Westminster Hall

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 19 March 2025

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered improving transport connectivity in the North West.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to see so many Members here today. The issue at hand affects many constituencies in the north-west, including mine. Leigh and Atherton, once a beacon of industrial activity, lies between the great cities of Manchester and Liverpool. With our main source of industry gone, we are now part of a commuter belt, alongside constituencies such as those in St Helens, Warrington, Wigan and Salford. Our road networks, originally designed around mills and factories, now struggle to cope with the ever increasing volume of traffic, and I know the same is true in our neighbouring regions of Merseyside, Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria.

A lack of connectivity in one place affects another. Congestion that starts in Leigh does not just disappear when crossing a border; it blocks the roads of our nearest neighbours. The rush-hour struggle to connect to our motorway or city networks means that the A580 East Lancs Road is a source of constant annoyance for many. When my constituents are asked about public transport, they say that, without a rail or Metrolink connection in the centre of Leigh, buses are stuck in the same traffic—it is all part of the increasing frustration.

The lack of efficient transport links is a key barrier to growth. Leigh ranks in the top 1% of the country for transport-related social exclusion, meaning that people are unable to participate in routine, everyday activities because of a lack of viable travel options. A 2024 Transport for the North report highlighted that people in the north-west with access to a car can reach nearly six times as many jobs as those who rely on public transport. Poor connectivity, limited infrastructure and an overreliance on cars leads to high levels of social isolation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing a debate on this important issue, and I welcome her back to the House and wish her well. She is outlining the issues in the north-west. Does she agree that social isolation in rural areas in particular is exacerbated by infrequent, costly public transport, and if we in this United Kingdom are serious about addressing mental health concerns in our rural communities, we need to bring them out of isolation, physically as well as mentally?

[Jo Platt]

Yes, I do agree, particularly for those who are vulnerable due to age, poverty or disability, as this will have a hugely negative impact on their life chances.

This stark disparity underlines the need for better transport systems and new road networks—ones that boost economic productivity and ensure fairness and opportunity for all. Without the necessary infrastructure, these benefits will remain out of reach for far too many. The narrative often goes that people must leave to succeed, and I am determined to change that story.

We are a proud community, but we are often overlooked when it comes to investment. Growth goes where the growth already is, which stifles the potential for outside business investment and growth for existing businesses. Despite the many positives that Leigh and Atherton has to offer, we still see many young people with great potential leaving to seek opportunities elsewhere.

It can take over an hour and 40 minutes to travel the 18 miles from Leigh to Manchester airport by public transport, while a car journey takes only 30 minutes, if we are lucky—that is not in rush hour. This huge difference cannot be overlooked, especially given the economic and employment opportunities offered by Manchester airport, which provides thousands of jobs to the region. Many of my constituents are missing out on those opportunities due to poor transport links, or have no other option than to use their cars, which obviously does not help with emissions.

It is not just a matter of growth and job opportunities either. After speaking to our borough-wide police force, I discovered that response times in the Wigan borough are slower than in other Greater Manchester areas, and this is due to congestion. Our local health trust, operating sites in Wigan and Leigh, routinely factors in an hour’s travel time for consultants and staff moving between sites—it all adds up.

This is an injustice we must rectify. I am grateful to Wigan council for recognising the issue and its commitment to improving the situation. That aligns with the Government’s broader ambitions on education, skills, growth and revitalisation. Ideas for strengthening our higher education offer are met with questions about how students from the wider region will get there. And when Manchester United’s women’s team play at home, the challenge is how to get fans to the game at the wonderful Leigh sports village.

We have an issue, and we need more train and Metrolink routes in our region. Specifically, it is time to make the case for a Metrolink connection to Leigh. For our wider region, we need improved train frequency, better station accessibility, increased capacity at station car parks, and expanded park and ride facilities for key transport routes. I am sure other hon. Members will speak on those matters.

It is not all doom and gloom. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has done much to improve connectivity across the city region, including Leigh’s famous guided busway: the V1 in Leigh and the V2 in Atherton. Those services have been incredibly successful, with usage exceeding expectations. With the commitment of a £2 bus fare cap, people are using our Bee network more than ever. The next step is to fully integrate towns like Leigh into Greater Manchester’s transport system, making it easier for people to travel seamlessly across the region and unlocking the growth potential of the north-west.

The 2024 boundary changes brought two train stations into my constituency—Atherton and Hag Fold—which is a positive step forward. In addition, the Government’s recent announcement of the reopening of Golborne station brings much-needed investment into the area. I thank Andy Burnham—the Mayor of Greater Manchester —Transport for Greater Manchester, Wigan council and our local councillors for their continued work to make that campaign a reality.

I am also thrilled by the Government’s recent announcement that Leigh is one of the 75 places eligible for the plan for neighbourhoods, benefiting from £20 million-worth of funding over the next 10 years. With that funding, we have an opportunity to build on our strengths and unlock the potential of our high street. However, it is important to note that Leigh remains one of the largest towns in the country without a metro or train connection. This clear gap in our infrastructure must be addressed.

We must focus on linking not just Greater Manchester but Merseyside, Lancashire, Cheshire and Cumbria, and all the towns in between, including in my constituency. Those often overlooked towns, rural or coastal, are vital to the region’s growth and success. A strategic cross-boundary approach is essential if we are to grow a region that benefits everyone.

Will the Minister support us in that approach? Will he work with me to make the case for Metrolink in Leigh, as part of a connected transport system that benefits not only Leigh but my nearest neighbours? It is vital to focus on a strategic approach to managing connectivity in the north-west, connecting those areas to growth. Only then can we all thrive and fully participate in the region’s growth and prosperity.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

A lot of Members want to speak, and I want to accommodate everybody. The Opposition spokespeople have agreed to five minutes each, but the Minister will take the full 10 minutes. That will give everybody else four minutes.

09:39

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing a debate on this important topic for our constituents. Transport connectivity is about economic growth and opening up the world so that our constituents can make choices about their lives that allow them to fulfil their potential.

Reliable, affordable and accessible public transport is not just a convenience; it is an essential pillar of our economy, our communities and our future. Yet for too long the north-west has suffered from under-investment, unreliable rail services and disconnected transport networks that leave too many of our constituents struggling to get to work, school or essential services. That is why I am asking the Government for three things today. First, we need more frequent and reliable rail services with simple, affordable fares that encourage people back on to our trains. Secondly, I urge the Government to work with Stockport council and the Greater Manchester combined authority to bring Metrolink or tram-trains to my constituency. Thirdly, the Government need to make public transport the default for my constituents by expanding current bus and rail connections.

Many in my community and in the surrounding areas of Greater Manchester and beyond will remember the absolute chaos towards the end of last year when, almost every day, commuters on Northern-operated trains saw swathes of red cancellation notices. I received dozens of emails from constituents talking about how they could not rely on the trains to get to work or to pick up their children from school. Some even told me that they had to reject job offers because the trains were just too unreliable.

Since the pandemic, constituents commuting on the Rose Hill to Manchester Piccadilly line have faced an irregular timetable, and passenger numbers across the north-west have struggled to recover to pre-pandemic levels. I welcome the plan to integrate our trains, trams and buses, and I look forward to the streamlining of ticketing this will offer. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention that Metrolink does not yet extend into any part of Stockport. Our brilliant new interchange is Metrolink-ready, but we have no indication of when Metrolink will be ready for Stockport. We have even less idea of whether Metrolink or tram-trains will eventually reach into the towns and villages of my constituency.

Many of my residents have to rely on buses to get where they want to go, and some of those buses are not operated by the Bee network because we are right on the edge of Greater Manchester. We need more frequent bus services that link to our rail services, but the ridiculous traffic levels on the roads in my constituency will prevent them from reaching their potential. Whether it is the A6 or Stockport Road, journeys that normally take 20 minutes can take over an hour in the morning and evening rush hours. Public transport is the obvious solution. We should make it easier for those who can take the tram or the train so that the roads are freed up for those who cannot. Trams and trains offer commuters the ability to bypass rush hour congestion in a way that buses cannot.

Transport for Greater Manchester has an ambition to restore regular passenger rail services on the Stockport to Stalybridge line. This provides a unique opportunity to reduce rush hour journey times significantly for commuters heading to Stockport from my constituency. The rail line from Bredbury to Piccadilly crosses over the Stockport to Stalybridge line near Reddish Vale. I encourage the Department for Transport and TfGM to explore the possibility of linking those two lines, whether in the form of a new interchange station or a chord linking the two. The message from my constituents is clear: they need public transport that works for them. That means a railway system that people can rely on, bus routes that connect communities rather than isolate them, and investment in new transport links that drive economic growth.

09:43

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. In the few minutes available to me, I would like to put transport in the north-west into perspective. I would not like anything I say to be taken as a criticism of the mayor or of Transport for Greater Manchester. The Bee network, which is an excellent scheme, has put Greater Manchester to the situation London has had for the last 45 years, which we see as progress.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has just said, investment in transport is vital for economic growth. However, when we look at the national objectives, and as we have seen forever—since the second world war—more money is going into London and the south-east than the north-west. For all of Transport for Greater Manchester’s successes, it has had to fight the Department for Transport to get extra investment for Metrolink and fight Labour and Conservative Ministers to get money for investment.

There is great potential in the north-west. In fact, we would get more out of investment in transport links in the north-west than the south-east, because of what we are, in effect, doing when we invest in London and the south-east. All transport investment creates jobs and growth, but in London and the south-east we are then, in effect, subsidising congestion, because we get so much congestion that we need more investment afterwards. That is not the situation in Greater Manchester and the north-west. I am not against the Lower Thames crossing, but three quarters of a billion pounds has already been spent on assessing whether it will be any use whatever, and that money would benefit transport in Greater Manchester, and jobs and investment for the whole country, much more than it will the Lower Thames area.

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

We have suffered, in that we are not getting High Speed 2 at the moment. I think the campaign to get the rail link from Birmingham to Manchester and Manchester airport should continue. It is extraordinary to see the billions of pounds that have been spent on high-speed rail from London to Birmingham, mainly on tunnels.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the benefits of HS2 have been masked by the name High Speed 2 and that one of the main benefits of HS2 is actually capacity, which we desperately need on the railways?

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend is precisely right: the real case for High Speed 2, as I am afraid it will always be called, was capacity. We are not getting that extra capacity between Birmingham and Manchester without HS2. If that capacity were to happen—it should happen—it would lead to the necessity of extra investment in the rail system east, west and internally within Greater Manchester. It would lead to more investment, so we need to campaign for it. All we have at the moment is an extension to the London underground system, which will benefit London and Birmingham.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned the Metrolink going to Stockport, and I agree with her. For the first time for nearly a quarter of a century, we do not have viable plans that we know will happen, and we may have to carry on fighting Ministers and the Department for Transport for the next stage. Obviously, I would like trams to go to Middleton, as I represent part of it, but I agree that trams going to Stockport and other parts of the conurbation—perhaps Leigh as well—would mean transport and economic development. So I think we have to keep campaigning and making the case that bucks spent on transport in Greater Manchester will get us more than money spent in London and the south-east.

09:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate.

My constituency is semi-urban and semi-rural. Without good public transport, my constituents cannot get around, and the visitors we so enjoy having in our area cannot get in. A lot of people in my community struggle with access to services such as GPs and hospital appointments and with getting to work. That creates more pressure on services such as patient transport services and GP home visits. It also affects the nature of my constituency, in that we have an ageing population, with fewer young families able to move in. My rural businesses and organisations that represent them, such as the Sedbergh Economic Partnership, also tell me that transport connectivity in rural areas is a massive bar to growth, because businesses cannot get the staff they need to expand.

Sedbergh itself is struggling at the minute. There has been a bus service change, so the service is now less accessible and frequent. At my suggestion, Sedbergh set up a bus users’ group—I am a big fan of buses and bus users’ groups. In Lancashire we have a fantastic bus users’ group, the Lancaster Bus Users’ Group, of which I am a proud member.

I thank the Government for their investment in bus services—£27 million in Lancashire and £4.2 million in Westmorland and Furness. I hope to see my local authorities take on the new powers that the Government will give them, so that we ensure we have rural bus services that serve my constituents, work together, fit together and fit in with people’s lives.

I am also a big fan of trains. My constituency has the highest main line train station in England, in Dent. It is beautiful, although it is not actually in Dent village, which causes some confusion. We have some other fantastic stations, such as Garsdale, which is also beautiful, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) will know, and Arnside. However, we have real problems with accessibility, so older people and people with disabilities cannot get the train—when the train turns up. Because these are not areas with huge populations, they struggle to access grant services, such as the Access for All fund. There is real inequity in how some of the funds for station improvements are allocated.

Finally, I want to talk a little about active travel, which is important. Active travel means moving ourselves around, whether by wheeling in a wheelchair, cycling on a bike or walking. It is good for our health, and spending more time in London, with its fantastic public transport service, I have walked a lot more. I have actually lost weight since the election—I think that is unheard of—because I am walking so much. That shows the health benefits of an integrated public transport system and proper transport connectivity.

I want to highlight a visionary project in my constituency, the Lune Valley Greenway, which is a path that people can walk, wheel or cycle on from the coast at Morecambe right into the Yorkshire Dales national park. It currently goes from Morecambe, via Lancaster, up to Bull Beck near Caton. The ambition is for it not only to go from the coast to the national park, but to link up with public transport systems, so that people visiting our area, as well as people living and working in my constituency, can access the countryside and good public transport. I would love to invite the Minister to visit.

09:53

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing the debate.

I will lay out my case in simple terms: north-west public transport is not up to scratch. Specifically, our railway journeys are nowhere near good enough. They are holding our region’s economy back, and we need change. Take my constituency, for instance: there is no direct public transport link from one side of the constituency to the other, despite it being overwhelmingly urban. Try to take public transport from Birkdale to Rufford—a journey of 10 miles—and a single ticket will cost £21, while the journey will take one hour and 11 minutes and involve changing trains three times. It is literally 10 miles away; it would almost be quicker to walk.

Even the rail services that we do have are incredibly unreliable. Just this morning, at 6.47 am, Merseyrail sent out a message on social media saying:

“Due to a train fault, some services on the Southport line face cancellations”.

The first reply said:

“Another day, another train fault”.

The second reply blamed the politicians.

The service to Manchester is even worse: in November, there were no services at all on Sundays for three weeks in a row, and more than a quarter of all journeys were either delayed or cancelled. When the trains do turn up, passengers are greeted with what the chief exec of Northern Rail has called

“some of the worst-performing rolling stock in the country.”

That cannot be allowed to continue.

The constituency’s connectivity has also been directly impacted by the well-known 1960s cuts to railway services. The closure of two simple railway curves in Burscough, just outside of constituency, means that the seven-mile journey from Ormskirk to Southport takes 85 minutes by train, and that the notional 20-mile journey to Preston involves passengers changing at Wigan, which is itself 20 miles out of the way. We are lucky, though, because unlike in other parts of the country, the railway curves at Burscough were never built over—they are still there, just overgrown and unloved. It would cost an estimated £30 million to reinstate them, which would once again connect the towns of Merseyside and west Lancashire, and strengthen travel-to-work routes, promoting the economic growth we all want so desperately.

It is not all bad. The Liverpool city region combined authority is maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, including in Southport, and we are moving forward with trials of bus franchising across the region. Despite problems, Merseyrail still received the second highest overall customer satisfaction levels nationally in the latest surveys. And although there is perhaps an element of empire-building, I welcome the fact that our line to Manchester is set to be brought into the Greater Manchester Bee network in 2028, which will finally allow a tap-in, tap-out ticketing system, integrating with Manchester’s.

Those positives point the way forward, as more devolution on transport and greater statutory powers for the coming Lancashire combined county authority ensure that the rest of the north-west is linked up, in the way my constituency already is.

09:57

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, albeit slightly unexpected, to serve under your chairship this morning, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important and clearly popular debate.

I will focus my remarks on the rail network. In Pendle and Clitheroe, slow and unreliable rail services, along with disjointed connections, cause daily frustrations for my constituents. Those issues create barriers to work, education and healthcare, and ultimately hold our local economy back.

In my constituency we have two rail routes. The Colne to Preston line operates just one train per hour, taking an hour and 15 minutes to cover only 25 miles. The Clitheroe to Manchester line is no better—again, with just one train per hour, and taking an hour and 20 minutes to travel just 30 miles. If a train is cancelled in the south-east of England, there is often another coming in 10 or 15 minutes, whereas if one train is cancelled in an hourly service, the whole day is ruined.

Those routes are not fit for purpose; we all know that that level of service would not be tolerated on routes going into London. If we want to unlock the potential of our towns, we need investment in order to increase frequency, cut journey times and improve service reliability. Would it be so impossible to have two trains per hour on those routes and speed them up? Would more rolling stock be required? Yes. Would more staff be required? Yes. But can it be done with the right political will? Of course it can. The economic benefits would be profound.

Right now, the connection times do not even make sense. If someone took that slow train from Colne to Preston this morning, hoping to travel south to the capital city, they would wait nearly an hour at Preston for the next train. For public transport to be a viable alternative to car travel, services and timetables must be co-ordinated and designed around the needs of passengers, which currently is simply not the case.

In the longer term, reinstating the Colne to Skipton rail link would be a game changer for east-west travel and our local economy. Reopening the 11-mile stretch, the track bed of which has been protected—that was a theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley)—would open up huge opportunities for jobs and businesses. The project would dramatically improve economic prospects for deprived areas across east Lancashire, well beyond my constituency, and I will continue to campaign for its reinstatement.

Regional inequality in our country is stark, and nowhere is that more obvious than in public transport. Time and again, we have seen rail projects prioritised in the south-east while towns across the north are left waiting for long-overdue upgrades. I know that the Government understand the issue, but I urge them to be bold, act now and commit to delivering a transport system that truly works for the north-west.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

It would be good if other contributions could be similarly brief, to allow as many colleagues as possible to speak.

10:00

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this debate; it is clearly very popular. I refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to my trade union memberships, particularly donations from the RMT to my constituency Labour party.

I will add to the points made by several colleagues on extending the Metrolink tram network. I would like to see it extended into Hazel Grove, as my neighbour the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said. I would also like to see it extended into Stockport town centre. I understand that the Greater Manchester combined authority and Stockport council are developing a strategic outline business case, which should be completed by autumn this year. I want to see the work start as soon as possible, and I would welcome a meeting with the Minister as soon as possible, perhaps with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, to discuss that.

I have limited time, but I have a couple of points to make. The first is on Stockport railway station, which recorded almost 3.8 million entries and exits in the last reporting period. It is a major hub for Greater Manchester and the north-west region. I am aware that several of my colleagues from Greater Manchester travel to Stockport on a Monday to take the train to London, because it is easier, and several local services often have poor connectivity. However, unfortunately the station is in a dire state. The roof leaks often, the toilets are outdated and the lifts are frequently faulty, which particularly disadvantages passengers with mobility issues or heavy luggage. I want to see real investment in Stockport station. I know that Network Rail and Avanti are doing some work, but we need to be bold about investing. Avanti employs about 48 staff at Stockport station. I know almost all of them, if not all, and many share my concerns about the state of the station. I am grateful to all of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made a point about step-free access at railway stations. The Access for All scheme is just far too slow and not ambitious enough. Sadly, three out of five rail stations in my constituency—Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South—do not have step-free access. I want to see that addressed as soon as possible. I also want to use this valuable time to pay tribute to Nathanial Yates from my constituency. He has done a lot of work on step-free access. He is a champion for public transport, and I want to place on the record my thanks to him for his work, not just in Stockport but across Greater Manchester.

Reddish South station in my constituency has a train service once a week. Every Saturday morning, a train arrives and goes into Stockport. A few minutes later, that same train comes from Stockport via Reddish South. In the last reporting period, Reddish South recorded 80 passengers in an entire year. Friends of Reddish South Station is quite active on that issue; I meet its members frequently. I pay tribute to all their work, but we need to address the situation. The increase in housing around Reddish South and the changes in Reddish over the years mean that we need proper services to that station, to improve connectivity into not only Stockport town centre, but Manchester and other parts of the north-west.

My last point is that before covid, we used to have a direct service from Stockport station into Manchester airport. That service was withdrawn during the pandemic and sadly has not returned. Passengers often have to go into Manchester Piccadilly and then wait to change trains. Many who travel to Manchester airport have heavy luggage, so it is not an ideal situation. We need to see that service reinstated as soon as possible.

I like to end on a positive point: I welcome bus franchising. Mayor Burnham has done a lot of good work. There is obviously a lot more to do on public transport, but I am grateful to colleagues at Transport for Greater Manchester—particularly Ben, whom I am always asking for information—and colleagues at Network Rail.

10:00

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing and so ably leading this debate. Mid Cheshire’s towns play an important role in our nation’s economy as one of only two sources of rock salt, as well as chemical, pharmaceutical and plastics manufacturing. Yet when I speak to businesses—or indeed anyone—they tell me that poor transport infrastructure is one of the biggest issues holding back businesses, jobs and investments in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich.

That is far from a new phenomenon; the Middlewich eastern bypass project has been the subject of local campaigns for more than 40 years, and was shamefully kicked into the long grass by the previous Government, despite earlier promises to fund it. Campaigns for better sustainable transport, such as more frequent rail services from Northwich and Winsford, a station for Middlewich— I sympathise with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton, as Middlewich is the largest town in Cheshire without a railway station—or a functioning bus service anywhere in the constituency, have hit barriers to progress. While I would love to use my time to ask the Minister to look kindly upon any or all of those projects, the issue is deeper than any one single project—although he is of course welcome to intervene.

