Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14 January 2025

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan in the Chair]

<Railway Services: South-West>

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered railway services in the South West.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The south-west is hugely reliant on the mainline railway—it is an economic lifeline. As I am the MP for Newton Abbot, which includes Dawlish, Teignmouth and Kingsteignton—all towns with strong railway heritage—the railway is a fundamental part of my life and community.

Devon and Cornwall are notoriously underserved by transport: there is one motorway and just two national roads. The road network in Devon is largely minor roads full of potholes. The mainline railway is the key economic lifeline for the entire region. Getting from Exeter to Paddington in a couple of hours makes a huge difference and enables many people to work part in London and part in Devon—including myself, even before I was an MP.

The value of the railway to the economy was demonstrated during the 2014 Dawlish storm incident. From a Transport Committee record, we know that the storms on 4 February and 14 February 2014 caused a 100 metre breach in the sea wall at Dawlish and a 25,000 tonne landslip between Dawlish and Teignmouth, which was exacerbated by a further landslip on 5 March. The incident closed the line for eight weeks. An immediate repair cost of £35 million, including 300 engineers—the much-lauded “orange army”—got the line running again, but the interruption cost the local economy an estimated £1.2 billion. It is estimated that the Plymouth economy alone lost £600,000 each day the line was shut.

Since 2014 a lot has changed, but the dependence on the railway has, if anything, increased. Please do not think of tourism as the only industry in Devon: remote working has blossomed, and it is clear from Office of Road and Rail statistics that the overwhelming majority of rail journeys from Exeter and the other main stations are to and from London.

Why do we need a debate on the topic? The answer is that this vital railway link is again under threat from a number of different sources. After the 2014 storm, the then Prime Minister promised that money was no object and that the line would be made resilient. A five-phase plan was drawn up and work began. The new sea wall was built, and Dawlish railway station had a rebuilt sea defence as well. The first four phases of that plan have been done and are now in place. One massive benefit was the new bridge at Dawlish, which made both platforms accessible without steps—something that we still need in too many other stations, including Teignmouth.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Many railway stations across the south-west remain inaccessible. Disabled people, unable to get support, have had serious accidents at railway stations in constituencies such as Yeovil. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Government to improve the Access for All programme, as well as holding operations such as Great Western Railway to account when proper support is not in place for disabled railway passengers?

[Martin Wrigley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Accessible, step-free stations are vitally important across Devon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right to highlight the contact between the south-west and London in particular. It is disappointing that, even in London, almost two thirds of tube and other stations have no access for disabled people. If the Government are going to make improvements to railway movement for passengers, then accessibility for disabled people—and access to work for them—is key to that moving forward.

[Martin Wrigley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

When I met Network Rail in the autumn, it said that the design team for the fifth and final phase of the work would be reassigned if the funding was not forthcoming soon. That would put the project back, and significant extra funds would be required to get it back up to speed.

A few months ago, I asked the then Transport Secretary about the funding for the critical final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience programme, which is the largest piece of work. It deals with the landslips that caused the line to be closed long beyond the short time it took to repair the sea wall breach. She looked shocked to learn that the funding was not already there. Although she did not promise the funds, she indicated that the project would be a high priority.

The line has been closed on a number of occasions over the past years. The previous large cliff collapse was in the winter of 2000-01, according to the “West of Exeter Route Resilience Study”. I ask the Minister to reassure Network Rail and my constituents that that vital project will not be quietly forgotten, but will be completed to protect the economic wellbeing of the south-west and my constituents’ access to rail services.

However, there are other threats too. The Great Western main line not only runs from Paddington to Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance and the far west of Cornwall, but covers Swindon, Bristol, Cheltenham and Gloucester, to name but a few, not forgetting Cardiff, Swansea and south Wales.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He is well aware that the south-west and Wales are connected by the Severn tunnel, which is often closed—it is likely that the closures are in his region. Does he agree that that is impacting economic growth in south Wales, and is all the more reason for Wales to receive the consequentials from HS2 funding to invest in our own railways in Wales, including the Heart of Wales line in my constituency?

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable point. He is absolutely right that Wales has been seen off, in terms of funding.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I sympathise with hon. Members speaking on behalf of Wales. I represent commuters using Bedwyn station, and I want to point out on behalf of Wiltshire that in 2022 we lost three of our inter-city express trains in order to support the Cardiff to Penzance line. Commuters using Bedwyn no longer have the same off-peak service into London that we had before. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Government look to commission a new fleet of inter-city trains for Great Western, it would be good to see the rightful return of a proper off-peak service that supports commuters in Wiltshire?

[Martin Wrigley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need more services on all these lines to support our constituents.

However, everything I have outlined will be interrupted by the creation of the HS2 link to Old Oak Common. High-speed rail is a welcome improvement to our nation’s infrastructure, but the implementation of that project has been handled poorly in the past. It has ignored the largest benefit—connections within the northern powerhouse—and the focus on delivering faster rail between London and Birmingham has delivered unwanted side effects. The decision to terminate the HS2 services at Old Oak Common, three miles west of Paddington, was quickly overturned by the incoming Government. Their announcement of a resumption of the project to tunnel to Euston is to be welcomed, but the 14-platform station at Old Oak Common—eight platforms on the surface and six for HS2 underground—will impact south-west rail services for another six or seven years as it is constructed.

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

My constituents in Frome and East Somerset are still shocked to learn about the implications of Old Oak Common. Does my hon. Friend agree that the consultation on that huge change, which will have a major impact on the south-west, was insufficient, and that we still need to have some kind of impact survey or study of the potential impact on tourism and business and the other effects of the works at Old Oak Common?

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree entirely that the impact of Old Oak Common is immense, and will not be just during the construction phase.

The six or seven years of delays and cancellations at weekends and Christmases have been covered in this Chamber before, so I will not repeat the list of weeks and weeks of diversions to Euston and significantly reduced services.

I have already started to receive complaints from my constituents about the inability of Euston station to cope with the volume of passengers when the trains cannot complete their journeys to Paddington. But the piece of the plan that adds insult to injury for the millions of passengers from the south-west, is the idea that every Great Western Railway train will stop at Old Oak Common, even after construction is completed. It has been somewhat unclear—some misleading averages have been quoted—but having met with GWR and Network Rail, I understand that stopping at Old Oak Common will add some five to 15 minutes to every single journey. Adding 15 minutes on to the fast train—of around two hours—from Exeter to London is significant, and even more so on the quicker trains from Cheltenham or Bristol.

Travel to Birmingham is already available via Bristol. Looking at journey times, it will usually be faster to go to Birmingham via Bristol, unless users are further east than Swindon or Westbury. Stopping at Old Oak Common will bring little or no benefit to the majority of the long-distance rail users of the west, south-west and Wales.

Can the Minister confirm that fast trains from the south-west should be able to go through Old Oak Common without stopping?

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Penzance, west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are all in my constituency, so I know that if there are problems on the link at Dawlish, that can multiply the impact of those disruptions for people in the far west of Cornwall. Does he share my concern that it seems that with this multi-billion pound HS2 project, people in Penzance, in west Cornwall, and no doubt in his constituency as well, will experience all the pain but none of the gain? If it is two hours to Exeter, it is another three hours down to Penzance. It needs to be considered that we want to avoid the unnecessary disruption to people’s lives for the next seven years.

[Martin Wrigley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is even harder for those down in Cornwall than it is for those in Devon.

Both of these significant impacts are examples of the historic lack of investment in the railways in the south-west. In the south-west, we can often feel like second-class travellers—watching our services get worse so that other services can be made better. Local rail services in Devon are few and far between. Rather than a few minutes between services—as we enjoy here in London—we are lucky if we have one or two trains an hour.

Trains are often made up of fewer carriages than planned due to faults or breakdowns. Schoolchildren travelling locally between towns have been unable to get on to services because they are too full, due to their having only half the expected number of carriages. A constituent told me that her young daughter was left in tears, having been denied access to a train with her group, which triggered an anxiety attack. On the London services, mobile phone coverage is barely useable for much of the journey. While for some that may be a blessed relief, it means that wi-fi connections are not reliable—a huge issue in a world where so many people rely on good connections to usefully work on the train.

I consider myself fortunate, going to Devon. If I were to continue the journey in Cornwall, the train speed would slow down considerably—as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) just mentioned. Journey times could be significantly reduced by even partial electrification, as hybrid trains on the line could speed up faster and climb some of the hills quicker. I am sure my Cornish colleagues could elaborate.

I ask the Minister to consider what might be done to show my constituents, and the population of the wider south-west, that they have not been ignored. I am asking for us to receive some benefits from new investment, not just delays to accommodate fast access for others to the midlands and the north. I am specifically asking for more train carriages for more local services; full metro services with no greater than half an hour between scheduled trains; monitoring and accelerating the roll-out of the Access for All programme; reliable wifi across the entire route; electrification to improve journey times to Cornwall; fast trains from Wales to the west to the south-west not stopping at Old Oak Common; and commitment to complete the Dawlish rail resilience programme.

09:45

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this important debate. We all know the importance of strong and effective railway services in the south-west.

I will give a bit of background on my constituency. As I mentioned in my maiden speech in the House—and continue to mention at every opportunity—improving the transport links in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead is one of my top priorities. We are served by only one major train station: Tiverton Parkway, which sits on the Great Western Railway and CrossCountry lines, as well as the charming and historic West Somerset Railway—a heritage line that runs up through the shoulder of my constituency and along the coast, terminating at Minehead.

Those services provide the totality of rail connections in my constituency, but there is still no way to get from Tiverton to Minehead. Minehead desperately needs linking to the main line at Taunton, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) would agree, but there are much wider issues at play for rail travel in Tiverton and Minehead.

The latest available data from July to September ’24 lays bare the inadequacy of railway services across the south-west. The punctuality of CrossCountry trains is pitiful—more often tardy than not, just 46.4% of the time did the service run as scheduled. That is shocking, as the figure is over 20 percentage points below the national average for punctuality on the rail network over the same period. Meanwhile, the Great Western Railway service is understood to have operated in accordance with the timetable 60.2% of the time—still over 7 percentage points lower than the national figure. That is better, but hardly an advert for timeliness.

Not knowing whether a scheduled service will appear on time is far from the only issue for my constituents. Even when the service is scheduled, and appears to be all-functioning, there is always the risk of cancellation. Both of the major carriers for Tiverton and Minehead had cancellation rates above the national average from July to September ’24, and in both cases, the majority of those trains were cancelled as a result of not Network Rail, but the operator itself. That is not what the people of Tiverton and Minehead expect when they buy their tickets, and they deserve better.

As is also the case across the length and breadth of the country, passengers in the south-west are forced to grapple with exorbitant train fares. Even with the Government’s rail fare discounts, which are in place for the next few months, the price of standard regulated tickets in England will go up by 4.6% on 2 March, climbing higher than the retail prices index inflation and hitting passengers hard.

The Liberal Democrats have previously called on the Government to do the decent thing and freeze rail fares immediately to help families struggling under the cost of living crisis, instead of hiking ticket prices. We will continue to fight for a fair deal for commuters and families who will be left forking out more and more for the privilege of using Britain’s rail systems. I am not sure how many people in the south-west would call it a “privilege”.

Just 1% of my constituents use rail as their means of travelling to work, according to data from the House of Commons Library. That is well below the national average, but not at all surprising, given the sorry picture for rail travellers in my constituency that I have painted. Members might assume that the proportion of my constituents travelling to work by bus would be higher, but I am afraid to report that that percentage sits at just 2%. I am also an avid campaigner for improving the bus routes in Tiverton and Minehead, but we are talking about railways today.

The state of railway services in not just Tiverton and Minehead, but the whole south-west, adds strain on the road network, because the lack of transport connectivity and the unreliable, overcrowded and overcharged public transport links leave people with no other choice but to travel by car. The environmental implications of that reality cannot be ignored.

Before closing, I must briefly draw attention to the looming Old Oak Common HS2 project and the inevitable disruption to travel that it will cause. Pressing ahead with the project will condemn the south-west to inter-city services that are among the slowest anywhere in the country and greatly reduce the number of direct trains to London. To accommodate the new role of Old Oak Common, trains originating in the south-west will be diverted from the traditional London Paddington route to London Euston, which will add an hour, on average, to train journeys.

The current provision of rail services is already well below a level that could be deemed satisfactory, so the new interchange at Old Oak Common comes at great expense to the west country and our friends in south Wales. Immediately freezing fares and introducing discounts for passengers in the south-west seem reasonable and fair first steps towards correcting that glaring disservice to the people of Tiverton and Minehead, and beyond. Beyond the short term, we ought to simplify the fragmented ticketing system to provide passengers with more affordable fares if we are serious about making public transport public.

The Government have an opportunity to look seriously at the issues of the south-west and its rail network, and I sincerely hope that they do so. For far too long, transport links have been overlooked and under-resourced. I appreciate that the pressures on the public purse are heavy at the moment, but so are the pressures on ordinary people in Tiverton and Minehead, and across the south-west. I urge the Government to look closely at what they can do to better support the rail, bus and road network so that the people of the south-west do not have to settle for the sort of service that is, far too often, currently on offer.

09:51

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I thank you for your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing the debate.

The need to improve rail services across the south-west—particularly in Cornwall, which is at the sharp end of our problems—cannot be overstated. Connectivity is the backbone of our economy and our communities, yet our transport infrastructure still lags far behind what is needed to unleash their full potential. This summer, the Mid Cornwall metro will launch in my constituency, offering improved rail links between Newquay and other parts of Cornwall. Although that is a very welcome development that goes some way to undoing the damage inflicted on the line in 1987 by the then Prime Minister, for people outside of Newquay, the Mid Cornwall metro, despite its lofty name, will fall somewhat short of being the transformational project that the duchy needs.

That brings me to the wider issue of transport in my constituency. The road between our two major towns, St Austell and Newquay, is winding and unsafe. Given the absence of a direct train linking the towns—despite a track that runs relatively directly from St Austell, through Burngullow and up to St Dennis, falling short of rejoining the main Newquay line at Goss Moor by just a mile or so—large-scale capital investment in a transformative project is desperately needed.

We have a stunning stretch of line running from my hometown down into another town served by treacherous roads: Fowey, a town that has long shipped our white gold, china clay, to the world. I urge the Minister to explore the feasibility of such transformative projects in Cornwall—particularly on those magnificent branch lines, which have been ravaged over the years—to provide clarity on our clean transport plans and to make public transport in Cornwall a no-brainer rather than a chore, ensuring that our communities have the infrastructure that they need to thrive. If we are to build more homes, people in Cornwall must see that commensurate services and infrastructure are put in place.

In the west, we need a fair deal for the Isles of Scilly—well represented by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—and we need improved rail links down to our fine harbour in Falmouth, a contender for a floating offshore wind hub. In the east, we also face significant challenges with the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry services, which are vital lifelines for local residents. We need a deal that prioritises their needs and alleviates the financial burden on commuters and families.

Finally, I stress the need for dramatically improved internet connectivity on trains. In today’s connected world, reliable onboard connectivity is a necessity, not a luxury. Although some rail services in the UK benefit from electrification and high-speed, dependable internet access, such advances are far from universal and passengers across the south-west are too often excluded from them. Equal access to modern amenities such as those is essential to ensuring that rail travel is both productive and comfortable for everyone. It would be a small grace to mitigate some of the chaos caused by the Old Oak Common HS2 project—a supposed England and Wales project, and even an England and Cornwall project, but I will believe it when I see it.

As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot pointed out, the south-west, including Cornwall, deserves a transport strategy that addresses our real needs and delivers transformative change. I look forward to hearing how the Minister intends to prioritise our region, close the gap in infrastructure investment, and provide Cornwall and the wider south-west with the tools we need to thrive in the years ahead.

09:55

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for opening this debate. I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate to represent my many constituents who rely on these services every day, and as somebody who spends a lot of time—often more than intended—on trains.

Unfortunately, my Bristol Central constituents often contact me about their poor experiences with trains in and around Bristol. Complaints over services, particularly between Bristol and London, are frequent, as the journey entails extortionate, prohibitive costs with disappointing services, cancellations and delays featuring all too often. That unreliability is incredibly frustrating for many constituents, but particularly for disabled constituents and those with long-term health conditions, who raise with me that they often go to huge lengths to carefully plan their journeys, only to have them upturned at the last minute.

