Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26 November 2025

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

Driving Test Availability: South-east

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: written evidence to the Transport Committee, on driving tests availability, reported to the House on 11 November, 14 October, 2 Septemeber, 25 and 4 March, and 28 and 7 January, HC 437.]

09:30

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the availability of driving tests in the South East.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Harris. I extend my gratitude to all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in this important debate on a topic that occupies a large part of their email inboxes every week, if theirs are anything like mine.

I want to begin by thanking the hundreds of Surrey Heath residents who responded to my driving test survey, and the 165 people who completed the survey organised by the Chamber engagement team over recent days and weeks. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, the driving test has been one of the most persistent issues in my email inbox over the last 16 months. Across Surrey Heath, families describe a weekly ritual of setting alarms at 5.30 am, logging on to the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency website, and joining a queue of thousands of people before the 6 am release of driving test slots. Even when local slots become available, they can vanish within seconds due to website glitches, failed payments or fierce automated competition from bots, similar to the scramble for Oasis or Taylor Swift tickets. Yet unlike those elusive one-off concerts, this frustrating and anxiety-ridden cycle repeats every Monday, often for weeks and months, before many are finally able to secure a test.

Young people who have worked hard to reach test readiness find themselves stuck in prolonged limbo. Their confidence declines, practical skills fade and their opportunities narrow. In Surrey Heath, which is, I am slightly ashamed to say, the second most car-dependent constituency in the entire country, that is especially damaging. With slow and infrequent buses, limited rail capacity and persistent congestion on arterial roads—most famously the A322 and junction 3 of the M3—public transport is simply not a realistic alternative. For many young people, being unable to drive directly restricts access to education, training and entry-level employment.

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

Constituents of mine, like those of my hon. Friend, are part of the 6 am scramble, with thousands of people ahead of them in the queue. Does he share my view that the inability of young people to access driving tests is harming their life chances? That is particularly true of those with special needs, or those who have caring responsibilities and are unable to live up to those responsibilities while also seeking the right to drive.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I also have constituents who have caring responsibilities and find themselves unable to fulfil those to the fullest capacity that they would like to because of those restrictions.

Of course, on Budget day we also think about economic growth and the curtailed economic opportunities that young people have. If we want to make our economy grow again, everybody needs to be able to work to the fullest extent that they can.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It is not just a Surrey Heath issue; it is an issue across the whole of the United Kingdom. In my Strangford constituency in Northern Ireland there are populated areas where people have to wait for up to 12 weeks—not as long as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but the time slot is significant. I aways try to be constructive and helpful in my interventions. Does the hon. Member agree that more funding could be allocated to support the recruitment of more examiners, with sufficient pay and job benefits to discourage high turnover in the role that they play?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation. He is right to identify that rural and semi-rural communities are particularly badly affected, because of the very often skeletal public transport systems. I will come on to potential solutions to the challenge as I reach the conclusion of my contribution.

Parents described to me the practical and emotional toll of the crisis: driving teenagers to work or college several times a week, rearranging family routines and supporting young people who are increasingly demoralised. Others tell me that their children have delayed job applications or turned down work altogether because they cannot secure the driving tests they need to unlock those important employment opportunities.

One of my constituents, George, has been trying to acquire a driving test for two years after passing his theory test. He is autistic and unable to undertake long journeys to distant test centres, yet he receives no preferential consideration despite being registered for personal independence payments. He told me that he is losing heart over driving, and fears that without a licence he may be condemned to welfare dependency for life, as he is unable to reach his job in hospitality, which requires late-evening travel that public transport in Surrey Heath simply does not support. That is not an isolated case; it is emblematic of a system that is failing the people who rely on it most.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Unfortunately, it was right that Loveday Ryder, the previous chief executive of the DVSA, had to resign because of this terrible ongoing problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need new leadership at that organisation, to grip this problem with alacrity? We must particularly address the problem of bots sweeping up the tests, as there is not much point in increasing the number of tests if the bots capture them. We are then back to the 6 am problem of parents dialling in, which he has articulated so well.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that very important observation. The plight of bots stealing places from under people on a Government-registered system strikes me as utterly inappropriate. I have heard internal stories that the DVSA has been in a state of upendedness for some time. I am also grateful to him for his observation about Loveday Ryder.

