Westminster Hall

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 29 January 2025

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

Outsourcing: Government Departments

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered outsourcing by Government departments.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to have secured this debate on outsourcing in Government Departments, in which I also intend to discuss the outsourcing of public services more widely, some of the negative consequences of outsourcing and the opportunities of a new wave of insourcing, and to acknowledge that the Government are putting together their national procurement policy, which the Chancellor said last week will be published shortly; I am sure the Minister will have a lot more to say on that.

I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support I have received from a number of trade unions that have their own published policies on outsourcing of public services, some of which provided briefings for today’s debate.

First, I wish to set out the background to the outsourcing of public services and its growth in recent decades, before setting out some of the steps I hope the Government will take in the coming days and weeks to begin a new wave of insourcing. I believe there is a prevailing view on the Government Benches that essential public services should be run for the public, not to make a profit for shareholders. An emphasis on competition and markets has undermined the public service ethos associated with public services and has too often worked against the public interest.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his years of work in this area; he has been instrumental in shaping the Government’s policy. All too often, particularly in the public sector, outsourcing is disguised in many shapes and forms, but the reality remains that it is back-door privatisation that leads to lower standards and higher costs. Most importantly, workers are treated as second-class citizens, and it has a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Does he agree that the central question is the one that was in the new deal: is it in the public interest? The answer is that it never is.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and wholeheartedly agree with his comments. The whole premise of outsourcing has been to reduce costs, and that is visited on the workforce in terms of pay and other terms and conditions, with the disproportionate impact that he describes, which I will come on to shortly.

All too often, wider social, environmental and economic implications have been eclipsed by the pursuit of narrow short-term cost savings, with an insufficient assessment of the overall costs and longer-term impacts. Since 1979, under the Conservatives, starting with compulsory competitive tendering, there has been a huge growth of private business involvement in public service delivery and its scale. That has resulted in more fragmented, poorer-quality services run by companies seeking to renegotiate contract terms, with staff—often women and minority ethnic employees, as my hon. Friend described—the subject of squeezed terms and salaries.

The last Labour Government invested in public services but did not slow the growth of outsourcing. That allowed the coalition to expand it further, with austerity encouraging public bodies to turn to outsourcing as a means of reducing costs, while ideologically driving it through a White Paper, “Open Public Services”, which argued that few services should be exempt from outsourcing. That is where we were in the run-up to the recent general election, before which Labour set out a clear message on outsourcing.

In February 2021, at the height of the covid pandemic, the now Chancellor set out her concerns about outsourcing. Spend on outsourcing was worth £249 billion in 2014-15, and by 2019-20 had reached £296 billion—a significant sum that dwarfs the NHS budget. She said:

“Outsourced services are not integrated into the fabric of our communities. Unlike our public services and providers, like charities, many of which offer vital frontline services, outsourced companies have not built up trust over time and lack the vital local knowledge and flexibility required.”

Furthermore, she added:

“A shadow state has emerged and it is unaccountable to the people. Even before the pandemic, the government spent an extraordinary £292bn on outsourcing over a third of all public spending and that level is rising year on year. The public pays for these contracts yet so often it cannot adequately scrutinise many of them. This secrecy must stop.”

To set out the case for insourcing, I want to highlight the experience of outsourced workers represented by a number of unions. In the civil service, the Public and Commercial Services Union states that the two-tier gap between directly employed and outsourced workers is widening as pay and terms and conditions for the latter erode, with civil servants reliant on universal credit and workplace food banks. Departments’ budgets are stretched as they deal with the inefficiency of picking up the cost of tendering and awarding contacts, which have to deliver a profit for the contractors.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. PCS workers in my constituency who work for the Disclosure and Barring Service are currently in dispute because of inadequate contracts, which put additional burden and stress on them. PCS has continually called for the insourcing of those contracts. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to commit to their policy of insourcing? It is not only workers who are suffering, but children and other adults, because of the outsourcing of local authority services. That needs to change immediately.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is yet another example of the tension and conflict between delivering high-quality public services and driving down costs, which leaves the people who deliver the services in poverty. That has to be addressed.

Similarly, in the railways, the RMT says that outsourced workers struggle to make ends meet, and it directly attributes that to outsourcing firms profiting from low pay. Many outsourced workers’ wages are anchored to the minimum wage, and they do not have the right to occupational sick pay and decent pay schemes. The RMT argues that insourcing would not only lift living standards by putting money into people’s pockets, but raise workers’ productivity, tackle structural inequality and even achieve greater efficiency in public spending. It is time to start a wave of insourcing now.

In the civil service, the Government have come into office with numerous disputes having recently taken place, or currently taking place, between outsourced service contractors and their employees, including various instances of industrial action. That is disruptive and costly to the civil service, and it is a result of those service providers holding down the pay of their staff, particularly in facilities maintenance areas such as cleaning, catering and security.

PCS, the union representing those workers, wrote to the Prime Minister in mid-July to discuss matters faced by workers across the UK civil service, including those working in contracted out and devolved areas. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met with the FDA, Prospect and PCS in June, at the earliest opportunity after taking office, but the number of civil service disputes in contracts inherited from the Government’s predecessors requires action. There are multiple disputes involving PCS members employed as cleaners, post room staff, porters, catering and reception staff in several Government Departments, and they are not limited to one outsourced employer, but concern G4S, ISS and OCS.

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In Bradford, there was an attempt at outsourced back-door privatisation, which was successfully fought off by me alongside trade unions. Does he agree that trade unions play a crucial role and that it is shameful that, in the disputes he talks of, many of the organisations that hold public contracts have refused even to recognise trade unions?

[Andy McDonald]

We are giving a lot of attention to the recognition of trade unions. As the Employment Rights Bill progresses, we will want to ensure that that gets proper attention. The people we are talking about are the ones who kept the country going through the covid pandemic. We have come out of that but they are still in dire straits.

I want to mention the dispute involving G4S, as it has resulted in Department for Work and Pensions buildings, including jobcentres, closing for several days. The DWP has been asked to intervene in the dispute and to set out the sanctions it has issued to G4S for failing to deliver its contractual responsibilities. Not many months ago, I was on a picket line outside our jobcentre in Middlesbrough with G4S security guards who were expected to put food on the table at £11.40 per hour—their employer was not the DWP but G4S. We have to ask whether that is a legitimate and moral way to organise our public services.

There are other disputes between the PCS and G4S, ISS and OCS in the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Education, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Cabinet Office. The Government should intervene and ensure that the Government Property Agency meets PCS to help reach a conclusion with the outsourced firms.

We need a hard stop to new outsourcing, because not only have the Government inherited poorly performing outsourced contracts, but there is concern that they might be about to re-let to private providers that have already failed in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. In the halcyon days when I was a member of Select Committees, we made trips to other jurisdictions and we were met with horror by other parliamentarians who found it anathema that prisons were in private hands. They thought that it was contradictory and unacceptable for anybody other than the state to be involved in incarceration. There is a fundamental question we need to ask ourselves.

The Government have the opportunity to put this right by insourcing facilities and estates management, rather than increasing the profits of private companies. If prisoners are living in squalor, those union members are working in squalor. Just as unions have argued that it is not too late to invite in-house tenders, it is now time to invest in existing prisons—not just new prisons—by ensuring that the Prison Service runs its own maintenance and facilities management.

Prison maintenance in England and Wales was fully privatised in 2015, with Amey winning the contract for the north and Carillion the one for the south, later replaced by Gov Facilities Services Ltd—GFSL—which took over its contracts. A race to the bottom continued, and 10 years later there is widespread prison squalor and an estimated maintenance backlog of almost £2 billion.

Amey and GFSL’s contracts were extended in 2020 and are up for renewal over the coming months. The prison unions are calling for maintenance to be brought back in-house—not with GFSL, but with a return to full works departments in every establishment. However, the Government have previously stated that the public sector will not be invited to bid for the new contracts, after a 2023 assessment apparently determined that a privatised solution was the preferred option for meeting prison maintenance service needs.

It was welcome that the Prisons Minister, Lord Timpson, recently promised:

“As future prison maintenance contracts approach expiry, we will conduct detailed assessments to inform decisions about whether to continue to outsource services”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1804.]

I was pleased to hear the Prisons Minister tell the House yesterday that the Government still have an open mind on maintenance contracts. The private sector has completely failed to deliver on its promises around prison maintenance, with staff, inmates and the taxpayer all paying the price. Will the Minister explain why the Government seem to be following the last Government’s privatisation plans, despite the obvious failure of running key prison services for profit?

The Minister set out to the House last autumn how the new national procurement policy framework would be a legal framework to deliver greater value for money and improve social value, which the previous policy statement did not do. Will the Minister give some indication as to whether the framework might be founded upon such a review?

The task before the Government is twofold. First, in the civil service, the Government must intervene in industrial disputes and ensure that public services are not disrupted by contractors prioritising profit over public service and at the expense of public servants’ livelihoods. Secondly, I encourage the Government not to enter into any further outsourced contract arrangements in the civil service or elsewhere before a review into the costs and impact of the outsourcing is complete, and before a new strategy setting out the case for a new wave of insourcing has been published. I agree with the PCS proposal to

“seek an agreement on a programme of civil service insourcing and rights for contractor staff. Whilst services remain outsourced”

the PCS

“seek an agreement on union recognition for all facilities management workers and selected outsourced staff. A key element of that agreement would be parity for private sector workers with civil servants in respect of pay and terms and conditions of employment.”

Similarly, Unison has set out its concern:

“Any decisions by public bodies to outsource any services should have to pass a key public interest test.”

That test should consider: the quality of the service that would be delivered; value for money; the effects on workers’ job conditions, such as pay and holiday entitlements; the implications for other public services and their budgets; the impact on the local economy and its job market; and the ability of the contractor to meet climate targets and equality considerations. Unison has also said that

“the test should be applied to contracts coming up for renewal whilst providing services in-house should become the default position.”

I wholeheartedly agree with that notion.

In her speech in 2021, the Chancellor said that

“under Keir Starmer’s Labour government we will see the biggest wave of insourcing of public services for a generation.”

It is now time to deliver just that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. It will be obvious to everyone that there is considerable interest in this debate. May I ask all Members to bob if you wish to speak, and to continue to do that so that we can see you still wish to speak? I hope that if everyone can restrict themselves to about four minutes, we will get everybody in. I want to start calling the Front Benchers at 10.30 am.

09:50

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I have come to this debate because of our recent experiences of visiting picket lines, with regard both to Government Departments and, in particular, the railway sector. I have been a trade union rep in the public sector, but I have also been a manager in the public sector: I was chief executive of the Association of London Government and I also was in a London borough, managing large numbers of staff.

When you have the scale of disputes that we have, I think we have to recognise that there is an underlying industrial relations problem that has to be addressed. I would invite the Minister to join us on some of those picket lines over the coming weeks, because the disputes in the Government Departments are starting again next week and we will have picket lines for several Government Departments around Whitehall.

I have tried to identify the underlying problem causing these disputes, and when we talk to the workers themselves on the picket lines, it is strikingly obvious. Some of them—well, all the ones I have met—are on, I think, shocking levels of low pay. When you talk to them, particularly those based in London, you wonder how they are surviving on the pay that they are receiving. Also, they have conditions of work that I thought we had eradicated years ago. I am talking about lack of access to sick pay, some of them being paid below legal minimums at the moment, and many of them being without any pension rights whatever apart from the statutory pension. So we have a group of people who are on low pay, in insecure work, and feeling extremely exploited, so they have no other resort but to take industrial action. I want to point out what is interesting. I invite everyone to come on those picket lines and look around them, because the vast majority of those workers are from the BAME community; so there is also an issue with inequality in our employment practices as well.

Various unions have provided us with briefings for the debate today, and most of them have done surveys of their members to identify what is the issue facing their members that they should be putting to management. Some of the survey results are stark. The RMT did a survey, and I want to talk about the response that it had from its members. It has about 10,000 members who have been outsourced on trains; Transport for London, for cleaning, has 2,000; and Network Rail has 2,500. What happened then? In the survey results that came back, 80% of the workforce who had been outsourced were saying that they were struggling to meet their basic needs: to pay the rent, pay for food, and so on; 90% were worried about bills coming in. What was interesting was that more than 80% of them were saying, “We come to work when we’re sick, because we can’t take the time off—we can’t even afford to be sick.”

That is why the disputes are taking place, and they involve the same old companies: G4S, ISS, OCS and Mitie. These are companies that have made extensive profits out of the outsourcing, and the bulk of their profits is obviously made from the low pay that they are forcing upon their members of staff. It causes real anger among the workforce when they are seeing these companies paying out high dividends to shareholders, while at the same time they will not pay the staff a decent wage.

There needs to be an understanding in Government that if we are to have decent public services, there has to be a re-examination of how we provide those public services. I agree with what has been said by the deputy leader of our party, and by the Chancellor, which is that we need

“the biggest wave of insourcing…for a generation”,

because I think that is the way to tackle insecure work, low pay, and so on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) raised the other issue about outsourcing, which is that it has an impact on productivity. If a worker is exploited, if they are not paid properly, if they are worried at work about how they are going to survive, it does impact on how they deliver the service. That is inevitable; it would have an impact on all of us. As a result we have found that productivity issues are a real problem in some of these sectors. Unfortunately, because of the old Treasury Green Book model, that is resulting in even more outsourcing being justified: it becomes a vicious circle.

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

The right hon. Gentleman said that he fully agreed with the deputy leader of his party. I wonder whether there was an undue emphasis on the word “deputy” rather than “leader”.

[John McDonnell]

I am lost on that one—completely. There are conspiracy theories here that I have never even heard of or even thought of, so I will pass on that one.

What we are asking the Minister for today is a strategy. The first step in that strategy must be to meet the unions themselves. A number of unions have asked whether they can they have a meeting whereby, Department by Department, they can work with the Government, looking at what contracts there are, seeing how those contracts can be brought in in this biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and how the legislation, particularly the Employment Rights Bill that is progressing through Parliament at the moment, can include the initiative and rights and responsibilities to bring that insourcing about. There is a strategy that can be developed alongside the Government’s procurement policy, that can address all these issues and will be cost-effective for the Government in the long term.

09:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on securing this crucial debate. I have had the privilege of standing in solidarity with the facilities management staff and speaking at the PCS pickets that have been mentioned by others in this debate. Their demands could not be clearer: fair pay, better working conditions and an end to outsourcing in Government Departments. While delivering vital services such as cleaning, catering and security to keep civil service Departments running effectively, those employed on outsourced contracts are treated as second-class employees compared with their in-house counterparts. The result is a two-tier system with a sharp racial divide. BAME and migrant workers are disproportionately employed in these roles.

Last year we saw the long and hard-fought dispute between the Department for Education and its outsourced cleaners come to an end. Reports of those workers being overworked, treated “like rats” and denied the London living wage were truly appalling. Unfortunately, such treatment is common practice when it comes to the subcontracting of Government services to private firms. Many workers on outsourced contracts struggle to make ends meet, especially during the ongoing cost of living crisis, as their wages are often limited to the national minimum or living wage. In some Government Departments and agency workplaces, PCS members have even resorted to establishing food banks to support low-paid staff. Adding to their economic insecurity, those workers are also excluded from access to decent pension schemes.

The current outsourcing model weakens the Government’s ability to hold companies accountable. Basic protections for outsourced workers, such as company sick pay, are shirked, often forcing employees to continue working while unwell as they cannot afford to take time off. These outsourcing practices propagate the exploitation of employees. The companies behind them can easily avoid taking responsibility for poor pay and conditions, and the quality and fairness of essential public services are being compromised all the while. Will the Government honour the welcome promise of

“the biggest wave of insourcing…for a generation”?

Will they bring services back in-house where they belong and show their loyalty to the cleaners, the security staff and all the other undervalued workers who keep this country running, not the profiteering directors of outsourcing companies? Diolch yn fawr.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Within your four minutes—thank you very much.

09:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for securing this debate. I do not say this lightly: he is truly a doughty champion—so I say well done.

The issue of outsourcing is a sticky one that I well remember from my days as an alderman on Ards council. My wife used to say, “If you’re looking for the alderman, you mean the older man.” She always called me the older man, not the alderman. She put me in my place manys a time.

I served on Ards borough council from 1985 to 2010, and I can well recall the financial arguments for and against outsourcing, and weighing the control we had against that which we would lose. I want to give a specific example that will, I hope, illustrate and support what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East and other hon. Members have said.

Ards borough council decided to keep leisure in house when we created our new leisure centre, which is now called the Blair Mayne wellbeing and leisure complex, after the heroic SAS man who is portrayed in “SAS Rogue Heroes” every Sunday night at 9 pm or thereabouts. North Down borough council had outsourced its service, and when the councils were amalgamated, both outsourced and in-house services were being provided. The pros and cons of each option are easy to see, and yet it is hard to determine the best way forward. That example shows most effectively that we should never believe in a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the point of one size not fitting all, does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at the issue in a sensible, pragmatic way, and that neither a hyper-capitalist approach nor a radical socialist approach is the answer to these problems? We need a sensible, pragmatic approach that delivers good, effective services to the public while protecting the rights of those who work in those services.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right. We are all trying to ensure that the programmes and services are delivered and that, more importantly, the rights of workers are protected. He has hit that nail on the head.

The outsourcing of services can never be a no-brainer; it must always be a decision that is thought through from beginning to end, and with more than the financial bottom line as a guide. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East referred to it not being about profit margins. It should never be about profit margins; it should be about ensuring that the service is right. I agree with him.

We need to be sure that outsourcing companies behave in an ethical way when it comes to issues such as zero-hour contracts. That is made more difficult by the changes to national insurance, the blame for which lies with the Government. The group that runs Ards and North Down borough council’s Bangor leisure centre is concerned about £20 million in extra labour costs due to the changes to national insurance contributions and the minimum wage in the October Budget.

As always, that will affect profits, and I am concerned that the loser will be the low-paid worker with minimal rights. This is the key issue that must be taken into consideration in the context of outsourcing. The Government make decisions and say that businesses will have to swallow the cost, but too often the reality is that the staff have to. It is the wee man and the wee woman in the street who will pay, through the goods that they buy. Some companies that provided paid morning and afternoon coffee breaks are now saying that they can afford to do only the bare legal minimum. That is the unintended consequence of decisions made in this place.

At the same time, there is a time and a place for outsourcing, where expertise demands it. For major capital projects, the niche work must often be outsourced, rather than hiring in for short-term purposes. If there is to be a moving of the goalposts regarding outsourcing, we must retain the ability to get necessary work done in a short space of time.

In times of emergency, such as that currently happening at home with the after-effects of the storm, it is clear that outsourcing must always be on the table. Our road service, Transport NI, does not have the capacity to clear and make roads safe. The ability to hire contractors is vital, and it needs to be able to be done quickly. Those who wish to see an end to outsourcing need to be careful. Providing services in-house, with greater control, is better, but one size does not fit all. It may be beneficial to lean towards doing things in-house, but any decisions must be well considered and weighted, as I know the Minister’s will be.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I gently remind all Members that we must get to four minutes each voluntarily or I will have to impose something less voluntary. I call Jon Trickett.

10:04

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I spent the last 10 years, under our two previous leaders, working on our outsourcing. It is hard to summarise 10 years’ work in three and a half minutes, but I came to the conclusion that outsourcing simply does not work for a number of reasons that I will outline quickly and in broad terms.

Let me first pay tribute to the workers who go to work one day to discover suddenly that their contract of employment has been sold to another employer—almost like a modern-day form of servitude. So often, we then see cuts to services, and pay and conditions. Much has been made of that already this morning. I pay tribute to those workers, particularly the three women in my constituency who went to work, found that their employer had changed, their union had been derecognised and their pensions removed. They fought like titans: they went on strike, then to a tribunal, and eventually finished up being sacked. The courage of working people fighting for justice should never be forgotten.

There are several things about outsourcing that simply do not work. The first is that no evidence whatsoever has ever been produced showing that it is cheaper to outsource than to keep services in house, especially when we count the transactional costs, which remain with the civil service and the Government. If we add those together, it always costs more to outsource. Secondly, when there is a disaster—as there is from time to time—the profits go to shareholders but the risks remain with the public sector, so we have the privatisation of profit but the socialisation of risk and quite often the cost of bankruptcy.

We have already talked about pay and conditions being driven down and about a two-tier workforce, so I will not go further into that, but I will speak a little about what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) described as a shadow state. One third of all taxpayer money is now spent on outsourcing—a staggering amount of money—and that is a direct assault on our democratic processes. I say that because Ministers do not have day-to-day supervision of and responsibility for the actions of outsourced operations. That poses problems not just for democracy but for Parliament. It has become clear over time that questions that we Back Benchers are entitled to ask questions on behalf of our constituents and the nation simply cannot be answered because they relate to services provided by the private sector—that is a major assault. On Monday, I will have been an MP for 29 years—some will say that that is far too long—and in that time, Parliament’s capacity to ask questions about public services has been massively diminished as a result of what has happened.

My other point relates to freedom of information requests. We know that we as citizens can make freedom of information requests about any services provided by the public sector. The minute a service is outsourced, though, that capacity goes. Time and again, we encounter problems with services provided through taxpayer money but in a privatised form, and we are not able to get to the truth of what has really been happening with that service. The lack of accountability to Ministers and to Parliament, and the exemption from freedom of information, all make outsourcing very difficult.