I reinforce the point made by several Members on the importance of disabled accessible train stations. Does the Minister have any updates about progress to make Lawrence Hill station in Bristol, which is just outside my constituency but used by many of constituents, disabled accessible? I know that my predecessor Thangam Debbonaire campaigned on that issue for many years.

Accessibility and unreliability issues affect so many of my constituents, who are left unable to make their trips or are forced to choose transport that is more expensive and often much more damaging to the environment, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) pointed out. Train journeys produce only around 32% of the emissions of a car journey per person; to avoid unnecessary emissions, we need to make the greenest option the easiest option, and that requires, above all, reliability.

I am very pleased to see the railways coming back into public ownership; the Green party has been a long-standing advocate of renationalisation, and I am looking forward to seeing the implementation of that essential transition. On that point, can the Minister give any further indications of when Great Western Railway will come back into public ownership? I understand that the core term expiry date is in June this year, but the full expiry date is not until June 2028, leaving some uncertainty over when exactly the Government will end the contract. I would be grateful if the Minister could give any clarification to constituents. Hopefully the answer is sooner rather than later, but if my constituents are facing a wait of three or more years, will the Minister tell us what steps he plans to take to make the train services in the south-west more reliable and affordable in the meantime?

I have also been contacted about the reopening of the Portishead branch line which, though not quite in my constituency, is also used by many of my constituents, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that too. I will end my remarks there, but I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to my questions and give some clarity to my constituents on the steps being taken to provide a modern, affordable and reliable rail service.

09:59

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his work securing this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and hon. Members from across the House for agreeing to speak.

As we have heard from everyone here today, it is clear that the railway network in the south-west needs urgent improvement. The failure of successive Conservative Governments has left the network in a terrible state. Ticket prices are too high and services too unreliable. Infrastructure is too old and capacity too meagre. That is true across the country, but nowhere more so than in the south-west. As we have heard from Members from across the House, businesses and individuals are highly reliant on the railways and Labour needs to take urgent action. If the Government are hoping to meet their targets on economic growth and housing, ensuring that that key region has a fully functioning rail system is vital. That requires action. The Government must ensure that the challenges faced by the railways in the south-west are met.

We have heard today about a number of the challenges. As my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot and for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) eloquently explained, the rail services of those in the further reaches of our isles are uniquely vulnerable. As we saw when the sea wall fell at Dawlish, this can have catastrophic consequences for those further down the line, cutting them off from the rest of the country. We heard the figures earlier. We cannot afford for that to happen again, so it is vital that the new Government back the fifth stage of the project, to ensure that the line is protected from further disruption.

Members today have again raised a number of concerns about the building works at Old Oak Common. As has been said, there will be six years of disruption. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, residents and constituents in the south-west will get all the pain but none of the gain. Anyone living west of Swindon and Westbury will simply get no real benefit from these connections. We need to compensate them by doing other things for the rail system and other transport in the south-west. We have had doubts about the current capacity of Euston and the overcrowding there during the building works, and we have the other issue about the trains stopping at Old Oak Common—the five to 15-minute delay. It sounds like a small thing, but it is important when we are talking about a fast train. Previously, the Minister’s colleague said that no decision had been made on whether every train would stop at Old Oak Common. May we have an update on that, please?

Although my party and I are highly supportive of the HS2 project, there are understandable concerns. We appreciate that Old Oak Common is a vital part of HS2 and will bring benefits to many. We must also accept, though, that the benefits of Old Oak Common and HS2 will be less keenly felt by those in the south-west. We will keep reiterating that, and we need to do something for them. The constituents of the south-west, including those represented today, must receive reassurances that the Government are listening and they are not being ignored. Their voice must be heard, and I hope that their patience will be rewarded by their finally receiving the oft-promised investment in the region that it so desperately needs and deserves. We heard about some of that today from colleagues, from my party and others.

The Access for All programme appeared to die under the Tories. We need access for all, not just in the south-west, of course, but across all regions and particularly in London, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. The Severn Tunnel closure is causing real problems for transport into the west and into Wales. I asked this question of the Secretary of State last Thursday in Transport questions: will Wales get more investment to compensate for the money going to HS2? HS2 is being treated as an England and Wales project. It is giving no great benefit to Wales. Wales needs some money in the same way as Scotland did, and it needs investment in the Welsh rail system.

We need proper services for Wiltshire. We need to address the fact that there are short trains; more train carriages need to be introduced. There are problems with mobile phone access. We hear that time and time again. We have to bring the rail system into the 21st century. The need to electrify sections of the line to speed up the trains is also important, and punctuality is a real issue, not to mention the exorbitant cost of rail travel to the south-west.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. Does he agree that the decision to renationalise South Western Railway a year before the Government have set up GB Rail will inevitably mean that investment in the kind of upgrades he is talking about will stagnate completely?

[Mr Kohler]

There is a real issue here, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. GB Rail exists as an idea, but we do not yet know what it will do, and we have real problems. The idea that nationalising rail will suddenly solve the problem is too simplistic. We are agnostic about ownership; we need to actually invest in our rail system. On that point, my party has been supportive of open access, which is why we supported the Go-Op co-operative and its ideas to bring rail systems to the south-west.

We are worried by what the Secretary of State said in a letter last week—she seems to be going cold on open access—so we would like more clarity on that. We are supportive of the Go-Op co-operative idea, and we want to see such ideas working. In fact, open access is the only bit of the rail system that is working quite well at the moment. Hull Trains, for example, has far better customer satisfaction than any other part of the rail system. The idea that we are now backing out of open access worries us, and Go-Op was a perfect idea to help a particular section of the south-west. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot for securing this debate; we would love some answers from the Minister.

10:06

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this debate, and I thank all the Members who have contributed. We are very familiar with this issue; I have taken part in many such debates myself.

Let me respond to a couple of comments. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) alerted us to West Somerset Railway, which is an illustration of how, oftentimes, the south-west is seen as a holiday destination rather than somewhere where the railway line is needed as an economic driver. Having been on West Somerset Railway, I am particularly fond of it, but it is not good enough that it is all she has access to, in addition to Tiverton Parkway railway station.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) highlighted the upcoming opening of the Mid Cornwall Metro, which we should acknowledge came from the previous Government’s levelling up funding, and was delivered by Conservative-led Cornwall council. It is a clear illustration of how smaller metros can be delivered, and it would be great to see more of them across the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) raised challenges around Bedwyn station in his constituency, and we have also had contributions from the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is really good to hear perspectives from across all their constituencies.

It is important that I begin by recognising the dedicated workforce we have across the railway industry. Obviously, in the last few months, there has been a huge amount of noise about railways, particularly around increases in salaries and so on. I do not know about other Members, but I have had at least one constituent highlight the fact that, if we are not careful, we could demonise the valuable workers who we need in our train system, so I want to acknowledge on the record the fact that the whole train system is vital to our country. We have to acknowledge that, but we still need to have this debate and represent other voices across our constituencies.

We have had three debates on the railways in recent months—or, at least, I have taken part in three debates. This includes my maiden speech, which took place in the passenger railway Bill debate—it would be remiss of me, having spoken to the Minister earlier, not to mention “The Loco-Motion”, which, if hon. Members are interested, I referred to in my maiden speech. In the last two months, we have also had debates on both the railway in Devon and Old Oak Common, so it should be really clear to the Minister and his team that this is something that the south-west is particularly passionate about.

I have to admit that I have two hats on—not only am I representing the official Opposition today, but I am a Member from Devon, so I feel a lot of what has been said this morning very deeply. We must also acknowledge the meetings that Ministers have had, and have been very open-handed in. There have been open conversations on this issue, but there is still some way to go, as has been clear today. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot summarised some of those key challenges particularly well in his speech, and he spoke strongly about the funding we need for the fifth phase of Dawlish. Otherwise, it would ultimately be a waste of money; we have done everything that can been achieved without completing that work.

Old Oak Common needs no further explanation—it has been covered widely, as has the challenge of wi-fi accessibility, and the wider context of roads and buses in the south-west.

Let us not forget, though, that between 2010 and 2024, the Conservatives increased investment by £100 billion, so it is not fair to say that nothing has happened. The railway system is something that we have all been working on over the last few decades. Included in that total was £165 million on the south-west rail resilience programme, which has already been mentioned. It was a bold decision to reallocate HS2 phase 2 funds towards restoring our railways. We would have seen some real benefits from that in the south-west. It has been cancelled because the new Government have said that there is no funding for it. However, I note that they have managed to reinstate phase 2 between Crewe and Manchester, which I assume uses the money that would ultimately have been used for projects such as the TavyRail between Tavistock and Plymouth. I am interested in hearing the Minister comment on that. How can the Government say that the Restoring your Railway was unfunded if they have been able to bring the Crewe to Manchester line back into play?

We have also seen the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 come through. It has been mentioned this morning, and I will not speak much about it, other than to say that we believe it is an ideological piece of legislation. We were disappointed that the Government rejected our reasoned amendment, which would have ensured that, when terminating existing franchise agreements, the Government would have at least considered operating performance. Instead, we have had inflation-busting pay rises without productivity agreements being secured. Most recently, on 12 December, the latest Office of Rail and Road figures, from July to September, showed that since the increase in those salaries, we have seen decreased performance, decreased punctuality, increased cancellations and decreased public performance measures. I do not want to cast aspersions, but they do seem to be slightly linked.

As I draw to a close, I want to lay out some questions for the Minister. Some of them have been touched on before, but it is a perfect opportunity to reiterate them. On 11 November, in the Chamber, I raised the issue of the lack of Sundays in the Great Western Railway contracts, which has a massive impact on rail services across the south-west. It was raised again in the Westminster Hall debate in December, and in November the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), said that she would return to the House with an update. I would be interested to know if there has been any progress in those negotiations.

Is the Minister convinced that the spending decisions for the £30 million Old Oak Common mitigations, which have also been mentioned today, are best for passengers in the south-west? Although many hon. Members have argued today that that £30 million may need to be paid to make Old Oak Common happen, I do not believe that residents across the south-west are necessarily seeing the benefits. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that not all south-west services will have to stop at Old Oak Common? I ask that to reiterate the points that have been made already. Will the Minister also confirm that the HS2 phase 2, Crewe to Manchester route is fully funded? That announcement was made earlier on in this Parliament.

Finally, if I may—and if the room will humour me—I have one question that remains unanswered about my constituency. CrossCountry trains do not stop at Ivybridge train station in my constituency, which is fully ready as a park and ride. Currently, only Great Western Railway is committed to doing that, and serves it with 16 trains a day. My constituency has the new and growing town of Sherford, plus the suburbs of Plympton and Plymstock, all of which would benefit from Ivybridge having up to 45 trains stopping a day. Will the Minister commit to looking further into that, and could we work together on pressuring CrossCountry to deliver that for my constituents?

I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate today. I do not think that the issue of railways in the south-west is going anywhere fast. [Laughter] That was totally unintended—turns out I am naturally funny after all. Ultimately, I think the Minister will be hearing more from us. I know I speak on behalf of Members from across the south-west when I say that I want to know that the Government are listening. I hope the Government appreciate that we are not going to go away, because the issue is incredibly important to the entire region, which has so much potential for the economy of the United Kingdom.

10:14

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for the very first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I also welcome the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) in her first outing on the Front Bench as the Opposition spokesman.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate on railway services in the south-west. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

On 11 December, I attended a debate on the future of rail services in Devon, and on 17 December, the Minister for the Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), attended a debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services. The frequency of these debates demonstrates the importance that hon. Members and their constituents place on the rail network, and the crucial role it plays in supporting economic development, housing, employment growth and tourism. This Government recognise that too. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.

As I said in a previous debate, the south-west has seen a strong recovery in rail passenger numbers since the pandemic. Many services are now very busy indeed, particularly towards the end of the week and at weekends—including Thursdays. [Laughter.] To reduce crowding, funding has been authorised for 12 additional CrossCountry trains. Three are already in service; the rest are due to enter service in May.

Local services around Devon are also experiencing some capacity issues, particularly on the Barnstaple line and on school services from Paignton and Exmouth, all of which run into Exeter. Officials and GWR are working on options to increase capacity on some local and regional services, but that will of course be subject to affordability.

The Government continue to focus on restoring rail performance. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers, and the Rail Minister has now met GWR and CrossCountry, as well as Network Rail, to ensure they are delivering on their plans to address poor performance.

A resilient railway is crucial to the economy, not just in the south-west but right across the country. That is why £165 million has been invested to date in the south-west resilience programme at Dawlish, delivering better journey reliability for rail travellers in the south-west and providing greater resilience for the coastal railway during several named storms, alluded to earlier, that have affected the south-west in recent years. We continue to work closely with Network Rail as it develops proposals for the fifth phase of the programme, between Parsons tunnel and Teignmouth.

Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), have shown strong support for a number of potential rail projects across the region and the country. Ministers have been clear, however, that it will not be possible in the context of the financial situation the Government have inherited to afford to deliver all the proposed projects. The Secretary of State is conducting a thorough review of the previous Government’s plans, to ensure that our transport infrastructure portfolio drives economic growth and delivers value for taxpayers.

Many Members have referenced Old Oak Common and the impact it will have on rail services to and from the south-west. The station will enable HS2 services to start operating, by providing a new interchange with the Elizabeth line. Without it, HS2 cannot open. As Members will appreciate, 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 that disruption to a minimum and to support Network Rail and train operators to keep passengers moving.

The most recent phase of the work took place over Christmas, and was delivered successfully. It required a three-day closure of Paddington station, in addition to Christmas day and Boxing day. The rail industry worked hard to prepare for that. Some long-distance Great Western services were diverted into Euston station to maintain a direct link into a London terminus, while others terminated at Ealing Broadway and Reading. We expect that to provide a model for any future closures of the railway into Paddington. As has been said, the next significant block of work had been due to take place in December 2026, but that has now been replanned to a later date by HS2 Ltd. Further details about the timings of future works will be shared as soon as they become available in the spring.

The Rail Minister and I have heard from many colleagues about their constituents’ concerns about the future timetable and the potential impact on journey times. That was addressed in detail on 17 December by my hon. Friend the Minister for Future of Roads, and I refer hon. Members to Hansard for more information.

As has been noted previously, the future timetable will be under development for many years to come. Officials are working with the industry to assess the options for calling patterns at Old Oak Common. Ministers are committed to ensuring that passenger interests are considered and that disruption is minimised for passengers, both during and after construction. I will close this part of my speech by confirming that the Government will continue to put passengers at the heart of what we do in delivering our railway, which we can be proud of once again in its 200th year.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South West Devon, talked about GWR Sunday services. The Government of course recognise that performance is not where it needs to be. That is due to a range of issues, including infrastructure and fleet reliability, as well as train crew availability, which has resulted in high levels of cancellations on Sundays in recent months. Officials and GWR are actively working to address this issue.

A number of Members raised wi-fi connectivity. Free wi-fi is available on GWR services, but it is particularly poor on parts of the network. Ministers have asked officials to explore the feasibility of a range of technology options to improve passenger connectivity on the rail network. The Department is also conducting research to measure the strength of mobile signals along the network, to fully understand where interventions are needed and any potential impacts.

Electrification was also mentioned. The most used part of the Great Western network—between London Paddington and Cardiff—has been electrified, and there are currently no plans to electrify further parts of it.

A number of Members mentioned accessibility. Following the election, we are carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme. Department for Transport Ministers are not yet able to comment on the next steps regarding the project at specific stations, but hon. Members should be assured that we are committed to improving the accessibility of the railway and that we recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to our communities.

The south west rail resilience programme was mentioned, and the Government recognise the importance of the rail route through Dawlish and the south-west region. To date, as I mentioned, £165 million has been invested through the programme to deliver improved resilience across the route. I would also echo again that no decision has been taken on which services will call at Old Oak Common and when; the future timetable is under development, and will be for many years to come.

