:45

[Max Wilkinson]

Thank you, Mr. Efford; I will speak for no longer than an hour. There is much to reflect on. I am grateful to all colleagues for turning up to this important debate, and to the Minister for addressing a number of the points raised. I appreciate there were probably about 35 questions raised during various speeches, including some from myself. Will the hon. Lady take time later to work with the Rail Minister on responses to my questions about everything from the hyper-local, such as the Honeybourne line, up to the bigger picture stuff around wi-fi connectivity and the delays that Cheltenham passengers suffer at Gloucester?

The main thing to come out of the Minister’s response is that there is still an awful lot to play for. A key point that I took from what she said was that although the station is designed to take all the trains stopping there, including every service from the west, that need not be the case. That is different from what we are generally being briefed on as Members. When we talk about the technical studies that need to go into the future infrastructure that might link into the overground services elsewhere, there is an impact on timings, on the public debate and on the Government’s willingness to fund the studies and the infrastructure. We are now in a period of uncertainty about whether all of the Great Western main line trains will indeed be stopping at Old Oak Common. The opportunity that is being sold by the rail industry, and has been sold by the Government in the very recent past, is thrown into doubt if there is uncertainty about whether all the trains will stop at Old Oak Common, so it seems there is quite a bit of thinking to be done.

I appreciate that the Government are in an imperfect position here. We all are. I suggest that work on the technical studies into the opportunities and economic benefits that we might get in our constituencies and that the nation as a whole might accrue needs to be picked up as soon as possible. I thank the Minister for her response today. I look forward to hearing more in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of Old Oak Common station on rail services to the West and Wales.

10:47

Sitting suspended.

Musculoskeletal Conditions

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I understand that Sonia Kumar has agreed that another hon. Member can make a contribution. I will then go straight to the Minister. As is the convention with half-hour debates, there will be no opportunity for the mover to sum up at the end.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal conditions.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on osteoporosis and bone health, and as an advanced practice physiotherapist and first-contact practitioner, musculoskeletal health is my speciality. I am here to discuss the provisions needed to improve the diagnosis and management of MSK conditions.

My experience as an advanced practice physiotherapist is very much autonomous. I do not think many people know that physiotherapists work from paediatrics all the way to elderly care—from nursery all the way to palliative care. Most people do not know the work of a first-contact practitioner, which is a new service in which physiotherapists work with GPs to diagnose, assess and refer to secondary care, if needed. I was part of that vital service at Dudley Group hospitals, so I declare my interest as working on the bank there.

MSK physiotherapists work not only across hospitals and primary care but also in tertiary care. They work in fracture clinics, rheumatology, pain management and A&E. Not many people realise what we do. MSK physiotherapists are the specialists and experts in musculoskeletal diagnosis. That could include referring people for X-rays to look for suspicion of fractures or for MRI scans to look for sinister pathology, a differential diagnosis, masqueraders that look like Pancoast tumours, metastases or spinal or multi-joint cysts. Along with ultrasounds, guiding injections and prescribing, the scope of physiotherapists has expanded year on year, to a point where they are now specialising and moving their practice on to do simple surgeries, such as carpal tunnel releases.

I look not only from a diagnostic point of view but at the importance of managing MSK conditions, including in respect of rehabilitation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. There have been some worrying trends in the press in the last six months, in relation to children as young as 11. Does she agree that the NHS plan for change over the next five years is necessary, given that children as young as 11 are being diagnosed with arthritis? We need help and guidance for those whose lives might be impaired from an early age right through to older life, and who need coping mechanisms. The importance of this debate cannot be underlined enough.

[Sonia Kumar]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have worked in paediatrics where many patients get diagnosed late and suffer with late onset. That affects their whole life from the beginning, including their ability to get involved with physical activity and to build relationships, or their mental health and sleeping patterns. Getting an early diagnosis is one of the solutions I want to put forward. I would like the Minister to consider involving physiotherapists from early on, at nursery stage, to find out why we are not picking up MSK conditions from a really young age so that we can provide health and wellbeing from day one.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I hear my hon. Friend’s point about early intervention and making sure that we diagnose MSK conditions as soon as possible. A member of my extended family suffers from pregnancy-related osteoporosis, which needs to be picked up as soon as possible so that appropriate treatment can be put in place and mothers supported through it. A new charity has been set up specifically for pregnancy-associated osteoporosis, and it is pushing for the #MeasureThatMum campaign to make sure that midwives are trained to pick up the condition at that point, as early as is physically possible. Does my hon. Friend support that?

[Sonia Kumar]

Of course. One of the things MSK physiotherapists look at is spinal fractures, 70% of which happen in the thoracic spine, generally in older women who have had poor bone health. It is essential to look after bone health from a really early age, while women are in their 40s, so that when they are older, in their 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, they are on the right medication and doing bone health exercises to help for the future. For MSK conditions and osteoporosis, physiotherapists are essential. Spinal fractures are very often undiagnosed, and those who suffer spinal fractures as they get older are more likely then to have a hip fracture, after which the mortality rate becomes really high. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

Let me explain why MSK physiotherapists and MSK care are so important. By 2035, two thirds of the population are expected to have two or more long-term conditions, which include MSK conditions. Versus Arthritis reports:

“Arthritis and related musculoskeletal conditions affect 20.3 million people in the UK.”

That means that one in six people has arthritis, which is a staggering amount. MSK conditions cost the NHS £5 billion a year, accounting for one in five GP appointments, 1.6 million hospital admissions and 30 million prescriptions a year. People with low confidence who feel that they cannot manage their conditions are more likely to attend hospital, while those who are most confident with long-term conditions have 38% fewer hospital admissions.

That is what we can do for the economy, but this issue is also about first-contact practitioners, as I mentioned at the beginning. With first-contact practitioners, we can save so many GP appointments. It is part of the long-term plan, which has been created to improve the impact on GP care and allied health professions that work in general practice. Working adults with MSK conditions are twice as likely to be economically inactive compared with those with long-term conditions. Of the people who are economically inactive due to ill health, 21% report having MSK conditions. It is about not just health but the economy and the wellbeing of the society that we are hopefully building together now that we are in government.

It is really important that we look at this issue in a holistic way. MSK conditions affect not just affect somebody’s mental health but their relationships and how they build them. They affect whether they can get into bed and sleep well, as well as their sleep hygiene. Perhaps a person eats poorly because they cannot get out, so they put on lots of weight. A person’s emotions, self-esteem and ability to work can be affected. I do not believe there is a silver bullet or that if we manage MSK conditions it will just fix one part. It has to be effective in respect of all the facets of somebody’s general wellbeing. We cannot tackle waiting lists and return people to work without that, and we need a strong workforce to plough back into the economy. It is incredibly important for people to understand that it is about holistic management and how we can improve health literacy and self-efficacy for people with MSK conditions.

I came to this debate to talk about solutions, as I am a solution-led person. We need to recognise the allied health professions in the NHS and build a workforce for MSK physios. That includes not just MSK physios but paramedics, podiatrists and every single person in the 14 allied health professions, all of which help to build resilience in the NHS, reduce waiting lists and build a healthier society.

MSK assessments need to happen from day one in nursery. We cannot expect paediatrics or care to be delivered well if we wait until the future, look back and say, “We should have done a better job when that person was younger.” If we looked at MSK conditions from day one—early in a child’s development and in their early years of support—there would not be a massive impact on society later in that person’s life because of having to do delayed diagnosis with multiple appointments and to look after their general wellbeing.

We also need to embed into society notions of what good health looks like from day one. That includes keeping active, going to classes and going to rehabilitation. We need a bigger awareness campaign about what being well looks like. It should not just be that the person leaves school and that is it; it needs to be lifelong. In the same way that people do continuous professional development, they should learn what looking after their body entails, and that should be translated into health policy.

We also need to increase the scope of physiotherapists’ practice. At the moment, they do not do DEXA scans, but they look at bone health in every other way. We look at X-rays, and work in fracture clinics, rehabilitation and trauma orthopaedics, but we do not look at the full picture of bone health. Will the Minister consider inputting that in future?

We need to increase the roll-out of community appointment days. We must provide same-day services for patients, including assessments, advice, health promotion and rehabilitation, and the community and volunteer sectors should provide support in a non-medicalised environment. If somebody has shoulder, knee or back pain, there should be a one-stop shop where they can be assessed appropriately, and they can then move on and get the right care at the right time.

We also need to put community care services on high streets and in places of worship. There are people who are not getting access, and there are massive health inequalities, so how do we promote care and health in difficult-to-reach communities? I would love to see care being put into places of worship and other locations people do not normally think of. I very much welcome the fact that the Government are already moving away from hospital care.

We also need to increase the number of first-contact practitioner places. A consultation with an FCP physio is £30 cheaper than the traditional GP-led pathway. MSK issues are one of the most common reasons to visit GPs, accounting for about 20% to 30% of appointments. Will the Minister meet me to discuss more of the solutions that I think need to be put forward to manage MSK issues? Would he be happy to visit my constituency to look at our fracture liaison service? I hope we will continue to fund that and that the service will be rolled out nationally.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I call Lizzi Collinge.

11:12

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

I was told that I would not be able to speak today, and that I could merely intervene, but I am happy to speak if you allow it, Mr Efford.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I was told that it had been arranged for you to speak.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Excellent news. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I apologise for the confusion.

Musculoskeletal conditions are very serious, particularly when looked at through the lens of the health and social care workforce. In Morecambe and Lunesdale, 27% of the sickness rate in the health and social care workforce is caused by musculoskeletal conditions. It is clear that if we want to fix our health and social care workforce, we must fix the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) pointed out, the conditions do not just have a physical impact, affecting mobility and the ability to work, but can have a particularly serious effect on people’s mental health, relationships and ability to live their life to the full. I believe that health and social care and public health should be framed around allowing people to live their absolute best lives. They need to focus on enabling individuals, whether or not they have long-term health conditions, to work, socialise and have a good family life.

I am passionate about preventing ill health as much as possible. We must prevent musculoskeletal conditions, which can cause a lot of pain and discomfort. I welcome the proposals set out by my hon. Friend, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s plans.

11:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this really important debate, and for bringing her professional expertise to the House. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who showed that she can think on the spot and turn an intervention into a short speech.

It is important that we acknowledge just how significant the impact of musculoskeletal conditions can be on both individuals and their loved ones. Poor MSK health can severely impact every aspect of a person’s life. It also has a significant impact on the NHS and the wider economy. Pain, stiffness and limited movement all affect quality of life and independence, including the ability to work. MSK conditions are the leading cause of years lived with disability in England. They are responsible for up to 30% of GP consultations, and MSK community services have the longest waiting lists of all community services in England, as of September this year. MSK conditions are also one of the leading causes of sickness absence, with approximately 23.4 million working days lost due to MSK conditions in 2022 in the UK.

That is why the Government are committed to improving care for the 17 million people living with MSK conditions in England, and ensuring that they receive support and access to the latest treatments. Improving health and work outcomes for people living with MSK conditions also forms a key part of the Government’s missions to build an NHS fit for the future, and to kickstart economic growth.

Turning first to the health mission, my Department recently announced plans to develop a 10-year NHS plan. It will consider what actions are needed to improve patient access and reduce waiting times. It will set out a bold agenda to deliver the three big shifts needed. Those are moving healthcare from the hospital to the community, from analogue to digital, and from treatment to prevention. We recognise that there is much more we can do to support earlier diagnosis and management for people with MSK conditions, and the need for timely and comprehensive care that starts at home. We know that many people with MSK conditions can be diagnosed and well managed in the community, which is why we are making a start by exploring how best to support MSK primary and community service improvement, helping to give MSK conditions greater parity with other conditions.

I will certainly take away the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley on physiotherapists, AHPs more generally, and other issues. They could play a vital and important role in getting the better outcomes we want to see. She spoke rightly about how we deal with children. The Government want to create the healthiest generation of children ever. We must ensure that we have the services to diagnose bone conditions at an earlier stage and get children the appropriate treatment.

My hon. Friend also talked about communities that are difficult to reach. I have a row with my officials because I do not accept that any community is difficult to reach—we have just not tried hard enough. It is precisely the kind of suggestions that she set out that will ensure, on a whole range of health conditions including MSK, that we do better at identifying where those people and health inequalities are, and get access to services into the places where those people are so we can get them on to the treatment pathways.

With NHS England, we are considering a range of options to identify the most effective ways of improving the quality of and access to the fracture liaison service model, and the interventions that that model provides. For MSK conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, early diagnosis is the key to preventing joint damage and improving quality of life. The Government are investing £1.5 billion in capital funding in 2025-26 for new surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners, to build capacity for over 30,000 additional procedures and over 1.25 million diagnostic tests as they come online.

I turn now to the growth mission. The “Get Britain Working” White Paper highlighted the issue of spiralling economic inactivity, with 2.8 million people, which is equivalent to the population of Greater Manchester, being locked out of work because of long-term sickness. Tackling economic inactivity caused by ill health will play an important part in realising our ambition of having an 80% employment rate.

