Westminster Hall

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 29 October 2025

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

10:40

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before we start, it has been drawn to my attention that a photograph is to be taken in the Chamber at 11 o’clock. We have no power to suspend this sitting to accommodate that, but I will try to get a message to the Speaker’s Office to say that there are Members here who would like to be in the Chamber for that and that if it could be held off until about 11.5 am, that should give Members here time to get across. Those of us taking part in the second debate will not have that luxury.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for the International Baccalaureate in state schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The international baccalaureate—which I will henceforth refer to as the IB, but I hate acronyms, so I wanted to say it properly to start with—establishes the global standard for education and is recognised by universities, employers and educators worldwide as a symbol of academic excellence.

For those who are unaware, the IB diploma is an alternative to A-levels that offers a breadth of subjects across the curriculum: languages, humanities, sciences, maths and arts. Students complete extended projects, theory of knowledge and service in the community, making for a well-rounded education. Studies have shown that IB students in the UK are three times more likely to enrol in a top 20 higher education institution, 40% more likely to achieve a first-class or upper second-class honours degree and 21% more likely to continue to the second year of university. That is why thousands of British families choose to send their children to schools offering the IB diploma.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I have constituents who attend the Europa School in his constituency, and they have been in touch with me about this issue. He speaks of choice. If we can have faith schools, free schools, maintained schools, academies, grammar schools, state boarding schools and colleges—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Let us get the ground rules right: this is an intervention, not a speech.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Does my hon. Friend agree that choice is an extremely valuable part of the education system, and we should be supporting the Europa School?

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and articulately summarises the wide range of choice in schools that there is separately from the IB. He is right to mention the Europa School in Culham in my constituency; I will say more about that school later and explain why it is so important to the Government’s objectives for the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.

Since 2013, the Government have provided a large programme uplift—another acronym: LPU—in funding to state schools and colleges in England to support high-quality 16-to-19 study programmes exceeding the standard 600 hours of teaching. That helps to fund state schools to deliver the IB diploma programme. On 1 October this year, the Department for Education wrote to affected state schools and colleges to notify them that the Government are axing the LPU funding for the international baccalaureate diploma programme from the 2026-27 academic year.

As with so much in life, the “what” is important, but in many ways the “how” is even more so. Many schools and parents are hugely concerned that there was no consultation or impact assessment on the changes and no warning that this was coming. It could hardly have come at a worse time, as schools are having open days, showing families around and letting them know what they offer.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

A governor of the Europa School in my hon. Friend’s constituency wrote to me to object to the short notice that the Government have provided, at a time when children and their parents are making decisions about the future and choosing the opportunity that an IB programme provides. Does he agree that this was short-sighted and ill considered by the Government?

[Olly Glover]

I very much agree. The fact that there is a governor of this school in my hon. Friend’s constituency shows that these schools often have wide catchment areas, because of the fairly unusual and very popular offer that they make, which is attractive to many in the surrounding areas.

It is unclear what these schools should be saying to parents as they look to enrol their children for the next calendar year. This will be deeply damaging for those schools.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Students in my constituency are served by Impington Village college for the IB. They are deeply unhappy that the college received a letter from the Department announcing the change with no warning or consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government decision has caused an unacceptable amount of stress for pupils, parents and staff, and that how the Government are acting is the complete opposite—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. The Chair deprecates scripted interventions; they are supposed to be spontaneous.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend gives a strong example of another school offering that type of qualification. It is also in that Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, which is so important to the Government.

The Government have committed to increasing the number of those pursuing further education, whether academic or technical, and they talk about a “broad and bold curriculum”. Removing funding for the IB in state schools does not seem to align with the Government’s stated aims. State schools losing the funding will make it unviable for some of them to deliver the IB programme, as it takes more teaching hours and highly trained specialists.

Some of the state schools offering IB are selective, but many are not, including Europa School in my constituency. Removing the funding ensures that only independent schools can offer the IB, creating a two-tier system so only those who can pay will get it.

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

I was lucky enough to go to a school in Cheltenham called the Cheltenham Ladies college where the IB was offered. It is grossly unfair that children who cannot afford school fees should not have the opportunity for this wonderful international qualification. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Olly Glover]

I very much agree. The risk, the consequence, of this Government decision is that it pushes people towards independent schools. Surely that is not in line with the Government’s strongly stated views on private versus state education. Additionally, those teachers trained to deliver the programme may also opt to move to the private sector, meaning our state schools lose yet more teaching talent—both pupils and teachers could be pushed away.

Europa School is a single academy trust based at Culham in my Oxfordshire constituency; I was lucky enough to visit it on 7 March this year. It provides a broad, challenging and internationally minded curriculum with specialisms in modern European languages, in particular French, German and Spanish, and the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths. The Department for Education provides a grant of £100,000. I am happy to say that Europa School is successful and thriving, with 1,150 pupils, long waiting lists in all cohorts and 106 in the midst of doing their IB diplomas.

My constituency is home to myriad public and private sector science and tech research companies, such as the UK Atomic Energy Authority, in Culham just down the road from the school, the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy and, slightly further from the school, those at Harwell campus and Milton Park. Cutting-edge research and commercial innovation take place every day and, as such, the area attracts a world-class scientific community that very much relies on people coming from wherever in the world has the specialist expertise to contribute to world-class scientific efforts.

For scientists choosing to relocate to the UK to pursue such cutting-edge research, the option of the Europa School is without doubt a draw, and it enables their families to continue their international education. The origins of the school very much lie there, in that it used to be a European Union-funded institution, affiliated to the JET—Joint European Torus—fusion testing facility that was next door in Culham. Clearly, the school has evolved since our decision to leave the European Union, but it still has that international ethos.

There is a real risk that the UK will lose global talent hubs and STEM industries as cutting-edge scientists relocate to other global destinations in the event that the education available to their families loses its relevance. It is hard to see, therefore, how the policy we are debating supports the Government’s stated aim of pursuing cutting-edge scientific research and their goals for the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. Only last week, the Government announced funding for the Oxford to Cowley branch line. The funding needed to support Europa School and others is just a drop in the ocean compared with the costs those needed to deliver the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.

Additionally, the Europa School is unique. It operates a bilingual model, enabling European students to continue some learning in their native tongue and UK students the opportunity to reach an unusual level of proficiency in another language. That would be lost if the school had to resort to GCSEs and A-levels, which other schools in the area offer.

Never mind what I think, however. There is a real-world impact on students and their families, and I want to share a little of what students and parents themselves have said. I was told about the Europa headteacher meeting a year 11 student who had applied for a scholarship to a nearby independent school. She would not have considered it but for this announcement. She has her heart set on studying the IB but is now unsettled. Unfortunately, she is not the only one. The existing lower-sixth students have expressed concern about whether the school will be able to continue to offer their choices of subjects without the transitional funding for their final year at Europa.

Uma from the lower-sixth said:

“As an IB student at Europa School UK, my classmates and I are really concerned about the Government’s decision to reduce support for IB students in state schools. It’s a really challenging curriculum that encourages a strong language base, critical thinking, scientific depth and research, with extra requirements to broaden our skills. We are all so passionate about the program and the school, and the opportunity to complete this additional challenge, which now is at risk for us and younger children. If the Government want to invest in the future and believe in equality in education, they should reverse their decision.”

The school has reassured the lower-sixth but cannot offer those reassurances to year 11 students. Amalia in year 11 said:

“Due to the unnecessary uncertainty surrounding this proposal, a significant number of my friends, who I have known for almost my entire life, have started to look into different IB schools. I know I will stay in Europa to pursue subjects such as physics, maths and German, as I want to be an engineer, and the IB is helping me develop all the skills I will need, along with giving me a wider outlook on culture and teaching me problem-solving skills and improving my creative and conceptual understanding. However, my learning of these skills is being put at risk, as some of the classes I hope to take, such as art and philosophy, may not be able to be taught next school year, which would cause such a loss in my and others’ academic development. I also hope to continue with my languages next year, as Europa has provided me with such an enriching and cultural curriculum that has inspired me to continue learning languages, so that I can use them in my later life.”

I would add to those comments that surely, in our globalised world and talk of global Britain, it is more important than ever to improve our language proficiency. We could aspire to be like the Netherlands, where everyone—even in the middle of nowhere, cycling along by the North sea—speaks fluent English. I am not suggesting that Dutch should be the language of choice for us, lovely though it is; I will stop digging at this point.

About 70 parents wrote to me as constituents and have signed a Change.org petition. They told me:

“Many of our families are attracted to work in cutting-edge technology and innovation here, precisely because there is a credible education option for their children who will leave with an internationally recognised qualification. The Government’s stated reason for the change is evidently to encourage schools to focus on the study of STEM subjects. This suggests to us that someone in the Education Department does not understand anything about the IB. The IB ensures that all students must to continue to study mathematics and all the sciences up to the age of 18. For a bilingual school like Europa, the IB offers the only suitable framework that allows our students’ language proficiency to be properly assessed and challenged. If we are forced to revert to GCSEs and A-levels, we will lose the ability to provide the depth of language education that Europa was designed to deliver.”

I hope the Minister can provide clarity on a point that is not clear to me or Europa School. At present, schools get core funding per student for 16 to 19 and then the large programme uplift that I mentioned. The LPU for IB schools was 20% of core funding. Will the increase to core funding of £800 million cover the proposed cut to the LPU? I understand that that £800 million will cover only rising school costs and the increased teacher pay awards. I also understand that there is a parachute payment for the academic year 2026-27 that will be approximately 40% of the previous LPU payment. That might go some way to supporting the current year 12 students to complete their IBs, but still represents a significant shortfall.

In conclusion, it is clear that the education pathway of the IB offers a choice for students and parents that is of high quality and appealing to many. By removing funding for it, the Government are reinforcing a two-tier system, where only those children whose parents can afford independent schools will be able to take the international baccalaureate. That goes against the Government’s stated policies on state versus private education.

The curriculum review should be viewed as an opportunity to learn from the success of the IB diploma, so that more students can benefit from a rigorous programme that balances breadth and depth without narrowing options too early. I ask the Minister to reinstate the funding, at a cost of just £2.5 million a year. When researching for this debate, I was astonished to discover that the Department for Education’s budget is more than £100 billion annually. Assuming that my maths is up to scratch—alas, I did not go to Europa School—that represents 0.0025% of the Department’s annual budget.

I ask the Minister to reinstate that funding so that we do not close the door to a high-quality programme for a generation of state school pupils and their families. I thank everyone for attending the debate and look forward to hearing their comments, in particular the Minister’s.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we proceed, I should say that eight hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I propose to call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am. We have tried to get a message to the Speaker’s Office and I have not had a response, so we do not know what the score is. If the Front Benchers curtail their remarks, I can suspend the sitting slightly early. Those who are participating in the following business will have to remain here, but other Members should be able to make it to the Chamber by 11 o’clock. I am minded to put a time limit on speeches, but for the moment, if we can work on a self-denying ordinance of five minutes, we should be able to get everybody in. I call Josh Dean.

09:45

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this morning’s debate.

Hockerill Anglo-European College in Bishop’s Stortford is one of the 20 or so state schools across the country to offer the international baccalaureate diploma. A vibrant day and boarding school, Hockerill’s post-16 provision is based entirely on the IB diploma, and it is the only school in our community to offer the programme. The removal of the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme by the Department for Education would seriously impact Hockerill’s ability to offer the IB.

Hockerill’s sixth form open morning for the next school year takes place in just under a month, and the letter notifying the school of the changes arrived on 1 October—the same day its promotional material for the sixth form was signed off. The school had received no previous indication of potential changes and had not been consulted. The letter professed to let it know about them “in good time” in case it needed “to consider changes” to its “provision and plans”. However, when I met the principal last week, he was clear that, with the prospectus signed off and families due to walk through the door for their open morning, there simply is not time to make drastic changes to provision and that the school will be unable to offer the IB following the changes.

That decision does not take place in a vacuum. Hockerill is an international boarding school as well as a local state school, but the additional income that that once provided has been severely impacted by changes following Brexit. Furthermore, like many state schools, Hockerill has seen a dramatic rise in the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities and education, health and care plans, and the additional provision it offers has also had a significant impact on its budget.

The IB diploma has made up Hockerill’s sole post-16 provision for many years. The school has already advertised that provision to its current year 11 and to year 11 students across our community, and it intends to honour that offer. That means that it will run the provision with reduced transitional funding next year and without the LPU the following year, meaning it will have to consider taking money from elsewhere in an already stretched budget.

Will the Minister reflect in his response on what consideration the DFE has given to schools such as Hockerill, which did not expect to make drastic changes to their post-16 provision in such a short timeframe, and on how it intends to support them to make any changes? Will he also set out what consideration the DFE has given to, at minimum, extending the transitional funding for a further year to allow schools such as Hockerill to complete the IB programme for current year 11s going into the sixth form, thus reducing disruption? Finally, will he urgently meet me to discuss Hockerill’s case, how the changes will impact the school community and our town, and the wider challenges being faced?

09:48

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for bringing forward this debate.

The international baccalaureate sets a global benchmark for education. It is trusted by universities, employers and educators worldwide as a mark of academic excellence. It equips young people with the skills they need for life, producing confident and well-rounded citizens. It therefore makes no sense for the Government to slash large programme uplift funding for the IB diploma programme—a deeply damaging and short-sighted move that will affect only 20 state schools that offer the IB. That funding makes it possible for state schools to deliver the IB programme, and removing it jeopardises access to the programme for state school students across England, entrenching even further the divide between state and private schools. That directly contradicts the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.

The cut, worth just £2.5 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage said, is a drop in the ocean for the DFE, given its £100 billion budget, but the impact on state schools and students currently taking or planning to take the IB is devastating. Why are the Government discouraging ambition and preventing social mobility to save such a comparatively small sum of money?

I recently heard from Torquay Boys’ Grammar School, which is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) and is attended by many of my constituents. The school was shocked to learn that its large programme uplift funding would end with no prior warning, cutting £116,000 from its budget in 2026 and £90,000 in 2027. It warned that this was an irreversible change. Establishing the IB involves years of preparation and teacher training, something the school has been building up since 2009.

Losing the IB would happen quickly and with no turning back, but the impact extends beyond that. Torquay Boys’ said that without the IB it could not sustain A-level language courses. Those usually have only four to five students per class, but the IB programme keeps 40 students learning languages at 16 to 18. The cut could therefore lead to the death of certain subjects altogether in some state schools. As a language graduate myself, this is something I care about deeply. We can all plainly see the damage that cutting our ties to our nearest neighbours on the European mainland has done. Effectively wiping out language learning in schools is yet another hammer blow to intercultural understanding and relationship building.

We know that the IB is a pathway to top universities, apprenticeships and employment for young people in the state sector, so the cut is at direct odds with the Government’s pledge to increase the number of students pursuing further education. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, including maths, science, humanities, arts and a language. This decision therefore also actively conflicts with the Government’s promise in opposition to deliver a “broad and bold” curriculum.

Not every student is ready to limit their choices to three A-levels at 16 years old. The IB enables them to keep their options open for longer, ensuring they reach the right decision about what to go on to study later in life. Why are the Government taking a decision that actively narrows curriculums and limits skillsets? Why are they undertaking this hypocritical action that goes against their own commitments, missions and promises? And what do they seek to gain from a cut that will free up so little cash, but take away significant opportunities from ambitious state school students?

Our education system should nurture every child’s full range of talents by embracing a broader curriculum rooted in curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. The Liberal Democrats want a system that supports aspiration and opens opportunity. We need a more diverse education system, not a more homogenised one. The Government must reverse this cut and go further. The upcoming curriculum review should draw on the success of the IB diploma programme so that more students can benefit from its rigorous and balanced approach. The UK should learn from international models like the IB, not shut them down.

09:52

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

Truro and Penwith College in my constituency is a very successful tertiary college. It is fully ready to take up the mantle of two thirds of students and learners being in further education, higher education or apprenticeships by the age of 25. It works closely with businesses to set up courses relevant to the industrial strategy and the high-priority sectors the Government are pushing. It is doing a really good job at getting Cornwall ready for new sectors, particularly things like renewables. It also offers high-level maths, which my own son benefited from a great deal.

The college has been offering the international baccalaureate for a number of years on a non-selective basis. It is one of the most successful IB providers in the country, with a 98% pass rate in 2025 and with nearly a quarter of students achieving 40 points or more, which is equivalent to four A* A-levels. It is also the only provider of the IB in the whole of Cornwall, so students travel from across the duchy, from Launceston to Land’s End—sometimes more than two hours each way—to pursue the IB at Truro college. In fact, some parents relocate specifically to Cornwall because the provision is world class.

The college counts many young people from all areas of deprivation in Cornwall among its students, as well as young carers and people on free school meals. In 2023-24, eight disadvantaged learners took the IB, as did 13 learners with special educational needs and disabilities. I have been contacted by several parents and teachers, who emphasise that the IB’s strength comes from the breadth oflearning opportunities. It is enriching and allows young people to pursue a diverse range of academic subjects, alongside volunteering and participating in sports and creative projects. It prepares them not just for higher or further education, but for employment and contributing to their communities.

Truro college offers such wide provision, and that is just part of what it provides, but it is a very important part. I therefore ask the Minister to assure me that if and when the financial situation improves, he will look again at this type of provision.

09:55

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on obtaining this important debate. A number of powerful points have already been made, but I want to put on record the concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents who have children at, or who work at, the Anglo European School in Ingatestone in Essex. Like the schools that have already been mentioned, the Anglo European has an outstanding reputation locally and attracts children from a wide area, not just the immediate vicinity.

One reason for that is that the Anglo European is the only school locally that offers the international baccalaureate. The IB course is extremely rigorous, but it provides a breadth of curriculum that is not available in other courses. Many parents choose for their children to undertake it because the result, as has been mentioned, is a higher chance of gaining admission to top universities or employment.

The IB is rigorous, requiring a lot of extra teaching time as a result, and it is in recognition of that that the large programme uplift was instituted. In the case of the Anglo European, the IB requires something like 1,500 hours of teaching time over two years, compared with 1,280 for the standard programme. The value of the uplift to the Anglo European is something like £55,000, and if it is withdrawn, the school will probably be unable to continue to offer the IB.

Like other schools that have been mentioned, the Anglo European draws pupils from a range of different backgrounds and contributes to social mobility. If that course is not available there, it will be available only in the independent schools. Of course, this policy is being introduced at the same time the Government are pursuing their vendetta against independent schools by putting VAT on school fees, which will result in them being further out of reach for the vast majority of people. The result of all this is that only the very richest are likely to be able to attend schools that offer the international baccalaureate.

As has been said, the policy was also introduced without any warning. One of the assistant headteachers at the school said:

“The Department’s letter arrived with no prior warning or consultation, right in the middle of sixth-form information events for next year. This results in…uncertainty for school leaders and governors about whether the full IB Diploma will be viable for this school next year.”

You have made it clear, Sir Roger, that you do not want a lot of these points repeated, so I will not speak any longer, other than to quote what another of the teachers said to me in a letter:

“Without a resolution by the end of this term, the school will be forced to consider alternative curriculum pathways, which would close off the full IB Diploma course from future generations of state school pupils, directly contradicting the government’s promise of a ‘broad curriculum.’”

Like other Members, I hope the Minister will think again.

09:58

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this important debate and for his thoughtful opening speech.

Dartford grammar school is a historic institution in my constituency, which has been providing exceptionally high-quality education for pupils of all incomes and backgrounds for a very long time. It is one of the 20 or so schools affected by the decision to remove the large programme uplift for 16-to-19 study programmes, including the IB diploma, from the 2026-27 academic year. Since the election last year, I have been fortunate to visit the school, which is a state school fully funded from the public purse, to see in person the education it offers. It is a privilege to have the school head and members of the board of governors here today, but it is unfortunate that they are with us in such trying circumstances.

As others have said, the international baccalaureate diploma offers pupils from a wide range of backgrounds the opportunity of world-class, rigorous education and a programme of academic study that is second to none. Beyond that, it encourages the development of essential skills and values through extended projects, theory of knowledge and service in the community. Crucially, it also encourages pupils to broaden their horizons and adopt an international outlook in the way they develop their understanding of the world, resulting in Dartford grammar winning the prestigious British Council international school award not only in 2025, but in previous years too.

One of the most memorable occasions during my first year representing Dartford was witnessing the enthusiasm and joy of students involved in the long-standing international exchange programme run by the school with two partner schools in Wakayama, Japan. It is those wider educational opportunities and activities that mean that the sixth form attracts young people from across south-east London and Kent who want to study the IB diploma.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate. Dartford grammar sounds much like Dane Court school in my constituency, which offers the opportunity of the international baccalaureate to children from across the academy chain—I know that some of your constituents benefit from that provision, Sir Roger. The headteacher told me that the wider implication of the cut is that the IB diploma will probably disappear entirely from the state sector. Does my hon. Friend seek reassurance from the Minister, as I do, that the IB does have a future role in breaking down barriers to opportunity, not only in his constituency and mine, but across the country?