Members raised the issue of rail fares. We are committed to the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation and to ensuring that people receive better services and have simpler ticketing. Our aim is to keep the price of rail travel at a point that is good for passengers and taxpayers. We are also committed to reviewing the overly complicated fares system.

Many Members mentioned general performance. SWR performance on the west of England line has been challenging, and falls way below our expectations for passengers. The mostly single-line section between Salisbury and Exter has suffered multiple failures and has little resilience in the event of disruption. SWR and Network Rail have therefore dedicated a specific working group to looking at minimising the impact of delay and cancellation going forward. As regards CrossCountry, Members will be aware that, as a result of poor performance, it is subject to a remedial agreement that runs until March 2025. The Department will monitor outputs closely to ensure that CrossCountry is making sufficient progress.

I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) about the renationalisation of our rail. The Government are committed to ending years of poor service and fragmentation on our railways by creating a unified and simplified system through public ownership and the establishment of Great British Railways. All currently franchised services are expected to be in public ownership within the next three years. With that, I thank Members once again for their contributions.

10:25

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to have this debate, and I thank colleagues from across the House for participating. We have heard some fairly clear messages, and I thank the Minister for responding to some of them. There is certainly some hope in some of the responses that have been given.

It is clear that the south-west and Wales have been disadvantaged over a long period through lack of investment in the railways. Although large sums have been talked about, they have clearly not been used down in the south-west. I thank the Minister for recognising the importance of the rail network and for the news about increasing some of the capacity on local services, which is most welcome.

The Minister said that a resilient railway is crucial, and that is exactly right. Parsons tunnel to Teignmouth—I am afraid it is pronounced “Tinmuth”, and not like Tynemouth, which is somewhere else; it is very confusing because Teignbridge is pronounced “Teenbridge”, so the pronunciation is most unique—is absolutely vital. It was the collapse of that section that closed the railway for eight weeks; it was not the breach of the sea wall that closed it. It had happened 15 years before, and it will happen again; those cliffs are not protected. Without the fifth phase, the resilience work that has been done to date will be wasted.

What Network Rail needs is not funding today but the promise of funding in the future, to ensure that the design team is there and ready to go when funding is available. We all understand that we cannot fund everything at once—I do not think that anyone is asking for that—so I understand it when the Minister says he cannot fund everything now. What I want is a promise that this work will be funded in the future, when money is available, so that we can make sure that it is progressed and not forgotten. That is absolutely vital.

On HS2 disruption, it was interesting to hear that the purpose of Old Oak Common is to transfer passengers from HS2 to the Elizabeth line. That is a clear focus, and it shows that no real interaction is intended with GWR’s south-west and Wales services.

On the idea of stopping trains, again, I do not think we expect a complete timetable at this stage; we would just like the confirmed option that some trains will not stop. That option has been ruled out in some of the conversations I have had, and I like the fact that it is now open. Having that as a commitment, even without the full timetable, will reassure my constituents that fast trains will still be able to go through to London.

The £165 million Dawlish investment is also very much welcomed. I refer back to the £1.2 billion cost of the closure. So it is £165 million versus £1.2 billion. To me, it is obvious that that investment needs to be continued.

I end by thanking you, Dr Allin-Khan, and congratulating you on chairing your first Westminster Hall debate. I also thank everybody else who was present for the debate, and I look forward to having more conversations with Rail Ministers about the future of railways in the south-west, because we are only just beginning this journey.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered railway services in the South West.

10:29

Sitting suspended.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

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

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on small businesses.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to see so many colleagues from across the House here today. Perhaps it is not surprising that we have a redoubtable Minister, who picks up the poisoned chalice on so many occasions. He will do so today, no doubt both well informed and with good humour, as he has done previously.

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a recipient of campaign donations from businesses and farmers across Beverley and Holderness. Given the rural nature of my seat, I will start by focusing on the twin impacts of the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on family farms, followed by the impact of changes to BPR on family businesses. We have just a half-hour debate, and a colleague asked the good question of why it was so short for something so big. That means I will probably be the sole speaker, but I am happy to take as many interventions as I can, because I know that concern is widespread.

In her autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced a significant change to APR and BPR, set to take effect from April 2026. She is imposing a 20% tax on the value of land and machinery exceeding £1 million. That is known by many of us as a family farm tax. By the Government’s own estimate, it could result in one farm closing in every rural constituency every year.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. I also draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When a small farm has been in a family for generations, that family knows the local watercourses better than anybody else. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that as those small farms disappear and move towards development, flooding issues may result because the local knowledge that would prevent flooding will be lost?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. On Friday, I visited Ian and Rebecca at Bygott farm just outside Beverley, which is about 220 acres. Their profits would be wiped out by the expected inheritance tax for 10 full years, with 10 years to pay it. The expected annual payment for 10 years would be greater than their profit last year. They also play that vital role, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, of looking after the watercourses. The villagers nearby do not know what a critical part they play in maintaining those watercourses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. All my neighbours in Northern Ireland are small farmers. Everyone will be impacted, because the threshold of £1 million is too low. The threshold should be between £4 million and £5 million, which would give a chance to retain the family farm. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to talk to the National Farmers Union or the Ulster Farmers Union to ascertain their legal opinion, which is against what the Government are introducing?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the measure was about hitting huge investors, they are the ones least likely to be affected. The richest and most sophisticated will find it easiest to avoid the impact. Small farmers, such as the ones I visited on Friday, will be most seriously affected. It is a bit like the winter fuel payment cut. If the Government took that away from people who had an income of more than £25,000, it would be infinitely less controversial. The point is, it hits people on very low incomes and hurts them the most.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the measure has an inequitable application across the United Kingdom? In some parts, land values are higher than others. In Northern Ireland they are the highest, therefore one will reach the £1 million threshold sooner with less acreage there than elsewhere. Where we have a concentration of family farms, that will have a crippling effect on future generations.

[Graham Stuart]

Once that farmland is lost, it is gone forever. It is certainly gone forever from the families who, generation after generation, have been prepared to invest their all—their time and their money—into an asset which they never seek to realise, but merely use for a very low return on capital employed, in order to feed the nation.

As somebody said to me, of all the groups that one might possibly target, of all the profit-maximising people it could be assumed might have the broad shoulders to pay more, why pick people who sit on a multimillion-pound asset, take a derisory income from it, and get up at four in the morning to feed us? Of all the groups to target, this is the most absurd. I hope the Minister, who has until 2026, can start to realise this.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I met a farmer a couple of weeks ago in my constituency who is 80 years old and has made arrangements for passing his farm on to the next generation. However, the seven-year rule is unlikely to affect someone of that age. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a modest compromise could be made by the Government to allow for those sorts of situations?

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I spoke to another farmer in my constituency and his farm is owned by three people, one of whom is his father—who has a third of it—and who has been in ill health lately, is in his early 80s and is highly unlikely to live for the next seven years. All the planning that they responsibly put into ensuring that that farm continues to contribute to waterways, the environment, and the nation’s food security has been cast aside and turned over by this Government’s ill thought-out plans.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, many family farms exceed the threshold due to the high value of the land and machinery. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these changes threaten to push family-run farms into the hands of large corporations and therefore both erode rural communities and jeopardise our domestic food security?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that is exactly what they will do. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intent to bolster the big international corporations and hurt the small player who is an embedded part of the community.

So many people I speak to genuinely try and run their farms to be supportive of nature and of local business. Once major corporations are involved, these will not care where they get their supplies from. They will not be focused on that.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this brutal change to inheritance tax—let us call it what it is, a family farm tax—will destroy family farms and farming in the UK as we know it? Does it not make nonsense of Labour’s claim to believe in food security for the UK? We need a U-turn straightaway.

The question I am now being asked by my farmers is: did this policy come about because the Government did not know what they were doing and through a lack of knowledge by the Labour party of the farming community? Or will we look back at this and see it for what it is: theft by the state of land from private owners?

[Graham Stuart]

I will come to that point later in my speech.

When that farmland is gone, it will take with it the livelihoods of families who have devoted generations to feeding our nation and will have a permanent negative impact on the nation’s food security.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend goes on too much further, I wonder whether he agrees that another effect of this is that, at a time when we need to unlock growth and productivity, it will discourage and disincentivise the investment in our family farms that is so badly needed?

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is why I appeal to the Minister: if the Government do not care at all—in fact, if the Government see farmers as some sort of class enemy—it still does not make sense to do this, because it will weaken our food security. Go and talk to farmers—as I do in my area all the time—and it is obvious that their personal commitment to things like flood protection, understanding of the land, and thinking in the long term, is not just words.

People think in the long term when there is no thought in their minds of selling. Why would anyone not put their money back in? Farmers put all their money back in because they are happy to do so, and they have a lifestyle as part of that. All that is put under threat if the investment in a piece of machinery or infrastructure that could help them to green their land will be subject to a 20% tax. Suddenly the economics do not add up and the bank will not want to lend.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know, as all of us in this room do, that in GB we enjoy some of the most competitively priced fresh produce available anywhere in Europe and that is precisely because of the investments in production technology that family farms have made over generations. Is he concerned that at a stroke this Government, myopic about the workings of agriculture, have made them immediately—overnight—stop that investment, and consumers will feel that in food prices?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that has not been made so far: we have among the lowest food costs in the world. In fact, all my local farmers are forever moaning at me about how outrageous it is that food is so low in price. As I say to them, the system has allowed them to continue farming, providing first-class food at a very low cost to consumers. It is that carefully balanced ecosystem that will be impacted by this juggernaut creation of the Government, which will raise, if it raises anything at all, very little. That is why it is great to have someone as thoughtful, insightful and empathetic as the Minister on the Government Bench, because we have time to change path away from this ridiculous policy.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very clear case. Of course, there is massive agreement in the room. Does he recognise that with the uncertainty about the land use framework and the Government’s interventions and intentions on development of the work that we did on ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—farmers face massive uncertainty? Does he agree that it would be far better if the Government paused, as the NFU is asking, to look at this matter in the round, alongside the other policy decisions that they need to make—there is plenty of time before next spring—and, in particular, to address the issue about the age distribution of farmers? For younger farmers there will be ways of mitigating this matter and for older ones there simply are not. Overall, they lack clarity on what the future looks like, and that is a real concern.

[Graham Stuart]

At the very least, as my right hon. Friend says and as a colleague touched on earlier, tweaks could be made to this policy to stop the most egregious negative impact of it on people who have planned in good faith all their lives for a position and are now in no position whatever to change things. It is not just the elderly—everyone looks for the elderly person in their 80s or 90s to pass on, but I met another constituent whose mother died aged 41. These things happen, sadly, and what does that do to a farm? Is it holding hundreds of thousands of pounds in the bank when there are 200 and something acres?

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The right hon. Member will possibly be familiar with my constituency—one of the richest farming areas in the UK. The Treasury continues to insist that only about 520 estates a year will claim APR in the way that it is describing, and it has set the threshold at £1 million. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Minister needs to provide clear evidence for this threshold, and is he aware that at the evidence session in December, the NFU claimed that the actual figure, rather than 520, is 2,000 estates involved?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The expert valuers who do this for a living have come out with different numbers, but they are all violently different from the Government’s assumptions. Even on the basis of the Government’s own figures, if I take Beverley and Holderness—as a rural constituency—it would be a farm a year. And of course, everyone is affected. They are all having to spend and bring advisers into the room. They are sitting there, as a small business that might be making less than £25,000 a year, and having to pay £1,000 an hour to get the expertise in the room to advise them on something that, sure, depending on the longevity of family members, may not have an impact for 15, 20 or—hopefully—30 years, but none the less they are spending that money now because of the uncertainty of this policy, which is very ill advised.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate, which is so important. Just this morning, I was at the meeting on food security, speaking to poultry farmers there, and they said that they are already taking decisions not to invest in new buildings, directly because they are now thinking of how they need to save for an APR bill. Of course, that has a knock-on effect on other businesses that will be the suppliers, and therefore we come into the BPR argument as well. Does he share my concerns that, if farmers cannot invest in their holdings, they will not be as profitable in future? It is a huge cycle—a self-fulfilling prophecy that will mean that more farms will be impacted down the line.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. I say to the Minister that rather than looking at the issue through a fairness lens or an “attack wealth” lens, it must be in terms of incentives. Incentives are what drives behaviour, and behaviour is what drives wealth creation and security. If we come at it with some sort of A-level politics student’s approach, rather than one grounded in human behaviour and incentive, and get it wrong, we will see reduced investment from farm to farm and business to business.

If someone is not buying that new piece of planting machinery, they will not be investing in the training of their staff or they will not take on that extra employee who would have been brought on, because to justify expenditure they needed to invest in them, pay them more, and bring on more staff. All of that goes into reverse. I hope that as they come face to face with the realities of being responsible for the economy, Ministers will take that onboard and start to have a different philosophical approach in the way they do policy.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Member share the concerns that my farmers have about their mental health, who are already in an industry where mental health issues are very high? They are concerned about the deadline of April 2026 and what impact that could have on their wellbeing.

[Graham Stuart]

I do. Someone only has to meet farmers to know that farming is already quite a lonely profession, with a high level of suicide anyway and high rates of depression. Combining that with this figure, it sounds hyperbolic to suggest that people will kill themselves ahead of this deadline, but knowing the farmers as I do in my area, I do not find it that hyperbolic. I hope it proves not to be the case, but it is a serious issue to be considered.

The impact of changes to BPR extends beyond farming communities. When asked about the changes, 85% of family businesses surveyed by the Confederation of British Industry said they would reduce investment by an average of 17%, an issue which colleagues are rightly raising. That will stifle long-term growth and harm the broader network of businesses that depend on them. They say that trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair. As I walked down Whitehall, shoulder to shoulder with farmers, their anger was palpable because they had believed the Prime Minister’s promises yet were betrayed. To Labour’s credit, it won the trust of rural Britain, through every door knocked, leaflet printed and promise made. It went from representing two rural seats in 2019 to 40 today.

The Prime Minister pledged to form a new relationship with farmers based on respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) questioned where those proud rural Labour MPs are today; they are certainly not here facing the music. As usual, they are leaving the Minister to do it on his own. He asked us to judge his Government on their actions and not their words, so that is what we will do. In November 2023, the current Environment Secretary, in a room full of farmers, looked them straight in the eye and told them

“We have no intention of changing APR.”

By November 2024, that promise meant nothing. Labour waited 14 years to deliver its Budget, and it made a choice not just to change APR, but halve it. One constituent shared their shock as they calculated the impact, realising it would cost their family £300,000. Another constituent, William Hodgson, who runs a 600-acre farm near Withernsea with his mother, faces an inheritance tax bill of £1.5 million, with a post-tax profit of £150,000 a year. That means he would have to dedicate an entire decade of profits just to cover the cost of that tax. It was at that moment that the most valuable currency in politics—trust—was lost.

In February 2024, the Prime Minister told the NFU that it deserves a Government that listens and heeds early warnings. The planned changes to APR are not due until 2026, leaving the Prime Minister with one year, two fiscal events and ample parliamentary sitting days, with many colleagues all too happy to constructively work with him, to come to this House and tell us that he has listened and will change course. The question is whether he has the courage to do so.

It will have been hard to hear all of us and our chants while he was in Rio and we were in Whitehall; farmers at his north London surgeries will be few and far between. However, I hope he will listen to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), on his own side, who spoke bravely against the policy during the debate in the Chamber last month.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I had better make some progress. The hon. Member for Penrith and Solway may have been scolded behind closed doors for doing that, but he will have regained the trust of voters who put their trust in him. As devastating as the proposed changes to APR and BPR could be on our farmers, the impact of the changes on family-owned businesses more widely could be even greater, and perhaps that deserves more attention.

A recent report by Adriana Curca at the CBI laid bare the potential fallout. Far from raising £1.4 billion, as forecast by the Treasury, the Chancellor can expect a £1.2 billion decrease in tax revenue from family-owned businesses. Instead of helping the Government to fulfil their pledge to be pro-business and pro-worker, it could lead to the loss of more than 125,000 jobs over the next four years.