To support that ambition, the Further Faster 20 scheme will be delivered by NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme. Further Faster 20 will operate in 20 areas of the country that have high levels of economic inactivity, with the aim of reducing waiting times and enabling people to return to work. Actions will include improving secondary care interfaces with primary and community services.

We will also launch a set of place-based trailblazers in eight areas in England and Wales to run during 2025-26. These trailblazers will be at the forefront of developing joined-up approaches to support people with work, health and skills. Three trailblazer areas will be funded to become health and growth accelerator sites, in order to build evidence of the impact of targeted action on the main health conditions driving economic inactivity, and I assure the House that those conditions include MSK conditions.

I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that I am more than happy to meet her to discuss these issues further. If we can squeeze it in somewhere in my diary, I am also more than happy to visit the fracture liaison services in her area.

I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale that we take very seriously the impact of MSK conditions on the NHS workforce itself. As part of our workforce planning, we need to get better at identifying NHS employees who have MSK conditions and ensure that we provide them with the appropriate support, so that they can carry on working in our health and care systems.

To conclude, once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for securing this important debate. I hope that she is reassured by some of the measures I have outlined today. In addition, I will take on board the very important points she made about how we can do better on those issues and ensure that they are fed back through my team to those working up our policies on fracture liaison and MSK more generally.

I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that MSK is a priority for this Government. I absolutely recognise that we must go further, but today I will close by reaffirming this Government’s commitment to supporting the millions of people in the UK living with an MSK condition, to ensure that they receive the support they need, including improved diagnosis and management, and to ensure that we drive down waiting times and waiting lists, identify conditions earlier, get people into treatment as quickly as possible, and have the happier, healthier and more prosperous country that we have all been elected to this place to help deliver, which would be the consequence of having a healthier, happier workforce and a healthier and happier population.

Question put and agreed to.

11:25

Sitting suspended.

Trades and Apprenticeships

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

14:30

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered public perceptions of trades and apprenticeship completion rates.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. One of the many toxic legacies of the previous Government is a crisis in education and training, overwhelming barriers to opportunity for many young people and the denigration and downplaying of the construction industry. Young people in my city are not accessing well-paid jobs, despite the many opportunities on our doorstep in the maritime, space, science and trade sectors. To fix that, we must improve and promote vocational pathways through increasing the number of apprenticeships available, improving apprenticeship completion rates, simplifying the apprenticeship system and increasing its flexibility.

Much of the research for this debate has come from Checkatrade, a home improvement platform based in Portsmouth North. I will therefore focus mainly on the construction sector. The trade and construction sector sits at the heart of the national mission to get Britain building, to reach net zero and to drive economic growth. From plumbers and electricians to roofers and carpenters, there will be huge opportunities for careers and job creation in building the skilled workforce we need to deliver those targets.

Research by Checkatrade has found that the UK economy faces a severe skills challenge. The UK must find 1.3 million new skilled trade people and 350,000 new apprenticeships over the next 10 years to meet the Government’s ambitious but much-needed housing and net zero targets. London will require at least 55,000 qualified construction apprenticeships, but the demand is not just in England; it is spread across the UK, with Scotland needing 26,000 new apprenticeships, Manchester 15,000 and Birmingham 13,000. With 35% of those working in the sector over the age of 50, and almost three fifths of tradies planning to retire between the ages of 61 and 65, the industry is facing a cliff edge of retirement with little or no succession planning.

The transition to net zero is also impacting jobs and apprenticeships, with 59% of jobs affected and 29% of those jobs requiring upskilling. However, apprenticeship starts have declined in recent years, highlighting the urgent need for a renewed focus. In 2022-23, there were 337,140 apprenticeship starts, compared with more than half a million in 2011-12. Challenges in the sector, such as high apprentice drop-off rates and high levels of self-employment—37%—make addressing the skills gap even more challenging and crucial.

What solutions can we explore? First, we must create more apprenticeships: despite a chronic skills gap in the UK, for every apprenticeship there are three applications, but only one successful candidate. That can be achieved by restoring financial incentives to small and medium-sized enterprises to take on apprentices under the age of 25, offering an apprenticeship incentive payment and expanding funding to create apprenticeships.

SMEs have a crucial role to play in boosting the number of apprentices, and we need to find ways to incentivise them to invest in training. We must provide them with the support they need to take on an apprentice and ensure flexibility in training that works for their businesses and for the apprentices. Making the apprenticeship funding model more transparent to help to improve businesses’ understanding of and confidence in the apprenticeship system is vital.

Secondly, we must improve completion rates. Only a third of apprenticeships are currently completed—a shockingly low statistic. We could improve that rate by increasing financial support. The apprenticeship rate of pay currently sits at £6.40 per hour, making apprenticeships financially unattractive. More targeted support should be made available to attract those with dependants and other financial responsibilities, and those wishing to change career. Financial mentoring for apprentices could also go a long way towards improving the completion rates. We should also look at expanding foundational apprenticeships and introducing a shorter apprenticeship course for those who cannot afford the minimum length of 12 months in a placement.

Lastly, we must simplify the system and increase flexibility. That could be achieved by creating more flexibility through the apprenticeship levy. For example, the functional skills requirement is cited by employers as a barrier to learning and is not always relevant to the role or individual. Those could be removed in some cases. Apprenticeships and training programme providers should be enabled to deliver three, six or even nine month-courses, which could be used to help workers to reskill and retrain in areas that are part of the green transition. We must also end geographical differences; apprenticeship levy funds can currently be spent only on apprenticeships in England.

To do all that, we must value all the pathways. The toxic legacy of the Tories in education was the undervaluing of certain subjects, including vocational courses and apprenticeships. We must value all pathways if we are to move towards a productive, highly skilled population and achieve our growth targets. Apprenticeships of all kinds create successful business owners and entrepreneurs who are well paid. Average weekly earnings in the construction sector are £761, surpassing the national average by 13%.

Furthermore, not all apprenticeships are low-paid during training. Roofing apprentices can earn more than £24,000 a year, plastering apprentices £19,000 and plumbing apprentices £18,000. Apprenticeships can be a stable and reliable route to success: with success rates remaining stable at 93% over past years and many apprentices staying on with their employer after qualifying, they offer value for money and a good career.

Despite that, however, many young people and their parents do not see a trade career as aspirational. We must highlight those benefits of vocational courses to young people, to inspire them into diverse sectors and to elevate vital sectors, including construction. That could be achieved by using the money raised by the growth and skills levy on access and outreach activities, and by the Department for Education ensuring that careers advice highlights the training provisions available, including T-levels, BTecs, skills bootcamps and more, as well as the career opportunities accessible through apprenticeships. We must ensure that work experience gives an insight into the opportunities and, although it must have safety at its heart, we must reduce the red tape for SMEs and larger companies to offer valuable work experience places.

In conclusion, to achieve our national mission of kick-starting growth and breaking down barriers to opportunities, we must look at people and skills in the round and value them. To create a highly skilled and highly paid workforce, we must provide accessible, well-funded and fairly paid vocational training. We must provide balanced education about vocational options and provide support for those on vocational pathways to help them to complete courses. That will help to diversify vocational pathways.

Apprenticeships in construction are currently almost 91% male and 92% white. Although there has been some progress in diversifying the workforce, its composition remains highly disproportionate compared with society and other sectors. As an ex-teacher, I truly believe in the saying, “If you cannot see it, you cannot do it.” Those opportunities must be visible and open to local communities, whether that is our young people or someone who wants to change career or upskill to a new one.

We must place pride, value and respect in this sector. As the proud sister of an electrician, the daughter of a plumber and the granddaughter of a painter and decorator, I know the value of tradespeople in our communities and families. They are the backbone of our everyday lives—building, fixing, and ensuring that our houses, schools, hospitals and communities are safe, functioning spaces.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Probably much to his surprise, I am going to call Jim Shannon as the next speaker.

14:39

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is becoming a bit of a habit for me to be called almost first in Westminster Hall debates, Mr Betts—but whatever the case may be, it is a real pleasure to speak at any stage and to serve under your chairship. I commend the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for leading this very apt debate.

In my constituency, we have a tradition of work in the construction sector, whether in building, plumbing, electrical or roofing, or even in painting and décor. There is just so much to do when it comes to building. I live in the countryside, so there are always houses needing repairs, and many people I have known have been in the business for umpteen years and continue in it. However, and I will come back to this shortly, we seem to have a small dearth of people in apprenticeships, which is disappointing. Of course, those figures are for Northern Ireland as a whole; perhaps my Strangford constituency may not have seen the same fall, because of that strong tradition of working in this sector.

Many hon. Members will know that I am a big supporter of apprenticeships and the opportunities they bring for young people. They provide a real chance for those who have just left school to get out into the world of work, to gain skills, to specialise in a trade and to earn money. It is great to be in Westminster Hall to discuss that. I think it may have been last week that we had a debate here about universities, and we were saying that there are those who have adapted to academia out of necessity; but for those who are not academically focused, perhaps the opportunity is in the skills we are referring to today.

This debate is really important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know she does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I like to come along and give a Northern Ireland perspective, because I think it adds to the debate. I am ever mindful that this House of Commons represents all four regions of the United Kingdom, and we can do things here to better them. I know the Minister would choose, as I would, to share benefits and good things that we have with other parts of the United Kingdom. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), in her place and I look forward to her contribution as well.

Just last week Labour announced its commitment to the 1.5 million new houses to be built, which I welcome; it is important for boosting the economy and it will create opportunities and jobs. However, to make that happen we must ensure that we have the apprentices and the workers in all the different sectors we have referred to. When it comes to apprenticeships, one company last week in the news said that to help to build those houses, 2,800 new plumbers would be needed. I will give some examples later on of some of the things we are doing across the water, but that figure perhaps tells us that, if we are going to build all these houses—again, I commend the Government for doing that—we must ensure we have the workers in place to do that, and apprenticeship opportunities must be part of that.

I know sometimes apprenticeships involve working out in the fresh air—that never bothered me, by the way, although other people might want to stay in an office—but, if people can get paid well in an apprenticeship and the number of years for apprenticeships is reduced from five down to three, people can get the qualifications early on and then start to earn. We do not want to decry young people; we want to encourage them and ensure that the apprenticeships come, that they do their three years and that at the end of those three years they are qualified and earning big money. With Labour’s commitment to 1.5 million new houses, the opportunity to earn big money is here now.

I would love to hear what the Minister has to say in relation to that and how the hon. Member for Portsmouth North will encourage people to take those jobs. I have listened to her comments in previous speeches where she has emphasised the necessity of tackling our skills shortages across the United Kingdom. She has spoken a few times in the debates she has been involved in about how we can do that through apprenticeships and dealing with skills barriers.

In Northern Ireland specifically, numbers of new participants in apprenticeships decreased by 12% between 2018-19 and 2022-23 and by 24% between 2021-22 and 2022-23. Those figures are unfortunately quite disappointing, highlighting that fewer young people are taking up apprenticeships as a form of education and employment. I suppose it depends on the society people live in; we in the Ards peninsula and Strangford see a tradition of building and house building and repairs, but across the whole of Northern Ireland apprenticeships are unfortunately decreasing.

In addition, participants who leave their course, either with or without leaving their framework, are known as leavers. The question that I want to focus on, and that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North focused on in her speech, is those people who start but do not finish apprenticeships. Perhaps the Minister has some ideas about how to encourage them to stay. I am very keen to hear what she has to say, because perhaps we can share her comments with those in Northern Ireland.

In 2022-23, 5,746 participants left ApprenticeshipsNI courses: 3,091 at level 2, 301 at level 2/3 and 2,354 at level 3. More than half—56%—achieved a level 2 full framework. That was six percentage points lower than in 2018-19, but 13 percentage points higher than in 2021 —again, that shows the need to be more focused. The figures show that thousands of people are leaving apprenticeship courses, and a further section of people complete only levels 1 and 2, and do not continue to level 3—level 3 is where the money is, guys! They need to be encouraged to focus, stay the course and do what they are asked to do, because at the end of that they progress to good, constant employment, which will be reinforced because of all these houses that are going to be built. We need to make apprenticeships accessible, encourage people to continue with their apprenticeships and increase financial support through the apprenticeship payment rate. We must give those workers the pay they deserve and highlight to young people that there are opportunities for career progression and stable, secure pay.

For many, working for someone else can be the start of having their own business. In the Ards peninsula, where I live, an incredible number of people have their own business as a result of starting out on an apprenticeship. I will give an example to show where the opportunities are. One of my staff members was having issues with her gas boiler last week. One of her children is asthmatic and must be in a temperature-controlled room; therefore, heating the house is incredibly important. She phoned every single gas company in the area to get a call-out, and only one company could get someone out in the morning. The engineer said that he was able to come out so promptly only because he had an apprentice. In other words, he had seen that it is necessary for young people to have apprenticeships, and that enabled him to do certain jobs and delegate others. That young fella was learning the trade and the business, and was at a stage where he could do some of the work. That took the burden off the single owner of the gas company, but it also gave an opportunity to that young fella, who one day, because there is demand for it, will have his own business and do well. So apprenticeships are an opportunity and they help businesses to grow.