We can and must fix the foundations of our economy, but we must also tackle the structures that systemically disadvantage our region—particularly areas outside the big cities—in the allocation of infrastructure investment. On that, I will limit myself to one point, which is fundamental to this debate. The Green Book, developed by the Treasury, is the Government’s primary guidance for evaluating and appraising public sector projects on value for money, but it utterly fails to adjust for regional disparities. The reality is that, as of right now, salaries are higher and high-value sectors are more likely to be located in London and the south-east than they are in the north-west.

On a like-for-like basis, it will always be easier to demonstrate a higher return on investment from a project here in London than it will be in my constituency. That is a problem. It is a problem because it undervalues the benefit of economic regeneration or better social cohesion, and it underprices the exacerbating effect that it has on London’s housing crisis, the pressure on its public services and the benefit that will be brought by distributing growth across the country. IPPR North estimated in 2020 that, on transport alone, if the north had seen the same per-person investment as London over the last decade, it would have received £66 billion more. The Chancellor has announced a review of the Green Book; I urge the Minister to exercise whatever influence he has to ensure that this moment is seized to finally fix this issue, which has been a barrier to growth for so long.

Our region, from our big cities to our small towns and from our industrial powerhouses to our rural hinterland, is ambitious for our future. We are hungry to play our part in our country’s economic recovery. We are impatient for the Government to see our potential after so many years of undelivered promises. This Government finally have us facing in the right direction on valuing and investing in our bus network, and on ensuring that railways deliver for passengers, not shareholders. They are progressing devolution in Cheshire and Lancashire that will finally give us the powers we need to set our own transport investment priorities. I hope that the comprehensive spending review and the Green Book review are opportunities to go further—not just to talk about handing power and money to the regions, but to set the rules to ensure that it happens.

10:08

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate. Good transport links are a vital component of any economy that aspires to achieve economic growth and good opportunities for its citizens. There is simply no point in having a job for every person if those people cannot physically get to where those jobs are.

In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on rail. If Heathrow is a hub for aviation in the south, from which investment and growth ripple outwards, Crewe station is that hub for rail in the north. Crewe provides 360° connectivity to all major cities across the UK, and that unrivalled connectivity makes it a vital hub for both passenger and freight rail. It is uniquely positioned as a gateway to the midlands engine, the northern powerhouse, Scotland and Wales. However, the west coast main line, a vital artery for our region, has been grappling with significant capacity challenges. Reports have shown that

“There is no available capacity without significantly impacting performance and causing a reduction in timetable resilience”—

something that I believe every Member in this place experiences, perhaps weekly. That leaves little room for additional services, causing frequent delays. The impact of lack of capacity on rail services affects every single one of our constituencies, and the capacity for economic growth that that additional capacity could unlock cannot be understated.

We simply require new infrastructure in our region to tackle that problem. The Conservative Government’s approach to infrastructure was nothing short of Jekyll and Hyde, with communities and industries not knowing whether they were coming or going. We saw a stop-start approach to major projects, with promises made and then broken, dither and delay and a lack of active oversight, which saw costs spiral. The management of and the decision to cancel HS2 phase 2a is a prime example of that. The cancellation has not only undermined the promise of greater connectivity for northern towns and cities, but has left a gaping hole in our region’s economic growth prospects.

Ahead of the comprehensive spending review, Ministers are looking carefully at the situation the Government have inherited. It would be remiss of me not to once again ask the Government whether they would consider how new infrastructure connecting the midlands and the north of England, utilising Crewe station, with the right investment, could be a key driver for connectivity and growth in any plans to address the capacity challenges that I have outlined.

It is absolutely clear to me that better connectivity between our towns and villages and major cities in the north can be a major lever in our efforts to create those opportunities that our people need and deserve to fulfil their potential, and that is what people elected a Labour Government to do.

10:12

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate on a topic that is popular in our region—as is clear from attendance this morning. For decades we have suffered cuts to bus routes, unreliable train services and fragmented transport planning. Economic growth has not been the only thing impacted. Social isolation has worsened and the changes have impacted vulnerable groups who rely on public transport—especially, in places like St Helens, on buses. I am pleased that the last two issues have already been mentioned, as they are sometimes overlooked.

Eighty-two per cent of all public transport journeys in the Liverpool city region are made by bus, but our region, including St Helens North, has been hit hard by the national decline in bus services. Since 2020, we have lost 15 routes. Much of St Helens North is rural; the cuts have left many areas, such as Rainford, reliant on infrequent, heavily subsidised services. Across the entire Liverpool city region, a staggering 6 million service miles have been withdrawn since 2018, directly impacting our residents. For 40 years, since Thatcher’s failed deregulation experiment, we have suffered a system in which private operators dictate routes based on profit rather than public need.

As the leader of St Helens borough council before becoming an MP, I was a member of the Liverpool city region combined authority, and strongly supported the pursuance of bus franchising, bringing our buses back under greater public control. I am delighted to say that, thanks to metro Mayor Steve Rotheram and other local leaders, including St Helens borough council leader Anthony Burns, St Helens will, from September 2026, be the first area in the Liverpool city region to benefit from publicly controlled bus services. That means that routes, fares and timetables will be set by the combined authority, not dictated by private companies: passengers first, not profit.

The story is similar when it comes to our rail network, with delays and cancellations plaguing too many people who are reliant on trains to travel for work or leisure. The state of some of our stations is not good enough either, particularly when it comes to accessibility. In 2025, it is surely not too much to expect that every station should be fully accessible to all passengers. It is a scandal that stations including Garswood and Earlestown in St Helens North do not have step-free access. This is something that local Labour councillors, campaigners and our metro Mayor are all keen to fix, and they have my full and ongoing support. I should be grateful if the Minister would share his view on that, either when summing up or outside of the debate.

St Helens North and our wider borough is in a great location, in one strong city region and bordering another, with the M6, the M62 and major rail routes running through it. With affordable and reliable public transport, there is no limit to the growth that we could unlock. As in so many things, all we are looking for is fair funding and the opportunity to fulfil our potential.

10:15

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this crucial and popular debate. Improving transport connectivity in Bolton is a priority that matters deeply to me, and I am proud to join fellow north-west MPs in fighting for a better, fairer transport system for my constituents.

A good transport network does more than move people; it moves society forward. It connects us to education, jobs and businesses that drive our economy and to the family, friends and communities that shape us. It is the foundation stone of a thriving society, because if we get our transport infrastructure right, everything else follows. For too many people in Bolton, however, transport is not a bridge to opportunity, but a barrier with real consequences. No child in Breightmet should have to miss an after-school club because they cannot find a bus. No college student in Little Lever should have to turn down an apprenticeship because fares are too high. No adult in Bromley Cross should have to miss a job interview because their trains are cancelled again.

For too long, under-investment in transport has held back Bolton’s communities. Loneliness and isolation among young and elderly people are at an all-time high, and we know that good transport can mean the difference between precious time spent with loved ones or another day spent alone. Complicated routes and unreliable services are leaving pensioners and teenagers stranded—isolating not just individuals, but entire communities.

When transport in Bolton fails, everything else suffers. That is why, since my first speech in Parliament, I have called for Metrolink to be extended to Bolton and that call remains urgent. Metrolink is expanding, yet Bolton—one of Greater Manchester’s largest towns—remains forgotten. For those who say that our rail services are already good enough, I invite them to catch a train from Bolton late at night or at the weekend, or indeed on their first day of work and be met with a cancelled train, as I experienced on my first day travelling down to this place.

One third of all trains into Bolton arrive late, and almost half of TransPennine Express trains. Bolton residents deserve better, and I look forward to working alongside Mayor Andy Burnham and the Greater Manchester combined authority as we build the business case for a long overdue extension.

My hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for St Helens North (David Baines) mentioned accessibility. We also desperately need to think about parents with prams who get left out. When we fix the rail system, we empower towns such as Bolton to thrive. Of course, it is not only about rail: in just 18 months, the Bee network has been a huge step forward for Bolton, proving what is possible when people, not profit, come first.

Finally, we must fight for regional fairness. In London, over-60s travel for free. In Greater Manchester, they do not. Why should older people in the north-west settle for less? I will push to introduce free travel for over-60s in Greater Manchester, because affordable transport helps older people to stay active, connected and independent.

As north-west MPs, we are united in our fight for a better, fairer transport system. Better transport means stronger businesses, connected communities and a fairer, thriving north-west region. When transport works, everything else follows. I sincerely hope that the Minister agrees and that he will commit to making collaboration on improving Bolton and north-west transport a priority.

10:18

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this important debate. I had originally prepared a lengthy speech that laid out in great and eloquent detail the huge number of issues that we have in Rossendale and Darwen around transport.

Those issues include the challenge of simply walking or cycling to school or work; our patchy bus services and isolated villages; the congested, unsafe and potholed roads; and of course our railway connections—or lack of them. Darwen’s transport could generously be described as wildly unreliable, while Rossendale is the only local authority area in the north with no commuter links at all. I therefore look with envy at my hon. Friends with merely unreliable services.

Time does not allow for a full explanation of all those issues, and it would clearly be unnecessary, as this debate shows that the picture is shared and understood by hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister recognises it too. We are all too familiar with cut-off small towns and villages with so much unmet potential, yet the investment never seems to come our way.

We know the problems and the legacy that we have been left with, and we know the massive benefits that true transport connectivity can deliver, but we also know the solutions. The Government have made a start by investing in rural bus services and pothole repair, while committing to act on some long-standing regional rail priorities. However, the question remains as to how we make sure that left-behind towns get the connectivity they need to unleash their full potential. The previous Government and the systems that they put in place manifestly failed to do that, but I believe we have two big opportunities under the new Government to do things differently and to deliver the change that the north-west needs.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) eloquently—indeed, brilliantly—put it, the Green Book is a massive issue that has resulted in a sustained long-term bias towards wealthier areas. We have to change that. The Treasury review is a huge opportunity for us, and we must ensure that it is carried out with true ambition, rather than just tweaking the rules. The existing bias must be removed and the long-term strategic impacts of investment fully recognised, as opposed to overvaluing short-term returns. We also need to ensure that the social wellbeing and enabling aspects of projects are properly valued. Indeed, why not bias projects towards deprived areas?

We also need to recognise that guidelines are just guidelines, and that there are entrenched cultures within appraisal mechanisms that, regardless of what the guidelines say, will tend to default to outdated benefit-cost ratio metrics. That review is a huge opportunity that we must grasp and I am really glad that the north-west is speaking with one voice on the issue.

Of course, our other great opportunity is devolution. The north-west could be the first region in England to have a full set of elected mayors with devolved budgets. That would give us the chance to join up our transport investment across the north. We have seen what innovative transport thinking can do in Manchester, so let us imagine what could be achieved across the north with a fully devolved regional transport budget and mayors working together to unlock our potential.

I find that possibility hugely exciting, but I also worry that opportunistic and self-interested local politicians may try to derail the process. For instance, the Reform candidates in the Lancashire county council elections are standing on a platform opposing devolution. They are defending a status quo that may be in their own interests, but it manifestly does not meet the interests of residents of Lancashire—what madness! We need to reject such pessimism and put the north-west back in the fast lane.

It is in small towns such as Rossendale and Darwen that the next election will be won and lost. We cannot be left behind as our cities forge ahead. Truly integrated transport could connect our futures, and I believe that the Government and our empowered communities can grasp that opportunity.

10:22

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

In my constituency, we have had a large amount of housing growth in the last few years, and we expect to have much more. My constituents are not nimbys; they absolutely recognise that it is a huge problem that young people cannot afford to leave home in our area. It is also a huge problem that there is an absolute shortage of care workers in my area alongside an older population, and that we do not have sufficient nurses and teachers. We need key worker housing, but we also need the infrastructure to go with it.

Transport is primarily about roads in my local area, which consists of a series of small towns and villages that people drive between as much as they can. I live in my constituency, so I despair of the potholes in exactly the same way that my constituents do. Our roads are dark and dangerous, and far too many of our young people are dying on them completely needlessly. The A500 is a complete mess. The A34 is the major road to Manchester and lots of people commute on it, but it is single-lane, unlit and frequently flooded. It is completely dangerous; indeed, it is a disaster. I could carry on ad infinitum—I could list so many roads—but the only other one that I will mention specifically is the Middlewich bypass, which would unlock major employment opportunities. We need the Government to fund work on it.

When I talk to young people in my area or to older people who cannot drive, the major mode of transport they talk about is buses. For example, I had the pleasure of talking to Shipton explorer scouts about their experience of trying to use buses in our local area. They told me about buses being so full that the drivers simply drive past them on the way to school and will not pick them up. There are not enough services and, as I say, they simply do not stop.

If someone tries to take a bus from Alsager to Royal Stoke university hospital or Leighton hospital, for example, it will take them nearly an hour, despite the distance being only 9 miles. If someone tries to take what might be one of the most important journeys they are ever going to make, for example from Holmes Chapel to one of our local hospices, it will also take them a really long time. Similarly, there is no direct bus from Congleton, a town of 30,000 people, to Macclesfield district general hospital, which is our nearest major general hospital. Bus services are fundamental services. We want to invest in the NHS, and it is vital that we do so, but there is no point in us creating additional appointments if people simply cannot get to them.

And don’t get me started on trains in my constituency. They are unbelievably unreliable. There have been no Sunday services for literally years: Congleton’s last train from Manchester is at about 9 o’clock on a Saturday night. I reiterate: this is a town with 30,000 people. Sandbach, a town of 20,000 people, has no accessible route across the platform, so people with disabilities, with buggies or with luggage—it is a route to Manchester airport—simply cannot get there and have to go backwards to Crewe to make the journey to Manchester. It is absolutely crackers.

I could talk about that in more detail, but I really want to talk about the fact that the decisions about transport investment have historically been incredibly short-sighted. I reiterate the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper): we would have had £66 billion more in the last decade alone if we had had the same per person investment as London. I do not want to take money away from London. I want us to have a thriving capital, but I want my constituents to be able to get there. I also want them not to have to get there—to have opportunities in my constituency and in the wider north-west in the first place, and to be able to access them.

10:26

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for securing this debate about connectivity; we are well connected, as I am sure she appreciates.

Efficient, affordable and accessible transport options are crucial to north-west workers, its economy and the ability to unlock growth. A well-connected transport system broadens access to opportunities and enhances our region’s competitiveness. Transport infrastructure and the affordability of transport options directly impacts the jobs that people are able to take, where they are able to live, and their access to essential services, as so many hon. Members have said. That is particularly true for those living in commuter belt towns and suburban areas in my constituency of Worsley and Eccles. We must do more to ensure that the different modes of transport on offer are interconnected, ensuring smooth and efficient journeys, and making it as easy as possible for everyone to move around our region.

Driving remains the most popular mode of transport in Worsley and Eccles, but high levels of congestion are a real issue for all of us, including rush hour commuters of all forms. An improved public transport system can reduce the strain on our roads, benefiting all commuters, including those for whom driving will remain the most appropriate form of transport.

I am a north-west MP and, like all Members here who regularly come to London, I can see with my own eyes what can be achieved with proper investment, funding and Government focus on our transport system. To give one small comparison, from Eccles in my constituency to Manchester Piccadilly, we have one or maybe two trains an hour on the main commuter line. From Surbiton in south London to Waterloo, there are 10 an hour. That is a world of difference and makes trains a viable option for many people as an integral part of our network.

As I am sure the Government recognise, delivering greater transport connectivity is one of the most effective tools available to increase vital access to opportunities and deliver the growth we all need, which will underpin all our services and fundamentally improve the living standards of everyone we are here to represent. In Greater Manchester, we are making great progress via the expansion of the Bee network, including the roll-out of tap and go contactless ticketing, and daily and weekly fare caps, which are coming this weekend, but we must go further to bring trains into that network and to deliver the comprehensive, interconnected transport system that will deliver the benefits that we have all been talking about.

It is absolutely vital that we continue the mission to expand and improve our transport networks, so that everyone across our whole region can benefit from them in getting around more easily and getting to those jobs. That will make everywhere a viable place to live, to attract investment and to deliver on the potential that we all know that our region has.

10:29

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this crucial debate.

Constituencies such as mine have long faced challenges of poor connectivity. Warrington South is located at the crossroads of the north-west. It is strategically placed between Manchester, to the east, and Liverpool, to the west. Our town is successful: it is a desirable place to live and has grown considerably in size over recent years but, sadly, investment in transport has just not kept up. We have congestion on the roads, limited, poor-quality crossing points over the Manchester ship canal, ageing infrastructure and unelectrified rail lines. Towns such as mine deserve better.

It is critical to understand how poor connectivity is constraining growth, limiting our potential and leaving us behind. Uncertainty about infrastructure projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, slimmed-down projects such as HS2 and delayed projects such as the Western Link congestion relief road are part of the problem. According to data published at the end of last year, every region of the country falls behind London in public spending on transport per head. The capital receives about £1,313 per person, but the north-west receives only £729. That shocking £584 difference shows the north-south divide in practice once again.

A report by Transport for the North revealed that one fifth of people living in northern England are prevented from taking up opportunities and participating in communities around them due to poor connectivity and mobility. The focus must be not only on the big cities: it must also include towns such as Warrington and Leigh.

Investment in transport infrastructure can be transformational. It can act as a catalyst for growth, unlock potential and drive forward the Government’s plan for change. We need a co-ordinated effort that better links our communities and recognises the contribution that our towns and villages make to the wider economy and the potential they have to offer. We cannot allow the transport challenges of the past to restrict our potential in the future. With the right investment in the right places, we have the opportunity to grow the national economy and our local economy.

10:32

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this crucial debate on transport connectivity in the north-west—an issue that impacts the day-to-day lives of many of my constituents and people across the whole region.

Our region has historically been neglected when it comes to transport, but I want to begin with a positive: I reiterate my wholehearted support for the electrification of the Bolton to Wigan train line, properly funded under this Labour Government. I also welcome the extension of the excellent Greater Manchester Bee network out towards my constituency.

Given that other Members have spoken so eloquently about planes, trains and automobiles, I will focus on a particular issue in my Bolton West constituency: the Hulton Park housing development. Hulton Park is a significant development, but it suffers from a critical oversight: a complete lack of sustainable transport options. Local public transport links are virtually non-existent. That will force future residents to rely almost entirely on cars and will snarl up the already overly congested roads for my constituents.

I am sure colleagues agree that we should not rubber-stamp major housing projects without properly considering how people will get to work and school and access sustainable essential services locally in a convenient manner. In Bolton West, we already have severe congestion at Four Lane Ends in Hulton, where traffic bottlenecks daily and pedestrian facilities are extremely limited. The recent proposal for two additional housing developments in Leigh, one of which is particularly large, will only compound the issue.

To be clear, I wholeheartedly support the Government’s housing plans, which are necessary given that the previous Tory Government sat on their hands for 14 years. We have built 4.3 million fewer homes than comparable countries since the second world war, and house prices are now 8.3 times the average income, pricing many of my constituents out of home ownership, but we must strive to deliver those new homes in a way that does not force residents into car dependency and exacerbate existing congestion issues. For me, the Hulton Park development is emblematic of a broader failure to link transport planning, house building and, crucially, economic growth.

We must ensure that new developments are served by cycle, pedestrian, bus, rail and tram networks from the outset, rather than as an afterthought. We should be planning how to mitigate existing congestion before spades are in the ground. This is about more than convenience; it is about the future of our towns and our cities. It is about delivering economic growth by ensuring connectivity between new developments and workplaces. It is about reducing emissions, improving air quality and ensuring that everyone has fair access to transport. I urge the Minister: let us not only build the homes that we need but build them with the infrastructure they deserve.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Well done, everybody; all Members have got in. I call the Lib Dem spokesman, Tim Farron.

10:35

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

It is an honour to serve under your guidance this morning, Dr Murrison. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), who admirably led this debate, as well as many other colleagues from across the north-west who have made excellent contributions on behalf of both their constituencies and the north-west as a whole, which is of course the greatest region on planet Earth. It is home to the greatest towns and cities, and indeed the greatest and most beautiful landscape that we have to offer.

The north-west is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, yet it is appalling that our region performs 6.8% below the national average on productivity. Indeed, the only regions with productivity above the national average are London and the south-east. Over the last 60 or 70 years, we have become a steadily unipolar country, and the north-west, like lots of other parts of the UK, has become undermined. We saw levelling up from the last Government, which had some admirable aspects, but essentially—dare I say—it felt like a whole load of pork barrel with no strategy. Let us hope that we can have some strategy.

The cancellation of HS2 summed up that lack of strategy. I completely agree with the hon. Members for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who is my neighbour; they talked about HS2 being about capacity and not speed. If we had a proper HS2 line to the north-west that mirrored and upgraded the west coast main line, which is the most congested rail line in western Europe, that would give us the opportunity to reopen many stations along the existing main line— I will throw out Tebay, Shap and Milnthorpe, just to name three. We must also think about how important it is for the north-west to relate to not just London but other parts of the north of England. East-west connectivity is crucial. What we used to call High Speed 3, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, is hugely significant, and we want to see and hear more about it.

As an MP in Cumbria, I am bound to say that often, when we talk about the north-west, we seem to stop thinking about anything that exists north of junction 32 —I can confirm that it does exist. In particular, I would love the Minister to focus on the A66, which is a hugely important road for connectivity that links the A1(M) and the M6, so it connects the ports in the east and the west of this country. In a parallel universe, it would have been a motorway. However, for 12 miles it is a single carriageway, where there are hideous numbers of deaths that are always concentrated in that small section.