Rachel from accounts obviously never got a new abacus for Christmas. Maple Garage, Beverley Travel, Beverley Camera Centre, Oh My Dog—great place—Flowerstyle, Vivienne Rose Wallpaper and Interiors, the Beverley Card Company, Islay Bloom, the Monkey Tree Café, Trent Galleries, Hull Aero Club—those are all businesses that I have spoken to since the Budget. The overwhelming sentiment was exactly the same, regardless of the type of business: disappointment in a Government who do not understand business. None of the Cabinet has ever run one, and it shows.

When the Prime Minister promised that wealth creation would be his party’s No. 1 priority—do hon. Members remember that?—more than 120 business leaders believed him, from the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, to Andrew Higginson, the chair of JD Sports. The Prime Minister convinced them that he had a plan to kick-start our economy. Now, six months into the reality of a Labour Government, they are lacing up their trainers and running for the hills.

It does not have to be that way. Instead of tinkering with who is and who is not eligible for inheritance tax relief, we could consider following Sweden’s example, where, having tried heavy inheritance tax charges—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will have to press on. Sweden ended up with even, I think, the communists voting to abolish it entirely. Since Sweden scrapped inheritance tax in 2004, entrepreneurship has flourished. Some 8,000 wealthy individuals moved their assets back to the country. Its tax revenues increased by £19.5 billion in a decade.

The planned changes to APR and BPR hurt everyone and help no one. Scrapping inheritance tax may not be a silver bullet, but the evidence suggests it is a policy worth examining.

I return to the saying that trust takes forever to repair. The Prime Minister will not take my word for it, but he should listen to his voters, and recent polls show that 66% of voters believe that Labour does not respect rural communities, and 77% do not trust Labour to manage the economy effectively, or remain unconvinced.

Newer MPs may grandstand and say that it will all blow over—although their appetite to do so seems to be diminishing by the day—and that by 2029, it will be a bad memory for farmers and entrepreneurs. Perhaps they could ask some of their colleagues in the Liberal Democrats how that story ends. After all, in 2010, it took them less than six months to break their promise to students not to raise tuition fees, and it still came up in last summer’s TV debates. Farmers and businessmen, like students, have long memories.

I am a firm believer that we reap what we sow. In the past six months, the Government have sown a dangerous thing—seeds of doubt, and an idea that they cannot be trusted. I had better let the Minister have a short period to respond. However, on behalf of colleagues right across this side of the House—and I think, by their absence, quite a number of colleagues on that side of the House—we ask the Minister, who is a thoughtful and decent man, to go back to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and persuade them to change course.

11:23

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. Likewise, he is always thoughtful in his contributions, so I am always glad to hear from him and indeed the interventions that he allowed during his speech.

I know hon. Members have raised questions about the reforms that we are making, and I will try to address as many of them as I can. However, let me start by briefly reminding hon. Members of the economic context in which the decisions were taken. At the autumn Budget, we took difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending

to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services, as a result of the situation that we inherited from the previous Administration. We took those tough decisions in a way that will make the tax system fairer and more sustainable. The decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief was not taken lightly. The reforms mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, the Government will maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax, beyond what is available to others.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will give way maybe once or twice, but I do not have much time.

[Richard Foord]

I do not question the Minister’s difficult inheritance, but the Labour party adviser Dan Neidle suggests that the plan to slap inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million should be replaced with a much higher threshold with a clawback mechanism, perhaps for land over £20 million that is sold. That would tackle the Dysons of the world without affecting small family farms. What does the Minister think of that proposal?

[James Murray]

I am just about to come on to the details of the reforms that we have made to agricultural property relief and business property relief. If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, he will see some of the reasoning behind the decisions that we took.

The Government recognise the role that the reliefs play, particularly in supporting farms and small businesses, and under our reforms that will continue. The case for reform is underlined by the fact that the full unlimited exemption, which was introduced in 1992, had become unsustainable. Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets has become heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.

It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief.

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I have only a few moments, so I will make progress.

The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that she would prioritise that tax break within the public finances, but we do not believe it is fair or sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of the wealthiest claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances. It is for those reasons that the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. We are doing so in a way that maintains a significant tax relief for estates, including for small farms and businesses, while repairing the public finances fairly.

Let me be clear that individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. On top of that, as we know, there will be a 50% relief, which means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Importantly, those reliefs sit on top of the existing spousal exemptions and nil-rate bands. Depending on individual circumstances, a couple can pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax.

[Harriet Cross]

At the Oxford farming conference, the Secretary of State suggested that farms should diversify to be more profitable, but diversification has become a lot less incentivised because that all gets wrapped up into the BPR, as well as the APR. Does that not completely negate the Secretary of State’s argument for diversification if it will all be taken away in tax?

[James Murray]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important point about diversification, but whatever category the assets fall into, a couple can pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax; that applies across agricultural and business property relief. The point I was making is that the agricultural and business property relief sit on top of the existing transfers and nil-rate bands, so when considering individual circumstances, we must look at the details of the situation that an individual or couple face.

I have a minute left, so I will be brief. Some hon. Members questioned the statistics about how many estates will be affected. We are very clear—we have published the data, and the Chancellor has written to the Treasury Committee about it—that up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those claiming business property relief too, will be affected by these reforms to some degree. That means that about three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those also claiming business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of these changes in the year they are introduced. All estates making claims through these reliefs will continue to receive generous support at a total cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility has been clear that it does not expect this measure to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for securing this debate.

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

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Coastguard Helicopter Services

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

14:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of coastguard search and rescue helicopter services.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place for a reprise of an issue I have raised a number of times over the years. The execution of the duties of the search and rescue helicopter base in Sumburgh, which is in Shetland in my constituency, has over the years been relatively unproblematic. The service, and those who provide it, are held in enormously high regard—and for good reason. There have been, over the years, a number of heroic incidents where the quality of the service, and the bravery of those who provide it, have been there for all to see. It has been quite exceptional, and that is the standard that local people have come to expect and will almost certainly continue to expect; but that does mean that, if there is ever any concern about the provision of these sorts of services, the response from the community will be much more trenchant.

I will start by raising an issue that has its roots back in 2023. It was a matter I raised in this House—in fact in this Chamber—on 22 November 2023. At that time, following the reletting of the contract for a second 10-year period to Bristow Helicopters, a memo was sent out to all Bristow staff indicating, amongst other things, that the response time for helicopters stationed at Sumburgh and at Stornoway—in the Northern and Western Isles—was to be increased from 15 minutes to 60 minutes. That is obviously concerning: for any coastal or island community, the search and rescue helicopter is another blue light service. It is a blue light service that any of us who rely on the sea for a living, or even just for transportation, may have to rely on at any time.

That memo only came into the public domain because a member of Bristow staff copied two pages of it and gave it to BBC Radio Shetland. It went into the public domain from there. As soon as it was in the public domain, there was a mass stampede for the hills by anybody who might be accountable for it. The Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency denied all knowledge of it, saying, “No, this was nothing to do with us.” It was all left firmly at the door of Bristow, which, it has to be said, was less than forthcoming at that point.

That led me, after some discussion and joint working with the then hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, to the Chamber on 22 November 2023. I say parenthetically that the current hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) has since contacted me to say that he cannot be here with us, but I know that he is engaged with this issue. I have spoken and corresponded with him about it on a number of occasions, and I know he shares my concerns about the handling of this.

I will not rehearse the arguments that were made in November 2023, but it will benefit the House and the Minister, when he responds, if I remind the House of what then Minister Guy Opperman said when responding to my half-hour debate. He said,

“I want to address the key point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in respect of the situation going from 15 to 60 minutes. That was supposed to be the situation going forward, but I can confirm that the Department for Transport has been informed by His Majesty’s Coastguard that it has begun an analysis of the SAR incident data compiled after the UKSAR2G procurement commenced. That work has begun and is ongoing, and obviously the results will be conveyed in the future to all Members who are particularly concerned by it—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who have raised this particular point in correspondence.

The analysis is in recognition of the fact that the UKSAR2G procurement was undertaken at a time of considerable societal and economic upheaval during the pandemic”.

So—surprise, surprise—the number of callouts had fallen during the pandemic and it was on that basis that the decision to raise the response time from 15 minutes to 60 minutes was made.

Let me say at this stage, before I go any further, that even if that data was reliable, I do not think that in itself is a legitimate basis on which to increase the call-out time. This issue is not all about the number of times the service is used; it is also about the circumstances and the conditions in which it is used. So, if this is some sort of calculation that says, “If we are only using it 10 times instead of 100, we don’t need to be out there quite as quickly,” I would say in response that for those 10 times that the service is needed to be out there, my goodness—the need is as great as it possibly can be.

In November 2023, the then Minister went on to say:

“There is no doubt, if one looks at the statistics—and I have the statistics—that on occasions, over the last few years, the numbers have clearly been potentially lower than they may be going forward.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 126WH.]

He continued:

“I want to assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that the UKSAR2G contract terms allow for a review of any area of the service against changes in demand, technical developments or innovations, which will be done periodically. The point is that that would have been done in any event. Should the analysis in this instance indicate that amendments to the new service are required in light of changes to the demand profile, then the Department for Transport can pursue those via the appropriate contractual mechanisms and approval processes.

The review will be undertaken at the end of this year going into next year”—

that was in 2023, going into 2024—

“at which time we will be happy to share the outcome with hon. Members. It will take many months, so it will not happen in the short term. I make the simple point that there will be no change to this service, in any event, for many years to come;”—

in fact, until the end of November 2026—

“as the title of the right hon. Gentleman’s debate on the Order Paper suggests, we are talking about the future provision. I can advise that all four current helicopter bases in Scotland will remain open, with additional fixed-wing capabilities and a seasonal base in north-west Scotland to provide additional enhancements on an ongoing basis.” —[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 127WH.]

Essentially, therefore, we have come here today to hear from the current Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—the outcome of that review. There were a number of occasions when we had video calls and telephone calls, with Bristow assuring us by saying, “Really, we understand now that maybe we did look at incomplete or inappropriate data. This is not going to be a problem.” I was greatly assured by that, but I am slightly less assured by the fact that we are now in January 2025 and we still do not know what the outcome of that review is.

If the Minister can tell us today that the review has been completed and that a 15-minute response time will continue to be provided, I will have nothing more to say on this matter for the moment. However, if we have to undertake a campaign in our community to save a service that is as important to us as this one, I would like to hear that now, rather than having to wait until November 2026 to hear it.

However, the issues around the response time are not the totality of my concerns about the SAR service; indeed, I fear that they are a symptom, rather than the disease. By that, I refer to the fact that this only came into the public domain because of a leak. It is something which clearly, as a provider of service under contract for the Government, should have had an element of public consultation before any decision of that sort was made.

The Minister will be aware that earlier this year pilots working for Bristow, which provides the service under the SAR contract, went on strike. They did so in the most responsible way possible, in a way designed to minimise the risk to life. The cover, though, it must be said, was still patchy and we were fortunate that the situation came to a head in the summer months rather than in the winter. Those pilots’ feeling that it was necessary to go on strike should be a major concern for the Department and for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. A few years ago it would have been unthinkable; earlier this year it felt inevitable.

The Minister knows that in recent years, Bristow was bought by a large American operator headquartered in Texas. What I have heard from those working for the company since then suggests that the purchase was the catalyst for a significant change of culture for the company and, more specifically, of concern for us as taxpayers, of the operation of the SAR contract. I have spoken with pilots and other staff at bases around the country, who tell me of a culture within the company that is now very different from the one that I first encountered and engaged with as a newly elected MP around 20 years ago. I hear of a management culture driven constantly by cost and efficiency, and some working within the company are concerned that it is at the expense of the highest possible standards of safety.

In years gone by, when I visited the base at Sumburgh I was generally able, with some notice, to go on to the base and meet and speak to more or less anybody that was on shift there. My most recent visit to the base was handled rather differently; senior management travelled from the south to “manage” my visit and the contact that I had with the crew at the base was very carefully managed. I was not oblivious to that; quite apart from anything else, I was fairly confident that, with Shetland being Shetland, I would hear any concerns there were by some other means, and so it has turned out.

The concerns were not just from Shetland. As a consequence of comments that I made that were reported at the time, I have heard concerns from bases, pilots and crews right around the coastline at other stations too. In Shetland and the Western Isles, I am told that the relocation of staff to the Isles is no longer to be expected or even encouraged. Consequently, crews are drawn in from elsewhere and the continuity of service is diminished. That must inevitably affect the way the service works—the familiarity of a crew with one another, when working in some of the most taxing conditions imaginable, is an important factor in how the service is delivered when it is most needed.

Shetland and the Western Isles are now regarded as spokes, rather than as hubs or standalone operations. Staff are expected to leave and work elsewhere in the country, providing different services. I am pleased to see that a more substantial amount will be provided for rescue services, going forward. I am sure that will be appreciated by the communities affected, but it must not come at the expense of the core service, which is search and rescue at sea.

Regarding core services, I sound a note of caution about the extended use of the SAR helicopter to supplement the air ambulance service on the islands. That use is not new, and in the moments of necessity it makes absolute sense for the SAR helicopter to get people to hospital on the Scottish mainland. However, I am increasingly concerned that the use is increasing in a significant way. In 2020, the number of call-outs—for the search and rescue helicopter to be provided effectively to the air ambulance service—was 25. But by the end of November 2024, it was 53. The concern must surely be that one day there will come a point where an ambulance flight is needed but the helicopter is deployed on a SAR mission, and the expectation of the ambulance provision and its availability will simply not be met.

If this is to be something that is done—and I make no argument with it—surely it has to be done in a structured and strategic way. It cannot be allowed to develop in an ad hoc way.

I have spoken to one pilot who told me of his concern that crews are being put on station before, in his view—and he is a very experienced pilot—they are properly ready to be there. I have heard tell of winch operators undertaking live winch operations to decks after only five training operations. Previously, the number would have been at least twice that, with further training being done on the job under the supervision of more experienced crew.

The service also faces challenges that are not entirely within its control. For example, the availability of spare parts for the AgustaWestland AW189 is a potential source of difficulty. The move to the AW189 as it was explained to me made some sense, and I could see the inevitability of it, although reliance on a single aircraft model still raises concern about the resilience of the service should that single model be taken out of commission, as we all know happens from time to time.

These are all things that cause me concern but, candidly, I am not really qualified to judge their seriousness. What seriously concerns me and I do feel qualified to judge, however, is the fact that pilots and crew come to me to tell me what is happening. I know for a fact that, in years gone by, any concerns of that sort would have been addressed comfortably within the company—the culture of the company allowed that to happen. It should concern us all to hear concerns of that sort, on top of crews taking industrial action, as they did earlier this year, on top of the hardball tactics deployed by the company in response to the strikes, and on top of the way in which changes to the response time for the SAR service in Sumburgh and Stornoway were made known. The blue-chip blue light service that we have enjoyed hitherto is under threat.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving a comprehensive analysis of his concerns regarding this most vital of services to many parts of Scotland, including as far south-east as my constituency, and the people who make their living on the sea there.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, this debate is about the future service. Would he like to see the Department and the MCA specify in the contract that a successful bidder will make certain cultural undertakings, if he thinks that is preferable to be prescribed? Does he agree that if the cost of providing a 15-minute response time seems expensive, the cost of failing to rescue lives will seem very much more expensive?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman’s final point is absolutely on the money. He is spot on. We are back to the old contest between price and value. The value of the service is understood by my constituents, and I suspect probably by his and other Member’s constituents; the price is for others to determine.

On specifying culture in a contract, I am now 23 years away from legal practice, and I was never much of a contract lawyer when I was in legal practice, so I would hesitate to get too involved in that. I question whether that is something that can be specified in a contract, but it is absolutely something that the MCA, as the contracting party, should, by proper management of the contract, be able to instil. If the MCA, at the point where the contract is let, made it clear that its expectations as the party letting the contract include the proper cultural management of the service, we would be in a much stronger position than we are in today.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On the point about the necessity to retain flexibility in the service, my North Antrim constituency has, of course, the glorious north Antrim coast, which is not only beautiful but dangerous at times. We have had the necessity and benefit, from time to time, of the assistance of the rescue helicopter from Prestwick, and no later than 15 December when, sadly, my constituent Nigel Gordon lost his life at Torr head. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is imperative that there is maximum flexibility going forward, for the benefit of not just those in the immediate vicinity of a base but those who can draw on the services in emergencies?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely correct. I am very familiar with the north Antrim coast: I was born and brought up on a farm 12 miles north of it, in the south-east corner of Islay, that looked across to Rathlin and then to the Antrim coast. I know exactly the stretch of water and the circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of. To go back to the way in which we view contracts of this sort, my concern is always that things can become pretty process driven. The issue of whether it is a 15 or 60-minute response time could become a box to be ticked, rather than something that we have to understand has a very direct bearing on the outcome—the quality of the service provided for our constituents and others.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes. I have got about another three paragraphs; I will get to them eventually.