As of June, the average waiting time for a practical driving test stood at about 22 weeks, although the nearest centres for my constituents, in Farnborough and Guildford, reported waits of 24 weeks. Many have told me that they have waited up to a year to secure a test slot.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I am one of those parents who scrambles for the driving test, and many of my constituents have written to me about this issue. For Martha in Molesey it took more than 15 months, and for Evan in Thames Ditton it took more than six months. Last week, one of the driving instructors in my constituency told me that a lack of tests affects every single one of their students In 2023, the DVSA temporarily moved a significant amount of its workforce into examiner roles, and that enabled 150,000 test slots over six months. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the way to go—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are meant to be just that: a short intervention, not a speech.

[Dr Pinkerton]

My hon. Friend’s constituents are clearly suffering from exactly the same challenges as mine in Surrey Heath. I will talk about some of the actions that have already been taken, and how they might be pushed further and faster.

The delays place immense pressure on learners, particularly those needing to make a second or third attempt at taking their practical test. Many face a further six-month wait for a resit, which forces them to take regular lessons simply to stay test ready. The national pass rate was 49.9% in October 2025, so almost half of all candidates taking their driving test must restart the cycle without any guarantee of a timely retest.

One of the most serious concerns that my constituents raise is the prevalence of bots and third-party reselling. Automated bots secure test slots the moment they are released and resell them at heavily inflated prices—often between £150 and £300.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

When my hon. Friend talked about a 23-week wait, my immediate thought was, “Oh, luxury!” A constituent in West Dorset contacted me to say that he faces a 24-month wait to find a single test within a 50-mile radius. That is one of the problems with being in a beautiful part of rural Britain. The only alternative is to pay more than £200 to one of the resellers. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exploitation of the most vulnerable?

[Dr Pinkerton]

As an MP for a rural constituency, I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will feel that pressure with particular force. They experience exactly the same kind of employment curtailment as my constituents in Surrey Heath.

My constituents have further highlighted that websites such as Pass Faster are advertising guaranteed tests anywhere in the UK within four to six weeks. They charge the £62 DVSA fee, plus an additional £88 finder’s fee. The distorted marketplace leaves many families with no choice but to engage with those services, despite their deep frustration at the cost. Those who cannot face that cycle often end up travelling extraordinary distances. Some Surrey Heath families are forced to book tests in Cornwall, Taunton, Kendal, Birmingham or Leeds—all examples from my own constituents. One family told me that they undertook a staggering 728-mile round trip to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Another, after spending more than £2,000, had to travel to the Isle of Wight because it was the nearest available test slot.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

I recognise what my hon. Friend is describing. Last week, I received an email from a constituent who travelled 200 miles from Amersham to Rochdale for the same reason. She felt she had been

“penalised for following the rules”

because she was forced to go down that route. Does my hon. Friend agree with her?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I absolutely agree. Rochdale undoubtedly has its charms and pleasures, but to be forced to go there to secure a driving test slot seems unfair to the individual involved.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned Berwick-upon-Tweed. Might I tempt him further north to the most remote part of the British mainland—my constituency? We have exactly the same problem. When my hon. Friend looks for solutions, does he agree that some form of statistical analysis and a map showing where the problem and good areas are would not only be helpful but might concentrate the attention of Ministers?

[Dr Pinkerton]

My hon. Friend can always tempt me further north to his wonderful constituency. We have another example of a rural constituency where constituents feel this pressure acutely. That is neither fair nor sustainable. It undermines confidence in a Government-run system. It places young people in the south-east—if I might focus on them in particular—at a clear disadvantage, and risks eroding test availability for learners across the country.

The financial impact on young drivers and families is unaffordable. With lessons costing around £50 per hour and long gaps between tests, families must pay for repeated sessions simply to maintain proficiency. Some local households report spending more than £2,000 just to pass a driving test, while others exceed £5,000 as delays drag on. When parents are forced to travel to distant and unfamiliar test centres, the costs rise still further, from fuel and time taken off work to, in some cases, the price of overnight accommodation.