I urge the Minister and his colleagues to say yes to the A66 upgrade as soon as possible. Everybody in my neck of the woods is on tenterhooks waiting to hear. Likewise, there is work that has to be done on the M6 near junction 38. While it is massively important to the whole motorway network in the north, the people of Tebay must not be isolated during that work, and I ask the Minister to pay special attention to the so far inadequate levels of mitigation from National Highways, as those eight bridges have to be replaced in the coming years.

It is also important to talk about trains, and to think about what train services are like across the whole of the north-west. I want to highlight the situation with Avanti, and its failure to serve the northern half of the north-west adequately. It is worth bearing in mind that rail services on the west coast managed to meet their timetable obligations only 43.5% of the time, and last year, more than one in 20 services were cancelled. Any of us who live north of Preston know that any problem in the borders of Scotland or Glasgow means a train cancelled at Preston. Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and Lockerbie are often completely overlooked, and that must stop.

I also want the Minister to think very carefully about what can be done to expand existing railway lines to make better use of them. The most visited destination in the United Kingdom outside London is the Lake district, yet we have a single railway line that goes from the main line to Windermere. It is possible, quite cheaply, to double capacity by having a passing loop at Burneside, and I would love the Minister to look at that possibility and see whether he agrees to it.

[Graham Stringer]

In the context of the north-west, we are all friends on this matter. The hon. Member probably does not know, but a few years ago the Transport Committee did a study into north-west trains and found that train schedules in the north-west—not when the trains actually run—were slower when there was a Liberal Prime Minister. Even more surprisingly, it was not Campbell-Bannerman; it was Gladstone.

[Tim Farron]

May I point out that there were many more railway lines then, and therefore more trains to be slow? It was also mostly pre-electricity—so there we go. I am grateful for the hon. Member’s point.

The industrial capability of the west coast of Cumbria—not in my constituency—is significant to the economy of the whole country, and includes BAE at Barrow and Sellafield on the west coast. The railway line that serves them—the Furness line—saw a derailment a year ago and a flooding-related near disaster just a few weeks ago. We need to pay special attention to keeping the Furness line open, upgrading it and electrifying it if possible. I also want to make a case, on behalf of all my Cumbrian colleagues, for the Cumbria coastal line, which needs significant investment.

It is great to hear colleagues from metropolitan parts of the north-west talk about keeping the £2 bus fare cap, but for many of us in areas that are far less well funded, and where devolution has not really happened, such as Cumbria, we are stuck with the £3 cap, and we are worried about that being got rid of altogether. Before the cap came in, the most expensive bus journey in the United Kingdom was Kendal to Ambleside, which cost more than an hour’s wage for somebody working in the hospitality sector. Will the Minister confirm that the £3 cap will not be raised or got rid of any time soon?

It is my great privilege to represent a very rural area, but that means that even when the £3 cap exists, it is of no good whatsoever. It does a fat lot of good if we do not have any buses. Giving our local authority, Westmorland and Furness council, the ability to run its own buses is key to meeting the needs of many rural communities. I am honoured to chair an outfit called Cumbria Better Connected, to which all these issues are regularly fed in. One of the most important issues is connectivity and integration between bus and rail, but it is no—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister, Jerome Mayhew.

10:42

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

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing the debate, and congratulate all hon. Members, who have put very forceful cases for transport in the north-west. Their combined contributions have demonstrated that there are many shared problems in the region.

I do not have time to mention every hon. Member who has contributed, so I will limit myself to commenting on the contribution of the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton, who highlighted that her constituency, like I suspect many others in the area, is a post-industrial commuter belt that is struggling to cope with the consequential increase in traffic. Because of the over-reliance on cars, the society suffers from high transport-related social exclusion. There are a number of issues, but I will try to mash them together into three headlines.

Let us start with the positive news, which is the welcome devolution of transport policy. It was implemented by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, but it was of course a Conservative policy that was brought in in 2017, so while we welcome it, we should share the plaudits. I welcome the success of the Bee network, but we have to recognise that it was expensive—there was £1 billion of Government support.

That raises a big issue, because as well as that £1 billion, Bee is supported by considerably north of £130 million a year from central funds, by my calculations. Its parent, as it were—Transport for London—receives in excess of £1 billion a year. There is therefore a fundamental question here for the Minister. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is going through the House of Lords, and I have with me the consultation on Great British Railways and “A railway fit for Britain’s future”. If this is the model for the future, can the Minister shed some light on where the increased funding will come from? It is a good development—it was Conservative policy—but where it is expanded beyond the large mayoral combined authorities to other combined authorities, there will inevitably be an associated cost.

The second related issue is the potential conflict when regional policy butts up against national policy, when a strong regional mayor rightly wants control over a combined transport policy, whether that is buses, rail or road. We potentially have a directing mind under Great British Railways—intended to be one of its key benefits—coming up against Andy Burnham, for example. The consultation paper refers to that, but has no detail on how those potential conflicts will be resolved and who will be the final arbiter. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to respond on that.

Many hon. Members called for the reintroduction of the northern HS2 extension, focusing not on speed, but on capacity. We have to recognise that, again, it comes back to money. The cancellation of the northern part of HS2 redirected £19.8 billion to other transport projects for the region. This is not a comprehensive list, but it gives a flavour: £2 billion for the new station at Bradford and a new connection to Manchester; £3 billion for upgraded and electrified lines from Manchester to Sheffield, Sheffield to Leeds, Sheffield to Hull and Hull to Leeds; about £4 billion of additional transport funding for the six city regions; £2.5 billion of additional funding for outside the city regions; and £3.3 billion for road improvements, albeit largely filling potholes.

[Mrs Russell]

I understand that in that announcement there was £180 million for Cheshire East council, but council leaders were told it would be weighted towards the back end of the seven years. They feel strongly that it was made-up money that was always predicated on borrowing, and that there was never any real intention to give that money to the north-west.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Their concerns were wrong. I had a minor position in the Treasury at the time, and I can assure the hon. Lady that that was genuine redirection of funds, albeit over a period, as one would expect, with the release of funds associated with the development of HS2 in the northern sector.

To conclude the list, we had £3.3 billion for road improvements and an additional £11.5 billion for Northern Powerhouse Rail from Manchester to Liverpool. The question that is easy to miss in opposition but impossible to avoid in government is this: where do the Government want money to be spent? That money could be used for those widespread improvements or be rediverted to a northern branch of a version of HS2, but it is impossible to spend the same money twice. If the Minister wants to do both, where is the money going to come from?

Finally, many hon. Members referred to the seeming disconnect between investment decisions in London and the south-east and elsewhere in the country, the north-west in particular. The hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton used a good phrase:

“Growth goes where the growth already is.”

The previous Government at least took the first step in tackling an injustice in the Green Book analysis. That was undertaken to unlock some of the levelling-up investment that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I am concerned that the new Government—certainly the new Treasury—are reverting to type. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had her growth panic a few weeks ago—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

10:49

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on raising the important topic of connectivity in the north-west—an area that was a cradle to so many transport innovations and is home to beautiful countryside and some of our greatest cities and towns. It is not quite Yorkshire, but it is still a pretty special place.

Kick-starting economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the economic performance of the north-west is vital to successful delivery. It is essential that we deliver our plan for change to create more jobs, put more money in people’s pockets and help to rebuild Britain—but, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, we cannot have good growth without the transport connectivity to support it.

A truly connected transport network must be designed and built in collaboration with local leaders. That is why the English devolution White Paper published last year is so important. It is an opportunity to reset our relationship with local and sub-national government and to empower local leaders and mayors to make the right decisions for their communities. We are already seeing the benefits across mayoral areas with the introduction of the Bee network in Greater Manchester, alongside mayors in the Liverpool city region and West Yorkshire who are working towards taking back control of their buses. I will just put on the record how pleased I was to hear yesterday that South Yorkshire will also be taking back control of its buses.

The Government will be still more ambitious, however. First, we will make the process for taking buses back into public control faster and simpler through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Secondly, we will give mayors a statutory role in governing, managing and planning the rail network, working alongside Great British Railways. Thirdly, through the English devolution Bill, we will put the roles of mayors on a primary footing, setting out a clear and broad set of powers that will be available to mayors and local leaders.

Our transport network has seen decades of decay. Communities have been cut off and short-changed. Fragmented networks have hindered meaningful change, and the state of our local roads is a result of past under-investment. We are determined to reverse that. An uplift of £200 million was secured at the autumn spending review for city region sustainable transport settlement areas for 2025-26, which was welcomed by the mayoral combined authorities, including Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region, which are receiving over £1.7 billion from the current CRSTS programme.

The autumn Budget announcement also included a commitment of over £650 million in local transport funding in 2025-26 to ensure that transport connections improve in towns, villages and rural areas, and a funding uplift of £500 million for 2025-26 for highways maintenance. Of that £500 million, the north-west region is receiving over £64.8 million in additional funding. In the Budget the Government confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable. Local transport authorities across the north-west have been allocated nearly £150 million for the 2025-26 financial year.

The Government are committed to improving transport across the north, including boosting rail connectivity from east to west. We are already taking forward the trans-Pennine route upgrade—TRU—which will improve rail performance and support growth and housing by reducing journey times and providing more passenger services on the line between Manchester and York. We are delivering the Manchester taskforce programme, which is central to the Government’s ambitious multibillion-pound rail investment across the north. As announced in the autumn Budget, we are maintaining momentum on Northern Powerhouse Rail by progressing planning and design works to support its future delivery.

On our strategic road network we are developing a five-year third road investment strategy that will cover 2026 to 2031. The RIS will be published before the end of 2025. Our vision is for a network that connects more people to more places, making our day-to-day journeys easier and simpler, and building a network that can attract investment, whether that is through boosting efficiency or unlocking land for development.

The integrated national transport strategy will be published this year and will set a long-term vision for transport in England, focusing on how transport should be designed, built and operated to better serve all the people who use it and enable them to live fulfilling lives. We will develop the strategy through collaborative and open engagement with our stakeholders and people who use transport.

It is impossible for me to cover every point raised today, but I will touch on a few. On Northern Rail, it has been made really clear to Northern’s management that the current performance is not acceptable. That is why Rail North Partnership, through which the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, issued it with a notice of breach of contract, which has required Northern to produce a detailed plan to improve its services.

On HS2, transport is an essential part of our mission to rebuild Britain, and I am committed to delivering infrastructure that works for the whole country and of course to improving rail connectivity across the midlands and the north. My ministerial colleagues and I are carefully reviewing the position we have inherited on HS2 and wider rail infrastructure.

On the previous Government’s commitments on investment, I will just remind the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the £22 billion black hole. They left this Government to pick up the pieces.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way.

We acknowledge that rates of step-free access remain low across Great Britain, which is why the Access for All programme is working to address that. In the Greater Manchester area—

[Tim Farron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way, because I have a lot of points to make, but I am happy to have a conversation with Members afterwards. In the Greater Manchester area, about 50% of stations already have step-free access, approximately double the national average. We remain committed to improving the accessibility of the railways and recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to communities. However, the programme continues to be heavily oversubscribed, so we welcome opportunities for external funding to improve the accessibility of the network.

The objective of the Treasury’s review of the Green Book is to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures fair, objective and transparent appraisals of proposals outside London and the south-east of England. DFT officials are working closely with the Treasury on that review and will take forward any relevant actions following its conclusion.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton very much for raising this important issue. I hope that I have been able to reassure her that the Government recognise the importance of transport connectivity across the north-west. That is why we are investing and that is why we are devolving to local leaders. I look forward to continuing to work with her and other hon. Members on this key issue.

10:57

[Jo Platt]

Thank you for chairing the debate, Dr Murrison. There is not much time left, so I will not go through everyone’s contribution, but I express thanks to everybody who attended and everybody who made such valid points about how we improve our transport infrastructure for the north-west. I just hope that as we go forward, we can all work together and speak as one voice, working across the parties and with our Minister and this Government, to get the improvements that we desperately need.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered improving transport connectivity in the North West.

Defence Industries: West Midlands

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered defence industries in the West Midlands.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Global threats are evolving, making defence investment more critical than ever. A strong defence underpins our security and sovereignty, but we must scale up to meet the modern challenges. The warning flags were raised in 2014, yet the UK lacked a long-term strategy. The defence industry drives innovation and economic growth, but skill shortages and supply chain volatility risk holding it back. Our armed forces are only as strong as our defence sector.

Across the west midlands and the UK, the defence industry provides security, supports thousands of jobs, and fuels innovation in areas such as AI, cyber and advanced manufacturing. The region is home to major players, including Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and Babcock, with BAE Systems alone working with 11 small and medium-sized enterprises, including one in my constituency of Tamworth.

The Government’s renewed focus on defence as part of their industrial strategy is welcome. I also support the recent commitment to the largest defence spending increase since the cold war, meaning that we will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. With post-war alliances shifting, we must continue investing in our defence capabilities.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I recently visited Somers Forge in my constituency—it is the 10th oldest SME in the United Kingdom, and has been supplying defence equipment since the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. It was great to meet with its team, and see the important work that it does. Does my hon. Friend agree that our defence industrial strategy will help SMEs access defence investment and boost businesses such as Somers Forge in the west midlands?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. This industrial strategy is essential in making sure we have the focus to support our businesses right across the region, and in making sure that they are successful.

The upcoming defence industrial strategy must prioritise British businesses, including SMEs, ensuring that investment creates jobs and strengthens our national security. Currently, nearly 18,000 people work in defence SMEs in the west midlands, and the Ministry of Defence spends £1.6 billion annually in the region, making it the UK’s third largest defence hub. By backing UK industry, and fostering co-operation between Government, business and workers, we can build a defence sector fit for the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward, and she is certainly making a reputation for herself as an assiduous MP on these issues. I welcome what she said in relation to the Government’s commitment to 2.5% increasing to 3%—there is nobody in the United Kingdom who does not welcome that. I know that we in Northern Ireland have very strong sectors in the work we do with the Royal Navy and Thales, but does the hon. Lady agree that we must ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom can get the advantages that she has referred to, in terms of not just security, but the economy, jobs and opportunities? If we can all be part of this process going forward, that could support the Minister and the Labour Government.

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. In fact I will go on to talk about just how important it is that all our regions and nations are embedded in this process, and that they all contribute different skills that are of value. There are so many different aspects to defence, and our defence industries that contribute and go well past into other areas of manufacturing. I thank him for raising that point.

Last week, the Business and Trade Committee heard from Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, Leonardo and MBDA on the global combat air programme, which is an alliance between the UK, Italy and Japan, who are designing Tempest fighter jets. That alliance integrates advanced air combat technology, ensuring that our defence capabilities match evolving threats. Defence alliances are a cornerstone of trade diplomacy, driving both national security and industrial growth. They have been cited as having the potential to drive our export growth, while cementing important alliances for our defence.

One issue raised with the Business and Trade Committee was the short-term nature of defence funding cycles; even major companies operate on a one-year funding cycle, making it difficult to sustain long-term projects such as Tempest. National security priorities do not fit neatly into parliamentary terms, and our defence sector needs stability. It was suggested that moving to a three or five-year funding model would provide certainty, drive innovation and ensure that the UK remains a global leader in defence. What conversations is the Minister having on the contractual arrangements currently in play for companies and the assessment that he has made of their ability to help the Government to reach their goals for the sector and national security?

Export-led growth will be essential to the defence industries that need a wider base than just their own sovereign purchasing power. By exporting technology and products, companies will be able to keep the continuity of build programmes going away from that boom-and-bust cycle. We could use industry to foster diplomatic relations of bilateral importance. The future of the defence industry relies on a workforce equipped with the right skills and adaptable to the evolving demands of our armed forces and the Ministry of Defence.

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

I thank my on. Friend and neighbour for securing this important debate. Every year, Bedworth residents show their pride in our armed forces with their Armistice Day parade, which I was privileged to take part in this year. Many of my constituents already work in the defence and security sector in small and medium-sized enterprises around the west midlands. I am glad that this number will only go up with the Government’s increased investment in our defence and security. Does my hon. Friend agree that the west midlands should be proud of the contribution we make towards the defence and security of our nation, and should look forward to seeing more people benefiting from the skills and training that come from joining this industry?

[Sarah Edwards]

That contribution is paramount to the debate; the west midlands is very proud not only of being the third largest region in terms of our contribution to the defence sector, but that our constituents work very hard to contribute to that. It is incredibly important that people see that they are a part of this endeavour, and it is not something that is happening far away from them. They are an essential part, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.

To achieve this, we must create clear, skills-based career pathways that allow individuals to upskill or transition into the sector at different stages of their career. One effective way to address that challenge is through closer collaboration between further education centres and the defence industry. These partnerships are critical in identifying skills gaps and shaping education programmes that directly address industry needs. By doing this, we can provide young people with a clear vision for how they can step into the defence industry. Young people too often underestimate the transferability of their skills across industries. Many assume that the expertise they gain in education or early career roles is limited to a single sector, but abilities such as problem solving, teamwork, communication and technical proficiency are in high demand across multiple fields. An engineering student may not realise that their expertise is equally valuable in defence.

At the same time, we must ensure that those already in the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence have the opportunity to reskill and upskill—a zig-zag career approach, where individuals move between roles and gain new skills. That would allow personnel to adapt to the changes, ensuring that the MOD retains experienced talent, while keeping pace with technological advancements. In my constituency, we are fortunate to house Defence Medical Services Whittington, which hosts the defence medical academy. That institution is dedicated to advancing the training and research that can provide our military personnel with the best medical care and knowledge required to tackle complex injuries on the battlefield.

Linking our industries with our military centres provides opportunities for skills development and transfer. The social value created by defence industries is strategic value. Larger companies in the west midlands are capitalising on key skills. Some companies, such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, are currently creating their own apprenticeship training programmes. How is the Minister working with the Minister for Skills on developing pathways and opportunities that directly respond to the needs of the sector?

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I attended a roundtable in my constituency held by the Manufacturing Technology Centre and chaired by the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), and the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), who is one of my neighbouring MPs, to discuss with local businesses their involvement in the defence supply chain. I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about large companies investing in skills development.

GE Vernova is a 130-year-old company based in Rugby that specialises in electric propulsion systems for naval vessels. It has supplied propulsion systems for the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates, and it developed and delivered the world’s first fully electric warships. Indeed, 92% of the Royal Navy’s fleet is powered by its electric propulsion systems. This is vital, because it is creating new jobs in Rugby and across the country. Does my hon. Friend welcome the Government’s commitment to spreading the economic benefits of the defence sector across the entire country?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. It is almost as though my hon. Friend predicted what I will speak about next, because I will soon tell a story about a visit that I made. The fact that the company has been in his constituency for 130 years shows that Britain has this prowess, and we do not want to lose it. Through this strategy, we have to ensure that such businesses are still going and that that innovation is being incorporated into technology.

The Business and Trade Committee went to Scotland on Monday. Although ships are manufactured in Scotland, it takes a whole country to build them. The Committee witnessed the incredible shipbuilding work taking place at the BAE Systems site in Govan. The commitment to skills development in Scotland is impressive, with competitive apprenticeship programmes open to all ages, allowing career changes and retraining. The programmes are more competitive than gaining a place at Oxford University, highlighting the value of practical skills and apprenticeships. The narrative that university is the only option to success has, in part, fuelled a shortage in skills.

During our visit, I stood onboard HMS Cardiff in its fit-out stage and saw where HMS Birmingham will soon start the next phase of its construction, in a giant hangar that is large enough for two ships to be built side by side. The Type 26 frigates being built in Scotland are world-class and, when used properly, will be crucial for our trade diplomacy strategy, with many countries eager to buy British.

A key theme raised as being important to the success of the defence industrial strategy was the continuity of work to preserve an essential skills base. For example, steel may come from Port Talbot in Wales, making up 4% of the cost of a ship, but 25% of the cost is in the combat systems, requiring digital engineering and design expertise found in places such as Hertfordshire. Fostering innovation across the defence and civil sectors such as aerospace is crucial, as demonstrated by the evidence given to the Business and Trade Committee yesterday by Airbus, which said that more than 50% of the supply chain is both defence and civil.

Our visit reinforced the importance of a collaborative, nationwide approach to defence. From steel manufacturing to advanced digital systems, every region and nation of the UK contributes to defence and innovation, playing a part in our national security. Will the Minister meet me and defence companies in my constituency to talk about how they can continue to play a part—and, indeed, play a greater part—in the endeavour that the Government have set out? To ensure the long-term security and strength of our defence and industrial sectors, we must build that greater resilience in our supply chains.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for the way she is leading it. In my constituency, we have JCB, which is a major employer and manufacturer, but we also have Crestchic Loadbanks, which is an SME that often finds it difficult to get access to Government contracts. Does she agree that, as we look at the defence industrial strategy, we have to ensure that we are backing British business and that all those companies can make a contribution to our shared national defence?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. We have to back British, we have to buy British, and we have to keep the west midlands in pole position, innovating and ensuring that companies working across civil and defence can get the maximum benefit from the new procurement contracts coming from the MOD.

A comprehensive review of the UK supply chain is essential to ensure that SMEs have visibility and fair access to Government contracts. Smaller businesses often struggle to break into large procurement processes dominated by major players, and access to funding is difficult. Again, the annual funding cycles were cited by Flare Bright and Gibson Robotics as problematic for growing SMEs in the evidence we heard yesterday.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. She is clearly setting out the value of the defence sector in Tamworth, the villages and our region more widely. In Cannock, engineers at Briggs Equipment have extended the operational life of the RAF’s fleet of bespoke air-transportable forklift trucks by at least 10 years. This might not be the most high-profile equipment, but those specialist forklifts are being used for everyday logistics and for military and humanitarian missions as far afield as Cyprus, Ascension Island and the Falklands. Does my hon. Friend agree that such local businesses are essential to the wider defence supply chain, providing high-quality jobs, boosting skills and contributing to Staffordshire’s success?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree, particularly with my hon. Friend’s shout out to his constituency and, of course, Staffordshire, which plays an important role. As hon. Members have said, we have a concentration of hard-working companies, and there is a benefit to their dual-use aspects. That is something we should push as a nation to ensure we get the most for all our regions.