[Jim Dickson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, the IB is available to children from low-income backgrounds and is particularly attractive because it provides young people with additional stretch and challenge and breaks down barriers to opportunity—not only in top universities, which is very important, but in apprenticeships and employment. It would be a tragedy if that were lost, and the point that my hon. Friend asks the Minister to respond to is exactly the right one.

The challenge we face is that the longer teaching hours mean that the IB costs more to deliver. The LPU funding has been crucial in allowing state schools such as Dartford grammar to deliver it. It is clear to me that without that funding, the IB diploma will no longer be available at Dartford grammar and will become the preserve of private schools that can afford to offer it, cutting off those in the state sector from the limited access that currently exists.

I understand that there may be some transitional funding in place for the next academic year—40% of the current value has been mentioned—but I am unclear what that will mean for a school such as Dartford grammar, where the entire sixth form takes the IB. The school faces the prospect of needing to replace its entire curriculum and restructure staffing for the sixth form over the next year, with extremely limited notice that this was coming.

I hope that the Minister will be persuaded to think again about the future of the large programme uplift, but if the Government are determined to pursue this course of action, perhaps they could provide more detail and a longer period for any transitional funding for schools, and let us know of any other source of assistance for state-funded schools that wish to keep the IB diploma.

10:03

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on obtaining this debate. I myself applied for a debate on this subject, so I am pleased to be here today.

Torquay boys’ grammar school in my constituency has discharged the pleasure of teaching the international baccalaureate for the last 16 years. It results in an influx into the school of young women, as well as youngsters from across the south-west and even Europe, who want to study the incredible, enhancing baccalaureate. My own son participated in the international baccalaureate. He volunteered in a care home and, a little over 10 years later, he is now a registrar at Torbay hospital and about to enter into a programme to become a consultant with an interest in care for the elderly. That demonstrates how the IB drives positive change. I am aware from universities that the IB is very often—just as in my son’s case—seen as a good standard for gaining entrance to medical schools.

I had a conversation with the head of Torquay boys’ grammar school, who said that the international baccalaureate offers those youngsters who develop later in sixth form greater opportunity to flourish more they would have in an A-level setting. I hope that the Minister reflects on how the international baccalaureate truly helps social mobility—something that I would hope a Labour Government would want to propagate rather than negate.

Colleagues from across the Chamber have highlighted the short notice of the change to funding. My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) rightly mentioned how it will impact the ability to offer languages, which will affect schools like Torquay boys’ grammar. I am sure that will be echoed across the country. The reality is that the £5 million in question is 0.004% of the education budget—a drop in the ocean. I say to the Minister: please, think again. The IB is about enriching our society and offering greater social mobility. Surely, that is what this Government should be all about.

10:06

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this important debate.

Post-16 education is a vital stage of a young person’s life. Whether they are following an academic, vocational or technical pathway, it is the stage at which they can focus more on the subjects they love, exercise greater choice over their learning, and begin to think more about where they want their education to take them, whether into further or higher education or employment. It is also a stage at which wider enrichment is vital, helping young people to develop broader transferable skills, find their talents, grow in confidence and expand into their growing freedom and independence.

However, funding for 16-to-19 education in schools and colleges has been significantly cut in real terms. Per-pupil funding had fallen by approximately 11% for colleges and 23% for school sixth form by 2024-25, compared with 2010-11 levels. That decline is the largest in any part of the education sector from nought to 19, and it has not been fully addressed, even with recent increases in funding. That has left many schools and colleges working hard to deliver a broad and enriched education for their 16 to 19-year-old students in the context of severe resource limitations.

There is no doubt that the international baccalaureate is a welcome development in 16-to-19 education. Its programme of study allows students to maintain a broader base, studying six subjects compared with the three of four that are typical for students taking A-levels. The IB also has a focus on broader skills and on creativity, as well as a more diverse range of assessment methods. It has many features that should be common to all post-16 education. But the IB is taught in just 20 of the 2,132 schools and colleges in the state sector that offer 16-to-19 education—less than 1% of those institutions—and in less than 10% of independent schools.

The Government’s decision to redeploy funding from the large programme uplift for the IB must be seen in the context of the broader challenges they face. Given the education funding landscape they inherited, how can they deliver an excellent education for every 16 to 19-year-old student across academic, vocational and technical pathways?

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member talks about redeploying funding so that it can be spread across the landscape to improve 16-to-19 education, but we are talking about 0.004% of the education budget. Does she think that the tiny amount of funding that goes into the IB would make any difference at all if it were spread across the entire education landscape?

[Helen Hayes]

I think the Government are right to focus on how to improve education for every young person. If the hon. Member will bear with me, I will come on to some wider points about the importance of the IB, and the features of the IB that should be applicable more widely across the education sector. We need to be clear that we are talking about 1% of schools across the country, and that the other 99% of schools and colleges have many deep challenges. The Government are right to turn their attention to them as well.

How can the Government ensure that every young person has opportunities for enrichment and opportunities to develop broad transferable skills? Given the shockingly high figure of one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training, how can the Government ensure that post-16 education is engaging, inspiring and exciting for all young people?

Where I take issue with the Government is in relation to the lack of consultation underpinning their decision to redeploy funding within the large programme uplift.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

In so many policy areas, the Government seem to be unable to break wind without consulting for 18 months. Does the hon. Lady agree that they should reverse their decision and hold a consultation before proceeding?

[Helen Hayes]

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will elaborate on consultation and engagement in a moment, but I encourage Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on the role that their own Government played in the shockingly deep cuts to 16-to-19 education across the board from 2010, and the implications of those decisions in what the current Government are now trying to tackle.

Engagement with schools and colleges on the decision would have been helpful. Given the Government’s objectives for the economy, I understand the focus on STEM subjects and pupils taking four or more A-levels, but STEM subjects are not the only ones with a higher cost base to deliver. Some creative subjects with direct links to employment in the creative industries also carry higher costs, which can exclude students from lower-income backgrounds.

In the context of the Government’s objective of ensuring parity of esteem between vocational and technical routes and academic ones, it is possible to imagine how the redeployment of the large programme uplift could have helped to increase quality in vocational and technical courses. Evidence of consideration of a range of options and an understanding of the views of those working in the sector would have been helpful in the context of the decision.

The Government’s ambitious programme of education reform will have significant implications for post-16 education. The curriculum and assessment review, the post-16 White Paper, the introduction of V-levels, the youth guarantee and technical excellence colleges will all have potentially profound and positive implications for the opportunities available to young people and the quality of the education they receive.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I am not going to take any further interventions.

The international baccalaureate is an important part of the landscape, and I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that all schools can continue to offer it if they wish, but the bigger challenge for the Government is to ensure that there is excellence and enrichment across the board for post-16 education, which is a challenged part of our education landscape. Every young person should be able to benefit from an engaging, inspiring and exciting course of study, whether they are on an academic, vocational or technical route and wherever they live in the country, and every school and college should have the resources it needs to deliver.

10:13

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate on what we have heard from Members across the Chamber is a really important subject.

Varndean sixth-form college in Brighton is the only state-funded provider of the international baccalaureate in the whole of Sussex. I was lucky enough to visit earlier in the year. It is a remarkable institution that gives young people from across the region, including many of my Mid Sussex constituents, the chance to pursue a truly world-class qualification, as other hon. Members have set out. I am pleased that Varndean’s principal, Donna-Marie Janson, joins us in Westminster Hall today.

The opportunity that Varndean offers is under serious threat. Varndean has warned that, without the large programme uplift, the IB will simply become financially unviable. The IB could—and, by the looks of it, will—disappear entirely from state education in our region, and potentially across the country. Let us be clear: that would be a tragedy for young people from Brighton and for those who travel to Varndean from places such as Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and Hassocks to take the IB and go on to study engineering, medicine and mathematics at some of our leading universities. Claude from Hurstpierpoint told me that his decision to study the IB was

“One of the best choices I’ve ever made”.

The IB is recognised across the world for its quality. It encourages breadth, critical thinking and an international outlook, developing well-rounded students who go on to thrive. Most IB schools are independent, although as we have already heard, Varndean is one of the few state schools keeping this opportunity open for every student, irrespective of their family’s financial situation. If the Government allow these cuts to go ahead, it risks entrenching a two-tier education system, where access to this globally respected qualification is reserved for the wealthy. That cannot be right.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Government obviously have good intentions about improving the standard of post 16-education; I have seen that for myself on the Education Committee, so I do not doubt their intentions. However, this decision feels like levelling down rather than levelling up. Does my hon. Friend agree that instead of removing the opportunity for students in state schools to study the IB, the Government should consider broadening it and helping other schools to offer this world-class qualification?

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I wholeheartedly agree with her.

The Government say they want to widen participation in higher education and to boost skills, but cutting funding for the IB does the opposite; it narrows opportunity and stifles aspiration. Therefore, I again urge the Minister to reconsider this decision, to ensure that schools such as Varndean can continue to offer this world-class qualification in the future.

Last Monday, during Education questions, I asked the Minister whether he would consider meeting students from Varndean. Given that Donna-Marie Janson, the school’s principal, is sitting behind me in the Public Gallery, I am sure that his officials could swap numbers with her and set up such a meeting, so will he arrange that meeting?

The IB is a symbol of what education should be— ambitious, inclusive and world class. We must not let it become the preserve of the few.

10:16

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate about a decision that demonstrates at the very least a profoundly flawed approach to policymaking and at worst a wilful dismantling of excellence in state education.

Let me begin by examining the Government’s stated rationale for this decision. The ministerial response last week said that the Government would

“focus large programme uplift funding…on those large programmes which include mathematics, further mathematics and other high value A levels.”

The stated aim is to prioritise STEM education and to support the pipeline of students for priority sectors in the industrial strategy.

Let me ask the Minister some questions directly. What evidence does the Department have that this targeted approach will achieve better STEM outcomes than maintaining IB funding? What analysis has been conducted comparing the STEM university destinations and career pathways of IB students with those of A-level students? What data supports the assumption that cutting IB funding while maintaining it for multiple STEM A-levels will improve our STEM pipeline? Can he produce that evidence today?

Every IB diploma student studies mathematics and a science to the age of 18. They develop research skills through writing a 4,000-word extended essay, critical thinking through studying theory of knowledge and real-world problem-solving through community service. Those are exactly the skills that universities and employers tell us that STEM graduates need.

The profound irony is that this Government tell us that they want to prioritise science, technology, engineering and mathematics. However, in making this decision about STEM education, the Department appears to have conducted no impact assessment, carried out no consultation with schools or families, and given no consideration to any unintended consequences.

As has been mentioned, the letter that 20 state schools received on 1 October—right in the middle of sixth-form open day season, with prospectuses already printed and families already making choices—gave them no warning. If this is how the Government approach policymaking about scientific education—making decisions without evidence, consultation or even a basic assessment of consequences—one questions what kind of example they think they are setting for young people about the value of scientific thinking.

I can declare an interest: I took not just two but three mathematics A-levels. I wanted to specialise early, and I am a strong supporter of university maths schools, such as Cambridge Maths school, which serves my constituency. I note that several university maths schools have been left in limbo for many months, unable to open or expand their offer during the Government’s pause of the free school programme. That is not exactly an example of joined-up thinking from the Department.

My point is about choice. A good education system offers pathways to those who want to specialise early and to those who want to maintain breadth. Tony Blair—I am sure the Minister remembers “education, education, education”—understood this. His Labour Government promised an IB school in every local authority. This Labour Government are going in precisely the opposite direction.

There is an even more troubling dimension to this choice—one that I sincerely hope will trouble the Minister as well as the Secretary of State. On 15 October, less than two weeks ago, I stood in almost exactly this spot during the Ada Lovelace day debate and highlighted how early specialisation at age 16 disproportionately impacts girls’ participation in STEM. Research shows that students are more likely to take maths A-level if their maths grade is higher than their other grades at GCSE. Girls generally achieve higher GCSE grades than boys across the board, so they often choose other subjects at A-level. That reflects the wider pool of opportunities available to them as generally higher achievers.

The international baccalaureate solves this problem. Research from the Engineering Professors Council showed that IB graduates are disproportionately women and twice as likely to pursue further STEM study after their first degree. The research explicitly states that actively recruiting IB candidates would be a pathway to getting more women into male-dominated engineering fields.

Here is another direct question for the Minister: how can the Government claim to want more students—particularly more girls—on STEM pathways while cutting funding for a qualification that demonstrably helps to achieve exactly that? The Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), also holds the Women and Equalities brief, so can the Minister say whether she is comfortable with a policy that reduces women’s participation in STEM? Women make up just 15.7% of the engineering and technology workforce. Jobs in those sectors are expected to grow faster than other occupations through to 2030, and the Government’s response is to defund the programme that helps to keep girls in STEM.

This is close to home for me: Impington Village college, which has been mentioned already, is in my constituency. It was named the UK’s top comprehensive school for 2025. It credits its IB programme as the key to success. I have met students who have told me that the IB gives them breadth, critical thinking and confidence to succeed throughout their whole lives. However, losing £2,400 per student will force impossible choices about staffing and subject range. The Government are forcing the UK’s top comprehensive to compromise the very quality that earned it that recognition.

This is already happening: Tonbridge grammar school, the Sunday Times IB school of the year, announced this week that it will stop offering the IB because it cannot afford to continue. The Secretary of State told the Confederation of School Trusts conference that she wants to “spread excellence” from one school to another—

“the best of the best.”

Impington Village college is the best; Tonbridge grammar is the best. The Government are defunding them. Is that what the Secretary of State meant by spreading success?

Let us examine the value for money argument. This decision will save £2.5 million per year from a Department budget that has been mentioned as exceeding £100 billion. It is invisible in the accounts. For this microscopic saving, we are creating a two-tier system, where a brilliant, internationally recognised qualification becomes exclusive to those who can afford private school fees. Currently, 76 independent schools offer the IB, compared with just 20 state schools, and more state schools need to be able to offer it. This decision does not narrow the gap; it devastates the provision. Indeed, Sir Anthony Seldon wrote in The Times just the other day that this is

“the most regressive elective action towards state schools taken by government in the last 25 years.”

I have three asks of the Government. First, reverse the decision and reinstate the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate diploma programme. The saving is negligible; the damage is profound. Secondly, protect current IB students and those enrolling to begin in the next academic year, and do not pull the rug out from under young people who have made or are making choices in good faith now. Thirdly, learn from the IB’s success, rather than destroy it. Examine the evidence, consult with schools, students and families, and consider how we can give more, not fewer, students access to this broad and rigorous education.

I will close by quoting the international baccalaureate’s mission statement:

“The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect…These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.”

I hope that the Government have listened to that.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, Saqib Bhatti.

10:26

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this important debate on funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and for his eloquent opening remarks. In fact, we have had a number of eloquent speakers, all the way from Truro to Dartford, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who made the case for his constituents who attend the Anglo European school.

I have to put it on record, if there were any doubt, that His Majesty’s Opposition are beyond disappointed that funding for the international baccalaureate has been scrapped. It is nothing more than another example of this Government’s educational vandalism. IB teaches nearly 2 million pupils in 6,000 schools in nearly 160 countries. It is, by its very nature, global and provides a knowledge-rich curriculum that is deep while at the same time broad. Yet rather than seeking to produce confident and well-rounded citizens who benefit from a schooling system where pupils, parents and educators have plenty of choice, the Government seek to impose a disastrously linear, one-size-fits-all approach on our education system.

Without warning, the Government wrote to state schools and colleges on 1 October to notify them that the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme will be axed from the 2026-27 academic year. According to Public First, that will make it unviable for state schools to deliver IB, effectively creating a two-tier education system for independent and state sector students, contrary to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week.

For a long time, pupils, parents, educators and employers have valued the highly respected IB qualification. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, allowing students to study maths, science, humanities, art and, of course, a language. It offers more breadth than the A-level route and equips young people with the skills they need for life, through extended projects, theory of knowledge and community service. Additionally, as the co-founder of the World of Languages, Languages of the World programme told me, it helps to make language learning much more effective—a point made by a number of hon. Members from across the House today.

The IB provides opportunity through social mobility and has opened students’ minds via a well-balanced and globally respected curriculum. It is academically rigorous and broadens opportunity and aspiration. Like many, I share the disappointment in this policy decision and feel that it will impact the most disadvantaged students disproportionately. Will the Minister clarify whether there was any consultation in the light of the cut to the large programme uplift, and whether the Department has made any assessment of the number of state school pupils who will be forced to seek different routes post GCSE? In other words, which stakeholders did the DFE speak to?

Funding for the IB comes at a cost of a mere £2.5 million: a drop in the ocean of the Department’s huge £100 billion annual budget. Given the IB’s first class reputation, surely the Minister recognises the value it provides. The decision is reckless and already having consequences.

Tunbridge grammar school, which has been mentioned, is a high-performing state provider that previously delivered the IB to all sixth-formers. It has now announced that it will, regretfully, move to A-levels from next year, because of the funding cuts. That is a huge change, and it will not be the last school no longer to offer the IB. I know the Minister, and I believe him to be a good man. He must know the effect, and he should acknowledge the impact of the decision.

As many Members have been at pains to point out, the IB is a globally recognised qualification that allows UK students to compete with their peers in other countries. In cutting funding for IB in state schools, the Government have tried to claim that they are prioritising subjects that lead to good jobs and drive economic growth, but no one at the Department for Education seems to have done their homework, given that students with an IB diploma are more likely to be admitted to a top 20 UK university than A-level students, in matched samples, and have gone on to become world leaders in their chosen fields.

Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind the funding cut and explain why the Government have taken this decision? Do they have any assessment of the number of state schools that will be forced to stop offering the IB? As I said, I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he has to know that no one buys this being a money-saving exercise; it must be an ideological one. Perhaps the Minister does not believe in the IB? If so, he should say so. In which case, will he confirm what subjects are classed as priorities for economic growth? Moreover, given the IB requires students to study a variety of subjects including mathematics, the sciences and humanities, does he not consider those subjects to be priorities for economic growth?

I ask the Government to listen to the concerns of distinguished educational experts, such as Richard Markham, the chief executive officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association, who started a petition that has already garnered more than 4,000 signatures, calling for this decision to be reversed. Furthermore, the Government would do well to listen to the schools that will suffer as a result of the decision. State schools such as Europa in Oxfordshire, which has been mentioned, have called the decision a “kick in the teeth” that will lead to inevitable cutbacks in the curriculum that they can offer to aspiring students.

We have to be clear what the decision will mean in practice for those pupils studying IB in state schools. It is not simply a decision to reduce the amount of funding available for state schools to offer the course; in effect, it abolishes the IB in state schools altogether. Dartford grammar school, as has been mentioned, is the largest provider of the IB in the country. It has already warned that it cannot afford to offer IB to its pupils without the funding, and countless other schools have issued similar warnings. I thank Members for mentioning their individual cases.

No advance warning was given of this announcement and no debate had before the decision was made. The sad truth is that the decision, like many of the others the Government have made, will hurt the very pupils the Government claim they want to protect. White working-class boys in state schools will in effect be barred from studying the IB because of the Government’s reckless decision. Why should those boys not have access to the highly respected and globally competitive curriculum that their more affluent peers will still be able to access? Can the Minister provide specific evidence to show that the IB was failing white working-class students, or prove that other routes lead to categorically better outcomes? Does the Minister accept—this is purely a point of logic—that by taking this decision, those who can afford to will continue to do the IB, and for those who cannot, namely in our state sector, the cut has made the IB unviable? That is fact. Does the Minister acknowledge the result of the decision?

The truth is that this policy decision, which reverses nearly half a century of academic excellence, is the latest in a series of failures by the Education Secretary and her Ministers. In cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships, the Government deprived public sector employers, such as the NHS, of the means to train their workforce properly, and yet the Education Secretary has made it clear that she makes no apology for denying people the chance to reskill later in their careers.

In taxing education, the Government punished parents who have worked hard and saved up to invest in their children. In one breath, the Government promise to spend the money on more teachers, but in another use the VAT on private schools to justify spending elsewhere. Furthermore, in announcing a lower level qualification aimed at white working class pupils, the Government have embraced the bigotry of low expectations. They have told some of our most deprived children that they have no chance at succeeding in school on the same terms as their peers.

With every announcement this Government make, it becomes increasingly clear that their policy on education is simply to cut back, dumb down and deny opportunities to the most disadvantaged children in our country. Instead of expanding parental choice and making opportunities such as the IB available to more families, they are narrowing the options available to parents and making parental choice a premium that only those who can afford it have access to. It is the same as what happened with the Latin excellence programme, which was discontinued by this Government in another one of their terrible decisions.

Ministers seem completely unable to understand why a family might choose to look at different options for their children’s education, rather than the bland uniformity they seek to impose—a fact that became obvious within the first few months of this Government entering office, when they said they would scrap the freedoms that academies have used to turn around failing schools and give children from some of the most deprived areas of the country the best chance of succeeding in life.