[Jamie Stone]

Further to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), if there is an accident at a cliff and somebody falls, we want to get help to them as quickly as possible, while the chopper is making its way there. I know of instances when the rope gear has been removed altogether; there might be a lifesaving opportunity to get somebody down to that person before the chopper gets there. It seems to me that this attitude of measuring it by money, instead of an overall approach about preventing a death, is really what we should be thinking about.

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, indeed. As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, my father, who is now 93, worked for many years as what was then called a coastguard auxiliary—we would now call them a volunteer—and would go over the cliffs in breeches buoys to bring people off boats that had gone aground. Having come to the point where we have got this helicopter service, which is infinitely better than what we knew in years gone by, it is important to understand that the quality of the service—the quality of the output—really has to be the focus, not the process.

My hon. Friend prompts me to highlight the fact that many of those who work in tandem with the search and rescue helicopter are volunteers. These people are volunteer coastguards and volunteers on the lifeboat. On occasion, their commitment and bravery is absolutely outstanding. It really behoves Governments of any stripe to ensure that the quality of the commitment they make is matched by the quality of the service provided by the state.

Essentially, we need to get back to the provision of a service that is rooted in the communities that it is there to serve and that is driven by the highest standards of service. Where we, as parliamentarians, have concerns that that is changing, we have not only the right but the duty to speak up, because we do not want to leave this until we realise that it is too late and the damage has already been done.

14:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Is this your first time chairing?

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Yes.

[Jim Shannon]

Then I wish you well in your new role. I am sure that you and I and others will meet on a number of occasions—

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to give way.

[Jim Allister]

While we are on statistics, can the hon. Member tell us how many times he has spoken in this Chamber?

[Jim Shannon]

I am unable to answer that. I say only that I make sure that the constituency of Strangford is named every time I am here. That is the important point, because it is the people who put me here.

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). In all honesty, there probably is not a debate where I do not find myself alongside the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is on fishing issues, coastguard issues, farming or whatever it may be. These are all things that he and I, along with others, have a deep interest in, and we come to Westminster Hall to put forward the case on behalf of our constituents.

[Mr Carmichael]

I do not know whether this is really necessary, but given that I mentioned the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), I should put on the record, in case there were any doubt about it, that when we last debated this issue in November 2023, the hon. Member for Strangford was in the Chamber too.

[Jim Shannon]

It is the subject matter that motivates us, of course—that is why we are here.

I am really pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. He and I have been friends for many years, and I am very pleased to see him in that position. I know he will give the job the necessary energy and commitment. It is also good to see the shadow Minister in his place. I wish him well in his new role.

The core responsibility of His Majesty’s Coastguard and the helicopter service is to search, rescue and save. Those services are of major importance to society and take steps every single day to protect us; it is great to be here to discuss how we can preserve and protect them for the future. I know the Minister will reassure us and give us confidence that what we have, we can hold, and that they will continue to save lives. All Members who have intervened have mentioned saving lives—that is the thrust of what we are trying to achieve.

In my Strangford constituency, lifeboats and the coastguard, including lifeboats from Portaferry and Donaghadee, are called out almost every other week, and they do a massive good job in saving lives.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the by-products of this magnificent and timely debate is that it allows us to pay tribute to the volunteers, as he is doing? They include the likes of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland and onshore charitable organisations such as Community Rescue Service in Coleraine and Foyle Search and Rescue in Londonderry. We pay tribute to those people, and hopefully we can get them an additional revenue stream to ensure they can do the job of saving lives.

[Jim Shannon]

I think my hon. Friend may have been at the debate that I attended. He is on the record praising the good work of those volunteers. Every one of us knows the contribution that they make in saving lives. First and foremost, they are volunteers who have a commitment to do well.

Thinking about the helicopter search and rescue made me remember a story. It happened a long time ago, but it has always stuck in my mind. One Boxing day, I was out duck hunting on the pond on my farm, but out across Strangford lough a real tragedy was taking place. Six young men from Kircubbin—I live between Greyabbey and Kircubbin—went across to Daft Eddy’s, the pub on the far side, and on the way back they got into difficulties and were all drownded. I remember visiting all the families to express my deep sympathy to them. The point I want to make is that the helicopters were out—we could see their lights all over Strangford lough, going side to side everywhere as they tried to find the bodies and to reassure the families. The work that they did that night was incredible.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman is laying bare the sentiment and bravery of the crews that operate these helicopters. They do whatever they can hopefully to bring safety and security, if not comfort, to people in coastal communities right around the British Isles.

I may be the only rotary wing aircraft engineer in Parliament—I certainly like to think I am, anyway. Helicopters are inherently expensive, and it is incumbent on the Government to acknowledge that. That expense brings with it tremendous value. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, this is about the future? We are where we are, and relatively content we are too, but in future negotiations with contractors for this service the Government have to understand that, in their pursuit of value for money in Government services, there are many, many places to look before they look here.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend—he is a friend—for that intervention. That is my feeling, ensconced in those few paragraphs. He is right that when it comes to saving money, there are some things that we cannot scrimp and save on.

Unfortunately, that night helicopters were not successful in saving lives, but they were successful in retrieving bodies and giving them to their families, so that they could suitably grieve with the loved ones they had a great fondness for.

HM Coastguard was formally brought into existence almost 203 years ago, and has been working to keep people safe by the coast and at sea ever since. It is a world-class leader in maritime safety, available to be called 24/7, to help anyone in difficulty around the coast. It is similar to our helicopter service, which goes above and beyond to provide care and help those who require it. I do not often get the chance to watch telly, but Sunday afternoon is the one time I do. I enjoy the westerns that are on then, which shows how old I am. In the breaks there are adverts for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, showing examples of its work and seeking donations of £2 a week. On occasions, it is not able to do the total job and helicopters will be part of the rescue.

Back home, HM Coastguard oversees maritime search and rescue operations, including helicopter services to ensure safety. Those operations are co-ordinated through a network of maritime rescue centres across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with a joint rescue co-ordination centre in Hampshire serving as a central hub. HM Coastguard’s helicopter fleet operates from 10 strategically located bases throughout the United Kingdom, providing rapid response capabilities at sea, along the coast and in certain inland areas.

In Northern Ireland, those services are supported by local teams, such as Bangor Coastguard Rescue Team in the neighbouring constituency of North Down, which specialises in water rescue, mud rescue and missing person searches. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) told us about the north coast. Many will be aware that I represent an even better and more beautiful constituency in Strangford, which is part coastal. The Newtownards peninsula consists of numerous villages and hamlets along the coastline. In addition, the Bangor Coastguard Rescue Team lies in the constituency of North Down, our neighbouring area, so knowing that extra support is there for residents is always reassuring. It is always a team effort, with councillors working together with MPs and other bodies to ensure that everything happens.

In July 2022, Robert Courts, then Minister for Maritime and Aviation, announced a new contract that would be awarded to secure helicopter fleets for the next 10 years to serve HM Coastguard and helicopter search. The new contract means that the UK search and rescue region will benefit from innovation and advances in technology. It is important that all those involved in the work have those advances in technology to reach people more quickly and save their lives. That provides an opportunity to build a future coastguard aviation capability that can keep pace with the growing demand on coastguard and aviation services across the United Kingdom.

I met the then Minister two or three years ago to discuss provision for Northern Ireland. The commitment I got at that time was that it would be covered by Prestwick, which I appreciated, but we need to continue. There have been extreme circumstances when we have had to call on the Republic of Ireland, which also makes its helicopters available for the search. That is all part of doing a good job.

Living on the edge of Strangford lough, we are aware of night-time searches, some of which have been successful in saving lives. On other occasions, they have unfortunately not been successful. Sometimes, despite their best efforts, all those involved, such as the helicopters, police, ambulance and fire services and hundreds of volunteers, have not been able to find those missing people—often troubled youngsters. Thankfully, they are successful sometimes.

In conclusion, I believe that it is of the utmost importance that we do all we can, as parliamentarians, to properly fund, protect and preserve our coastguard and aviation teams. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, Air Ambulance Northern Ireland is funded through charitable donations. There is not a week, back in my constituency—and probably in everybody else’s, to be honest—when some group is not doing some fundraising for the Air Ambulance NI, or the air ambulance wherever they may be. Whether it be road traffic accidents, saving people in emergencies or helping people who just take ill, the air ambulance can be there in a few minutes, and those people can be taken to hospital.

Busy roads on the Ards peninsula, where I live, are usually narrow with lots of corners, and that restricts the ambulance service’s ability to get to places in time. That is a fact of life. However, the air ambulance makes that situation better. I thank all those who have made ongoing fundraising efforts to maintain and enhance its operations. The community support and contributions are essential to sustain lifesaving services. There is a responsibility in Government to ensure that those services do not falter for mainland England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.

This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together—my friend, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), knows that.

[Dave Doogan]

I doubt that!

[Jim Shannon]

I say that as personal opinion, of course. The point I am making is that we can be better together, and we can do it better together. Our people deserve that.

15:06

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

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. He has long campaigned on this issue and that has won him a lot of gratitude from people in Northern Ireland and across Scotland and, indeed, the UK as a whole.

I have considerable personal gratitude to the search and rescue helicopter service. Ten years ago, my wife fell off a hill while wearing crampons and using an ice axe, and broke everything in her body. I was in London and got a call from somebody to say, “Your wife is lying on the rocks, a few hundred feet down.” I was so concerned that I ran a situations vacant ad in The Oban Times, but luckily it was not needed because of the rescue of my wife by the search and rescue helicopter. My father was involved in Glencoe Mountain Rescue. He always says that the advent of search and rescue helicopters was probably the biggest change in the history of saving people in the mountains.

I am pleased to speak in this debate as my constituency includes Inverness, home to one of the top 10 search and rescue helicopter operations in the UK. Those centres, and the incredible teams who staff them, are an essential part of our emergency service infrastructure. Their stability and effectiveness are not only important but essential, as I know to my benefit. Some people in the Chamber might not be aware of the scale of it. It is a £1.6 billion, 10-year programme, so it is a big contract. The UK search and rescue service provides 18 helicopters and six fixed-wing planes, based in 10 locations, from Newquay up to Sumburgh. There are two aircraft in each base.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned, when the leaked plans to increase the emergency response time for rescue helicopters based at Sumburgh emerged, back in 2023, he acted swiftly and decisively. His efforts paid off as the then Minister, Guy Opperman, stated that the changes would not happen for many years to come, and that

“all four current helicopter bases in Scotland will remain open.” —[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 127.]

Hopefully, the new Government will ensure that we continue to hold on firm on that.

Quick responses to immediate problems are vital, but what is even more important is addressing the long-term decline in the services before they reach a crisis point. We need to ensure that the service level commitments do not slip. We have been made aware that there is potential for slippage in the contract. Most people will never need a search and rescue service. However, if they do need one, nothing else will do.

[Jamie Stone]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) will remember an incident in 1999 when a chemical-laden vessel called the Ascania broke free in the Pentland Firth. It was loaded with over 1,000 tonnes of potentially explosive chemicals. The search and rescue helicopters were absolutely instrumental in getting the crew of 14 off the Ascania. Luckily, the situation did not prove disastrous; it could have been. Without those helicopters, there could have been a considerable loss of life.

[Mr MacDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

In the year ending March 2024, coastguard search and rescue helicopters rescued 1,425 people. That figure highlights the sheer scale of their contribution to public safety. From the Inverness base in my constituency alone, there were 321 operations—almost one a day—making it the third busiest in the UK.

As a party, the Liberal Democrats are keeping a firm eye on this issue. One of the things we are concerned about is progress on extending the helipad safe zones at hospitals, which I know has become quite a big issue; I hope the Minister will mention that when he addresses us. Before I conclude, I reiterate the point made my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. In May 2024, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport stated that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s analysis of search and rescue demand would be published by the end of 2024. Clearly, we are well past that now. I hope the Minister will address that in his closing remarks and keep an eagle eye on the search and rescue contract and its performance. It matters a great deal to people who live in the maritime and rural areas of Great Britain.

15:11

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, particularly given that this is my first time at the Dispatch Box in Westminster Hall. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate on the future of coastguard helicopter rescue services. I thank all the Members who have contributed so far. It is clear that His Majesty’s Coastguard has strong and passionate advocates in Parliament, who care deeply about the services provided to their constituents.

I am part of the shadow Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office team, so normally a search and rescue helicopter would normally have to have travelled quite a way and caused a diplomatic incident before I would respond, but I am particularly pleased to be responding on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, as I represent a coastal community in Fylde in Lancashire. I also served as Lancashire police and crime commissioner, and have therefore seen first hand the multi-agency work that goes into preventing the loss of life on our coastlines.

His Majesty’s Coastguard is an integral part of coastal communities, with over 300 coastguard rescue teams around the UK. The coastguard search and rescue helicopter services play a vital role in protecting the public, and I pay tribute to the bravery and commitment of all those involved in delivering these lifesaving services, as has been mentioned by Members. Many people are alive today because a coastguard helicopter came to their rescue.

In July 2022, the previous Conservative Government announced that the contract for the UK’s second-generation search and rescue aviation programme would be awarded to Bristow Helicopters to provide both rotary and fixed-wing services for the next 10 years—representing a significant allocation of budgets and resources. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that contract will see UK search and rescue benefit from the latest innovations and advances in technology, to save more lives. As part of the contract, Bristow Helicopters launched two new seasonal bases in Fort William and Carlisle to serve these areas, which are two of the busiest locations for summer demand on services. Under the agreement, Bristow Helicopters will operate 18 helicopters, including the introduction of Leonardo AW139 helicopters and a drone system that has the capability to transmit real-time data. I am sure the Minister has heard from Members in this debate some concerns for the operationalisation of that contract.

The previous Conservative Government also recognised the importance of all coastguard centres being equipped to receive, respond, and co-ordinate all distress, urgency and alert situations. For that reason, the then Government allocated £175 million to deliver a communications network connecting 163 remote radio sites across 11,000 miles. The project, part of the radio network infrastructure replacement programme, ensures that the coastguard can maintain effective emergency response operations for thousands of distress calls.

I am pleased that the network is now operational and am confident that the improved resilience provided by the new network will aid the coastguard’s helicopter service and its lifesaving search and rescue operations for years to come. As part of the contract agreed by the previous Government, Telent, His Majesty’s Coastguard’s technology partner, will continue to manage and maintain the system.

An effective radio network is integral in supporting the mission of preventing the loss of life on the coast and sea. Ministers must remain vigilant to ensure that the network and the services that support it remain operational at full capacity. The Minister will know that at the end of 2023 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency launched an analysis of recent data to determine whether the demand for the search and rescue helicopter services had changed since the launch of the UK’s second-generation search and rescue aviation programme—a point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. However, the report was due out by the end of 2024 and has not yet been published.

I seek assurance from the Minister that the new Government will continue the investment into His Majesty’s Coastguard and treat it with the same priority. As a demonstration of that, will they ensure that the report is published as soon as possible, so that the Government can continue the work of ensuring that the right resources are in the right place at the right time to keep the public safe?

15:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, as we have become great friends over our time in Parliament. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), to the House and the Front Bench—even if it is only in a temporary capacity. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate to the House again—I think I was on the Opposition Benches on the last occasion.

As the right hon. Member eloquently said, His Majesty’s Coastguard and our dedicated search and rescue services have continued to provide a superb response to save lives at sea and around our coast. It is great to hear that reflected by all Members in the Chamber today. Recently, we have seen all our emergency services working together to respond to the recent storms that have affected millions of people. Whether rescuing people from flooding or helping them find shelter from the snow and ice, our search and rescue teams have continued to respond both day and night in often the most atrocious weather. I formally thank all the members of our search and rescue teams for their continuing commitment and dedication to helping any person in need of rescue or assistance.