RAND Europe, commissioned by the MOD in 2021, found that

“SMEs and mid-tier suppliers report difficulties accessing and engaging with both top tier suppliers and the MOD”.

Barriers included a lack of corporate functions and challenges in marketing their businesses to prime contractors. UK defence supply chains also struggled to attract non-traditional suppliers due to slow, inflexible and bureaucratic processes. It concluded that the MOD’s approach to contracting is seen as “inflexible” and disadvantageous to lower-tier suppliers, which “discourages innovation.”

Examples of how the MOD could support smaller suppliers and foster innovation were cited as being, in part, possible due to the defence and security accelerator programme, or DASA, because it creates a contract for revenue, which is vital so that firms can demonstrate to other investors that they are viable—grants cannot be treated in the same way. Can the Minister reflect on how the DASA programme could be expanded to align more closely with the challenges that SMEs face in developing products and solving problems?

The DASA programme has an element of mentoring, which those who have used it have cited as very valuable. The US also uses a model in which technical liaison officers scout for companies and then support them through the complex military procurement and due diligence processes. Has the Minister considered a similar scheme in defence industrial policy, and has he spoken with his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade on how to align those goals for maximum impact?

Yesterday, the Business and Trade Committee heard that procurement towards capability might better suit the fast-paced environment that military technology now inhabits. Ukraine has shown that innovation is happening in weeks, not years, so the procurement need —rather than defined items—may in some circumstances foster better results. The strategic defence review will also be an important part of informing those decisions. It is a vital first step, taken by this Government, to ensure that we have the right force capability fit for the future and that, when we spend money, we spend it well.

It has been suggested that one large innovation hub could be created, establishing facilities for testing programmes that could then enable smaller companies to continue developing, leading to small-scale buying programmes that could later be scaled into larger ones. That sets a clear pathway that could be stewarded by an individual liaison. Those are some of the things the Committee has heard that we think could support the Government’s ideals.

The west midlands is showcasing the incredible potential of the UK’s defence industry as a driver of security, economic growth, innovation and skills development. Investing in reskilling and upskilling is crucial for those currently serving in the armed forces and the MOD, as well as for future-proofing our defence workforce. Building resilience in our supply chains by prioritising UK businesses, especially SMEs, in procurement decisions is essential. I thank the Members present for showcasing the work of their constituents, and of the companies in their constituencies, to support the defence industries. By making funding more accessible and breaking down barriers to entry, we can harness British innovation and ensure that our defence industry remains competitive globally.

The Government have taken decisive action by focusing on an industrial strategy that prioritises defence. Amid global uncertainty, we must provide calm and focus on developing security systems that prepare our nation for any eventuality. Including our regions in the strategy unlocks opportunities and high-skilled jobs that benefit local communities everywhere, including those in my Tamworth constituency. We have talent, expertise and ambition, and now we must make the right choices to unlock that potential.

11:20

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

It is good to see you, Dr Murrison. As a former Defence Minister, you will know these subjects well. I might be a proud Janner—someone from Plymouth—but my great-grandfather, Alfred Carey, worked in the automotive industry making Hillman Minxes in the west midlands, so I feel that the debate has a connection with my past.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for securing this debate and for speaking so passionately about not only why we need to defend our national security and learn lessons from Ukraine, but how we can spend the increased defence budget announced by the Prime Minister to create more British jobs and more opportunities for our young people to develop skills that will last them a lifetime and support the growth mission, which is this Government’s No. 1 mission.

As a native of the area, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth knows better than most the importance of defence to the west midlands. Although it is clear that defence makes a considerable contribution to the west midlands in jobs, investment and prosperity, today’s debate also reminds us of the huge contribution that the west midlands makes to UK defence, and the possibility of doing even more. Billions of pounds are injected annually into west midlands defence enterprises by industry and Government, but we know that our military is only as strong as the supply chain that supports it. What we have heard today is not only a clarion call of support for the big defence companies in the west midlands—the Rolls-Royces, the BAE Systems, the Babcocks—but a call for further investment in SMEs, which I will come back to.

As a Government, we are determined to nurture and develop the region’s defence cluster and defence businesses. As part of that, we need to invest more in skills, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth spoke about that. We know the world is becoming more dangerous and Britain is facing rising threats. The Government also face the challenges of rebuilding and reinvigorating our armed forces after a decade and a half of underfunding and hollowing out. That is why we launched the strategic defence review: to assess the dangers we face and determine the capabilities we need to meet them. It is why we brought forward our promise to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence to April 2027, and 3% in the next Parliament when economic conditions allow. It is why we are working hard on defence reform and the new defence industrial strategy: to unlock the potential of suppliers across the country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth alluded to, there is a well-known phrase in military circles that soldiers win battles, but supply chains win wars. She was right to make the case that we need to invest more in our defence industry, because there are companies out there that will not regard themselves as defence companies.

People who work in data, digital or advanced manufacturing, or who support the wider supply chain, are defence companies in waiting. They are the innovative people who could support the next generation of military equipment and military operations. In making the case for investment in defence businesses, the Government need to be aware that if we get defence procurement right, we can expand the number of companies involved. That increases the economic benefits of spending, but also enables us to access skills, ingenuity and innovation, especially among SMEs.

[Sarah Edwards]

The Minister has mentioned the examples of the automotive sector and cyber-security, and how many people do not realise that they are working in comparable industries. As parliamentarians, how can we work to showcase the different ways that people are contributing to the defence industry, or could be working in it? How can we promote that? What does the Minister think we can do to make sure people realise that this is a wider, shared endeavour and that their skills are very transferable?

[Luke Pollard]

That is an excellent question. It comes down to how we implement the defence industrial strategy that my colleague, the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, is leading within the Department. That needs to tie in with the whole-of-Government and whole-of-society effort for our national defence, which is something Parliament will need to speak more of in future. To defend our nation and support our allies, we will need this mission to be held passionately not just by people in uniform and the Ministry of Defence. We will need every Department to understand its contribution to that mission. When we invest in skills, we will have the opportunity to do that.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend mentioned the Type 26 builds in Scotland. As the MP for Devonport in Plymouth, where the Type 26s will be based, I know how incredible these frigates will be, how they will deter Russian submarine activity in the north Atlantic, and how they will contribute directly to the security of our nation and our allies.

To build those frigates, we will need to invest in skills on a long-term basis. We are looking at how we can have multi-year budgets, to invest more in skills and supply chains, rather than having the annual cycle. Frankly, and as the Defence Secretary has made very clear, defence needs to spend money better than it has in the past. That is why he started a programme of defence reform to make sure we reform not only how we fight and how we are configured, but also how we procure. The recruitment for a new national armaments director is a significant part of driving the defence reform needed to support SMEs as well as primes.

[Alex Ballinger]

We are talking about procurement. Just this week I met Members of the European Parliament in Brussels to talk about our collective response to Ukraine. One of the challenges that Somers Forge in my Halesowen constituency faces is the struggle with European supply chains and the trade barriers between the UK and Europe. As we go through a new reset with Europe, will the Minister commit to push for greater access for defence industries to the European market?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about Somers Forge and those opportunities. It is certainly something that my Cabinet Office colleagues, who are leading that reset work with Europe, are very conscious of. It is also something that the Defence Secretary picked up with High Representative Kallas from the European Commission yesterday. They looked at the opportunities for UK industry, which is already integrated across our European partners, to work without some of the obstacles in the way of delivering the defence capabilities we need to deter Russian aggression. There is an opportunity here.

A number of Members have spoken about the importance of SMEs in their constituencies and the jobs that they provide. Five years ago, the Ministry of Defence spent 5% of its direct spend with SMEs. In July 2024, we inherited a situation where that had fallen to 4%. The Department has now set an ambition to spend more direct spend with SMEs across the country. We are consulting on what the level should be, so that it is achievable but stretching.

We are working with organisations such as Make UK to understand what barriers need to be overcome and removed to support SMEs to access that direct spend—rather than just supporting the brilliant work of our primes as subcontractors—because we know that if they have a direct spending relationship with the MOD, they are more likely to be able to access overseas export markets. It is precisely for that reason that we are adjusting how we deliver defence procurement within the Ministry of Defence. It could not only spend the money better in the UK and create more jobs, it could also increase the size of our economy by receiving export orders from abroad.

In their interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, Members talked about how we can invest more. I am keen to invest more in SMEs, and I am keen that we speak about the opportunity for young people to find a brilliant career in defence. The zig-zag career proposal is absolutely vital. We need to make sure that we do not create cliff edges and that transferring from regular service to the reserves is easier, so that people can serve in our military, move into industry and then return to service without there being cliff edges that get in the way. There are huge opportunities.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth secured this debate and that we have had this conversation about how we can invest in our defence, grow our economy and provide jobs that will benefit our young people for their entire careers.

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

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner in the Chair]

14:30

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered miscarriage of justice compensation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I wager that the majority of citizens are unfamiliar with the workings of the criminal justice system, and still less familiar with miscarriages of justice. Perhaps, if they are aware of miscarriages of justice, they are aware of certain high-profile exonerees or miscarriages of justice, such as the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six. Most people will understandably and reasonably assume that victims of miscarriages of justice are compensated, particularly if they spent time in custody before being pardoned or having their convictions quashed. However, this is not the case. In England and Wales, compensation for the wrongly convicted is the exception rather than the rule. The current compensation scheme enables only some people in England and Wales who have had their convictions overturned, or been found not guilty at retrial, to receive compensation.

I make it very clear that my concern is not that miscarriages of justice happen. Sadly, no system in the world is perfect. Miscarriages of justice happen—we cannot get it correct 100% of the time—but when they occur, citizens expect the state to right that wrong. In a survey by Opinium in December 2024, 71% of those asked believed the Government should ensure fair and swift compensation for those who are wrongly convicted. Many will therefore be appalled to learn that this is not the case, that victims of miscarriages of justice seldom receive compensation for the wrong that has befallen them, that the wrongly convicted often have to fight for years, at great cost, to clear their name, and that the justice system unnecessarily forces the innocent to suffer continued injustice.

The issue in this debate is the failure of the state to right these wrongs. We should be clear that a miscarriage of justice inflicts considerable harm on the wrongly convicted. A 2018 report by the campaign group Justice, “Supporting Exonerees: Ensuring Accessible, Consistent and Continuing Support,” underscores the grave hardship and difficulty that the wrongly convicted have in adjusting to life after conviction, and the trauma that they have gone through, which they must deal with for years after the event. The report highlights how victims of miscarriages of justice struggle to adjust. Having spent time in prison, becoming institutionalised and grappling with the fact that they should not be there, they struggle to trust authorities.

The unfairness of the current system was brought into sharp relief for me when I met my constituent Mr Brian Buckle and his family and learned of their experiences. I am pleased that they have made the journey from Fishguard to join us in the Public Gallery.

In May 2017, Mr Buckle was convicted on 16 counts of historical sexual offences and sentenced to a total of 15 years’ imprisonment. He had always maintained his innocence, and in September 2022 the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered a retrial. He was immediately released on bail, having served five years and four months of his sentence. The retrial took place in May 2023. Mr Buckle and his defence team, led by Mr Stephen Vullo KC, who is also in the Public Gallery, prepared a detailed defence and presented new witnesses and forensic evidence. After three long weeks in court, the jury returned unanimous not guilty verdicts in just over an hour.

I cannot fathom the strain that Mr Buckle has endured as a result of years of legal proceedings and the travesty of being imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit. Let us remember what the wrongly convicted must go through and its impact. He missed important family milestones, such as his daughter’s 18th and 21st birthdays. His imprisonment cost him over £500,000 in lost income and devastated his plan to retire at 55 with a private pension, because he had been unable to make any contributions following his imprisonment. Furthermore, his state pension is now in jeopardy, given that he was unable to make any national insurance contributions for more than five years.

The impact on Mr Buckle is not limited to the period in which he was deprived of his liberty. Indeed, I am afraid to say that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the impact of his wrongful conviction and imprisonment. His mental health is such that he has been unable to work since his release.

Prior to this awful state of affairs, Mr Buckle travelled every week from west Wales to London because he was in charge of an engineering firm. He performed this very important role, which had a lot of responsibility, for more than 15 years. He made the weekly journey on the great western main line or the M4 that the Minister and I also make.

This travesty of justice could befall any of us, through no fault of our own. Although it is difficult to comprehend the nightmare that has befallen Mr Buckle and his family, one can estimate the financial impact of his ordeal in terms of the income and pension that have been lost. Perhaps we can also put a figure on the costs incurred for appeals and legal defences, but how can we begin to calculate the impact on his health or the loss of precious time with his family?

I am sure we would all agree that that is a difficult dilemma, but it was not difficult, it would seem, for the Ministry of Justice, which issued a cruelly simple response to Mr Buckle after he applied for compensation under the statutory scheme. In the decision letter, which was issued almost a year after the application was submitted, the MOJ rejected his claim out of hand:

“Having carefully considered the particular circumstances of the reversing of your conviction, I do not consider your case demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offences for which you were convicted.”

Mr Buckle spent five years and four months in prison, and he had his conviction overturned by the Court of Appeal. He produced a detailed defence, including new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence, at retrial, at which the jury unanimously returned not guilty verdicts to all 16 counts in just over an hour. Having been subjected to that ordeal and having jumped through all the hoops that one could expect him to jump through, the Ministry of Justice’s response was not only to deny him compensation but, worse, to state that it does not consider that his case

“demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offences for which you were convicted”—

the same offences of which he was acquitted.

There was no reference to the harm he has suffered, to the impact on his family or to the Court of Appeal being concerned that the original trial was so flawed that the jury had failed to approach their task correctly that it ruled the conviction unsafe, such that the new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence were ultimately unnecessary. All that Mr Buckle received was a pretty meaningless reassurance that the matter had been “carefully considered.” If this is what comes from careful consideration, I dread to think what would result from reckless handling, but it surely could not be much worse for Mr Buckle. After years of legal battles following his wrongful conviction, he has been told that, although he is not guilty, the state will not compensate him for the years spent in prison because it does not believe that he has proven his innocence.

One does not need to be a King’s Counsel to see the unfairness of this situation. There can be no doubt that such a decision prolongs the miscarriage of justice in Mr Buckle’s case. That is a wrong that this new UK Government can and, indeed, must put right.

Before I discuss how the Government can do that, it is worth our reflecting briefly on how we have arrived at the current situation. Before 2006, the Government operated two compensation schemes for victims of miscarriages of justice in England and Wales: a discretionary scheme and a statutory scheme. The discretionary scheme was abolished in 2006, but the statutory scheme afforded the Justice Secretary the discretion to pay compensation to a wrongly convicted person when:

“his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice”.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of “miscarriage of justice” for the purposes of the statutory scheme should not be restricted to applicants who are able to conclusively demonstrate their innocence, and should be extended to cases where a new or newly discovered fact

“so undermines the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it”.

However, in 2014, the then UK Government legislated to reverse the effect of this decision. The test for eligibility for compensation under the statutory scheme, as set out in section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, was amended by section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in such a way as to restrict compensation to those who can prove innocence “beyond reasonable doubt”. Therefore, for applications made to the statutory scheme on or after 13 March 2014, there will have been a miscarriage of justice

“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”.

That modest rewording of a single section of an Act of Parliament has proved devastating. Indeed, it is legally illiterate to effectively reverse the burden of proof in this way, for it places a burden on the victim of a miscarriage of justice to prove their innocence. This is such a high bar that, in the words of the joint dissenting opinion of judges in the European Court of Human Rights case of Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom, it:

“represents a hurdle which is virtually insurmountable”.

Such a claim is not solely a matter of opinion, but an observable fact. The data on applications to the miscarriage of justice application service shows that less than 7% of applications submitted between April 2016 and March 2024 were successful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have always believed—and the hon. Gentleman is probably the same—that someone is always innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the Ministry of Justice is saying: “You are actually guilty. Now prove yourself innocent.”

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the matter. That is precisely the effect of the change implemented in 2014. It has devastated the number of successful applications for compensation, because if we consider the data for the period between 1999 and 2024, we can see that, prior to the introduction of the new section 133 test, 45.6% of applicants received compensation for their wrongful convictions, but, following its introduction, just 6.6% of cases were successful—a drop of 39 percentage points. This new test has virtually put a stop to compensation payouts for these kinds of miscarriages of justice—an insurmountable hurdle indeed.

Members may wonder about the purpose of restricting eligibility in this way, and I am sure we will hear arguments that it was done to prevent those exonerated on a technicality from receiving compensation, but the cynic in me fears that the restriction was introduced to cut costs. Prior to 2014, the Ministry of Justice made average annual payouts of £5.9 million. Following the change, we have seen the average annual payouts under the scheme drop by 95%, to an average of £297,000. Even successful applicants have seen their individual compensation payments fall, with the average pre-2014 payment totalling just over £267,000, falling to an average of £61,000 after the change.

I am reminded of Cicero’s teachings, over two millennia ago:

“Justice looks for no prize and no price; it is sought for itself”.

He also said, of course:

“The worst kind of injustice is to look for profit from injustice.”

It is for others to consider whether anyone profits from this injustice, but the savings that the 2014 test realises for the Ministry of Justice perhaps offer an answer to that age-old question of, “What price do we put on justice?” Well, I can tell you, Mr Turner: it is around £5.6 million a year on average, compared with the pre-2014 payments.

The current system therefore places an almost impossible burden on the applicant—one whereby they are required to find a new fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence for which they have been acquitted. The perverse situation into

The perverse situation into which the 2014 change forces the wrongly convicted can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime for which they have already been exonerated. I appreciate that this is an academic point, but it is worth considering whether some high-profile exonerees—the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six—would receive compensation if they applied under the scheme today.

To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles underpinning our justice system, because it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know there might be a challenge to that assertion, but the fact remains that the current rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt.

In Mr Buckle’s rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejection of his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him. If you were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, Mr Turner, that response is a perfect example. It illustrates how the 2014 change, by reversing the burden of proof, undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive but legally illogical linguistic gymnastics.

For if Mr Buckle is in law presumed to be innocent, surely he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent who has spent more than five years in jail should be compensated. If the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man and deny him compensation, why should the burden not fall on to the state to prove his guilt? Claims by the Ministry of Justice—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for approximately 65 minutes for multiple Divisions in the House. If we get back earlier than that and all Members are in their place, I will recommence the debate.

14:47

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:00

On resuming—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

We will start where we left off. Injury time will be added to the debate, so I expect it to finish at 5.13 pm. I call Mr Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful for the additional time to conclude the debate.

Prior to the Divisions, I was reiterating the perversity of the situation that the 2014 change has forced the wrongly convicted into. It can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime of which they have already been exonerated. To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles that underpin our criminal justice system, for it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know that this can be challenged in practice, but the fact remains that the current compensation rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime—a crime, of course, of which they have already been acquitted to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Let me return to the case of my constituent Mr Buckle. In its rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejecting his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be and remains innocent of the charges brought against him. If we were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, this response is a perfect example. It illustrates the way in which, by reversing the burden of proof, the 2014 change undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive, but illogical, linguistic gymnastics. For if Mr Buckle is presumed to be innocent in law, he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent, who has spent more than five years in jail, should be compensated; if the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man, and deny him that compensation, why should the burden of proving his guilt not fall on the state?

The Ministry’s claims that Mr Buckle is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him ring rather hollow when he is also denied a single penny in redress. It is clearly an affront to justice that the eligibility test prevents those who have been wrongly convicted from enjoying the full and unconditional benefits of being presumed innocent.

There is a growing acceptance of the need for action on this matter. Sadly, the list of miscarriages of justice that have perhaps not received as much media attention, but which are just as deserving of compensation, grows ever longer. I could mention cases such as that of Sam Hallam, who was imprisoned for seven years; Victor Nealon, who was imprisoned for 17 years; or Oliver Campbell, who spent 11 years in prison and a total of 34 years fighting to clear his name.

All have suffered unimaginable harm as a consequence of their wrongful convictions and, just like my constituent Mr Buckle, deserve justice. The new UK Government have an opportunity to provide it, and I urge them to address this injustice without delay. I know that the Minister will agree with the principle that the state should compensate those who have wrongly been deprived of their liberty by the state, and I would welcome confirmation from her that this is the Government’s position.

The Law Commission is consulting on reform to the law governing criminal appeals, because it, too, acknowledges that the current state of affairs is completely unfair. The Law Commission’s intervention is to be welcomed, in so far as it acknowledges the unfairness of the current position of the wrongly convicted. In its consultation, the commission suggests that, if the burden is to fall on an accused to prove innocence to obtain compensation, it should be to the civil standard, rather than the criminal standard, as is the position in every other situation in a criminal case where the evidential burden shifts to the defence. That would bring things into line with the normal state of affairs. Will the Minister offer the Government’s position on the Law Commission’s proposal? Would the Government accept such a recommendation? If they are minded to accept, will they ensure that the recommendation is applied retrospectively to those wrongfully convicted since 13 March 2014?

Although I cautiously welcome to the intervention of the Law Commission, and agree that it would make the current situation fairer, it still does not explain why someone presumed innocent has a further obligation or burden to prove it, nor would it address the failings made by the scheme in determining Mr Buckle’s application for compensation, or prevent other claims from being rejected after similar careful consideration.