Although I welcome the Government’s seven-point plan, including the Department’s commitment to recruit 450 new examiners, the Secretary of State has confirmed that the net gain of new examiners will be only 40. More must be done to retain high-quality examiners and reduce turnover, which continues to drive capacity shortages. The Ministry of Defence’s deployment of 36 defence driving examiners is also a welcome step, but it risks stretching defence resources at a time of increasing geopolitical instability, and will do little to address the extent of the backlog. The Secretary of State confirmed to the Transport Committee on 12 November that the Government will not meet their target of returning waiting times to seven weeks by the summer of 2026. For families who have already spent months trying to secure a test, that is an unacceptably long timeframe for meaningful improvement.

Based on the testimony of my constituents, I urge the Minister to consider the following practical steps that may help to alleviate some of the challenges that we all experience in our constituencies. The Government should introduce a focused programme of enhanced examiner recruitment and retention, particularly in the south-east of England, where demand is demonstrably at its highest. They should expand the narrow 6 am Monday release window that fuels intense competition and unnecessary stress for those having to get up at that time. They should implement a genuinely fair geographical set of booking rules, with full transparency over how they are applied, and match them with sufficient test capacity in high-demand areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) alluded to, that would require a greater geographical sense of where demand is at its peak. They should explore temporary test centres or extend testing hours to reduce backlogs. Finally, they should implement robust protections against bots and third-party reselling, to restore fairness, trust and integrity in the booking process.

My constituents understand that the pandemic created a significant backlog in driving tests, and they understand the challenges of examiner recruitment. What they cannot accept, nearly half a decade after the pandemic, is a system that forces them to wake at dawn every Monday, travel hundreds of miles for a test or pay inflated fees to third parties, just because the DVSA booking system cannot adequately meet demand. My Surrey Heath constituents need a driving test system that is fair, functional and fit for purpose, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from across the House will agree that the current system is not delivering for young people or, indeed, for older learners—I think we are going to hear a right hon. Member comment on that. I hope the Minister will take the concerns I have outlined seriously and help to restore the accessibility, trust and fairness that young people and families in the south-east deserve.

09:45

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate and opening the discussion so comprehensively.

Colleagues may remember that I led a debate on this very subject in this very Chamber just over a year ago. Accessing driving tests continues to be a source of frustration for constituents across Bracknell Forest. Wait times for a practical test in the south-east remain among the highest in the country, creating a barrier to opportunity for young people and all those who want the freedom that comes from passing their driving test.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has made it clear that the issue of delayed freedom is not limited to my constituents in East Worthing and Shoreham. My constituent Angela told me that last year the nearest test available for her daughter was in Liverpool, and local driving instructor Lawrence has many test-ready clients who are unable to take a test, which impacts his livelihood. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are right to ban bots from booking tests and to increase the number of tests available? They are tackling the touts so that our constituents can get off the waiting lists and get on with their lives.

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. I say gently that my hon. Friend’s contribution is slightly more up to date than some of those we heard from the Liberal Democrats earlier, because the Government have already taken action on banning bots. I will come to that in a moment.

I know that the Government take this issue seriously, and we are already seeing progress. Focused efforts, including on recruiting driving examiners and improving booking systems, have meant that the DVSA conducted an extra 56,336 tests between June and October 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for all the work he is doing on this vital issue.

It is clear to many, particularly in the south-east, that there is definitely more to do, so I fully welcome the Government’s recent announcement on further actions on driving test availability. I was particularly pleased to hear that action will be taken to ensure that only learners themselves will be able to book tests. That will prevent bots from block booking precious slots and selling them on at a substantially marked-up price. We have already heard about the frustration of well-meaning people who just want to get on and book their test, but feel that the only way to get a precious driving test is to use a dodgy site, which may leave them exposed to fraud or greatly increased fees, so it is fantastic to see action being taken. I called for it in my debate last year and am really pleased to see the Government delivering it. What timescale is expected for the implementation of this welcome change?

The use of defence driving examiners is a hugely welcome intervention, although I note that the specific test centres set to benefit have not yet been announced. I am sure that I speak for many colleagues from across the south-east when I urge the Minister to bear in mind the high need in our region when he makes the decisions. I also remind him that Bracknell is not served by its own test centre, with the two nearest being in Reading and Farnborough. I therefore press the Minister again for a test centre in Bracknell, which would also benefit constituents of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who I am sure would support it. [Interruption.] I see him nodding.