I am delighted to announce that, following the review commissioned by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency into the proposed changes to the readiness states of the search and rescue helicopters based in Sumburgh and Stornoway, agreement for their readiness states to be maintained at 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes by night has been reached. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) will be delighted.

[Mr Carmichael]

I can only thank the Minister; that is exceptionally welcome news, and is exactly what we would have expected of him. I expected no less.

[Mike Kane]

The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will write to the relevant right hon. and hon. Members this month to advise them of the maintenance of the readiness states of those bases. I appreciate that it has taken some time for the final approvals to be granted; that is due to the complexities of the service provision.

In a previous debate, in November 2023, the intent and scope of the review was advised to the House. That included new data modelling to look at changes in operational requirements since the original contract was let. It also acknowledged that service demand may have been impacted by the recent pandemic, and reflected the demand on the coastguard services associated with the increased accessibility of the coastline and remote areas, which include the beautiful Shetland Islands and Outer Hebrides. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is not in his place, but he raised the case of his constituent, Nigel Gordon. As the Minister, I extend my sympathies to Nigel’s family.

Notification of the intent to maintain the current readiness states was sent to the aircraft operators, Bristow Helicopters Ltd, in December 2024 and will be enacted under the conditions agreed in the second-generation search and rescue aviation contract. The MCA and Bristow Helicopters continue to work closely together to implement the new service, which will make the most of technological advances, ensure that we retain a world-class search and rescue service, and align the readiness states of all UK search and rescue helicopter bases. The revised readiness states will be implemented as part of the transition timeline, which is expected to take place in October 2026 in Sumburgh and in January 2027 in Stornoway.

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will appreciate the ongoing work of the MCA and my Department to implement these changes, which include significant additional investment achieved by my Department to support our vital maritime and coastal services during these challenging financial times. The changes demonstrate the continuing commitment of His Majesty’s Coastguard and my Department to continue to provide this vital lifesaving service, which builds on more than 40 years of experience in providing a search and rescue helicopter service in the Scottish islands.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has reminded the House of the work of this vital service to support our seafarers and the wider UK economy. We have seen some notable rescues over the years, which included the tragic loss of one of the aircrew during the successful rescue of the crew of the Green Lily in 1997. The ultimate sacrifice of Billy Deacon, the winchman of the Sumburgh-based coastguard search and rescue helicopter, will always be remembered across the service. The Billy Deacon search and rescue memorial trophy was established to commemorate his sacrifice. The award, which was presented this year on the 27th anniversary of his loss, recognises the unique bravery of our winch paramedics and winch operators.

I am immensely proud of the work of all our search and rescue teams and, as has been mentioned, both our full-time officers and volunteers continue to support the service. I ask the House to pay tribute to all the crews of search and rescue teams and their vital work, and to remember those who have been lost while trying to save others.

The second-generation search and rescue aviation contract is a £1.6 billion investment by my Department to ensure the continued provision of a world-leading fleet of advanced search and rescue aircraft. No bases have been closed, and all current helicopter bases will continue to provide a 24-hour search and rescue service. Additionally, two seasonal bases will be constructed—one in Scotland and one in northern England, which will operate for 12 hours a day from April to September.

The additional seasonal bases enhance the UK-wide service, providing additional cover in the busier summer months. Their introduction will not impact the tasking of current bases: the search and rescue aircraft will continue to be tasked with aeronautical rescue by the joint rescue co-ordination centre, as they are today, to meet the requirements to prioritise saving life. We have invested in enhanced, innovative technologies to improve our search and rescue response to help to reduce the time taken to search for missing persons. The technologies will be rolled out during the transition of the current bases to meet new service provisions under the contract.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the issue of helicopter support for the movement of patients. Search and rescue helicopters may be asked to support our ambulance services to assist in moving critically ill patients to higher levels of care. These requests will be considered where capacity exists and no other means of transport are available and only if the request meets the legal requirement to be appropriate, compliant and achievable within the air operations certification. In accepting these requests, there must be no impact on the provision of primary search and rescue operations. However, the support is not guaranteed and should not be relied on by the health service; the movement of patients remains the responsibility of ambulance services.

[Dave Doogan]

The Minister rightly acknowledges the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the use of search and rescue helicopters for ambulance services, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in extremis; it is not their job but they can do it. That happens in Scotland despite NHS Scotland funding two air ambulances and two fixed-wing aircraft, which is not the case in England. Is the Minister aware of any Government plans to introduce NHS-owned and operated airborne ambulance services to protect coastguard services in England?

[Mike Kane]

Speaking of what Scotland provides for its NHS, I recently visited the CAELUS project in Aberdeen. Drone technology has been enhanced to carry blood supplies very quickly in order to help patients right across that great nation. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman with a more detailed answer to his question in a moment.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned that he was managed on a recent visit to a helicopter base. In my time of knowing him, I have always personally found him unmanageable, as I am sure the crew did on his visit. I am glad to say that the dispute with Bristow was successfully settled in the summer. I have kept in close contact with the British Airline Pilots’ Association on the matter, both in opposition and in government. It is not for a Minister to intervene in disputes of that nature, but I am glad that the parties reached a settlement.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also mentioned logistics. Logistics is a growing worry within my brief, particularly across aviation and somewhat in maritime. Since the pandemic, we just do not have enough parts being produced. Airlines in Scotland are having to buy planes only to mothball them to get parts for their existing stock. I keep a watching brief on logistics and I talk to the MCA director about it. My advice is that the AW189 is a proven, tested and capable aircraft for search and rescue across the world, and there are more of them in service than the old S-92s, so there are fewer supply chain issues with the newer helicopters.

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for his contribution. There are some statistics that I would have liked to read out, but I do not have the time in my speech. That was powerful personal testimony about his wife. I know it was some time ago, but I wish her all the best. He asked about NHS helicopter landing pads. We had something called the Derriford incident recently. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch sent some advice, and we are currently reviewing all those pads across the nation to ensure that they are safe for the future of all services.

I will turn back to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) on air ambulance provision by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. The sector has made an incredible contribution. I am led to understand that there are no current plans for officials to work with the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS.

Finally, I will turn to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am glad that he called me a close friend. I now know that he relaxes—I never knew that was the case. He watches westerns on a Sunday; I now know when to disturb him with a phone call. I see him as some latter-day John Wayne, climbing into his saddle and going out into the tundra of cacti deserts. The way he approaches his politics in this House always shows “True Grit”. [Hon. Members: “Ohh!”] Come on, it was a belter! I pay tribute to his service in Northern Ireland, and thank him for his personal testimony about the young men that were lost at sea. My heartfelt condolences go to their families. He will know, as I do, that burying our dead is a corporal act of mercy. Finding the dead and bringing their bodies back to their families is, in my opinion, an essential element of search and rescue. The hon. Member is right to raise that and it shows his character that he, as the constituency MP, personally went to visit those families.

In closing, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate. I again pay tribute to all our search and rescue services, across the UK, for their selfless dedication to saving lives 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

15:30

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank everybody who has contributed, by speech or intervention, to the debate and I particularly thank the Minister—that is exceptionally good news, which will be very welcome. This was one of those cases that I, personally, never doubted that we would win eventually, but we could never give up, or rest easy, until hearing that it had been accepted.

To the Minister’s point about the search element of search and rescue, finding the bodies of those who have been lost at sea is enormously important for their families. I recall that, before I was elected to this place, I was instructed, in Lerwick sheriff court in Shetland, in a fatal accident inquiry in which the body had not been found. In such circumstances, it is almost impossible for the families to get proper closure. That is why there is a genuine community understanding of the importance of search and rescue. If that extra 45 minutes’ response time makes a difference, I do not care what the cost is; I think it is worth every penny.

In closing, let me say to the Minister, since I know that we are coming into the CSR round, that the other service matter for which I have been on my feet many times over the years is the continuation of the contract for the emergency towing vessel. It seems that every time there is a comprehensive spending review we have to see off an attempt from Treasury to take that contract away. The Minister might tell Treasury that if it tries again, it will find the same resistance in the future as it has found in the past, and if he wants to have a look at it when he is next in Orkney then I would be more than happy to facilitate that. Even if that meant taking a little time out of his holidays, I am sure I can find a way of making it worth it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of coastguard search and rescue helicopter services.

15:32

Sitting suspended.

Parking: Town Centres

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

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

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of parking in town centres.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I rise to voice concerns about increased parking fees. Local authorities across the country are trying to claw their way out of financial difficulties by increasing parking fees and in my constituency, Dudley council has implemented such changes, which have been subject to much debate.

Our high streets and leisure centres are the heart of our communities. They provide social and economic value for residents in Dudley and across the UK, but in recent years we have seen too many once-thriving high streets fail. Successive Governments have attempted to reverse the trend by introducing grant funding for high street improvements, business improvement districts, empty shop strategies and business rate relief—the list goes on—but many of those measures were required only because of mistakes in development policy over the past 14 years. Council budgets have been eroded, forcing councils to make impossible decisions, and the previous Government’s levelling-up funding seems contradictory in hindsight. Ultimately, it is local people who are suffering.

Luckily, many councils have learned from those mistakes and proactively avoided developments that undermine the viability of high streets, but the rise of internet shopping has continued to drive shoppers from our historic towns, and long-standing traders in Dudley have suffered.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this incredibly important issue for my constituency and those of all Members here. Footfall is the lifeblood of the local high street, and there is a need to balance car parking and accessibility. My council has implemented discounts for five-hour parking and is considering discounts for two to three-hour parking to allow people to spend more money in a reasonable timeframe. Does she agree that if what Ards and North Down borough council has done is implemented across the United Kingdom, it would increase footfall and help town centres and high streets?

[Sonia Kumar]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I will call him my hon. Friend. Extending parking discounts beyond an hour would mean that people who want to get a coffee are not charged £1.80 for one hour’s parking, which is what has been implemented in my constituency. They would spend more time in the town centre, and that would increase footfall.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on parking in town centres. The recent decision by the Conservative and Lib Dem-controlled Slough borough council to foist controlled parking zones on the whole town, rather than just in the town centre, has left many of my residents feeling completely sidelined and angry, because the views they submitted to consultations have been ignored. Does she agree that although we need parking measures, it is important to respect the views of residents about these excessive cash cow schemes?

[Sonia Kumar]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend, whose opinions I really respect. Parking charges have become a cash cow. It is absolutely absurd that councils across the country, including Dudley council, have implemented them.

We need to think about how to drive footfall, not reduce it, in our town centres. I feel like we are robbing Peter so Paul can cut a ribbon. Clearly, there is a fair balance to be struck between generating revenue through parking charges and ensuring the vibrancy and accessibility of town centres, but too many authorities are not getting that balance right.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Northumberland Heath ward in my constituency, Councillors Baljit Gill and Wendy Perfect have been working tirelessly to support local traders who would like to introduce free parking for a very short period for the small range of independent shops in Northumberland Heath. Does she agree that councils should investigate measures to reduce parking fines and also consider free short-term parking arrangements to support, as she put it, the viability of such small independent traders?

[Sonia Kumar]

Yes, I do, and a long-standing trader in my constituency, Christine Bosworth, also agrees. She has been operating for the last 13 years in a craft shop and she shared with me some really poignant points that I would like to share. Christine said that there has been a really big drop in footfall in the constituency and in the town centre, and that it is an “eye-opener” that there now is a lack of accessibility to the town centre. The nearest car park is unusable and too expensive, while cheaper options are too far away for elderly and disabled people to use. Traders tied into long leases face mounting pressures to ensure that people can access the town centre.

Changes have been made without proper consultation and risk further eroding the vibrancy of our historic town centre. Bruno Coppola, manager of the Churchill shopping centre in Dudley, has shared concerns with me about the impact that the charges have on local businesses. Many traders have faced challenges for many years, including with covid-19.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

In the borough of Redbridge, where I was the leader of the council for the last 10 years, we brought in one-hour free parking, which increased footfall and the churn of cars, and brought local people back to local shops. Of course, it also created more business rates, because our local shopping centres are absolutely thriving. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is more than one way to make money, and that sometimes we have to be a little bit more imaginative and give local people what they want? Give them free parking and they will spend their money locally.

[Sonia Kumar]

An hour’s free parking is one of the proposals that I have put forward to the leader of my local council. If somebody wants to grab a coffee in the town centre, they do not want to pay a parking charge, then get their coffee and leave. That is only driving business out.

As I was saying, Bruno and a number of traders around the town centre told me that it is not just Dudley town centre that is being affected; the same thing is happening in many other town centres across the country. The additional problem with my town centre is disruption from the ongoing construction work around the main transport area, which is affecting the bus service and the tram line, so more people are being forced to use their cars.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Of course, parking is a problem that does not exist in isolation; as she just mentioned, it is linked to public transport. In many areas, including in my local area of Gravesham, there is a large rural network, but of course such networks are not served by buses, which is why people are forced into their cars. Does she agree that we need to work with our local authorities to improve rural infrastructure, thereby alleviating issues, including parking, in our town centres?

[Sonia Kumar]

I agree with my hon. Friend, because town centre accessibility is really quite difficult. We do not have a tram system or any local trains; we only have a bus service, which can be ad hoc at times. Consequently, I welcome the new consultation period that Richard Parker, our Labour mayor, has suggested.

This is not the time to increase parking charges, because, as has been said before, parking remains a critical lifeline for many high streets, especially for those customers on low incomes in Dudley and elsewhere. Rising parking charges are pushing customers away from Dudley town centre and into out-of-town retail parks such as Merry Hill, which have free parking, and encouraging them to shop online.

It is crucial that we consider the long-term impact of these charges for traders and local small and medium-sized enterprises; they are the backbone of the economy. On a recent walk around Dudley town centre, I counted up to 35 empty shops. A staggering amount of those shops struggled due to austerity measures, the pandemic and the cost of living crisis.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Just outside my constituency of Southend East and Rochford, we have an issue in one of the main market towns, which, let us say, does not have the friendliest parking. People visit the local library for its services but also to apply for blue badges. Parking enforcement is quite opportune and the fees people are paying are astronomical, and the local community is being caught out by that. People have mentioned how important parking is for the community and how we can get our town centres back. I have been talking to the British Parking Association. When we have contractors managing our local assets, they must be seen to be doing more to support the local community. People need to visit their local high streets and regenerate their local community. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those contractors do more to help our communities reimagine themselves?

[Sonia Kumar]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The contractors need to look at what they are doing in the town centres and where that money is going—back into the economy, local businesses and to residents.

The future of the high street relies on the ability to adapt and offer a range of experiences that draw people in—not just through retail but through leisure and community activities such as health, alongside the accessibility of services. I asked my council to reconsider its approach to parking charges. It is important that we strike the right balance that allows for continued access and vibrancy of our towns, which underpin our businesses.

In Dudley, the proposed increase in parking charges hurts not just traders but local residents who rely on car access due to the lack of alternative public transport options. For instance, students from low-income backgrounds who rely on their cars to get to the a learning or development centre will be forced to reconsider studies if the cost of parking becomes too burdensome. Those are students who want to upskill and contribute to the local economy, yet they face the prospect of being priced out of an education by those parking charges. In addition, the students and local residents who visit the leisure centre for their health and wellbeing will also feel the pinch. Many use the facilities regularly; I spoke to an 80-year-old member of the leisure centre who said it was a vital lifeline for socialising and community connection. The proposed charges would essentially double the cost of membership for every daily user, impacting the very fabric of our community.

If the parking charges are to continue, they should be reinvested into the community and businesses alike, providing a sustainable model for traders where businesses and residents reap the benefits. Each town will need its own unique solution depending on its size and needs. The implementation of those solutions must be relative to the scale of the problem of each town, and the voice of the community should be at the heart of all decisions. A thorough consultation should be conducted prior to the implementation of any charges made to a town centre. Let us treat car parking not as a peripheral issue, but as an integral component of a broader strategy for future town planning and revitalising our town centres.