I remember speaking to Dave Prentis, the then leader of Unison, about ethos. He said to me, “Look, Jon, it’s about ethos. The ethos of the private sector is largely driven by the desire to maximise shareholder value; the ethos of services provided in the public sector is just that—public service.” The difference between the two kinds of ethos is at the centre of the problem that we face when we deal with outsourcing.

I would love to speak longer about these matters on another occasion, but let me make my final point. I came to the conclusion that, in the end, the only way to deal with this is to have a legal presumption in favour of insourcing. That was the policy that the Labour party went on, and one that I hope this Government will build on by bringing forward the large wave of insourcing that we have talked about many times before.

10:09

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on securing this debate.

I want to take the debate in a slightly different direction, as there has not been much mention of national security so far. I am a Member for a constituency that has a large Ministry of Defence footprint, particularly in the RAF. Outsourcing of catering and mess facility management over many years has had a significant and detrimental impact on the cohesion of our fighting forces, not just on bases in my constituency, but in every base where outsourcing has occurred.

The reason is because we have a two-tier workforce. We have people who have been TUPE-ed across from the civil service, who started their career as MOD civil servants. They are now working alongside people who are on considerably lower pay for doing the same job. That creates division in the workplace. People who are getting paid less, and are valued less, then do not value their employer. This is understandable: why should anyone value an employer that does not particularly value them? We end up in a situation where there is less attention paid and standards fall.

There are situations where a contract is ending—with maybe six months left to run—and, for the sake of argument, let us say that the staffing complement for the team should be about 25 but it is now down to 15. Does the employer have any intention whatsoever of bridging that gap with another 10 people, when it is struggling to make a profit in the last six months of a contract? Absolutely not. It will be sucked up by the 15 people doing the job of 25. That is a totally unacceptable way to work.

If we parliamentarians and the civil service believe that the people who work directly for them are worth a living wage, they should believe that for every single person that is doing a job that facilitates what that organisation does. It is a simple act of fairness. In the military, they talk about the esprit de corps or a single-force approach; if there is that separation, then that is not there. If people are not getting the quality of food or accommodation they want, they will not stay. We can spend a fortune training them, and they can be very good at what they do, but they will not stay in because the facilities are not good enough for them. If we want a coherent military, people who are dedicated to it and good national security, we must treat all the workers, whether they are service personnel, civilians or contractors —and I would rather they were not contractors—with the same degree of respect and with the same degree of rights.

The other problem that I want to highlight is that people who have been TUPE-ed across when contracts have been put out may, broadly speaking, retain their pay and conditions, but what they do not tend to retain is their pension. That is an absolute travesty because it is completely mortgaging their retirement life and their right to a decent retirement. Many of them, particularly in more rural areas where our services are being provided, may not have other opportunities to move into another role within the same organisation to avoid being contracted out.

I want to pick up on a point that was made about radical socialism. There is nothing radical about paying a fair wage for a fair day’s work. It is just a matter of human decency. I will leave it at that.

10:13

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship today, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for highlighting this issue and securing this debate.

The faith that the private sector will always deliver value for money and the standard of service that we require and desire is rooted in a political ideology that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I was delighted by our party’s pre-election pledge to oversee the biggest wave of insourcing for a generation, so that we can see a change in culture from the continuous erosion of service provision, the reliance on the private sector and the race to the bottom.

I pay credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for highlighting the need for prison maintenance insourcing and her call for the Government to bring all prison maintenance back in house at the earliest opportunity.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East said, it is well documented that our prison estate is crumbling after years of neglect, with prison maintenance privatisation being an example of escalating costs while service provision deteriorates. For our prisons to be the rehabilitation facilities that society needs them to be, they cannot be the decrepit and fetid facilities that so many are currently. Likewise, no worker—especially not hard-working prison officers, who have a physically, mentally and emotionally demanding job—should be expected to go to their place of work, and carry out their duties to the standard they want, and is expected of them, in an environment that makes their role so much harder and unpleasant.

Like so many problems the Government face, these are not issues that are of our making. However, they are our problems to sort now, and a problem like prison maintenance does have a solution. The Government should take the leap, and stop the overwhelming reliance on the private sector to provide services. It is time the Government trusted themselves to provide a solution. We can then invest in people and provide a quality of service that looks after workers, communities and the infrastructure of our country.

10:15

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I would like to make a few points about public sector capabilities, compatibility with the profit motive, and the process for outsourcing.

Before I start, I would like to reinforce the comments that the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made about ideology. It is important to point that the claims that are made about the outsourcing benefits are not rooted in scientific fact; they are very contestable beliefs, and Members have put forward evidence against that notion today. That is worth underlining, because too often when I talk with officers at a local authority level, or Government bodies, it is accepted as fact that the public sector is somehow clunky and more expensive than the private sector. We need to continue to push back at that at every level. I know there will be some people of a socialist persuasion in this room, but getting this question right is also important to those who care about social justice in a well-functioning, mixed economy, too. I think we are currently getting the question completely wrong.

On public sector capabilities, I think we infantilise the public sector. We talk about it as incapable of producing top talent or brilliant innovations, yet we have so much evidence to the contrary. We seem to accept that, because the private sector can offer higher wages, it somehow always delivers better outcomes, but that is clearly not true. People take a lot of pride in public sector work, and that can motivate them in ways that the private sector can never motivate individuals. If I had more time today, I would point to some of the many innovations that started off in the public sector, which are sometimes picked up by the private sector, which then claims the credit for it. We can attract talent, but we need to facilitate that in the right way, with the right pay, conditions and working culture in the public sector.

I understand the many ways in which the profit motive can be in conflict with the aims of those of us in the public sector. I have seen it at a local authority level, where we contract out housing repairs, and jobs are always done to task instead of to the satisfaction of the resident. We have since brought our housing repair services in house, and have seen much better outcomes from the perspective of residents, because people are arriving at their properties and trying to make them good, rather than just working to the job that is on the ticket.

The other thing, which worries me more, is market regulation. We have very poor market regulation of contractors, which allows monopolies or oligopolies to build up very quickly. We have seen that probably worst of all in the children’s home sector, which is a service that used to be delivered by the public sector. In many respects, the public sector has lost the expertise and capability to deliver properly in that area, and now we have private equity firms that have eaten up the sector—completely oligopolised it—and, as a result, captured that market and charged local authorities through the roof for services that the public sector should certainly be delivering.

I make those points to explain how I understand the profit motive and how poor markets can lead to bad outcomes, but it does not always have to be that way. Crucial to this is procurement and contracting expertise. I default to the position that many Members have expressed, which is that insourcing will very often be the better way forward, particularly when proper pay and conditions for the labour force are enforced. However, there will be situations where outsourcing makes sense, particularly where specialist skillsets cannot be retained in house, perhaps because local authority budgets mean that it is not the right thing, and so on. In those situations, we need to make sure we have the very best and toughest negotiators and contract specialists in house. That is where outsourcing falls down time and again, because there is an over-reliance on the private sector’s expertise and views on what is best for the contract, and we end up losing out every single time.

We need much better standards for what we expect from the outcomes of contracts and an ability to break them much sooner if those outcomes are not being delivered. We also need to be able to monitor and enforce them better. The points made about labour conditions and pay need to be non-negotiable, because if the only way that outsourcing works out cheaper for a local authority is by treading down on workers, that is not a good enough reason to outsource a service.

In conclusion, the Government have inherited decades-worth of assumed knowledge about this area, whereby people feel that outsourcing is the only route forward for many services. I hope that this Government will start to review that and think again.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. We have 10 minutes left, and I hope to bring three more people in, so I ask colleagues to restrict themselves accordingly.

10:21

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wish the Minister, Members and staff kung hei fat choi—happy Chinese new year. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on securing this important debate on outsourcing, and also on the excellent and unseen work he has done in the background for many years.

Outsourcing has become deeply embedded in our public sector, yet it remains an inefficient and flawed model. Trade unions and MPs have repeatedly warned that it prioritises private profit over fair pay, secure jobs and quality services. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) gave some excellent examples of that in prison maintenance contracts. I encourage Members of Parliament to visit the prisons serving their areas, speak to the governors and look at the eye-watering sums that are being charged by private contractors for really quite simple jobs. It is not value for money by any measure.

Colleagues have raised various concerns. In the two minutes I have got, I want to focus on two issues: the creation of a two-tier workforce and the failure to deliver value for money for taxpayers. From prisons to railways and Government Departments, outsourcing has become the norm, but for many workers this means low pay, insecure contracts and poor conditions, while private firms reap significant financial rewards at public expense. This cannot continue.

In the case of the civil service, every worker deserves dignity, respect and fair treatment, yet this is far from the reality for outsourced staff. Despite working alongside Ministers and civil servants, they are denied company or departmental sick pay, decent pensions and access to civil service pay scales. These exploitative employment practices exist at the heart of Government, and I respectfully remind the Minister that, in her own Department, outsourced workers are being denied sick pay from day one.

Beyond that, we need a complete overhaul of outsourcing in Government. At the very least, Government Departments must require private sector contractors to engage meaningfully with trade unions to ensure fair pay and conditions for all. Outsourcing companies are exploiting both the Government and the taxpayer. They inflate costs by charging excessive fees for contracts and extra services, while driving down wages and basic employment conditions to line the pockets of shareholders. It is a broken system.

Finally, will the Minister provide a clear update on her plans to deliver the Government’s insourcing commitment? In the interim, will she intervene in the ongoing disputes within Government Departments, including her own, to ensure that all workers receive basic rights from day one? If we truly want to build a high-wage economy and drive real growth, we need to start by guaranteeing that Government workers have fair pay, decent conditions and job security. That means ending wasteful outsourcing and cutting out the worst offending firms, which undermine workers and taxpayers alike.

10:23

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

I want to dispel some myths in the few minutes that I have got. I want us to wake up and smell the coffee, because this is not “outsourcing”. What is outsourcing? It is privatisation. One hon. Member said it is privatisation by the back door, but it is not; it is just privatisation. We have got to get to grips with how privatisation in this country is getting out of control. Who benefits and who does not benefit? The reality is that the companies are making fortunes and the workers are struggling to make ends meet.

There are some private companies that are actually providing food banks in their places of work for the people they employ. How obscene is that? It is not about socialism or about even left-wing ideology; it is about decency and respect. It is about ambition and giving people a fair deal. That is what we should be about in a prosperous country like the one we live in. Who suffers under privatisation? I was one of the people who worked in a nationalised industry that was privatised over a period of time, so I have got experience of this. Who suffers? It is the workers.

It has been mentioned: reduction in pay, sacking of the labour force, lack of trade union recognition—even trying to fight back—nae sick pay, nae holiday pay. It is absolutely absurd. It served them! We need to be saying what it really is, and the Government Departments are ridden with individuals who are working under the most horrendous of conditions. I pay tribute to the many workers who have worked tirelessly. Many of those in privatised companies are claiming universal credit. The company directors are trousering fortunes, while the workers are losing out on the rights that I have just mentioned. It is horrendous. Some of them cannot make ends meet. Many of them are going to work when they really should not be there, because of sickness, for example. It is just wholly unacceptable.

We have got to get to grips with this privatisation. We have got no other option. We need to protect people in this country from the abuses and the exploitation by privateers, who are making fortunes at the cost of those in the industry. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said about the legal presumption of in-house employment, because the reality is that we cannot control what we do not own.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their restraint. It has allowed me to get one more hon. Member in, but I ask her to please bring her remarks to a close at 10.30 am.

10:28

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for securing the debate.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention, I want to raise the deeply troubling subject of the outsourcing of the management of immigration removal centres to private companies. I do not believe in Government outsourcing for public services —I struggle to think of an example that demonstrates good value for money—yet our asylum system, and particularly immigration removal centres, is being run for profit.

In 2019, the Conservative Government awarded asylum contracts worth £4 billion for 10 years to just three companies: Serco, Mears and Clearsprings Ready Homes, each of which raked in millions. Although some might point to the profit-sharing agreement that they are meant to have with the Government, the threshold for payback has not been disclosed. A freedom of information request to the Home Office revealed that not a penny of profit has actually gone back to the Treasury under that agreement.

We would hope that those companies were at least providing a good service, but that is not the case. We have seen reports of several deaths, suicides and suicide attempts at those facilities. Almost every single one of the removal centres operated by those companies have seen numerous recorded cases of overcrowding, hostile and unsanitary conditions, and mistreatment and abuse of detainees, both physical and psychological. I have seen some of those conditions for myself. Almost every one of the companies have had severe accusations of mismanagement levelled against them, backed up by hard evidence.

I do not believe that our asylum process should be run for profit, and I certainly do not believe that companies doing a shoddy job should continue to be handed lucrative contracts while making the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in this country absolutely miserable. I urge the Government to review those contracts, and if they are not willing to bring the entire asylum system in house, they should at least revoke the contracts of the awful companies that I have listed.

10:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for securing today’s important debate. I think we can agree across the House that this debate is really about the workers, and the disproportionate effect that outsourcing has on some—especially those in the BAME community, as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned.

Time and again, we have seen examples of Government Departments outsourcing their obligations to others who have failed to fulfil their duties, representing poor value for money for the public. Examples of such systemic failures include procurement issues in the NHS, poor accommodation standards in the military, and failing, poorly designed programmes for tutoring in English schools.

In 2022-23, the public sector spent around £326 billion—29% of its total spending—buying goods and services from the private sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) reflected, that creates monopolies in the private sector, so support in the public sector is totally eroded and it is unable to provide those services any more. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, this means that a third of taxpayer money is now being spent on outsourcing. In the light of those figures, we must ensure that public procurement processes do not undermine confidence in our institutions, especially following years of a Conservative Government that caused significant damage to public trust in politics and public institutions.

Let me give an example of the lack of accountability that the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth talked about. With local authorities reneging on their responsibilities to manage new roads, land management companies such as FirstPort come in and charge excessive fees to homeowners. Politicians of all parties—the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats—have hauled that company in to say, “You are treating your householders poorly,” but how do we actually hold them to account if they are a private company providing a private service? Nothing will change unless we bring the service back in house.

During the covid pandemic, there were clear failures in procurement processes, particularly through the use of VIP lanes for Government contracts. That led to £9 billion being wasted on personal protective equipment that had to be written off, and £2.6 billion being spent on items deemed not suitable for the NHS, which accounted for one in 10 items purchased overall. It is imperative that robust rules are in place to guarantee that vital public spending is conducted effectively, efficiently and transparently, and that scandals like the misuse of VIP lanes will be avoided.

There are huge opportunities in the NHS to get this right. The Government should investigate the merits of national commissioning and procurement of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-approved digital technology, devices and diagnostics, much like is currently done for medicines. There are fantastic examples of integrated care boards using commissioned services that have improved patient experience and created a more joined-up health pathway, but we do not see those best-practice models rolled out across the whole of our healthcare service, because of the fragmented approach to procurement, with individual ICBs doing their own commissioning.

Far from restricting choice for local NHS trusts, cutting the cost of new tech and digital services could make them available for the first time in areas where they currently are not available. Care boards often have to commission such innovations and services from companies separately, causing a far greater overall cost. As many Members have said today, we have no evidence that commissioning services out actually saves the public sector any money at all. The NHS has huge buying power and the Government should make the most of it to improve patient treatment. Commissioning based on NICE guidelines could also help clinicians to better determine which devices or digital innovations work best for their patients.

Something that is often missed when we talk about outsourcing is that frontline services in healthcare are already all outsourced. Nobody working in the frontline of our healthcare professions is employed directly by the NHS. Our general practitioners, pharmacists, dentists and audiologists are all outsourced; they are all part of private companies. I recently saw the real effect of that, when a GP federation that provided doctors across my constituency and the wider area fell apart. Suddenly, lots of doctors who, as far as they were concerned, worked for the NHS were out of work with no recompense. We know that we have a crisis and that we need doctors on the frontline providing general practice services, but when that private company collapsed, there was nothing available for those doctors, even though they had always felt that they were part of the NHS.

The Liberal Democrats also really want to improve the standard of Ministry of Defence housing by reviewing outsourced housing and maintenance contracts, which have represented poor value for money, leading to inadequate accommodation for our service personnel. The facilities are often outsourced, too, as the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said.

The Thorney Island barracks in my constituency have long called for improvements to accommodation and infrastructure facilities, so I was glad to hear about plans for new accommodation to be constructed there later this year. However, too many of our service personnel across the country have to put up with homes leaking sewage, inadequate rooms for their families and a lack of basic information about when improvements will be forthcoming.

The MOD has historically failed to get good value for money from its management of contracts for service family accommodation, which it leases from Annington Property Ltd. In the 1990s, the Conservative Government sold off MOD accommodation to Annington, which made £550 million in profit in 2021, but the MOD is still responsible for the upkeep of the properties, with five maintenance contracts worth £640 million being established in 2022.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing outsourced services through public interest tests to prevent a recurrence of scandals such as the PPE debacle and the challenges faced in MOD housing provision, but it is essential that outsourcing occurs with full transparency from Government Departments, to ensure that deals struck represent good value for money for the public and are not handouts to “VIPs” without a proper process in place. The Liberal Democrats would also ensure that Ministers received annual training to prevent further scandals about standards, and we would enshrine the ministerial code in legislation. We will continue to call for measures that strengthen tests to prevent misuse of public funds, in order to rebuild trust in our institutions.

10:37

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on securing this debate. He may not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with his general position. I thank the many Members who have contributed to the debate. I must admit that some of the contributions by Government Members left me feeling a little nostalgic, although I suspect that the Prime Minister and some Government Whips might prefer them to keep such views under wraps a little more.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on outsourcing, which, when handled well, delivers efficiency, value for money and innovation in the provision of public services. Unfortunately, however, the actions we have seen so far from the Government are further complicating and undermining effective public procurement. Rather than building on the progress made by the previous Government, Labour is making public procurement more burdensome, less efficient and increasingly dictated by trade unions. That will make it more difficult to make outsourcing work for service users and taxpayers.

The Procurement Act 2023 was introduced to ensure a streamlined, modernised and effective procurement system that would deliver better outcomes for taxpayers. The Act was designed to cut red tape, improve transparency and ensure that public contracts were awarded based on value and efficiency, but the new Government have delayed its implementation. They have announced plans for a new national procurement policy statement—

[Grahame Morris]

I am interested in the hon. Member’s contention about value for money. Does he actually believe that the prison maintenance contract delivers value for money for the taxpayer?

[Mike Wood]

Numerous reports, not least by the Institute for Government, have found that, in many areas of Government activity, outsourcing and public procurement from private providers improves service and value for money for the taxpayer. Of course, it can be done badly, and the Probation Service is the obvious example where it clearly never worked. Although the pandemic brought things to a critical point, it was becoming increasingly difficult even before then to argue that that private provision was providing a satisfactory service.

We are still waiting for the national procurement policy statement, less than four weeks before the Procurement Act is due to commence. The new Government claim that the Act, in its current form, does not meet their vision for harnessing public procurement to deliver economic growth, value for money and social value, but it looks increasingly as though what they mean is that they want to use public contracts as a vehicle to expand trade union influence in Government, imposing costly and unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses. In the absence of a national procurement policy statement, the Government are introducing further restrictions and bureaucracy through what they call “Make Work Pay”, but for a lot of employers that looks a lot like just making jobs more expensive.

Businesses seeking Government contracts are to be required to demonstrate trade union recognition, access for union organisers, collective bargaining arrangements, adherence to so-called fair work standards that go well beyond legal obligations, and other social commitments. Recent parliamentary answers have confirmed that those requirements will apply not only to large firms, but to small and medium-sized enterprises, undoing a lot of the good work in the Procurement Act that aimed to open up public procurement contracts to a wider range of smaller businesses.

This is not about ensuring fair treatment of workers. UK employment law already provides robust protections. This is about allowing unions to dictate the terms of our public procurement, favouring firms that meet ideological criteria rather than those that offer the best value and most efficient service.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that in certain private companies, individuals are able to claim universal credit, while directors of the very same companies are trousering thousands of pounds, as are the dividend holders? It is a burden on the taxpayer—does he agree?

[Mike Wood]

Businesses have to fulfil their legal obligations. The previous Government introduced the national living wage, which will increase this April under the current Government, and of course where businesses of whatever type are failing to pay the national living wage, there must be proper enforcement and legal consequences.

We need to be clear about what the Government’s changes mean in practice. Instead of being awarded contracts on the basis of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, businesses will have to navigate a minefield of additional requirements, making it harder for SMEs to compete for public contracts. The added complexity will inevitably drive up costs and reduce competition, and it will ultimately mean that taxpayers get less for their money and a poorer service.

Beyond increasing costs and inefficiencies, this approach risks distorting the market by prioritising ideology over quality. Public contracts must be awarded to the best providers, whether in house or private. That means those that offer the most efficient service at the best price, rather than those that can best navigate a politically driven procurement system. The increased focus on trade union influence in procurement raises serious concerns about political favouritism and undermines the principle of fair competition.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I really need to make progress so that the Minister can respond.

It is particularly troubling that Labour has refused to clarify exactly how the new procurement rules will work in practice. The NPPS, which is meant to lay out the Government’s plans, has yet to be published, leaving businesses uncertain about the future landscape of public contracts. The previous version was published nearly six months before the Procurement Act was due to commence. It is now less than four weeks before the date the Minister indicated that the Act will commence. There is no sign of what the new rules will be, and yet businesses will be expected to adapt.