Young people are under the impression that apprenticeships are only for skills such as plumbing, engineering, mechanics, electrical maintenance and so on—jobs that some see as male-dominated—but that is not the case. I am very pleased to say that we have a number of ladies who are progressing in construction. I understand that the business may be different, but there are opportunities for young ladies to involve themselves in any of those skills. They are more than capable of doing that, and I support them.

There are other sets of skills that young people can take advantage of, such as food and drink manufacturing, construction craft, sign making and print production. Some have done so and some will in the future. Our responsibility as Members is to ensure the correct provisions are in place so that people push themselves and stay in their apprenticeship. Sometimes they need to be encouraged, because the work can be hard or repetitive, but it is rewarding, and it can lead to employment and their own business further down the line. We must fix the wage and give them the working conditions they need to succeed.

I appreciate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North for bringing this issue to the House. It is time for the Government to focus on where the shortages are and how we can encourage young people to take these opportunities. There are so many young men and women out there who could benefit from apprenticeships, but we do not talk about the harsh reality that our completion rates are low and that a large percentage decide to leave. What can we do to make that better? I hope that the Minister will endeavour to deal with these issues, in parallel with her counterparts in the devolved nations. I always ask that, because it is important to recognise that, although we may live in different parts of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the things that confront us—this debate today—are salient to every part of every region. We want a strong apprenticeship system across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

14:49

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on securing this debate. It is a privilege to follow both her and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who have given us such a passionate case for the importance of apprenticeships to our economy, to young people and to those changing their careers. I will put on record that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am on the skills advisory board for Google’s artificial intelligence campus, looking at new skills and new technologies.

Just last month, I welcomed the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to Peterborough college to visit apprentices and businesses and launch the Government’s “Get Britain Working” White Paper. I had the great privilege to meet excellent businesses and apprentices doing brilliant work, including EML, Baker Perkins, Taylor Rose, Codem and Gen Phoenix. Those businesses and learners are excelling in a system that has failed too many of our young people.

Today’s debate goes to the heart of my passion in this House to improve job opportunities for young people and career changers in Peterborough and around the country. I pay tribute to Peterborough college and to my new university campus, Anglia Ruskin University Peterborough, for the work they are doing in my city to transform life opportunities. In my constituency, apprenticeships are down and youth unemployment is up. Under the previous Government, the number of young people not in education, employment or training reached around 900,000, at a time of skills shortages and record net migration to the country. That includes a 40% slump in 16 to 19-year-olds taking an apprenticeship —unforgivable. This Government, I am pleased to say, recognise the severity of the situation. I pay tribute to the Minister for her sterling work to champion the cause of skills.

I will talk about two challenges around the perception and reality of apprenticeships. First, following my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, I want to look at how the Government must mend the broken apprenticeship levy and increase opportunities. The levy has strayed from its original purpose of providing paid, skilled opportunities mainly for young people, and ensuring that employers target their levy spend to tackle skills gaps and shortages. I thank the Minister, alongside her colleagues in the Department, for their drive to make reform of the levy a reality.

All of us have a focus on certain elements of change, and I want to highlight a few areas that matter in my constituency. The first area is removing barriers related to English, maths and functional skills. We should allow flexibility on functional skills requirements, focusing on workplace-specific competencies rather than mandatory qualifications that block completion. I know from my conversations in Peterborough that that would be particularly important for construction, trades and other areas that we are talking about, where sometimes the competencies required are holding back young people who could flourish in those workspaces.

The second area is increasing the availability of level 2 programmes as a crucial entry point, aligned with local skills gaps and economic needs, particularly in sectors such as construction and healthcare, and for traders and small businesses. The third is providing fast-track options for those with technical certificates or prior experience, enabling them to complete apprenticeships faster. I would also like to see the expansion of degree apprenticeships, enabling more working-class young people to acquire skills in a paid job from day one.

At the end of the day, we cannot ignore the problems we face: poor skills, declining youth opportunities, stagnant wages and an over-reliance on workers from abroad. Some 11 million people of working age are currently inactive. That is a scandal, and it is the legacy of the last 14 years of Conservative Government. We all have a duty to turn it around by generating thousands more apprenticeships for young people, especially those under 25. That will be central, I believe, to the mission of this Government.

That brings me to my second challenge, which is a much broader one, about how we talk about apprenticeships. The topic of this debate, the perception of trades and apprenticeships, is central to that. We need to change the language, culture and approach to careers guidance and apprenticeships. I totted up the entries in a list I got from my office, and since I was elected, as part of my work on apprenticeships, I have met more than 100 businesses and learners from my constituency and more widely. Not one learner said to me that they started their apprenticeship because of help at school.

In our education system, we have a language for university but not one for apprenticeships. That cultural bias in our education system is holding young people and our country back. It needs to end. School are too often geared towards helping young people enter higher education. The language is about higher education: “What do you want to study?”, “Where are you planning to go?”, “Have you been to an open day?” We need a Government-wide and country-wide mission to change that—to make apprenticeships as important a choice as university for our young people. If we do not, we will fail.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships, I am working across the House to help find workable solutions to those issues. I am lucky enough to meet great employers and apprentices in Peterborough and around the country—particularly those in construction, which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North focused on so clearly. I have met with Laing O’Rourke on building sites in east London, with Travis Perkins to look at its work to support the trade, and with young people and construction workers in my own constituency. I know the will is there.

My dedication to apprenticeships is why I support the plans to get Britain working. It is why I welcome the youth guarantee, under which all young people will be offered the chance to earn and learn. It is why I will continue to campaign for an apprenticeship system that is fit for purpose—because apprenticeships are the lifeblood of decent work and growth in our economy, offering more young people a ladder of opportunity to the jobs of the future, and ensuring that our economy can sustain higher living standards through the right kind of skills training, which leads to economic growth.

We are committed to changing both the scope and perception of apprenticeships. Sir Martyn Oliver’s recent Ofsted report emphasised the transformative impact that apprenticeships can have, offering young people practical skills, experience and opportunities. Those milestones underscore an important truth: apprenticeships are not a fallback, they are a springboard to success.

14:57

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate.

We do not have a construction college in Wokingham borough, and residents hoping to undertake a trade apprenticeship will find that the closest colleges are in Bracknell, Reading or even Basingstoke. Anyone who wishes to undertake a civil engineering course will need to travel as far away as Fareham, an hour and 18 minutes away by car. The lack of local training centres has proved to be a challenge for construction companies in the area. Often, young apprentices do not have cars, and so cannot drive long distances, or lack the financial means to travel very far out of the borough. Given that the existing public transport is not very good, the problem is set to get bigger with the Government’s removal of the £2 bus fare cap. More must be done to support young apprentices.

It is unfortunate that there is a currently significant skills gap in the construction sector in my constituency of Wokingham, and across Berkshire. I thank Paul Britton of the Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce for its work on Berkshire’s local skills improvement plan. It has calculated a 19% decline, locally, in the number of carpenters’ and joiners’ jobs, an 8% drop in electricians’ and electrical fitters’ jobs, a 9% decrease in construction operatives’ jobs, and a 7% fall in elementary construction occupations. Despite that overall decline, we have an estimated need for an extra 4,300 jobs, and 14,900 replacement workers in those sorts of jobs will be needed by 2035. What will the Minister do to cover the shortages that we know are in the pipeline?

Just about everybody will say that they have difficulty finding a carpenter, a plumber or an electrician. Employers state that greater knowledge of the sector is needed in schools to show the opportunities and career progression that is available. Employers also note that the skills gap is not just limited to traditional trades, but to digital and sustainable skills in the construction sector. Can the Minister explain the Government’s plans for building awareness of apprenticeships in schools?

The Liberal Democrats would create a new lifelong skills grant for every adult, giving them £5,000 to spend on approved education and training courses to gain skills for the jobs of the future. Our existing system is not set up for a world of work in which the skills we learn at 18 or 21 will not last a lifetime. How will the Minister’s plans for Skills England and reforming the apprenticeship levy yield better opportunities for apprentices in Wokingham, especially in the construction sector? Will the Minister commit to meet me and the companies that offer apprenticeships to discuss what they need from the Government to deliver better opportunities for apprenticeships in Wokingham?

Turning to the issue of recruitment and completion rates, there is a perception of trade apprenticeships as muddy boots and jobs for young boys. Through the work of Wokingham’s section 106 employment and skills plan, we hope to change that perception. Locally, 30 community skills events have been held to help break down the stereotype, including work experience, careers talks in schools and site visits. However, there are foundational issues with the existing structures that the Government need to address before firms can consider establishing apprenticeships.

Specifically, Wates Construction is currently managing the Gorse Ride redevelopment project in my constituency. It has highlighted a problem that similar and smaller subcontractors experience. They sometimes do not have the capacity to take on apprentices due to the value of the contract and the duration, where they may not be on site for long enough. Although shared apprenticeship schemes are great, they have to pay agency fees on top of apprenticeship wages, which makes it an unaffordable option. Can the Minister address the issues raised by Wates Construction about the affordability of apprentices? What more can be done to ensure businesses like theirs can take on more apprenticeships?

15:03

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on securing this important debate. I must start by declaring an interest: I am married to someone who did a BT apprenticeship back in the day, and he always talks about how incredibly valuable that was as a way to learn after leaving school. So I did slightly bridle at the rather attacking political tone that I heard from the hon. Lady in her opening remarks, because if there is one thing that we have complete cross-party consensus about in this Parliament, it is about the value and importance of apprenticeship routes. We may occasionally differ on the means and the approach, but I think we would not differ in terms of the end and how important it is for our country and economy to have more people doing apprenticeships, because they offer a wonderful opportunity for young people to learn valuable skills on the job and earn a salary while they learn. As a nation, we need to ensure that school leavers and employers view an apprenticeship on equal terms with going to university.

I will point out some of the positive statistics from the last Government’s track record. Nearly 70% of occupations could be entered via an apprenticeship by the time the last Government left office. In 2009-10, there were fewer than half a million people participating in apprenticeships, but by 2023-24, there were more than 735,000 participating and training under the more rigorous industry design standards introduced in 2014. The 178,220 achievements reported for the 2023-24 academic year represented the highest number since the pandemic, in 2018-19. Between 2010 and 2024, the previous Government delivered 5.8 million apprenticeships, and passed legislation requiring children to be informed about technical education opportunities. It is crucial that the Government build on this legacy, and I am sure we will hear from the Minister on how they intend to do that.

According to the Liverpool School of Plastering, the UK will need to recruit more than 1 million tradespeople by 2033 to meet the demands of a growing population and the infrastructure requirements. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North highlighted some of the important roles in her constituency that would require that. The shortfall we have in this country is driven partly by an ageing workforce, but also, as the hon. Lady rightly highlighted, by negative perceptions of trades, and by demand outstripping supply. Some of the negative perceptions that young people have include seeing these jobs as being physically demanding, low paying, and lacking in career progression. That does not reflect the diverse and rewarding career paths that exist today in trades.

In the autumn Budget, we heard that the Chancellor is increasing the rate of pay for apprenticeships by some 18% up to £7.55 an hour. On top of that, the Government have raised employer national insurance contributions, and the threshold at which national insurance is paid has been lowered from £9,100 to £5,000 a year. It will be important to note how this cost squeeze will impact the number of apprenticeships that businesses are able to provide. We will follow and scrutinise that in the weeks and months to come.

I endorse what we have heard from so many Members this afternoon about the importance of apprenticeships, the incredible opportunities they offer to so many young people, the importance of issues such as transport, and the awareness and knowledge that both businesses and young people need to have. With that, I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

15:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on securing this important debate. I thank her for speaking so passionately about the importance of apprenticeships as a route into the construction sector and many other vital industries. I will endeavour to respond to all the points she made. I would also like to thank the other Members that have contributed to the debate: my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Wokingham (Clive Jones), and West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin).

Everyone across this Chamber cares about young people and fully accepts that young people need to be in apprenticeships, where that is suitable for them. If it is right for them, it is also right for getting the economy going and ensuring the growth in our country that we so desperately need. It is right that we put our efforts as a Government towards making sure that young people succeed in this area. However, I would also say that we have inherited a picture that is not as positive as the shadow Minister laid out.

We know that around a third of vacancies in the UK are hard to fill due to a lack of skills in these sectors, with large shortages in construction and information and communications. Skills shortage vacancies make up a significant proportion of all vacancies in construction, information and communications, manufacturing and health and social work. We have actually inherited a picture where many companies and organisations are finding they cannot employ people because they do not have the relevant skills, and we have millions of people that need to be in work that do not have the skills for certain jobs where they could fulfil their potential.