We have heard plenty from the Government about their missions, milestones and road maps, yet they only have one mission that we can see, and that is to vandalise our education system and rob schools and parents of the ability to make the choices they think are best for their pupils and children, led by an Education Secretary who prioritises finishing second in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, rather than championing children. I know the Minister cannot make an announcement today from the Dispatch Box, but I ask him to at least reconsider this.

10:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and all the Members who have contributed to it. The international baccalaureate can be a fantastic qualification for young people. I commend all the staff and students in international baccalaureate teaching settings. The debate has highlighted the incredible contribution that those teachers and those settings can make to opportunities for young people—we have heard an awful lot about that today.

I want to stress a few things in responding to the points made in the debate, first regarding the role that A-levels play in our school and education system. The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) referred to a school “regretfully” moving to A-levels, as if they are lesser qualifications. A-levels are fantastic qualifications. They are stretching for students. They offer variety, choice and combinations of qualifications that leave doors open for young people at 16 and beyond. They are recognised by the top universities in the world, including those here in the UK. I urge Members to be careful not to suggest that A-levels are somehow secondary or second order to the international baccalaureate, while recognising the contribution that the international baccalaureate can make.

[Alison Bennett]

A-levels are undoubtedly brilliant, but does the Minister agree that they are more narrow than the international baccalaureate?

[Josh MacAlister]

No, I do not agree with that. Combinations of A-levels allow young people to have a wide and rich curriculum. In fact, the large programme uplift changes that we are making prioritise choices of A-levels that extend beyond the standard three, up to five, to include advanced maths and other well regarded A-level subjects. I do not recognise what the hon. Lady suggests.

[Steve Darling]

My two sons both went to Torquay boys’ grammar school. One undertook the international baccalaureate. The other went down the A-level route and got three A*s. Universities do not like students taking more than three A-levels. We often joke with him that perhaps he should have stretched himself and undertaken the international baccalaureate. What would the Minister’s advice be?

[Josh MacAlister]

I think the logic of that point is that universities will accept three A-levels, and they will accept more than three A-levels, and they will accept an international baccalaureate. The point here is not that the international baccalaureate is the gateway to universities; it is an addition to the system and allows extra stretch for students. I will make a bit more progress and then am happy to take further interventions.

The other point to make at this stage is that it is not correct to say that funding has been scrapped for the international baccalaureate. In fact, some of the statements put out by settings that offer the international baccalaureate have been clear to say that the funding has not been scrapped. The large programme uplift application has been changed, and that additional 20% will no longer be available for settings that want to offer the international baccalaureate.

I want to spend a few minutes setting this decision in context. We are focused as a Government on raising standards across the 16-to-19 education system. We want to offer opportunity for all young people, and we want stretching and rigorous qualifications for them. The large programme uplift will focus on those taking four or more A-levels that include advanced maths and offer a broad and challenging curriculum.

What do we know about the international baccalaureate and how the uplift funding is being used? Only 0.2% of students in 16-to-19 settings are studying the international baccalaureate, and the large programme uplift is only 0.1% of the entire 16-to-19 funding made available. Many of the institutions offering the international baccalaureate are themselves selective in their pre-16 intake. Far fewer students are drawn from disadvantaged backgrounds; I have a list of the rates of free school meals in the main institutions offering it, and they are very low. I am aware of only one LPU-backed setting that offers the international baccalaureate in the entirety of the north and the midlands combined.

This is the challenge I put back to those who have contributed to the debate: if their argument is that they want the international baccalaureate to be offered in many more settings across the country, and for it to be a genuinely equal opportunity that lifts up many students, where do they propose finding the money to do that? The Government are putting additional money into the 16-to-19 system, which I will come on to in a moment, but Members are defending a system that applies to only a very small minority, and that is not equally spread. It is a fantastic opportunity for students, but this Government’s focus, as it will always be, is on opportunity for all.

[Ms Billington]

I gently remind the Minister that, simply because people live in the south-east, it does not mean they are dripping in gold. My constituency in particular experiences distinct levels of deprivation; only 10% of our children manage to pass the Kent test in East Thanet. The opportunity to access the international baccalaureate is vital for those deprived communities. We all know that there are extreme levels of deprivation in this country both across geographical areas and in pockets. I remind the Minister that, in these circumstances, we need to ensure that we have an education policy that reaches the most deprived in places like mine, as much as in places like his.

[Josh MacAlister]

I agree that we need to ensure that opportunity goes to those who are furthest from it. My point is that this system does not provide an equal opportunity for many young people in how it is allocated at the moment. Even in institutions in the south where there are large numbers of young people frozen out of opportunities, the ones offering the international baccalaureate are overwhelmingly not offering it to those young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is an important point to make in this debate.

Before I move on to overall funding, my final point is that we gave notice of this decision in October, which is ahead of other notifications about the 16-to-19 funding system. We have put in place transitional arrangements for those students who are currently midway through the international baccalaureate.

What is the reality of the funding that the Government are giving to sixth form and FE colleges? The Government have made the decision to increase overall spending on the 16-to-19 system, from £7.6 billion last year to £8.6 billion this year. That reflects a significant increase in not only the number of students but the funding rates, including the base rate of funding per student across 16-to-19 settings, going up by 5.4% to over £5,000. The extra funding for low prior attainment and for children in care is going up by 6.8% this year, and an extra level of funding for resit English and maths is going up by 11.5% this year.

That represents a significant increase in the 16-to-19 funding settlement for the whole system. Within it, colleges and sixth form settings have the freedom of choice to prioritise across their programmes what they teach, including the international baccalaureate. The LPU adds an additional 20% on top of that. I have already highlighted that the LPU is tiny as a percentage of the overall funding for 16 to 19. As a Government we want to make sure that goes into opportunities for the broadest number of students.

Finally, some broad points reflecting on this debate about opportunity and the Government’s priorities. I appreciate the points that hon. Members have made about the choices made by the Government and that many hon. Members wish us to keep the large programme uplift focused as it now is. However, when we add all of the things that hon. Members want to prioritise across the education system, while they may not seem like huge amounts of money individually, taken together they always lead to choices about priorities. The Government are absolutely focused on raising standards, in part because the soft bigotry of low expectations that we have inherited from the 14 years of the previous Government.

I want to say a few things about that. Our work on early years and the huge investment in childcare and breakfast clubs—so that young people can start their education on an even basis—is built off the fact that the coalition Government demolished 3,500 Sure Start centres. The long tail of that for young people’s attainment, especially those from deprived backgrounds, is felt to this day.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I have to challenge that point. I said that the Minister was a fair man—if I did not, I will say it now—but, if he is being fair, will he acknowledge that the Conservatives started the investment in childcare programme that the Government have continued?

[Josh MacAlister]

What the Conservative Government did not do was ensure that there was a fiscal position left to fund those sorts of commitments. I will give the hon. Gentleman and the previous Government credit for building on some of the excellent work that had been started under the last Labour Government around phonics, a focus on improving maths and some of the curriculum changes. I give credit where it is due on those.

We now see year 8 students falling behind in their reading—and the Government will be saying more about that in the curriculum and assessment review. That is why we will be introducing reading checks with a focus on standards. Those will mean every young person—regardless of the cash their parents have in their pockets—does well and that on finishing secondary school has equal opportunities and choice to take their talents as far as they can in 16 to 19.

Finally, we will have record levels of investment in the 16-to-19 system. That will include a focus on the scandal of the constant cycle of young people not reaching the level of English and maths needed by the time that they finish secondary school, and being washed around again and again in a resit system that is not fit for purpose. We are rebuilding and investing in that system to ensure that we get that second, third or fourth chance for every young person so that they can get into work and benefit from the opportunities that come from it.

The soft bigotry of low expectations is growing educational inequality. That is what we inherited. It is a million young people not in education, employment or training and the moral scandal that that represents. It is underfunding our 16-to-19 education system year after year so that far too few young people get the quality of teaching needed and there is not support for staff to ensure that young people have their needs meet. It means that we have not had equal and widespread access to a rigorous curriculum for children and young people in the 16-to-19 system across the country—which is what they deserve.

10:48

[Olly Glover]

I shall be concise so that we can be away well before 11. I thank everybody for attending the debate. It is welcome to have had contributions from all three main parties. It was predominantly a well-spirited debate, with a lot of agreement.

It was good to hear about schools other than Europa that offer the IB: Hockerill Anglo-European college, Torquay boys grammar school, Truro and Penwith college, the Anglo European school in Ingatestone, Dartford grammar school, Dane Court grammar school and Varndean college—and Impington Village college, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned; I must not forget that one. All hon. Members who talked about the schools in or near their constituencies highlighted the huge benefits and value that they bring to parents, local communities and children—and at a relatively small additional cost, as the Minister himself acknowledged.

The Minister’s wider comments about what he and the Government are doing to boost education were welcome. I understand what he said about constrained budgets, but too often in politics, and in life in general, we hear false dichotomies—“It is either this or that”, and things are pitted against each other—and many in my constituency will have been disappointed to hear what he had to say.

The debate was well-spirited, with the exception of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). Of course, when a Government encounter difficult financial circumstances, they have to make difficult choices, as we did when we were one seventh of a Government. However, I find staggering the hypocrisy of a Government with a gigantic majority who, having lectured everybody else about tuition fees for 15 years, decide to increase them by pegging them to inflation. The key thing I often hear from constituents on the doorstep, whether in relation to this issue or others, is that this Government simply do not listen, and that they have authoritarian, monolithic instincts—expecting everybody to be the same.

Although the Minister said a lot of good things that the Government are doing, sadly, from what has been said today, my constituents and Europa School will feel that this Government have the listening skills of a slab of concrete. I hope to be proven wrong; I hope that in time the Minister will listen to the representations here and elsewhere, reflect, and reconsider.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered funding for the International Baccalaureate in state schools.

10:51

Sitting suspended.

Wet Wipes: Plastic Ban

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of banning plastic in wet wipes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank colleagues across the House who have supported my campaign to ban plastic in wet wipes. I am also grateful to: the Marine Conservation Society; Thames21; World Wide Fund for Nature; Green Alliance; Water UK, which brings together all the water companies in the country; and Surfers Against Sewage, for their campaigning on this issue.

I thank the Minister for being here and for sharing my passion for cleaning up our rivers and driving this policy forward. I congratulate her on the progress she has made and look forward to hearing more about that later. After years of delay and indecision from the previous Government, it is refreshing to see real momentum. The previous Government talked about this issue since 2016, launched consultations and made promises, but failed to deliver. This Minister has shown determination and clarity, and I commend her for taking action where others stalled.

Since November 2021, I have campaigned relentlessly to ban plastic in wet wipes. I have introduced three bills in Parliament: two private Member’s Bills in 2021 and 2022 and a ten-minute-rule Bill in 2022. I raised the issue directly with the Prime Minister during questions at that time. I am proud the subject was in the Labour manifesto and I hope to hear from the Minister when the ban will be brought in for England.

All four UK nations have notified the World Trade Organisation of their intention to legislate, and Wales leads the way. Congratulations to Wales as the first country in the world to pass a ban on plastic in wet wipes, which will come into force on 18 December 2026.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. She is right to mention the four regions. Back home in Northern Ireland, wet wipes are a major cause of what are referred to as fatbergs of non-biodegradable waste in local sewers, which leads to pollution and costly clean-ups. Although the regional Administrations should do something and legislate, there is also an onus on individuals and households to do something. Does the hon. Lady agree that a joint partnership is needed to address this issue?

[Fleur Anderson]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has put his finger on the button, because this is about not flushing wet wipes, no matter what they are made from. Banning plastic in wet wipes is one step forward, but we need to do more. This is a UK-wide issue; no part of the UK is unaffected.

What is the problem? Why am I talking about it so obsessively? First, microplastics from wet wipes pollute our rivers, lakes and oceans. They are ingested by marine animals, from plankton to whales, disrupting feeding, growth and reproduction. Microplastics cause internal injuries, digestive blockages and reduced nutrient absorption. They leach harmful chemicals such as bisphenol A, phthalates and flame retardants. They also absorb pollutants from sea water, such as heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, which are then released into animals’ tissues upon ingestion.

Those substances can cause hormonal disruption, immune suppression, developmental defects and death. Filter feeders, such as oysters and baleen whales—from very small to very big—are especially vulnerable. Microplastics can also alter sediment composition, affecting bottom-dwelling species, and they can destabilise entire marine ecosystems. They are very small, but they have a huge effect.

Secondly, wet wipes block sewers and drive up water bills. They form fatbergs, trigger storm overflow spills, and cost a lot. In my water company area of Thames Water, it costs £40.7 million every year to clear the blockages. That is £200 million over the current five-year investment cycle.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

In Beckenham and Penge, there were 167 call-outs related to wet-wipe blockages in 2024. Given the precarious state of our water sector after 14 years of Tory-enabled under-investment, does my hon. Friend agree that we should do all we can to reduce the number of unnecessary call-outs such as those in Beckenham and Penge and across the country?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The water companies need to invest in new ways of stopping sewage going out of their systems and in cleaning up our rivers, and not having to spend so much money coming out to clear up the blockages. That is down to wet wipes, so my hon. Friend is exactly right.

The third reason I want to ban plastic from wet wipes is that plastic is made using fossil fuels—it is made from oil —and it is very hard to get rid of. This is one form of plastic that we can cut relatively easily, because alternatives are available to put into wipes to make them stronger. The UK uses over 11 billion wet wipes a year—that is 163 per person. As a mother of four and a grandmother of a little two-year-old, I know how useful they are, but convenience should not come at such a high environmental cost.

Thames21 pulled 5,000 wet wipes from just 116 metres of the Thames. Its annual surveys have evidenced the impact of so many wet wipes on just the banks of the River Thames. I pay tribute to it. The Marine Conservation Society found that wet wipes containing plastic had been found on nearly two thirds of English beaches surveyed. This issue exists across the UK. I have seen the damage myself at the Beckton and Mogden treatment works. They have a special sifting part of the process to clear wet wipes because they are so prevalent.

There is also wet wipe island near Hammersmith bridge, which was surveyed by the Port of London authority after Thames21 revealed the extent of the problem. It is about two tennis courts wide. When you stand on it, you can feel the jelly-like texture because there are so many wet wipes below to such depth. Thankfully, it was cleared this summer because the Tideway tunnel is coming in, so there is far less—95% less—sewage going out into the Thames, which means fewer wet wipes. It will not just fill up again. Five million wet wipes were taken out of wet wipe island. It really demonstrated the damage.

The public are behind us and retailers are stepping up. Boots stopped selling plastic wet wipes in all their stores in 2022 because I have been talking about bringing in this ban and because the Government are promising to do it. Tesco did the same in 2023. Government action now will ensure that all the other retailers follow suit.

Alongside the ban, the message must be clear: do not flush any wipes. Only the three Ps go down the toilet: pee, poo and paper. I support Water UK’s “Bin the Wipe” campaign. Instead of having lots of different campaigns from all the different water companies, which was confusing, there is now a joined-up attitude towards campaigning on this and encouraging people to have bins in their bathrooms so that they throw wipes away instead of flushing them.

I know that the Minister has considered the wider issues, so I would like to hear about some of them. The first issue is the lead-in time. There is an 18-month lead-in time at the moment. After all the delay in bringing in the ban, could that be cut to 12 months to align England and Scotland with Wales, which is bringing in a ban in 12 months’ time in December 2026?

The second issue is labelling. “Fine to flush” labelling is confusing. A little image showing a turtle crossed out means that wipes contain plastic, but it is difficult to understand. We need mandatory “Do not flush” labels on all wipes. Has that been given consideration?

The third issue is about the polluter paying. Has consideration been given to making manufacturers contribute to the cost of the blockages? That could be done through an extended product responsibility scheme.

The fourth issue is exemptions. The proposed legislation contains exemptions allowing pharmacies and some businesses to sell plastic wipes. Could those loopholes be reduced or removed?

The fifth issue is the impact assessment. We do not want an unintended consequence of substitute materials being just as strong or dangerous as plastic. Will there be a full impact assessment alongside the regulations on what happens as a result of the ban, including the safety of substitute materials? I hope to see some good results.

Above all, let us be clear: wipes should be binned, not flushed. I raise that in every school I visit in Putney. I say, “I am going to say something unusual for a politician”. Then I tell the students about it and they are instantly onboard. Children get it. Young people care deeply about the planet.

[Liam Conlon]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about community engagement; education is a really important part. Richard Barnes from the London Wildlife Trust is a constituent of mine in West Wickham in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge. He and the trust do fantastic work engaging local communities across London in education campaigns. Does my hon. Friend feel that that is an important part of her campaign?

[Fleur Anderson]

This is a whole-of-society campaign. I think it is equivalent to when we reduced the use of plastic bags. There had to be some Government regulation, but there also had to be a change of attitude among the people using plastic bags—we need that here. We need Government regulation to push it through faster, otherwise the retailers will be too slow. We also need people to change their behaviour and not flush wet wipes. Groups such as the London Wildlife Trust do a fantastic job in this, as do Thames21 and others. We need a whole-society approach and today is a big step forward in that. Let us show that Parliament listens to young people in Putney and across the country, and understands the issue. I look forward to hearing when action will be taken.

11:10

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate. I appreciate her tireless work to ban plastic fibres in wet wipes.

Wet wipes are an everyday household item. When flushed, they do not break down. They block sewers, pollute waterways and harm marine life. I represent a beautiful coastal community whose coastline must be protected. Unfortunately, I continue to hear from residents on Thorpe Hall Avenue who are distressed by flooding in their homes time and again—only last week they were flooded. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), I continue to campaign for cleaner water, improved flood defence infrastructure, and greater accountability from Anglian Water.

Through Southend’s water quality summits, which I co-chair, we have heard directly from residents and local organisations. The message is clear: our communities deserve better. Under the previous Government, water companies were left unregulated, polluting our coastlines while executives paid themselves millions in bonuses. That is unacceptable and not what this Government stand for. Our Government have acted. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is a landmark piece of legislation that bans bonuses for water company bosses, and it introduced criminal charges for individuals who attempt to cover up sewage spills. The goal is to fundamentally transform the culture of the water industry. This summer the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced measurable targets for the first time. Those targets will hold water companies to account. Previous Governments have failed to ban wet wipes. It is the Government’s will to bring a ban into effect. We are a Government of action, not words.

Every year the UK uses approximately 11 billion wet wipes, and industry reports indicate that most of those contain plastic fibres. According to research, more than 90% of fatbergs found in our sewers are made up of wet wipes, which cause blockages that result in sewage flooding in homes and pollution in our rivers.

Anglian Water estimates that about 500,000 wet wipes are flushed into the east of England’s sewer system every day. That figure highlights the significant scale of the problem, which is why I fully support our Government’s commitment to banning the sale and supply of wet wipes that contain plastic fibres. Such action will reduce marine litter, decrease pollution and support progress towards a zero waste economy. However, we must continue with this progress.

I urge the Minister to ensure that manufacturers cannot label wet wipes as flushable or disposable. Those misleading claims cause confusion and directly contribute to sewer blockages, flooding and environmental damage. Will the Minister commit to meeting me to address the marketing and labelling of wet wipes, so that together we can put an immediate stop to these harmful and misleading practices that damage our environment?

Southend’s coastline is vital to our community and local economy. Flooding continues to cause stress and disruption to residents across my constituency. We must ensure that our rivers, seas and beaches remain clean and safe for generations to come. I am proud to support the ban and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

11:14

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I welcome the chance to set out the actions this Government are taking to tackle the problems caused by wet wipes that contain plastic.

I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the work she has done to raise this important topic, and for her years of campaigning to bring it to the fore. She has had a high-profile campaign to ban wet wipes that contain plastic, including tabling a private Member’s Bill in November 2021. Her campaign has earned cross-party support and backing from major environmental groups, which have paid tribute to her, including Thames21, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Marine Conservation Society and Surfers Against Sewage. She has also worked with major retailers, including Boots and Tesco, to encourage them to remove plastic wet wipes from their shelves.

My hon. Friend has been instrumental in getting us to this point. In fact, I would go as far as to say that without her contribution, we probably would not be at the stage we are now. I pay a full and complete tribute to her. She shows exactly what we can do when we persist. “Persist! Persist!” was the recommendation given to me as a new MP.

The Government are aware of the growing concerns about wet wipes as a source of plastic pollution often found in our natural environment, including in our waterways and on our beaches. They break down into smaller pieces in the water environment, causing huge problems with microplastic pollution, which is harmful to human and animal health.

The good news is that, on 16 September, we laid an affirmative statutory instrument to ban the supply and sale of those harmful products, alongside which we published a full economic impact assessment and explanatory memorandum. The SI debates in Parliament are scheduled to be held shortly, with the Commons debate on 3 November, and the Lords debate on 10 November.

Banning wet wipes that contain plastic will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, as well as the volumes of microplastics entering waste water treatment sites when wrongly flushed. Additionally, it will reduce marine plastic pollution. There is strong public support for a ban. Very little unites the nation, but 95% of respondents agree with the proposal to ban plastic-containing wet wipes. We are pleased to be taking forward this long-awaited action.