Furthermore, it is essential to recognise that the regulatory burden placed on firms seeking Government contracts will have a chilling effect on investment, innovation and the growth that I understand the Chancellor is speaking of this morning. If businesses perceive that public procurement is more about politics than performance, they will simply withdraw from bidding for contracts. That will leave fewer providers and make us more reliant on a small number of mega-contractors, reducing competitive pressure to drive efficiencies. That would be disastrous for taxpayers, who deserve the best services at the lowest cost.

The previous Government recognised the need for reform and took decisive action to improve procurement. This Government, on the other hand, are undoing that work by creating a system in which trade unions hold the keys to public contracts and require businesses to comply with unnecessary and costly obligations that do nothing to improve service delivery.

Public procurement should be about securing the best services at the best price for the taxpayer, not about enforcing an ideological agenda. Labour’s approach will lead to inefficiency and waste, and will reduce competition —all at the expense of businesses and the public, who rely on well-managed services. If the Government continue down this path, they risk severely damaging the UK’s ability to run a fair and efficient public procurement system.

I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will address. When will the Government next update their model services contract guidance and the outsourcing playbook? Are Departments still on track to save £550 million this financial year, as the Government promised they would in November? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that microbusinesses and SMEs are not excluded from bidding for, or engaging with, public sector outsourcing opportunities? What contact has the Minister had with the Business Services Association regarding any updates to the Government’s outsourcing policies? What discussions have she and her colleagues had with colleagues at the Crown Commercial Service regarding the operation of the RM6277 framework? Finally, do the Government still expect the Procurement Act to commence on 24 February? If they do, does the Minister think the very short time that businesses have to adapt between the publication of the policy statement and the commencement of the Act is acceptable?

Outsourcing and public procurement are a real test for this Government. Will they fall back on the ideology of the past or represent the interests of the public going forward? Are they working in the interests of those who use and pay for services, or in the interests of union paymasters?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I will now call the Minister to respond. If there is any time left before 11 o’clock, I will invite Andy McDonald to wind up, if he wishes to.

10:49

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

This is my first time responding to a Westminster Hall debate, and it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I join many Members in expressing my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his contribution, and I echo the comments that have been made about his constructive and thoughtful work on this issue.

Many Members had only a short time to set out their views. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that four minutes was not quite enough, given his 29 years’ experience. That far surpasses my few months, so I would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with any colleagues across the House. Critical issues were raised about a whole range of public services, and I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with Members ahead of putting forward the new national procurement policy statement.

I join many Members in paying tribute to the work of outsourced staff—the security guards, cleaners and catering teams—who play a vital role in supporting Government and who allow all of us to do our jobs. They serve the public and the public sector, and are, in the case of the security teams, the front door to Government. Whether staff are directly employed or contracted, they are engaging in vital public services, and these should be decent jobs with progression routes, as we have heard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is right to raise the topic of outsourcing. As the Government set out in our plan to make work pay, we need to learn the lessons from the collapse of Carillion and more effectively manage markets to ensure the right mix of provision. That means ending the previous Administration’s dogmatic drive to privatise our public services.

I was interested to hear the comments about ideology, having watched for the last 14 years as an ideologically driven approach led to waste, poor value for money and, in some cases, poor public services—for example, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) referenced the failed outsourcing of probation services. We must ensure that all contracts are transparent and accountable and provide value for money for the British taxpayer.

I was surprised to hear the comments about progress. Like the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I have a background in local government—I think we both have a background at Camden council. While I was in local government, I saw billions wasted on PPE, and I saw the waste of the test and trace contract, when those of us in local government knew that public health officials and housing staff were ready to go out and do that work. Yet, so much money went to private providers, and I saw the ballooning cost of consultants.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) referenced children’s homes. The new Government have had to step in to end the exploitative practice of some private sector organisations making excessive profits from services for vulnerable children. Under the previous Government, we saw a significant increase in privately run children’s homes, with a Competition and Markets Authority report suggesting that the 15 largest children’s home providers make an average 23% profit per year. Is that value for money? This Government have shone a light on those profits, set a new cap and given Ofsted new powers to investigate and impose fines for exploitative practices.

As the leader of a council, I saw how insourced public services, when managed carefully over time, with robust assessment of benefits and outcomes, can deliver savings for taxpayers and better public services. During covid, I saw how our in-house repairs service immediately moved to delivering food, often volunteering to work long hours to support residents. I saw the pride and commitment that came from working for the council, and the greater flexibility and innovation that that could bring. I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that there is huge innovation in the public sector.

As we saw under the previous Government, outsourced services can too often deliver a race to the bottom on quality and standards, and a self-defeating approach that harms taxpayers and value for money. This Government are determined to deliver good public services and better value for money. That includes making decisions about how to deliver services to avoid the waste we saw under the previous Government. We have already begun to deliver reform of the frameworks for outsourcing, with provisions in the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen and reinstate the two-tier code introduced under the last Labour Government. The new Procurement Act will come into effect next month, creating a simpler and more flexible procurement system underpinned by a new mission-focused national procurement policy statement.

I did not recognise the comments made about that work. I have engaged deeply with SMEs, businesses, the voluntary sector, social enterprise, contracting authorities, trade unions and a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the NPPS delivers our missions for the country, with growth at the heart of what we want to achieve. The statement will set out the Government’s policy priorities, and contracting authorities will have to have regard to it when carrying out procurements. That will be the first step to ending the last Government’s ideological fixation with outsourcing. I am pleased to say that the statement is almost complete, as we continue to have those conversations, and I look forward to laying it before both Houses shortly.

I want to respond directly to the points made about outsourcing. I agree with the position of Christina McAnea and Unison, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, that a public interest test should be in place before services are outsourced, to ensure value for money and the best outcomes. The NPPS will set out how we plan to make it easier for public authorities to test the best possible model to provide value for money and outcomes for the taxpayer, and end the ideological presumption on outsourcing.

Through these measures, the Government will achieve greater value for money for the people and businesses of this country, moving away from relying on a few large suppliers and being more open to investment across the country in the areas that need it most. Key to that is supporting SMEs. I hear so often from SMEs that they find engaging with Government procurement complex and burdensome. Part of the work we want to do involves diversifying the providers that come forward, whether that is SMEs, social enterprises or voluntary sector organisations.

We have also begun to assess the areas of Government that could be done more effectively in house, and where there may be compelling reasons for Government to develop their own capabilities and capacity to deliver good value for money and better public services. Again, I welcome a wider discussion of that. That work will recognise the practical hurdles to building Government capacity, particularly in a constrained fiscal environment, and when many public services are under huge strain. Having brought a number of services in house in local government, I know that it can be very powerful and save money, but it also takes time, planning and investment. The lead-in times on procurement are significant, and there is no quick fix. However, active work is happening on those critical issues.

We are clear that we will end the last Government’s tunnel vision on large-scale outsourcing and consider the best way to achieve our missions and the best outcomes for citizens. As I have set out, we want to see more diversity, including social enterprises, co-ops, mutuals, voluntary sector organisations and SMEs. We will use the measures in the Procurement Act to open up procurement to that more diverse supply base. Hon. Members spoke of ensuring that we have the right capacity to manage contracts, as well as transparency throughout the process, and that will be at the core of the work we are leading.

We are clear that public sector procurement is an important engine of growth for the economy and that there are purpose-driven businesses providing good-quality jobs. However, as we have heard from some surveys, there is poor practice across the economy. That is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill to increase standards and ensure there are decent jobs, not just as part of Government contracts, but across the economy. I do not have a huge amount of time, and I will not go through all the measures, but they address some of the questions put to me today. The provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will empower Ministers to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code through regulations and a statutory code of practice, which is critical.

I end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East for bringing forward this issue. As we work on the new NPPS, his insights and those of all those here are very welcome, and I am open to ideas from every part of the House. Close to £400 billion is spent on public procurement, which is a huge amount, and we need to ensure that it provides growth and opportunity across the country. We should use procurement to ensure that there are good jobs for our citizens in every community. Whenever we decide to spend taxpayers’ money, it is right that we make an assessment of what will deliver the best outcomes for citizens and value for money. Unlike the last Government, we will never put ideology before people.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for her debut performance in Westminster Hall.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered outsourcing by Government departments.

Youth Mobility Scheme: EU

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I ask all Members not staying for this debate to leave as quietly as they can. This is a 30-minute debate, so there will be no opportunity for the Member leading it to wind up at the end.

11:00

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Government have committed to resetting our relationship with the EU, and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are actively engaging to build trust and rebuild relations with our European neighbours through meetings with the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council. The Liberal Democrats want to forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, one built on co-operation, not confrontation, and moving towards a new comprehensive agreement. A crucial step in that process is rebuilding confidence by agreeing partnerships and associations to help to restore prosperity and opportunities for British people.

In the light of the new Trump Administration in Washington, the Government are rightly looking to build a closer defence and security agreement with Europe. European officials, however, are insisting that those agreements come in tandem with other partnerships, including a youth mobility scheme. What is the Minister’s response to an article published this morning in the Financial Times stating that the EU has made it clear that a youth mobility scheme is “vital” to any broader reset with the UK, including security and defence?

Providing opportunities to young people should be at the heart of Government policy. The Liberal Democrats believe that establishing a youth mobility scheme would offer not only huge benefits to young people, but a broader range of benefits, including strengthening cultural, social and economic links between the EU and the UK.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sarah Olney]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Government talk a lot about growth being crucial for restoring the public finances. Does my hon. Friend agree that sectors such as hospitality—it is important in my constituency of South Devon—are struggling from lack of staff? If we could restore a youth movement deal, we would have lots of enthusiastic European youngsters coming to the UK to learn English and help to boost productivity in that sector.

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are so many vacancies across our hospitality and tourism sectors, and a youth mobility scheme could be instrumental in helping us to fill them.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is a thoughtful MP and is always trying to find the ways forward, and I welcome that—it is all about solutions. While I believe in neighbourly friendly relations and affording young people opportunity, does she not agree with the concerns that I and MPs in Northern Ireland have about the EU continuing to hold Northern Ireland to ransom by our packages and business deliveries? We must see resolution to that if we are to find a positive way forward, and consideration can then be given to any further changes to the youth mobility scheme. I understand the logic of that, so let us support it.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very nice words. I totally understand the issues around the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland; all I would say is that instituting a youth mobility scheme would go a long way to improving relations with the EU, and I think it would unlock some of the other issues we are experiencing.

We already have youth mobility schemes in place with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, so why not with EU countries? It would once again allow young people across the UK to be able to spend time with our nearest neighbours without having to navigate Brexit red tape. A youth mobility scheme with the EU would open up opportunities for British young people to learn new skills, languages and cultures and bring all that back with them to benefit our economy and our society.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ interest in youth mobility. Those of us who bought their first album recognise that one of the challenges here is to get the right deal for British workers. Does the hon. Lady agree that the deal that was offered last year, which would have seen British workers being able to go to only one country under the scheme, was not the right one for this country and that, if we are to have a youth mobility scheme, we need to renegotiate what is being offered?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although I am not sure what she means by the first album. We are talking about a comprehensive agreement. The EU has already indicated that it would be willing to discuss, and of course we should not enter agreements that are not to our advantage.

As the Government know, a youth mobility scheme would not lead to a return to freedom of movement. After all, under the terms of the existing scheme, youth mobility visas are limited in duration and the number of eligible young people is capped. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power, which was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. The scheme that the Liberal Democrats propose is familiar and tried and tested; it allows those aged 18 to 30 to live, work and study in the countries involved for a set period.

The advantages of a youth mobility scheme go far beyond the extension to a new generation of young people of the opportunities that many of us took for granted in our own youth. The wholly inadequate deal with the EU negotiated by the previous Conservative Government has done enormous damage to British businesses. We have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages and reams of red tape, which have created huge barriers to growth. Exports by small businesses have dropped by 30%, and 20,000 small firms across the UK have stopped all exports to the EU. The UK faces acute labour shortages in sectors such as hospitality, the arts, entertainment and retail—exactly the kinds of jobs that young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of the Erasmus scheme was that it provided funding so that people from disadvantaged backgrounds could take advantage of the scheme, and that any youth mobility scheme should ensure access to everyone?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the Erasmus programme. Our young people—those aged under 30—have struggled more, I think, than other age groups to overcome the impact of the pandemic and lockdown on many of their formative experiences. The Government should be looking for every opportunity to offer them the kinds of experiences that would have been available to those who are now in older age groups when they were younger.

Young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on jobs in the hospitality sector while studying, immersing themselves in our culture or improving their grasp of our language. Across the country, small and medium-sized businesses are struggling, and a youth mobility scheme would offer British businesses a real opportunity to address staffing shortages by welcoming young people from EU countries for a limited period, bringing fresh talent and energy to our workforce.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that apprenticeships are a critical feature of any mobility scheme, as the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) suggested? We need to ensure not only that the businesses that the hon. Lady describes get the staff they need in specific sectors, but that the scheme is not an elitist one.

[Sarah Olney]

I am passionate about opportunities for young people; that is why I am talking about a youth mobility scheme in this debate, but we also need to get behind a whole range of policy interventions, including apprenticeships and funding for further education. We need also to look at barriers to employment, particularly for those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, so I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about apprenticeships.

I have heard from stakeholders in the hospitality sector that they would welcome this proposal. The changes to the immigration system implemented in April 2024, which increased the minimum salary threshold for skilled worker visas, shrank the talent pool from which hospitality businesses can recruit and contributed to greater staff shortages. Around three quarters of the hospitality workforce is filled from within the UK, but international talent has always been attracted to the UK because of our pedigree in hospitality and our talent for developing careers. Given that recent Government decisions at the Budget added to the overall tax burden on hospitality businesses—many are now considering whether their businesses remain viable—we must provide the tools that hospitality businesses need to grow, so that they can boost the wider economy. Those tools include ensuring access to global talent.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I think it is so important to reflect on the fact that we now have a Government who are actively saying that we want a stronger and closer relationship with the European Union. That is the context for this debate. I am personally very sympathetic to the idea of a youth mobility scheme with the European Union. We inherited from the last Government a lot that makes little sense, including the fact that we have relationships on youth mobility with Uruguay and Taiwan but not with our closest neighbours, the European Union. The reset will take time, however, and I completely respect the fact that this Government cannot give away every part of their negotiating strategy in public at this stage. I congratulate the hon. Member on this important debate, but I also completely understand why we cannot have all the details right now.

[Sarah Olney]

I am glad to hear these words about the Labour Government’s commitment to improving our relationships with the European Union, but what the Liberal Democrats would like to see is some action. We think introducing a youth mobility scheme is a valuable and necessary first step and there is no reason why we cannot crack on and do that now.

The Government have made it clear that their No. 1 priority is economic growth—if anyone was in any doubt about that, the Chancellor has been making a speech on it this very morning—but any proposal that might involve our European neighbours in contributing to boosting growth is dismissed. A youth mobility scheme is a pragmatic and mutually beneficial proposal that would benefit the UK economy and labour market in the long term.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

In 2016, the Home Office said that youth mobility visa holders contributed an average of £7,600 to the Exchequer’s coffers every year; that amounts to more than £10,000 today. There is economic benefit from a youth mobility scheme, and I find it hard to look my children in the eye and tell them that they will not have the freedoms that I and my parents were able to enjoy. Given all that, does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is absolutely right and urgent that a youth mobility scheme should be brought forward?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right— I wish that the Chancellor, who I gather is somewhere in Oxfordshire, had been here to hear her intervention. She is so right to say that a youth mobility scheme of this kind would make a real, substantial impact on growth in the UK; more than—dare I say it?—the expansion of Heathrow would. Such a scheme would play a vital role in stimulating the growth that this country so clearly needs and that we very much support the Chancellor in her call for.

Rebuilding our relationship with Europe is a fundamental part of making Britain more secure and more prosperous. With the threat of tariffs from the new Trump Administration, it has never been more important for our Government to break down the barriers to trade erected under the previous Conservative Government. By repairing those ties with the EU, we will be able to deal with this unreliable and unpredictable actor in the White House from a position of strength. Introducing a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK would send a clear message that this country is serious about supporting our young people and backing British business with the labour force that it needs to grow.

The EU has been very clear that it would welcome a youth mobility scheme and has now signalled that agreeing to such a scheme will in fact be a necessary step before broader partnerships, including on defence, are established. I urge the Government to embark on negotiations to expand opportunities for young people across the country and to acknowledge the broader benefits that a youth mobility scheme could provide.

11:13

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on two counts: first, on securing this debate—she always holds me to account on European matters at Cabinet Office questions, and I very much welcome the scrutiny that she provides—and, secondly, on her appointment as the Government’s trade envoy to North Africa. The case that she is making today about deepening trade links is one that I am sure she will be able to employ in that role as well, so I look forward to her doing that and to hearing all about it.

When I hear the hon. Lady speak about a more co-operative, close relationship with the European Union, I entirely agree. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to build. I would, however, introduce one note of caution. As the hon. Lady can imagine, I read the Financial Times avidly; it is a fine, authoritative publication. However, although we now move towards the first of the UK-EU summits, we have not actually entered that intense period of negotiation yet. She should perhaps treat what she reads in the FT, including about what that negotiation will consist of, with a little caution.

I will turn in a moment to the specific issue of youth mobility, but I want to set in context the EU-UK reset this Government have embarked on. First, I am very pleased with the progress that has been made so far. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, going into this more intense phase of negotiation, it was very important that the new European Commission was formally in place. That happened in December and we can now move into this new phase. However, the Government have already been making significant strides forward. There have been dozens of ministerial visits across Government and we have been working co-operatively with our European counterparts.

The Prime Minister met the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on 2 October. I was with them in Brussels when that meeting took place. They agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, put it on a more solid, stable footing and then move forward in their discussions ahead of the first of the summits. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in October, the Chancellor attended the Eurogroup meeting in December and I have had frequent meetings and discussions with my counterpart at the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič. Those discussions are, of course, ongoing.

On 3 February—Monday of next week—we will see the Prime Minister attend the European Council. He was invited by the President of the Council António Costa, who I met with the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street just before Christmas. As I say, we will then move towards the summit, which we have said will take place in the first half of this year.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Minister is giving a good account of the diaries of various Ministers. If meetings were a measure of success, we would all say that the Government were very successful, but they are not. When will we see outcomes from this rapprochement with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not share the hon. Member’s downbeat assessment, and neither does the European Union. Maroš Šefčovič himself said last week that our relationship with the EU is definitely in a more positive place. I hope the hon. Member welcomes that.

What we have is a very co-operative relationship. For example, I am responsible for the Windsor framework taskforce, which is in the new EU relations secretariat at the Cabinet Office, in the centre of Government. I am sure he would welcome the creation of this new secretariat as it prioritises this relationship, which is precisely what is being argued for in this debate. I will give him an example from when we first came to office, that of dental amalgam and EU regulations on mercury. In previous Administrations, that would have blown up into a significant row, but it did not. With our new, mature relationship, it was dealt with very pragmatically. He will not have to wait too long until the EU-UK summit, after which he will be able to see the concrete progress and deliverables he is asking for starting to take place. I say gently that he should welcome the progress and the constructive relationship that we have. I hope he does not have too long to wait for some more concrete outcomes, which are hugely important.

We are taking the discussions on the reset forward, and they fall, essentially, into three categories—three pillars, if you like. The first is about foreign policy and a more structured defence co-operation. We have already made progress. The Foreign Secretary and the High Representative have already agreed on six-monthly foreign policy dialogues. That agreement is already in place and we will move further forward on that.

The second category is about the safety of our citizens, so on judicial and law enforcement co-operation. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) challenges me on concrete progress and we have already increased the National Crime Agency presence at Europol. I visited Europol in opposition, as did the now Prime Minister and the now Home Secretary. We are determined to work more closely together on serious and organised crime—from the vile crime of people smuggling to issues such as fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking—to ensure that there is nowhere on our continent where criminals can find a place to hide from the force of the law.

The third category is looking to make significant progress on trade and reducing trade barriers. We were elected on a manifesto with a very firm framework that we would not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement, but that manifesto contained examples of what we wanted to secure, which we have a mandate from the people to negotiate. That includes a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will reduce trade barriers significantly for agriculture and agri-food products, mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our services industries, and what we can do to make it so much easier for our touring artists to once again be able to tour the EU, and for European artists to come here. On those aspects that are within the trade and co-operation agreement as it stands, we will already have to move forward on negotiation. A good example of that is energy, where the trade and co-operation agreement is already putting an obligation on the UK and EU to look at how they operate the emissions trading scheme. There is a substantial agenda that the Government will be taking forward.

[Caroline Voaden]

Since the election, I have seen and heard lots of evidence of more conversations happening between the UK and the EU than did over the previous few years, so I accept what you are saying about a rapprochement and a more positive engagement. You say that the Government are keen to increase trade—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but “you” is me; she means “he”, in other words the Minister.

[Caroline Voaden]

I apologise, Sir Jeremy. The Government are saying that they want to increase trade with the European Union. Could the Minister comment on how helpful he thinks it is when suggestions are put forward by the European Union? Last week, for example, we had a suggestion of a pan-European Mediterranean customs agreement, which could benefit the just-in-time supply trade and complex manufacturing in this country, but was instantly dismissed by the Government. Would the Minister like to comment on how helpful he thinks that is?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s descriptions of PEM as a customs agreement—that is not quite how it operates, or is meant to operate.