Between 2020 and 2035, the construction industry will need an additional 1,143,000 people in the workforce, in order to take account of additional workers and to replace existing workers. As Members have said, we really do have our work cut out for us.

All Members will recognise the long and proud history of apprenticeships and trades in this country. Apprenticeships in England can be traced back to the middle ages when craft guilds were first established—they are part of our DNA. The first national apprenticeship system of training was introduced as far back as 1563.

Despite that long-standing history, especially in construction, it is concerning that, in recent years, we have seen declining apprenticeship opportunities in vital occupations such as bricklaying, plastering, plumbing and so on, particularly for younger people. It is of great concern that, following reforms of apprenticeships, including the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017, apprenticeship starts by young people under 25 fell by almost 40% according to data published by the Department for Education. It is also concerning that so many workers and employers have told us they find it difficult to access the skills they need, particularly in critical areas such as construction trades.

The UK construction workforce is just over 2 million people, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. Despite an average of 38,000 vacancies advertised per month, almost a third of construction employers report that finding suitable skilled staff was their key challenge, as I have already mentioned. In addition, our labour market and skills projections suggest that between 2020 and 2035, we will need to work hard to make sure there are more than a million people to replace people in this sector.

We need reform of our skills system so that we are able to meet such demands. That is exactly what this Government are going to do, and have begun to do. It is clear that the skills system is fragmented and has lacked a clear plan, which has resulted in a lack of clarity around which sectors need prioritising and has led to a skills landscape that is confusing to learners and employers.

There has been lots of concern, as has been mentioned, about the drop-out rate of young people in apprenticeships. That is of course very concerning, and there are different reasons for those rates. Surveys have been done and people move on for many reasons, such as other employment or promotion, or finding the apprenticeship difficult. The situation is being reviewed and assessed.

The issues have been compounded by insufficient investment in skills, which has led to a decrease in adult participation in further education and training. To address that, the Government have established Skills England, a new body that will tackle skills shortages and support sustained economic growth. Skills England will help to ensure that the skills system is clear and easy to navigate for young people and adults, strengthening career pathways into jobs across the sector. It will increase the quality and quantity of skills development in the workplace. It will work together with combined authorities and other places with devolution deals, as well as other regional organisations such as employer representative bodies, to ensure that regional and national skills needs are met at all levels—from essential skills to those delivered via higher education, in line with the industrial strategy.

We have also set out plans for a more flexible levy-funded growth and skills offer, building on the current apprenticeship offer. I assure hon. Members that the Government are listening to employers. Employers have told us that the current apprenticeships offer is inflexible and that the system does not work for them. We want to support employers, not only in the trades, but in all sectors, to develop the skills that they need to thrive. That is why we have introduced a more flexible levy-funded growth and skills offer that will provide employers with greater choice.

As a key first step toward greater flexibility, we are introducing new shorter-duration apprenticeships and foundation apprenticeships, as employers have told us that not all roles or all learners need a minimum of 12 months’ training. We are responding to employers who have said that more support is needed to generate a pipeline of talent that can access occupationally specific apprenticeships, and we are exploring the best way in which shorter-duration apprenticeships can better meet the needs of specific sectors such as construction, where occupational competence can be reached in less than the current minimum duration of 12 months, or where individuals have relevant prior learning.

We will, of course, protect the elements that make apprenticeships work so well and ensure that they retain the credibility and prestige they hold with employers. Our new work-based foundation apprenticeships will focus on ensuring that training is directed towards real vacancies. They will provide young people with a broad training offer, with clear and seamless progression into their next opportunity, whether that is the next level of apprenticeship or other valuable occupational learning. We will work closely with employers and providers. The Government will make sure that we get this right.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her positivity and for her response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North. I hope I have not jumped the gun with this point—perhaps the Minister is coming to it. Has she had discussions with those back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly about working together to progress things in a positive way for everyone?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for his earlier speech. We are working with our devolved Administrations and are committed, along with them, to making sure that we get this right for young people. I thank him for his contributions about, and concern for, young people needing to complete their apprenticeships. I am very willing to engage further with him on these conversations.

In addition to the declining numbers of apprenticeship opportunities in recent years, it is also concerning that only around half of apprentices go on to achieve their apprenticeships. The latest available data for the 2022-23 academic year shows that the apprenticeship achievement rate was 54.3%. In the construction sector, the achievement rate was slightly lower, at 52.7%. Although that represents an increase on the previous year, as in so many areas of the skills system, we need to do much more. We all know that apprenticeships, when completed, deliver great outcomes, so it is critical that we work together with employers, learners and providers to make sure that more apprentices achieve. The Government are working hard to deliver that.

There are concerns around the English and maths requirements for apprenticeships, which are sometimes a barrier to completion and achievement. We are looking carefully at this policy to make sure that we set high standards while supporting apprentices to achieve. We will continually improve other areas of apprenticeships, including end-point assessment, to ensure that they are robust yet proportionate and aligned with key professional qualifications. I am clear that this is a partnership, so we will also make sure that employers and providers have the support and challenge that they need to improve by sharing best practice and improving guidance, alongside an inspection and accountability system that drives improvement.

I welcome the work of the Construction Industry Training Board to support construction apprenticeships in key trades, such as bricklaying and carpentry. The CITB, which is sponsored by the Department, provides financial support to both construction employers and learners. Employers can claim £2,500 a year per apprentice while individuals complete their apprenticeship and a £3,500 achievement grant on successful completion of their full apprenticeship. Apprentices that go on to complete their apprenticeships can look forward to wage returns and more secure employment.

I gently remind my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North that the Chancellor set out in the Budget that the apprenticeship minimum wage will increase by 18% from April 2025, from £6.40 to £7.55 per hour. The median annual earnings for apprentices achieving a level 3 apprenticeship in the construction, planning and built environment sector in 2015-16 were £21,730 one year after studying, rising to £29,620 five years later. We will ensure that many more apprentices, including those in key trades, see those benefits in the future.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, small and medium-sized enterprises are a key area of interest. They are a driving force in the construction sector, playing an important role in providing local opportunities to young people, and we provide a range of financial support to help them to take on apprentices. For non-levy paying employers—they are likely to be smaller employers—we pay 100% of the apprenticeship training cost for young apprentices aged 16 to 21. We also provide £1,000 to employers when they take on apprentices aged under 19, in recognition of the additional support that younger apprentices may need when entering the workplace. Employers can choose how best to spend that, and they are not required to pay anything towards employees’ national insurance contributions for apprentices up to the age of 25.

I strongly encourage any young person to consider a rewarding career in the trades, whether that is as an electrician, scaffolder or plasterer. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough spoke so passionately about apprenticeships being an excellent entrance to jobs and occupations. It is a brilliant route for young people, and I could not agree with him more. The Government are really ambitious for young people, where it is right for them, to pursue apprenticeships, and it is our job to make sure that we give them every opportunity to do so. This Government are about breaking down barriers and ensuring that young people have those opportunities.

The Government have an ambitious plan for rebuilding Britain. We have committed to building 1.5 million homes in England to ensure that people have access to quality housing, and skilled trades are absolutely necessary if we are going to achieve that target. We are working closely with industry to ensure that we have a skilled workforce to deliver that commitment. Last month, we announced a £140 million package of industry investment to create 32 home building skills hubs in areas that need more housing. The hubs are an example of how sectors can use existing flexibilities to solve skills shortages and support growth. They will make use of existing flexibilities in our apprenticeship system to deliver fast-track home building training and apprenticeships for skills in critical demand for home building, including groundwork, site carpentry and bricklaying. The Government are committed to building on that type of innovation.

I am enormously grateful for the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North has given this agenda today and for all the very significant and relevant contributions. The hon. Member for Wokingham spoke about his local area and the support that is needed. He emphasised the decline in many of the apprenticeships that are needed for young people, and he asked for a meeting. I invite him to write in and I will endeavour to ensure that my noble Friend, Baroness Smith, will have a meeting for that very important discussion.

Hon. Members have raised some important concerns about skills shortages in critical trades, and about the perception of careers in those vital occupations. I am grateful for the considered contributions of everyone who has spoken. It is clear that there are widespread skills shortages in vital industries, such as construction. We will all need to benefit from young people being in those jobs at some point or other in our lives, and it is especially needed for our country when we are looking at growth. I have set out today how we will begin to tackle this issue, starting with the establishment of Skills England and by developing a more flexible and levy-funded growth and skills offer. Those actions will support employers and learners across the country in accessing high-quality skills training.

15:29

[Amanda Martin]

Thank you for your chairmanship during this debate, Mr Betts. I thank everyone for their valuable contributions, and I welcome their research and insight into this topic. I will touch on a few points, if I may. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his Northern Ireland perspective and the questions he posed. However, I want to say that working in a trade is, and can be, a career for those academic kids, as well as those who would traditionally follow a vocational route. I met a wonderful young man at Springfield secondary school’s year 11 awards evening. He did very well in getting grade 9 in all his GCSEs, and had proudly taken up a carpentry apprenticeship. He was so passionate about the opportunity he had that it gave me goosebumps to have that conversation with him. We need to put lads like that at the forefront to say that this career path can be taken.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for his promotion of the trade sector in his constituency and in this place, and for his solutions, ideas and passion to elevate the status of trades, which I echo. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) presented stark statistics, showing the difficulty that young people face in accessing training and a start to their careers. I can echo that it is difficult enough to find a tradesperson, as they are always busy, but try doing that when it is someone in your family and you become a love job—you definitely to go to the bottom of the list. My mum has had a dripping tap for over a decade, and I had a light in my front room—we call it “the big light”—that did not work for 18 months. So I know that it is even worse when it is a love job from your family.

I want to make a few points in response to the shadow Minister. First, it is good that she made a commitment—obviously, she has her background with her husband—to apprenticeships and their value, because previous Government initiatives did not seem to do that. Levelling up did not work, with areas of affluence seeing more sign up to apprenticeships while deprived areas saw a drop. Also, the high-level apprenticeships did not work because there was a drop in the construction industry.

I thank the Minister for her contribution and commitment to people working in the trade sector, be that businesses, apprentices or future apprentices, through the changes that we have started, identified and hope to continue. I would like her to take back to the Department some points from today’s debate. To achieve the ambitious growth in house building targets that I am pleased the Government are pursuing, we must upskill, and vocational education must be central to that across the country. Broadening the pool of apprenticeships not only solves an important part of the skills gap facing several sectors—notably construction—but it unlocks opportunities for young people and those who want a career change.

We need more people to use the flexible apprenticeships that have been mentioned, and we need those to work for a diverse range of people. I was one of the first girls to take a GCSE in design and technology, which is why it has always been a big passion of mine. We need to look at what we are doing in our education system. We need a system that values all pathways equally, so that the young man from Springfield school is not unique in pushing himself into this career. We must celebrate and elevate this vital sector, showing young people, and those not so young wishing to change their career, the possibilities, the positivity and opportunities available. I thank everyone working in the sector who is doing that day in, day out.

Apprenticeships can lead to successful businesses, higher wages and skills to be proud of, and I would like to see our education system and society placing vocational training at the heart of its ambition. As I have said, and continue to say, if someone cannot see it, they cannot do it. I am pleased that the Government recognise that and are beginning to unlock and make improvements immediately.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered public perceptions of trades and apprenticeship completion rates.

15:33

Sitting suspended.

Aldridge Train Station

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

15:02

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Aldridge train station.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the proposed development of a new train station in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and its funding through the city region sustainable transport settlement, known as CRSTS, which is less of a mouthful.

I will start with a little background about Aldridge-Brownhills and where we have got to with the development of a train station. Currently Aldridge-Brownhills is one of only 49 constituencies in this country that do not have a passenger train station and one of three in the West Midlands combined authority area. That is worth remembering. As in so many other areas, we lost our station in Aldridge due to the 1960s Beeching cuts. The last passenger train left Aldridge in 1965. Although we still have a freight line with freight trains operating on it, we do not have passenger services, but what we do have is a vision and determination to once again see passenger train services stopping at and running through Aldridge.

Things began to change in 2017. Following the first West Midlands mayoral election and the establishment of the West Midlands combined authority under Andy Street, the mayor laid down a bold and ambitious transport plan for the West Midlands region up until 2040.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. I suppose her ambition will be not just for the train station, because in this day and age there is definitely a need to ensure that those with disabilities can have access to all the train stations. I know the Government are committed to making those changes, but in the new build that the right hon. Lady is asking for, is it not possible to have disabled access there at the beginning so that everyone has the right to travel in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. New trains stations must have disabled-friendly access, and also access for those who might have a pram, a pushchair or bags that are hard to carry up the stairs. That is really important. I am conscious that across the rail network, as the Minister will be aware, we have a lot of older train stations and heritage buildings. I know there is a programme to bring those up to speed. Perhaps she will say a little more about that.