We have been working closely with devolved Governments across the UK to agree a joined-up approach, which is going well. We welcome the decision that some retailers have already taken to stop selling wet wipes that contain plastic, but, of course, the Government need to show leadership from the top and introduce a ban.

Banning wet wipes that contain plastic is part of our wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviours around the consumption of single-use plastics. We are also looking more widely at the circular economy for plastics—a future where we keep our resources for longer, where waste is reduced, where we accelerate the path to net zero, where we see investment in critical infrastructure and green jobs, and where our economy prospers and nature thrives. We will publish the first ever circular economy strategy for England in the coming months.

The Government recognise the scale and impact of plastic pollution on the environment, and we are focused on preventing and reducing plastics, along with other litter, from entering the environment.

[Liam Conlon]

We have some fantastic local groups in Beckenham and Penge, including the Crystal Palace Park Trust, Friends of Cator Park and the Birkbeck community initiative, as well as eco-councils at schools such as Stewart Fleming primary and Langley Park school for boys. Will the Minister join me in thanking them for their incredible work to protect our local natural environment? Does she agree that the changes we are making in this place will support that effort to protect our natural environment for future generations?

[Emma Hardy]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in thanking all the local groups and children. As has been mentioned, children are hugely interested in this topic, and in the disgusting stories about what ends up down the toilet—I find young children are particularly fascinated with that. I heard an amusing story about a mattress that ended up in the sewer. How on earth does a mattress end up in a sewer? But I was told that if it can be produced, it can end up in the sewers.

People are not always aware of how the actions they take in the home can have a damaging impact on their drains, sewer network and water quality. Admittedly, they may not be able to flush a mattress down the toilet, but they are certainly flushing many other things, including wet wipes, sanitary products, nappies, cotton pads, cotton buds, cigarette butts, plasters and dental floss—I am sad to say that, when I was a child, a few goldfish were flushed as well.

The public have a role to play in ensuring that cooking fats are also not poured down the sink, and that wet wipes and other unflushables are binned rather than flushed. Those are small steps, but they are significant when added together, and they will improve the quality of our rivers, natural environment and wildlife.

The Government are supportive of campaigns that encourage the correct disposal of wet wipes, including Water UK’s “Bin the Wipe” campaign, and we welcome the innovative steps that water companies and others are taking to tackle blockages. One of my favourite developments is Northumbrian Water’s Pipebot patrol. Pipebot is a tiny robot that goes around the sewerage network, inspecting the pipework and raising blockage alerts before a sewer floods. When I first saw it—a tiny robot that has little tools to break down fatbergs or whatever else it comes across—my reaction was, “You are putting WALL-E down the sewers!” [Laughter.] Good for WALL-E, but if he is patrolling the sewers, I do not think he will have quite the same happy ending as he did in the film. Such innovations are emerging, with devices being used to clear blockages, capture wipes and help to identify from which homes or businesses the wipes are coming, with the aim of educating people and advising them on the correct disposal methods.

I am also pleased that the Port of London Authority and Thames Water have cleaned up “wet wipe island”, which has already been mentioned—a huge, 180-tonne fatberg on the River Thames. I have also heard of an example of the circular economy at its best, because we are looking at ways to use fatbergs as valuable sources of biofuel and biodiesel to power buses and trucks. Trucks and buses powered by fatbergs—who would have thought it?

As for the next steps that the Government are taking, the Independent Water Commission has recommended that we take measures to stop pollutants, such as wet wipes, entering the system. We will consider all of the commission’s recommendations.

I will now answer the specific questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. On the lead-in times, we have had to act carefully. We are working with businesses to make sure there is time for them to adapt and to mitigate the risks of excess stocks of wet wipes containing plastics being sent to landfill or being incinerated, which is a concern. That is why we have given the time that we have; our ban is expected to come in from spring 2027, which provides for an 18-month transition period. We are working as quickly as we can, taking into account some of the unintended consequences that might arise from going more quickly.

There is also a medical exemption. Consultation responses and stakeholder engagement with healthcare professionals have indicated that a medical exemption is required until viable plastic-free alternatives are available for medical use. Obviously, research is ongoing and things are developing quickly in this area. However, it is essential to ensure that those who require these products for medical purposes still have access to them.

To account for those who require wet wipes containing plastic for medical care in their own home, the medical exemption will allow for the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic by registered pharmacists. This is particularly important for infection control purposes. Wet wipes containing plastic will not be permitted for sale on the shelves; people who require them will need to get them through a pharmacist. This is a similar model to the plastic straw ban, where there was a particularly strong reason why certain people might need to continue using plastic straws. It is the same situation with wet wipes.

We are obviously continuing to look at labelling and to consider further action in that area, if needed. And one of the recommendations from the Independent Water Commission was to look at extended producer responsibility for waste water treatment, and we are considering whether we would want that. As we know, a lot of this ends up in: “Write in at the end”.

I hope my responses have also helped to answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for their contributions to the debate today, in which there is huge interest.

Together with the building blocks that the Government have already put in place, this change will mark the most fundamental reset of our water system in a generation, as we consider and take forward the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission on dealing with many of the problems facing water, including pollution, problems around waste water, and what ends up in our rivers, lakes and seas.

In conclusion, I reiterate that banning wet wipes containing plastic is a necessary measure that we are taking forward. I look forward to the debates on the draft regulations to ban these harmful products. I hope the proposals will have the support of all colleagues here today.

Question put and agreed to.

11:24

Sitting suspended.

Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

14:30

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for independent lifeboats.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this important debate to Westminster Hall, and grateful to hon. Members attending the debate for championing their local independent lifeboats. I thank Chloe Swinbank, in my office, who managed to acquire me this tie, which has life rings on it to suit the theme of this debate.

When people think of saving lives at sea, they often think of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—and rightly so: it is a world-renowned organisation that has saved countless lives, and it remains one the most respected charities globally. But there are other crews who do profound work to serve our coastal communities and to save lives in times of need.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In my Havant constituency, we are fortunate to have both the Hayling Island RNLI lifeboat, funded by the RNLI, and the Hayling Island coastguard rescue team, funded through the Department for Transport. Together they do outstanding work in our community and around Hayling. Will my hon. Friend and the Minister join me in thanking the crews and support staff on Hayling Island? And will my hon. Friend explain why independent lifeboats should receive similar funding and support?

[Paul Holmes]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is nearly my constituency neighbour. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to Hayling Island RNLI lifeboat and the coastguard rescue team based in his constituency. It is important to realise, as I will discuss later in my speech, that although the RNLI does an amazing job, there are independent lifeboat stations around the country. They particularly struggled with fundraising during covid. Fundraising for independent lifeboats is wholly voluntary; it is done by members of the public in our constituencies.

The crews of independent lifeboats across the country do profound work. Volunteer-run, community-funded rescue services provide an essential lifeline to coastal communities. As of March 2024, there are approximately 80 independent lifeboats around the UK, many of which are represented by the National Independent Lifeboat Association—a fantastic organisation founded by the former Member of Parliament for Totnes, Anthony Mangnall, who was a champion for his local area and for independent lifeboats across the whole UK. NILA has done extraordinary work to increase public awareness of these profound organisations. However, that work remains an uphill battle. They lack resources in comparison with the RNLI, and there is still a long way to go.

The majority of the public assume that all lifeboats and water safety services fall under the remit of the RNLI, meaning that independent lifeboats lack recognition, which impacts funding, recruitment and inclusion in search and rescue provisions in the UK. NILA has a probational seat on the UK Search and Rescue Operators Group, which is a fantastic achievement and a testament to NILA’s dedication to saving lives at sea. It is a positive and practical step to bring greater support for independent lifeboats. However, a permanent position would allow independent lifeboats a stronger strategic voice in national planning. It would mean that when national standards, such as the rescue boat code, are revised, NILA can ensure that the standards also work for independent lifeboats. A permanent position in the search and rescue frameworks would increase recognition and representation for independent lifeboats and for the immense work that the volunteers do.

I welcome the Minister to her place, and ask her what discussions are taking place to ensure that NILA has a permanent position on the UKSAR Operator Group. Does she agree that a permanent position is a necessary step to shape policy and ultimately save more lives? She can answer that question in this debate if she wants—that would show her calibre—but if she cannot, will she commit to write to me and NILA, clearly communicating an answer, after this debate?

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate on independent lifeboats and their support. In my own constituency of Hastings and Rye, we have the Pett Level independent rescue boat, which does amazing work saving lives at sea all year round. They are all volunteers and all the money they raise comes from public donations. Will the hon. Member join me in paying tribute to them, as well as our local RNLI in Hastings and Rye harbours?

[Paul Holmes]

I could not have put it better myself, and of course I pay tribute to the organisations that the hon. Lady set out. It is good that she has an RNLI lifeboat and an independent lifeboat working in lockstep in her constituency, to ensure that her constituents are protected. I know a bit about that independent lifeboat because her predecessor, alongside Anthony Mangnall and myself, was involved in setting up NILA—although Anthony did most of the work. I absolutely pay tribute to those organisations, and it is a credit to her constituents that she is here today to share in this debate.

At this opportune moment, I would like to commend the Hamble lifeboat, which provides a vital service in my constituency. Operating in some of the most challenging marine conditions, Hamble lifeboat has been the cornerstone of rescue operations, saving lives since 1968. The Solent presents intense challenges as it is one of the busiest waterways globally, accommodating cruise ships, freight vessels, naval ships and smaller boats, while also witnessing double tides and a few sand bars, which means that rescue operations are far more likely to encounter complications.

The River Hamble also offers its own unique challenges due to extremely fast tides and obstacles. In both 2023 and 2024, Hamble lifeboat was the busiest independent lifeboat in the UK, responding to more than 230 call-outs. They work they do is tremendous, and I am honoured to be their voice in this debate. However, the recognition of independent lifeboats touches on one of the many challenges that these organisations face: they are funded entirely through local donations, grants and the power of community, as the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned.

I am proud that, under the last Conservative Government, the rescue boat grant fund donated £5.7 million to more than 100 charities around the UK, including Hamble lifeboat, which as I mentioned is a fantastic independent lifeboat in my constituency. Sadly, the fund finished in 2020—and before Government Members shout at me about that, that decision was made by the last Government and I deeply regret it.

Many independent lifeboats have felt the financial pressures ripple through their organisations. The grant provided a lifeline of support to independent lifeboats, helping to upgrade equipment and allowing for quicker and safer launches in emergencies. Many independent lifeboats depend on community funding, which can take years to build up, in order to replace old and outdated boats.

For example, Hamble lifeboat operates two vessels, which together cost around £90,000 a year to maintain. Both are past their expected life service, having been in operation since 1997, but replacing them is estimated to cost around £1 million. It would take a small community, such as the people of Hamble village, years to raise such a sum, despite the amazing fundraising job those people do. That places significant pressure on the reliability of current boats and raises real concerns about operational resilience in future coastal emergencies.

My local lifeboat is just one example of the financial constraints that independent lifeboats face. I am sure we will hear from other Members from across the House about the difficulties that their independent lifeboats endure. Government funding would make a major difference, including by helping to upgrade vessels, crew equipment and communication devices, which are all vital to saving lives at sea. Volunteers risk a lot on these life-saving missions, so it is important that they are equipped with the appropriate gear to do their jobs.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He is being uncharacteristically modest in downplaying his involvement in setting up NILA; I congratulate him on that, too. He mentioned the volunteers. I wanted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the volunteers in Lyme Regis who have responded to 27 call-outs already this year and are responsible for saving many lives. He talks about supporting independent lifeboats, but it is also about supporting the brave volunteers who give up their time to do this hard work.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member, my friend, makes a very good point. When writing this speech, I wanted to talk about the nuts and bolts of funding, and the operational difficulties that some decisions have involved for independent lifeboats. He is right, however, that we have to talk about the fantastic volunteers, who will be called out in wet and windy December—hopefully, not too many times this year, but they will be called out. They might have to be down at the harbour within four minutes, not knowing what they are going into. They take tremendous risks for the people of this country and their communities, and they do so on a voluntary basis. I also echo the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to volunteers who do not do those kinds of things, but something equally important—shaking the tins and going out every weekend of the year to raise money for local independent lifeboats. I pay tribute to his lifeboat in Lyme Regis, which has had 27 call-outs, showing the amazing job that they do.

Our seaside towns are vibrant areas that draw high levels of tourism, but with that comes more call-outs for seaside emergencies. Changes in climate, such as rising sea levels and more unpredictable weather conditions, are making rescue operations increasingly challenging. Additionally, rising temperatures are driving more tourists to our seaside towns. That is great, but in Hamble, which boasts an affluent sailing community, it is increasing the risk of accidents at sea and in our rivers. As we work to revitalise coastal communities, as the Government have said they want to do, we must ensure that our local rescue services and resources are equipped to meet these evolving challenges.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

In my glorious coastal constituency, we have the fantastic RNLI stations in Scarborough and Whitby, but we also have a brilliant independent lifeboat—the Runswick bay rescue boat. That is based in the scenic Runswick bay, popular for fishing, water sports and coastal walks. The volunteer crew play a critical role in saving lives and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned, we have an increasing need for these boats. In just the last few weeks, they have rescued a mother and son blown out to sea from a paddleboard, and rescued two walkers and their dog cut off from the tide. There is no alternative lifeboat based at Runswick bay, and the rescue boat is facing serious financial challenges. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government have a role to play in securing its continued presence?

[Paul Holmes]

I have been known to have some scampi and chips in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I agree that it is beautiful. I challenge her to say whether it is as beautiful as Hamble Valley, as my constituents would expect, but she is absolutely right. I join her in paying tribute to the Runswick bay crew.

The hon. Lady hit the nail on the head about the role for Government. This is not a party political debate. I am a Conservative, and I think the state should remove itself from our lives on that basis. We have clear differences about some of the Government’s decisions on their fiscal responsibilities, but they have a democratic mandate to undertake that. What we are discussing involves such small resource, however, and would support the “invest to save” mentality of the services they provide around the whole of the country—£5 million was the last amount of money allocated to the rescue boat fund. That is worth doing, so that the Government do not have to take a greater role in our search and rescue services, whatever form they take in the years ahead. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that she would have more success than I do in securing a meeting with the Maritime Minister to make that point.

Independent lifeboats save 25% to 30% of all lives on navigable waters. Independent lifeboats are a vital part of our national rescue capabilities, yet they operate under financial constraints. The work of Hamble lifeboat and all independent lifeboats around the country is fundamental to keeping our coastal communities safe. Their dependency on community donations underscores the need for Government support. A reinstatement of the rescue boat grant fund would not only alleviate the significant financial constraints on independent lifeboats, but ensure that life-threatening emergencies can be tackled without compromise. I strongly urge the Minister to take decisive action, reinstate the grant and support our independent lifeboats as they support our constituents. The grant would serve as more than just a financial relief; it would serve as Government recognition of their invaluable work.

Finally, I encourage all Members here, when they leave the debate, to tweet and put a Facebook post up to raise awareness of the role that our independent lifeboats play. They should also raise a tin for them as well—volunteer to raise money—so that some of the issues that come up this afternoon can be alleviated without our necessarily looking just to the Government for help.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak.

14:44

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, not least because you will be very familiar with many of the places I will mention. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for securing this important debate on Government support for independent lifeboats.

I have the great privilege of serving as the MP for the constituency of Llanelli, which is surrounded by water on three sides. There is the Loughor estuary and the Burry inlet, which goes past Burry Port harbour to the stretches of Pembrey sands and reaches up to the estuary of the three rivers: the Gwendraeth, the Towy and the Taf. We enjoy spectacular views, including of the Gower peninsula--we have the best views of it, although my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) often disputes that. The peninsula is indeed spectacular, with its iconic Worms Head, which has itself been the scene of several lifeboat rescues this year alone.

However, it is important to note that that spectacular scenery hides the very treacherous waters beneath, which a huge tidal range, strong currents, shifting sands and mudbanks. There is also a lot of activity—notably the local cocklers and fishermen—as well as the usual range of leisure activities.

The area is served by three lifeboat stations. First, there is the independent Ferryside station. Although it came into my constituency only at the July 2024 general election—I visited it last year—it has served the area for almost 200 years. Just a few weeks ago, the station dealt with a very complex rescue involving three small fishing boats. Secondly, there is the independent Loughor lifeboat, which, although stationed on the Gower side of the Loughor, serves the whole area. Thirdly, there is the RNLI lifeboat in Burry Port, which is well supported by the local community there.

I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of lifeboat crews. Their experience and knowledge of their local area is absolutely invaluable. They are willing to go out in all weather to rescue people who have got into difficulty. They are hugely professional, meaning that they can dovetail with the coastguard and the other statutory emergency services. Crews put in many hours of vital training to be ready for call-outs.

There is a significant amount of work and responsibility involved in maintaining a lifeboat station. Hours of work are put in by the crew and supporters to maintain buildings and equipment and to undertake training. That is, of course, in addition to the call-outs.

Then there is the cost. For example, running the Ferryside lifeboat costs around £20,000 each year. It costs £289 per year to buy and maintain a crew member’s drysuit, lifejacket, locator beacon and flare. The cost of a crew member’s helmet, which is absolutely essential for their protection, is £110. Those helmets have to be replaced every five years, and the helmets at Ferryside are shortly due for renewal. A can of petrol costs £16 and will power the Ferryside vessel in the water for about 30 minutes. Those are just some examples of the costs involved.

Our local communities are amazing in their fundraising efforts, whether that is the children of Ysgol Glanyfferi, the White Lion in Ferryside staging events for the Ferryside lifeboat, Llanelli Rotary club raising funds for the Loughor lifeboat, or the Burry Port community supporting the RNLI lifeboat there.

Then there is the valuable support from business, whether that is local businesses making donations in money or in kind, or specialist equipment companies providing supplies that are heavily discounted or provided for free. As the Ferryside lifeboat crew have said,

“It takes a team of people and industries to keep a lifeboat afloat. Beyond the volunteers are companies that support us with their generosity…such as Tohatsu Marine and Navisafe”

which supplied the crew with

“reliable navigation lights that can endure the elements”.

I pay tribute to the National Independent Lifeboat Association for the work it does on advocacy, advice and co-ordinating training. In total, NILA estimates that its members saved the taxpayer some £2.6 million in 2024. Of course, costs continue to escalate, whether it is insurance, repairs or equipment. As the Minister will know, the previous Conservative Government closed the rescue boat grant fund back in 2020. In spite of the entreaties from the chair of NILA and the warm words from Lord Davies of Gower, there was no commitment to reinstate it. The fund was not huge—£5 million over the previous five years—but the Ferryside lifeboat had a grant of some £7,000, and the Loughor lifeboat some £10,000. Again, those are not huge amounts, but it takes a lot of plant sales or pub gigs to raise that sort of money.

We all appreciate that financial times are difficult, but my plea this afternoon is for the Minister to look at whether there is any way additional support could be made available for lifeboats, to complement the valiant fundraising efforts of local communities and pay a real tribute to the dedicated and dangerous work of our lifeboat crews. We know that these small organisations manage funds very carefully and are good at making a small amount go a long way, so even a modest amount could make a significant difference. We also know that the public are very supportive of our lifeboat crews and would think that this was money well spent. So my plea to the Minister is, please look at this.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to impose an informal six-minute time limit. I will start the winding-up speeches at 3.28 pm. Apparently, we are expecting a Division on a ten-minute rule Bill, but until we hear the bell, we will stick with 3.28 pm.

14:49

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), on securing the debate.

People from my constituency have been saving lives at sea for hundreds of years—we are a coastal community. In fact, legend has it that Gosport even gained its name as a result of one such incident, in which King Stephen and his brother, Bishop Henry de Blois, were on a little medieval ship that was caught in a fierce storm in the Solent. In danger of drowning, they were rescued by brave local fishermen, who took them ashore, at which point the bishop declared the place “God’s port, our haven.” That is apparently the romantic lineage of the town’s name.

That tradition continues to this day. We have a couple of National Coastwatch Institution stations, staffed by a range of wonderful volunteers, and Lee-on-Solent in my constituency is home to HM Coastguard search and rescue helicopters, but I really want to talk about the team down the coast at the Gosport lifeboat station in Stokes bay, where the Gosport and Fareham Inshore Rescue Service—known as GAFIRS—is based. I pay tribute to the incredible work of that team, who work 24/7, 365 days a year. Anyone who watched “Rescue 999: Seconds to Save a Life” on Channel 5, which I am sure everyone here did, will have seen them in action, and seen the pressure our lifeboat crews are under on the water. Gosport lifeboat station is one of the busiest in the country; remarkably, on one day in July alone, the crew were called out for six separate incidents, beginning at 6 am and finishing 12 hours later.