Secondly, I observe that on the various proposals and comments, the Government will of course be expected to refer to their manifesto commitments, for which we have a mandate. I have always said constructively that of course, within our red lines, we will always listen to the proposals that the EU puts forward. That was the message the Government sent out. I also observe that my very constructive, positive relationship with Maroš Šefčovič is evidence of proposals going between us that are being very constructively received on both sides. Do not take my word for it: have a look at Maroš Šefčovič’s interview from last week where he was asked about his relationship with me and how that is going, and he was very clear about what a positive, different place it is in. The proof is in what is being said on both sides.

Further, I am interested in this press on progress, because I took the time before coming to this debate to have a look at the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election, which included a four-step process. I would gently say that if we were doing a four-step process we might take significantly longer than has been taken.

[Sarah Olney]

First, our four-step process was about a much more comprehensive programme of engagement with the EU than what we are solely calling for today, which is a youth mobility scheme. Secondly, I put it to the Minister that since our manifesto was published back in June of last year, there has been substantial change in the global arena, in terms of trade and defence, with the re-election of President Trump in Washington, so naturally the environment has moved on since then. That is why we are now renewing and intensifying our calls for greater co-operation with the European Union, because we think that the issue is so much more pressing.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will just say, first, that when the hon. Lady talks about a “comprehensive programme of engagement”, that is precisely what the Government have been engaging in.

The hon. Lady is certainly right to observe that of course world circumstances change, and I am sure that that will be the case in the years ahead as well. However, what will not change is the Government’s prioritisation of deepening our trade links with the European Union. It is also really important to say that that is of mutual benefit—it is of benefit to the United Kingdom and it is of benefit to the European Union that we move forward together on this agenda. That is precisely what will happen over the next few months.

[Ms Creasy]

I know more than most how much work my right hon. Friend has been doing on this issue. As for rejoining the pan-European scheme, it already exists; it is not a bespoke scheme. On youth mobility, it would be very helpful for us to understand things from the Minister’s perspective, because there are a lot of issues to balance in the best interests of the British economy and British growth. May I bring him back to that point? When there are so many challenges in the world, it is wonderful to have UK leaders in Europe who do not question whether we are friend or foe to our colleagues there, but we also need to speak up for British interests. I hope he can set out a bit more about what he considers those to be.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. It was a particularly low moment for the country when one of its Prime Ministers could not answer a question as to whether the French President was a friend or foe. France is our NATO ally, with huge and deep ties to us. The fact that we ever reached that point was, frankly, disgraceful. However, we are not in that position any more. We are very clear with our European friends and partners that our relationship with them is constructive and positive, and that we will make it even closer in the years ahead. That is hugely important. My hon. Friend also makes a really powerful point about national interests, because our national interests and those of European economies go hand in hand. This process is not some sort of zero-sum game. It is a negotiation—a set of discussions—from which both sides can mutually benefit.

Let us take, for example, an SPS agreement, as seeking negotiations on that is one of our specific manifesto pledges. It works for and reduced barriers on both sides. That is good for businesses and the agricultural sector on the European continent, and it is good for the agricultural sector here in Britain. Cultural exchanges are also good for both sides, as is mutual recognition of professional qualifications in services. That is not just about our brilliant services exports; it is about those services that we can get from the European Union.

I am conscious, Sir Jeremy, that this is a short Westminster Hall debate and we are coming to the last few moments. People-to-people contacts are hugely important; there is no doubt about that. Obviously, the previous Government eased the position regarding school trips, particularly with France. We have just indicated our reinvestment in the Turing scheme. There are also numerous deep people-to-people links with Europe right across the United Kingdom.

As we have had this exchange across the Chamber many times, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that youth mobility was not part of the plans that the Government set out at the election. We have said that we will not go back to freedom of movement; that is a very clear red line. However, I approach the negotiations with the European Union in a constructive spirit. I, of course, will put forward and advocate for our national interests. It is, of course, for the EU to come forward with its negotiating position.

Who knows whether points in the Financial Times on this matter are accurate or not? They may or may not be, but I look forward to these negotiations. This is going to be a really positive period in relationships between the UK and the EU, and I am sure we can come back with the deliverables that are being asked for by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

Finally, I am very grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, for your chairmanship of this debate.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful, too, to the Minister and to everyone who has contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Rural Housing Targets

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

14:30

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing targets in rural areas.

It is a huge pleasure to see you presiding over us today, Ms Jardine.

I want to talk about housing targets for rural England in general and for my constituency of East Hampshire in particular, and I want to talk about three dimensions. The first is the balance of development between urban areas and rural areas. There is a general point about the balance in the whole country, but it has particular significance in my area. With the new formula, there is too much emphasis on building in the countryside, which will be bad for economic growth and our decarbonisation agenda, and injurious to the countryside. I will ask the Government to look again at the formula.

The second dimension is the mix of housing types that we are incentivising to be built, which is not weighted enough towards the more affordable housing that we so badly need, and the third dimension is the balance of development in my constituency specifically. We have a national park boundary cutting through the constituency, and whatever the overall numbers, there is a question of balance within the specific area.

We all know that we need more homes, so let us not have a discussion about which party is more serious about that. Figures published yesterday project a big population increase of 4.9 million over the next 10 years, which will be driven by net immigration. Those numbers are too high and we need to bring them down, but, in any case, there is already pressure from the growth in population and housing demand that we have had, which is partly to do with net immigration but also to do with factors such as people living longer and the tendency towards smaller households.

We all care about housing. Of the four highest completion numbers since 1997, three have been since 2019, under Conservative Governments. The Government want to increase the housing target to 370,000 homes a year, and they changed the formula to do that last month. By some margin, that would be the highest number of completions in a very long time—I think the highest in a single calendar year since 1997 is about 180,000. There are doubts about how realistic the target is, especially given labour and materials constraints on the supply side.

If this building is going to be done, it is exceptionally important for public confidence—as MPs, we hear this the whole time—that it is accompanied by not just the promise, but the delivery of the right services and infrastructure. It is true that most of those services are statutory requirements—sewerage will come, because it is a requirement. Hampshire county council does a good job of place planning and predicting where places will be needed, we know that funding for GPs follows the population, and so on, but, as I think all MPs have heard, there are still worries and doubts about the timeliness of that. In particular, there is a worry about whether, if we have a sudden massive increase in building but there is a shortage of builders, the schools or GP surgeries that are needed will be prioritised over the houses.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

This is exactly the issue facing my constituency, where two proposed large developments are going through planning, one on Wash Road on the outskirts of Noak Bridge, and the other—it went through a couple of weeks ago—on Laindon Road in Billericay. There are huge pressures on local services; local primary schools are overflowing. When we see our local authorities changing from two-tier to unitary and being moved around, there is real concern that section 106 money will not even go towards the needs of the communities having housing imposed on them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that adds extra complexity to the situation?

[Damian Hinds]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, who has done an outstanding job of highlighting such points, including on the Floor of the House, to the benefit of his constituents.

It is also important to pay attention to maintaining the character of areas. We talked in the past about urban sprawl, but increasingly we face the risk of rural sprawl, with ribbon developments that lose the distinction between settlements. In addition to a beautiful landscape, my constituency has an important cultural heritage, as the home of Jane Austen. That is important not only to people who live in East Hampshire but to many who visit from elsewhere in the country and from abroad.

On the new formula, the Government need an overall 50% uplift in housing numbers, but in many areas they will increase by a lot more. East Hampshire is one: our target will increase from 575 to 1,142, or 98%—let us just call that doubling. That is not unusual. Colleagues will have seen that the Library paper looked at 58 mainly or largely rural local authorities and found that all had had an increase, two thirds had had one above 50%, and the average increase was 71%.

Meanwhile, in urban areas, increases are much lower—more like 16% or 17% on average. Quite a few places will see a reduction, including large parts of London and Birmingham. The Library analysis found that 37 out of 41 local authorities with a decrease were urban. I want to stress that this is not about a north-south divide; it is specifically an urban-rural divide. The County Councils Network has helpfully provided figures showing the difference in county areas. Compared with the south-east, the north-east, north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber have much higher average increases, albeit from a lower base.

It is also important to note that this is not about correcting an historic mistake. People might think that not much building has happened in the countryside in the past, but looking back over 20 years, the rate of building—the number of additional dwellings relative to the existing dwellings per thousand households—has been higher in predominantly rural areas than in urban areas.

That shift from urban to rural is a problem for multiple reasons. One of them is a big theme today: economic growth. I am sure the Minister has a lot of time for the think-tank the Resolution Foundation. Its analysis is that tilting development towards cities, because of the agglomeration effect and other factors, makes a material improvement to growth prospects. It is also important for another theme of the day. We talk about airport expansion and the tension between economic growth and decarbonisation. When housing moves towards the countryside, that is bad for decarbonisation, because the numbers are so high that houses have to be put everywhere and it is not possible to focus on the relatively small number of places that have good strategic transport links. That hardwires reliance on the motor car, which in constituencies such as mine means two cars per couple in a household.

Why does the formula do that? We do not have the time to explain. We would need whiteboards, Excel and possibly PhDs to go through this subject—you might already have a PhD in this subject, Ms Jardine; I do not want to suppose otherwise. Various changes have been made to the formula, in particular the multiplier that gets applied to the affordability calculation, which has risen from 0.6 to 0.95. That means that the affordability calculation does a lot more work, and is more important than it was before.

No calculation of affordability of housing is close to perfect. There are all manner of problems with trying to make such a calculation. In particular, with the formula that we use today, there is a proper debate to be had about the balance between workplace earnings and residency-based earnings. Sometimes we talk about a choice between the two, but I think they are both relevant to the affordability of housing. It is also about the distinction between earnings and income, and whether we are really comparing types of housing like for like.

As I say, this is not the place to discuss those issues in detail; it is not possible in a debate format. However, I will say to the Minister that I am sure the formula looked logical when it was done on paper or a computer screen, and I am sure it was done for the right reasons, but in practice it has delivered perverse outcomes, which will reduce housing development in urban areas and harm growth, and it will be extremely difficult to deliver—certainly, it will be impossible to deliver sustainably in the countryside. The formula is an errant, rogue algorithm. We know what that feels like because it happened when we were in government, too; it can happen to anyone. The important thing is to address it as quickly as possible once it is spotted. Whatever their intent was, given the outcome, I ask the Government to look at the formula again.

The second issue is that the formula does not encourage enough of a change in the mix towards homes that are actually affordable. I will say what I mean by “actually” in a moment, but first I want to note the good work of my constituent, Nick Stenning, who has helped me in this area. We want more affordable homes, but when constituents come to my surgery and say that they want housing to be more affordable, they do not mean it in the sense the public sector means it, which is what I call Affordable with a capital A—the very strict definition of housing association rent, council rent and part ownership. They just want a home they can afford. Of course that includes those types of tenure and rent, but young couples overwhelmingly aspire to own their home, and we should be in the business of helping them to do that.

All other things being equal, for a developer, the best economic returns come from larger, costlier houses. When we consider that there is a premium on new build homes anyway, that means that, paradoxically, in spite of the economic theory, when we add more homes, the median price increases because we are adding them in the top half of the distribution. We then get a cycle that ends up calling for more of the same. We say, “Well, this area is now even less affordable than it was before, so we need more houses,” and we get more of the same homes. That is not entirely true, of course—there is a mix, but it is disproportionately weighted towards four or five-bed executive homes. I ask Ministers to look again at that; I am sure we have the same objective in this regard.

The third and final area I want to cover is specific to my constituency. It applies to a lesser extent in other areas with so-called national landscapes, but there are literally only one or two areas in the country where it applies to quite the extent it does in mine. The South Downs national park is an unusual national park: it is England’s newest, but it is by far the most populous. Its population density is about 3.5 times that of the Lake District national park, which has the next most dense population. It has huge swathes of open countryside but also significantly sized settlements, one of which is Petersfield in my constituency. Alton, which is outside the national park, is a similar size to Petersfield. They are both historic market towns and many of the people living there have the same needs and objectives, but they are treated completely differently from a housing development point of view.

There would be no point in having national parks if they did not have special protection, but the problem I have is that so much of my district—57% of the land area—is inside the national park. We have to calculate the housing need on the basis of the entire area, but that need has to be accommodated overwhelmingly in the area outside the national park. When there is a change—for instance, the number has just gone up—but the numbers that can be accommodated inside the national park do not change, we get a magnified, leveraged effect in the parts of the district outside the national park.

We would not expect development to be in proportion to landmass; otherwise, there would be an awful lot more building in, for example, the constituencies of the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) or for Hexham (Joe Morris). Other things being equal, we would expect it to be broadly in proportion to the existing development and existing population. In the district of East Hampshire, the South Downs national park accounts for 27% of the population and, since the national park came into existence, it has accounted for 15% of the housing development. However, with the change in targets, and without that much changing in what the national park is planning to do, it will account for 8% of the housing development, as against 27% of the existing population.

That fact creates particular pressures just outside the boundary of the national park, in places such as Alton, Holybourne, Four Marks and Medstead—all the way along the A31—and in the south of the district around Horndean, Clanfield and Rowlands Castle. There is already an imbalance between housing affordability inside the national park and housing affordability outside it, as was demonstrated by the bespoke analysis that the Office for National Statistics kindly produced. That imbalance will widen over time, and that has implications for the age mix of people living inside the national park, and therefore for the viability of schools, churches, shops, pubs and so on.

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. My question touches on that point about the balance between urban and rural. Semi-rural and rural areas are now being densified, and given the changes in the requirements on new buildings, places such as London are seeing less extra densification. Does he agree that the Government should be looking at schemes such as the one up at Finsbury Park, to which the Industry and Parliament Trust will take us on a visit in the next few weeks? A post-war estate of 2,000 homes is being transformed into 5,500 homes. That is proper urban densification around a major existing transport hub, and it means that those houses are not being built in the green-belt areas that he is talking about.

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In fact, there is a good example of that in my constituency, on a much smaller scale. Those schemes can materially improve amenity: we can make a better-looking housing estate and add facilities, such as a shop, even a pub, a better children’s playground and so on, that can benefit everyone.

Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I am coming to the end of my speech. I do not want to overstate matters: the South Downs national park authority does build houses. In fact, it builds more houses, or plans for more houses, than other national park authorities. It co-operates and communicates with East Hampshire district council. However, we still end up with this imbalance, which is bad for both the part inside and the part outside the national park. Quite apart from the question of balance, there is also the question of public confidence, democratic accountability and responsiveness —people knowing how the numbers have been derived, rather than the council effectively having to be a number-taker, as it were, because of the decisions of another group.

My primary ask of the Minister is that he look again at how numbers are distributed between urban areas and the countryside overall. However, I also ask him to look again at how the calculations work in areas such as mine, so that we do not have demand calculated for the entire district with supply going mostly, although not entirely, to one part of it. That could be rectified in different ways. One would be to give district councils total clarity on how they can adjust their method for calculating need without running an excessive risk of the plan being found to be unsound. There is guidance—the Minister may have this in his notes—but here is what it says:

“The standard method should be used to assess housing needs. However in the specific circumstances where an alternative approach could be justified, such as those explained at paragraph 014”,

on national parks,

“consideration will be given to whether it provides the basis for a plan that is positively prepared, taking into account the information available on existing levels of housing stock and housing affordability.”

I do not know about you, Ms Jardine, but I am not sure I could explain to somebody else what that means. If we are going to have guidance, fine, but it has to be clear and it has to give confidence to councils and councillors, who, at the end of the day, are managing public money, that they are not running a serious risk of ending up in court proceedings when trying to do the right thing.

This could be done in other ways. It could be done by having the national park explicitly and transparently set a housing target for the entirety of its area, leaving the individual districts to work it out for themselves. That could be done either individually for each district, or just for the park as a whole.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the rural exceptions policy. He is talking about rural housing, but to achieve the outcome he is describing, surely he should be advancing rural exception schemes. There is massive hope value on the edges of towns and villages if the targets are high, but rural exception schemes can keep the development land price down by ensuring that those developments meet local need.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In both his incarnations, he has long been a campaigner on these issues. There are many housing and development issues that I would love to talk about, but I am running out of time talking about just these three, so I hope he will forgive me if I stick to them. However, I agree about the potential of the exceptions policy.

I have one further question to the Minister. With devolution and local government reorganisation, how and when will some of the issues change because we are looking at things on different boundaries? I am grateful to him for agreeing to meet me and my district councillors to talk about the national parks issue, but I hope he will fully consider all the points I have raised today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Please limit your remarks to five or six minutes.

14:52

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I genuinely want to thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who, until the last election, was my aunt’s MP, so I always get a letter when I speak in debates with him.

I think this debate is less about rural housing targets and more about rural homes. I grew up in the largest constituency in England, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, and now have the privilege to serve as the MP for it. It regularly hits me, as I walk down the street or go to my surgeries, that I am far more likely to bump into my mates’ grandparents or parents than I am to bump into them because they have had to move out to Newcastle, down south or out to Manchester. It is one of the great sadnesses of the job that I do not see communities thrive as much as they could because young people are forced to leave. Communities need those young people, frankly.

I am frequently contacted by parents from across west Northumberland because Northumberland county council is trying to force some of our smaller schools to become two-form entry, rather than three-form entry. Rural depopulation is a major concern that transcends party politics, so I hope we can have a genuinely grown-up conversation about how we do better policy making for rural areas to support those communities.

When I go out into the north Tyne, where I live at the moment, or go into the central town of Hexham, or Prudhoe, I am often asked about my views on specific developments. I genuinely always try to approach these things by saying that we need to make sure there are places for people to grow up, and for businesses to invest in their employees. I spoke to one medium-sized employer in Hexham that spends a lot of time training its apprentices, who cannot afford to live in Hexham so move to a rival firm in Blyth, on the coast, which therefore gets all the benefit of that employee’s wisdom and experience, and the investment the company put into them, at none of the cost. We really need to look at how to generate vibrancy in our rural economies.

I have a slight issue with the definition of “rurality” given in a few documents I saw while drawing up this speech. “Rurality” is often defined as applying to settlements of fewer than 10,000 people. By the latest figures, Prudhoe has 10,288 and Hexham has 10,941 but no one walking down the street in either place would think of them as urban. Today, I received news of bank branch closures in my constituency and was incredibly disappointed to see that the branches were considered urban, despite the common-sense test of walking outside them and seeing the Tyne valley in all its beauty—it is possible to see right down to the north Tyne from Hexham. Prudhoe and Hexham are not urban communities. They are bigger than Barrasford, Wark, Humshaugh and plenty of other communities but they are not urban.

Any great advances in house building and housing targets must come with improved infrastructure. I hope to see much-needed investment in the Tyne valley line. My staff said to me that if I could get the Tyne valley line improved, certain villages in my constituency would build a statue of me. I do not hope for that and I am not lobbying for that—the county council probably has enough against me before I start lobbying for monuments —but we need to make sure that that infrastructure runs on time.

I also want to put on record that the limit in housing is driving the social housing waiting list crisis. Some of the main drivers of the cases coming into my inbox for my case workers are the special educational needs and disabilities crisis and the crisis in social housing in rural areas. I do not expect any hon. Members in this room to have a huge working knowledge of the diversity of Northumberland, but people are being rehomed from Ashington to Allendale, which are extremely different.

[Damian Hinds]

I know the schools there.

[Joe Morris]

I am glad to hear that the right hon. Member recognises the places. The lack of affordable social housing means that those who want to remain within the same county are forced to move to radically different communities that are often not suited to their needs.

I thank North East Mayor Kim McGuinness, a great friend of mine, who has prioritised the housing crisis in her agenda. I know that she is aware of the rural housing crisis—largely because I will not shut up about it—and the fact that it drives so much of the tragic and deeply concerning casework that comes through our doors. When the Government look at rural house building, we need to consider how we build communities and homes, rather than simply empty houses and empty buildings. I want sixth-formers at Queen Elizabeth high school—which I was privileged to attend and which I will visit this Friday—to be able to get the jobs that they want and remain local, with the broadband connectivity and transport connectivity that they need to make their homes and lives in the north-east, should they wish.

14:57

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

On a personal level, it is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. We go back a long way, do we not? I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this debate. My difficulty is that housing is devolved, but—as you will understand, Ms Jardine—when constituents come to me, as a Scottish Member, with issues, I am duty bound to raise them.

I will start with two brief anecdotes. I was canvassing in Ullapool, in Wester Ross, before the election and I was astounded when I was told by a householder that the local headteacher had to commute from well to the east of my vast constituency—every day, there and back—because no housing was available in Ullapool. It seemed absolutely ludicrous because, if anyone should be part of the local community, it is the headteacher. That struck me mightily.

After the election, I was staying with my wife in the Summer Isles hotel in Achiltibuie, which is getting pretty remote. I was talking to the young barman, and because we knew that the hotel was going to be closed over winter, I said, “So, what will you do during the wintertime?” He said—you know what is coming, Ms Jardine—“I have to head south. There’s nowhere for me to stay here. I can’t afford the accommodation.”

The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) rightly mentioned depopulation; it has been the utter curse of the highlands for generations. It is one of the great tragedies that if someone drives across Caithness on the Causewaymire—the local pronunciation is “Cazziemire”—they will see umpteen empty wee houses on either side in the heather. That is people who have gone, and gone forever, and that is the tragedy of the highlands. So people leaving because they cannot get accommodation in Achiltibuie is a desperate business altogether.