I am passionate about a train station for Aldridge because I want to make sure that my constituents have opportunities to go into Walsall, Birmingham and beyond. I want young people to have the opportunity to get the train to go to study, to university, and of course to access employment—so, yes, I am ambitious for Aldridge. When Andy Street was the mayor, part of his ambition was to bring a train station back to Aldridge. In fact, I remember the day he launched the plan and it almost looked like a smaller version of the London Underground map with all the different lines linking together and taking passengers into New Street. Such maps probably get the Department for Transport thinking about a mass transit system and the ability to move people around an area.

A city region such as the West Midlands combined authority needs an integrated transport plan. In Aldridge we have the train line. All we need is a station and then we will be part of that integrated plan. Throughout the intervening period since 2017 a huge amount of work was undertaken by the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands. The gamechanger came in February 2021, when Andy Street, on behalf of the combined authority, purchased land from the NHS for car parking. That was a clear demonstration of intent to reopen a station in Aldridge.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Aldridge station is projected to have 40 new car parking spaces, but Twyford station in my constituency is having some resurfacing and relining that will see the number of spots decline. That is despite half a million people now using the station, mainly because of the Elizabeth line, leading to a nightmare for commuters in my constituency. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Minister should bring Network Rail, Transport for London, Great Western Railway, and the Department together to find a solution that delivers more car park spaces for stations such as Twyford?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. As train users, we all know that the availability of car parking is important, and it is disappointing when a car park is upgraded or resurfaced and the upshot is fewer spaces rather than more. For Aldridge station, the purchase of the land is critical as part of the plans, but I am conscious that that will need to go through planning and so on. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Let us hope that the Minister might have heard his comments, and if she does not respond in this debate, perhaps she will respond to him another time.

Let us return to Aldridge station and the journey to where we are today. By June 2022, the strategic outline business case for the scheme was assessed, and given ministerial approval by the Department for Transport. Further funding was provided from the Restoring Your Railway programme. The outline business case demonstrated that the proposal to reopen a station in Aldridge presented the potential to improve connectivity for the residents of Aldridge, and reduce existing congestion by providing a more convenient public transport route, with greater access to job opportunities. Demand modelling for the proposed station shows the potential for 237,000 passenger journeys per year. That would help to reduce pressure at existing stations nearby, most notably at Blake Street and Four Oaks in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not here today, as well as at Tame Bridge in the West Bromwich constituency.

On 20 February this year, the green light for the project was given, and the budget of £30 million was secured from the Government. Transport for West Midlands and the West Midlands Rail Executive were working with Network Rail to get the station built and open, with a project end date of 2027. Imagine how excited we all were when we heard the news. For the avoidance of doubt, it was stated on the West Midlands combined authority website that the budget for Aldridge station was secured. Aldridge station would initially offer a half hourly service to Walsall town centre, where passengers would be offered an easy interchange with services to Birmingham, as well as the opportunity to connect to wider regional and national services. In addition, there were active discussions for further opportunities to improve and increase services at Aldridge. Those included the possibility that if the open access request was granted by DFT Ministers for services between Euston and Wrexham, the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands railway could provide services through Aldridge directly to London five times a day. What a game changer that would be for my constituents.

It therefore came as a big surprise to me and my constituents when, no sooner was the newly elected mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, in place, than he announced in July a review into the future of Aldridge station. Not only that, but having said that he would look into all transport projects, he then singled out only three projects to be reviewed. Those included, of course, our proposed station in Aldridge. The question is: why? Then, having secured the £30 million of funding through the CRSTS, it came as a further shock to learn that, as an outcome of its review, Arup, the independent assessor, was under the misapprehension that there was a budget of only some £3.6 million, and therefore it seemed to believe that it was not a fully funded project. That is of course wrong, but that is the narrative that the mayor now wants people to believe, somehow conjuring up an illusion that the project has no funding and therefore could easily be pulled.

Mayor Parker knows that is completely wrong. In fact, he made an application to the Secretary of State for Transport to move over £26 million of that funding to other areas within the budget. I was informed by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in a letter on 21 November that she had agreed to move the ringfence funding for the project on the advice of the mayor. Can the Minister confirm today when Mayor Parker made his application? Where has he sought to direct that funding to? I can only presume that it is to part of his wider transport budget, but which part, and where? My constituents are left wondering whether their funding is now being used to fund an unaffordable bus nationalisation scheme that everyone told Mayor Parker, before the election, could not be delivered on the budget he had planned, which was only £25 million.

On that basis, call me cynical, but an additional £26 million from the Aldridge project would prove to be very handy for the elected mayor to push forward with his pet project. I am not anti-buses at all, but I am against money that was earmarked and ringfenced for Aldridge being moved somewhere else. That is why, given that the Secretary of State gave approval to vire this money, it is important that we fully understand where it has gone. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell me today, as the mayor is trying to have his cake and eat it. First, there was a review, and that review then became all about Aldridge station being deferred until future years. Now this week he is saying:

“What is pretty clear is the funding wasn’t in place but more importantly that project has not currently met the business case requirements that it would need for that investment to take place”.

To me and my constituents, this all sounds rather like the whole project is slowly being pulled into the sidings, awaiting derailment by the mayor. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister confirmed what intention Mayor Parker has signalled to the Department for Transport.

I simply cannot, and will not, accept the comments from the mayor on funding. I would like the Minister to confirm: first, this was a fully funded project through the CRSTS and the funding allocation was awarded to the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands; secondly, it was also detailed on the West Midlands Rail Executive website; and thirdly, this was a political decision and a political choice by the elected mayor to change his political priorities to move that money, and he sought approval from the Secretary of State to do so. Once and for all, I believe that it is time to call out the elected mayor. My constituents and wider public transport users in the West Midlands deserve better, and it is time to admit that this was not his political inheritance, nor his predecessor’s, and it was not any failure of the previous Government to fund a new station in Aldridge. It is his decision, and his alone, to deny the people of Aldridge their funding for their new station.

Turning to the so-called review, I would like to ask the Minister some questions—sorry about all my questions today. When did the former Secretary of State give her approval to move the money? I am concerned that the basis of the Arup review was seriously flawed, as the independent adviser to the mayor was under the impression either that approval to move the money had been given, or that the project had only a fraction of the budget, when the opposite was true. The residents of Aldridge deserve to be treated with respect, fairly and equitably, yet the manner in which the new mayor has handled the whole matter does a disservice to politics. Now we find that the mayor, having created his own hole, continues to dig himself in by repeating in his statements that the project was not funded and that the case for a station in Aldridge was not properly made, which is simply not the case.

The new Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), said just yesterday that better rail services

“put the needs of local people first”.

I could not agree with her more. Ensuring that transport services are joined up, meet local needs and drive economic growth is exactly what Aldridge station is all about. It is time that the mayor apologised to the people of Aldridge for the whole review. I hope that the Minister will clear up the facts for my constituents today—that she will confirm that the project was fully funded and that by one means or another, the people of Aldridge have been seriously shortchanged, and the mayor has put their proposed new station at risk.

I will conclude by repeating that the residents of Aldridge deserve better than the treatment they have been given, and it is incumbent on the Minister today to be clear with all of them about why the Government have backed the decision. She needs to give them, and me, the answers to those very basic questions. Aldridge deserves its train station, and it expects its train station.

14:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate about the future of Aldridge train station. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who used the opportunity to raise important issues pertinent to their constituencies. I know that the hon. Member for Wokingham would like my thoughts about extra car parking spaces at Twyford station; I regret that I shall have to ask my colleagues in the Department and perhaps my officials to write to him about that, as I had not prepared notes on Twyford for today's debate.

I share the right hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for the delivery of new rail infrastructure enhancements such as a new station at Aldridge, and I recognise the wide array of transformative benefits that they can bring. Railways can create jobs, spur economic growth, promote decarbonisation via a modal shift from road to rail, and generally enhance people's quality of life by helping them to get easily from A to B. The magnificent new University station in Birmingham, which opened at the start of the year, has already facilitated millions of journeys and is a shining example of how infrastructure can transform lives and stimulate growth. That is backed by early passenger survey results, which show that nearly 90% of passengers rate the new station as “good” or “excellent”, and nearly 20% would have taken their journey by car if the new station was not there. I am sure she agrees that those are worthy goals, and she is right to advocate for the delivery of similar schemes in her constituency that can unlock such benefits.

I completely understand the right hon. Lady’s vision for passenger train services serving her constituency for the first time in a long time. However, it is in that spirit of wanting to complete transformative transport enhancements that difficult decisions have been made. As she knows, in 2022 the Conservative Government allocated £1.05 billion of city region sustainable transport settlement funding to the West Midlands combined authority, or the WMCA. The money was devolved to the WMCA, led by then metro mayor Andy Street, to spend on its local transport priorities. The WMCA set out its priorities for a programme of investment, which the Department for Transport supported and which included an allocation of £30 million towards delivery of a new railway station at Aldridge.

Time passed, and in July 2024 the West Midlands combined authority presented a paper to the Department outlining cost pressures across its portfolio of projects. As the right hon. Member knows, there has been significant inflation since 2022, and it is not unique to the West Midlands combined authority that cost pressures have arisen in the delivery of infrastructure projects. The cost gap presented a material risk that schemes already in construction would be left unfinished. The combined authority proposed reallocating funding that was allocated but not ringfenced from schemes not in construction, including Aldridge railway station, to those in delivery to ensure that they were completed.

I am happy to share with the right hon. Member which schemes have been prioritised. The schemes that have been assisted with the funding, reallocated as she described, include Rail Package 2, which is delivering three new stations—Moseley, Kings Heath and Pineapple Road—on the Camp Hill line between Kings Norton and Birmingham New Street; the Wednesbury metro depot; certain sections of the Sprint phase two priority bus corridor; the Dudley Interchange, which is a new bus station at Dudley; and the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill metro extension and a further extension on to Merry Hill. Also included is the Birmingham Eastside metro extension, which serves Digbeth and will serve the HS2 Curzon Street station.

A number of other programmes have been deferred as a result of those schemes needing to be prioritised. I can assure the right hon. Lady that while improving bus services is an important issue, including in the West Midlands, the funds are not being redirected and used for the purpose that she suggests might be the case.

The West Midlands combined authority proposed retaining £3.6 million to complete important ongoing design and business case development work for Aldridge station. As the right hon. Lady knows, projects need to go through a process to secure final funding and move to delivery. At present, work is being done using that development funding to produce an outline business case for Aldridge railway station; then, a final business case will be needed. In any case, these are crucial steps to securing a decision to deliver. Work can still continue with that important development funding.

[Wendy Morton]

I hear what the Minister is saying, and I still hope she will answer some of my questions, but on that ongoing work, that money was part of the £30 million for Aldridge station. The Department and the mayor always fall back on the argument that the station is not under construction, but the work had started and it is ongoing. There is £3.6 million to do the preparatory work and ground work. I have spoken to Network Rail, and it is all teed up to do all of this. The Government have allocated £3.6 million, but I would still argue that that is part of the £30 million. I still do not understand why Aldridge train station was the one singled out to be pulled from all the projects.

[Lilian Greenwood]

A number of projects are in construction, and I have spelled out precisely which ones. The West Midlands combined authority wanted to ensure that those projects would be completed and opened, as significant spending had already been put into taking those into construction. As I have set out, Aldridge railway station has not yet reached an outline business case. It is not in construction, but that development funding—the £3.6 million—will be used to develop the work and ensure that it can go forward in the future. It is not the only project that has been deferred.

[Wendy Morton]

I will not make too many more interventions, but on the specific point about the project moving to the next phase and then into construction, does the Minister not accept that because the mayor and the Department for Transport have vired the money elsewhere, the money for the station’s construction is now gone?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I accept that the West Midlands combined authority had cost pressures and that it does not have sufficient funding to complete all the projects that were set out in its original plan to the timetable that was envisaged. The right hon. Lady is correct that the money has been reprogrammed to be used on other projects, but that does not mean that the railway station cannot be delivered in the future. Other deferred programmes include part of Sprint phase 2, the Hagley Road rapid transit development and the cross-city bus programme. I know that will be unwelcome news.

The request was made in July this year, and in September my Department approved the West Midlands combined authority’s recommendation. I stand by that decision, although I understand the right hon. Lady’s disappointment that schemes not yet in construction, including Aldridge railway station, will not be delivered to the timescale originally planned. The £1.05 billion originally allocated by the Conservative Government to the West Midlands combined authority has not been reduced; the West Midlands combined authority has, with our approval, reallocated the way that the money is being spent so that it can finish the job on schemes that are in flight. I am confident that we are aligned on the benefits that transport enhancement can bring, and that is why we cannot afford to leave schemes unfinished. I understand the right hon. Lady’s concerns, but that is the decision that the West Midlands combined authority sought for us to take, and we have allowed it to proceed in that way.