16:14

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for tabling such an important debate on a topic that affects us all in so many different ways in daily life. I declare an interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee and I want to touch on a slightly different aspect of this issue of accessibility and public spaces.

As a long-time advocate for working families, this debate is personal for me. Across Britain—from Dudley and Sheffield to my own hometown of Bolton—we face a troubling problem. We are building more flats and homes, and encouraging people to move, without building the parking that is so needed alongside that. We are building family homes in town centres such as mine in Bolton, but we are failing to provide family friendly infrastructure that parents desperately need.

Parking in town centres is a prime example. Shopping centres, workplaces, and even hospitals all fall short of providing sufficient parent and child parking spaces with wider bays and convenient short walks to entrances. The problem is threefold. Parent and child spaces are too few, enforcement is lax and unclear regulations harm those who need them most. At my local supermarket, the scene is all too familiar: the few parent and child spaces are taken by large vans or two-door convertibles, vehicles with no sign of families in tow. The result is parents like me facing an almost impossible task—trying to load a toddler into a car seat in a standard space without bumping the car next door. The solution is not complex. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned, we need to design town centres with “public” in mind. Starting with public parking, let us expand family friendly spaces and curb rule breaking by enforcing the strict regulations used to safeguard blue badge holders. Once public places set the standard, private car parks will follow.

Even worse, town centre parking completely overlooks pregnant women. Imagine being eight or nine months pregnant—swollen feet, aching back, every step a marathon—yet being expected to walk in and queue at customer support to request case-by-case permission for parent and child parking at supermarkets. The irony is glaring. Spaces intended to make life easier are instead placing an even greater strain on pregnant women.

So why is progress on family-friendly parking moving so slowly? Why are pregnant women still being overlooked? When former Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg was working at Google and became pregnant, the company’s car park lacked any spaces for pregnant women. Drawing on her lived experience, she raised the issue with Google’s male co-founders, and the policy was changed soon after. The problem: Google’s male leadership had never even considered the needs of pregnant women in the first place. That happens all too often. Similarly, in Westminster, it is often left to women Members of Parliament to draw attention to the problems that cause daily frustrations to women. I am confident that the Minister agrees that we must move to prioritise town centre parking for families and pregnant women, and accessibility for all.

Beyond that, I sincerely hope that the Minister agrees that we must also move towards a Parliament that proactively addresses these problems, rather than relying on us women to highlight them. Parking should be accessible to all—it provides a lifeline to our town centres, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley again for bringing this issue to the House.

16:18

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this important debate and for the powerful case that she made.

It is one of the great joys of being the Minister responsible for high streets and town centres that I get to attend these debates where people talk about their communities. It is always interesting to hear the commonalities, differences, and challenges they are facing, though I might say with a degree of mischief that it is not often that such debates inspire such coverage of all the nations and regions of the UK as we have today. That is a sign that my hon. Friend is in exactly the right space.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister recognises that as our shopping habits have changed so has the need for parking in town centres. In my biggest town of Kirkcaldy, we are blessed to be right on the coast: we could have beautiful sea views, housing, workspaces, and facilities to attract tourists, but instead we have dilapidated, unused car parks which are a true blight on our town centre and on our seafront. Redevelopment funding is badly needed so that our town can fulfil its potential and meet the needs of its residents today.

[Alex Norris]

That is a really important challenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley finished by saying that the issue is not peripheral, and that we need to address broader matters in terms of parking, town centre vibrancy and having a more planned approach to what the future could look like. Doubtless, there would need to be support from the Government of the day, and that message was heard very clearly.

My hon. Friend made an important point, similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) just made, about the reasons for the decline in our high streets and town centres—those obvious changing patterns of behaviour. Colleagues could easily order a book, probably several, in the time I am speaking—I am sure they would not—and that is different and is not going to go away.

Times have been hard for people. Austerity has been a really difficult period for our communities and people are still struggling with the money in their pockets. All that contributes to challenges, so it behoves us to try to drive footfall and to use any levers we have to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, parking is an important one. In her contribution, the voices of her constituents, be they businesses, long-term residents, students or leisure centre users, came into this Chamber. I hope they see that their views are being echoed, expressed and taken seriously in this place.

I want to cover some of the points that my hon. Friend made, and I do not want to miss out the final contribution, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). Like others, I have seen the coverage of Dudley council’s decision to scrap two hours of free parking, and I recognise the pain, the impact on motorists and the disappointment for residents and visitors that that has caused. I have seen the rally and I was sad to hear from my hon. Friend that there is a sense that the consultation was not done properly because that is an important part of conducting a process properly, even if the results are disappointing.

Parking, together with effective public transport and decent active travel, is essential to the resilience of our towns and cities. However, as has been said, the provision of accessible and affordable parking is particularly important outside the major metropolitan cities and in rural communities. Where public transport is limited, people need their cars—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) said.

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

In one of my major towns, Harpenden, I have had a lot of businesses, such as Threads and Oui, which have said that parking charges are changing and they are worried. The Minister mentioned services such as parking and transport. Is it not sad that after 14 years of Conservative Government, and cuts and cuts to local councils, local authorities have been forced to make some of these difficult decisions? It is now time for us to empower local authorities to support businesses and high streets and to invest in our communities to ensure that they thrive.

[Alex Norris]

I absolutely agree. It is at the heart of this Government’s approach to give communities tools to change places, and I will go through some of those at the end. There is a financial aspect to that, but there also a power aspect about shaping the things that shape the community. The debate gets to the heart of that, because parking is one of the major levers that a community has. The important point is that it is the community’s lever. Yes, it is held by the local authority, but it is the community’s lever.

Fundamentally, responsibility for parking provision in town centres rests with the relevant local authority under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The accompanying statutory guidance clearly sets out that parking policies have to be proportionate and have to support town centre prosperity, and that it is for local authorities to decide how parking should support that—whether it should be free, whether it should be tariffed and for how long. Local authorities are best placed to do that, through their local transport plans and their local insight. They have to find a balance between residents, local businesses, those who live and work in an amenity and of course access for emergency services. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local authorities can set their own parking tariffs. I think almost everybody will at some point set tariffs, certainly in a busy area, but they must be proportionate and should not be set at unreasonable levels.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley emphasised that the point of local parking policies is not to be revenue raisers or indeed cash cows. How a surplus is spent is prescribed under section 55 of the 1984 Act, which requires any surplus raised from parking schemes to go back into local authority-funded transport or environmental schemes—back into communities, as my hon. Friend said. Colleagues need to keep a discerning eye on that to ensure that that is really taking place, and that, crucially, communities have a voice. I and other colleagues in the Chamber have been council members. I remember wrestling with the problem of how to create that convection in Nottingham. We do not want people to come to a town centre and park there all day for work and then go home again and not contribute to the local economy. We want a turnover, but we want incentivisation as well.

Colleagues have talked about the effectiveness of providing a free hour in pulling people through. There are very good examples of where that has worked. The challenge for me and for local authority colleagues who are listening to this debate is that, yes, this is a local authority function, but local authorities are their community. All our local authorities should ensure that their policies reflect the wishes and interests of the local community and that they are getting the public into the conversation—I was challenged to do this when I was a member of my local authority and I challenge mine to do so now.

Local authorities must also get business into that conversation. I was surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that local businesses clearly do not feel that that has happened.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for visiting Rugby and having a walk around. One bit of the town that we did not reach was Elliott’s Field, which is an out-of-town shopping centre. Does he agree that those out-of-town shopping centres compete with town centres, not least because they can attract anchor clients, but also because they can offer free parking?

Rugby borough council—I must declare an interest as I am still a councillor—is thinking very carefully about innovative measures that it can take, whether that is free parking, which was offered in some car parks in December, or making rapid decisions on opening one particular council-owned car park when the theatre was showing a production. Is there anything else that central Government can do to help councils achieve this difficult balance?

[Alex Norris]

That is a really important intervention. I wonder whether, looking back on some of those decisions on out-of-town retail, communities would make the same decisions now as they did at the time. It is clear from my hon. Friend’s intervention that parking is a driving factor in success. To some degree the public are telling us what they want to see and we really ought to listen to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley talked about broader support, particularly around vacancy. I encourage colleagues to support their local authorities in promoting the new high street rental auctions to bring those vacant units back into use.

I also point to our work on safety in town centres. If we are driving footfall, people will only come, or come a second time, if they feel that they are safe. Footfall alone promotes community safety because energy and people being present deter crime and antisocial behaviour. Nevertheless, our commitment to 13,000 more police and police community support officers will have town centres at its heart, so there is that visible presence and our town centres are places where people feel safe to park their cars and shop.

I want to address the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East about parent and child parking bays. There is no current legislative requirement in this space. I am conscious that my hon. Friend has a ten-minute rule Bill designed to change this. In the interests, as she says, of challenging colleagues—particularly male colleagues—to come up with solutions, there is a possible workaround solution using the current legislative framework. Authorities can make parking provisions for specific road users, whether residents or blue badge users—we have many examples in our own communities. Under current rules, it would be feasible for a local authority to make specific on-street bays permit holder only, and to include a permanent identifier on that sign—again, we see those in our resident schemes and in our communities—but then issue those permits only to pregnant women or parents with children. Authorities would have to justify reserving those spaces—I think my hon. Friend probably did that for them—and find a decent way to publicise where those bays are located. I expect it would probably be about those being in the right place. That is something that colleagues can raise with local authorities. It is a bit of a workaround, but in the spirit of meeting her challenge to be being solutions focused, it would be one option. I thank her for her contribution.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley again for securing this important debate. She set out clearly some of the challenges that face our town centres. At the heart of it comes footfall, and at the heart of footfall is that lever of available and affordable parking facilities. Local authorities have leadership, responsibility and stewardship of local transport plans, but fundamentally that is for the community, and should be something that reflects the needs of local residents and local businesses. Clearly, that is not happening here, and that is why my hon. Friend had to take the significant step of bringing this from the high street in Dudley all the way to Parliament. She was right to do so. It is hugely important that the communities in Dudley, Kirkcaldy, Ilford, Bolton, Southend, and all the other places we have heard from today, are heard. The subject is clearly important throughout the country and I am grateful to colleagues for raising it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adoptive Parents: Financial Support

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That the House has considered the matter of financial support for adoptive parents.

It is a pleasure to lead this debate and to have you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. Adoption is one of the most selfless acts that a person or family can undertake. It provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent loving home, often completing a family, as I have seen myself in my role as a proud auntie. Despite the immeasurable value that adoption offers to those children, their families and society, financial barriers prevent many prospective adopters from stepping forward. Today, I wish to highlight the case of Kirsty, a constituent of mine from Marple. Her case exposes a significant gap in the financial support system that discourages self-employed individuals from adopting.

Kirsty is a self-employed mother who dreamed of expanding her family. After a year of trying to conceive a second child, she and her husband decided to explore adoption. Their first son, Charlie, a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love for trains, often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver. For Kirsty and her family, opening their hearts and home to a child via adoption was the best option.

Just as Kirsty began to embrace that vision for her family’s future, a close friend, also self-employed and in the process of adopting, informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support as others through statutory adoption pay. Ever since, her plans have been thrown into doubt. Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters like Kirsty fall into a financial support void.

Although statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to those allowances, such support is not guaranteed and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. A freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing that financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters surveyed in 2022 by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence reported that their social worker never advised them about the possibility of receiving the discretionary payments.

Many of those in Kirsty’s situation cannot take the financial risk of adopting a child without assured support, and she is not alone. The gap creates a stark disparity between those who are employed and the self-employed—a barrier for many who might otherwise give a child a stable and loving home. The consequences of that lack of support are far-reaching. Having often faced abuse or neglect, adopted children need time and care to settle into their new families; as a result, adoptive parents are often advised to take up to a year off work to ensure proper bonding and support. Where does this leave those who are self-employed? Without financial support, they face impossible choices: continuing to work and sacrificing the vital time they need to build a relationship with their child; sacrificing their careers and their financial stability; or abandoning their adoption plans altogether. For many, the only realistic option is the latter.

Governments of different shades have often recognised the importance of building a relationship with an adopted child, but for too long they have insisted that self-employed adopters should have to rely on unreliable discretionary payments. In November, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to extend statutory adoption pay to the self-employed, or to introduce an equivalent benefit. Although the Minister’s response expressed support for adoptive parents, it pointed yet again to a flawed system of discretionary payments.

In December, I called on the Government to allocate time to debate how we can support people like Kirsty, and to do that in Government time—sadly, so far, to no avail. Just before Christmas, I tabled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill—new clause 46—which would allow the self-employed to claim statutory adoption pay. In a letter to me last week a Minister—not the Minister present—committed again to reviewing the parental leave system, agreeing that improvements need to be made. As the review begins, I urge Departments across Government to prioritise financial support for self-employed adopters.

The financial case for supporting adoptive parents is compelling. Research by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK shows that in 2021 adoption saved the UK economy £4.2 billion through improvements in children’s health, and in their education and employment prospects, compared with the outcomes for children who remained in care or other placements. Local councils saved £3.6 billion, while the NHS and wider economy benefited by £34 million and £541 million respectively.

The CVAA has also found that at least £1.3 million-worth of value is created when a child is adopted, underscoring the societal and economic benefits of increasing adoption numbers. Yet the number of adoptions has halved since a peak in 2015, even as the number of looked-after children has risen by 25%. Removing financial barriers and guaranteeing financial support, and empowering those who are self-employed to step forward for adoption, could reverse this troubling trend.

The case for further financial support for adoptive parents to address the distinct challenges they face is equally compelling. Rates of depression and anxiety are as high as 32% among those who adopt. Unlike biological parents, adoptive parents often have to contend with navigating their child’s complex trauma or attachment issues, and with a long and arduous adoption process. These challenges can be compounded by the grief and loss that many adoptive parents can feel if they have experienced infertility or failed attempts to conceive.

Adoption can also place strain on relationships. While divorce rates among adoptive parents are not disproportionate, the difficulties of parenting children with complex needs, alongside the emotional toll of the adoption process, can push couples to their limits. Financial instability worsens those challenges, threatening the family cohesion of those who are brave and selfless enough to adopt.

Finally, the adoption process in the UK is long and complex, sometimes taking years from the initial application to the final court approval. Prospective parents are subject to background checks, references, intense assessment, and adoption panel scrutiny before they can even find a match. Although this journey is, of course, necessary to ensure the best outcomes for children, it places immense stress on prospective adopters. I urge the Minister and the various Departments involved to explore ways to provide financial support that acknowledges and mitigates the unique pressures on adoptive parents, self-employed or otherwise. I hope that will play a significant part in the upcoming review of parental leave.

Adoptive parents deserve robust financial support. Addressing this issue is not only a matter of fairness but a means of unlocking the full potential of adoption. Ministers across Government, and the various Departments involved, have the opportunity to lead the way by extending statutory adoption pay to self-employed adopters, or by implementing an equivalent benefit. We should not allow financial barriers to stand in the way of creating loving families and providing children with the stability they so desperately need and undoubtedly deserve. The Government could and should act decisively to ensure that adoption remains a viable and supported choice for all prospective parents.

16:39

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for bringing a very important topic to the House’s attention. It is important that we engage with adoptive parents, and prospective adoptive parents, to hear their experiences of adopting a child, because only through listening can we know the real-life challenges they face. The hon. Member gave a prime example in her opening comments regarding the financial pressures that deter couples and individuals from coming forward to adopt children.

As a Minister in Northern Ireland, I put through the Adoption and Children Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Until that point, Northern Ireland had been bound by wholly inadequate and outdated legislation that had not been updated for three decades—it actually predated devolution. The 2022 Act updated the broad adoption frameworks and also had some tangible benefits, such as the introduction of a legal duty so that adopters in Northern Ireland can now access more support through our social services.

The issue raised in this debate is one step—and only one step—that the UK Government could take to bring forward immediate action to improve support for some of our adoptive parents: broadening statutory adoption leave and pay to self-employed parents in the same way that the maternity allowance is available for self-employed parents. This is important because the latest statistics show that, as at 31 March 2024, we had 3,999 children and young people in care in Northern Ireland. That is the highest number recorded since the introduction of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Of those children in care, 28% had been looked after for less than a year but 29% had been looked after for more than five years.