I want to say on the record that I in no way blame the Highland council for this problem. As a local authority, it does its level best against the odds to think of imaginative ways to create housing. But if a wee house comes on the market in Wester Ross, or in most of my constituency, it is snapped up by people from far away who can afford the prices, which local people simply cannot.

Let me turn to what happens in my constituency office. In the highlands, there are about 8,000 people on the waiting list for housing, and every week my office will get two, three, four or five housing cases, which are incredibly hard to resolve. We may talk about going private—renting or buying—but as I have already hinted, they are just priced out of the market.

We have to balance that against something that I am grateful to the previous Government for. We were given the Inverness and Cromarty Firth green freeport—one of two in Scotland—which was a real shot in the arm for the area, as it will be under the new Government. It could make as big a contribution as Dounreay did when nuclear power came to Caithness, or as the Nigg and Kishorn oil fabrication yards did when they came to Ross and Cromarty. These things really offer employment and can keep people in an area, but the point is very simple: if we do not have the housing, what are we going to do? Despite the best intentions of the previous Government and this Government, not having the housing really gets in the way of all of that.

I find it very difficult to see young people put in this position; it is really quite harrowing and it seems a fundamental injustice. It is wrong that they have to face these terrible decisions—“Do I stay where I come from? But I can’t, so I have to go.” I remember my own father, before the North Sea oil came, saying to me, “You’ll have to go south, young man.” That is something we do not want to see happen.

I am talking about a devolved matter, Ms Jardine, but may I simply say this? I have great faith in the best intentions of Governments of all colours. I simply ask that, as and when the best practice is developed to tackle this problem, His Majesty’s Government share that best practice with the Scottish Government, so that we can see how we can nip this problem and try to reverse this wretched tendency. I hope that now, as I speak, that teacher has got a house in Ullapool, but I am not sure that she has.

15:03

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

I am an MP from rural Suffolk, and I hope we can create affordable rural housing. Why did our predecessors not try to do that? I believe that changes to the rural exception regulations could help achieve it, and at an appropriate scale, so that we retain the character of our towns and villages.

We need to help build housing, but crucially we need to help build local communities. We need there to be housing for young families, but also housing for older people, perhaps with embedded building features such as walls that are sufficiently strong to hold grab rails. I was told by Age UK only this morning that in Japan stamp duty is waived if the children of older people buy houses near where their elderly parents live.

Too many of our villages in Suffolk, and in Norfolk, where I live, are occupied by ageing residents far from family and services. I am sure we can make changes to improve things, while repopulating the rural community and building resilience for the future. So let us rebuild our rural communities at a scale sympathetic to the existing settlements.

15:04

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. In many ways I was hanging on his every word, because I genuinely felt that he was also speaking to the concerns of my constituents on a whole number of issues.

Let me start in the way that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members started: we all want housing and recognise the need for it. Meriden and Solihull East is a constituency of two halves, with a very urban north and a very rural south, so many of the issues we discuss in the House affect me in both respects.

Everyone who has spoken has referred to young families and young people, and my right hon. Friend spoke about affordable housing. I agree with him, and one of the conversations I have been having with my local council is about starter homes. As we have heard, young people want to grow their families in a place they are connected to, and that is clearly vital.

I say to the Minister that, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the formula impacts rural areas in a much more detrimental way. I would like him to achieve his targets, but I do not think that the formula will allow that to happen. I have form on this, because I raised a similar issue when the last Government tried to do this. I thought the formula was disproportionately affecting my constituency, as opposed to Birmingham, which is next to us, and areas such as Walsall, where I was born and brought up.

I remember having a conversation at No. 10 on a number of occasions, and I was very pleased that the formula was looked at again. The current formula requires Solihull, which currently builds about 866 homes per year, to increase that to 1,317. However, the current plan in Birmingham has about 7,174 homes a year, and the revised plan would take it down to 4,974. That is a huge disparity, and I am sure the Minister would agree. I believe that he is a reasonable person and that he would agree that there are people in Birmingham who will require housing, so that reduction in numbers makes no sense whatever—it is quite a significant plummet.

I campaign on protecting my green belt. I feel uniquely affected, as do my constituents, for two reasons. First, we have the Meriden gap, which is a vital throughway, through which wildlife migrate every year. It is known as the west midlands’ lungs, but is actually the lungs for the whole United Kingdom. As the new national planning policy framework comes forward, will the Government take into account areas of vital importance, such as the Meriden gap? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire mentioned national parks, and I do not want to see the burden on the council increased because other parts of the green belt have to be affected. Through no fault of its own, it has areas of real importance to nature.

The second reason I wanted to raise is that my constituency is specifically affected by High Speed 2. We have a station just by the National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham airport. Balsall Common has had to take a huge load; it has been ripped open many times over, and is also taking on additional housing—there is a significant amount already, with thousands of homes. Hampton in Arden, a beautiful part of my constituency, is now starting to see the effects of HS2. This is critical national infrastructure, and the sacrifice my constituents are making in terms of their green belt should surely be taken into account. Currently, I do not see anything in relation to that. By the way, I posed the same challenge to the previous Government, and I stand by it.

I am conscious of the time, but I just wanted to pose those questions to the Minister. I am more than happy for him to visit my constituency, and I will happily show him around, in the spirit cross-party working, so that he can deliver some good news to my constituents.

15:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine; I did it last week and I have done it this week as well, so we are on a roll. It was a pleasure to hear the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) clearly setting the scene in his constituency. The debate is about housing targets in rural areas, and I will set the scene in mine.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said this is a devolved matter, and it is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland as well. However, it is important that we come along to contribute to the debate and wholeheartedly support the theme the right hon. Member for East Hampshire put forward.

I represent the constituency of Strangford, which is very rural. The issue of housing in rural areas comes up all the time, and I will explain why in my contribution. There have been numerous calls for better housing provision and a better level of housing—in other words, houses that are up to the standards that people want. So I wholeheartedly echo what the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said in his opening comments about housing provision in his constituency.

From private housing to social housing provision, there are real challenges with the number of properties available. That is something that my staff and I witness daily in the office. We have countless—I use that word on purpose—ongoing social housing cases where people in rural areas need to be rehomed, for different reasons, but the stock is not there. That is the issue that all hon. Members have tried to illustrate.

Last month, the Communities Minister back home announced the launch of the housing supply strategy 2024 to 2039, which provides a 15-year framework for the development and delivery of policies and actions needed to meet our housing supply needs. There are a series of challenges that must be addressed, and that will require a collaborative approach from all stages of Government. Again, I want to sow into the debate what we are doing in Northern Ireland, to hopefully support the right hon. Member for East Hampshire and the Minister. The Minister is always constructive in his answers to our questions; we appreciate that very much, and I look forward to his contribution.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is of major importance when it comes to the housing stock, especially in rural areas. The Housing Executive has also released a rural strategy specifically for Northern Ireland. Evidence from the 2016-20 draft rural strategy highlighted successes in the rural housing sector in Northern Ireland. For example, the Housing Executive invested approximately £204.13 million in rural communities, and just under 18% of that was for housing stock. Work commenced on 425 new build social homes in rural areas, helping to address social housing needs and to support the growth of those communities. So there is a strategy, a policy and a way forward, and approximately £82.4 million was invested in the maintenance and improvement of our rural housing stock.

That work highlights the importance of funding our rural areas, which are a massive part of the housing sector, but there is still a long way to go. The social housing lists in my two constituency offices—one in Ballynahinch and one in Newtownards—illustrate that figuratively and statistically. As of June 2023, over 45,000 individuals were on the Housing Executive’s waiting list, with more than 32,000 classified as being in housing stress, indicating an urgent need for accommodation. That is not solely the responsibility of the Housing Executive, as the money we get to fund our Departments and sectors comes from this Government through the block grant. There is more to do to take the immense pressure off families by making housing more affordable, accessible and safe.

The housing backlog comes from an increase in property prices. Some of the greatest house price rises in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have been in Northern Ireland. The standard monthly rental price is between £600 and £700—far above the breadline.

I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude with this point. More needs to be done to preserve and maintain housing stock, and housing prices are hitting a record high, so I look to the Minister for direction on his plans to support the devolved institutions as much as he can. It is always understood that these issues are devolved, but there is a moral responsibility to ensure that no family is left behind, and that our Executive have the support they need from central Government right here.

15:14

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. I fundamentally want to talk about fairness. The Labour party used to use fairness a lot to try to define itself. I have had exchanges with the Minister regularly on this subject, not least when we both sat on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee back in 2022. Many people remember 2022 politics for other reasons—we remember it for the nine months of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee. I put it to this House and to the Minister that when we look at the differential between what rural communities, such as those that I am lucky enough to represent in Mid Buckinghamshire, and our towns and cities are being asked to build, that fairness just is not there.

Let us look at the example of Buckinghamshire as a county. We were already starting from a pretty punchy base and from the point of an expectation to build some 61,000 new homes over the coming decades. The new ask of Buckinghamshire under this new Government looked, from a starting base, like it would be 91,000 new homes, which would be a 42% increase plus the mystical 5% deliverability. The latest published number is a whopping 95,000 new homes expected over the next couple of decades. With the extra 5% added on, that is a nearly 50% increase, which does not include the proposals for new towns of more than 10,000 properties that may well come through. Buckinghamshire could well be looking at yet another Milton Keynes. I gently put it to the Minister that Buckinghamshire has already taken its hit on building a new town; that town is now the city with a population of 250,000 people that is Milton Keynes, which took away a huge chunk of rural Buckinghamshire.

Buckinghamshire council has always been reasonable in its proposals. We have actually built tens of thousands of new homes in my constituency alone since the start of the century. Villages such as Haddenham are unrecognisable as a village after the level of development, and the developers keep piling in. There are more controversial proposals on agricultural land and on farmland being considered right now, just in the village of Haddenham. This issue comes up at door after door; people are fed up with the loss of farmland and our rural identity, and with making our countryside more urban.

The reason I will talk about fairness is that when we compare and contrast what Buckinghamshire is being asked to do with what the Mayor of London is being asked to do, he is being let off on his housing targets by 20%. That is in our great capital city of London, where there are oodles of brownfield sites crying out for regeneration, and people crying out to be able to buy homes—starter homes through to family homes and everything in between. Why is Labour London being let off on those housing numbers when our rural communities in Buckinghamshire are being asked to take the pain?

If I expand that argument on fairness, it is a reasonable expectation—as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) has said is relevant to his constituency—that development from housing must be side by side with the other asks that are taking away our landscape, our nature and our agricultural land, which presents a challenge to food security. Those additional asks come on top of housing. There are the countless solar industrial installations that my constituency sees, from Rosefield in the Claydons through to Kimblewick and many others. The battery storage facilities that we see being proposed are again in the Claydons, and another one of them has popped up in recent weeks near Little Missenden in the south of my constituency.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East, we have the great destroyer, HS2, which has devastated mile upon mile of the Buckinghamshire countryside for no benefit whatsoever to my constituents. I ask the Minister to reflect on the point of fairness and, when he considers housing targets on rural communities, to look at the other projects going on—many of them state sponsored, such as HS2—that have an impact on those rural communities.

My last point is that many services cannot cope with the residents we already have, be it GPs or hospital services. Let us take the Chiltern line, for example. The population growth is such that at Haddenham and Thame Parkway station, people are regularly being left behind on the platform in rush hour. That is not the fault of Chiltern Railways: it is because of the sheer growth in demand without anything to make up for it. I ask the Minister to reflect on fairness, and on the multiple demands on our rural communities, and to think again about the balance between rural and urban.

15:20

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). His constituency is a different environment, with a different set of conditions. It is interesting that he presented this as a question of fairness, in the sense that house building is an imposition rather than an opportunity for local communities. I will explain why I say that later.

Planning should fundamentally be about meeting need, not greed, but it is too often driven by greed rather than need. That underlies the wrong dynamic, which is creating a lot of the ill feeling towards the kind of development that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and others have described. The Prime Minister has created a false dichotomy by saying that he is backing

“the builders, not the blockers.”

My fear is that it is putting greed before need, but by proxy, if it is handled wrongly.

The fundamental failing of decades of setting housing targets in the ways that successive Governments have is that they are both wrongly conceived and based on the naive delusion that private developers would be willing to collude with the Government in driving down the price of their completed product. That is a naive delusion that, I am afraid, has adherents in all political parties. They have adopted the view for decades that if we build enough, the price will come down and the developers will co-operate with us in doing that. That has simply not happened.

The fundamental problem with setting house building targets is that house building is a means to an end. The end is meeting housing need. The targets could be to reduce housing need and planning applicants would have to demonstrate how their developments would address that need and reduce the need on an annual basis, rather than simply building to their commercial advantage. In places such as Cornwall, they build to meet the requirements of property investors, second home owners and holiday lets. We do not get the kind of developments that are there to meet local housing need. That is why house building targets are a means to an end, not the end. We see them as a proxy for what we are trying to fundamentally achieve. That is why they are both ill conceived and a naive delusion.

Cornwall is one of the best examples of where that policy has fundamentally failed because it has almost trebled in size. Like Buckinghamshire, it is proportionately one of the fastest-growing places in the United Kingdom. It has almost trebled its housing stock in the last 60 years, yet the housing problems of local people have got worse. I am not saying that we should not build houses and therefore will meet need; I am simply saying that setting house building targets has created an environment in which the wrong type of housing has been developed.

I have to declare an interest: during my nine-year sabbatical away from this place, I was a chief executive of a registered provider, a housing association. I therefore worked in the sector and know how the dynamics of the system work. I know how one battles with landowners, who have massive hope value—expecting that they can get 100 times the agricultural land value on the edge of their town and village if they can get away with it. That is just human nature; it would apply to any of us.

Nicholas Ridley, who was the Environment Secretary back in the early ’90s, introduced the rural exceptions policy, which was the first break from a planning policy that was based purely on use rather than the user. The policy meant that if a development met a local housing need in perpetuity, it would be allowed as an exception. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) mentioned that the policy needs to be expanded, and indeed it should. In Cornwall, where the policy is well founded, much affordable housing development is delivered through rural exception sites. It is quite a powerful policy.

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

It is fascinating to hear my hon. Friend talk about the success of rural exception sites in Cornwall, but elsewhere only 14 of 91 local planning authorities that have a policy of using rural exception sites have actually built houses using the policy. Why does that discrepancy exist?

[Andrew George]

Well—

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that we have less than two minutes before we have to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople.

[Andrew George]

I beg your pardon, Ms Jardine—I ran away with myself. As far as my hon. Friend’s question is concerned, a range of reasons make it extremely difficult to deliver on rural exception sites. One of the difficulties, which I have expressed to the Minister, is that the viability thresholds are quite difficult for housing associations to meet, particularly if the thresholds are based on a cost to value ratio. If the value of properties in a particular location is low, we get into the absurd situation in which the development cannot proceed under that formula. That has counterproductive consequences: the bigger the targets, the bigger the hope value on the edges of communities. It sounds counterintuitive, but the best way of meeting housing need in rural areas is to draw the development boundary tightly and not allow development around it, and to have a very strong rural exceptions policy.

We also need to build in the ability to deliver an intermediate market, by which I mean part-sale or discounted-sale homes that are available in perpetuity for all subsequent local occupants who meet a local first-time buyer requirement. We need to control second homes in rural areas, as well as addressing all the other issues relating to affordable housing need.

15:28

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a district councillor.

Everyone deserves a decent home and should be able to find that home near family, friends and work, but young adults in rural areas do not have that opportunity. The Campaign to Protect Rural England reports that in the five years to March 2023, rural homelessness increased by 40%. From my work as a district councillor, and indeed from my MP casework, I know that much existing rural housing suffers from damp, is poorly insulated and relies on oil or bottled gas for heating.

The Liberal Democrats know that development can benefit rural communities, but only if those communities are fully involved in the decisions about that development. We welcome the priority given to housing. As well as building more houses, we must ensure that they are high-quality homes. The Conservatives let developers get away with building to poor standards and without the GPs, schools and community infrastructure that are so badly needed, especially in rural areas. They also let developers off the hook for leaving land for housing unbuilt and new homes empty.

Liberal Democrats would build 150,000 new social homes to tackle the housing shortage crisis, and give renters a fair deal by immediately banning no-fault evictions and creating a national register of licensed landlords. We welcomed those measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill. We want housing development that is community led, by integrating infrastructure and public services into the planning process. With proper community engagement, local amenities such as GPs, schools and public transport will be built alongside the new homes.

We believe that local authorities should have greater powers to build their own homes and hold developers to account. Local authorities, not central Government, are best placed to know what developments are needed in their area. In my Ely and East Cambridgeshire constituency, Bottisham parish council has been exemplary in working with developers to identify sites to deliver affordable housing and maintain a strong sense of a village community.

Land for housing is in limited supply, yet land with planning permission is often banked by developers. The Government must unblock the thousands of permitted homes that are not being built, and allow councils to buy land at current use value, rather than an inflated hoped-for value, so that more social and affordable homes can be built.

None of this housing should come at the expense of our environment. The Government must deliver house building and protect our environment. South Cambridgeshire district council has an excellent record on that, with Cambourne and Trumpington Meadows in Cambridge both delivering housing and open space for wildlife and recreation, in partnership with the local wildlife trust. In my constituency, the development of Waterbeach also has green space at its core.

For the planning process to be run effectively, our local authorities need strong planning departments, which takes money. As well as the Government providing more funding, local authorities should be able to set their own fees, so that they have the capacity to consult appropriately and assess each case fully and promptly.

Finally, houses do not build themselves, and we do not have enough qualified construction workers. Further education colleges need sufficient long-term funding to set up the courses to train those workers, and we need to look at the qualifications required to teach the courses. Some older, experienced construction workers are not eligible to teach because they have older qualifications. We need to review whether their existing qualifications and experience are sufficient, or they can be fast-tracked to achieve the new qualifications, so they can teach the next cohort of bricklayers, plumbers and other construction workers.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing up an important point about apprenticeships. In my constituency, where there is a tradition of service in the construction sector, there is a shortage because there is better pay for those outside the sector. Does she agree that if there is to be a change, with maybe a three-year apprenticeship, there needs to be a better pay structure, to incentivise people into the construction sector?

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree with the hon. Member, and we need to look at the salaries for the trainers as well.

We stand ready to support the Government to get more houses built, including in rural areas, but the planning reforms must work with local communities, not cut them out of the process. Local authorities must be resourced and empowered to ensure that developers build the houses, with adequate GPs, schools, shops and other infrastructure, and green space for people and nature at the heart of all developments. We must ensure that most of those houses are the social and truly affordable homes that so many people in rural areas desperately need.

15:33

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and to respond to this debate, secured by my close constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). He is my former boss—I was his special adviser—and as you can tell from this afternoon, Ms Jardine, I was never allowed to write his speeches because he is so brilliant at orating in the Chamber. He is a doughty champion for his constituents in East Hampshire and I congratulate him on securing the debate.

In December 2024, the Government published their reforms to the national planning policy framework, which included the reintroduction of mandatory house building targets. As of March 2025, some local authorities will face an overwhelming fivefold increase in new housing targets, dictated by central Government. These targets will hit many rural areas’ councils hardest, as my right hon. Friend outlined, and they are to be imposed with little regard for local people.

We firmly believe that building more homes is a necessity. As my right hon. Friend and Members from all parties have said, for too long the dream of home ownership has felt out of reach for many hard-working families. We must make that dream a reality for as many people as possible. A property-owning democracy in which people in different areas can own a house is vital to giving maturing and succeeding generations a stake in the society in which they live. Although I am supportive of the Government’s ambitious goal to build 1.5 million new homes, I must stress that those homes must be the right homes built in the right places, by a method that ensures that the voices of local communities are listened to.

The troubling reality is that the Government’s housing targets are, frankly, unrealistic—and they know it. The chief executive of Homes England has cast doubts on whether the Government can realistically meet their goal of building those homes. In a Select Committee hearing last year, the Minister himself said that it will be hard and virtually unachievable for them to build 1.5 million homes in the lifetime of this Parliament. A recent County Councils Network survey found that nine in 10 councils cited a lack of infrastructure as the main reason why they could not support the new targets, with the delivery of new schools, doctors’ surgeries and other social infrastructure lagging behind the delivery of housing.

The targets are not just unrealistic and unpopular; the methodology behind them seems to represent a cynical gerrymandering exercise of political opportunism. For example, take east Hampshire, the New Forest and Fareham—these areas are being told to build more houses than Manchester, and the New Forest and north-east Hampshire include a national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Meanwhile, cities such as Labour-run Southampton, Nottingham and Coventry see their targets slashed by as much as 50%. It does not add up. The Government’s new method punishes Opposition councils for their success and rewards Labour local authorities for failure.

Why have the Government reduced housing targets in urban areas, where it is easier to build due to existing infrastructure, population density and the availability of brownfield sites? Instead, Labour reforms to the NPPF have resulted in top-down targets that will silence local voices. They have chosen to prioritise building in rural areas and on the green belt rather than on focusing where the demand for housing is greatest: in our cities and urban centres.

Under the Government’s proposals set out in the NPPF, councils and county areas will have to deliver at least an extra 64,769 homes per year, equating to 1,240 homes per week. That is seven times higher than the targets for large towns and cities governed by metropolitan authorities. It rewards city councils such as Labour-run Southampton city council, which has consistently underdelivered on its targets. Having been required to deliver 1,473 houses in the 2023-24 period, the council built a mere 261. In response, the Government have opted to ensure the council is spared further humiliation for failure by having its target cut by 12%. It is a similar story across the country. In some rural areas, housing targets will increase by 113%, while in urban settings the increase will be a mere 1%—if indeed there is an increase at all. How does that make sense?