As the right hon. Lady says, the West Midlands combined authority’s portfolio of transport enhancement schemes was established and signed off under the previous West Midlands mayor and under a Conservative Government. However, cost escalations and delays to the programme also occurred during Mayor Street’s tenure, and under a Conservative Government. I am committed to ensuring that the schemes in delivery, which were named in the previous mayor’s manifesto, and which the right hon. Lady campaigned for, are delivered. I believe that with her advocacy and the leadership of the current metro mayor, Richard Parker, who I know is ambitious for the West Midlands and its transport network, the future remains bright for Aldridge railway station. With its £3.6 million of development funding, design work and business case development continue at pace.

My Department is undertaking a review of the previous Administration’s spending plans, and once that is complete, we will confirm future funding allocations. By carrying out that essential pre-delivery business case and design work, the West Midlands combined authority is ensuring that Aldridge station is well placed for delivery funding, as and when more money becomes available. The right hon. Lady’s work with the West Midlands combined authority and her constituents to advocate for the scheme is the best way of ensuring that there is a strong local consensus behind it and increasing the chances of it being funded in the future, as and when funds become available. If and when Aldridge does get delivered, in combination with the new stations being built at Willenhall and Darlaston, we could see the number of stations in the Walsall area double from three to six, which is a hugely exciting prospect for her constituency and the wider region.

I am ambitious for the future of Aldridge and the West Midlands, and I urge the right hon. Lady and the West Midlands combined authority to continue developing plans to ensure that we deliver better transport infrastructure, which supports economic growth, jobs, decarbonisation and improved quality of life for the travelling public of the West Midlands.

Question put and agreed to.

Community Pharmacies: Devon and the South-west

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for community pharmacies in Devon and the South West.

I am delighted to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate. It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. At a time such as this, when we repeatedly hear from the Government and our communities that the national health service is under strain, is heading into yet another winter crisis and is struggling with capacity, community pharmacies need the greatest consideration for further Government support. I will start by focusing on the role of pharmacies in our society, and then I will outline the challenges and end on what we might be able to do with the right support and engagement.

I wish to thank all pharmacists and their staff in Tiverton and Minehead for the invaluable work they do day in, day out. In particular, I commend Neil and Anna, who have run Bampton pharmacy in my home village for decades, and have, along with the owners of Wiveliscombe pharmacy and Alcombe pharmacy, provided me with first-hand, real-life insights into the challenges they face.

The 15 pharmacies in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead provide a vital service to their communities —something they share with every pharmacy across Devon, Somerset, the south-west and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom. As I am sure we will hear from other hon. Members, pharmacies are under threat from the economic environment in which they now operate. Core pharmacy funding has decreased in real terms by more than 30% since 2016, and costs have gone in exactly the opposite direction. The number of pharmacies open in England is lower than it has been in any year since 2008-09, even though their workload is 40% higher, in terms of annual prescriptions.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. As she was laying out, community pharmacies face large funding gaps, but the rate of pharmacy closure is Glastonbury and Somerton is nearly double the national average. Does she agree that the Government should commit to publishing the independent economic analysis commissioned by NHS England in early 2025, when the work is concluded? Does she also agree that we must reform community pharmacy funding and put in place a sustainable, long-term funding model?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I agree with both courses of action, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for that important and interesting contribution.

The increase in workload is not sustainable, but that workload is too important not to receive proper backing from central Government as they make headway on their ambition to create what they have referred to, on occasion, as a neighbourhood health service.

Being a Devonian, I would like to go through things logically. First, I will talk about prescriptions. In Tiverton and Minehead, each pharmacy dispenses an average of 7,540 prescriptions every month. Across all 15 pharmacies, that is an average of 113,175 prescriptions each month across the constituency. That is 20,000 more prescriptions each month than the House of Commons Library says there are people in the entire constituency. Prescriptions that provide life-altering medications for constituents are the front door to the work of pharmacies. They are what most people think pharmacies do most often, but our pharmacies do a lot more work in our villages, towns and cities.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

It matters not whether the community pharmacy is in Devon or my constituency of Caerfyrddin; drug tariffs, which put such a strain on our pharmacists, need to be reviewed, and an uplift is long overdue. Would the hon. Member agree that we need to highlight that financial shortfall to the Government, and that something needs to be done immediately?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I agree that we need to do that as often as possible. I will move on to the workload. This is not a typical example: along with prescriptions, in Tiverton and Minehead each pharmacy conducted 398 flu vaccines on average during the 2023-24 season, higher than the national average of 355.

If Members are unfortunate enough to need their blood pressure checked, they can go to a pharmacy. Across the UK, 930,000 hypertension blood pressure checks are undertaken in just one year. With public health as a driving mission for the Government, I would hope that this was something they could support wherever it takes place. Pharmacies also offer a range of other clinical and public health services, including providing flu and covid-19 vaccinations, and if further services were to be commissioned from community pharmacies in the context of sustainable core funding, the sector could do even more to improve access to primary care.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. She has touched on the issue of funding. In Northern Ireland, we have already made that commitment as it is a devolved matter; an additional £15 million has been set aside for community and GP pharmacies, with extra money beyond April 2027. We all want to achieve what the hon. Lady wants, but does she agree that to achieve that the Government and the Minister have to invest accordingly?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I do agree. In addition to delivering formally commissioned services, pharmacies provide an alternative point of contact for the public for informal clinical advice. The 2024 pharmacy advice audit found that the average pharmacy carries out around 22 informal consultations per day, which is the equivalent of 1.3 million informal consultations taking place in community pharmacies every week.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. From the first day we met we have talked about getting this debate, so I am very pleased that it is happening. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy. Does she agree that community pharmacies have a huge amount of potential to support patients with a range of services, which will support the NHS ten-year plan to move more care into the community and help prevent ill health in the first place? That is one of the main roles they can play in the future.

[Rachel Gilmour]

As the hon. Member knows, I am keen on strategies, particularly the one that he has just mentioned.

Pharmacies are not paid for the informal advice sessions. In over half of such occasions, if the patient had not been able to access their local community pharmacy they would have instead visited their GP surgery. That suggests that we have freed up 37.7 million GP appointments over the course of a year simply by patients having access to their local community pharmacy, which speaks to the point that the hon. Member just made.

Such a workload is commendable, but it is not sustainable in the current funding model. That has meant that over the autumn the National Pharmacy Association found that pharmacies are overwhelmingly willing to reduce services in order to protect patient safety and preserve access to pharmacies, if funding is not provided to protect the network. Pharmacies do not want to do that; they know the impact that reducing their services can have on a community, but if the other option involves continuing in an overstretched, under-supported environment, for pharmacists and anyone committed to delivering health and health-related services to vulnerable people, it is not a real choice.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady, my neighbour, for securing the debate. Does she agree that the many benefits that community pharmacies provide are in danger, because in many cases the pharmacist is not reimbursed even for the cost of prescription drugs? Will she, with me, ask the Minister to reply specifically on that point?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I will of course do that.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I congratulate you on securing this vital debate. In my constituency of Yeovil, pharmacies provide vital services, including more than 6,700 prescriptions per month—not quite as many as in your constituency, Rachel.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. “You” and “your” refer to the Chair.

[Adam Dance]

Sorry, Mr Betts. Since the launch of the Pharmacy First service this year, it is estimated that pharmacies in Yeovil have saved at least 556 GP appointments. However, a lack of investment and the rise in national insurance contributions threaten the amazing work done by pharmacies in Yeovil and across the country. I understand from the response I received to a parliamentary question—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief and to the point for hon. Members to respond to. They should not be another speech.

[Adam Dance]

Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to provide a clear timeline for the consultation to start?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I thank my hon. Friend for his not particularly concise, but erudite, intervention.

I will turn briefly to the funding model of pharmacies. Some 90% of a pharmacy’s income is derived directly from NHS funding, but when it comes to how that funding is allocated, the system is broken. Community pharmacies across the UK dispense more than 1.1 billion items a year and deal with shortage issues on a daily basis. The Department of Health and Social Care sets reimbursement prices in our system, but due to the reimbursement prices being so low and pharmacies being unable to compete on the international stage, the global market is now a safer bet for pharmaceutical companies than the UK. That means that people in the UK sometimes are not able to get the right medication due to shortages and that even when the DHSC puts together a price concession and allows for a greater reimbursement rate to allow UK pharmacies to compete for those life-aiding medications, there are extraordinary pressures on the NHS and the taxpayer. The realities of the funding model mean that community pharmacies are trying to push up water uphill using tools riddled with holes—in other words, sieves.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the issues with the cost of drugs, the funding model for providing all the other services that pharmacies are expected to provide, including the Pharmacy First approach to avoiding GP appointments, needs addressing?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I will come on to Pharmacy First at the end of the debate, because I see it as the solution, rather than the problem.

The sector is trying its hardest, but without a fundamental overhaul of the system these NHS services, which are much-needed by patients and the public, may fall by the wayside into one of the following pits. There are the hours lost. When the money is not there, pharmacies cannot operate. As we see in many areas across the south-west and the UK, including in Tiverton and Minehead, hundreds of hours have been lost to temporary closures of pharmacies. According to the Company Chemists’ Association, pharmacies across the south-west have cut opening hours to the tune of 130,400 hours over just more than a year and a half by reducing their opening hours. According to Community Pharmacy England, from October 2021 to May 2024, in my constituency alone, more than 520 hours of pharmacy time were lost due to temporary pharmacy closures.

Although pharmacies operate all the services that I mentioned in the first part of my speech—and more, but I do not have time to go through them all—the closures take a toll on the GPs and A&E staff who might be someone’s next port of call if they cannot see their pharmacist. They take a toll on the NHS 111 line if the individual calls in, and they take a toll on the people who might not have any other free time in that day to take care of their health needs. Those lost hours add up. When pharmacies cannot provide those appointments or other services, it leads to bottlenecks elsewhere in the system.

Over the first three months of Pharmacy First, to which I will come shortly, pharmacies took 234 appointments out of the GP system simply by offering consultations for the seven applicable conditions. Pharmacies have fantastic potential to relieve pressure and provide new ways for people to access medical services, receive advice and so much more. Pharmacies cannot fulfil their potential if they are closed. The prospect of local pharmacies closing really does scare people. In a recent poll, 83% of respondents reported that they would be concerned about their local pharmacy closing. Data shows that closures are disproportionately taking place in the most deprived areas, with 50% of the pharmacy closures recorded in areas in the lowest three deciles of deprivation.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), is that not the nub of the argument? If the Government are to make the three shifts—including, importantly, the shift from hospital to community—they must not only stem the loss of pharmacies, but build them up.

[Rachel Gilmour]

I see it as a pyramid, with pharmacies at the bottom, right up to operations and A&E at the top.

According to the CCA, between September 2022 and June 2024 nearly 200,000 hours of pharmacy time was lost due to pharmacies closing their doors permanently. Over 1,000 pharmacies have closed since 2016, with a net loss of 136 pharmacies in the south-west over the last decade—including in Tiverton and Minehead, where we did not have many pharmacies to begin with. The number of pharmacies operating in England is now the lowest since 2008-09. There are reports across the sector of sustained difficulties in even staffing the pharmacies that remain open. The sector cannot sustain these exits, nor can communities where pharmacies are so vital. Pharmacies across the south-west and Devon need proper investment to safeguard and fix our broken pharmacy system, and to ensure that our health system is up to scratch and our social care system is supported.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Given the number of Back Benchers who wish to speak, you will probably have to keep to less than five minutes each. Also, at some point we may have to suspend the sitting for 45 minutes to vote, so please do not speak unless you are prepared to come back when the debate resumes.

16:47

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts.

Over the past two decades I have had the privilege of working in a range of community pharmacies across the south-west and elsewhere. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for the best birthday present I could ask for: an opportunity to talk about a passion that has defined my life and that I am still proud to practice today. I started my journey in community pharmacy studying at that pearl of south-west education, the University of Bath, more birthdays ago than I care to admit. From there, I went on to work in community pharmacies across the region, from Bideford in north Devon to the heart of Bristol, and even in Clevedon—a town I am honoured to represent as its Member of Parliament.

During my time working in village pharmacies, town pharmacies and even online pharmacies, I was witness to the irreplaceable value that pharmacies and their teams provide to some of the most vulnerable in our society. I am sad to say that I also experienced many of the challenges that the sector now faces. Indeed, it was living with those challenges and seeing the unnecessary suffering caused by the decline of community pharmacies that prompted me to run for Parliament earlier this year.

Over the past two decades working in community pharmacies across the south-west, I have seen at first hand the consequences of 14 years of pharmacy neglect by the previous Government, not least through their bad Brexit deal. By weakening our co-operation with our nearest neighbours, we have cut off the supply of pharmacists coming from Europe, we have greatly exacerbated our supply chain issues, resulting in medicine shortages, and we have contorted the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency into a role it was never designed for and has since failed to live up to.