If the Government maintain that it is necessary for a person presumed innocent to prove it to receive compensation, I do not believe the appropriate authority to make that decision is an official at the Ministry of Justice, someone who, through no fault of their own, will be unfamiliar with the facts of the case and will not have witnessed the evidence given under oath, but who instead must work solely from the papers. Such an individual is not best placed to decide on such applications.

Surely it is the trial jury that is best placed to decide whether the evidence proved Mr Buckle—in this case—to be both not guilty and innocent. I request that the Minister meets us to discuss the handling of Mr Buckle’s specific application and also the merits of amending the law to allow a judge to ask the trial jury, in circumstances where they have acquitted the defendant on all charges, to consider also whether they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant is innocent of those same charges.

If it is the Government’s intention to ensure that true victims of miscarriages of justice are fairly compensated, asking the trial jury to make the decision must be the fairest way. It is difficult to see any rational argument against it. I ask the Minister to be kind enough to agree to a meeting to discuss how we can ensure that Mr Buckle is granted that opportunity, so that this miscarriage of justice and the ordeal that he and his family have endured is finally brought to an end. Urgency is key, because justice delayed is justice denied.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to catch my eye to be called. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

16:08

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time in a Westminster Hall debate that you are chairing, Mr Turner. It has also been a pleasure to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake). I thank him for selecting this topic for debate and for the outstanding representation he has given to his constituent, Mr Buckle.

There are concerns about miscarriages of justice that go beyond compensation. This debate is specifically about compensation, which I will come to, but it would be remiss of me not to note at the beginning of the process that there are various concerns, particularly around the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and more generally—I will come to the Law Commission report later. I will say no more than that there has been recent turbulence at the top of the CCRC and that the Justice Committee is holding a public session on that body on 1 April, when we might also touch on the subject of compensation.

I will briefly take this opportunity to say to the Minister that we are awaiting the appointment of an interim chair, following the resignation of the previous chair. We need an interim chair, and we need a strong interim chair. We also need a good process for selecting a permanent chair of that body. She will know that the Justice Committee has asked to be involved in that process as part of a pre-appointment approval hearing, and I hope that can happen. If she has anything to say on either of those matters today, that would be most welcome.

It is right that there are concerns about the process for identifying miscarriages of justice. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who very ably chairs the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, is here, and no doubt she will say something about this issue. Unless we clearly identify cases, and do so in a timely manner, the issue of compensation will come even further down the line or will perhaps not even come to the fore.

We have heard that the Law Commission is producing a substantial report—it is a very substantial consultation exercise, at some 700 pages so far—looking at the way that the CCRC operates. The Law Commission correctly says that the test that exists for referring cases is a faulty one. “Faulty” is my word; what the Law Commission says is that there is a real possibility that referred decisions would not be upheld due to a new argument or evidence not raised in the original or appeal proceedings, which effectively means that the CCRC is having to second-guess the view of the Court of Appeal. The Law Commission is consulting on that, and it says that it is provisionally persuaded that the current test should be replaced with a non-predictive one.

The second important change that the Law Commission is putting forward for consultation is that the CCRC should return to what I think it was originally intended and have an investigatory function. In so many cases, evidence presented to the CCRC is not looked at in good time, and when it is looked at, it is looked at purely on the merits of what is submitted, rather than the CCRC going behind the case to see whether there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Let me turn specifically to the issue of compensation. This issue has been added to the Law Commission review, and it has said, in very strong terms, that it believes that the law as it stands is incoherent on that point. The concluding paragraph in that section of the report, paragraph 16.75, says:

“The current compensation scheme seemingly prioritises minimising the risk of the guilty receiving compensation at the expense of the innocent receiving compensation. Some people who are provably innocent – on the balance of probabilities, which would ordinarily apply in civil compensation proceedings – are denied compensation. The stringent requirements of the current compensation scheme seem to be in tension with the overall objective of the criminal justice system. As noted by Lord Phillips, requiring a wrongfully convicted person to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt is a ‘heavy price to pay’ to ensure that no guilty person receives compensation. We consider that imposing the criminal standard of proof on an applicant is indefensible and inconsistent with the fundamental principles that underlie our criminal justice system.”

That is incredibly strong language from a body that is as thoughtful and reserved as the Law Commission.

It has also been said that some of the recent, and of course welcome, compensation schemes that have been devised to deal with the injustices in the Post Office Horizon scandal—there are four separate schemes for that—have had to be devised to deal with something that was a national outrage, affecting many thousands of people, because the current system simply does not work on its own merits.

I say gently to the Minister that all those factors are reasons why we have to look at both the issue of wrongful conviction and the issue of compensation for wrongful conviction. I do not want to go over the same ground that has been very assiduously described already by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli, who secured this debate, but it has been said that, with each passing decade, there have been more and more restrictions.

There have been some positive steps. The previous Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, was right to end the disgrace of those who had been exonerated having to pay for their bed and board while in custody out of their compensation. That compensation is already heavily limited. The circumstances under which that compensation becomes available have, as we have heard, become extraordinarily limited. I can give one statistic in relation to that.

In 2005-06 the compensation actually awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice was £14.6 million. Ten years later—this is the total sum—it was £12,493. To all intents and purposes, compensation has ended as far as victims of miscarriage of justice are concerned. Of course, that is not everything. The important thing is to get people out of prison and clear their names once they have been exonerated. But the financial, material and other damages, including emotional damages, that in any field of civil law would be compensated, simply have not been addressed. People are still being punished.

As in the case of Mr Buckle, people are still being punished despite being exonerated. The state should not just be apologising, redressing wrong and vindicating people who have been shown to be in that situation. The idea that the “beyond reasonable doubt” test is a reasonable test, if there was ever an argument for it when it was introduced in 2014, has been disproved. The rationale was that if somebody was cleared on a technicality, it would be wrong for the state to compensate them for that. Well, the system is able to deal with cases like that. What it has done is caught everybody in its net, including the most deserving cases.

The only thing we have to think about when it comes to whether we have a just or unjust system at the moment is which historical cases would now be caught. At the invitation of the chair of the APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside, I attended a 50th anniversary event of the Birmingham Six a week or two ago at which there were representatives of many other miscarriages of justice. The fact remains that were the Birmingham Six now being exonerated, or the Guildford Four, the Cardiff Three or many other cases, they would not receive compensation. The line has moved so far to one side that in almost every case there is an injustice.

Yes, it is vital that we get right the way we deal with miscarriages of justice, whether that is in the Court of Appeal, the CCRC or through legislation. Clearing someone’s name and getting them out of prison when they have been undeservedly sent there is one thing. Ensuring that they, their families and their lives are put back on track requires substantial sums of money—not thousands of pounds, but often hundreds of thousands of pounds, or in some cases millions of pounds.

There are arbitrary limits and insuperable barriers, which is itself a grave injustice. The sooner that we can change that system, the better. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say today, but within the next weeks and months we have to see not just a review of the rules on compensation, but a review of the whole way that the miscarriages system functions—in particular a review of the role of the CCRC, which appears to have severely lost its way.

16:18

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I wish you well in your new role. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for raising this issue. I watched him on TV this morning being interviewed with his constituent. He should be commended and applauded for his efforts on behalf of his constituent to find justice. In my intervention earlier I said to him that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round, and that is the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has put forward. Like him, I cannot comprehend it.

Someone found not guilty is not guilty. If the court cannot prove it and feels that he or she should be freed, then for me the matter is clear. As has been alluded to, Northern Ireland does not operate under the same scheme as England and Wales, but we do have a scheme that has been accessed. Cases can be referred to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The CCRC investigates wrongful convictions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was set up by the Government in response to a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice, including the case of the Birmingham Six. It receives some 1,400 applications a year from across the United Kingdom, including some 40 from Northern Ireland. Anyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can apply to the CCRC about a miscarriage of justice.

I recently read a BBC article on compensation for miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. It highlighted that more than £9 million

“has been paid in compensation since 2010 to 16 people who have had their criminal convictions overturned in Northern Ireland.”

So there is a compensation system under the CCRC, which has compensated at least those people in Northern Ireland. That is why the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli is right to pursue similar compensation for his constituent. The article noted that

“New figures show that 84 people were wrongly convicted of crimes between 2007 and 2017. Charges ranged from murder to rape and included people serving life sentences. At least half of those who had their convictions overturned spent time in prison, amounting collectively to more than 100 years in custody.”

Of those 84 convictions, 30% were for sexual crimes, 90% of those wrongfully convicted were men and 31 cases led to a retrial.

I am always mindful of the victims of crime—this week I have been highlighting the issues of victims in other circumstances. Even in cases where convictions are quashed, we should consider the words of Dr Hannah Quirk—a former CCRC caseworker and criminal law lecturer:

“it’s important to also understand what is meant by wrongful conviction. It would be very unusual for the Court of Appeal to say someone is innocent, instead it decides whether any new evidence has come to light that makes a conviction unsafe. So not all these cases will necessarily be about innocence and more about if the criminal justice system applied the rules fairly at the time and whether or not if the trial happened today that the person would be convicted based on the latest available evidence.”

That last phrase, about whether the person would be convicted based on the latest available evidence, shows why the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli is correct to pursue compensation for his constituent. We need to ensure for victims of crime that justice is carried out. Unsafe convictions are not justice and for those who are innocent, there should be compensation.

The old saying “There’s no smoke without fire” is often used when considering someone’s guilt, but a wrongful conviction leads to people having to restart their lives. What does that mean? I was thinking about it before this debate. It sometimes means that families have to move home, move their children to a new school, seek new jobs, and work out how they are going to take care of their mortgage. The issue of compensation is focal to what has to happen for those people who have to make a fresh start because of failings in the system and not because of their own deeds—the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli referred to that. It is right and proper that there should be help to start a new life for those who are genuinely innocent. However, the criteria for that compensation must be strict—we are not saying that it should not be. However, whenever there is a clear case of innocence, there should be no reasonable doubt from impartial eyes.

In Northern Ireland, compensation for victims of the troubles has been skewed, in that perpetrators of crimes can receive compensation for those crimes. Gerry Adams could receive compensation, or Gerry Kelly, who shot a prison officer in the head during a prison escape. Those people should never receive a single penny adorned with our King’s head, and that is why we must retain a very close scheme for these matters.

When there is a clear case—as the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli clearly illustrated in the TV and radio coverage, as well as today in this Chamber, where he has put forward an admirable case on behalf of his constituent —I support access to redress, but not for any purpose. I believe the judiciary must continue to have courage in its convictions and be supported to deliver real justice in every way possible.

16:25

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Turner. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for securing this important and timely debate, and for the vital work that he is doing in support of his constituent Brian Buckle and, by extension, all victims of miscarriages of justice, including those convicted under joint enterprise. I also declare my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice.

As mentioned, earlier this month I held an event in Parliament to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the conviction of the Birmingham Six, and to remember the Maguire Seven and the Guildford Four, all of whom were wrongfully persecuted and convicted and all of whom fought tooth and nail for exoneration and justice. We heard some harrowing testimonies from Paddy Maguire, who was just 13 at the time of his arrest and suffered immense police brutality, and served time for his alleged handling of explosives. He and his family were eventually cleared of all wrongdoing, but the scars still run deep.

We hoped to hear from Paddy Hill, a titan of the justice world who dedicated his life not only to clearing his own name but to fixing the systemic issues that facilitated his wrongful persecution and prosecution in the first place. Unfortunately, he passed away in December last year, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his life and work. Paddy was wrongly imprisoned for 16 years following the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings in one of the most profound examples of injustice in the UK legal system. Following his release, he campaigned tirelessly for justice on behalf of other wrongfully convicted prisoners.

Paddy’s dedication and the widespread outcry after the wrongful convictions of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven led to the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to prevent similar injustices. It was the first state body in the world established to help those convicted who claimed to be innocent. However, as we have heard, years of cuts and overlap in personnel with the police and courts undermined the CCRC’s effectiveness and independence.

There have been many recent scandals, including the outrageous case of Andy Malkinson, who served 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit in what has been called one of the worst miscarriages of justice in UK legal history. In the months after leaving prison, Malkinson was reliant on food banks and universal credit, suffering from mental ill health due to his wrongful conviction. Last month, he was finally awarded a six-figure sum as compensation, but he is one of only a handful of people wrongly convicted of a crime to be compensated in recent years.

Since the 2014 overhaul of the compensation policy by the coalition Government, the bar has been raised insurmountably high for most victims of wrongful convictions. The result has been a virtual halt in all compensation payouts for these devastating miscarriages of justice. In reality, only those who can demonstrate that new DNA or alibi evidence proved that they did not commit the crime will receive compensation—an absurdly high threshold that reverses the burden of proof and does not reflect the principles of just law. In practice, it is impossible to achieve that for the vast majority of cases.

Between 2020 and 2023, the MOJ paid out less than £1.3 million in compensation to victims of miscarriages of justice, following a two-year period when not a single penny of compensation was paid out. To put that in context, between 2007 and 2009, a total of £20.8 million was paid out.

Following the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal, we know that public sympathy and support for victims of miscarriages of justice are strong. The principle of fair justice is universally held, but it should be the true rule, not the exception. We should not need significant political campaigns and interventions from the top for justice to be accessed. Our justice systems should work according to the law and the principles on which they were founded. Where wrongdoings are done, there should be checks and balances to ensure that justice is achieved.

Instead, we see significant backlogs in the CCRC, with only a trickle of cases making it through to the Court of Appeal. While the recent resignation of the chair is welcome, we know the systemic failings and the lack of funding reveal the need for a complete overhaul, not just a change of leadership. Cases like the Birmingham Four are still awaiting a decision on their application to appeal. People who believe they can prove their innocence and who have a right to appeal their convictions are rotting in jail, while the system creaks.

If the public are to have confidence in the underfunded and struggling criminal justice system, they need to have confidence that the processes are both fair and appear to be fair. Checks and balances are needed throughout the system, and they need adequate resourcing and support. Miscarriages of justice ruin lives, not just for the victims but for their families and loved ones. Compensation must be paid where it is due, and victims should not have to wait and fight for years to secure it when they have already been put through so much.

The British legal system is supposedly predicated on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I hope today’s debate will help us get back to that principle and make sure that those who have been wronged have access to justice.

16:31

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for securing this important debate. I also declare my interest as a member of the Justice Committee.

I read about Brian Buckle’s case this morning, and I want to express how sorry I am for what he went through and the injustice he and his family have suffered. Compensation payments awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice can be life-changing for the individuals involved. As a solicitor before becoming an MP, dealing with negligence cases where I pursued compensation claims for clients who had suffered injustice, I appreciate how important compensation can be for victims of miscarriages of justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) mentioned that such cases are not just about compensation, and he mentioned the Law Commission’s consultation, which I will not repeat here.

Just as important as obtaining financial compensation is the need for access to justice, so that those victims of miscarriages of justice can have their names cleared, their experiences acknowledged, and the harm inflicted upon them and their families recognised, together with a commitment to prevent future injustices. Very often in my career as a solicitor, I came across clients who had been very badly injured, but what they ultimately wanted was a proper apology and an acknowledgment that they had been wronged, rather than seeking maximum levels of compensation.

Access to justice is something that we, as parliamentarians, should be advocating for. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act means that those wrongfully convicted must not only overturn their conviction but prove they are innocent beyond all reasonable doubt to be eligible for financial compensation. That unfairly reverses the burden of proof, where a person is presumed innocent until their guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This reversal of the burden of proof makes no sense at all and is contrary to the basic principles and rules of criminal justice in this country.

Mr Buckle’s KC, Mr Stephen Vullo, said he believes that the law was changed in 2014 to ensure that money is not paid out to victims of miscarriages of justice, and that it was a policy decision deliberately made to avoid the payment of compensation. It is therefore no surprise that, following the 2014 Act, there has been a huge decrease in the number and value of compensation payments that have been awarded.

Between 2016 and 2024, of 591 applications, the Ministry of Justice compensated only 39 claimants, representing a rejection rate of more than 93%. The law needs to be changed because justice and the opportunity for redress must be available for all in our society. A former criminal defence solicitor and specialist in miscarriages of justice at the University of Manchester, Suzanne Gower, says the current system is “inhuman” and “cruel” and sends a message that the state does not accept responsibility when it causes harm—that is clearly wrong.

It is essential that proper compensation payments are made so that victims of miscarriages of justice can recover the costs they have incurred in proving their innocence and be compensated for all they have suffered. However, alongside the correction of historical injustices, more needs to be done to ensure that we prevent these incidents from occurring in the first place. We need to learn lessons about why things have gone wrong by investing in investigative processes, ensuring accountability within institutions and promoting a culture of transparency. Those measures would not only save the Government and the taxpayer from a financial burden in the long run but, crucially, they would prevent more people from being harmed and prevent further miscarriages of justice.

16:37

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your inaugural chairmanship, Mr Turner. I look forward to speaking in the debates that you chair in the weeks, months and years to come.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) on securing this debate, the focus of which strikes at the heart of our justice system: principles of fairness, accountability and, ultimately, the duty of the state to right its wrongs. There are no two ways about it: those who have been wrongfully convicted are not merely victims of an unfortunate mistake; they are victims of a gross failure of the state. These individuals have lost not only their liberty, but their livelihoods, their families, their reputations, their dignity and much more. For all the talk of compensation today, no amount of money is able to restore a loss of such profound dimensions.

On the subject of compensation, the miscarriages of justice compensation scheme was set up with the best of intentions to ensure that those who have suffered the gravest injustices are properly compensated. However, as we have heard both in the Chamber today and beyond, that system has perpetuated the injustices it was meant to put right. How? We have heard that in cases where a person’s convictions are quashed, our system forces them to jump acrobatically through legal hoops to access even the most basic financial redress.

We have heard about the case of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison following a conviction that transpired to be unsafe. He had to wait years beyond that for his first tranche of compensation, and he is still waiting for the rest. Such waits and injustices are a national disgrace, not least because they are experienced by so many across our country.

The hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) mentioned the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who also suffered such gross injustices after being wrongly convicted in the Horizon Post Office scandal. People like Kathleen Crane, the former sub-postmistress at Old Town post office in Eastbourne who was wrongly convicted of fraud and made to “pay back” £18,000 that she never owed before her conviction was overturned last year. Despite the injustices that those caught up in this scandal faced, the Horizon convictions redress scheme and the Horizon shortfall scheme—the two special compensation schemes—have been paying out compensation at much too slow a pace, which is a great dishonour to those who were unfairly convicted. I thought the Business and Trade Committee put it aptly when it said of the process that it was,

“akin to a second trial for victims”.

Many folks in this Chamber and beyond, across party political divides, have long campaigned for a fairer approach to addressing miscarriages of justice. The Liberal Democrats are proud to have been part of that tradition, and we continue to be. We believe that when the state wrongfully convicts an individual, it has a moral and legal duty to provide full and proper compensation without unnecessary bureaucratic barriers, or barriers that undermine fundamental maxims of our legal system. That is why urgent reform is necessary. We must ensure that compensation is granted promptly without retraumatising legal battles, and must ensure that it reflects not just the financial cost, but the emotional and psychological toll of wrongful imprisonment. When the state gets it wrong in such a profound way, it must have the courage to put things right.

I conclude my remarks by touching on an insightful comment made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about victims and survivors. What we are talking about today, being passionate about correcting these injustices, is not incompatible with supporting those victims and survivors who are brave enough to come forward, who report what has happened to them to the police, who take what has happened to them to the court, but who ultimately do not get the conviction they hoped to secure. To have a criminal justice system that works for those victims and survivors, it is critical that everybody can have confidence in how it functions on both sides of the dock and both sides of the courtroom.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s take. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli for securing this debate.

16:43

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I join everyone else in congratulating the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) on securing this debate and putting it front and centre of the Minister’s timetable, which is always an important achievement. The hon. Gentleman has done an ample job of representing his constituent, whose experiences we have heard about today.

Overall, the UK’s justice system is one of the most respected in the world, and it is built on a long-standing foundation of trust in, and respect for, the rule of law. At the heart of that trust and respect is the belief in the ability of the law to right injustices, including those caused by the justice system itself. Ensuring that miscarriages of justice are rectified is vital to preserving that belief, and providing compensation to victims where appropriate is an important part of the process.

Work began under the last Government to reform compensation for victims. In 2023 the then Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, removed the guidance on miscarriage of justice compensation, first introduced in 2006, that allowed deductions for living expenses saved while in prison. That common-sense change applied to all future payments with immediate effect, and it was vital in restoring fairness to this aspect of the compensation schemes.

The last Government’s legal aid reforms have also been important in improving fairness and reducing delays to compensation applications. As a result of these new reforms, payments made through the miscarriage of justice compensation scheme no longer make people automatically ineligible for legal aid, helping to improve access to justice for those wrongly convicted.

In the light of the concerns about miscarriages of justice, comprehensive data on compensation applications was made available by the last Government. That data has proved vital in informing the ongoing debate on compensation for wrongful convictions. I urge the Government to show similar transparency in that area.

It remains clear that a comprehensive assessment of miscarriages of justice was needed, which is why the Government asked the Law Commission to review the law relating to criminal appeals in criminal cases. That review expanded to include compensation for wrongful convictions, and it raised a number of important points. I understand that it focused particularly on whether the UK is meeting its obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights.

The Law Commission has now recommended a number of reforms to compensation and support for the wrongly convicted, including replacing the requirement for people to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt—an issue on which we have focused considerably today—with only needing proof of innocence on the balance of probabilities to receive compensation. It is important that those proposals are thoroughly considered before any final decision is made, and I welcome the ongoing consultation by the Law Commission to that end.