The Minister will know that I am no fan of Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh borough council, which is building double the number required because of its excessive borrowing and failure to run a decent council. But his policies are unfair to councils like that, too. Eastleigh is facing a 42% increase in its house building requirement, from 645 houses a year to 922, but it has consistently overdelivered on its housing targets over the last five years. Where is the retrospectivity that should be delivered to successful councils that have overdelivered on their promises and housing targets over the last period?

[Richard Foord]

Did I just hear the hon. Gentleman describe his local Liberal Democrat council as successful?

[Paul Holmes]

No. The hon. Gentleman is grasping at straws. The Liberal Democrat-run administration in Eastleigh is anything but successful if we look at value for money and the £750 million of debt that its leader has accrued for the people of Eastleigh. The council’s method of paying off that debt was to build beyond the expected targets while destroying green areas in my constituency. But it is still not fair that my local council is being asked to deliver more homes despite having delivered more than was required. That is my point. There needs to be retrospectivity for councils that have delivered on those conditions.

The issue is the same in east Hampshire where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire noted, the target will rise by 98%, from 575 to 1,142. Fareham, which covers half of my constituency, will see a 62% rise, from 498 to 800 houses. Why are councils that have built more than their required share of housing being punished for their success, whereas the pressure has been taken off the Government’s political allies—generally Labour councils—despite their continued failures to deliver? It is beyond belief that rural areas, which are already struggling with infrastructure and a fragile environment, are being handed inflated housing targets while urban areas, with a far greater demand for housing, are seeing their targets reduced. That is not just poor planning; it is unfair.

Protecting the green belt and preserving our natural environment are non-negotiable, yet under the new policies we are seeing parts of the green belt reclassified as grey-belt land for development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said. We cannot allow unsustainable urban sprawl to destroy what we have worked so hard to preserve, including national parks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) outlined.

One of the most disheartening aspects of the debate is the way in which the Government have cut key programmes such as the right to buy and first-time buyers’ stamp duty relief, while simultaneously reducing the number of affordable homes for purchase. That is not the way to help people on to the property ladder, it is not the way to address the housing crisis, and it certainly should not come at the cost of rural England—and Labour MPs agree. Indeed, 14 Labour Front Benchers have campaigned against house building in their own constituencies, which contradicts the Prime Minister’s pledge to have a Government of builders, not blockers. If Labour cannot even get its own party to back its housing targets, how can it expect its Labour council leaders to do so?

[Joe Morris]

One of my first visits as a new constituency MP was to Allendale parish council, in one of the most rural areas of my constituency. The council told me that it recognises the need for housing, so it is rather cynical to say that it would be the death of rural England to build more houses.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is right in that he should have devolution, and the Government have brought that forward. His Labour leader may want to build more houses, but the Government’s algorithm is making it easier to build huge numbers of houses in rural England, where the infrastructure is harder to deliver, while generally Labour councils in urban centres are having their targets cut. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but I have just outlined the figures that show that that is the case, including in London. The Minister really needs to go back and re-look at the algorithm, as colleagues on this side of the House have asked him to.

In conclusion—many will be pleased to know—the road ahead is challenging, but it is not insurmountable. We can build the homes we need if we listen to communities, respect local voices and commit to sustainable development. The Government should rethink their house building algorithm to depoliticise the policy, and do local authorities the courtesy of not punishing their hard work on meeting previous targets. I stand with the Minister ready to come up with an algorithm that works for rural and urban areas. If he takes up that offer, the Conservative party will be committed to helping to deliver the 1.5 million homes he has outlined. Let us work together to ensure that the dream of home ownership remains within reach for everyone, and do so in a way that respects our environment, our countryside and our way of life.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I ask him to ensure that we have two minutes at the end for the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) to wind up.

15:43

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

I note your stricture on the two minutes at the end, Ms Jardine. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.

I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. I also thank him for so clearly articulating his concerns about the implications of housing targets for his constituency. As he might expect, I take issue with a number of the arguments he made, for reasons that I will come to, but no one can be in any doubt as to his commitment to forcefully representing the views of those he represents. I also thank the shadow Minister and other hon. Members for their contributions in what has been a thoughtful and well-informed debate.

I must make it clear at the outset that I am unable to comment on individual local plans or local planning applications, or, for that matter, on how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy. That is due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister. I can and will, however, make general comments as they relate to the various matters raised, and I will touch on each of the three specific points raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire in his opening speech.

I do not think any Members present would dispute that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis, and we have heard several arguments to that effect. The crisis is blighting the lives of not just those at the sharp end in temporary accommodation, but the many families out there desperate to buy a first home of their own. It is also hampering economic growth and productivity, and consuming ever-larger amounts of public money in the form of the rapidly rising housing benefit bill.

The crisis has many causes, but among the most important is a failure, over many decades, to build enough homes of all tenures to meet housing demand in both rural and urban areas. The Government are absolutely determined to tackle it head on, which is why our plan for change commits us to an ambitious and stretching—I have never been anything other than candid about the fact that it is incredibly stretching—milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. I gently say to the shadow Minister that it is not enough to will the ends; we have to will the means as well. That is why we have instituted various reforms to date, and we are planning more.

Planning reform is integral to meeting that manifesto commitment, which is why we have already overhauled the national planning policy framework to reverse the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023, and to introduce a range of measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure that the country needs.

We believe in a plan-led system. It is through local development plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their area needs, and those plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. However, we are clear that local decisions must be about how to meet housing need, not whether to do so at all. That is why we have restored mandatory housing targets, as the manifesto on which we stood and won a decisive victory last July committed us to doing. That means that local authorities must use the standard method as the basis for determining housing requirements in their local plans.

However, we made it clear that a mandatory method is insufficient if the method itself is not adequate to meet housing need. That is why our revised NPPF implements a new standard method for assessing housing needs, which aligns with our ambitions for 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. We think that the new standard method strikes the right balance. Indeed, we adjusted it from the proposals we consulted on last July in response to significant feedback from experts, developers and local authorities across the country, much of which pressed us on the fact that the formula we consulted on was not sufficiently responsive to affordability demands. The revised NPPF that we published on 12 December contains the adjusted method.

The new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing needs, and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable. It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers compared with the previous approach, which, as the shadow Minister will know, relied on out-of-date demographic projections and unevidenced and arbitrary adjustments.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire raised a specific concern about how the standard method translates into local plan making. Although local authorities are expected to use the standard method to assess housing needs, they are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the method on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, protected habitats and flood risk areas. Local authorities will need to consider these matters as they prepare their plans, but we expect them to explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need. That means maximising brownfield land, densifying available brownfield sites, working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth, and, where necessary, reviewing the green belt.

[Damian Hinds]

Does the Minister accept the point that local councils do not want to end up in legal proceedings? They can cost an awful lot of money, and there is an awful lot of weight placed on knowing that the plan is sound. A council takes a risk by deviating from the standard method. Yes, the guidance says that it can deviate as long as it can prove—well, I am genuinely not sure what the guidance says, but whatever it says is not totally clear to people. It leaves a great deal of nervousness that deviation would leave councils exposed to potentially very high costs, which are ultimately borne by local people. Could the Minister look at clarifying the advice on how one can deviate from the method?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will reflect on the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises about the clarity of the guidance, but local planning authorities can and do prepare, develop and submit local plans, arguing that those constraints exist and that their housing requirement should therefore be lower than the standard method indicates. They are expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local plan consultation. Ultimately, at plan examination, that will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and whether the plan is sound.

The right hon. Gentleman and others mentioned the balance between rural and urban housing targets. We recognise that the targets we introduced are ambitious and mean uplifts in many areas. However, we believe that the significant and entrenched nature of the housing crisis in England means that all areas of the country, including rural areas, must play their part in providing the homes that their communities need. That will enable us to deliver 1.5 million homes.

I strongly reject the idea that, through the new formula, we are reducing the number of houses that need to be built in urban areas. The new formula directs housing growth to our large urban areas. It does not do so on the basis of an arbitrary 35% urban uplift like the one the previous Government applied to the 20 largest cities and urban centres. Instead, across all city regions, the new standard method increases targets by an average of 20%, and through it housing growth is directed towards a wider range of urban areas—smaller cities and urban areas, as well as the core of large cities. We think that is a better method by which to proceed.

Several hon. Members mentioned the green belt. The manifesto on which the Government were elected was clear that the green belt has an important role to play, and that a number of its intentions, including preventing urban sprawl, have served our towns and cities very well over many decades. The Government will always look to brownfield first; ours is a brownfield-first approach. We took measures in the revised NPPF last year to strengthen that approach to brownfield land. We are consulting on a brownfield passport to make it easier to prioritise and accelerate delivery on brownfield land.

We have also been very clear that there is not sufficient land on brownfield registers across the country, let alone enough that is viable and in the right location, to build all the homes we need, so we need to take a different approach to the green belt to ensure that it better meets the needs of the present generation and future generations. Our changes are intended to ensure that we go from the haphazard approach to release and development under the previous Government—plenty of green belt was released haphazardly—to a more strategic and targeted approach that ensures that, where we are releasing the green belt, we release the right parts of it, such as lower-quality grey-belt land, and that golden rules apply so that communities have the quid pro quo of sufficient affordable housing, access to nature and good infrastructure.

[Andrew George]

On greenfield development, whether it be in the green belt or outside it, rural housing developments often take place in green locations. In the light of that, will the Minister ensure that the Government strengthen local authorities’ ability to use the rural exception policy? We would rather pay 10 times agricultural value than 100 times agricultural value, because we cannot deliver affordable homes on land at that price.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to rural exception sites, but the hon. Gentleman draws attention to an important point. Under the revised NPPF, it will be for local authorities to make these decisions and conduct green-belt reviews to identify the grey-belt land in their areas. The Government will provide guidance and support with the methodology, but ultimately local areas will make these decisions through the reviews they carry out. We have ensured that the sustainability of sites in the green belt is prioritised. No one wants isolated and disconnected development, which is why our policy asks local authorities to pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.

I want to touch briefly on infrastructure. The Government recognise that providing the homes and jobs we need is not sufficient to create sustainable, healthy places. Our communities also need to be supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire made clear. National planning policy expects local authorities to plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments, taking into account local strategies to improve the health, social and cultural wellbeing of all sections of the community.

The revised NPPF also includes changes intended to ensure that the planning system supports the increased provision and modernisation of key public services infrastructure such as health, blue light, library, adult education, university and criminal justice facilities. Local authorities should use their development plans to address the needs and opportunities for infrastructure. They should identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. Contributions from developers play an important role in delivering the infrastructure that mitigates the impacts of new development and supports growth. The Government are committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide appropriate, affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details on that matter in due course.

Before winding up, I want to touch on housing targets and national parks. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire knows I am well aware of the concerns about housing targets in his constituency and the particular challenges of setting those targets for East Hampshire, given the boundary overlaps with the South Downs national park. As part of our package of reforms in December 2024, we set out further guidance for local authorities on that very matter, and we provide flexibility in policy for those areas when calculating housing needs and setting targets.

The right hon. Member knows that this is primarily related to the availability of appropriate data for those areas. Officials in my Department regularly engage with officials from the Office for National Statistics and other stakeholders on a range of matters, including the data and statistics available to make decisions on housing needs. We will continue to do so as we drive forward our planning reforms. Although we expect all areas to contribute towards our housing ambitions, we recognise the unique role of national parks. That is why national policy is clear that within national parks, new housing should be focused on meeting affordable housing requirements and supporting local employment opportunities and key services.

We expect rural exception sites to come forward wherever possible. Policy helps local authorities meet the local housing needs of rural communities, enabling local people, those with a family connection or those with employment connections to live locally and help sustain thriving places. We want to go further in this regard to better support and increase rural affordable housing. We sought views on this issue specifically as part of the NPPF consultation last summer. We are committed to considering further measures to support affordable housing in rural communities as part of the work that is under way to produce a set of national policies for decision making next year.

I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire once again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss these matters and other hon. Members for taking part. If anyone has particular constituency concerns, I am more than happy to meet them, but I appreciate their putting their views on the record in this debate.

15:57

[Damian Hinds]

We have had a good debate; it has been constructive and thoughtful. I sincerely thank the Minister, who is a thoughtful Minister; he does listen, and he engages very positively. I also thank the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and all colleagues who have taken part in the debate. We all recognise that we need more housing— and we need more housing everywhere. Every part of the country has to play its part. We need a shift to the sorts of homes, of all tenures but including in the open market, that allow first-time buyers and young families to get on the housing ladder. The targets need to be realistic, given the availability of materials and people to build them, and they need to be accompanied by the critical infrastructure and services that people mention all the time at our surgeries.

We also need to make sure that the balance is right between urban and rural areas. I hope the Minister will reflect further on some of what has been discussed today, which is not made as a nimby-type argument, but is about making sure we can maintain our countryside—that is important for town dwellers as well as for rural dwellers—and helping the Government to deliver on their correct objectives on economic growth and decarbonisation. Thank you, Ms Jardine, for presiding over the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered housing targets in rural areas.

Cadet Forces

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of cadet forces.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. On Remembrance Sunday, I stood alongside other Bracknell residents at our war memorial in the town centre and reflected on the service of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they have made to protect us, including, of course, the ultimate sacrifice. It was an honour to stand there as Bracknell’s MP in my first year in the role. The ceremony concluded, and we processed to the church for a service of remembrance. There were proud veterans and proud military families marching with us, as well as a very large number of young people from Bracknell’s local cadet forces, all turned out in their uniforms on a Sunday morning to take part and honour our armed forces. I know that the picture was the same in services up and down the country.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. I will mention the representation that our cadet forces make in our local communities, because I too see it week in, week out, particularly on Remembrance Sunday. I think of the 1444 Brownhills squadron, the 425 Aldridge squadron and T.S. Vigo in Walsall Wood—there are many of them, but I will mention just a few. As a Member of Parliament, they make me incredibly proud when I see them. I hope that we can continue to support those groups up and down the country as well as all the people who work behind the scenes—the volunteers and the families—to support them in the work they do to serve our communities.

[Peter Swallow]

I will touch on many of the points made by the right hon. Member, but her intervention really shows that the commitment to our cadets and the volunteers who support them is felt across the House.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on cadet forces. In Slough, we have the Sea Cadets, Air Cadets and Army Cadets, which provide a fantastic development and learning opportunity for young people as well as playing an invaluable part in community events and services. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the cadet expansion programme is sufficiently funded, so that more young people can benefit from the amazing opportunities provided by being a cadet?

[Peter Swallow]

My hon. Friend speaks with great weight on this topic as the Chair of the Defence Committee. In that role, it is important that he recognises the huge contribution of not only our armed forces, but the cadets, so I welcome him taking part in this debate.

I will come on to the cadet expansion scheme later in my speech, but it is really important that we think about expanding all cadet forces, not just Combined Cadet Forces, although they are important. The cadet expansion scheme is very much targeted at CCF, so I would like to see it being well funded and looking across the five cadet forces.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. Cadet forces have featured very much in my life and in Northern Ireland. I declare an interest as a former solider for the Ulster Defence Regiment and for the Royal Artillery for some 11 and a half years. Across Northern Ireland, some 200 cadets and 50 adult volunteers, representing both the 1st and 2nd battalion Army Cadet forces, marched proudly through the streets of Ballyclare when they were first established back in October last year.

In Northern Ireland, the cadets bring both communities —the Protestants and Roman Catholics; the nationalists and the Unionists—together to serve in uniform. That is really important. We in Northern Ireland are very aware of that far-reaching goal, which they achieve. Everyone should be able to serve in the British Army, the Air Force or the Royal Navy without fear of attack from anyone. The cadet forces play their part in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, very much welcome their reorganisation?

[Peter Swallow]

I really welcome that intervention, which demonstrates the role that the cadets play in every corner of the United Kingdom and shows how important it is that opportunities for young people are shared across our regions and nations.

I return to the Remembrance Sunday service in Bracknell, which I was proud to attend. There I saw young people who had given up their Sunday mornings and woken up far earlier than any teenager wants to at the weekend to do something important: to remember. In October, I visited the Bracknell Army Cadets, alongside my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People and Councillor Georgia Pickering, Bracknell Forest council’s armed forces champion. I hope that the Minister will not mind my saying that he offered deep inspiration to the young people he spoke to, sharing his own personal stories of service, bravery and sacrifice in the armed forces. I hope he will also not mind my saying that I believe that the cadets, in turn, inspired him with their stories, their drive and their thoughtful questions.

In November I was privileged to visit Brackenhale school and meet its combined cadet force contingent. It was a real pleasure to see how staff, students and volunteers are rightly passionate about the impact that CCF has in creating a sense of belonging and teamwork among students, as well as supporting their wellbeing. There is an assumption that only private schools have CCFs; Brackenhale, however, is a state school. To challenge another stereotype, almost half of cadets in Berkshire are female.

It is crucial that the benefits of participation in the cadet forces should be open to all. As of April last year, almost 150,000 young people were involved in the cadets across the country, with 90,000 in the Army, Air, Sea or volunteer Cadets and 50,000 in the CCF. In the south-east, our cadet forces are supported brilliantly by the South East Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association, or SERFCA. I pay tribute to its outstanding work in supporting the cadets and the community of Bracknell. Its commitment to defence is truly inspirational.

The cadets provide a range of unique opportunities for young people to gain qualifications for CV enhancement, skill acquisition and personal development. For many, membership of the cadets had been a lifeline, providing positive guidance in times of crisis. For others, it is simply a fun thing to do and an opportunity to try new experiences with friends.

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

I received some correspondence from John McMillan from Sidmouth. He and his two brothers joined the Air Training Corps in the 1970s. Two of them went on to serve with the Royal Air Force and John himself went on to become a commercial pilot with British Airways, despite there being no previous connection to aviation whatever in his family. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the value of the cadets to social mobility and providing opportunities?

[Peter Swallow]

I absolutely agree. In fact, in 2021, the University of Northampton published an independent report into the cadet forces, led by Professor Simon Denny. Based on data gathered from more than 5,500 cadets, the report highlighted the strong benefits of cadet membership, including improved career prospects and, as the hon. Member said, social mobility.

The report stressed that the positive impact of the cadets was particularly strong for those who suffered economic and other disadvantages. Cadets tend to have a higher sense of self-esteem, heightened aspirations, a heightened sense of social responsibility and a higher respect of authority than their peers. Participation in CCF, the Denny report states, is also associated with improved school attendance, preventing serial absenteeism and changing young people’s life outcomes in the long run. It has also proven to boost communication, resilience, leadership and social skills, all of which businesses and employers look for in young people. That, in turn, makes the cadets a wonderful tool of social mobility, supporting children from different backgrounds with different needs, including those with special educational needs, and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The Denny report found that cadets eligible for free schools meals had higher self-confidence than their non-cadet peers.

Crucially, cadet forces ensure that young people, and the country as a whole, are more familiar with the fantastic work of our armed forces. It is important to remember that the cadets are not a recruitment tool for the services, but it is certainly true that, by expanding an understanding of what it means to serve in the armed forces, the cadets give more young people the opportunity to consider whether a forces career might be for them. The armed forces face a recruitment and retention crisis, with targets missed every year out of the past 14. I cannot emphasise enough that cadets are not a recruitment tool, but when we are facing such a significant challenge, anything that can be done to raise awareness of what it means to serve must surely be part of the overall solution.

Whatever path cadets take after they leave their troop, it is undoubtedly a good thing that they have come to understand more deeply the important role our armed forces play in keeping this nation safe. For example, two recent graduates of the Bracknell Army Cadets have gone on to become paramedics, and are looking to come back as adult volunteers after they have completed their paramedic training.

As we recognise the incredibly positive impact of cadet forces on young people, it is also critical to acknowledge the adult volunteers who make the whole thing run. The volunteers are instrumental in mentoring young cadets and instilling in them the values that go on to shape their futures. Their contribution to the lives of these young people is truly invaluable, and we simply could not run the cadets without them. Some of the volunteers I spoke with during my visits to local cadet forces had military backgrounds themselves, but many had no prior experience with the armed forces; they were simply interested in supporting young people, or were volunteering because of the impact that the cadets had had on their route to adulthood.

More than 26,000 adult volunteers work across the five cadet forces. To be an adult volunteer requires a huge commitment, which is too often overlooked. As the Denny report found, adult volunteers each provide around 400 hours of volunteering per year—a total of 10.4 million hours a year for all volunteers. Many of the volunteers I spoke to spend their weekends running activities for the cadets while undertaking training so that they can perform in their roles better. Running regular sessions each week also takes up much time, and many struggle to juggle their commitment to the cadets with their jobs. That is all in the context of performing a highly complex role, working with children, with all the issues around safeguarding that they need to stay on top of.

I ask the Minister: what more can be done to ensure that the valuable role of adult volunteers in the cadets is recognised, through awards, recognition and other policies? What more can be done to ensure that they can more easily balance their work and other commitments with their dedication to the cadets? As I say, without adult volunteers, cadet forces cannot run. In these challenging times, with the rising cost of living, volunteers are too often forced to deprioritise their commitment to volunteering because they are being pulled in too many directions. In CCFs, school staff are already under significant pressure in their day jobs, so what can be done to ensure sufficient numbers of volunteers to support our valuable cadet forces?