I believe in anything we can do to increase the number of people who want to adopt children, take them out of our care systems and give them the loving, caring home that is often experienced by those who come out of care into adoption. Last year, only 97 children were adopted from care in Northern Ireland, and 48% of them were adopted by couples in their 40s. Taking this step could encourage a wider spectrum of people to come forward. I am not saying this in a derogatory way, but those couples in their 40s may be more financially secure at that point in their life, and see that as the point at which they can adopt. Government support would allow younger couples, including those who are self-employed, and even those who work from home, to come forward and take up the gift that is the ability to adopt a child out of care. That is why I encourage the Government to do all they can to support the issue that has been brought to the House in this debate.

16:43

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this really important debate.

I highlight to the Minister the adoption support fund; I would be grateful if he could talk about any long-term plans the Government may have to bake that into Government proposals, because currently it is a hand-to-mouth existence. A week after I got elected, a resident raised with me their concerns. I wrote to the Minister on this issue some months ago, but I wonder whether the Government’s thoughts on the matter have changed.

I speak as somebody who was myself adopted into a very loving family in the 1970s, with Eric and Penny. Eric was self-employed. He was not a toolmaker; he was a lorry driver—a haulage contractor if we were trying to be social climbers. The reality is that it was a really loving family. Of course, as a self-employed haulage contractor, Eric would have benefited from the proposals we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove.

The world of adoption and fostering has changed massively. The babe in arms is often not what one gets through adoption or fostering, but children who have had complex, challenging lives and will try to test parents. I have a good friend in Torquay whose child tests him regularly. The child believes that daddy is a monster because his previous daddy was, sadly, a monster to him. It is really challenging for that adoptive family to face that.

I also welcome the comments about Home for Good, which is a service that I brought in to Torbay when I was leader of the local authority. It looks at driving adoption through those with faith and using churches to support those with faith. There is a significant need out there.

Even for purely cynical reasons, I encourage the Minister to reflect on how important it is to support self-employed people so that we enhance the pool, as one only needs to look at the cost of social care to councils up and down the country when a foster placement or adoption—as quite often fostering does turn into adoption—cannot be found. The private sector is sadly making significant profits from that.

Although I am pleased that the Government are making progress in those areas, the best way to make progress is to look at places such as Leeds, which I visited once upon a time, and now also Torbay, becoming UNICEF child friendly communities. That will drive a positive culture of engagement and support for our young people throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the proposals from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove.

16:47

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

This is a very important topic, as hon. Members have acknowledged. I was particularly struck by the specific impact of the financial regime that adopting parents face, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) described in the case of her constituent Kirsty. I was also struck by her general points, which were echoed by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), about the challenges faced by adoptive parents, including the challenges that their children continue to endure having joined their family, as well as those of the adoptive family and their birth children.

As hon. Members spoke, I was reflecting on how much more we now know about the early development of children. I compare the experience of 50 years ago, when my parents adopted my sister, with the experience that my sister has had adopting her two young sons, and the difference is pretty stark. My sister simply arrived and that was that; the expectation was that all was now well and no further support was required. Indeed, I am glad to say that things did turn out very well for my sister. The support that has been offered to her as an adoptive parent, however, is far greater and more sympathetic, and shows much greater understanding of the challenges around child development than that of a generation or two ago.

I will briefly pay tribute to the former Government who, over the last 10 or 15 years, introduced some quite significant improvements to the system that adoptive parents face. David Cameron and Michael Gove both made it a priority to ensure that the regime around adoption was improved. I have just read a leader in The Spectator praising the last Government’s performance on adoption—I cannot think that that was anything to do with the editor of that magazine—but Michael Gove does deserve credit for the work that was done, such as the introduction of adoption leave; the pupil premium and the additional pupil premium that are available for adopted children; and the priority in school admissions.

I pay tribute to my former colleague, David Johnston, the Children’s Minister in the last Parliament, who introduced the adoption support fund that the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned. It is fair to ask why additional support is needed for adoptive families and adopted children. One could argue—and I think we should—that all families need support and help bringing up children.

As we have heard from hon. Members, however, a young child almost always reaches the destination of adoption after a long journey of disruption. It is wonderful that a settled life is now available to that child, but the challenge is not over when they arrive in their new family. We all know from experiences in our constituencies how much adoptive families have to work to ensure that their children are properly supported.

It is worth noting something that I am afraid still somewhat applies, despite the reforms I mentioned: while there is an expectation that fostering families will need ongoing support after the placement of the child, in the case of adoption, the expectation remains—as with a new child born into a family—that the child is almost exclusively the responsibility of the adoptive parents and support from the outside is not necessary. However, it is necessary.

I am grateful to be able to add my voice to what we have heard about the enormous benefits that adoptive parents bring to our society as a whole by, frankly, rescuing many children who faced years of potential neglect or abuse if they remained where they were, or simply faced inadequate care and upbringing if they remained in the care system. I think of former colleagues of mine who, 25 years ago, adopted quadruplet boys aged two who had been removed from a disgraceful, appallingly abusive family. Although it was very challenging for the family and the four boys over their childhood, they have all grown up well and are doing well. Their parents are rightly proud of them. I think of the likely trajectory that those children would have been on if that family had not stepped forward to look after them—four boys who experienced extreme abuse in their early years—and the cost that would have been imposed on our society, both financial and social.

A topic that is very much on our minds at the moment is the tragedy of grooming gangs. While it is complex and every case is different, what many of the cases had in common was the fact that the girls who were victims of those crimes had been in care. The clear obligation on us as a society—as the last Government and this one have both asserted—is to have more children leaving the care system and gaining the stability and support of a loving family. That means more fostering—we all need to do more to promote fostering opportunities and help people to become foster parents—and more adopting, as we have been discussing, as well as other ways we can support children to grow up in stable families. I support initiatives such as fostering for adoption, as well as Home for Good, which is a tremendous project.

I acknowledge the work of kinship carers, who are an important part of the economy of care. Thanks largely to David Johnston in the last Parliament, they can get significantly more support, but we need to go further to ensure that they too can access support around statutory pay and parental leave.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, there is clearly an anomaly for adoptive parents, and particularly for self-employed parents, who cannot get statutory adoption pay. Unlike self-employed birth parents, they do not get the equivalent of maternity pay. As she said, there are opportunities for local authorities to provide discretionary support, but most people are unaware of that, and it is, indeed, discretionary. I am not sure that it should not be discretionary—there is an important debate to be had about the degree to which we ringfence finance and impose obligations on local authorities—but there clearly needs to be far greater awareness among the public of the support available, and greater encouragement for local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities to adoptive parents.

We need a better funding arrangement for local government so that it can take on board and fulfil its social responsibilities. Most of all, we must recognise that families are the essential welfare system in our society. The more we can do to ensure that they can fulfil that responsibility and do that important work for children who desperately need the love of a supportive family, the better. I acknowledge that the Government want to do that, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will do in the future.

16:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this important debate. I thank all who have taken part in the discussion for their thoughtful and incisive comments.

As the hon. Lady said, I recently received a written question from her about this issue, and I commend her for her continued support and campaigning in this crucial area. Becoming an adoptive parent is, of course, rewarding, but it is without doubt challenging too. It is admirable when anybody steps up to that role, let alone those who do so while in work. The Government do not underestimate the life-changing difference that adoptive parents up and down the country make every single day.

Breaking down barriers to opportunity is one of this Government’s key missions for the country. That is why we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure employed parents can balance their work and home lives. Our plan to make work pay will ensure there is more flexibility and support for working families, and our reforms to get Britain working include transforming employment support so that people with specific barriers to work, such as parents, receive personalised help to overcome the particular hurdles they face. That not only supports our No. 1 mission—to drive growth in every corner of the country—but creates a cycle of opportunity. People cannot fulfil their potential if they are struggling to afford life’s essentials, but good work brings security and dignity. That is why good work will always be the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty and supporting families.

Children cannot fulfil their potential if they grow up in poverty in any familial setting, and we cannot fulfil our potential as a country if the next generation is held back. That is why we have already started the urgent work needed to get the child poverty taskforce up and running. It is working to publish a comprehensive and ambitious child poverty strategy that will consider all children across the United Kingdom, whether in care, adopted or living with birth parents.

It is worth reiterating that maternity payments such as statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance are intended to protect the health and wellbeing of women and their babies, rather than to assist with the costs associated with a new child. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is specifically raising the issue of adoptive parents. When a family welcomes a new child into their world, it is only right that they have the time to bond—a point that the hon. Lady made eloquently in introducing the debate, and that all hon. Members reiterated.

It was genuinely important to hear about Kirsty’s experience of thinking about adopting a second child—an “assistant train driver”. She is one of the many people who are having to make very difficult choices. I have constituents in a similar position, and it is incredibly important that we hear such testimony when considering these issues.

The hon. Lady also highlighted that there is no guarantee on the means-tested local authority payments, as was reiterated by the shadow Minister, and that many councils do not have policies for that, before going on to set out that adoption saves the economy £4.2 billion a year. She, like myself, is a former senior local authority leader in Manchester. Having been deputy leader of Stockport council, she knows not only of the benefits of adoption for education and health, but of the many pressures within the local authority care system and the fact that secure, permanent placements are the best thing for the child. That support is priceless, and I think we are all agreed on that today.

The hon. Lady went on to say that new adoptive parents need to take time off to enable a child to settle in their new home. I absolutely agree. There are many complex needs that adoptive parents may face in settling their new child in, and balancing that with their employment needs, whether they are self-employed or in mainstream employment, poses many issues. I agree that improvements need to be made to the parental system. If she will bear with me, I will make a specific promise to her on how we can best move this forward.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) also highlighted his local government experience. It is important to draw that out because we have all been corporate parents. We understand the importance of the role played both by the care system and by foster carers, kinship carers, and especially adoptive parents making a decision to permanently offer a home, love and support to a young person. He set out some of the specific challenges faced in Northern Ireland, for which I am grateful. He is right to highlight the spiralling statistics for children in care. As I just mentioned, it is critical to anybody with local government experience that sustainability and feasibility of adoption for all is imperative. I am very much aware of the points coming out in this debate, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, asked a specific question on the adoption support fund. He is, as ever, entirely right to raise this very reasonable question because current funding is, I think, only set until April 2025. If I may, I will write to the Department for Education directly and share the response I receive. I do not want to speak on behalf of another Department today, in case the information I provide turns out to be inaccurate, but I will follow up with the hon. Gentleman directly on that.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly set out the challenge of addressing the stereotypical perception of adoption as receiving a babe in arms. More often than not, people could be opening up their home and family to older children, those with very complex needs, or those who have experienced significant trauma. That requires time off too. Time off is required not just for a newborn child who needs a parent with them for obvious reasons throughout the day, but potentially for an older child’s significant, complex needs. The hon. Gentleman’s point reflects the real-world circumstances that many adoptive parents face.

The shadow Minister set out many of the advances that have been made over the past 14 years in this space, and I fully acknowledge those; but that prompts the question how, despite those advances, we have ended up in this position. I accept that we moved forward by introducing, as he said, automatic pupil premium allocation, the adoption support fund, adoption leave and so on. The challenge we face is how we can collectively encourage people to come forward as adopters, kinship carers and foster carers. As a Government, we have a responsibility to make that process as easy as possible. When we look at the outcomes of children who grow up in what one might consider traditional care settings—that is, a children’s home—versus the outcomes of children who grow up in a more traditional family unit, whether adoptive or foster care, or with birth parents, the statistics are stark. If we look at the number of care leavers in the prison system, for instance, or the level of qualifications, some of the figures are incredibly concerning. The shadow Minister’s point was very well made.

Turning back to my substantive comments, we want to ensure that parental leave is supporting all working families as well as possible, so the Government have committed to a review of the parental leave system and work is already under way on planning for that review.

Enabling parents to take time off work not only allows for bonding time but ensures that they are able to give a child the care that they need. In the case of adoption, that ability to connect and care, as we have just discussed, is essential in terms of securing the permanence of any adoption placement. For all those reasons, employed adoptive parents have broadly the same rights and protections as birth parents, in that statutory adoption leave is a day one right, but of course there is the anomaly that we are speaking about today.

I therefore want to give the hon. Member for Hazel Grove a clear assurance that I will write in to that parental leave review and make sure that what we have discussed today is fed into that process, because whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of this, I think that we can all accept that there is a gap, and that we all want as many people as possible to be able to come forward as carers. The anomaly is potentially a barrier to that for some people, not least because we have that means-tested, not especially well advertised, not-brilliant-levels-of-uptake current system, which I think we would all want looked at.

In the meantime, where adopters do not qualify for that statutory payment they have the local authority option, but I would like to highlight some of the wider support, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, did in his contribution. There is not only advice, information and counselling, but means-tested support. Potentially, on top of that, there is support for new parents—any new parents—in terms of potential eligibility for universal credit, child benefit, and the Sure Start maternity grant, all of which can help all families with the cost of raising children, especially those in need of extra support.

I think I will leave it there, Ms Furness, with just a final thank you to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for calling this debate. We recognise the contributions of self-employed people, who are a key part of our economy, and we appreciate the valuable difference that adopters make. Therefore, it is only right that we have taken the time today —I am pleased to have had the chance—to consider how we support the remarkable people who take on both roles at the same time.

I reiterate that I will write to the Department for Business and Trade about the issues that have been raised in this debate, and about how the debate can feed into the review that I mentioned earlier, because it is crucial that we accept that there is an anomaly in the system. I will, obviously, send the hon. the hon. Member for Hazel Grove a copy of my correspondence.

17:07

[Lisa Smart]

I am really grateful to all Members who have taken part in this debate. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) spoke about his experience as a Minister in Northern Ireland, and it is really good to have his support. He is absolutely right to point out the numbers of children that we are talking about in the different parts of the UK, and how we can enable more brilliant future parents to adopt, and drive up those adoption rates.

I want to thank Penny and Eric, the mum and dad of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who adopted him in the 1970s. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to talk about the adoption support fund, which I know is hugely valuable to many families—to ask about its future security, to ask for future clarity on what is coming down the track, and to talk about the different challenges faced by adopters and point out that adoption is not about a stereotypical “babe in arms” found under a bush somewhere.

A number of Members—including both the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay—spoke about the role that local councils, and the funding of local councils, play in some of the decision making that can happen in this area. The Minister rightly mentioned my previous life as a member of a local authority. One of the jobs that a councillor takes most seriously is that corporate parenting role—that key role of keeping the most vulnerable children safe. On local authority finances, lots of people in this place talk about the importance of clarity and proper funding—indeed, the Opposition spokesperson talked about funding local authorities and doing that properly—and I think that, when we are talking about some of the most important jobs of councils, we are indeed talking about children in care, who are the most vulnerable in our society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the cost to councils, and the cost of children’s waiting a very long time for their adoption to come through. The longer they wait, the more it costs both them as individuals and councils in terms of ongoing care. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), talked about how our understanding of early childhood development has developed. He also talked about somebody who used to work in this place who knows quite a lot about adoption issues, and he was right to do so because we can work cross-party to fix such anomalies. I am grateful for his remarks.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a family of four boys, and that is exactly the sort of story we need to have in our minds. It was about the impact of a good, loving, warm and secure home for the boys, and how their lives might well have been different had they not had that. I am grateful to him for that, as well as for talking about kinship carers, which are being looked at in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. My party looks forward to scrutinising and improving some of the Bill in that regard. I welcome the Minister’s comments, that he accepts that we are today talking about an anomaly, and especially his comments on the action he has undertaken to take. It is good that the Government are committed to reviewing parental leave, and I hope that is the mechanism through which we can correct the anomaly.

We absolutely need to encourage more people into fostering, adoption and kinship care, and we need to remove any barriers that may stop people from being able to take up those opportunities. I am really grateful to everyone who has taken part today. It is really good to have Government support for looking at this subject, and I really look forward to where this goes, because we need to enable as many brilliant future parents as we possibly can to take up this opportunity and complete their family.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of financial support for adoptive parents.

17:12

Sitting adjourned.