It is important that the additional costs that any changes to miscarriage of justice compensation would entail are thoroughly assessed and understood. I urge the Government to conduct a thorough cost assessment of any proposed changes and to make that data publicly available for scrutiny before any final decision on reforms to compensation are taken. I am sure that all Members here would agree on the importance of providing appropriate compensation for the victims of miscarriages of justice. I urge the Government to consider the responses to the Law Commission’s consultation carefully, and to consider how we might better support the wrongfully convicted.

16:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a privilege to serve under your inaugural chairship today, Mr Turner, and what an important debate for that chairship. I also place on record my sincere diolch yn fawr iawn to the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for bringing this important debate to this place, and for highlighting the case of his constituent, Mr Buckle, and his family.

Fairness is a core pillar of our justice system. Miscarriages of justice are thankfully very rare, but they have a devastating impact on those who suffer them. They are victims of the state, so it is right that the state should help and support those people in rebuilding their lives. It is also right that we should seek to redress the occurrence of miscarriages of justice and to reduce them by learning lessons when things go wrong. Ensuring people are better protected from miscarriages of justice is one part of the Government’s “Plan for Change.”

Any miscarriage of justice is a tragedy, both for the person who is wrongfully convicted and—as was eloquently expressed by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—for the victim of the original crime and their family, who have not seen justice done. As the Minister with responsibility for victims and violence against women and girls, I know how important it is that victims have confidence in the criminal justice system and that we have safeguards in place such as the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We work hard to ensure that, when errors occur, changes are put in place to prevent similar cases from ever happening again.

As we have heard, the last year has seen some miscarriages of justice that have shocked all of us as a society, including the Post Office Horizon scandal and the appalling case of Andrew Malkinson, who was convicted of a crime he did not commit. While those cases are the exception, they require serious and swift action, which we are taking.

The Lord Chancellor has met Mr Malkinson to hear how his case has affected him. Following her meeting with him, she acted swiftly to ensure that those receiving a compensation payout for a miscarriage of justice will not have their financial eligibility for legal aid affected. The Lord Chancellor has stated her conviction that justice must be a reality, not an ideal, and I wholeheartedly agree. Following the agreement of Parliament to overturn the postmasters’ convictions, this Government acted swiftly to stand up a compensation scheme specifically for those affected. As of February this year, 273 final claims have been paid along with 407 interim payments, with the Government issuing £190 million in compensation.

As I turn to the issue of compensation, which is what this debate is about, I feel it is important at the outset to clarify what we mean when we talk about a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal is a vital safeguard in the criminal justice system. If someone appeals their sentence within the time limit, which is normally 28 days, and the Court of Appeal overturns their conviction, that is the system working as it should to correct any errors. That is not a miscarriage of justice. The interest here today is in those who have exhausted the usual appeal processes, and have often referred themselves to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. If the CCRC finds that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will not uphold the conviction, it will refer the case. If the conviction is then overturned, the person may have a qualifying miscarriage of justice for the purposes of compensation. It is important to outline that here.

The miscarriage of justice application service, known as MOJAS, pays compensation to those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice. References today to a 93% refusal rate do not necessarily provide the full picture, because the Department routinely receives applications from people who do not pass the initial triage stage. Reasons for that may include that they had their conviction overturned simply following an in-time appeal, or that they had not had their conviction overturned at all; in some cases, there is no criminal conviction in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) highlighted, in the six years to April 2024, there were 591 applications received, but only 133 passed the triage and were eligible for full consideration. Of the 133 applications that passed the triage, 39 have been awarded compensation, with the Government paying out £2.4 million.

Understandably, there is some debate about where the line should be drawn for the purposes of compensation, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for outlining that. However, I highlight that there are a number of reasons why someone might have their conviction quashed on appeal, and we believe it is right that there should be a process by which eligibility for compensation from the Government should be assessed. That will ensure that taxpayers’ money is used appropriately and effectively. The test is designed so that only those who can demonstrate that their conviction has been reversed on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence can receive compensation from the state.

The 2023 European Court of Human Rights judgment, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli, considered the test by which eligibility for compensation was assessed in the case of Nealon and Hallam. In its judgment, issued in 2024, the Court found that the test did not breach applicants’ rights under article 6, specifically the presumption of innocence.

MOJAS is just one route by which someone whose conviction is quashed can receive compensation or support. For example, it may also be open to someone to bring a civil claim in cases where a particular agency is at fault. Support is also available through the miscarriage of justice support service, which is part of Citizens Advice, based at the Royal Courts of Justice. The support service provides advice and support to those who have their convictions quashed to help them to rebuild their lives. That could involve helping someone find accommodation, assisting with benefit claims or signposting to psychological support services. Anyone who has had their case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission is eligible for that support.

I also highlight the work that we are doing in this area both to reduce occurrences of miscarriages of justice and to improve the Government’s response to them. The Post Office scandal highlighted the lack of oversight of prosecutions brought by private prosecutors. On 6 March, the Government launched a consultation on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutions, with the aim of ensuring that any organisation bringing a private prosecution does so according to rigorous standards and is subject to appropriate scrutiny. In addition, we have launched a call for evidence on the use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings. That will inform potential reforms to the law, to ensure that evidence produced by software can be properly assured.

As the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli mentioned, the Law Commission is currently consulting on a wide range of changes to the laws relating to criminal appeals. The consultation is rigorous, with more than 100 questions, including questions on compensation for miscarriages of justice. We look forward to the final report in 2026, and we will consider all its recommendations in the round before deciding on any necessary reforms.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the process is fair for all involved in the criminal justice system, and a key part of that commitment is the effectiveness of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which carries out the vital work of investigating potential miscarriages of justice. As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the Chair of the Justice Committee, the Secretary of State is in the process of recruiting an interim chair as a matter of priority. The interim chair will be tasked with conducting a full and thorough review of how the organisation operates. The findings of that review, together with the final report of the Law Commission, will provide us with the evidence we need to ensure that any change we make to the system will promote fairness and justice for all involved in criminal justice proceedings.

I will ensure that the request for a meeting is passed to the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who is responsible for this brief. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today as she is in the assisted dying Bill Committee, but I will ensure it is passed on. I will also take a keen interest in the case, which I am sure the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli will mention to me at every opportunity.

It is an important principle of the justice system that people who are convicted should have the right to seek leave to apply to a higher court to review their conviction. It is also vital in the rare cases when things do go wrong that the system works effectively to correct errors and ensure that those who have suffered can rebuild their lives. I emphasise again that when the wrong person is convicted, it fails those who are wrongly convicted and also the victim of the original crime. The Government have acted and will continue to act to ensure that lessons are learned and justice is done.

16:54

[Ben Lake]

I begin by apologising, Mr Turner, for failing to acknowledge that this is your inaugural session in the Chamber. May I say how admirably and professionally you have chaired the debate, especially given that we had the unexpected interruption of Divisions? Thank you very much for doing so. I also thank my fellow Members from every part of the United Kingdom for their contributions. It is heartening to hear a great degree of consensus that there is a wrong to be righted and that the new Government have the opportunity to do that.

In summing up, I will make a few quick points. We have this opportunity to right a very clear wrong. There are far too many people who have had their convictions overturned, and who have been found not guilty at retrial after spending years in prison, but who are still awaiting compensation. We need to appreciate that any delay to this justice is effectively justice denied. While appreciating the need to proceed with caution and reasonably, we need to make sure that we do not waste any time, because too many individuals have already suffered ordeals for far too long.

We have an opportunity here, as Members of Parliament and with a new Government, to do something that I think is very honourable. It is something that a far more honourable Member than I, who sat just over here, once told me: we are sent to this place to right wrongs. I think today there is a great consensus in that endeavour.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered miscarriage of justice compensation.

16:57

Sitting suspended.

Supported Internship Provision

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

17:06

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

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

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered supported internship provision.

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

Yesterday, we heard some dreadful statistics about the stifling of the ambition of people with additional needs who would choose to work but face too many barriers and limited opportunities. The most striking statistic that I heard yesterday was that only 1% of people with health issues who have claimed limited capability to work benefits actually return to work.

I know people with significant disabilities who have thrived in truly exceptional and inclusive businesses, such as the King’s Award-winning Nuneaton Signs, which is not only one of the biggest manufacturers of road signs in the country but boasts a workforce of whom an incredible 70% are disabled, including those with learning difficulties.

We know that as many as 86% of those with learning difficulties who are not in work would like to be, but workplaces need to make the adjustments that our young people need, and they need to be ready for work. We must break down the barriers, and supported internships are a way to do that, both for those wishing to enter the workforce and for businesses wishing to provide a more inclusive employment offer.

Previously, the Department for Education has recognised the value of supported internships. It provided grants for local authorities and partner organisations to double the number of internships between 2020 and 2025 under the Internships Work consortium.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She clearly has a heart for her people, including her young people, and I commend her for that. I thank her for getting here on time, too; I am not sure how fast she ran, but well done to her. Does she agree that supported internships provide not simply confidence for our young people, but valuable assistance for businesses, and that more businesses perhaps need to be aware of the potential to recruit skilled permanent staff through a different avenue, offering those staff a different opportunity?

[Jodie Gosling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and note that only 23% of businesses have applied for adjustments to accommodate disabled people to enter the workforce. These internships are crucial, and they are a really good, supported way into work.

There are four key principles to the supported internship programme. First, the majority of the intern’s time is spent at the employer’s premises in a work placement, allowing a structured introduction to the work environment. Secondly, alongside their time at the employer, the intern follows a personalised study curriculum, including in key skills such as maths and English, which creates a bespoke package to support young people and enable them to progress into paid employment. Thirdly, a job coach is central to the study programme. They support the young person to access training in line with the national occupational standard for supported employment, and provide crucial support for the employer to make necessary adjustments and reflect on their inclusivity practices.

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

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this debate. Several of my constituents with special educational needs are taking part in the supported internship programme at George Eliot hospital in her constituency. I am delighted that they have been able to take up that opportunity to learn important skills and to engage in independent work. I was glad to hear that between 50% and 75% of people who undertake the internships get full employment afterwards. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should continue to support these internships to deliver opportunities for students with special educational needs and disabilities across the west midlands, and will the Minister highlight these excellent programmes, particularly to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Before Jodie Gosling continues, I remind Members that interventions are meant to be very short; they are not meant to be speeches.

[Jodie Gosling]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and absolutely—the crucial aspect is enabling people into good, well-paid jobs.

The final principle of supported internships is for young people to gain paid employment that fits not only their passions but their long-term career goals, while providing the flexibility to overcome barriers. Supported internships have demonstrated evidence that, with a compassionate scaffolding, the proportion of young people with an education, health and care plan who enter the workforce, which is currently a woeful 5%, can be vastly improved to 60%, through the delivery of the four key principles that I have just stated.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I recently visited Asda in Spondon in my constituency, where there is a supported internship under way called Project SEARCH. It is delivered with the YMCA and the Direct Education Business Partnership. It is a fantastic scheme, and when I met those young people, it was clear that the initiative had transformed their lives. In some cases, they had struggled to get employment elsewhere. May I encourage my hon. Friend to welcome that initiative?

[Jodie Gosling]

Absolutely. I will come to this later, but we were inspired by a visit to Asda and its supported interns.

The supported internship scheme builds on the applicant’s interests and passions, and it provides them with flexibility to try different types of employment opportunities and build skills in a range of sectors with organisations such as the NHS, Asda, Amazon and Goldman Sachs.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

There is a lot of talk about Asda, and I pay tribute to the Asda in Tunstall in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, which has an excellent supported internship programme that helps young people to step up into employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as outlined in the Green Paper published yesterday, we must ensure that Access to Work is strengthened for adults by raising awareness of the scheme and clearing the backlog?

[Jodie Gosling]

I absolutely agree that we need to remove the backlog and get more people into good, paid employment with the skills that they need to become independent.

Paragraph 59 of the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper clearly demonstrates an ambition to change working practices to support employers to make workplaces accessible and inclusive. The Green Paper discusses the

“‘scarring effects’ from youth employment and inactivity.”

Not only is delayed entry into the workforce costly, but it has a negative impact on the individual, damaging their long-term mental and physical health.

The youth guarantee scheme—a commitment to offer every young person a guaranteed place of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a training scheme within four months of leaving formal education—is also set to bring about monumental change. If we are to achieve such clear ambitions, then work, and support for young people, especially those with SEND, needs to adapt rapidly.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I have seen how supported internship programmes at City of Wolverhampton college and Adult Education Wolverhampton have made a real difference for 16 to 24-year-olds with EHCPs. However, with one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, does my hon. Friend agree that widening participation for NEETs would be one further way to support more young people into work?

[Jodie Gosling]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that, with success rates moving from 5% to a dramatic 60%, the model could be applied more widely to the 1 million NEETs, or to people re-entering the workforce or retraining.

In January, I had the pleasure of meeting five supported interns at Nuneaton’s branch of Asda, and their job coaches from the brilliant North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire college. The exciting thing about supported internships is that the interns learn by doing: they have a chance to develop new professional and personal skills while working alongside employees in a real employment setting. The combination of meaningful experiences of the world of work and a study programme creates great opportunities for interns to develop marketable skills in preparation for paid work, by providing access to in-work qualifications such as health and hygiene certificates.

We know that paid employment brings young people financial independence, builds their confidence and self-esteem, and provides them with opportunities to gain new friendships and to improve and maintain their health and wellbeing. There are also wider benefits to our community, including broader economic growth and the promotion of diversity and inclusion in all workplaces. The benefits to interns of taking part in these schemes are numerous.

Ethan, one of the students I met at Asda, told me that the internship had helped with his anxiety and with talking to new people, both staff and customers. Adrian, who is also on the scheme, said that he finds it much easier to talk to people and, importantly, feels able to approach people for help, not only when he is on the placement but as part of his everyday life. The structured environment, alongside ongoing support, allows interns to acquire and practise essential organisational skills that they will need to join the workforce.

Leo told me that his timekeeping and attendance had improved since he started at Asda, and that he was happier—an outcome commonly reported by the thousands of students on the scheme, and one shared by their parents, who we know have worked incredibly hard to fight for their children’s EHCPs through a tricky system, just to ensure that their children had access to a suitable education and that their needs were met. Supported internships give parents a vital break from caring to take time for themselves and do the millions of other things that they have to do, while still playing a supportive role and having a say in their children’s future.

In 2013, Social Value Lab found that parents of interns reported increased peace of mind that their child was better prepared for the future, and that their child found it easier to handle change and was more resilient in the workforce. Supported internships were also found to improve family relationships as a whole—happier children and happier parents. The same Social Value Lab report demonstrated that DFN Project SEARCH, a supported internship provider, creates considerable social value of £3.80 for every £1 spent on the scheme.

For me, the most meaningful outcome was that the interns reported having a sense of purpose. That speaks to the broken system that we heard about yesterday, wherein disabled people are written off and those who want to seek employment are locked out of contributing to the world of work. Importantly, Asda as a provider also saw huge benefits in hosting the interns. The staff culture on the shop floor embraced and welcomed the interns, and the scheme made the management re-evaluate the accessibility of its hiring process, which is an insurmountable barrier to most people with disabilities trying to enter employment. How on earth can we get people working if the first step to employment is an insurmountable barrier?

With yesterday’s announcement on pathways to work, and the Government’s aim to get people working, the timing of this debate could not be more pertinent. We all know that young people want to work and want independence, but some require specialist support to transition into employment. Supported interns are the key to achieving this. They have been proven to succeed in getting young people back into employment. Will the Department for Education commit to continuing to invest in supported internship programmes and getting people back to work? Will the Minister give an update on the decision to extend the Internships Work consortium?

The profound success of supported internships is reason enough to extend the criteria to young people without an EHCP, those with mental health conditions and those struggling with persistent absenteeism from school. Will the Minister commit to boosting supported internships further and widening the criteria for interns?

We talk regularly and passionately about the damage done and the inherited SEND crisis, but a key issue is the lack of focus on outcomes and transitions to adulthood. As an early years SEND specialist, I have first-hand experience of the importance of early intervention, but I recognise that we cannot write off those the system has already failed. We need to support young disabled people as they leave school. For too many people with SEND, the support runs out after they graduate the classroom.

We cannot prioritise educational provision without considering the educational and employment outcomes. Is the Department for Education working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that those outcomes are considered when addressing the SEND crisis? After seeing the success of the supported internships during my Asda visit, I will meet more supported interns at our local NHS hospital, to hear their experiences. I invite the Minister to join us—I believe the email is in her inbox.

Finally, it is my honour to host the first parliament of young people with SEND on Monday, as part of National Supported Internship Day, when 70 young people who have taken part in the supported internship project will come to Westminster to discuss what matters to them. I hope it will mark a historic step towards greater inclusion, representation and advocacy for some of the most marginalised voices in our society. All interested colleagues are welcome to attend the parliament to promote inclusive policymaking. I thank the Minister for her time and all those who came to listen and contribute.

17:22

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) on securing this debate on an incredibly important topic. It is clear from her speech and the work she does that she has a keen interest in supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and supported internships in particular, and it is clear from the other contributions that her passions are very much shared.

Supported internships are excellent study programmes that provide 16 to 24-year-olds with EHCPs with the skills they need to transition to paid employment. Over the last couple of months, events have been held in each region to celebrate the progress made on supported internships in local communities, after three years of Government investment. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of speaking to interns, parents and carers when I attended an event celebrating success in London. At that event I met Rayhan, who had a work placement with Transport for London, and whose confidence had grown hugely thanks to the supported internship programme. I met and spoke to many of the young people at that powerful event; they were very proud, but the parents who were with them were even prouder. It was wonderful to see good practice being shared around the country.

Looking ahead to one week tomorrow, the third National Supported Internship Day will take place on 27 March, with more events scheduled throughout the country, including a youth parliament and webinars to raise awareness of supported internships among young people, their families and employers. Many interns, education providers and employers will also be planning local events to show the incredible achievements and capabilities of young people on the programmes.

To shine a light—literally—even further, Harry Georgiou, who works at DFN Project SEARCH and is CEO of the charity 6 Percent & Rising, has led the drive to have national monuments such as the University of Derby and the Northern Spire bridge, which is not far from my constituency, lit up in orange to celebrate supported internships on National Supported Internships Day. What a fantastic way to mark the day!

I know how important it is to ensure that young people with special educational needs and disabilities are prepared for adulthood and employment. In my own city, Newcastle City Learning has a partnership with Northumbria University and Sodexo, whereby young people complete work placements in various roles, including in ground maintenance and sports centres. There are also placements in hospitals in Newcastle, run by Project Choice; my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton mentioned that there are in her area too. These opportunities provide young people with practical experience and valuable skills that help them to secure paid employment. It is so good to witness all the innovative approaches that have been taken, including in my own area, to champion the inclusive practice we need to see everywhere.

Since 2022 the Department for Education has invested up to £18 million to build capacity in supported internships, to support more young people with education, health and care plans to gain the skills to needed transition into employment. The Internships Work consortium—made up of the National Development Team for Inclusion, the British Association for Supported Employment and DFN Project SEARCH, which I mentioned earlier—has been delivering the investment programme. It has worked closely with local authorities to establish SEND employment forums, focused on improving local supported internship provision; rolled out a quality framework and facilitated peer reviews; trained more than 760 job coaches to provide high-quality support to interns while they are on work placements; and recruited almost 800 employer ambassadors, who advocate for establishing supported internships in businesses.

The data from local authorities shows that we are on track to reach our aim of doubling the number of supported internships to 4,500 when the funding ends at the end of this month. That is a great achievement and will provide real employment opportunities for many people. We know that high-quality programmes achieve employment outcomes, because 60% to 70% of their cohorts go on to employment. That is why the investment has also been focused on improving the quality and consistency of the offers across the country.

The indicative data we have from local authorities shows that last year more than 1,500 young people secured paid employment following their internship. The interim report from the evaluation of the programme also shows progress. It shows that the majority of supported internship providers reported offering more supported internships and an improvement in the quality of intern placements with employers. Although it was from quite a small sample, nearly half the interns surveyed had jobs six months after finishing their internship, with three quarters of them working more than 16 hours a week, which is fantastic news for them.

We know that the right preparation and support are essential, and that with that the overwhelming majority of young people with SEND are capable of sustained, paid employment. But not enough people are getting the support they need. To build on the investment, the Department has been running a pilot in 12 local authority areas to test the supported internships model with young people with learning difficulties and disabilities who are furthest from the labour market but do not have education, health and care plans, to see whether that can be an effective way to support them into employment. Indicative data from the Internships Work consortium shows that, across this year and last, about 240 young people have enrolled on non-EHCP pilot programmes, with at least 60 people gaining employment last year. This shows there is demand for this kind of pathway and that it can lead to good outcomes.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton is keen to know about funding. The funding for Internships Work and the pilot for interns without education, health and care plans is committed up to the end of March 2025. It was designed as a three-year investment to build capacity in the system to deliver more high-quality supported internships throughout the country. We have seen huge progress towards achieving those aims, thanks to the hard work of Internships Work and the commitment we have seen from local authorities, education providers, job coaches, employers and, of course, the interns themselves.

The Department received a settlement for the 2025-26 financial year in the autumn Budget, and we are still working through, with the Secretary of State, how we will allocate the budgets for specific programmes. We hope the process will be completed soon, but unfortunately I do not currently have any further information on budgets for next year. It is fantastic to hear that, despite the financial pressures that many local areas face, some plan to continue their SEND employment forums and value the important work that is taking place on supported interns.