The dedication of these crews is remarkable, but it is even more astounding when we consider that they are all volunteers who are being asked to disrupt their lives to save lives for free. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, has heard from organisations that they rely very much on these volunteers to continue operating. However, things could not be tougher. The trend in people volunteering is downwards, with 1.5 million fewer people volunteering in 2024 than in the previous year. It is particularly difficult for independent lifeboat charities, because their volunteers have to have a very high level of expertise, and there is a cost to them in terms of the training that volunteers have to be given.

As we have heard, there is also a huge capital cost involved in maintaining the station and the assets. These boats are technical pieces of kit, and GAFIRS does not have the facilities to request replacements for boats where necessary—it has to fundraise. And that is not to mention the cost of fuel.

Those costs have become increasingly difficult to meet. Research by the Charities Aid Foundation has found that fewer people are now giving to charity, compared with before the pandemic. I am especially concerned about the 34% real-terms fall in corporate or philanthropic giving by FTSE 100 companies in the last 10 years. That means that organisations such as GAFIRS have to spend much more time trying to fundraise, as opposed to doing what they are best at, which is saving lives at sea.

GAFIRS is helped perfectly in that by the people of Gosport, who come out in droves to help those fundraising efforts. Indeed, we have a local new year’s day swim, which I have taken part in. We are all encouraged to get dressed up in fancy dress and brave the cold waters of the Solent. I can tell you, Mrs Harris, that it is refreshing after a new year’s eve.

However, GAFIRS really needs more support. I am glad that it received a share of the rescue boat grant fund between 2015 and 2020, and I restate the pleas to the Minister—there is a strong argument for doing this—to reinstate it in recognition of the vital work rescue boats do and the lives they save.

In the context of rising demand and dwindling volunteers and funds, will the Minister also have conversations with colleagues about what more can be done to encourage philanthropy and charitable giving to organisations such as GAFIRS? I put the same question to the Prime Minister earlier in the summer. His constituency is the second-least generous in the country, based on the proportion of income given to charitable causes, so he has skin in the game and an interest in ensuring that people are encouraged to donate more to charities.

I know that there are reasons why fewer people volunteer. One is the economy: times are tough, people work for longer and they do not have much time to spare. But another is the bureaucracy that sometimes acts as an obstacle to people getting involved in volunteering. Will the Minister look at that as well?

The work GAFIRS does is literally life-changing; like many other organisations around the UK, its work is fundamental. I hope the Minister will comment on how the independent lifeboat sector can be supported into the future.

14:56

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for securing today’s important debate. I also thank all those who work and volunteer in the independent lifeboat sector, as well as those who support the RNLI.

I would like to raise the issue of safety in rivers, although I pay tribute to colleagues who have raised the serious issue of safety at sea. My constituency includes a number of rivers and is densely populated. We have the River Thames, as well as the Kennet, which is one of the major tributaries, and smaller tributaries such as Holy Brook and Foudry Brook. These are all right next to large numbers of people: we have Reading festival every year, with nearly 100,000 visitors; there are people who walk along the Thameside promenade; and we have lots of boaters, and people who enjoy wild swimming and other activities on the river.

Sadly, as an inland area with a major river and some tributaries, we do not have the level of provision that we would wish. There are important services provided by the emergency services, such as Thames Valley police and Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue. However, I have been contacted by a resident asking what more could be done in our context, and whether it might be possible to empower local businesses and sports clubs to help rescue anybody who got into difficulty in the river.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I thank him for indulging my having a second bite of the cherry, because he makes an important point. Recently, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and I spoke in a debate about water safety education. Does he agree that we in this House should be working together to ensure that people who live in constituencies like ours have better access to water education from a young age, through our schools and the businesses that he is describing?

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Education is a vital part of this. Where local businesses or sports clubs, such as those involved in rowing, canoeing or other activities on the river, have a supply of trained personnel available—not necessarily 24 hours a day, but certainly for large parts of the day—can the Minister look into what scope there is to support them? What more could be done to help those organisations provide a service in the first instance if they spot an emergency happening? I commend one of my constituents who did exactly that. His part-time role as a volunteer is to help ferry people to an island on the River Thames that is used by a local bowls club—it is the only bowls club in the world on an island, as far as we know. He saw somebody fall into the river and went to rescue them. I commend that type of behaviour and I believe that many more people would want to do exactly the same if they saw that happen.

In our town centre and nearby areas there are three boatyards, a number of sports clubs and other businesses with access to boats, with trained people who are familiar with handling a small boat and who might be able to rescue somebody at very short notice, before other boats could be launched. I wanted to raise that important matter with the Minister and ask whether she might be able to look into it for me.

I also want to mention the growing challenge of people living on boats that are not property registered, and where the Environment Agency and the police have concerns. I have had meetings and I commend our local councillors, the local police and the EA for their work on this matter. In and around our town centre, there are growing numbers of boats where people are living, and there is the danger of incidents related to them. In one of our meetings with these services, we heard about an incident where a boat that had a poorly maintained engine drifted towards a lock, which could have resulted in a tragedy. There have been other sad incidents where there have been problems relating to people living on a river or canal across the country, so I also wanted to raise that and ask whether the Minister has anything to add about trying to enhance safety for people who live on rivers and canals in boats and similar accommodation.

Mrs Harris, I appreciate that time is at a premium and I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of these queries and I look forward to hearing more when she speaks later.

15:01

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I commend and congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and thereby giving us all a chance to participate.

As the MP for a coastal constituency with a very large length of coast—the name of Strangford is the giveaway and tells the story—I am incredibly familiar with the role of lifeboats and the vital nature of having a well-trained and well-equipped lifeguard in post. We have lifeboat stations dotted throughout the coastline. Indeed, Portaferry—on the Ards peninsula, where I live—has one of seven RNLI lifeboat stations operating a lifeboat funded by viewers of the BBC television programme “Blue Peter”. I am old enough to remember the first “Blue Peter” programme, and it has had a commitment to lifeboats ever since.

In the last 10 years, the lifeboats of the charity’s 10 lifeboat stations in Northern Ireland have launched some 9,500 times. Their volunteers have saved 1,535 lives and come to the aid of thousands of other people. There is so much they have done and so much more they can do. In the last five years, there have been almost 3,000 incidents. The lifeboats have come to the aid of 3,500 people, and 47 lives were saved. If anyone wants a reason for backing this, that is what it is all about—the lives saved and the commitments given. The coastguard operates from Bangor marina, in the neighbouring constituency, but without charitably funded lifeboats, it simply could not handle the need and the load. It is sad that the RNLI really is the last emergency service, yet—I say this very respectfully—the Government pay less than 1% of its funding. I believe that the service deserves more than that.

As well as the RNLI, which I argue is basically independently funded, Northern Ireland has independent lifeboat services, such as Lagan Search and Rescue in Belfast and Lough Neagh Rescue. These services operate on inland waterways and estuaries and are not part of the RNLI, but are part of the focus that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley put forward at the beginning. Other independent groups, such as Foyle Search and Rescue, also provide water rescue services, and many are recognised by the coastguard as declared resources.

Part of our tourism strategy for Strangford is to try to highlight the availability of great family fun on the water, and a lot of that is found on the beautiful waters of Strangford lough, in my constituency. I live just on the edge of it, so I am very privileged to be able to wake up in the morning and look out across the lough. The activities range from paddleboarding to standard sailing and from jet skis to canoes. Anyone who drives around our coastal areas will see people enjoying the lough in all seasons.

However, with all that fun must come safety, and we know how much we rely on the good men and women who volunteer on the lifeboats. The availability of those crews means that we can welcome families to the lough and know that there will be help if the worst happens. That offers great reassurance for me as the MP for the area, but also for those who want to mess about in the water. I think there is a song that goes along those lines. I probably can remember it very well. I can even sing it, but if I sing the rain comes so that would not be a good idea.

The fact of the matter is that the lifeboat service really should be recognised as an emergency service and funded accordingly. Whether we are talking about the coastline in Scotland, England, Wales or beautiful Northern Ireland, as people have less disposable income to give to charities, the need for Government to step up will increase. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; I wish her well. In her reply, maybe she can indicate what the possibilities are to help lifeboats. There might be some law that prevents it, but she will clarify that when the time comes.

My last comment will be to once again thank every volunteer, past and present, who gave their time and talent to fundraise and co-ordinate fundraising events, every person who so generously gives and every volunteer who gives their time and puts their life on the line to carry out the rescues. There is nothing quite as dramatic as those RNLI lifeboat adverts that come on between the films on a Sunday afternoon. If we need a reason for supporting them, seeing the drama of the rescues that they do will convince people to do that. To them, I say: we could not do without you, and we respect you as we respect all those who serve our communities in emergencies.

15:06

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for securing this important debate. As someone who previously worked for the RNLI and now represents the beautiful rural and coastal constituency of South East Cornwall, I see every day how lifeboats sit at the heart of our community. In Cornwall, all our lifeboat cover is provided by the RNLI, and those crews are part of our shared identity, heritage and economy. However, I recognise the huge contribution made by independent lifeboats, including in the constituencies that have been mentioned.

The south-west is one of the busiest regions to keep safe, with over 300 miles of Cornish coastline. Saltash in my constituency is the proud home of the RNLI’s south west flood rescue team, and I commend its work in having a regional response to such a crucial issue. The dedication is remarkable and the crews deserve real, practical support.

During the summer, I had the privilege of visiting the RNLI station in Looe during one of its training evenings. I met several dedicated volunteer crew members, including operations manager Clive Palfrey and crew member Vicky Thomas. Many of the crew, as hon. Members might imagine in an area such as mine, are also busy members of the local inshore fishing fleet, and it is truly inspiring that they make the time to be volunteers as well. I was deeply impressed by the team’s professionalism. I saw how vital every piece of equipment is to its operations, particularly the two lifeboats, and I had the opportunity to try on some of the safety equipment. As we watched the lifeboat launch, I have to admit that it quickly became one of my favourite visits.

The crew’s passion for keeping both the local community and visiting tourists—so important in Cornwall—safe on our waters is really inspiring and shared across all lifeboat crews, including independent lifeboats. The country knows about their dedication and the fundraising efforts involved, with communities coming together in support of crews. We owe a great deal to those volunteers, and I want to take the opportunity to thank them for their dedication and courage.

While the RNLI does such a fantastic job keeping our Cornish communities safe, I appreciate that those operating elsewhere perform the same lifesaving work, often through local fundraising alone. I believe that the Government should continue to recognise both RNLI and independent services as essential partners in maritime safety, ensuring that every coastal community, including mine, has the support that it needs to stay safe at sea.

15:04

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this important debate. It is only right that, as the Member for Poole, I should speak today. My constituency is the location of the RNLI’s headquarters, including the lifeboat support centre and the RNLI college, where crew and lifeguards are trained in their important work.

It is no surprise that, as a coastal town, Poole has a special relationship with the sea. The first lifeboat was stationed in Poole harbour in 1865, and this year the local station celebrated its 160th anniversary. Like other hon. Members, I have had the pleasure of visiting my local lifeboat station on a number of occasions since being elected, to see the tremendous work the station does 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It has 30 seagoing crew, with another 30 or so managers, medical advisers, water safety officers, administrators, fundraisers and those who look after the boat house.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

15:11

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:24

On resuming—

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I shall pick up where I left off when the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rudely interrupted me.

In 2023, the Poole lifeboat crew launched 146 times. It launched 102 times last year, and 109 times so far this year. I therefore pay tribute to all those at Poole lifeboat station, and place on the record my admiration and respect for their tremendous work.

Those volunteers also work extremely hard to raise the funds they need to make all that possible, while also raising awareness of sea safety and encouraging people not to take risks in the water. An issue they have noticed recently is that, because many children no longer have swimming lessons in school, the basic safety messages are needed more than ever. Those volunteers still perform that vital role, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said.

Poole station costs about £83,000 a year to run, and every shout that the crews attend means refuelling, replenishing medical equipment, carrying out mechanical repairs, training crew and paying for things such as radio licences, utility bills and general equipment that the crews need. In fact, Poole is one of the busiest coastal stations. The whole effort relies on volunteers and donations from the public to keep going; it is important that we understand that it does not have the largesse of a national organisation.

Locally, although the RNLI pays for lifeguards’ training and equipment, the council pays the lifeguards’ wages. Regrettably, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council is considering stopping that. That would place local water users at risk, so I urge the council to think again.

Figures show that 98% of all RNLI rescues are within 10 nautical miles of the shore. What makes the charity and the movement generally special is their mission to save those in need at sea, irrespective of their bank balance or their country of origin. We would do well to remember that approach. I appreciate that RNLI is not lobbying for Government funding, because it is concerned that that might impact on its independence, but the National Independent Lifeboat Association has a different framework and it is calling for funding to be reinstated, as we have heard this afternoon. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s response to that call.

We have heard today about the lifesaving work carried out by independent lifeboat charities across the country, almost entirely crewed by volunteers. Our duty in this place is to lift that burden where we can and help to keep those boats ready to launch whenever the call for help comes.

15:27

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), a fellow south coast MP, on securing this important debate.

I am an avid sea swimmer and sailor who enjoys every opportunity to be in the sea, so it brings me great joy that more and more people are enjoying open-water swimming, paddleboarding, kayaking and coastal sailing. I am happiest when I am in the sea, but I am aware of the dangers of the sea: even on apparently calm and sunny days, it can be unpredictable and unforgiving. Tides change and winds rise rapidly, and that can turn a fun-filled day on the water into a tragic accident.

When disaster strikes, it is our brave lifeboat crews, many of them volunteers, who launch into the sea to keep people safe and to save lives. My wonderful coastal constituency, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, is lucky to be served by the incredible RNLI. There has been a lifeboat house in Littlehampton for more than 140 years—since 1884. Today, the RNLI’s inshore station on the bank of the river Arun provides vital lifesaving services along our beautiful stretch of Sussex coastline.

This year, that crew has been called out more than 50 times. It supports yachts and fishing vessels in difficulty, and waders and swimmers caught in strong currents. It also rescues pets who have fallen into the water and become stranded. I was delighted to attended the christening of its new D-class lifeboat, Spirit of Fidelity, in September.

I really cannot speak highly enough of the fantastic work that the RNLI and its many volunteers do to keep seagoers in Sussex safe. A true national treasure, the RNLI deserves all the plaudits it rightly receives internationally. But not every constituency is as fortunate as mine is to benefit from an outstanding RNLI lifeboat station. Maritime rescue off the coast of the British Isles is often provided by a remarkable network of independent lifeboats. Community-run and locally fundraised, these vital lifesaving organisations provide the same services as the RNLI, but often in areas far larger than they can reach quickly enough, with a fraction of the funding needed and without the same public and Government recognition of their work. The dedicated volunteers and generous donors who keep independent lifeboats afloat deserve acclaim equal to that of their RNLI colleagues.

Last year, independent lifeboats attended more than 1,800 incidents and assisted more than 2,000 people in the UK. We cannot take them for granted and must support their efforts to keep people safe at sea. The rescue boat grant fund was a key source of funding for independent lifeboats between 2015 and 2020. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley in calling for the Government to reinstate it. To do so would not only celebrate the tireless dedication of the volunteers who run independent lifeboats but invest in the future of those vital lifesaving services.

We would not settle for under-equipped ambulances, fire engines or police cars. We need to ensure that our lifeboats are properly funded, so that their crews can purchase the equipment they need and complete essential maintenance to keep their boats seaworthy and their stations fit for purpose.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Hope Cove lifeboat station in my constituency is considering purchasing a new rescue boat, which could cost in excess of £220,000—a vast amount of money for such a small organisation. Does the hon. Member agree that a specific grant scheme should be introduced to help independent lifeboat stations with capital expenditure?

[Alison Griffiths]

The hon. Member makes a good point. She would probably agree with me that asking the Government to reinstate the rescue boat grant fund is a first step in that direction. I hope the grant would include capital expenditure.

This is not a topic for political point scoring; it is about saving lives. The reintroduction of the rescue boat grant fund would send a clear message that this House values the commitment and bravery of our lifeboat crews. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to the calls being made, led by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, and that she reaffirms the Government’s support for all those who risk their lives to protect others at sea.

15:33

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am delighted to respond to this debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing it.

In coastal communities such as North Norfolk, independent lifeboats are not just a valued community asset but a vital part of our network of emergency response on the coast. North Norfolk is proudly home to two excellent independent lifeboat services in Mundesley and Sea Palling. Both have a long history of offshore rescues dating back to the early 1800s, but the current voluntary lifeboats date from the early 1970s. In both cases, villagers reached into their own pockets to support the establishment of an independent rescue service to protect locals and visitors along our coastline. Since then, they have served our communities loyally and saved countless lives.

It is not just coastal communities that benefit from the lifeboats: Mundesley lifeboat also supports floodwater rescues. It is a valuable service but, as with so much of the support for flooding, no additional funding is forthcoming to support that vital work. I hope the Minister will take that back to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to think about further.

Independent lifeboats in Norfolk also keep us safe inshore. Just over the border, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), is the Hemsby independent lifeboat, which hosts the lifeboat Broads Marley, which serves inland rescues for those in distress on the Norfolk broads in my constituency and, no doubt, in that of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). It is a valued service that ensures that everyone who comes to our precious national park and enjoys its waterways can do so safely. I put on the record my gracious thanks to the crew at Hemsby for all that they do in my area and across Norfolk.

Lifeboat services are valued by my Lib Dem colleagues across the country, from the Hope Cove lifeboat in Devon to the Anstruther RNLI base in North East Fife. The issues that affect lifeboat services matter to a huge range of communities. Challenges at sea do not discriminate, and all coastal communities rely on their support. However, independent lifeboats face a range of challenges in carrying out their vital role. Their independent nature means that they can suffer from a range of funding struggles and do not have the same sure footing as many RNLI bases. In tandem with the rising cost of fuel, maintenance, training and equipment, this creates a difficult environment for these groups to survive in.

That is why we in the Liberal Democrats are encouraging the Government to increase their support for independent lifeboat organisations through targeted, practical assistance that strengthens the work of these volunteer teams. The Government could take many different steps to provide such support. They could introduce a specific grant scheme for independent lifeboat stations, similar to those available for mountain rescue of community fire services. That could help to cover essential operational costs, such as fuel, insurance, crew training and vessel maintenance. Furthermore, they could expand VAT relief for essential rescue equipment—which the RNLI receives for fuel and safety gear—to other independent lifeboat organisations.

Affordable access to training and skills is also vital for independent lifeboats. That is why we want the Government to offer all volunteer lifeboat crews free or subsidised access to training, accredited by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and to support volunteer crew members with access to maritime qualifications, which benefit both rescue operations and personal career growth. This upskilling would be hugely beneficial to the coastal communities where crew members live and work, and could create a wider economic boost, as well as keeping lifeboats staffed with the best possible experience and expertise. We are also keen for the Minister to see whether Government maritime agencies could share access to coastal radar data, weather tracking and communication systems, to enhance rescue co-ordination.

With the Budget coming up, I am sure the Chancellor will be pleased with any Minister who can provide her with a relatively cheap, impactful and universally popular policy, so here we go. I would like to share with her a reform that one of my local independent lifeboat services has encouraged: exempting charitable search and rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty. Emergency vehicles are already exempt, but those that perform search and rescue for registered charities are not. Independent lifeboat groups may require large vehicles, such as Land Rovers or 4x4s, to pull their lifeboats in and out of the sea or transport them to other launch points. These vehicles attract a high tax, which adds hundreds or thousands to the groups’ expenses.

Modelling suggests that providing the charities with this tax break could cost the Exchequer as little as £500,000 a year, which would effectively be a direct cash injection back into the independent lifeboat charities, supporting their sustained existence and allowing them to carry out their important work. Will the Minister make a case for this tax break to the Treasury ahead of the Budget next month? It would be a hugely positive step and an important recognition of the work of our independent lifeboats.

There is no distinction in the urgency of emergencies that lifeboats respond to. When someone is in distress off our coast, every second counts, just as it would in responding to a heart attack or a house fire. The teams need the best vehicles for the job, and they should not be punished by a punitive tax regime that discourages them from owning them. As it stands, the original Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and the A-Team van are exempt from vehicle tax, but independent lifeboat vehicles are not. I hope that the Government can recognise that our lifeboat crews are a real-life A-team, and support them as such.

I will finish by acknowledging the incredible work of the independent lifeboats that support us across the country, particularly in North Norfolk. If I had endless time, I would be delighted to read into the record the names of all the crew members in my area who work so hard, but as I do not, I want to note my thanks to the coxswain of Mundesley lifeboat, Dave Francis; the coxswain of Sea Palling lifeboat, Mick Clarke; all the members of their hard-working teams; and all those who support their work. I hope the Minister will not only join me in thanking them for all they do, but go further by providing them with the hope that the Government will give them the support they need to continue their vital work in decades to come.

15:39

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

As ever, it is a pleasure to appear before you, Mrs Harris.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this debate. I know he is a long-standing supporter of independent lifeboats, and he hid his light under a bushel by understating his involvement in the creation of the National Independent Lifeboat Association. I will pause to remember the efforts of Anthony Mangnall, the former Member for Totnes, who was an excellent contributor—a very good orator—in the Chamber. He had his own style, stood with his hand in his pocket, right at the Front Bench where there is no protection at all. He was a very impressive Member of this House.