The funding of the five cadet forces is complex, and each is independent of the others, but it is estimated that the Ministry of Defence spends around £180 million on the cadet forces annually. The Denny report notes:

“There is no single figure that can be said to identify the return on investment. However, where calculations of financial return can be carried out based on models produced by HM Government, their sum is vastly more than the annual cost of the Cadet Forces.”

The report concludes:

“Spending c. £180 million a year on the Cadet Forces is an excellent use of taxpayers’ money.”

With that in mind, will the Minister set out more clearly how the five cadet forces are funded and to what extent the funding has kept pace with inflation over time? The Department for Education recently ended a £1 million scheme that aimed to support school staff instructors in state schools. What has that funding cut meant for CCFs on the ground? Given the broader context of the funding pressures that have been affecting each of the combined forces over the last decade, will the Minister set out what continued support there is for CCFs? Under the previous Government, much emphasis was placed on expanding access to school-based CCFs. Will the Minister say whether similar schemes have been looked at to support the other cadet forces, to drive an increase in the number of cadets serving in the Army, Air, Sea and volunteer Cadets, as well as in CCFs?

As I have already stressed, although cadets are not a recruitment tool into the armed forces, they are an incredibly important tool for expanding social understanding of the military. Has the Minister looked at the role of the cadet forces in raising awareness of the value of our armed forces and the indirect impact they have on addressing the retention and recruitment crisis? I ask all of this in the context of the review into the cadets that he is conducting. Will he please set out further what the review is looking at, and how it will tie into the strategic defence review? The Minister is a proud champion for the wider armed forces community, including the cadets, so I very much look forward to hearing him speak on this important topic.

16:15

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome this debate, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for securing it. I also thank him for inviting me to his constituency, where I met his cadet force. The questions I was asked by the cadets were as difficult to answer to those we get from the Opposition. It was inspiring to see such young people, who were full of life of life and energy, holding me to account when I went down to visit. I thought it was absolutely superb.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) that there are a couple of statistics that are really useful at outlining the social benefits of cadets to the UK and the youth of the nation. If the cadet experience helps to change the life outcomes of just 1% of cadets a year, so that they are in employment, education or training, the annual costs of the cadet forces would be covered. That is a fantastic statistic, which shows that this is a spend-to-save model.

In terms of health and wellbeing alone, participation in cadet forces produces an average annual return of between £90 million and £120 million each year. Each year, it is estimated that the lifetime value of vocational qualifications gained by the most disadvantaged cadets is well over £130 million. When we start racking and stacking those costs, the benefits of cadets far outweigh some of the effort and energy to get it moving in the first place. Finally, adult volunteers, who the cadets rely on so heavily, benefit from being in the cadet force and can gain qualifications that can generate a total increase in potential lifetime earnings of around £50 million. When we pool all that together, the impact and benefits of cadets are definitely not lost on me or the Government.

As one of the largest voluntary uniformed youth organisations, with roughly 130,000 people across the country, the cadet forces have two particular compelling benefits. First and most importantly, they transform young people’s sense of purpose and—I agree—boost their life chances. Secondly, cadets play a vital role connecting defence to society, at a time when there is perhaps more distance between the two than there has ever been in the past. That is crucial at a time of rising threats to Britain’s security. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell mentioned, we must really understand what service means.

Let us consider the first of those two points. Independent research has shown that cadets benefit in multiple ways from membership. Not only do they find it engaging, challenging and fun, but taking part in activities and gaining new experiences can be life changing. I recently went to see the Sea Cadets in my constituency with the professor from the university, and we talked through some of the benefits and really got into the weeds. I was encouraged not only by the individuals and children I saw going through that process, but by the amazing instructors. When we combine the two, the magic happens. That is the fundamental principle of the cadets.

Taking part in the activities and gaining new experiences can also be life changing for many. They improve, for example, their mental and physical wellbeing—an area where we know there is an increasing need across society. Cadets develop the self-confidence to achieve things they would otherwise never have attempted, or never had the opportunity to attempt. Perhaps even more valuably, if they do not achieve their objectives immediately, they develop the resilience to keep on going despite that. In the process, they might discover individual talents and attributes that may otherwise remain dormant.

For some, particularly those who may be struggled at school, participating in cadet forces improves their educational chances of success. School attendance and behaviour tend to improve among cadets, and they are far less likely to be excluded from school. Those who come from economically disadvantaged families are among the greatest beneficiaries.

Let us not forget those who step forward as the adult volunteers, as my hon. Friend mentioned. They are dedicated people who are the inspiration behind the cadet forces’ success. The volunteers, too, gain from the experience and learn new skills that can benefit their careers.

As I have said, cadets play a vital role in connecting defence with society. The membership of the cadets is significantly more diverse and geographically spread out than that of our armed forces. Young people become more aware of career options at an early age, and because cadets are more likely to have a wider spread of skills tested, they are better positioned to choose their future direction as they move forward. The cadet experience plays an important part in boosting awareness of the armed forces in both communities and schools, and this often encourages individuals to pursue a career in the military—although I restate that it is definitely not a recruitment tool. It broadens their experience, opportunities and options.

More than one third of service personnel spent time in the cadet forces, interestingly enough, and they are more likely to go on to lead, and to serve longer than other recruits. A large proportion of the regimental sergeant majors in the Army were cadets or came through Harrogate. The cadet forces give young people and adult volunteers a sense of service, a feeling of belonging, and pride in our country and national institutions, which is really important.

[Wendy Morton]

The Minister, like all of us here, is a great advocate for the cadet forces. On that basis, will he continue to make sure that they receive the funding that they need to keep the units alive and kicking and up and running?

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for that comment. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the funding for cadets continues, but also that funding is broadened out and going not just to certain schools, but to state schools and the more disadvantaged across society. Interestingly, I went to a state school and always wanted to join the cadets, but there was no cadet force available for me to join, so we have to spread the opportunity as well as possible. Interestingly, because of covid, and indeed a variety of other reasons, cadet funding went down from 2019 to 2024. It has stabilised now. We are doing a review of the cadets, which will be wrapped into the strategic defence review when it comes out. There will be more to follow in that case.

That is probably a good segue into some of the challenges. Establishing and running a cadet unit, either in the community or in a school setting, is not always easy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell mentioned. There are issues with funding and human resources. With cadet numbers growing, attracting and retaining enough capable and motivated individuals to deliver the cadet experience is an ongoing challenge. We continue to work to encourage adults to join the cadets. We have recently made it an essential criterion for those companies that wish to achieve the gold standard of the employer recognition scheme that they show support to cadets and cadet force volunteers. Similarly, through the Cadet Vocational College, there is a range of opportunities for adult volunteers to gain nationally accredited vocational qualifications.

I would like to come to some of the questions posed by my hon. Friend. The role of adult volunteers, in addition to the other commitments that they have, piles a lot of pressure on some adult volunteers, but it is offset in some cases by the qualifications and benefits they can get. However, we need to do much more work to attract more people into the system. I was really interested and proud to see many of those volunteers receive MBEs in the last set of honours. All the uniformed adult volunteers are eligible for award of the Cadet Forces Medal after 12 years of service, and I saw many people wearing it with pride when I went to see the Sea Cadets in my constituency.

We are looking at whether there are sufficient numbers of volunteers, and I would like to see a process whereby we make it more attractive to be a volunteer. How can we ease that burden? How can we help them to balance their personal or professional life and their volunteer service? We will work on that in the future—it is coming out in the review. This is an issue that came out really strongly from the Army Cadets, the RAF and the Navy. How do we make it more attractive and how do we get more veterans, for example, to support the cadet services?

We are talking about the funding of cadet forces, and I mentioned broadening it out from private schools to state schools and the more disadvantaged areas and making it slightly more targeted to ensure better social mobility, and, importantly, looking at more innovative ways to support the funding and linkages to local units and support organisations that are close by. My hon. Friend also mentioned the cuts to CCF as a whole. I would reflect on the overall spending, which has stabilised —it has gone down over £11 million since 2019. We are looking at ways to ensure that there are more cadets and more opportunities for those who take part, but that will come out in the strategic defence review in due course. If my hon. Friend is content, I will move on to my closing remarks.

This Government are convinced—and I am convinced by what I have seen when visiting cadets all over the country, with Members from both sides of the House—that the benefits of the cadets are absolutely non-debatable. The benefits—not only for the young people who participate, but for the volunteers and society as a whole —and the statistics show that it is a spend-to-save programme.

The cadet forces represent excellent value for money. The research has found that defence expenditure on them results in a significant return on investment, not only in monetary terms but through the broader societal benefits. Although they are sometimes difficult to gauge, the analysis suggests that those benefits—for society, defence, and the young people and adult volunteers involved—are absolutely unequivocal. Therefore, while maintaining our current ambition to increase the number of cadets in schools, we are also looking to significantly grow the number of community cadets and broaden the programme to support youngsters throughout the UK to enrich their lives by choosing to join the cadets.

[Richard Foord]

In November last year, the Department for Education announced that it would end its £1.1 million grant for the expansion of cadet forces. Will the Ministry of Defence backfill, or make good on, the £1.1 million that the DFE intends to cut?

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. I have had multiple discussions with the DFE about how, when the SDR comes out, we can ensure that there are opportunities for cadet forces across all schools, or as many as possible. That is definitely at the forefront of my mind, and it is included in the broader wrap of defence spending that will be pushed out in due course, after the strategic defence review.

To summarise, by providing as many opportunities as possible, we can support youngsters throughout the UK whose lives are enriched by choosing to join the cadets. It is a spend-to-save model, which, at a time of societal and geopolitical uncertainty, helps us to do our part by building community coherence and reconnecting Britain with its armed forces.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Safety: Schools

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered road safety around schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and to have secured this debate on such an important topic. On 12 November last year, a young boy left school at the end of the day, stepped into the road directly outside his school and never returned home. That terrible accident took place at a school in my constituency. Investigations remain ongoing and, therefore, I will not go into specific details of what happened, but at the heart of this is an 11-year-old boy, a student at the nearby school and a much-loved son. He was crossing Wrexham Road, a busy arterial road into Chester, where the speed limit is 40 mph. Tragically, he did not make it home that night; I cannot imagine what his parents have gone through. It is every family’s worst nightmare. I am incredibly grateful to his parents for meeting me, and for their work in their son’s memory to do all they can to ensure that no other family has to face such a tragedy.

That accident has shaken the community to its core. The family, friends, school and wider community, many of whom have voiced concerns about speeding and road safety before, are determined to make a change. But it is clear that this is not just about this tragic incident, for which the investigation remains ongoing, nor is just about that school and that road. It is about every child’s journey to and from school, and the value we place on their safety and security.

I have spoken to many constituents who want to see a meaningful change. I want to mention the Make Wrexham Road Safe campaign and the team from the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign, who have met me and been so helpful in raising support and interest. Like them, I want to see long-lasting, effective changes to make roads outside schools safer. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), my neighbouring MP, who also met me about this subject.

In Chester West and Chester, there are 19 schools located on 30 mph roads. There are four that have speed limits of 40 mph. Shockingly, one is located on a road with a 60 mph speed limit. As I understand it, current legislation allows a degree of subjectivity to speed limits and how local authorities seek to implement them. According to Department for Transport guidance, updated on 17 March 2024, a speed limit of 20 mph may be put in place for

“major streets where there are—or are likely to be—significant numbers of journeys on foot, and/or where pedal cycle movements are an important consideration, and this outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic”,

and

“residential streets in cities, towns and villages, particularly where the streets are being used by people on foot and on bicycles, there is community support and the characteristics of the street are suitable”.

Needless to say, for every school, there are significant journeys made on foot and on bicycle. Where this tragic incident occurred, on one side of the 40 mph road is a school for children aged seven to 18, and on the other side, a new residential estate that will have approximately 1,500 new homes, many of which have already been built. There are also proposals to build an additional new school to support the development. Further down the road is a nursery, all within half a mile of each other.

As our housing needs have grown, developments have sprung up everywhere, yet the surrounding roads often do not reflect their new residential setting. It is clear that there are a significant number of journeys on foot and on bicycle. The guidance asks that this

“outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic”.

In this instance, there are 15,000 people who have signed a petition and who clearly believe it does outweigh the disadvantage.

The school, the residents’ association for the neighbouring housing development and I have been inundated by correspondence from parents and residents asking me to do what I can to campaign for a speed limit reduction outside schools. Therefore, with regard to the balance of advantage and disadvantage, I do not think that anyone would mind slowing to 20 mph around a school if it means that children are safer.

Let me be clear: I am not calling for a Wales-style blanket 20 mph limit, but for Wrexham Road and the many roads outside schools across the country, a reduction to 20 mph seems perfectly rational and appropriate. I therefore suggest that a reasonable compromise could be that local authorities are directed to have a default 20 mph limit outside schools, and that any deviation from that—any increase to the limit—would need to be for a justifiable reason, subject to the context of each case. The onus would be on justifying greater speeds, not on justifying why 20 mph is appropriate. That would better protect against and mitigate needless tragedies, and manage speed outside schools for the good of our children.

As a mum of teenage children, I know the reality is that children do not always assess risk or concentrate as we might want. Primary school-age children, in particular, can make mistakes and miscalculations when crossing roads. Sadly, they are sometimes distracted by phones or friends, or they may simply be daydreaming. Of course, teaching them about road safety is also vital. We all remember being taught to stop, look and listen. I know that the local schools, including where the accident took place, and our fantastic local police have already been doing so much to teach and encourage children to stay safe on our roads.

However, we are talking about young children, who can be easily distracted and may make mistakes. Reducing speed can make a huge difference to the severity of an accident involving a vehicle. There is a 2.5% chance of a fatality if a pedestrian is hit by a car travelling at 20 mph. That increases drastically to a 90% chance of a fatality if the car is travelling at 40 mph. Given such a stark contrast in outcomes, surely a 20 mph limit outside schools is suitable and sensible.

Added to that mix is the fact that many schools are now located in areas that are far busier, with many more cars and lorries using the road system than it was originally designed for. Wrexham Road is a clear example of that. As mentioned earlier, a significant development has taken place, and there are more people and road users living in the area than before. That road would once have gone through gentle Cheshire fields and farmland, but is now in a major urban area. Wrexham Road leads to a business park, the main A road that joins Chester to Wrexham, and the M53, which runs to Merseyside. We have become more reliant on cars, and the transport system has therefore changed to meet the demands of drivers. Outside schools, however, the primary focus ought to be not on how swiftly how we can get past, but on the children, who are at greater risk.

I am fortunate to have many amazing schools in my constituency. Although not all of them border a large housing development or an arterial road, Chester South and Eddisbury has a very large rural community, which brings different challenges that we must mitigate to prevent accidents outside schools. Country lanes and roads are by nature more dangerous than roads in urban areas. Often, they are narrower, have blind bends and their condition is worse. Delamere Church of England primary school and Eaton primary school have a 20 mph road directly outside the entrance, but a busy 60 mph road adjacent that pupils have to walk along or across. Three schools in my constituency, Bickerton Holy Trinity Church of England primary school, Bridgemere Church of England primary school and Calveley primary academy, have 60 mph roads directly outside their grounds, with a 20 mph limit only when lights show. I do not consider that sufficient mitigation.

We rightly encourage children to travel to and from school by bike or on foot—it is good for them and for the environment—but many parents do so with trepidation, because they are concerned that the conditions outside school are too dangerous. I am a mum, so I share the concerns of so many parents across Chester South and Eddisbury, and indeed the country, that their children are at greater than necessary risk when walking to school. That ought not to be the case.

It is worth noting that in many cases, we in the United Kingdom are the exception when it comes to traffic management outside schools. In the US and many European countries, strict laws regarding speed, including school zones, mean that speed can be reduced significantly. We can learn and implement lessons that will help us to reduce incidents outside schools and reassure parents, teachers and pupils that it is safe for them to go to and from school.

In concluding, I reiterate a point to which I alluded earlier: when considering speed restrictions and mitigations around school, the overriding focus should be the safety of the children. Slowing down to 20 mph outside a school is such a small change to make to prevent the life-changing consequences that we in Chester South and Eddisbury sadly know all too well. We can and must do more to ensure that every child returns home after school. They are at the start of their lives, with so much potential, and their safety is paramount. We can do good by revising policy and rethinking speed limits for them and their families.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I ask them to limit their speeches to around four minutes.

16:42

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for your chairmanship today, Ms Jardine. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for securing the debate, and for her passionate and powerful opening remarks. The hearts of everyone in this Chamber go out to her constituent’s family. That was an unbearable thing to have happened, and the hon. Lady is right that, sadly, it was not an isolated incident; unfortunately, across the country, incidents like that happen far too often.

I want to refer to an incident that happened at a school in my Harlow constituency, Pemberley academy, on 17 September 2023. A car, breaking the 30 mph speed limit, came around a corner far too quickly, came off the road and went straight into the perimeter fence of the school. Fortunately, that happened on a weekend; if it had happened on a weekday, there would have been severe casualties, because it took place where the parents and their children line up to get into school.

Despite a petition led by the teachers at the school and signed by all the parents and local residents—including one local councillor at the time—nothing has been done to remedy the situation. This is not a political criticism—I recognise that Essex county council wants to do more—but there is so much red tape that it takes too long for communities and community groups, such as those mentioned by the hon. Lady, to make the changes that they want in their communities. I hope that a benefit of the English devolution Bill will be that power is given back to local communities, so that they have a greater say on what changes they can make to tackle this issue.

I want to add something positive and pay tribute to the work done by Essex county fire and rescue. The hon. Lady mentioned the importance of education, although she is right that education alone is not everything. We recognise that, with all the will in the world, children—especially young children, when we talk about primary schools—are not always going to look both ways and use the techniques that we have mentioned.

I pay tribute to the work of Essex county fire and rescue. Its FireBreak scheme at Harlow fire station teaches young people how to be fire officers and looks at road safety as well. It has visited Harlow college and other educational institutions in Harlow to talk about road safety education. It is important that you can never be too young or too old for road safety education. Although we often talk about how important it is to teach young ones, the hon. Lady made the point that teenagers and older children can be distracted too.

I welcome this debate and the ongoing conversation with the Minister and shadow Minister, who will be bored of me talking about this topic, because I spoke on it yesterday as well. We need to look at how we can give power back to local communities who know best how to ensure that the areas around their schools are safe.

16:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for securing this debate. Every hon. Member’s contribution will be constructive, but I want to tell those present in Westminster Hall what we are doing in Northern Ireland, because we are doing the very things that the hon. Lady has asked for.

Road safety is a topical subject. I am a vocal supporter of the 20 mph speed limit near schools in Northern Ireland. I pushed for that in my constituency and have been successful in getting those schemes.

Schools have also been promoting the walk to school scheme. One of my local schools, Victoria primary school in Newtownards, has been taking part in a phenomenal scheme where children get points for their house team if they walk, cycle or scoot to school. For those who have to drive, there are points for those who park on the main road and walk a section. That is an exciting way of getting children to incorporate exercise into their daily life and into their mindset. The key question for parents is: are my children safe walking to school? They will not consider walking if cars are zooming by at 30, 40 or 50 mph, as the hon. Lady referred to.

It is enough that the benefits of a safe school environment mean that no child is needlessly injured, or worse, when heading to school, but there are other benefits that we need to consider. In Northern Ireland, we have managed to save half a million pounds in a year from families doing the school run on foot, scooter or bike instead of by car, with schools participating in the Sustrans Active School Travel programme.

At the end of 2023, the number of children travelling actively to participating schools increased from 30% to 42%, the number of pupils being driven to school fell from 60% to 47%, and the number of children completing physical activity for at least 60 minutes each day increased from 29% to 46%. This is not just a road safety issue; it is an educational issue as well.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; she always responds positively to our requests. The matter is devolved, but I am trying to put forward what we are doing in Northern Ireland as a suggestion for what needs to be done to back up the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who secured this debate. My colleague Michelle McIlveen MLA played a massive part in that scheme in her position on the Committee for Infrastructure and as a Minister. She and I represent the same constituency in different places: she in the Assembly and me here.

A vehicle travelling at 20 mph would stop in time to avoid a child running out three car lengths in front. The same vehicle travelling at 25 mph would hit the child at 18 mph. That is roughly the same impact as a child falling from an upstairs window to the ground—probably, in most cases, concrete. The greater the impact speed, the greater the chance of death. A pedestrian hit at 30 mph has a significant—one in five—chance of being killed. If the speed goes up to 35 mph, that chance is one in three. My point is that the lower the speed, the more the chance of surviving.

We need to ensure that safety is paramount. When we can encourage more people to consider not driving to school, it is better for the environment, better physically, and better for wee minds. Ultimately, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury put forward a case to make it safer for children outside schools. I support her and wish her well in the campaign. I very much look forward to the Minister’s contribution, and that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), as well.

16:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for securing this debate. It is such an important topic, and the data has cross-country significance. She gave a powerful testimony about her own constituent and the impact on their family. That situation is replicated for many of us across our constituencies.

It is deeply depressing that according to Department for Transport statistics, 14% of child fatalities on Great Britain’s roads occur during the morning school run between 7 and 9 o’clock, and 23% happen after school between 3 and 5 o’clock. Even insurance companies are now taking that account. With a 43% reduction in road collisions during the school holidays, we know that it is a significant factor impacting our constituents.