A challenge raised by many stakeholders involved in delivering supported internships is the delays that interns can face when they claim DWP Access to Work funding, which can fund interns’ in-work support needs during their work placements. Demand for Access to Work has been growing, and the personalised nature of the scheme means that it can take longer to identify a customer’s specific needs. Several measures have been put in place, including on streamlining delivery processes and recruiting additional staff, and the DWP has been taking steps to modernise the Access to Work customer journey, with all core parts of the scheme having been fully digital since April 2024.

Access to Work has a dedicated supported internship team in the DWP, which manages all the intern applications. That provides a central point of contact and a direct route for applications. To enable supported interns to have confidence that support will be in place before they start their internship, they can submit Access to Work applications up to six months before they start their work placements.

Despite the DWP having a dedicated team within Access to Work to process supported intern applications, delays are still occurring due to the high demand for Access to Work funding. To make it easier for supported interns to apply, the DWP is working to reduce the administrative burden and paperwork for learning providers. Work is under way to develop a claims process whereby learning providers can claim Access to Work funding for multiple interns using one claim form. The DWP is also working to improve the supported intern application process and the support plan, to reduce the need for additional contacts. My Department is working closely with the DWP on these issues.

Every child and young person, regardless of their individual needs, deserves the opportunity to thrive, succeed and achieve. However, we are aware that there are challenges in the SEND system, and the Government have made a clear commitment to addressing them. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, as we know that early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating and supports children and young people to achieve their goals while still being alongside their peers. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that that approach is fully planned and delivered in partnership.

We have already begun the work by appointing a strategic adviser on SEND to engage with sector leaders, practitioners, children and families; we have established an expert advisory group on inclusion, to improve the mainstream-education outcomes and experience for children with SEND; and we are setting up a neurodivergence task and finish group to provide a shared understanding of what provision and support in mainstream educational settings should look like for neurodivergent children and young people, within an inclusive system. We recognise that these are complex issues, and we need a considered approach to deliver the change we want to see in a sustainable way that will deliver the outcomes we want for young people.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton for bringing this matter forward, and all who have contributed to the debate. I know we all care passionately about ensuring that there are high-quality pathways to employment for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. I have seen at first hand the great work done by employers, local authorities and education providers to break down the barriers for young people with additional needs.

Supported internships are a key part of the Government’s mission to ensure that all young people are supported to achieve the skills they need to be successful in the workplace, regardless of their background. We have made a clear commitment to address the challenges raised today, to support all children and young people to achieve and thrive, and to improve the wider SEND system. I am determined that progress will be made.

I conclude by thanking all those who work in education and employment in the interests of children and young people with SEND throughout the country. I know that they share the desire—and we are determined to work with them—to deliver the very best for all our children and young people, including those with SEND.

Question put and agreed to.

Down’s Syndrome

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

17:35

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Down’s syndrome.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I assume that the Minister responsible for this area of policy is still the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock)—the Minister for Secondary Care is nodding. I understand that he has to be somewhere else, but it is great to see the Minister in her place.

I organised the debate to call on the Government to implement the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which received Royal Assent three years ago, as Members will be interested to note. Here in the mother of Parliaments, an Act was passed with the democratic engagement of Members from both sides of the House, but three years later it has still not been implemented. It is therefore about time that it was; we need it.

The first requirement—the first command—of the Act is that the Government should issue guidance because of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome. They were supposed to issue such guidance for local authorities, health authorities, education authorities and everyone else engaged in the support of people with Down syndrome.

Various versions of draft guidance have been produced, but none of them even completely covered what was required, let alone adequately. In 2022, the then Minister for Care and Mental Health, my former right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, assured us that the guidance would be “fit for purpose” so we can ensure that people with Down syndrome can access “the support they need”, and that the final guidance would be published in the next year. The previous Government did not fulfil that pledge, and as we sit here today, people with Down syndrome still have not seen that historic Act fully in force.

As I said, the draft versions of the guidance so far, according to my understanding—although I do not claim any great expertise—are flawed in a number of ways. Instead of recognising the unique needs of people with Down syndrome, they simply reduce Down syndrome to a subset of a type of learning disability. That limited perspective does a disservice to those with Down syndrome.

For instance, individuals with Down syndrome often require tailored speech and language therapy, yet the most recent version of the guidance, published in December, makes only vague references to specialist therapy. My friend, my former right hon. Friend Sir Liam Fox, who was the driving force behind the Act, put it perfectly. He said:

“This legislation was specifically for those with Down Syndrome as a definable collection of predictable medical conditions and specific life challenges.”

The Act says that it is

“to make provision about meeting the needs of persons with Down syndrome; and for connected purposes.”

In trying to cater for all individuals with learning disabilities, the guidance misses the mark, failing to provide for the very people it was meant to support when the Act received Royal Assent three years ago.

There are reasons to be optimistic. The Prime Minister has rightly pledged to lead a Government of builders, not blockers. Members on both sides of the Chamber, from all political backgrounds, can all stand united in a shared consensus that the guidance needs to be built and issued, and that we need to get the blockers out of the way. We can agree that people with Down syndrome must be recognised as having specific needs, not just generic ones, and that support must be in place to ensure that they have equal access to opportunities to thrive in all aspects of life.

What is truly disappointing is that the blockers of progress are not really elected representatives or indeed Ministers, but, I fear, civil servants—those entrusted with carrying out the will of Parliament. Too many of them have obstructed the efforts of Ministers in two different Governments to implement the Act. Despite repeated promises, we still have not seen the creation of an effective cross-ministerial taskforce. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, because if there is blockage and resistance within the Government machine, Ministers need to come together. There would not have to be a permanent taskforce, but there should be one, two or perhaps three meetings at maximum where Ministers get together and ensure that the will of Parliament is brought to fruition.

Engagement with key stakeholders has been less than adequate. When the stakeholder group was formed to lead on this work, there was no consultation with Sir Liam Fox, the promoter of the Bill that became the Act, or with Rachael and Ken Ross, the founding officers of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, who also should have been included, and who were a driving force behind the thinking around the Act. That is not good enough—it is not a party political point. The Prime Minister has my full support to ensure that the Minister here today and her colleague the Minister for Care are empowered to do what they were partly appointed to do, which is to fully implement the Act.

I will say a little more on Down syndrome, which is a genetic condition caused by a chromosomal anomaly. While most people have 46 chromosomes, individuals with Down syndrome have three copies of chromosome 21 in each cell, rather than two. There are an estimated 47,000 people living with Down syndrome in the UK, making it the most common chromosomal condition. The good news is that people with Down syndrome are achieving more than ever before: attending mainstream schools, gaining meaningful employment and making invaluable contributions to our communities, as well as living longer.

There is a risk, however, that we see that progress as a reason to rest on our laurels. Instead, it shows the huge potential of people with Down syndrome, if only we can unlock it, and the urgent need to do more. There should be no limit to our ambitions for people with Down syndrome, which is why we should not wait one day more than we need to in order to deliver the guidance promised in the Down Syndrome Act.

The first step towards meaningful change is the improvement of healthcare. People with learning disabilities die, on average, 24 years younger than those without, and are twice as likely to die from treatable conditions. Whether due to significant delays in diagnoses, unsafe hospital discharges or poor co-ordination between the NHS and other services, one thing is clear: many of those deaths are preventable. Doctors certainly do not mean to harm people with Down syndrome. Instead, it is likely that poor healthcare results from a lack of specific knowledge and training needed to give people with Down syndrome the tailored support that the condition requires.

Following the passage of the Act, NHS England issued statutory guidance in 2023, mandating that every integrated care board appoint a named executive lead at board level to drive better outcomes for people with Down syndrome. That was to provide accountability within the system, so we could say that the Ministers are responsible, not civil servants. However, in the implementation —in the delivery on the ground across the country—of course civil servants are responsible. That is why it was an explicit part of the campaign around the Act, and an explicit promise from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that we would see people appointed—not so that they could be hidden, but so they could be publicly available, contacted and asked what they are doing within their area.

That was so that we could challenge not only the health system, but schools on what they are doing and why, in so many parts of the country, a Down syndrome child is automatically assumed to need to go to a specialist school when a lot of the evidence is they do better in mainstream—but only, of course, if the people in the schools have been given the support and skills to deliver that improvement. A few days ago, however, when I sought to find out who those named accountable individuals are to allow the Down syndrome community to hold the Government and the system to account, I was able to find a publicly nominated lead in only three of the 42 ICBs in England, and two of those leads are called David Jarrett.

I ask the Minister, what is going on? Can we make sure that those leads are publicly named and prominent on the websites of ICBs; that lists are issued and kept up to date; and that everyone in the Down syndrome community can easily find out who is responsible for the delivery of those services? That would ensure that not only health, but the wider community of public services is a servant of people with Down syndrome, rather than turning a person with Down syndrome into a supplicant.

After healthcare, I turn next to education, which is crucial to the life chances of people with Down syndrome. As I have said, research suggests that people with Down syndrome often achieve better outcomes in mainstream education than in specialist schools, provided that it is appropriate for their specific needs. Officials in the Department for Education are best placed to offer guidance on that, which highlights the importance of an effective cross-ministerial taskforce.

The Minister will have already discovered in her relatively short time as a Minister—we all know what it is like—that Departments other than where such Acts are made tend to be quite resistant to them. Sometimes the only way to cut through and make sure that sufficiently senior civil servants take on board these Acts of Parliament and do what they are obliged to do on a statutory basis is for Ministers to be called together to issue such an instruction and push the system to do what it is supposed to do. Otherwise those Departments will sit in their own lane, following the particular priorities of their Secretary of State, and utterly ignoring their statutory obligation to deliver on an Act of Parliament.

Some progress has been made, but there is more to do. Statistics from NHS Digital reveal that only 6% of working-age adults with learning disabilities who receive long-term social care are employed. In other words, 94% are not. When we meet the people who are and see what they can do, we ask, how many more are there? If only we put in place the right co-ordinated system, how many more could have much more fulfilling lives?

We should get the incentives aligned. If there are fears now about a person with Down syndrome losing benefits, it might not be them deciding—they may not even be spoken to—but members of their family or their social worker might decide, “Oh, it is best to take no risks and just keep them on benefits,” rather than supporting them into a job where they can be full members of society, contribute and benefit from that activity.

Even more troubling, 68% of those who are employed work less than 16 hours a week. Those figures are not just numbers; they reflect the deep systemic barriers that still limit opportunities for people with Down syndrome in the workforce. Despite a range of initiatives, it is clear that we need stronger, sustained efforts to ensure that people with Down syndrome can access fulfilling long-term employment. Only then will we truly break down the barriers to their independence and potential. I hope that it is by now clear to the Minister why we must break down those barriers, and why it is critical that the will of Parliament, in the form of an Act of Parliament that is now three years old, is upheld and implemented, and that change is delivered without further delay.

The time for action is now, so I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When will the promised cross-ministerial taskforce be created? At the very least, could she speak to her colleague the Minister for Care and push for one? I know that it is hard to get Ministers to turn up for some other Department’s cross-ministerial taskforce, so it often takes personal contact, an agreement that it is not going to run on forever, and someone saying, “Look, this is important. Let’s get this over the line. Please come along.” We need to get the right Minister at the right time, with sufficient seniority around the table and a real will to enact change and make a difference. If that could come out of this debate, it would be fantastic.

Will the Minister ensure that the consultation group contains only Down syndrome-specific organisations, so that the legislation supports people with the condition, as is set out in the Act? There has been a tendency to open up consultations to everybody engaged with learning disability, so people with little or no understanding of the specifics of Down syndrome have been engaged in the consultations run by civil servants. The whole thing has run into the ground and lost the specific focus of the Act.

The National Down Syndrome Policy Group informed me that the draft guidance issued to sector groups contained significant omissions. I always find it much easier to commit to meetings on behalf of colleagues than to commit myself, so I hope I can tempt the Minister to do so. Will the Minister commit the Minister for Care to meeting Rachael and Ken Ross—I would also love to attend—as soon as possible? They are the founding officers of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, and they do exceptional work for people with Down syndrome. They are in the Public Gallery alongside Millie, who recently gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group. Millie is always available to correct any of us when we get our policies wrong, as she will attest. Given that it has been three years, will the Minister provide a clear date—an aspiration from the Government —for when we will get comprehensive guidance? When can we get it ready, in a final version, to go through all the sign-off processes of Government? When can we expect it to be officially issued? Those are not just procedural questions; they are vital to ensuring that the promises made to people with Down syndrome are delivered, and that we move forward with the urgency and specificity that this issue demands.

Hon. Members in this Chamber will speak for themselves, but I am sure they all stand with the Minister in this effort. On behalf of the 47,000 people with Down syndrome across the country, we urge the Minister to ensure that a suitable and proper version of the guidance is produced quickly, and that is truly reflects the experiences and needs of people with Down syndrome, specifically. If alongside that exercise someone wants to produce separate, more generic guidance, that is fine; but can we ensure that the guidance described in the Act is delivered for people with Down syndrome, and that it is published and fully implemented without delay?

A great opportunity lies ahead for all of us. We can be part of delivering meaningful, lasting change for thousands of people, now and for generations to come. I am sure support will come from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and I hope we will send the Minister out from this debate determined to ensure that her colleague, the Minister for Care, does the right thing.

17:52

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important debate.

Down’s syndrome regression disorder is an aspect of Down’s syndrome that has been, until now, largely overlooked. It affects roughly 1% to 2% of people with Down’s syndrome and usually presents between the ages of 10 and 30. It is a truly horrific condition. People with Down’s syndrome regression disorder change, almost overnight. I met a mum whose son developed Down’s syndrome regression disorder. Overnight, he became non-responsive, uncommunicative and catatonic. She said it was like everything that was him had left.

Young people who previously held down jobs or voluntary positions, and had many interests, hobbies and a love of life, lose the ability to speak, lose continence and retreat into themselves. The change is not gradual; it is stark, unexpected and profound. There is a fundamental lack of awareness of the condition. It is often wrongly diagnosed as early-onset dementia or late-diagnosed autism, even though it does not fit the profile of either of those conditions. There is currently no pathway for diagnosis, and progress is often fraught. Finding a clinician who recognises the symptoms and will treat is, by and large, impossible. However, there is hope: 80% of people who receive the right treatment in a timely manner achieve some prospect of recovery.

I want to be clear: if a typical child who does not have Down’s syndrome stopped eating and taking any interest in jobs overnight, and if they suddenly became catatonic and completely unresponsive, it would be treated as a medical emergency. People whose children have Down’s syndrome, and who have finally managed to speak to the right clinician, have been told, “You need to take your child to A&E.” If it was a typical child, that would be happening, but because that child has Down’s syndrome, it is overlooked. Will the Minister meet with me and individuals affected by this disorder to discuss how we can best create awareness, and what their thoughts are on how we can create a pathway to diagnose and treat it?

I would also like to touch briefly on my reflections as a parent of a child with Down’s syndrome, and what I think would be generally helpful in the space. Many of us feel that some kind of pathway for parents whose child is born with Down’s syndrome would be extraordinarily useful. When their child is born, or when they receive an antenatal diagnosis, they very often think, “What lies ahead? What can I expect? What does my future look like?” Down’s syndrome is the most common chromosomal condition, and we know that 50% of children born with Down’s syndrome will have a heart condition, and there is a higher prevalence of conditions such as leukaemia. By and large, those with Down’s syndrome do not have a very strong immune system—as I know every flippin’ winter, when my child gets cold after cold.

I have had lovely responses and gained a level of knowledge about what to expect from various parts of my child’s condition. We have cobbled that together from speaking to other parents, through WhatsApp groups and Facebook groups, and sometimes from speaking to professionals and support groups. It would be helpful to have that set out officially, so that parents know what lies ahead, what to expect and what to look for.

This is a very small thing, but when people with Down’s syndrome have a fever, their temperature sometimes goes down rather than up. It is really unusual, but it is normal for the condition, and it is quite useful to know as a parent. It is also useful to know how to diagnose things, because people with Down’s syndrome do not present conditions typically, including conditions that can be really awful. Parents have lost children to sepsis because it does not present as it would with a typical child, so knowing how to diagnose it is really useful.

As people transition into adulthood and make those steps into the adult world, it is important to have an idea of how people with learning disabilities and Down’s syndrome can expect to be treated. What kind of things help them to live full and happy lives? As their parents and caregivers, what kind of things should we be encouraging them to take part in? That is extraordinarily helpful to know.

I will keep my speech brief, as I know other Members want to speak, but I will just end by reflecting that Friday is World Down Syndrome Day. In our community, we typically see it is a day of celebration, as well as an opportunity to present a challenge to policy makers. This year, we are asking them to ensure that we have the right support.

People will see this debate who have just received a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome. They might be receiving it today; they might be receiving it antenatally or postnatally. When I received that diagnosis seven years ago, it was a shock. I felt like the carpet had been pulled from under my feet, and I was devastated. I look back at that moment with shame at the thought that I was so devastated at the news of this person who became the beating heart of our family. She is joyous, although she is not always happy. That is a misconception—she is not—and if people say that, I will say, “Oh, did I get a wrong one?” Of course, I did not. She is stubborn—I like calling girls stubborn—she is determined, and she is feisty.

She is also a fantastic dancer. At a community event we went to, I was there as an MP, but she had me up dancing in the middle of the floor. I was not in the background; I was right there, and she dragged me into the heart of it. She is really funny, and she is so kind, especially with her sister. There is a really brilliant statistic that 95% of people who have a sibling with Down’s syndrome think that they have enhanced their life. She has made me a better person, and she has made my husband a better person. When she loves, she loves deeply, and she loves hard. People who meet her share that and feel that love with her.

The brilliant thing is that, if a parent has a child with Down’s syndrome, they join this wonderful community. I have met some of my best friends through that community and we are there to support each other. There are some brilliant groups; I will give a shoutout to Faye and Claire from our local Down’s syndrome group, who welcomed us with open arms and showed us what our life is. We are taking what we call the scenic route, not the quick path. It is a lot better than the casual straight line. Who wants normal? It is boring, and they showed us that joy.

Upwards with Downs in Harlow is a fantastic group that organises so many wonderful events, including a holiday we have been on with people who get it. There is also Downright Excellent in Hackney, and I say to my wonderful friends Charlotte and Kirsty: what a brilliant and fantastic community we have. Happy World Down Syndrome Day—I love all of you. If anyone is ever worried about what the future looks like, come and talk to me, or to any of us, because we can tell you that it is not just going to be okay; it is going to be brilliant.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I am imposing a time limit of four minutes. To show us how to do it very well, I call former Education Secretary Damian Hinds.

18:00

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It truly is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, and it truly is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft)—I do not know if I can. There are times in this place when it is a real privilege to have heard from a colleague, particularly when they share something very personal that helps to inform our democracy, and she has just done that many times over, and I thank her. Indeed, I am sure we all thank her very much for it.

I also thank and commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. As the hon. Lady said, we are coming up to World Down Syndrome Day. It is already Down’s Syndrome Awareness Week, so it is particularly apt that we should be having this debate.

It is my honour to co-chair, with the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), the all-party parliamentary group on down syndrome. Down syndrome was not something I knew a lot about beforehand; it just so happens that the co-founders of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, Ken and Rachael Ross, happened to be constituents of mine. But my God, through that link I have come into contact with the community that the hon. Member for Thurrock was just talking about, which is the most enormously wonderful thing. We had an event a couple of weeks ago over in Portcullis House. There was a flash mob in Portcullis House, there was dancing and there was singing, but there were also challenging speeches from members of the Down syndrome community, who it is always important to hear from directly.

In the APPG, we have heard a number of testimonies about people’s frustration with the education system. I am pleased that Down syndrome is now included as a category in the school census, which means that it is possible to take a more targeted approach, but those issues carry on into employment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said.

There is so much work to be done, but the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which was carried through by Sir Liam Fox, was a really important milestone and a really important achievement to build on. I do not really have time to say it all, so I will just very quickly commend Sir Liam again for the work he did then and for his continued advocacy today.

I also want to recognise the work of Ken and Rachael and everything they did to support the Act through Parliament, and everything they have done since. That includes their work locally with Portsmouth hospitals on a Down-specific maternity pathway, which I know as a constituency MP; in a completely different way, their work with the British Academy of Film and Television Arts to make sure that the voices of people with Down syndrome are heard in mainstream films; and also their work on special schools and making sure that more children with Down syndrome can be in a mainstream setting when that is right for them. I also want to recognise the work of all the MPs involved, including the Minister, who was on the Bill Committee with Sir Liam Fox to consider his private Member’s Bill.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said, it is now several years since that Bill was enacted. It is really important that we press on with the guidance and that it is specifically about Down syndrome. That is not in any way to reduce the issues faced by people with a broader set of learning difficulties or disabilities, but this is specifically the Down Syndrome Act 2022, to look at those particular issues and challenges. We need that ministerial cross-departmental taskforce, to make sure that the guidance is as sound as it can be and is produced as quickly as it can be.

I also thank the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), for his continued engagement. We continue to extend an invitation to him, and to the Minister, to join us in the APPG when they can, to hear further from members of the community about how important all this work is to them.

18:00

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on his comprehensive speech and on securing this debate, which holds immense significance for individuals with Down syndrome and their families, especially as we approach World Down Syndrome Day on Friday. That day was chosen because the 21st day of the third month represents the triplication of the 21st chromosome, which is the cause of Down syndrome. I will focus my comments today on the Down Syndrome Act, a landmark piece of legislation that recognises the unique needs of people with Down syndrome, and the ongoing work to update and implement the guidance that will help bring it to life.