I should declare an interest. I do not think it is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but since my early 20s I have been an offshore member of the RNLI, having been a sailor and boating enthusiast all my life. During the debate I played a game with myself to see whether I had sailed or been on a boat in every constituency mentioned. The answer is that I have. I was a bit nervous when the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke, because that constituency is quite a challenge, but then he mentioned the Thames, and I have been there. I was also concerned when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke; I have of course been on Strangford lough, but I was challenged by Lough Neagh. I have been there, and I think I have been on a boat there. The hon. Member could have mentioned Lough Erne—I have been all over that. So I know of what I speak, having followed every Member round their constituencies and their references to the lifeboats.

I can say I have been in those areas, but actually I was under the unseen protection of each and every independent lifeboat that was standing ready and willing to come to my aid had something bad happened. We need to remember that. Being out on the sea is a wonderful recreational experience. It is fun until it is not, when it becomes very dangerous very quickly. These men and women stand ready to put their own lives at risk to protect us, whether we are working on the sea or there for recreation. It is important that we remember that throughout this debate.

Independent lifeboat services offer important support for lifesaving, both on the sea and on inland waters, such as those in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham. The National Independent Lifeboat Association says that more than 80 independent lifeboat organisations operate along the coastline and inland waterways, and it estimates that in 2024 there were getting on for 3,500 volunteers, of whom over 1,000 were operational. They attended almost 2,000 incidents, assisting more than 2,000 people in distress or need. As has been mentioned, that work has been valued at £2.6 million in savings to the Government. This selfless work, carried out by inspirational people, many of whom have been mentioned by name in the debate, not only saves lives but saves the taxpayer money.

I want to join in the local celebrations. I am a bit stretched, because I represent an inland constituency, although it includes a part of the Norfolk broads—the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and I share them. At Great Yarmouth we have Caister lifeboat. I am told, although I stand to be corrected, that it is the oldest lifeboat in the country. It has existed since 1791—consider that: well over 200 years. It is at the heart of the Norfolk coastal community that raises the money to support it. That money goes towards lifesaving equipment and training.

This year, Caister came out not just to save lives but to save a historic vessel. As a keen sailor, I have watched the complete restoration of the former royal yacht Bloodhound—I read about the progress in the sailing press over the course of months—which sprung a devastating leak off the Norfolk coast. The Caister lifeboat went out, helped to pump out and secure the vessel, and escorted it safely to the shore. Bloodhound is the vessel in which Prince Philip taught Prince Charles how to sail. It was a royal yacht from 1936 until 1969.

On the other side of the Wash is the Humber Rescue lifeboat. On 23 May this year it was launched multiple times over a 10-hour period to deal with a series of serious incidents on the Humber, and it saved three lives in a single day. That is just one example of the incredible work that independent lifeboat has done.

An interesting point, which some Members have raised, is that a local lifeboat knows its waters, some of which have particular characteristics that mean that specificity of training pays dividends. Where we have local conditions, we need local lifeboats—independent lifeboats, in particular—to provide the coverage we are all looking for.

Last year, the Felixstowe coast patrol and rescue saved six lives and provided assistance to 58 people while taking part in 55 patrols covering thousands of miles. Closer to home, the hon. Member for North Norfolk will recall that, just last month, Hemsby Broads rescue was tasked by Humber coastguard to assist in the rescue of six people on the lower Bure on its approach to Great Yarmouth. We fight over the Bure; it is the barrier, or the demarcation point, between our two constituencies. I have not researched sufficiently to know whether it happened on my side of the river or the hon. Gentleman’s, but the vessel that ran aground was listing heavily near Great Yarmouth. All the casualties were safely evacuated, but without that swift and co-ordinated approach, the situation could have ended very differently. We owe a debt of gratitude to independent lifeboats, whether they operate in inland waters or out at sea.

There is a wider point here. For all these institutions, their strength comes from their independence. Although state provision can provide funding and coverage, it comes at the very significant cost of disenfranchising local communities. It comes at the cost of undermining their sense of belonging and the network of social ties—the community resilience—that supporting, running and manning a local independent lifeboat brings about. The strength of independent lifeboats is their very independence.

More widely, this is a model for devolution—not the Government’s version, devolution from above, where we destroy the lowest level of government and bring it up to county or bi-county level as a vehicle for undertaking the directions of the national state, but devolution down to communities that empowers them to take decisions on their own behalf. That is the kind of devolution towards which independent lifeboats lead the way.

Although these organisations are a celebration of independence, there is a difference between independence and funding, which remains a huge challenge. We have heard that between 2014 and 2020, the previous Government granted a total of £5.66 million to 104 different independent inshore and inland rescue boat charities through the rescue boat grant fund. Sadly, that was stopped in 2020. I hear the lament of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, and I join him in it. It was a mistake that, to save £1 million pounds a year, the capital advantage given to these independent charities, which do so much for their local communities, was stopped. That leads me neatly into my request to the Minister to consider that as we approach the Budget on 26 November. What is she going to do about it?

We need to make sure that independent lifeboats are able to act to protect those in need. Are regulations in place to that ensure independent lifeboats can act effectively? Does the Minister agree with everyone in the Chamber about the importance of independent lifeboats? If so, will she update us on the Government’s approach to funding—that is important—and on how she can encourage local lifeboat institutions to thrive?

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) made a very important point about the bureaucracy of volunteering. That is an increasingly significant constraint. There are lots of requirements, each of which is no doubt sensible on its own, but the accumulation of bureaucracy, when taken en masse, prevents people from volunteering. We need to do something about that. Will the Minister commit to a permanent position for NILA on the search and rescue framework?

This debate has been a celebration—of civic society, not the state. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley on drawing our attention to this very important part of our civic society and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I ask her to wind up by 4.11 pm, so that we can allow Mr Holmes two minutes to sum up before I conclude the debate?

15:50

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for bringing this debate to the House. It is extremely important to highlight the role of our dedicated lifeboat services, which seek to rescue any persons in distress or difficulty around our coast. It is important that we continue to celebrate these lifesaving services and recognise their contribution to search and rescue services across the United Kingdom search and rescue region. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave volunteers who are a critical part of the UK’s maritime search and rescue provision.

I am very happy to join all those hon. Members here today who have highlighted the volunteers on their own independent lifeboats and, indeed, RNLI lifeboats. The hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) highlighted Hayling Island lifeboat station; my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) highlighted the Pett Level independent rescue boat; the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) drew our attention to Lyme Regis and its independent rescue boat; my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) referred to the boat at Runswick Bay; my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) referred to the Ferryside and Loughor boats; the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) referred to the Gosport and Fareham inshore rescue service; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted independent lifeboats on Strangford lough, Lough Neagh and the Lagan; and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) highlighted the RNLI in her area—I have witnessed its work myself while on holiday, and obviously the RNLI’s headquarters are in Poole.

We heard from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) about the lifeboat service in her constituency; the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) talked about the lifeboats at Sea Palling and Mundesley; and we heard about the lifeboat at Caister from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). I apologise if I missed anyone and I know that there are many other independent lifeboats around the country that I have not mentioned. I feel somewhat guilty for not having done so, but I know that they will be doing incredible work too, and they similarly deserve our thanks.

I am sure that all hon. Members across the House will be aware of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—a charity that provides lifeboat and lifeguard services across the UK, Ireland and the Crown dependencies—and the role that its brave volunteers undertake, but this debate is a welcome opportunity to call attention to our independent lifeboats, which are not part of the RNLI but provide vital lifeboat and lifesaving services in their local communities.

We are very lucky also to have volunteer life brigades, volunteer lifeguards and His Majesty’s Coastguard volunteers, all of whom regularly risk their own lives to save others at sea and around our beautiful but sometimes treacherous coastline. Those volunteers undertake search operations and water, mud and cliff rescue 24 hours a day, sometimes in the most terrible circumstances and conditions. Indeed, the conditions in which they deploy to save and protect others are often challenging and potentially life-threatening. We recognise and greatly appreciate their service, and I know that all Members of the House will join me in thanking them.

Our volunteer lifeboat services in the UK have a long and proud history spanning more than 200 years. The saving of lives at sea and on the coast, and the volunteer ethos of these services, is a cornerstone of British society. While the RNLI is recognised as a world leader in lifeboat services and operations, the UK is also very proud to have approximately 40 independent lifeboats declared to His Majesty’s Coastguard—and others besides, as we have heard. Those organisations provide lifesaving services around the clock in support of our maritime and coastal emergency service. His Majesty’s Coastguard’s own volunteer coastguard rescue officers are also proud to maintain the traditions of voluntary lifesaving and have worked alongside their colleagues in the lifeboat services for over 200 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke about the issues in his constituency and the potential interest in establishing a rescue service on the River Thames. His Majesty’s Coastguard is responsible for search and rescue on the lower River Thames to Teddington. Beyond that, inland water safety is the responsibility of the police. However, should small boat operators want to form a rescue service, His Majesty’s Coastguard can provide advice and guidance, and the rescue boat code is a good benchmark for the formation of rescue boats. I am sure that the responsible Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—would be happy to provide my hon. Friend with further information should he so wish.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central also asked about the safety of boaters, who take part in an increasingly popular activity. Inland search and rescue is the responsibility of the police, but the fire services have water rescue capability and His Majesty’s Coastguard search and rescue helicopters can also be asked to support those services.

The work undertaken by our independent lifeboats is often not fully recognised. Each is run by dedicated volunteers who provide a vital lifesaving capability to offer assistance to any person who may be in difficulty around our coasts and countryside. As we have heard, independent lifeboats operate in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, both on the coast and inland.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley rightly highlighted the challenges our independent lifeboats face. In common with all search and rescue services, they are responding to an increasing number of call-outs. As so many hon. Members highlighted, they also face significant challenges to maintain their operations. We know that volunteers not only crew the lifeboats but undertake magnificent fundraising efforts to provide the resources they need. They of course require our recognition and support, and a number of bodies and initiatives work to support them.

In September 2022, the National Independent Lifeboat Association was formally launched, with support from Members of Parliament, the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. NILA was founded with the intention of supporting our independent lifeboats and providing a cohesive voice for those smaller but vital organisations. His Majesty’s Coastguard continues to help, support and guide the development of the association, which aims to provide ongoing support to the individual charities through the provision of a national voice, including by representing them in the United Kingdom Search and Rescue Operators Group.

UKSAR is the representative organisation for search and rescue in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is an amalgam of Government Departments, the emergency services and a number of search and rescue charities and voluntary organisations. Those authorities and organisations are committed to a cohesive and co-operative partnership in support of an effective, cost-efficient national SAR capability. UKSAR is chaired by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on behalf of the Department for Transport and it has various workstreams that look to support all volunteer SAR groups, including independent lifeboats and many others, such as mountain rescue and lowland rescue, which I had the pleasure of meeting recently. The workstreams cover a broad spectrum, including interoperability, national operating guidance, medical response, volunteer support and recognition of SAR organisations.

As we heard, NILA is currently a probationary member of the UK Search and Rescue Operators Group, while it continues to establish and move to full membership. Importantly, probationary status does not limit NILA’s access or influence, or the benefits it receives as part of UK Search and Rescue. NILA has done fantastic work representing independent lifeboats since its founding only a few years ago, and it must be commended for that work. HM Coastguard and UKSAR will continue to support NILA as it moves towards full membership. I understand that following discussions between NILA trustees and its sponsor, HM Coastguard, NILA concluded that remaining a probationary member at this stage was in its best interests, but it is clearly on a journey towards full membership.

UKSAR has worked with the DFT to ensure that all SAR responders, including independent lifeboats, will be recognised in ongoing work, including the revision of section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 to allow the appropriate use of emergency warning devices. It will also support wider workstreams, including, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) highlighted, allowing potential vehicle excise duty exemptions—I assure him that that work is in hand.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley and a number of others raised the issue of the rescue boat grant fund. As we heard, the fund provided grants to inshore and inland rescue boat charities to support major capital purchases. The Department was able to subsequently extend the fund with a further £1 million for an additional round in 2019-20. But at the end of that period, the then Government closed the fund because its specific objective of enhancing capacity was considered to have been met.

While the Department does not currently have any plans to reintroduce the rescue boat grant fund, the Government regularly make new grants available to charities, and the process of identifying suitable opportunities, checking eligibility and making applications has been simplified through a single online portal. His Majesty’s Coastguard provides guidance and support to all its declared independent lifeboats through its local management teams and declared facility officers. Since April 2015, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has allowed search and rescue charities, including independent lifeboats, to recover VAT on the purchase of goods and services used for their non-business activities.

Earlier this year, the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer rescue services was established, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—a constituency that is quite challenging to say. My hon. Friend could not be in the debate today, but I know the APPG is supported by many MPs. The aim of the group is to advocate for legislation and policies that support and strengthen the volunteer rescue sector, ensuring that volunteers are equipped, protected and empowered to carry out their lifesaving work effectively across the UK in all emergency and disaster response situations. I am sure that we all look forward to a further opportunity to debate and discuss those issues in the House.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) rightly spoke about the reduction in charitable and corporate giving. As I am sure she will appreciate, this issue falls outside my portfolio, but I will ensure that the concerns she expressed today are heard by the Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock). The hon. Member is right to raise the importance of addressing what we can do as a Government to support the growth of charitable giving and philanthropy.

I am very proud to be speaking on behalf of the Department responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I am very proud of the volunteers, and their supporting organisations, who form such an important part of that provision. I pay tribute to those organisations and the individuals who work both in response and behind the scenes to provide lifesaving services in whatever circumstances, to whoever needs them. I hope I have managed to answer the questions and concerns of hon. Members, but if not, I know that the Minister for Maritime and Aviation will be reading our exchanges—I am afraid he is visiting another part of the UK today—and will reflect on them. I am sure that he would happy to respond to any questions in writing, if I have not covered them.

I finish by thanking the hon. Member for Hamble Valley for raising this important issue and providing the opportunity for us to debate and celebrate the contribution of our lifeboat services to search and rescue.

16:04

[Paul Holmes]

I genuinely thank all hon. Members for their fabulous contributions extolling the virtues of their lifeboat services. I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for being here this afternoon. I am delighted that the shadow Minister has not had to use the services of the many independent lifeboats that he listed. It just shows what a good skipper he is—for now. He is, however, a much better skipper than I am on my little 23-foot motorboat. I am not a sailor; I get shouted at too much.

We have heard about so many services, but let us imagine what it would be like if those services were not there and we had no volunteers around our country. It would be a disaster for our coastal communities. The number of people who lose their lives on the water would go up, and we do not want that. The Minister’s speech was very welcome, as was her willingness to thank all our volunteers and independent lifeboat services. That is something that I really wanted to achieve this afternoon, as this debate was intended on a non-party political basis; this is not a party-political issue.

Despite that, and although I am aware that a former Government Chief Whip is now sitting next to me, the Minister knows that I think it was deeply regrettable that the rescue boat grant fund was stopped under the last Government. I do not think that it is too much money. As the Minister said in regard to whether the grant should have been continued, there was an assessment that the mission was largely complete, but I think that that was the wrong assessment. There is certainly much more to do to make sure that our independent lifeboat stations get the finances that they need.

I will write to the Minister again about the interpretation of whether NILA wants to stay as a probationary or permanent member. That is certainly not the message that I got a few days ago from it, but it may be an issue of communication, so I will write to her again. Lastly, we will be holding another one of these debates next year, and I hope that someone else will feel able to pick up the mantle, but let us go out and celebrate the contribution that independent lifeboats make.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for independent lifeboats.

Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

15:21

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I will call Sir Julian Smith to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Civil Justice Council’s review of litigation funding.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—until the summer, I was voluntary chair of the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution. I pay tribute to Mr Justice Simon Picken and Dr John Sorabji, who co-chaired the review, along with each member of the working party and the Civil Justice Council secretariat.

Third-party litigation funding plays an important role, enabling citizens in the UK and businesses to bring claims against larger and often better-resourced firms and organisations. Litigation funding involves an investment company that is not involved in a particular legal case providing all or a portion of the legal costs of a claim, in return for any damages awarded. The typical area in which litigation funding operates is in high-value commercial, arbitration or group litigation claims, particularly in the Competition Appeal Tribunal—a key route for competition-based group claimants to attempt to seek redress and, alongside the Competition and Markets Authority, one of two pillars of the UK’s globally recognised competition regime.

Litigation funding provided financial resource for cases to be taken in the initial stages of the Post Office Horizon scandal, Bates v. Post Office, as well as providing resources in cases taken up against car manufacturers, such as one over false diesel emissions, cases focused on data breaches, those involving car financing and, most recently, a high-profile case last week involving Apple and charges for app use on the App Store.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an early stage in his speech. I want to highlight another positive example of the use of litigation funding. It was essential in helping 52 former franchisees of Vodafone—essentially, small business owners, including one in Chester-le-Street in my constituency—to bring a claim against the company, which they would have struggled to bring without funding. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this example demonstrates that litigation funding can play a crucial role in enabling access to justice for those who would otherwise be denied it?

[Sir Julian Smith]

I agree with the hon. Member; the Vodafone case, which involved franchisees across the UK, is another example of how litigation funding can help.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case in July 2023, which involved a claim against truck manufacturers for anti-competitive behaviour, rendered many third-party funding agreements unenforceable by bringing them in scope of another type of legal funding agreement, damage-based agreements. The impact of the judgment on the litigation funding market has been two years of instability and a lack of clarity about its contractual operating terms. The last Government sought to remedy the issue by introducing the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which had reached Second Reading in the House of Lords immediately prior to the election.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate; he was right to do so. Although no win, no fee seems like the only reasonable option for those seeking compensation in the civil courts to fund their cases, they can be easily taken advantage of, so does he agree that we need a framework that allows for a reasonable exchange of risk and benefit to consumers, rather than putting the ability to fight for justice just beyond their reach?

[Sir Julian Smith]

I agree with the hon. Member; I will come to some protections that I think he might be attracted by.

The last election stopped the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which was going to overturn the PACCAR judgment, but on 1 August 2024, Lord Ponsonby said in a written answer to a parliamentary question that the new Labour Government

“recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in ensuring access to justice.

Following the PACCAR judgment, concerns have been raised about the need for greater regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements…The Government is keen to ensure access to justice in large-scale and expensive cases, whilst also setting up adequate safeguards to protect claimants from unfair terms.

The Civil Justice Council is considering these questions and others in its review of third-party litigation funding, and hopes to report in summer 2025. The Government will take a more comprehensive view of any legislation to address issues in the round once that review is concluded.”

The Civil Justice Council review concluded in June this year. The litigation funding industry, businesses and the legal sector await the Government’s response. The current lack of response to the report is causing significant uncertainty to the sector and additional costs for those fighting for businesses and consumers. Although the Government are inevitably busy on many fronts, action on this is needed now and will be positive for the UK economy.

I will return to the recommendations of the CJC report shortly, but I just want to emphasise two broader points. First, the legal sector in the UK was worth about £52 billion in 2024, up by about 10% on the previous year. Litigation funding is estimated to have quadrupled since 2013, with more than £1 billion capital estimated as currently available to litigation. In 2023, PwC UK predicted growth at a compound annual growth rate of more than 8% over five years.

On a global basis, the global litigation funding market was approximately $20 billion in 2025 and is expected to be closer to $49 billion in 2035. Legal services with litigation funding are an important component and a vital export opportunity as the UK continues to be the leading centre for global disputes of all kinds and can stand to win significant revenues from deals such as the ones the Government have done with India, the US and, this week, Turkey. Services of all shapes and sizes, but particularly legal services, are a key UK economic sector and we should bear that in mind during this debate.

The second broader point is that litigation finance significantly assists with access to justice, as we have heard, discouraging large companies from anti-competitive or anti-consumer behaviour. Litigation finance funds cases of all shapes and sizes, but particularly class actions where there is a potential case against large and often global firms who unknowingly—or often knowingly —have breached the UK’s competition law.

UK competition law was crafted over many years to ensure an efficient market protecting consumers and fostering fair competition between companies, encouraging better and more effective growth. Both issues matter to UK citizens as they directly impact incomes and financial costs for families across the United Kingdom. We need one of our most successful service sectors to operate with a full focus on expansion and growth. That means more jobs, which mean more tax revenue. We need UK consumers to have routes to take on the huge might of the global companies from which they buy products and services, but that have such large market share and resources that they can more or less do what they want.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal was extended in 2015 by the coalition Government to include opt-out collective actions to enhance competition, ensure prices stay fair and that businesses do not abuse their position and keep innovating. As Ministers said at the time:

“Competition is one of the great drivers of growth”,

For many consumers, who are often on low incomes, cases in the CAT, funded by third-party litigation funding, is the only route to challenge and hold large companies to account.