I am a former teacher. The schools I have visited in my constituency, including St Katherine’s school in Snodland, Aylesford school and Walderslade grammar school, have all expressed, through their youth voice, concerns about the dangers associated with getting to school. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned safety, but there are broader concerns around the school run. I want to talk briefly about them, but also about some of the solutions that my council has looked at.

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is absolutely correct. Speed is a concern around schools, and I wholly endorse the 20 mph speed limit. We have introduced that around many of our urban schools across Medway, and we have seen a significant reduction in accidents. However, it is not just about speeding. It is also about the conduct of parents when they are picking up and dropping off their children. In some cases, the conduct of those picking up their children is below the standard that would be expected in any other situation, which has led to other safety concerns about, for example, vehicles mounting the pavements and aggression shown towards staff in many schools, with parking assistants sent to resolve the issue. That is an increasing concern, as is the amount of pollution outside schools.

Medway council has looked at a couple of schemes related to the safer streets initiative that was introduced under the previous Government. The council won £300,000 to introduce a school streets initiative. That initiative has not yet been mentioned, but in short, it restricts access to school streets completely during pick-up and drop-off times by using automatic number plate recognition camera technology, which reduces the volume of traffic to only the residents and businesses using that street. It dramatically improves road safety, reduces pollution and encourages active transport, so it serves as a real boon to getting kids out of the car and into a more active transport mode.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for her work on this important issue, and I offer my condolences to the family of her constituent. My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and there are examples of such schemes around the country. There are several in Reading, and we have certainly benefited from exactly that type of measure. However, I gently suggest that the wider area needs to be considered. There can sometimes be a build-up of traffic on the edge of the school streets zone. My experience of the Reading examples is that integrating such schemes with other measures, such as the 20 mph zone, can help to reduce the risk of accidents and pollution. Does my hon. Friend agree with that point?

[Tristan Osborne]

I absolutely agree. In fact, the next part of the school streets programme is about increasing awareness and education within schools to ensure that they are aware that the scheme is not just about moving traffic to somewhere else, but part of an active transport strategy.

Medway has introduced that initiative, which has worked very well among 12 primary schools. Kent county council has introduced a similar scheme to promote education. It encourages cycling awareness and the use of high-visibility key fobs and other items for cyclists to wear. Again, increasing education is critical.

This is an important issue for many schools. I have been working with schools in my constituency to promote their knowledge and awareness of the school streets initiative, so that they can apply to the council and ask for involvement. Will the Minister make some of those examples and case studies of school streets more widely known about to encourage our local councils to pursue that agenda so that we can see a significant reduction in accidents? Would the Minister also be keen to promote the ideas of many of our leading councils around the country about education and cycling provision, and some of the benefits of those programmes, to ensure that our children are not getting in the car every morning when they go to school?

16:55

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), not just for securing this debate, but for speaking powerfully and sensitively on this delicate subject; I offer my condolences to the family who she represents.

If only the incident that the hon. Lady described was unique, but it is not—it is sadly multiplied many times across the country. According to the charity Brake, five children are seriously injured or killed on UK roads every day. In south-west England, 442 children were injured on roads near schools in just one year—an utterly unacceptable situation. I will use my limited time today to talk about prevention and one town that I represent, Ottery St Mary, where a small intervention, through infrastructure and regulation, could help to prevent accidents and awful consequences in future.

In Ottery St Mary, there is a pedestrian bridge, Coleridge bridge, where many schoolchildren can avoid the roads and cross the river—at least, they could. Last year, a tree blew on to the bridge and made it impassable for pedestrians. I looked into why the repair work on that bridge is so slow and discovered that one reason is the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016: priority is being given to the salmon spawning season on the River Otter over the safety children going to and from school.

I appreciate that the Minister is answering for the Department for Transport and not for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but she should know that I have written to DEFRA about the issue and had a most unsatisfactory reply about the regulations. I am seeking an exception to the regulations on salmon spawning where the safety of children and vulnerable people is at stake.

Coleridge bridge is just one example of a rigid policy designed for another public policy imperative having unintended but serious consequences for public safety. As one Ottery resident put it to me in an email,

“do we have to wait for there to be a serious incident involving a child or an elderly resident for prompt action?”

It has been over a year, and I understand that no work will begin until at least next summer. Given that our local authority, Devon county council, has the money and is ready to do the work, I urge that we in this place do our job to make the regulations more flexible to look after the safety of young people.

16:58

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this important debate on road safety around schools, which is an issue that regularly comes up in my mailbox.

I have raised the issue of safety of children travelling to and from school in a debate on school transport in this place before. Every child in Northumberland deserves safe access to the best education; no child’s safety should ever be jeopardised in the process of achieving that. From Queen Elizabeth high school in Hexham to Haydon Bridge high school, Haltwhistle primary academy, Sele first school and Darras Hall primary school, every child in my constituency and beyond travelling to, from and around school should be safe. Yet between 2019 and 2023, some 1,414 young pedestrians and cyclists in the north-east were injured. Of those, 286 were seriously injured and six were fatally injured.

I will use my time to highlight one particular situation. There are three schools situated on Callerton Lane in Ponteland: Ponteland high school, Ponteland community primary school and Henry’s Hut pre-school. Insufficient signage on Callerton Lane to indicate the school zone in which there are not one but three schools continues to jeopardise the safety of students, teachers, parents and local residents. I am sure that every single Member from any party can agree that traffic calming measures, better road surfaces and clear signage should be one of the greatest priorities in local areas.

In rural regions with a higher rate of car ownership, the need for better signage and road conditions is even more pressing. Conducting speed surveys is a necessary first step, but, as is the case for Callerton Lane, they must be done in the correct place and the correct manner to ensure complete accuracy. I have urged and continue to urge Northumberland county council to reconduct some of the speed surveys around Callerton Lane to achieve total accuracy in determining accurate speed limits for the local schools of Ponteland.

Road safety education is just as important as improving road safety around schools and children should receive a comprehensive education to improve road awareness. I acknowledge the vital work of Road Safety GB North East and its new campaign to improve awareness on road and traffic safety for young people. I am pleased to see the pledge to fix 1 million potholes and give vital funding to improve our roads and elements of the travel journey to and from school. Through those local campaigns to raise awareness, urgent attention to the condition of my roads, which has already been pledged by this Government, and improvement to the signage around schools, our young people can receive the safety and security that they need and deserve.

I will briefly highlight one of my constituents, Rory, who wrote to me. He is very concerned about road safety on his street near his first school after his garden wall was knocked over by an Asda van. I will be writing to his local council to ask that signage on his street is improved.

17:02

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this important debate and on her excellent contribution.

One key aspect of road safety around schools is drop-off and pick-up time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) has mentioned. I took action on that issue previously as a councillor—I continue to take action on it as an MP—working with fellow councillors, the local authority, the school leadership, the police and residents at Oakfield primary academy, where there had been problems the likes of which have been alluded to.

In Warwickshire, Eastlands primary school in my constituency was the site of a county council school street pilot scheme. Prior to that, there was what the council described as “inconsiderate parking”, “congestion”, and sometimes “complete gridlock” and a “threat to safety”. As I am sure we can all agree, that is a perennial problem, but the school street approach can help. In the case of the pilot scheme, restrictions were introduced using a traffic order. Two park-and-stride car parks gave parents alternative places to park and a new school crossing patrol on a busy road was implemented, all of which helped.

My experience in this space has led me to some observations, which the Minister will perhaps consider. Far more people are driving their children to school now than ever before. We may be able to do things with more public transport, safer cycle paths and more active lifestyles and walking, which are relevant to Government priorities for the NHS and transport in the long term. Some schools are in tightly packed residential streets, and that cannot be overcome in the short, medium or perhaps even long term. More children are attending schools away from their home address through either parental choice or local authority allocation. That can have an effect, because more journeys are being taken, so perhaps more work can be done on capacity.

Council enforcement can be done only when traffic regulation orders are in place, and they can be created only when a proper survey has taken place. Again, resources will then be an issue. I have spoken about this to the police, to which the public often turn. It can enforce only in some cases, and, with the best will in the world, it will never be able to enforce in this matter regularly. It is therefore vital that a partnership approach is used, whereby the school leadership liaises with parents and educates students, local residents are involved in discussions so that their frustrations are heard, the council and local councillors are aware and active, and the police are kept informed. I have tried to use that approach, and I have liaised with local residents. In the case of Oakfield primary, in my constituency, I encouraged a local business, Cemex, to pay for cartoon signs—I am sure we have all seen them around schools—designed to prevent people parking on grass verges or kerbs near the school. That has helped, as well.

More broadly, schools can consider other innovative options, such as arranging for students in some areas to walk to school. However, I am acutely aware that we need not to overburden hard-pressed teachers with additional responsibilities. They are already, quite understandably, reluctant to become quasi-traffic enforcement officers when dealing with people who are, after all, the parents of their students. I therefore welcome the Government’s renewed guidance, helping councils to deliver school streets that work for schools and local communities. I also commend the Government’s Active Travel England agency for recently releasing guidance to local authorities to help them implement school streets. It is important work.

In conclusion, there is no panacea, sadly, but more can definitely be done. I am glad that Warwickshire county council, working with local borough councils, hopes to introduce more school street schemes, focusing on primary schools. Those schemes can have a profound effect on improving the health of young people, reducing the risk of disagreements between parents and local residents, and, most importantly, making our schools much safer for our young people.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Would the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) like to make some remarks? We will then move on to the Front Bench at eight minutes past.

17:06

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

I very much appreciate you allowing me to speak, Ms Jardine, given that I was late to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for securing it.

I have not prepared, so I will just make some broad points. I acknowledge everything that has been said today, and I would like to pick up on a few issues. In my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen, virtually all the primary schools are on key trunk roads, which unfortunately makes it difficult to consider school street schemes. Big wagons are passing continually and people are rushing to work. While each school might have a 20 mph zone outside it during school times, it is regularly and repeatedly ignored. Without enforcement and without recognition that there are consequences for people’s actions, it seems that we will have continual close calls in and around those schools. I ask the Minister—as I have asked her before—the extent to which we should be driving for the adoption of average speed cameras around primary schools as a way of embedding enforcement in the areas around schools on main roads, such as those in my constituency.

I would also like to touch on the point made by a couple of Opposition Members about not waiting until people are killed or injured before we act. Far too often, when local people raise a clear risk or threat—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) did—or when anyone around knows an accident is waiting to happen, they are told, “We have to wait for someone to be killed or injured before we act.” It is ridiculous, it is outmoded and it does not meet international best practice. We have to move to a community-led, risk-based approach that looks to prevent and predict accidents, rather than respond and react.

17:08

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this important debate. She spoke powerfully about the fact that our road safety has to be children-centred. I agree with her that 20 mph zones around schools should be the default position, and any council would then have to make an application stating why it should not happen.

We have heard from the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) and the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae). I hope I got all their constituencies right. All the hon. Members told heartbreaking stories and gave sensible suggestions about how we can make roads around schools safer for children.

Road traffic accidents devastate families and communities and too many children are killed or injured where they should be safest. Every death is a tragedy, but it is not inevitable. Although there has been a reduction in the number of road fatalities in recent decades, particularly for children, there is still much more we can do. Over the past six years an average of 1,190 children have been injured each month within 500 metres of their school.

A third of road fatalities are caused by speeding. Bath community speed watch in my constituency, a bunch of highly dedicated and motivated people who stand for hours in all weather, have caught over 80,000 speeding vehicles. The volunteers do truly lifesaving work to reduce speed and dangerous collisions in Bath. I have talked to them, and as we have heard already, they often get abused for doing a job that saves lives. Speeding kills. Better enforcement of existing laws has been central to reducing death on our roads, and I was surprised to learn that almost half of traffic accidents occur between 3 pm and 6 pm, when children have already finished school. Bath community speed watch are therefore doing a very important job. They are also going into schools and educating young children on how to keep safe. I wish the children would then take home the message that the most dangerous thing is speeding cars, and also sometimes the way parents behave outside schools—something I have never understood in all my life as a parent, councillor or MP.

Families need to be less reliant on the car. However, far too many people do not have any alternatives to car travel because we do not have enough good bus services. Many of my young constituents have to rely on very bad bus services. All those things are linked. Young people do not cycle enough. Why? Because they do not get adequate training.

[Andy MacNae]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I fear I do not have time, but I am sure the hon. Member would make an excellent point.

Bikeability is an important scheme that we should all support, but the funding from the Department for Transport is currently not secure.

On average, nine young children are harmed on our roads every day, and 3,402 children aged seven and under were killed or injured on roads in Britain in 2022. There are many brilliant projects and many dedicated people who want to make a difference, but we need to do a lot more. To repeat what the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury said, we need to create road safety that is centred entirely around children. They are the most vulnerable and they are the future generation. We cannot afford to see all those thousands of young people injured and killed on our roads, and 2025 should be the year when we make a big difference to that.

17:13

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this important debate and the powerful speech she gave. I add my condolences to the family of her constituent who so tragically died outside their school.

Road safety is something that we have to take incredibly seriously. This is the second debate in Westminster Hall this week on the subject of road safety, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken powerfully in it. One death on the roads is one death too many, and it is particularly painful when the life lost is that of a child, who had so much in front of them and a whole life to live. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury said, in each and every one of them was so much potential.

The risk profile in such accidents involving a child is self-evidently higher, and the impact on the lives of those around them is unimaginable. I do not think any of us—unless any Member has been in that place—can imagine the pain, horror and emotional rollercoaster that people go through in that nightmare scenario.

It is of no solace whatsoever to those families who have lost a loved one, but it is important to reflect that there has been some significant progress in the right direction in recent years and decades. It is welcome that the rate of child pedestrians killed or seriously injured has fallen by nearly 41% since 2010. That is not to say that there is anything good about people losing their lives; every life lost is an absolute tragedy. However, that decrease does show that there is a positive trajectory and direction of travel. We need to get it to zero, but my central point is that we are not in a place where the statistics are going up or the problem is becoming worse. That is not to say that there is not a lot still to do. For child cyclists, the rate of those killed or seriously injured has also decreased by 43% since 2010.

More broadly, the improvements across all road categories mean that, although there is more to do, the UK remains a world leader in road safety. According to the Department for Transport’s own figures, released in September last year, Great Britain ranked third out of 33 countries in 2023 for the lowest number of road fatalities per million of the population. That progress is reflected in child pedestrian fatalities, which have thankfully fallen; having regularly exceeded 100 a year, they are now consistently in the 20s. That is 20 too many, but it is a significant decrease.

However, challenges clearly remain. DFT data equally demonstrates that, up to the age of 11, pedestrian boys are twice as likely to be killed or seriously injured as pedestrian girls of the same age, and among those aged 12 to 15, boys are still 33% more likely to be killed or seriously injured. What discussions has the Minister had with local authorities, schools and the Department for Education, not just about how we solve the overall problem of improving road safety around schools, but about effective approaches to reduce this particular disparity?

Our focus has to be on making every possible move to improve road safety around schools. That is very much on my mind in my constituency, which is entirely rural, through a lens that is slightly different but makes the point well. A proposed anaerobic digester in one village would bring hundreds of additional HGV movements past schools, including those in Long Crendon and Oakley. It focuses the mind to think just how close so many of our schools—particularly those in rural villages—are to the fast-moving lanes and major routes that people use on a daily basis. The prospect of those dangerous, incredibly heavy HGVs being added to those roads focuses the mind even more.

I am very sympathetic to the ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and others have mentioned about specific speed limits in the vicinity of schools. That is always, and has to be, a decision taken locally by local authorities. I do not think there is a definite, one-size-fits-all solution for every single circumstance that central Government should dictate, but it is for central Government to ensure that the framework is there to make it easy for local authorities to put in place such speed limits where they wish to, and to put in place effective enforcement mechanisms.

It is all too often the case in my constituency—and, I dare say, in everybody else’s—that when a community comes forward and says it wants a particular change to road safety measures, such as a change in the speed limit to 20 mph, the hoops it has to jump through are so considerable, so difficult and involve so many different agencies that frustration sets in. In too many cases, nothing ever happens, or something a bit half-hearted happens. I encourage the Minister to look at what can be done to ensure that local authorities, when taking decisions on behalf of communities that want those changes, are able to do so easily and without the heavy-handed bureaucracy that too often goes with all these schemes. I encourage her in particular to ensure that schools themselves can go to their local authorities and get those changes made quickly.

I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury once more on securing this debate. I hope it prompts real and significant action from the Government.

17:16

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this debate, and thank her for raising the vitally important issue of road safety around schools. She spoke powerfully and movingly on behalf of her constituents.

I thank the hon. Member for sharing the devastating story of the fatal collision outside the King’s school in her constituency. My sympathies go out to the family of the young person who lost his life, and to his friends, everyone at the school and the wider community. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is here, has also met the family, who are her constituents, and is working with them and with her neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury—on a cross-party basis, which is wonderful to see—to ensure that local partners work together to improve safety on the Wrexham Road.

I too have met many families with tragic stories of loved ones being killed and seriously injured in road traffic collisions. It is a position that no family should find themselves in: every death on our roads could and should be avoided. Every child has the right to be safe on their journey to and from school, and their parents should know that they will come home safely every day. That is why improving road safety, including the safety of children, is one of the highest priorities of my Department, and we intend to act to prevent road deaths and serious injuries.

A number of hon. Members talked about action to reduce speed, such as lowering speed limits and enforcing speed limits, including with speed cameras. The enforcement of road traffic law and deployment of available police resources are responsibilities of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, who take into account the specific local problems and demands that they face.

Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, local authorities have a statutory duty to take steps to both reduce and prevent collisions, and they have the power to set speed limits on their roads, including 20 mph limits and 20 mph zones. It is for them to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases because they have local knowledge of their roads, but any authority that wishes to install such schemes has my Department’s full backing.

I understand that resources for local authorities are finite, and it is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be where fatal collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them implementing road safety measures elsewhere, including places about which local communities have raised concerns, or where there have been near misses. My hon. Friends the hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) rightly highlighted that point.

Local authorities also have the tools to improve safety outside schools, including reduced speed limits, traffic calming measures or, where appropriate, a school street. I welcome the support expressed by hon. Members today and agree that sharing good practice can be very helpful. I will certainly look at what more my Department can do, perhaps with the Local Government Association and others. Local councils want to make decisions about local implementation, in consultation with local communities and the local police. They know their roads best, and I simply cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster. However, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made a powerful case for lower speed limits outside schools. Both she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) noted that we all make mistakes, and that collisions at higher speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes.

I agree that partnerships are essential, and that they should be looking at local-level interventions to make our roads safer. While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the design of the streets under their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. The Department will look at what more we can do to support them, and we stand ready to work with all those working to improve road safety at the local level.

On the tragic collision involving the young constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston, the Department is aware that Cheshire West and Chester council has already indicated that it has commissioned an independent review of Wrexham Road close to King’s school, and I am sure that it will listen to today’s debate and take note of the community’s petition.

Let me turn to some of the wider issues around road safety and schools. This Government are setting our sights high on active travel, whether that means walking, wheeling or cycling. We are committed to promoting greener journeys, no matter how people choose to travel. It is key to improving public health; by preventing illness, rather than just treating it, we can make a real difference. The biggest gains come from helping inactive people to get moving, which is why we are focused on breaking down barriers for those who need it most and do not have options, such as older people, disabled people and children.

For children, early habits matter. That is why, in November 2024, Active Travel England and the Department published school streets guidance. As hon. Members have noted, these schemes do not just make school runs safer; they build lifelong habits of active travel.

[Richard Foord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am afraid not, just because I am so short of time.

Turning to the role of education, alongside delivering paid behaviour change campaigns to support a lifelong learning approach to road safety education, THINK! has a suite of road safety teaching resources for children of all ages. Road casualty data shows that the number of child pedestrian casualties doubles between the ages of nine and 11—no doubt when they are first allowed to walk to school on their own—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) noted, incidents are more likely to happen during school drop-off and pick-up times.

Following research with parents, the 2024 influencer-led THINK! Safe Adventures campaign aims to encourage parents across the country to help their children adopt safe road behaviours as they prepare for independent travel—often when they move to secondary school. I very much agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Rugby (John Slinger) on the importance of parents also behaving safely when they are dropping children off at school. I am sure that all of us have seen some dangerous behaviours in that regard.

The THINK! activity I have just described focuses on the top three risky behaviours, based on the top contributory factors assigned to child pedestrian casualties: failing to look and distractions, finding a safe place to cross, and being in a hurry. I want to draw attention to our THINK! resources. The popular “Tales of the Road” resource is an interactive PDF—downloadable and printable—aimed at children aged three to 12, and it conveys information about how to cross the road safely, the green cross code, and level-crossing advice from National Rail. I was pleased to hear about other local education programmes, including the one highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris).

As I said, I have heard too many heartbreaking stories of loss and serious injury, including those raised today. I want to assure hon. Members that the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. That is why the Department is developing our road safety strategy—the first in over a decade. We will set out more details in due course.

I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. Even if I have not had the chance to take interventions or respond directly, all of their ideas and suggestions will help to inform our thinking. It is clear that there is a real appetite for change. People want safer roads. I will be pleased to keep in touch with the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and other Members, and I congratulate her again on securing today’s important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered road safety around schools.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.