Undoubtedly the worst thing the previous Government did for our industry was freeze the funding settlement for 10 years, resulting in a 40% reduction in real terms. With ever-growing demands on prescribing and the introduction of the new role for pharmacists with Pharmacy First, the Conservatives prescribed pharmacy a tough pill to swallow and it will take years to undo the side effects. That is why we must not waste any more time. We must stabilise the sector today with a fair funding settlement while we begin the arduous task of reforming the role of pharmacy and the role it plays in our healthcare system.

Pharmacy First was a good step but, with only seven conditions eligible for treatment, it falls far short of Wales’s 27 and Scotland’s 30, with the scheme in England fraught with issues, not least in payment. Although the obvious priority is to expand Pharmacy First and relieve pressure on GPs, we must first expand pharmacies’ capacity, which can be done only by finally implementing the hub-and-spoke legislation that was inexplicably shelved in September without warning or explanation.

Hub-and-spoke model 1 would allow smaller independent community pharmacies finally to take advantage of the technologies that larger chains have been using for decades, thereby greatly increasing their efficiency and freeing up time previously spent on dispensing to be used for the delivery of clinical services to patients under an expanded Pharmacy First scheme.

I am eager to see this Government avoid the mistakes made during the past 14 years that have brought the sector to crisis point. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead for securing the debate, and the Minister for listening to our concerns. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rewrite the story of pharmacy, which has a long and rich history of healthcare provision in this country but now faces an uncertain future, with some in the sector concerned that we might not survive past 2039.

The prescription for pharmacy is an immediate funding settlement for this year to stabilise the sector with a sticking plaster while we look at the longer-term changes the industry needs. Having been on the ground for the past 20 years, I am here to say that pharmacy has cut every ounce of fat that can be cut, and all that is left is bone. Without advancing the modernisation agenda, the sector has no more efficiencies to make. For that to happen, we need the Government to commit to implementing the hub-and-spoke model to increase capacity, and to expanding Pharmacy First to use that capacity. Pharmacy has an important future role to play in relieving pressure on other parts of our healthcare system, but it can play that role only if we proactively engage with the sector, rather than leave it out in the cold for another 14 years.

16:51

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate.

A number of primary care providers, including GPs, dentists, opticians and pharmacists, spoke to Devon MPs a few weeks ago. They shared with us the crisis that the frontline of the NHS currently faces. They also shared another challenge that I ask the Minister to reflect on: how national operating framework 4 puts additional pressures on services in Devon, and how the integrated care board is challenged in respect of some decisions, perhaps where fewer prevention opportunities have been taken. That has increased pressures on primary care, with more money spent on acute services. The Government rightly highlight the fact that, in children’s services and adult social care, prevention is better than cure, and it is the same for this area of the NHS.

My constituency has 22 pharmacists serving communities across Torbay. Sadly, we have lost seven pharmacists in recent years, significantly increasing the pressure on those that still trade, which is a grave concern. We have an older population, leading to greater footfall for our helpful pharmacists. I also reflect on the fact that 10 years ago the NHS spend on support for pharmacists was 2.4%, and it is now 1.6%. If our plan is prevention, that is going in the wrong direction. Colleagues have rightly raised the Pharmacy First approach, which has saved a little under 500 GP appointments in the Torbay constituency; we need to push harder on that agenda.

I would like to curry a little favour with the Minister by sharing with him the fact that the first manifesto I bought had a picture of his father on the front of it. I still have it up on my shelf, despite my wife regularly asking me to clear out my office. I would like the Minister to reflect on whether NOF4 is part of the problem rather than the solution for NHS services, and to ensure that we get the long-term funding for pharmacies that is the strength they need to build on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to have to squeeze speeches down to no more than four minutes.

16:55

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing the debate.

After decades of Conservative Government, our NHS is on its knees, and we see that in our long waiting times, in GP services over capacity and in hospitals struggling to meet demand. In the middle of this, community pharmacies have been quietly stepping up and taking on more responsibilities to help NHS colleagues and to ensure that our communities are not disadvantaged further. However, underfunding, medication shortages and a reduction in the skilled workforce have left many pharmacies in crisis.

According to the Company Chemists’ Association, the south-west has lost more than 300,000 hours of pharmacy care a year, with 40% lost due to reduced opening times and 60% as a result of permanent closures. Behind the statistics are real people in our constituencies who are struggling to access the care they need. Community pharmacies are trusted pillars of our communities and a key part of the wider healthcare system. For areas such as my South East Cornwall constituency, where we have a large elderly population and constituents who often have to travel very long distances to access healthcare services, our pharmacies are vital lifelines.

This Government have a plan to rebuild our NHS, but it will take time and we need to do more in the interim to support our pharmacies so they can continue to support our communities. Great initiatives such as Pharmacy First have demonstrated that pharmacies can support our NHS and deliver for people when they are empowered to do so. Such schemes can help to free up GP capacity and improve patient access to treatments for common conditions. However, more could be achieved, so will the Minister outline what support will be made available for community pharmacies in my area of South East Cornwall and across the south-west?

16:57

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, particularly because I speak after the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) indicated that it may be his birthday, which means that he and I share our birthday with the Pope.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I congratulate the hon. Member on having the best birthday.

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

Like my colleagues, I get a lot of correspondence about community pharmacies, which comes from my constituents and also from the pharmacists of Mid Dorset and North Poole. One of my constituents, Ruth in Wimborne, visited Quarter Jack Pharmacy for me at the weekend to get some data. I asked her to get some examples of drugs for which the price differential between what was paid and what was reimbursed was particularly high. The pharmacist gave her a whole list of drugs for which the money received was substantially less than what he got. He said that the precise amount varied from week to week, including for apixaban, which is prescribed to prevent strokes and which presumably saves the NHS a lot of money. Does the Minister agree that that is unacceptable? What commitment will he give to update the contract urgently?

On the medicines shortfall, I cannot tell Members how many people have told me about having to go around the county to try to find the medication they need. Patients with epilepsy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Parkinson’s and sight loss have all contacted me worried about their health. David explained his issue with epilepsy, which is that stress can increase the chance of seizures. I have a personal example: my husband Paul also has epilepsy, which is controlled by drugs, but if he has one seizure, he will lose his driving licence again. He has just got it back after two years and I really do not want to be driving him around. The idea of people being unable to work or drive is mad. The list of medicines available under prescription includes epilepsy, but not Parkinson’s. Does the Minister agree it is high time that the list was updated, given that it was last changed in 1968?

There has been a recent consultation on allowing non-pharmacists to give out bagged medication, and on pharmacists being allowed to give approved persons the right to issue medication. I wrote to the Minister to ask when we were going to get a result and was told that it was still being considered, so I really hope that, today, he might give us a timeline for when we can expect that for our pharmacists.

Finally, in one of my local villages the GP dispenses out of a side window of the surgery, with patients expected to wait in the cold. When I asked why they could not reduce this inconvenience for patients, who are often out there for 45 minutes, I was told it was because they cannot make up prescriptions for three months instead of one because they get paid per prescription and not for the drugs, so the GP would be out of pocket if they made the prescription for three months. That seems outrageous. If it is true, will the Minister urgently review how that works so that dispensing GPs and pharmacists are not out of pocket for providing a better service to their patients?

17:01

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this important debate.

Community pharmacies are indispensable to West Dorset, serving as essential health hubs for our communities. However, they face mounting challenges, including escalating financial pressures and critical workforce shortages that threaten their ability to continue to provide those vital services.

West Dorset, amazingly, is served by only 18 active pharmacies, for a population of more than 100,000. Data from the NHS Business Services Authority shows that the number of community pharmacies in England has declined by 6.7% since 2001. In the past year alone, a further 217 pharmacies have been lost, and startlingly it is those not offering in-person services—often called distance-selling pharmacies—that are the least likely to fail. That demonstrates that the new role that pharmacies are having to play in our healthcare system is actually hurting their viability due to the broken funding model.

Workforce shortages exacerbate the strain. In NHS Dorset, the integrated care system that covers West Dorset, there are 47 vacancies, equating to a vacancy rate above the national average of 19%. The impact of these staffing challenges is clear: a 2024 survey by Community Pharmacy England found that three quarters of pharmacy team members reported shop staff shortages, and approximately 10% of pharmacy owners had no choice but to temporarily close their doors as a result of those shortages.

For patients, that means longer waiting times, reduced services and less access to advice for urgent healthcare concerns. For staff, it translates to unsustainable workloads, difficulties in sourcing medicines and, most alarmingly, increases in patient abuse. Nearly all respondents—92%—reported struggling to cope with the pressure, highlighting the human toll of the pharmacy crisis.

The recent rise in national insurance contributions places an additional burden on pharmacies as employers, particularly in rural areas, where revenue streams are less predictable. I have one pharmacy in my constituency that made a six-figure loss last year, even before the increase in national insurance contributions came in.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. As he is rightly pointing out, the employer national insurance contributions, alongside the national living wage, are increasing the pressure on our important community pharmacies. Does he agree that the Government must urgently exempt pharmacies, GPs and dentists from the tax hikes to avoid considerable damage to the sector?

[Edward Morello]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. She will be pleased to know that there is, in fact, a Liberal Democrat amendment right now to do exactly that, which I am sure we will all be voting for, and which we would ask the Government to take the opportunity to support. Community pharmacies already face slim margins under the current community pharmacy contractual framework funding model, and while initiatives such as Pharmacy First have brought new funding streams into the sector, they are not sufficient to offset the rising costs of operation, including wages, rents and utility bills.

Community pharmacies are lifelines for rural constituents like those in West Dorset. They provide crucial access to healthcare services, especially for those who struggle to reach GPs or hospitals. They are also uniquely vulnerable due to small patient bases and higher operational costs, and the Government should recognise those disparities. That means revisiting the funding framework, addressing workforce shortages and offering targeted financial relief to offset rising costs, including the impact of national insurance contributions.

Community pharmacies are not just businesses; they help to support our strained healthcare systems and are a part of our communities. For the people of West Dorset, and for millions across the country, we cannot afford to let them falter. I urge the Government to prioritise this issue, undertake a comprehensive review of the funding model, work closely with Community Pharmacy England and provide the support necessary to secure the future of our pharmacies and the vital service that they deliver in rural communities.

17:05

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. Growing up, people used to talk about going to the chemist, and at the time I saw that alongside going to the butcher or shoe shop—it was where we went to buy stuff. What I did not realise was how crucial pharmacies are to prescriptions and thus to people’s health and wellbeing, and I am ever so aware of that now that I represent a constituency in Devon.

Under the previous Government, in the last two years alone, Devon has seen the closure of nine pharmacies, leaving the county with just 133. For the people I represent in Honiton and Sidmouth, that translates to just 16 pharmacies per 100,000 people—even fewer than in West Dorset. That is partly because income for pharmacies has stagnated, particularly what they receive from the NHS, and that is combined with rising costs, including energy bills and wages, as well as the cost of medication. Altogether, it makes for an unsustainable financial model. Yet pharmacies provide over 1.3 million consultations each week for people’s health concerns, which is keeping people out of the NHS and saving 38 million GP appointments every year. Just last month, a pharmacist in Devon noted that his team spends over two hours per day providing free, unfunded clinical consultations, and those prevent health conditions from deteriorating, and prevent hospital visits and additional strain on the NHS.

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point: under the current funding model, pharmacists are reimbursed only if the consultation results in a prescription being issued. That results in a medicalisation of the process, which means that pharmacists are less likely to provide other sorts of solutions, such as community care. Does my hon. Friend agree that the model is fundamentally flawed and creates a medicalisation issue?

[Richard Foord]

It is flawed, particularly for those parts of the country that are rural and coastal, such as those represented by my hon. Friend and myself. In Honiton and Sidmouth, the average age of my constituents is 56. I went to a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people last week, and we hosted Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England. He described how, while in some societies people move away from the coast and rural areas to seek comfort and care in towns and cities, in England we do quite the reverse. That makes it even more crucial that we maintain our pharmacies in those rural and coastal communities.

In short, we are calling for the Government to provide funding to halt the closures and stabilise the sector, ensuring that rural communities such as those in Devon are not left behind. We want to see the role of pharmacists expanded to give them greater prescribing rights and allow them to take on bigger public health responsibilities.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

It is really important that we widen the discussion to talk about not only stemming the loss of pharmacies, but how we can put pharmacies back. In the south-west, community hospitals would act as an excellent venue for them. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be looking at community hospitals as a potential venue for new pharmacies, so that they are a bit of a one-stop shop where people can access healthcare and advice?

[Richard Foord]

I think the hon. Gentleman has come up with an absolutely brilliant idea. Community hospitals are potentially hubs where pharmacies might sit in the future. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate; she has done a great thing by doing so.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We now move on to the Front Benchers. The two Opposition spokespeople have no more than five minutes, and then the Minister will probably have about 10 minutes left.