Neither point is intended to imply that everything is perfect, but the PACCAR judgment and the need for legislation to remediate the situation, the CJC report that is the topic of this debate and a recent call for evidence on the opt-out regime at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, run by the Department for Business and Trade, all risk slowing down an important growth market for the UK if Government responses are not executed quickly, proportionately and with vision. Improvements can clearly be made to the oversight of the litigation funding sector, and also in the operation of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Having said that, despite heavy lobbying for change, there is no evidence that the UK’s ranking as a destination for foreign direct investment has been affected by our vibrant competition regime. Moreover, private enforcement of the regime through the CAT seems to be good value for money, with just over £5 million in costs for the Competition Appeal Tribunal and £118 million for the Competition and Markets Authority.

The first recommendation of the CJC report is:

“Legislation should be introduced to make clear that litigation funding is…a distinct form of funding”.

It also recommends that the effect of the PACCAR Supreme Court judgment should be overturned. Although the market has, to an extent, adapted to that judgment in June 2023, the bulk of submissions to the review and elsewhere highlighted the impact on the provision of funding. Less money has been delivered to claimants, and there has been a reduction in the number of CAT cases. The report’s main ask is to get legislation in place and to overturn PACCAR. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on when that will happen, and a clear timeline. It would be good to get it done in this Session of Parliament. I would also be interested in the Minister’s comments on the change being retrospective, which seems fraught with complications. On the previous Bill’s Second Reading debate in the House of Lords, Members raised concerns.

Other flagship recommendations in the CJC review relate to the move from self-regulation by the Association of Litigation Funders not to the Financial Conduct Authority, which some proposed, but to light-touch regulation put in place by the Lord Chancellor. The proposals are for differential regulations for the type of claimant: very little for commercial disputes, and lighter touch for consumer, representative or class actions.

The review proposes a minimum baseline set of regulatory requirements, focusing on case-specific capital adequacy, codification that litigation funders should not control the litigation process, conflicts of interest and money laundering. Additional light-touch regulation is proposed for groups and consumer claimants, to include a consumer duty, early court approval of the funding agreement and a court assessment of whether the lender’s return is reasonable. Further measures include the provision of independent legal advice for consumers before entering into funding agreements, and a prohibition on litigation funders controlling proceedings or settlement proceedings.

In reflecting on the proposals, the Government must be alive to the risk of fettering an innovative and successful industry that enables consumers to mount challenges against Goliath-sized firms. I encourage them to take a pragmatic view, driven by the market. There may be merit in applying some elements of the CJC report through regulations, but it is worth considering strengthening the current self-regulation regime, including by getting all players operating in the UK market to join the Association of Litigation Funders—it is a self-regulation body has a code of practice, but not all litigation funders are in it. I call on the industry to get everybody operating in litigation funding in the UK on board in the association.

There are proposals to use redress schemes and other forms of non-court-based resolution more regularly. I believe strongly in alternative routes to settlement, so I agree strongly with those proposals. Much more can be done to offer settlement options, including encouraging settlement rather than litigation, offering mandatory mediation in parts of the CAT process, and making mediation a clause within the process for litigation funding agreements. Avoiding costly disputes is generally a good thing. Focusing on settlement, not litigation, in the Government response would help in that regard. Mandatory mediation would also help to ensure that disputes between litigation funders and law firms are handled more clearly.

Although I acknowledge that improvements need to be made, I hope that the Minister and the Government will reflect on the potential motivations of some of those who look to impose heavy changes on opt-out. Opt-out, and its reliance on litigation finance, offers consumers a powerful opportunity for redress. The Government opt-out review, introduced earlier this year, references perceived burdens of the current regime on business, but there seems to be little evidence of our competition law putting off inward investment. The UK is seen to be a great place to invest and the same arguments that helped to build the UK competition rules stand today. If there is no fear of being brought to book, some companies will continue to rip off and abuse consumers. If they are abiding by UK competition law, they have nothing to fear.

While acknowledging that improvements can be made, we should be sceptical of those who seek to fetter consumer rights and should instead make the case for an expansion of those rights in the interests of our citizens and UK economic growth. A strong defence of consumer rights is the best way for the UK to continue to thrive, for the UK economy to grow, and for inward investors and domestic businesses to stay lean and competitive.

Whatever the Minister’s response today, I hope that the Government will soon introduce a Bill to address PACCAR, the primary recommendation of the CJC report, and will seek to look at practical ways to implement elements of that report while avoiding adding burdens, cost and micromanagement on to an innovative and important sector.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I will bring this debate to a close at 4.42 pm. Hon. Members should bear that in mind so that there is time for the Minister. I call Oliver Ryan.

16:29

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for securing the debate and allowing me briefly to contribute.

When people go to court, they deserve justice, not a financial system that puts investors before victims, yet that is what litigation has too often become. We all remember the Post Office case, which the right hon. Gentleman eloquently discussed. It was one of the darkest chapters in recent legal memory. The postmasters fought for years to clear their names, yet when the settlement came in, around 80% of the damages—£46 million—went not to them, but to funders and lawyers. That is not right.

This is not some distant issue that affects courts in London. In my constituency of Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield, many households were drawn into cavity wall insulation claims by legal vultures only to be left thousands of pounds in debt when the funder and law firm behind them, SSB, collapsed. Ordinary families were left exposed, with no resource and no protection. That failure should shame us all. We can do better by having effective regulation of the market. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and others still have questions to answer about SSB.

More than 70 litigation funders are active in the UK, managing billions of pounds but operating with very little formal oversight. That gap leaves consumers exposed and confidence in our legal system weakened. The right hon. Gentleman has ably explained some of the practical recommendations in the Civil Justice Council report—in which Seema Kennedy, previously of this parish, although on the Conservative Benches, was also involved—so I will not go into them now. However, I hope that this Government take on board recommendations for greater transparency and oversight, clearer limits on funding controls, the strengthening of the ombudsman and alternative dispute resolutions, as has been mentioned, and court scrutiny of the profits and sources of funding of those taking these legal cases through. Those steps would restore fairness and integrity to collective actions and make sure that outcomes serve the people involved in these cases and not the profit motive.

I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has ambitions to address concerns in this area, perhaps in legislation. I look forward to hearing her response and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to contribute.

16:28

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for securing a debate on this very important subject. It gives me an opportunity to cover three of my favourite themes: consumer protection, access to justice and growth, especially as it is delivered by the very successful legal services sector in this country.

We are here to discuss the Civil Justice Council’s review of litigation funding, which was published in June. As others have said, litigation funding refers to the mechanism by which litigation is privately funded in England and Wales. Third-party funding is where a party unconnected to a dispute, most often a financial institution, funds the cost of the legal action in return for a share of any damages awarded. As others have observed, this performs two functions: a social function and an economic function. Third-party funding is an essential tool in ensuring access to justice for many. It enables those who would not otherwise be able to afford to litigate—ordinary people, the small businesses referred to— to assert their rights before a court of law, against often far better resourced opponents, often large corporations and institutions.

Without third-party funding, as others have noted, the sub-postmasters would not have been able to bring their landmark civil claim against the Post Office. Those individuals without the financial means or legal clout to bring a claim themselves, were able to secure compensation for their losses as a result of third-party litigation funding. Such funding has also been used to support equal pay cases, environmental challenges, consumer claims against multinational companies regarding data breaches, and the other sorts of cases mentioned today.

As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) notes, this also makes a huge economic contribution. Along with the quality and calibre of our judiciary and legal services, third-party funding is an important factor in attracting international business to England and Wales as a jurisdiction of choice. That is because third-party funding is also used in high-value commercial cases, where there is a significant financial imbalance or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings.

It is important for the House to recognise that third-party funding plays a critical role in supporting the attractiveness of our jurisdiction as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. Legal services contributed £42 billion to the economy last year. I am happy to be their greatest champion, but it is fair to say that the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case has created a degree of uncertainty for funders and litigants alike.

As we have heard, the case concerned litigation funding agreements—LFAs. The Supreme Court held that third-party litigation funding agreements were damages-based agreements. The ruling rendered many such LFAs unenforceable, by bringing them into the scope of the regulatory regime for damages-based agreements. As others have noted, that has created a degree of uncertainty. There is a concern and very real risk that funders are beginning to pivot away from London, England and Wales to look at other jurisdictions, such as New York, Paris and Singapore, more favourably. In short, that is not good for UK plc.

The PACCAR judgment and the report of the Civil Justice Council that followed present an opportunity for the sort of debate we are having. What would it look like to reverse PACCAR? Do we want to go back to exactly what the regime looked like before? Can we evolve an even better regime, which provides the right regulatory balance, ensuring access to justice, and that damages-based agreements work for client and funder alike? How do we develop that? For that reason, the Government have taken time to ask the CJC to conclude its work, and we are considering carefully how to achieve that balance.

Third-party funding is currently subject only to self-regulation via the Association of Litigation Funders’ code of conduct. I welcome and echo the invitation by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon to those who are not currently subject to the code’s ethical and operational standards to seize the opportunity to bring themselves within what is currently a voluntary regime.

Despite litigation funding’s importance to effective access to justice, not all feel that current third-party funding arrangements always work in the client’s best interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) pointed out. Some have questioned funders’ role and level of control in legal proceedings. Those weaknesses in the pre-PACCAR regime are ones we recognise and want to take time to consider, so that we can ensure that third-party funding works for all.

In the light of the judgments and those concerns, the Civil Justice Council, an advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls, has conducted a thorough and learned review. It looks at this issue and the wider ecosystem for third-party litigation funding and its regulation. The scope of the review was to set out the current position of litigation funding and third-party litigation funding, and to consider access to justice, effectiveness and a host of regulatory options. Specifically, the review considered whether the current arrangements for third-party funding deliver the effective access to justice that we all want to see. We are incredibly grateful for the report.

We are now taking the time, as I said, to consider the report and its recommendations very carefully. I am sure that hon. Members here today will appreciate that it is essential to take this detailed and considered approach to what is a technical area but one that is fundamental to the human aspects of access to justice. We must ensure that the right balance is struck to ensure fair and effective access to justice, while enabling economic growth, which is, as so many others have said, the primary mission of this Government. We are aware that many are eagerly awaiting the Government’s response, and I look forward to announcing our way forward in due course. The stakes are high: access to justice, consumer protection and economic growth. We have to get this right.

I will say one more thing in response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon on retrospectivity. I think it is highly unlikely, given the general rule-of-law principle against retrospectivity, that we would look to have that, but as I said, we must get this right; we have to get the balance right. We want an improved regime that works for the funders and for their clients and consumers.

Question put and agreed to.

Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

16:38

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a new standard for vehicle headlight glare.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this motion today; it is the first time that I have been successful in an application for a Westminster Hall debate, and I feel that I have been incredibly lucky with the coverage that it has received so far in the news. But I suppose that I should not be surprised. This issue has been raised with me by many constituents, and polling indicates that 80% of all drivers are concerned about headlight glare. I am sure that most Members have at one time or another struggled to see the road because of the glare of oncoming headlights—I certainly have.

No one should deny the valuable role that headlights play in enabling people to drive safely. They enable drivers to see potential hazards, and other people to notice vehicles in motion. It is for that reason that we encourage cyclists to ensure that their bikes are properly illuminated at night—the conversation about their lighting, and particularly the flashing lightbulbs that they often have, can wait for another day. However, in recent years the glare from headlights has begun to tip over from enhancing road safety to compromising it. On average each year, police are called to 280 collisions and six fatal collisions where headlight glare is cited as having played a role in causing the accident.

Several factors have a role to play in driving the increase in headlight glare. Poor alignment of headlights means that often car headlights are angled too high up in the road, and consequently the light enters into cabins. There is increased adoption of SUV-style cars, which sit higher in the road, so again the light is more likely to enter a car’s cabin and impact drivers.

However, the most significant change has been the replacement of traditional halogen lightbulbs with light-emitting diodes. LEDs are a significant improvement on halogen bulbs; they are far more energy-efficient, last far longer and have the ability to be brighter and better directed than traditional lightbulbs. Unfortunately, although car companies feel the advantages of the increased brightness of LEDs—which, due to emitting large volumes of blue light, unlike halogen lightbulbs, take far longer for the eye to recover from—they do not appear to have considered the impacts on other road users. It is hard to say whether that is by accident or design. Brighter headlights may well be attractive to those purchasing a car; they can be more aesthetically pleasing, and drivers benefit from increased visibility, but that all comes at the cost of other road users.

The tension between the conflicting interests of those living in this country sits at the heart of our politics. It is our job as representatives to decide where that appropriate balance sits—curtailing the freedoms of some to protect the freedoms of others—and there will always be winners and losers. Fortunately for the Government, on this issue the balance seems clear. When four out of five drivers are telling us they are concerned about headlight glare, we know that the balance of freedoms in this country rests clearly on one side. We cannot have a road network where one in 20 people have stopped driving completely and a further 22% would rather not drive at night at all if they a choice.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

From my hon. Friend’s research, how concerned is he about the role that increasing glare from headlights could be playing in increasing social isolation? A lot of my older constituents say they are quite frightened about going out at night, particularly in winter as the nights are drawing in, which leaves them feeling more isolated.

[Peter Lamb]

Although the researcher involved did not look into particular age groups, I think we all know that on balance, it is often older citizens who are far more inclined to feel the issue of headlights and problems with driving in general. When looking at the numbers, which show the scale of people who are simply staying at home because they no longer feel safe in the road, we realise that something clearly has to be done. The overwhelming majority of those who say that they are no longer driving at night, or would not drive if they had the choice, cite headlight glare as the primary reason.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. I thought this was an issue of personal annoyance until I met Alan, an old colleague from Heriot-Watt University, who said he found it difficult to go out in the evening and was not looking forward to winter. He is a young man—even younger than me—so does my hon. Friend agree that we need more research to fully understand the negative impacts of these lights?

[Peter Lamb]

Certainly, there is probably work to be done in general around how transport impacts social isolation, and particularly at different times of day. We know the impact that losing bus routes has had on rural communities, and the age brackets for which that causes huge problems. Transport for many people is an essential part of daily life; they do not have the options that those of us lucky enough—I say lucky—to live in an urban area have available to us. We have to think of the enormous impact that this issue has not only on convenience, but on someone’s ability to get through life.

There are options available to drivers to reduce headlight glare. They can try keeping their windscreen and glasses clean; they can adjust mirrors to reduce glare; and they can ensure that their own headlights are properly aligned and avoid buying SUV-type vehicles. [Interruption.] Well, they could. Although all those things would see an improvement in our roads, driving-related law in the UK should not be reliant on voluntary measures by drivers. The law relating to driving begins from the starting point that every vehicle is a lethal object and rigid rules are required to manage that risk.

The track record of accidents stemming from headlight glare is now sufficiently clear, but it is time for that to be recognised in law with a new standard to ensure that headlights in the United Kingdom do not exceed safe levels of brightness. I am glad that the Department for Transport appears to have recognised that, with the Transport Research Laboratory having been commissioned last year to study the impacts of headlight glare. I understand that research was supposed to have been completed in the spring, but it has not yet been published. Despite that, there have been positive noises, certainly in recent days, about headlight glare being addressed, in part through the new road safety strategy. I hope that hon. Members will receive assurances about that from the Minister, and I hope that this debate will help to maintain pressure for the action that our constituents deserve at the earliest opportunity.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak they should bob so that we can work out the timings. Hon. Members should also please bear in mind that we are expecting votes.

16:45

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this important debate. The statistics are stark—as stark as bright light coming around the corner at night on a dark country road. The RAC tells us that four in five drivers complain of bright vehicle lights on the road, that 95% of drivers think that at least some headlights are too bright, that 53% have been temporarily blinded while driving, that 79% find it hard to tell when vehicles were indicating because of the bright lights, that 77% find it difficult to judge the position of an oncoming vehicle in the road, that 25% avoid driving at night due to headlights, and that 22% would like to drive less at night.

There is an issue that drivers with automatic headlight dipping, and indeed the manufacturers of the systems, may not be aware of: the sensors that dip the lights automatically do not seem to do so until they directly sense an oncoming light, so for those of us who can see a light in the distance and consequently dip our headlights manually, that courtesy is not returned until the first flash of the lights as they round a corner. That makes for more bad temper on our roads, occasional retaliation and of course the danger of being blinded.

Some may have seen advertisements for night driving glasses, which have yellow lenses that take out the blinding, blue part of the light. I have found them effective, but it would be useful if the Government’s Transport and Road Research Laboratory, the TRL, could undertake research into the effectiveness of these driving glasses. It could perhaps, along with the British Standards Institution, issue a kitemark for approved night driving glasses and make the case for them more obvious.

Other problems, such as the fitting of LED bulbs to standard car light housings are already illegal. Making that point of law more widely known and publishing statistics on the issuance of penalty points for that offence would be widely welcomed, and be a public benefit.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I am imposing an informal time limit of four minutes.

16:48

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this important debate, for bringing this issue to national attention and indeed—forgive the pun—for shining a light on it. [Hon. Members: “Ooh.”] I know, I could not resist; I apologise.

Many of my constituents have raised this issue with me, not just in the town of Hemel Hempstead and areas such as Adeyfield and Bennetts End, but in our rural communities—in Bovingdon, Chipperfield and Flaunden. The growing problem of the glare from modern vehicle headlights is now a real concern for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Hon. Members have shared their personal irritation at this issue. I, too, cannot now drive at night without adjusting the rear-view mirror to reduce the glare. I also recognise the occasional issue of flashing an oncoming driver because it appears that they have inadvertently left their full beams on, only to find that they have not—those are just their natural headlights.

According to the RAC, nine out of 10 drivers say that they are affected by this issue, and seven in 10 believe that it has got worse in recent years. The BBC, among others, has reported how serious this problem has become across the country. In my constituency, the impact is clear. On dark, unlit rural lanes in Bovingdon and Chipperfield, the glare from oncoming cars can cause a driver to go blind for several seconds. On busier roads in urban areas, such as St Albans Road in Hemel Hempstead, drivers face a constant dazzle from modern LED lights.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) have said, the issue also affects older residents. We do not want to inadvertently create a situation where they are isolating themselves because they are avoiding driving at night altogether. I welcome the Labour Government indicating that they will review headlight glare as part of the wider road safety strategy. It shows that this Labour Government are listening to people’s real experiences and acting on them.

I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said about his wish to see safe levels of brightness imposed on vehicles going forward, be that from stronger regulations that force manufacturers to adjust the vehicles they are producing, better MOT alignment checks or enforcement against illegal modifications. If we can force these headlights to be dipped downwards, that would address some of the major issues, particularly with the increasing number of mini-SUV vehicles on our roads. Everyone in Hemel Hempstead, whether in our towns or villages, deserves to travel safely at night without being dazzled by oncoming lights. I once again thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to our attention.

16:51

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I declare that I have personal experience with this issue as a practising NHS optometrist, so I can say with some clarity that it is of great importance and concern, with potentially significant consequences. Many of my patients have told me of their utter despair when they want to drive at night. Some only take the keys out if it is a real emergency, while others have abandoned it altogether, which feeds into the narrative that elderly people in particular will not go shopping or go to the pharmacist to pick up medication. That can result in loneliness and other problems.

There are also those who continue to drive despite knowing that night driving is really difficult for them. That becomes a matter of life and death, as some of the statistics bear out. As an optometrist, I have only anecdotal evidence, but although excellent research has been done by the College of Optometrists, the Association Of Optometrists and the RAC, among others, it does not take an expert to know the link between eyesight and safety for everyone who uses the road.

I want to focus on two intertwined challenges: the impact of modern car lighting, and the lack of research and subsequent legislation around it, and the failure of our system to ensure that drivers meet basic vision standards.

Modern vehicles are brighter than ever. LED and xenon technologies have replaced many older halogen bulbs. They are much brighter and more efficient, and provide better clarity on the road for the driver, but unfortunately the increased brightness comes at a cost, which is a rise in glare and dazzle for other road users. The RAC, drawing on Government collision statistics, reported that since 2013, an average of 280 crashes a year in Britain have involved dazzling headlights as a contributing factor. Six of those crashes a year involve a loss of life. Campaigners believe that the real figures could be a lot higher.

The shift from halogen to LED, combined with higher headlight positioning because of SUV cars, is part of the problem. Experts at the light and health research centre at Mount Sinai hospital in New York have identified three factors driving the problems: the rise of taller vehicles, incorrect alignment of lights and the blue light of modern LED bulbs. Due to their shorter wavelength, they can potentially scatter more light in the eyes, and are more uncomfortable than other light forms. No research, as far as I am aware—there have been some anecdotal studies and very small-scale studies, but nothing conclusive—confirms that they help night driving.

The RAC also found that it takes 68% of drivers—this is really worrying—up to five seconds to recover after they have been dazzled, and more than 11% say that it takes six seconds or more. That is the time it takes to travel 160 metres at 60 miles per hour, without any clear vision. That is worse for anyone who has other eye health conditions, such as corneal opacity at the front of the eyes, cataracts or macular degeneration problems, but also a dirty windscreen or glasses lenses.