As we have already heard, there are an estimated 47,000 people with Down syndrome people in the UK, yet, despite its being the most common chromosomal condition, people with Down syndrome continue to face barriers to achieving their full potential. That is where the Down Syndrome Act comes in. For the first time ever, we have legislation focused specifically on this community, taking into account the distinct health, developmental and educational needs unique to people with Down syndrome. With the right interventions, many people with Down syndrome can lead full, independent lives, attending mainstream schools, gaining employment and participating fully in society. To achieve that and to improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome, we need more than just general disability support: we need Down syndrome-specific strategies.

This is where the long-overdue guidance will play its part. The guidance will determine the success of the Act and be a practical road map that provides clarity on how the principles of the Act should be implemented. Without it, the Act will just remain words on the page. The preparation and implementation of the guidance, however, has faced challenges. We know that there have been significant delays in updating the guidance. More importantly, there are concerns that the current draft of the guidance does not reflect the original intent of the Act and lacks the Down syndrome-specific focus in line with the Government’s statutory duty.

I thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), for writing to me yesterday to assure me that he has listened to those concerns, and that he is engaging with stakeholders and working with all relevant Departments to produce a second draft of the guidance, with a view to putting it out for consultation by the summer. My ask of the Minister is to ensure that the second draft of the guidance reflects the feedback raised by the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, the Down’s Syndrome Association and others. I am sure he will agree that we need guidance that is robust, inclusive, and reflective of the needs of the community it is intended to support.

Importantly, an accountability mechanism must be included to ensure that individuals and organisations responsible for the implementation are held to their obligations. Additional direction and training should be considered for external bodies to help them to understand fully their roles in effectively implementing the guidance in the first place. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to these points as the second draft is prepared.

The Down Syndrome Act and its guidance offer an incredible opportunity to improve outcomes for people with Down syndrome, but we must ensure that the guidance reflects the specific needs of the community it aims to serve. To ensure that that is the case, I hope the Minister will agree, on behalf of the Minister for Care, to meet with representatives of the APPG on Down syndrome and the National Down Syndrome Policy Group to discuss and address our key concerns. By working together, we can create a future where people with Down syndrome are not only included, but truly empowered to reach their full potential.

18:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Mr Turner. I wish you well in this new role, and I hope we will have many engagements in this Chamber. I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for raising this issue and introducing the debate. He has taken the mantle on well and I congratulate him. In the short time I have, I will give three inspirational examples of those with Down’s syndrome from Northern Ireland. I know the parents of one of them personally.

First, many people will have seen James Martin from Belfast; the Minister, who always has a close eye on what is happening in Northern Ireland, will know him. Last year at the Academy Awards he was an inspiration to so many, showing that the opportunities are limitless for that young man. There is a place in our society for so many different skills and abilities. I am truly thankful for those who are at pains to portray acceptance in the mainstream. James did us all proud at the Oscars, and set the scene for more to be done.

Secondly, young Kate Grant was Northern Ireland’s first Down’s syndrome model to walk at London fashion week. What an inspiration that young lady was. Our society has made limits, but they are being changed, which can only be a good thing. In setting the scene, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness talked about how we must change the limits and ensure that young people have opportunities.

Thirdly, my parliamentary aide volunteers in a local Campaigners clan in Newtownards. In her clan is a young boy called Harry; he and his younger sister are integral members of the group. Harry played the role of a wise man in the nativity play this Christmas, delivering his iconic line, “Look at the star!”, with great confidence and gusto. He attends a special school but is well integrated in this wee group, and the inspirational aspect is that he is not treated as different by the children around him. They just see him as Harry; they attach no Down’s syndrome label to him, but accept him as he is.

I love to see and hear those stories of integration and I think the right hon. Gentleman hopes to see that sort of integration across society. We all know the days of stigmatising Down’s syndrome children are well in the past, and rightly so. Now is the time to step up and help these children and adults to find their place in our society. I believe that that is happening more, and that is very positive.

I have one concern, which is that children with Down’s syndrome can be aborted up to birth in Northern Ireland, under the horrific imposed abortion regime. It is an absolute stain on this House that it made the decision to impose that regime in Northern Ireland. I cannot highlight the wonderful steps forward that society is taking without begging once again that allowing abortion until birth simply because a child has Down’s syndrome is removed from our legislation. We voted against that measure at the time, but this House passed it for Northern Ireland.

I will never forget the words of young Heidi Crowther, who has Down’s syndrome, urging people not to allow abortion until birth, saying:

“My life has as much value as anybody else’s.”

That is so true, and the worth of people like her to communities around the world is beginning to be understood. We must encourage and support children and adults—and parents, too. I look to the Minister, as I always do, to ensure that families have access to help and support throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is only made richer and stronger by our differences.

18:12

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. The Down Syndrome Act is simple, but brilliant—but it is powerless without the guidance to accompany it. That is why this debate is timely.

I also call it timely because the elements of the Act determine the very structure that can support a child through to adulthood, from birth through to work. The Act depends on three main pillars, the first of which is healthcare. At this time, we are putting in place a 10-year NHS plan, putting together the NHS of the future, and looking at how we can keep ourselves well; we are putting in early intervention measures and ensuring that we have the workforce needed in the future. If this guidance is to have effect, we need the workforce and the structures to support individuals and their families. Now is the time to look at that and to put in the additional screening and support that a person with Down syndrome needs to optimise their health and keep well throughout their life.

The second pillar is that we are having a massive review of the education system at the moment. We are looking at curriculum change, recognising that the broadening of the curriculum will be much more inclusive. As we review SEND and the whole education system, it is timely to bring in this guidance. It cannot just be guidance around Down syndrome looking in; it must be looking out at other Departments. Again, the time is now. Look at the data: the figure of 80% of children with Down syndrome attending primary school drops to between 25% and 37% in secondary school. That deficit in itself indicates that we need significant change in our education system. We need a schools system that is nurturing, therapeutic and integrated, so that no child feels on the outside of the education they are rightly entitled to.

The third pillar is the place of work. We need to ensure that there are more opportunities for people with Down syndrome to engage in the labour market. Just yesterday, the Government published their plan “Pathways to Work”, which I see as a plan in two halves. The first half will enable more people to access the labour market, to follow the career of their dreams, and to have their skills and talents recognised. We need to ensure that everybody with Down syndrome has that opportunity where it can be afforded—if not in a formal workplace, by volunteering in the community or being able to have the most life-enhancing opportunities available to them. When I talk about the second half of the plan, I have deep concern for people with Down syndrome, looking at the proposed thresholds for personal independence payment in which people will have to score at least four points to meet the threshold to access vital funding to keep them independent —the key word in personal independence payments. We need to ensure that we feed into that debate.

When we get this right, it will be for the benefit of the whole of society. In York, I think of those people who work in West Offices, where the café is run by United Response and provides real work opportunities, and of the Once Seen theatre company, where I see such talent on display. We must get this guidance—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Bobby Dean.

18:16

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing the debate today and for articulating the key points of the Act so well. I cannot move on without also thanking the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for her inspiring contribution. She really did her community proud today.

This issue came to my attention because I have a constituent called Lucienne who sits on the National Down Syndrome Policy Group and runs a local group called Get On Downs. I was at its annual celebration this morning—we had tea and cake, we threw balls around a ball pit, and I wore funky socks as demanded by the event—unfortunately, you cannot see them, Mr Turner, but I am still wearing them. I got to meet Noah, Lily, Stephen and Charlotte, all people living with Down syndrome and thriving in that loving space. I asked Charlotte what she would like me to say to the Minister, and she said she would like me to tell the Minister that she is fantastic—so I have done that.

I also spoke to parents there, who told me about the relief of having that space, including for themselves, so they could talk to other parents and share experiences. They also had some serious points to make about the Act, which they were all aware of. A common theme was the education system and that the specific needs of Down syndrome children are not being met, even though the smallest of adaptations and interventions can make such a massive difference. Schools are not aware of that and we need to get the guidance sorted for them.

I also heard a story about someone moving on to post-16 education and the demands on them to take maths and English to a particular level, when what they actually need is the vocational skills. They want to become an animal carer and wish they could just have access to a vocational course without the hard maths and English requirements. I also heard about the need for more support to stay in work. Charlotte did Christmas cover in retail, but companies were not looking to keep her on.

There were warm words for Lucienne—or Lu, as she is known—and she was described as a “life saver” for setting up that local group. She has also set up an amazing initiative with the local hospital trust. The healthcare information provided at birth can be daunting, warning about some of the things that parents of children with Down syndrome will have to face. Lu wanted to flip that on its head and provide care packages to new parents of children with Down syndrome that congratulated them and talked about all the joys ahead of them. I want to recognise that brilliant initiative.

It is fitting to give the last word to Lu, and these are the questions that she wants to ask the Minister. What is happening with the guidance, and why the delay? Will the Minister agree to meet the National Down Syndrome Policy Group? Can the Minister reassure us that the draft guidance will be Down syndrome-specific? Lu wanted to labour the point about the specific learning profile that requires specific interventions. She asks, “What is the point in a Down Syndrome Act if it is not specific to people with Down syndrome?”

18:19

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important and timely debate ahead of World Down Syndrome Day this Friday.

What a pleasure it was to take the opportunity before the debate, as we were slightly delayed, to chat to marvellous Millie, who is an incredible advocate for those who have been touched by Down syndrome.

In my constituency of Chichester we are fortunate to have an incredible charity, the Chichester and Arun Down Syndrome Support Group, which works tirelessly to fill the gaps left by failings in public service provision. Ahead of this debate, the charity highlighted to me many of the challenges that people with Down syndrome face, particularly in accessing the support they need throughout their education. One of its core initiatives as a charity is the bespoke schools outreach programme, which ensures that children with Down syndrome receive the tailored education they require. They require additional support throughout their education, yet many families struggle to obtain EHCPs from local authorities.

In West Sussex, the picture is stark: only 3.6% of EHCPs were issued within the statutory timeframe of 20 weeks in 2023, and the situation has not got much better. Those delays force children with Down syndrome to remain in unsuitable educational environments where their needs are not met, which hinders their opportunities. Most importantly, when an EHCP is issued, we need the accountability to see that that EHCP is delivered.

The charity also highlighted to me the cliff edge of support that people living with Down syndrome face at the age of 18, when they are no longer in an education provision. I was pleased to visit Together Our Community at its exciting new venue in Chichester, which is due to open next month. That will provide a space for TOC members and a public-facing café where adults with additional needs between the ages of 18 and 35 will have the chance to learn and develop essential skills. For people with Down syndrome, charitable organisations such as those provide vital support and services and give these incredible people the opportunity to thrive, not just survive.

The Down Syndrome Act recognised the needs of those living with Down syndrome and rightly acknowledged that public services must take those needs into account across health, social care, education and other local authority provisions. However, the Act must be properly resourced. The NHS website lists a range of specialists that a person with Down syndrome may need to see, including speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, opticians and occupational therapists. Yet local organisations consistently report a lack of those essential services, which undermines the opportunities for people with Down syndrome to live comfortably or independently. Three years on from Royal Assent, the Act is not supporting those who it was designed to support.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for all individuals with long-term conditions or disabilities to have access to a named doctor, which would shift care from the corridors of hospitals to local communities. That is especially crucial for people with Down syndrome, who not only have learning disabilities but are at a significantly higher risk of conditions such as dementia, seizures and leukaemia, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned.

The impact of social care on people with Down syndrome cannot be overstated, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive overhaul of social care policy. While we welcome the cross-party commission to establish a long-term agreement on social care, we strongly believe that it can be concluded within one year, not three.

While the Down Syndrome Act was a step in the right direction, real change requires more than warm words; it demands proper funding and meaningful action. From healthcare and social care to employment and independent living, people with Down syndrome deserve better. As the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness stated, the guidance is where we are severely lacking at this moment in time. The Government must prioritise this issue, and we will continue to push for the improvements necessary to enhance quality of life for all.

18:23

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to respond in this debate. I credit the now Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who said, when speaking about this issue in January 2022:

“Our constituents expect us to see guidance and perhaps be part of scrutinising it, raising objections and problems and improving it—that is the role of a Member of Parliament”.––[Official Report, Down Syndrome Public Bill Committee, 26 January 2022; c. 7.]

We have seen that exemplified here today. I give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for all he has done to raise this issue, but he was actually trumped by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), to whom I pay tribute for her ability to speak so openly, so personally and in such an informed way about the issues at hand.

In January 2022, the then shadow Minister closed by saying,

“this is an example of how Parliament and the proper role of Members of Parliament can be made real. That is only for the good of our constituents.”––[Official Report, Down Syndrome Public Bill Committee, 26 January 2022; c. 7.]

I agree with her entirely.

Turning to the debate itself, it is unusual to have unanimous feelings from across the House, but that is what we have heard in this debate. It is an accolade to everyone that we have got this far, but some things are still outstanding, particularly two issues—the progress of seeing the guidance and ensuring that it is accurate and effective. It is important to ensure that the guidance is robust and reflects the needs of the community. We do not want to rush publishing the guidance, which could mean that key issues are not addressed, because it would undermine the efforts of the last three years and fail the very people the Act is aimed to support.

My former colleague, Sir Liam Fox, who has been mentioned here and introduced the private Member’s Bill, has written to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee about these reforms; with your permission, Mr Turner, I would like to quote some extracts. He said:

“When the House of Commons unanimously passed the Down Syndrome Act, it felt like a real dawn had arrived for those with Down Syndrome and their families. We were promised new government guidelines covering health, education and social care that would phenomenally improve service provision and provide accountability to service users”.

He said later:

“Despite repeated promises we have not yet seen the formation of an effective cross Ministerial task force. There has been little Ministerial engagement with stakeholders, with many identical letters being sent out in response to demonstrably different queries. Now, three years after the legislation reached the statute book, this is completely unacceptable.”

He finished by saying:

“I believe that it is now time for both Ministers and officials to be held to account for the lack of progress in producing coherent guidelines, something that is regarded as a betrayal by many of those who were so encouraged and inspired by the passage of the Down Syndrome Act itself”.

Therefore, to echo many of the sentiments expressed in this Chamber today, I have some gentle questions about the guidance.

First, though, it was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) that a letter has been sent out, which I welcome. I wonder whether the Minister might take back to the Department the suggestion that a copy of the letter might be placed in the Library, for the public and all of us to see.

For my first question: can the Minister clarify whether the updated guidance will be published, and if so, when? Secondly, will she commit to holding a debate or a statement on the guidance, on having it laid before Parliament? Thirdly, how will the Government monitor compliance with the guidance?

To help with the above, the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, which drafted the original Down Syndrome Bill and worked with Sir Liam Fox and previous Ministers to support its journey through Parliament, has been trying to engage further with Ministers. It has highlighted to me multiple requests for Ministers to meet the APPG on Down syndrome, the policy group and MPs, which have yet to be successful. I echo that call: will the Minister commit today to her fellow Minister meeting with the policy group and the APPG to follow this up?

The theme of World Down Syndrome Day, which is indeed this Friday, is “improve our support systems”. We know that, with the growth in life expectancy for people with Down syndrome, access to social care will be critical. Therefore, can the Minister confirm whether the needs of people with Down syndrome will be considered in the first stage of Baroness Casey’s commission into adult social care? With the Government’s 10-year plan in production, could the Minister outline how Down syndrome will be addressed in the context of that plan?

I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how this Government will build on the foundations of the Down Syndrome Act, and about the strengthening and enabling of support. If we see it through that prism, the world shines brighter when we see people for their abilities rather than their disabilities.

18:28

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this debate, and for giving us all the chance to mark World Down Syndrome Day on Friday. No one has done that better than my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) this afternoon. Her child is the beating heart of her family, and that joy is absolutely with all of us. She has spread that joy today and we are grateful to her.

I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for his support for the Down Syndrome Act. As he highlighted, I was pleased to support the Act with his right hon. Friend and my constituency neighbour at the time, the former Member for North Somerset, Sir Liam Fox. It was a marvellous thing to be part of. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, it was a simple but quite brilliant piece of legislation. I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Luke Evans) for quoting my comments from different times at the Dispatch Box; hopefully they were all carefully chosen.

This Government want to see a fair Britain where everyone lives well for longer. I absolutely recognise the importance of the Down Syndrome Act in helping to achieve that. The Act gives people with Down syndrome the building blocks they need for a healthy life, and we have heard about some of those today: access to the health and care services they need, receiving the right education, securing living arrangements that work for them and being supported into employment were mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, as well as the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).

By raising awareness and understanding of the needs of people with Down syndrome, we can help ensure that every person with Down syndrome has the opportunity to live a full and fulfilling life. Today’s debate is an excellent opportunity to come together to mark World Down Syndrome Day. I commend those in the Public Gallery, and the many people who have been in contact with or are known to Members. This year’s theme is “improve our support systems”, which is incredibly important. It is something that we are striving to achieve through developing the statutory guidance under the Down Syndrome Act.

We are committed to ensuring that people with Down syndrome receive the care and support they need to lead the lives they want to in their community. However, as we have heard this afternoon, there is significant work to be done to make that a reality. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), is working hard to implement the Act. Under the Act, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is required to give guidance to relevant authorities in health, social care, education and housing services on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome.

As Members have highlighted, the Act was formally commenced on 18 March 2024 by way of regulations. That brought into force all the provisions of the Act, and it was a necessary step towards the publication of the guidance. I do not think it has been mentioned today, but shortly after that point we had the general election, and I appreciate that the delays are frustrating for campaigners and people involved. The Minister for Care has written to sector partners and the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome with an update on the guidance and next steps. That includes our intention to put the guidance out for consultation by the summer.

Engagement with people with Down syndrome, their families and supporters, sector colleagues and experts has been invaluable throughout the development of the guidance. Over 1,500 responses were received to a national call for evidence, which is being used to inform the guidance, in addition to sector engagement and a review of the evidence to gain a better understanding of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome and how those can be best met by relevant authorities.

On 26 November 2024, the Minister for Care convened a roundtable of partners to discuss how we can improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome, and the opportunities that the guidance presents in support of that. We are grateful for the collective efforts and insights of individuals and organisations across the country, which have enabled us to make great strides in our development of this important piece of guidance. We recognise that some time has passed since the Act became law in April 2022.

[Graham Stuart]

Several colleagues have mentioned the need for specificity—if the Minister is coming on to that, then great. Would it be fair to say that it is the intent of the Government—I am not looking for cast-iron promises, because we know how challenging these things are—that we should see the guidance issued before the end of this year, all things being well?

[Karin Smyth]

We want to ensure that the guidance is published as soon as possible, and we appreciate patience while we make that happen. It is important that we continue to work with people and organisations with lived experience to develop the guidance. We hope that the update we provide will assure everyone of the priority attached to that important piece of work.

As for the scope of the guidance—with regard to other genetic conditions or learning disability—a commitment was made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament to consider the links and overlaps with other genetic conditions and/or a learning disability. Therefore, the guidance will be Down syndrome-specific, in line with the Government’s statutory duty—which we are clear about—under the Act. It will also include references to where it could have wider benefit. We want to take the opportunity of the guidance to help as many people as possible and to provide examples of good practice to support relevant authorities to implement improvements in practice.

On employment, we heard through engagement with our partners that employment is crucial to improving life outcomes. People with Down syndrome can bring many skills and strengths to the workplace. We want every person with Down syndrome who can and wants to work to have the right support and opportunity to do so. That is why a dedicated chapter on employment will be included in the guidance.

On implementing the guidance, we know that ultimately much depends on how the guidance is put into practice across our communities. To support implementation, NHS England published statutory guidance on 9 May 2023 to require that every ICB had a named lead for Down syndrome. I think that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said that there was only one, and I recognise the name, because it is my own area—well done, them. That might not have happened, but it was said in 2023.

The executive lead on Down syndrome will lead on supporting the chief executive and the board to ensure that the ICB performs its functions effectively in the interests of people with Down syndrome. We recognise the importance of ensuring that people with Down syndrome are able to make complaints, if they have concerns about the quality of and access to care. We expect the named lead to ensure that concerns are acted on at the local level.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am sorry, but I think I have only a minute to go.

This week has been a powerful reminder of how far we have come regarding awareness of Down syndrome. It has also made us reflect that much more remains to be done. When the guidance is launched for public consultation, we will welcome Members’ support to ensure that the communities they represent are aware of it and can share their views.

I will just highlight the issue of regression, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned. The guidance will deal with specific health needs, and regression will be part of that.

I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness again for securing the debate and other hon. Members for joining the discussion. In particular, I thank the co-chairs of the APPG, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for their work, and everyone who works tirelessly to improve our support systems and services. It is incumbent on us all, working with people with Down syndrome, their families and carers, to get this done.

I appreciate that a number of requests have been made for different individuals and groups to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Care. He is keen to do that. I will not make specific commitments, although the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness tempts me to do so, but I will make the commitment that my hon. Friend will be in touch via his office with colleagues who made such requests, to ensure that we make best use of the time and bring people with us on the implementation of this guidance, which is so crucial—I remember my time on that Bill well. I am thankful for the opportunity to be part of the debate this afternoon.

18:37

[Graham Stuart]

We have had 10 speeches in this debate, which is fantastic. I think we all agree that the stand-out speech was that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). It is great to have the whole House coming together in this way—a number of colleagues focused on that—and to have the pledges from the Minister. I think we can move forward with enthusiasm and engage with the Minister for Care. Led by the co-chairs of the APPG, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), we can ensure that we have a streamlined meeting or meetings to ensure that the Minister’s time is best used, the voices of the community are heard and the guidance is swiftly produced.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Down’s syndrome.

18:37

Sitting adjourned.