17:10

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate, which is very timely because just yesterday the hospital in Winchester declared a critical incident. It has had so many infectious patients come in with various flus, the norovirus and other infectious diseases that it is short of beds. It has asked people to seek other healthcare arrangements, and has specifically mentioned pharmacies as a place to go for advice.

Alongside providing more social care packages to free up beds, one part of the solution to prevent the yearly NHS winter crisis is to increase the delivery of flu and covid vaccinations well before winter. We have seen that, with the right Government support, our community pharmacies are well placed to deliver vaccinations; they are not just accessible but convenient, and they deliver care right in the heart of a community.

I have been to many pharmacies in and around Winchester, including the Springvale pharmacy in Kings Worthy, the Wellbeing pharmacy on Winchester High Street and the Colden chemist in Colden common. I have spoken to the staff who work there and have heard at first hand that the NHS funding model really isn’t working for them. I was saddened to hear that, although those pharmacists are passionate about their work, they struggle to see how they will remain open for the next 12 to 24 months.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Pharmacies in two of the major GP surgeries in my constituency, Leatside in Totnes and Compass House in Brixham, have closed in the past year because the private operators could not make a profit. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is urgent that we revise the funding model for prescriptions so that pharmacies, particularly in GP surgeries, can survive?

[Dr Chambers]

I completely agree. As other Members said, in some cases it costs pharmacies money to dispense NHS prescriptions. That is clearly not viable, especially given that the core NHS funding for pharmacies has been reduced by about 30% since 2015.

Some healthcare providers are really struggling and are on the brink of financial viability. They include pharmacies, hospices and some social care providers. The increase in national insurance contributions will cost the pharmacy industry approximately £50 million extra this year. Once again, we urge the Government to exempt some healthcare providers from the increase in national insurance or potentially repay that money through another mechanism, because it could be a death blow to social care providers, pharmacies and hospices that are on the brink of financial viability.

I thank hard-working pharmacists, such as the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who really are part of the community. People come in; they trust them. Pharmacists have a really good personal relationship with their communities. Through the work they do and the hours they work, pharmacies are a lifeline for millions. They provide nearly a third of consultations outside normal working hours. They are often the only point of care for people living in rural areas. As our population grows older and faces increasingly complex health challenges, pharmacies must be empowered to step up and deliver the reliable, flexible care solutions that our communities desperately need.

As we talk about the strain on the public finances and the NHS budget, we cannot be tempted to see primary care—GPs, mental health provision, pharmacies or dentists—as a cost to be cut. We must invest in them and ensure we keep them viable, because it is always more cost-effective to treat people in their communities and prevent them from getting ill than it is to treat them when they end up in hospital.

17:14

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to speak across the Chamber from the Minister for the first time.

As a GP, I am grateful for the fact that 38 million GP appointments are saved each year. Although the temptation is to try to thank everyone—it can feel like doing a set of prescriptions again—I pay particular tribute to the pharmacists, because whenever I used to get a call from a pharmacist, I always knew that they were right and that I should listen carefully to what they said.

As of January 2024, there were more than 10,000 pharmacies providing NHS services, with 80% of the population living within 20 minutes’ walking distance of a pharmacy. We know that the number of registered pharmacists also grew consistently under the last Government, up 61% in 2024 compared with 2010. I am pleased to hear that the Government are still committing to the NHS workforce plan. As we have heard today, there are still difficulties in meeting recruitment needs.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing her first debate. As she rightly pointed out, there are many difficulties in the sector. I would like to take a quick canter through them. With five minutes, I have five questions to the Minister.

The first and most obvious issue is the community pharmacy contractual framework, which is so important to the financial agreement for 2024-25. This was a deal struck in July 2019 to provide £2.59 billion in annual funding to NHS pharmacy services. Under the last Government, in 2023, the NHS published a delivery plan for improving access to primary care, which included a £645 million investment over two years to expand community pharmacies. However, the delays in the negotiations are having an impact on pharmacies across the country. In a recent letter, Community Pharmacy England wrote that

“there will not be a community pharmacy sector left to deliver the Contractual Framework, let alone the future ambitions of the Government and the NHS.”

Question No. 1 is: can the Minister provide an update on the negotiations? When will it start, and will there be published terms of reference?

My next question relates to the impact of the increases in national insurance contributions and the national living wage—the Government’s choice to place a burden of about £50 million on the sector, as has been set out. The Government have exempted secondary care, but made no such commitment to community pharmacies. Question No. 2 is: was the Health Department aware of the Treasury’s decision, and did it raise concerns about pharmacies and the impact the changes would have? After all, it has led the National Pharmacy Association to vote in favour of collective action for the first time in their history, saying:

“The sense of anger among pharmacy owners has been intensified exponentially by the Budget, with its hike in national insurance employers’ contributions and the unfunded national living wage increase, which has tipped even more pharmacies to the brink.”

Question No. 3 is: what mitigations are planned and when for? As we have heard from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Health Secretary, it will be done in the usual way. Decisions are being made now, so could they please set that out?

Let me turn to the evolving model of Pharmacy First. The programme has shown just how capable pharmacies are, and it has been welcomed. There is great potential for the service to benefit patients, yet recent data from NHS England identifies that GP referrals to Pharmacy First in England can vary quite significantly across integrated care boards. For example, in Greater Manchester, there were 11,683 referrals, whereas in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, there were 612. There could be obvious reasons for that, such as demographics or locations, but question No. 4 is: can the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to promote Pharmacy First services, and share that data?

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) discuss the issue of dispensing GPs. There are 948 dispensing GPs, and they account for 7% of prescriptions, covering almost 9 million people, many of whom are in rural areas. Not much is mentioned about what they do, so I am keen to understand the Government’s position on dispensing GPs. Question No. 5 is: will the Minister set out how he perceives the landscape? Given the time constraints of this debate, perhaps he can write and give me an idea of what it would look like.

Finally, the pharmacies stepped up during the pandemic. They were the lightning rod not only for getting medications out but for providing the much-needed vaccinations that allowed us to relieve lockdown. Christmas is one of their busiest times—I have seen that at first hand. I would like to put on record our thanks, from both sides of the House, for the fantastic job that they do.

17:19

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for ensuring that this really important debate can take place today. I start by acknowledging and paying tribute to the outstanding work of community pharmacy teams in Devon, the south-west and right across the country. I have heard so many examples, showing just how many patients and communities rely on pharmacy services, and the lengths to which they go to deliver care. I thank them for their professionalism, hard work and dedication in providing excellent standards of patient care.

It is a credit to them that surveys show that nine in 10 people who visit pharmacies feel positive about the experience. Community pharmacies are often the most accessible part of our NHS, allowing people to access professional healthcare advice right there on the high street. They are also vital in supporting rural communities and people living in remote locations. Furthermore, as community pharmacies provide more clinical services, they help to relieve pressure in other areas of the NHS. That includes freeing up GP appointments, preventing hospital admissions and reducing overall pressure on secondary care.

For far too long, however, Governments have failed to recognise the essential role of community pharmacies in safeguarding the nation’s health. On 4 July, we inherited a system that has been starved of funding, with a 28% cut in funding in real terms. In many ways, it is on its knees, with far too many closures happening across the country. Lord Darzi’s report laid bare the true extent of the challenges facing our health service. Even he, with all his years of experience, was truly shocked by what he discovered. His report was vital, because it gave us a frank assessment—a diagnosis—so that we can face the problems honestly and properly. It will take a decade of national renewal, lasting reform and a long-term plan to save our NHS. We have committed to three key shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention. Our 10-year plan will set out how we will deliver these shifts to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future.

To develop the plan, we must have a meaningful conversation with the country and those who work in the system. We are therefore conducting a comprehensive range of engagement activities, bringing in views from the public, the health and care workforce, national and local stakeholders, system leaders and parliamentarians. I urge Members, their constituents, and staff across health and social care to tell us what is working and what needs to change. They should visit change.nhs.uk and make their voice heard.

The Government are committed to restoring the NHS to its founding promise that it will be there for all of us and our constituents when we need it. However, as identified by Lord Darzi’s review, primary care is under massive pressure and in crisis. I recognise that it is a really challenging environment for colleagues in all parts of the NHS, including in community pharmacy, but we remain resolute and determined to fix this situation.

Pharmacies are based in, and are a key part of, the communities that they serve. They are ideally placed to help to tackle inequalities and to increase the reach of and access to NHS services. This includes delivering a range of health advice and support services, helping to relieve pressure on and improve access to the wider NHS. Community pharmacies are a vital part of our NHS that must be recognised in the development of the Government’s 10-year plan. They are central to the three big shifts in healthcare that I outlined earlier. I know that pharmacies can and should play an even greater role in providing healthcare on the high street. This will be imperative if we are to deliver across the Government’s mission—not just on the health mission, but on growth and opportunity.

A healthy society and workforce are pre-conditions for prosperity and growth. We have a staggering 2.9 million people who want to work, but are unable to do so because they have been failed by our health and care system for the last 14 years. Community pharmacy has a pivotal role to play in getting our economy back on its feet and fit for the future, whether that is by identifying those with risk factors for disease such as high blood pressure, or ensuring that people can access and use their medicines to best effect. As a Government, we are fully committed to working with the sector to achieve what we all want: a community pharmacy service that is fit for the future.

I am keen to unlock the potential of the whole pharmacy team. We want pharmacists to be providing new and impactful clinical services, including our future pharmacies prescribing service. We want pharmacy technicians to have more responsibility in supporting the pharmacists, to help people to deliver the best possible health outcomes.

Every day, pharmacy teams facilitate the safe supply of medicines to patients, enabling them to manage health conditions as part of their daily lives in Devon, the south-west and right across the country. They also provide vital advice on prescriptions, over-the-counter medicines and minor ailments. But pharmacies do not just dispense medicines and offer advice. They do much more. They positively impact patients’ health and support the wider NHS by providing a wide range of clinical services. Many offer blood pressure checks, flu or covid-19 vaccinations, contraception consultations and many more locally commissioned services.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister is espousing brilliantly what community pharmacies do. That all comes under a contractual framework, and one of the key things that pharmacies are asking for is when the negotiations will start and what the terms of reference will be. Will the Minister address that point?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention. I am as frustrated as everybody else about the delay. The reason for the delay is that the negotiations did not get over the line before the general election. The general election came, and we have spent a lot of time now clearing up the disastrous mess that the previous Government made of the system. I can say that we are now very focused on getting these negotiations started early in the new year. I know that hon. Members across the House will be very interested in that, in terms of the contractual framework, the medicines margin and all of the funding. We have a statutory duty to consult with the sector before we can make any announcement, but we are confident that we will start the negotiations early in the new year.

We supported Pharmacy First in opposition, and we will build on that programme in the future. We look to create an independent prescribing service, where prescribing is an integral part of the services delivered by community pharmacies. We are also doing a lot of work on the IT infrastructure to make sure that the sector can more easily prescribe and refer through better IT. That is an important part of our shift from analogue to digital. We need pharmacies delivering services that help patients to access advice, prevention and treatment more easily—services that help people to make best use of the medicines they are prescribed and that ease some of the pressures in general practice and across parts of the NHS.

There are more than 10,000 pharmacies in England. They are busy dispensing medicines, offering advice and providing these services. Patients across the country can also choose to access around 400 distance-selling pharmacies that deliver medicines to patients’ homes free of charge. They play a vital role in reaching the most isolated members of our society.

I am very keen to ensure that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead has a minute at the end of the debate to sum up. In the short time I have, I want to say a couple of words about her constituency, where there are 15 pharmacies. We are aware of the closure of one pharmacy in her constituency since 2017 and that the local population instead get their medicines from the neighbouring dispensing GP. I also note that, according to the latest data, there are 203 pharmacies in Devon; across the south-west, there are 916. Where closures have occurred across the south-west, the ICBs are working through the process of approving applications from new contractors. Some applications have already been granted. Following approval, the new pharmacy contractor has 12 to 15 months in which to open a pharmacy, so the ICBs are also working with GP practices and other contractors to minimise any temporary disruption for patients.

Community pharmacies are a vital part of the NHS and communities across our country. The Government are committed to supporting them now and into the future. I look forward to working with pharmacists across the country and hon. Members across this House as we progress our plans to embrace the skills, knowledge and expertise in pharmacy teams.

17:29

[Rachel Gilmour]

The Health and Social Care Committee reported in May that

“the undoubted potential for pharmacy to improve access to health care, crucially including immunisations, and reduce pressure on general practice and other areas of the health system can only be realised with the right support and the right investment of public funding.”

Why, then, are we not hearing anything from the Government about support for pharmacies? In under a decade, the proportion of NHS funding for pharmacies has fallen from 2.4% to 1.6%. An average pharmacy relies on NHS funding for 90% of its income.

It does not have to be like this. The sector is ready, it just needs backing. We know that pharmacies across the country and the region, and especially in Tiverton and Honiton—whoops: Tiverton and Minehead—are willing to provide these services. Pharmacy First—

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned with Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).