The greater, and quieter, threat is the number of drivers who already have poor or unsafe vision and continue to drive anyway. According to statistics by Mortar in October 2024, one in seven people knows of a relative, friend or co-worker who they believe is breaking the law by driving despite poor eyesight. Almost 30% of motorists admitted they would continue to drive even if they knew their vision was below the legal standards. More than a quarter said they are worried about someone they know who drives despite having poor vision.

These figures are deeply concerning, and reveal that our current, self-referral system is failing and many people either do not know their vision has declined or choose to ignore it. Earlier this year, a coroner in Lancashire issued a prevention of future death report following a fatal crash caused by undiagnosed sight loss. We need to change the legislation and have more research done on lighting.

16:55

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on securing this important debate. I have worked on this issue for some time, and I am really pleased that the Government are picking it up. I thank the Minister for engaging with it following my written questions in March and my early-day motion in April. I also thank Rod Dennis from the RAC and Denise Voon from the College of Optometrists for meeting with me around six months ago to discuss this in detail.

Constituents have contacted me about the dazzling effect of modern car headlights and the disorientation and loss of confidence that causes when driving at night. That is particularly concerning in rural communities, such as those in Newton Abbot, where driving is essential for work, appointments and, as we have heard, social contact. Losing confidence behind the wheel can quickly lead to social isolation, especially among older residents—it is delightful to see such continuity and consistency on this across the House.

LED headlights can be up to 10 times brighter than traditional halogen bulbs and that the glare they produce can lead to photostress with recovery times of up to 30 to 60 seconds. That is a long time to be effectively driving blind. Glare will always exist to some extent, but we can manage it by regulating brightness, colour, temperature and headlight height and angle. By working with drivers, manufacturers and medical experts, we can make real improvements.

From my own experience as a former non-executive director at the Department for Transport’s Vehicle Certification Agency, I know how crucial type approvals and manufacturing standards are. Let us use that system to ensure new vehicles meet safe and consistent lighting standards. Of course, we must also use the MOT test to ensure that headlights are correctly aligned and comply with the regulations.

Finally, the UK has the opportunity to show international leadership on this issue, contributing to the UN taskforce and helping to set a global example in road safety and driver wellbeing. Let us get this sorted, so that headlights help us see the road ahead, and not blind us to it.

16:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I commend the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for setting the scene so very well. This is an important issue as road safety is important to us all. Keeping ourselves, as well as other motorists safe, is part of that. There have been reports of concerns from across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about the impact of vehicle headlight glare. Indeed, just this week BBC Breakfast had a story on this very issue.

I recently read a news article back home about how the Fermanagh and Omagh district council on the west of the Province wrote to the Committee for Infrastructure at the Northern Ireland Assembly raising concerns that vehicle headlights are becoming an increasingly distressing and potentially dangerous aspect of driving at night. It has also been noted that the intensity and resulting glare from headlights are not currently tested. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), who spoke before me, referred to the MOT test. We really need to include this as part of that.

I know, from my experience living in rural areas, that there are safety concerns regarding vehicle glare. For example, on the roads leading down to my house, there are minor and major dips and hills. I live in the Ards Peninsula in a very rural part of Strangford. I know that some, on these country roads at night flash their main beam on, but perhaps do not turn it off when other cars approach. There is no doubt that that has a significant impact on public safety, and that is not to mention the fact that streetlight provision is next to nothing on these types of roads, so the spotlight glare of a headlight does not in any way increase safety. Indeed, it has the very opposite effect.

A more general UK survey found that 61% of drivers who suffer headlight glare say the problem has worsened in the past year, and I believe it has as well—certainly based on the evidence I have seen. Some 26% say that they try to reduce night-time driving because of bright headlights. If someone is not sure of being safe on the road, that would be the right thing to do. I would argue that the actual number is much higher; that figure is based purely on personal reports and anecdotes, and not on the many motorists who experience this issue daily.

It is evident that the issue affects many constituencies, but the narrow and unlit roads in rural areas, such as my constituency of Strangford, mean that beams and headlight glare stand out even more. As the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) asked, are people safe on the road during the 30 seconds or 50 seconds afterwards, as their eyes try to adjust again? That is a question I ask as well. There is space for human consideration, too: we certainly can be more mindful of where we are driving and the impact we will have on others.

I understand that the Department for Transport’s research into glare for 2024-25 is studying how to incorporate practical glare tests into annual inspections. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government are intending to bring about. Future MOT guidance may include brightness and levelling checks.

I happen to have a four-wheel drive—it does not make me better than anybody else, but we are high up off the road. If someone lives in the countryside, they probably have one, but they have it because they use it, not because it is a status symbol. I look forward to seeing what more the Government can do to improve road safety collectively throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the near future. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. He is doing his business this week, yesterday and today—two days running. Well done.

17:04

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.

As the clocks go back and evenings grow darker, drivers in Devon are finding that dazzling headlights are no longer just a nuisance, but a real danger on our roads. This week, for the first time since summer, many of the people I represent are trying to get around in the dark along the dark lanes and long roads that surround Sidmouth, Honiton and Seaton. A burst of a full beam before it is dipped can leave drivers disoriented. Add in a wet road, a scattering of potholes and maybe a cyclist, and it is a recipe for a near miss. Those do not always make it into the statistics, but anybody who drives knows them, because they have been there.

Many people in Devon are saying the same thing to me: headlights feel brighter than they used to. They are right. I remember when halogen bulbs were first introduced. They cast a much longer beam than we had known before, but now those have been surpassed by LED. The RAC’s recent polling backs this up: almost every driver thinks that some headlights are too bright, and more than half have been temporarily blinded. A quarter now do not drive for fear of such temporary blinding.

[Dr Arthur]

That is an interesting point. If most drivers think there is an issue, that means their cars are probably part of the problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they should look at their own vehicles first before they start criticising other drivers?

[Richard Foord]

I honestly do not think that we can make this the responsibility of every individual driver; it is our job to come here and legislate on collective problems such as this one.

The problem is especially serious in rural areas such as the one I represent, where the population tends to be older than across the country as a whole. Age changes how the eye copes with bright light at night. A report by road safety consultants released yesterday highlighted that an older person’s eye can take around nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a 16-year-old. That could mean not being able to see anything properly—potholes, pedestrians or cyclists—for the length of an entire football pitch.

In 2024, more than 600 people were injured on Devon and Cornwall’s roads, and sadly 56 lost their lives in road traffic collisions. Plainly, the sort of glare we are talking about will not have been responsible for all of those incidents, but I know from a constituent who came to see me in a surgery that at least one of those fatalities related to glare from sunlight. If adapting headlights to reduce glare helps to prevent even one of those tragedies, it is worth looking into it.

LED headlights give the driver a clearer, crisper view but, when they are not properly fitted or aligned, their tight, blueish beam can cause real discomfort for others on the road. Penalties for sellers peddling unsafe kits would make a difference. When the Government’s report is released in the coming weeks, it is vital that its recommendations are acted on quickly. Following the evidence could help us to save lives on the roads.

People in Seaton, Sidmouth and Honiton want to get home without feeling that they are gambling every time with a bright set of lights coming around the bend. Let us make sure that our vehicles light the way home safely, rather than blinding those who share our roads. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this issue to the fore.

17:05

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I join other hon. Members in commending the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this very important topic to Westminster Hall and, indeed, for his impressive efforts in getting media coverage before the debate had even occurred—I might ask him later for his tips on that, if he might be so generous, because hitherto I have not had quite such success, but it is very good to see. He is quite right to talk about the fear of driving at night that this issue instils and offers some good tips for mitigating the effects.

My hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) talked about the economic impact of reduced night driving and the problem of automated light dimming—I shall return to that subject, because I have some very strong views about it. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) joined other hon. Members in talking about the rural context and how important night-time driving is for people who live in rural areas and for the rural economy. It was once again great to hear the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) bring his professional optometrist’s experience to the debate and quite rightly highlight the impact of the issue on elderly people’s mobility, as well as the safety aspects of those who continue driving even though their eyesight may be compromised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) gave us an excellent summary of his very strong and robust campaigning on this issue, which this debate will hopefully accelerate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very articulate about the need to strengthen MOT requirements and the fact that the data under-represents the problem at hand, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord).

Following a petition with more than 14,000 signatures, the previous Government committed to commissioning research into headlight glare, a project that was taken up by the current Labour Government, with the results eagerly expected. While LED headlights improve driver visibility and energy efficiency, they can cause discomfort or temporary blindness to oncoming drivers. An RAC survey in December 2024 found that 95% of drivers believe some headlights are too bright, with 53% reporting being temporarily blinded and 25% avoiding night driving altogether because of glare.

Research shows that glare particularly affects people with cataracts or other vision issues. Headlight alignment and condition are checked during the MOT test, yet overly bright lights can still pass if technically compliant. There are concerns about poorly aligned or aftermarket LED conversions sold online; police reports list dazzling headlights as a factor in around 200 to 300 collisions annually in Great Britain. However, as hon. Members have suggested, that is almost certainly an underestimate.

The UK raised the issue at the UN Economic Commission for Europe, which agreed to tighten rules on headlamp alignment and to make automatic levelling systems mandatory by 2027. Ongoing Government-funded research by the Transport Research Laboratory will include real-world glare assessments across different road types.

This issue is close to my heart, because my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has many rural components, and my main method of transport around the constituency is a bicycle. I assure the hon. Member for Crawley that I certainly do not use a flashing light outside street-lit areas, nor am I one of those covered in dark clothing who is invisible. However, despite wearing high-vis clothing with retroreflective strips and having panniers with retroreflective elements, a front light, a rear light and loads of reflectors, I encounter a growing problem of car drivers taking too long to dip their headlights. Often it is so bad, particularly on roads that do not have a white line, that I just have to stop until the offending vehicle has gone—perhaps after some creative hand gestures in front of my light, as a last-minute attempt to make sure that they see me.

Some people dip their headlights and others do not, so it seems unlikely that it is to do with my visibility. I therefore wonder whether the automation that some hon. Members have mentioned is the factor; possibly some drivers rely on that, whereas others are observant, keeping a close eye and dipping as soon as they can. I can say from my experience as a cyclist that this is a real safety issue: if somebody is behind me when I have to stop suddenly, they will not be expecting to have to stop too.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Department for Transport’s decision to commission an independent review into headlight glare and we urge the Government to develop an updated road strategy including vehicle design, including lighting, within its scope. I know that that is something they are working on. We are deeply concerned about increasing reports of overly bright or poorly aligned LED headlights causing discomfort, temporary blindness and heightened safety risks for other road users, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. For all those reasons, this debate is very welcome and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it.

17:09

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this debate.

We have all heard from constituents who say that they now avoid driving at night altogether because of dazzling headlights. The BBC recently reported on this issue, highlighting the frustration of drivers who say that modern lights, while being brighter and more energy-efficient, are simply too intense for oncoming road-users. Drivers have spoken of being momentarily blinded by glare or of feeling unable to judge distances, and consequently of losing confidence behind the wheel. For many, that means avoiding night-time journeys altogether.

However, this issue is not just about comfort; it is also about access and safety. When people tell us that they no longer drive at night because the glare from other vehicles hurts their eyes or makes them anxious, that represents lost freedom and independence, particularly for older drivers or drivers in rural areas, such as my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire.

The data supports those stories. According to the RAC’s headlight glare study, which was published in February, a quarter of drivers who have been dazzled by the headlights of oncoming vehicles now stay off the roads more at night; 61% of drivers said the problem is worse than it was a year ago; and three quarters of those who are driving less say that it is because others cars’ headlights make the experience uncomfortable or more difficult.

The issue matters because glare does not just cause discomfort; as I have already said, it interferes with people’s ability to process visual information quickly. Older drivers are particularly affected. The evidence shows that a 70-year-old’s eyes can take nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a teenager. Nine seconds is a very long time to be effectively blinded while driving at any speed, let alone at national speed limits on a country lane.

However, we should also be guided by the data on collisions. The Department for Transport’s records show that the number of road traffic accidents in which dazzling headlights were recorded as a contributory factor has not risen sharply in recent years; the figures fluctuate from year to year, but they do not indicate a dramatic upward trend. However, although the statistical picture does not suggest that glare is causing more crashes, it does confirm what drivers have been telling all of us: that glare is making people feel less safe, which in itself is a serious issue.

We know that several factors contribute to glare. Misalignment of headlights is one of the most common. Of the 32.4 million MOT tests carried out in 2022 on cars and light vehicles, 1.6 million vehicles—1.6 million!—failed because their headlights were misaligned. Even a small upward tilt can make a big difference to the intensity of glare experienced by other road users.

Newer lighting technologies also play a role. LED headlamps, which are now fitted to most modern vehicles, produce a whiter and more focused beam than traditional halogen bulbs. The human eye reacts differently to such light and although LEDs improve visibility for the driver using them, they can cause real discomfort for oncoming traffic.

I also want to raise a related concern about the glare from powerful bicycle and personal lights. Many drivers and pedestrians now report being dazzled by high-intensity LED lights that are poorly aligned or excessively bright. Some of these lights are designed for off-road use, yet they are now being used on busy streets and in shared spaces, creating unnecessary discomfort and danger for everyone else on the road. Some cyclists and runners even wear head-mounted lamps, which can shine directly into the eyes of other road-users.

The issue is not about stopping people being seen; clearly, visibility is vital. However, it is about balance and consideration. It might be time for the Government and the British Standards Institute to consider introducing clear standards for all lights used on the public highway, whether on a car, a bike or a person, to ensure that they are properly focused, safe and considerate to others.

Of course, we also have the problem of illegal retrofitting—drivers replacing their halogen bulbs with cheap LED kits that are not compatible with their vehicle’s design. These conversions are not road-legal; they fail the MOT test and make glare far worse. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has increased surveillance to tackle this, but more needs to be done to stop the sale of unsafe aftermarket products online. The Government have said that research into that is under way, but it was first announced by the previous Conservative Administration in May 2024.

The research, commissioned by the Department for Transport and undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, was meant to include real-world testing to examine how different lighting technologies, vehicle designs and driver characteristics affect glare. However, here we are more than a year later and the findings have still not been published. I ask the Minister directly: when will the research be released and will the full findings be made public? Until that happens, drivers will rightly question whether the issue is being taken seriously enough.

It is also worth recognising the international progress made under the previous Government. They raised the issue of dazzling headlights with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which oversees global vehicle standards. In April 2023, that body agreed to tighten rules on headlamps, aiming to make automatic headlight levelling mandatory for new vehicles. That technology ensures that when a car is heavily loaded with passengers or luggage, the headlights automatically adjust downwards to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers.

Those rules with tighter tolerances come into force in September 2027, which is welcome progress. But it only applies to new vehicles; millions of older cars will remain on our roads for years and decades to come. We should be asking what more can be done to mitigate glare in the existing fleet of vehicles—whether that is tougher and better MOT checks, awareness campaigns, proper headlight alignment or encouraging wider adoption of adaptive headlight systems that dip automatically when other vehicles approach.

A lot of evidence has been put out and it has been a good debate. The issue is about balance: making sure that headlights are bright enough to see, but not so bright that they blind. It is also about fairness—ensuring that drivers of all ages in all types of vehicles can travel confidently and safely, whether it is noon or night.

17:17

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on securing this debate about the potential merits of a new standard for headlight glare. I am sure that it will have not gone unnoticed that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. But the effect of every death or injury on our roads is devastating for the individuals and families involved.

I make it clear that this Government treat road safety seriously and are committed to reducing the number of those killed and injured on our roads. The Department is working to develop its road safety strategy, which will include a broad range of policies, and will set out more detail in due course. More widely, the Department recognises the importance of the road network to many people’s lives and to the economy. But we know that not everyone shares the same positive experience. Glare from headlamps is a perennial issue, as there is a compromise between providing illumination with sufficient intensity and distance to enable drivers to see and anticipate potential hazards, and the propensity to cause glare for other road users.

To strike the right balance, all vehicle headlamps are designed and tested to follow international standards developed under the United Nations to ensure that they are bright enough to illuminate the road but do not unduly affect the vision of other road users. Those standards define the beam pattern and include maximum and minimum light intensities. None the less, we know that lots of people raise concerns about headlamp glare, and we are told that some drivers, as has been mentioned, choose not to drive at night because of its effects. While police collision statistics do not indicate an increase in collisions caused by headlamp glare, the issue can lead to social isolation, which impacts on people’s wellbeing and their ability to undertake everyday tasks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley highlighted the impact on older residents in particular. Obviously, we have an ageing population with increasing numbers of older drivers. As people age, their eyes become more susceptible to glare due to changes in the photobiology of their eye. Better vehicle technology such as power-assisted steering, automatic transmission and improved braking and parking aids have made the driver’s task easier, and people tend to drive for longer before surrendering their licence. The number of adults more than 70 years old in England holding a full car licence has actually increased by more than 50% over the last 10 years.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree wholeheartedly that better cars mean that we are driving for longer, but does the Minister share my concern that the UK is the only country in Europe that allows people to hold a driving licence until the age of 70 without ever being required to take a sight test? Perhaps we need a sight test at initial licence application, at every 10-year renewal and at every three years from the age of 70 because we are driving for much longer.

[Simon Lightwood]

We will always keep all these considerations under review, but, as with anything, we will be evidence-led on the measures that we put in place, working with our international partners.

Road users will have experienced discomfort from headlamp glare when driving. From personal experience, I know that that is not pleasant. A few Members raised headlight aim, which is checked in an MOT once a year. During normal wear and tear, headlights can become out of alignment. The manual controls that many of us have to adjust our headlight focusing need to be changed if we have passengers in the back seats or luggage in the boot. Many Members I spoke to in advance of the debate did not know that, if they have luggage in their boot or people in the back seats, they should adjust their headlights. There is more education to be done there.

Over the years, the Department for Transport has raised the issue at the United Nations international expert group on vehicle lighting, and it was asked about the UK playing an international role. Following lengthy and significant negotiations, proposals to amend headlight aiming rules were agreed in April 2023, together with requirements for mandatory automatic headlamp levelling —a system that automatically recorrects the aim of the headlights based on the loading of the vehicle, to go back to the issue of when passengers are in the back seats or there is luggage in the boot. Those new requirements are expected to take effect in September 2027, to permit sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to redesign their products and adapt the manufacturing process. Once implemented, those tougher requirements will help alleviate the number of cases where road users feel dazzled by vehicle headlamps.

There is, however, still much to do and much that we do not know about the underlying causes. To address the lack of clear evidence into which factors are impacting on drivers, the Department for Transport commissioned independent research in 2024 to understand better the root causes of the glare. Over several months, researchers gathered real-world glare data when driving at night, using an instrumented vehicle and machine learning analysis tools to determine the main factors that influence glare. That work was recently completed, and the final report is due to be published in the next week.

As might be expected, the results indicated that road geometry, in combination with brightness, is a key factor in glare events. The second most important factor, however, was identified to be vehicle type, suggesting that certain vehicle characteristics may be contributing to problems of glare. Given the findings of this innovative and groundbreaking research, the Department plans further research examining a range of vehicle makes and models, aimed at identifying what vehicle design factors may be responsible for increased glare. That can then be used to generate proposals for amendments to the international vehicle lighting regulations at the United Nations.

[Lauren Edwards]

Given that SUVs, which are generally larger, higher cars and have LED lights, now make up more than half of new cars sold in the UK and demand is growing, does the Minister agree that it is critical that the Government address this issue urgently?

[Simon Lightwood]

I heed the comments of my hon. Friend. Again, it is important that we are evidence-led, hence the commissioning of further research to drill down on the cause and effect.

In parallel, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, which leads for the Department on market surveillance of vehicles and automotive components, has stepped up its activities to intercept the sale of illegal retrofit headlamp bulbs for on-road use, which we believe is one of the contributing factors. Anyone caught could face a fine of £1,000. The Department is also an active member of the Euro NCAP consumer information programme, which assesses a range of vehicle characteristics to determine a vehicle’s safety rating. Work is under way to develop a new vision protocol for 2029, which is planned to include an assessment of vehicle lighting systems to ensure that they provide forward vision while minimising the risk of dazzle for some road users.

Much has already been achieved, but we have listened and we understand that more can and must be done. We will continue to develop the evidence and work domestically and with our international partners to help ensure that people feel able to drive at night without experiencing glare or dazzle.

17:25

[Peter Lamb]

I am very grateful for the time that we have been given for this debate, and I am grateful to all the Members who have taken the time to come along and participate. I thank the Minister for his response. We look forward to the publication of the existing research into the issue and for the research due to begin shortly. I very much hope that it can be completed promptly.

It is recognised across the House that there is a need for action. There is support among Members, the public and the press to act. Politically, this is something of an open goal, readily available to the Government. We know from the figures that headlight glare poses a risk to life. It is putting real limits on people’s freedom to go out and exercise or to go places at night. It is beyond time that we finally put an end to it by introducing a new standard, which I hope will be forthcoming on the basis of the research.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a new standard for vehicle headlight glare.

17:27

Sitting adjourned.