There is always more that can be done, and I want to use my time in this debate to highlight the desperate need to improve the recruitment and retention of examiners. In 2024, the most common answer to the question, “What more can DVSA do to support you?” in the DVSA’s annual survey of driving instructors was, “Increase driving examiner recruitment and retention”. Although the use of defence driving examiners is welcome, it is not a permanent solution. If we are to meet the Government’s target of reducing test waiting times to an average of seven weeks by summer 2026, we must be more ambitious both in our actions and in how fast we work to implement them, and to prevent shortages from reoccurring we should ensure that driving test examining is an attractive, long-term career option. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on what more we can do to end the current backlog and ensure that our driving test system remains efficient and sustainable long into the future.

The Government inherited a tremendous driving test backlog. Although progress has been made, there is still a lot more to do so that my constituents in Bracknell Forest are no longer being driven up the wall, but are instead back in the driver’s seat.

09:50

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is always a welcome thing to be in the same room as you, Mrs Harris, let alone to be chaired by you.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate on a much bigger issue than people might think at first glance. I personally got into a bit of difficulty over this when I decided to take up motorcycling again a few years ago—the House of Commons just wasn’t risky enough. I got within about three days of being able to take my test, because the theory test was about to run out, and I would have had to repeat the whole thing because I was not able to book the test. So I understand at first hand the problems others have had. When I mentioned this debate, I was flooded by my constituents’ comments, which brought home to me the fact that this is an ever-present and timely debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on securing it.

The reality is that there has been a lot of talk about this issue under both Governments but, as yet, no great move to make changes. I want to read out a couple of the huge number of comments that came in from constituents. Mark simply calls the inability to get driving tests properly “shameful”. He also talks about the bots; I accept that the Government have said they are going to deal with them, but it is a complex issue. The sooner they deal with it, the better, because, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, the bots get the tests and then resell them at much higher prices, which makes it difficult for people who are on a low income to even afford a test. They then queue up and if they are too late on the telephone, it is hopeless.

The other comment is from Theresa, who said:

“For over a year, my son has been attempting to secure a practical driving test, but available dates are extremely limited, and any cancellations are immediately taken. This prolonged delay is causing significant disruption to his career. Driving is essential for his work, as he needs to travel between multiple job sites. The inability to obtain a test date is preventing him from taking on assignments, limiting his earning potential”

and causing him particular difficulty and professional and financial strain. It is, then, a human problem. The idea that getting a test is a good thing is not just a technical one; for lots of people, it is about their earnings and their ability to improve their lives, which is what we should all be concerned about.

When I put the matter to local driving instructors, I was completely overwhelmed by their fury and anger about what is going on. I will not quote everything they said, because some of it is not quotable here in the Chamber. I suppose I probably could among friends, but I do not think I will—I will restrict myself to spare myself your fury, Mrs Harris, and just talk about the generalities of what they said.

[Mr Francois]

Tell us!

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will write to you all.

The main thing was that someone learning to be an instructor has two years after passing the part 1 test, which is the theory, to complete part 2, the extended driving test, and part 3, the teaching ability test. The limited availability of parts 2 and 3 causes massive problems and means that trainees abandon the course, losing thousands of pounds. We should make it easier for them to get through because we need more examiners —we need more people to train people to learn to drive. If we choke off that supply, there is no chance of anybody getting tests because there will be no people to carry them out.

There is also the misleading test availability. One pupil was sent a DVSA link to book a practical test after passing the theory test, but no available slots were shown in her area for two years, despite weekly test slot releases. I have already mentioned the bulk buying, and there is another issue. In April 2015, the average waiting time in Chingford and Woodford Green was 6.3 weeks—I think that is too long, but there it is. By September 2024, the average waiting time was 24 weeks and rising, and it has gone up since then. So this has become a massive issue. It is a massive issue in respect of people’s ability to earn a living and a massive issue for people who have a personal need to drive—perhaps because they look after somebody with disabilities or other problems. All this impacts hugely on their ability to live full and complete lives.

At the end of the day, why are driving test slots so limited across the UK right now? Why are we not training more people? Why are we not making more slots available? Why are we not acting now to get rid of the business of bulk buying and then resale? We should be tackling that straight away. I simply say, on behalf of my constituents and those who have been training to become instructors and testers, that their exasperation, which I am sure others here today have felt, is remarkable. This issue is affecting all of their lives, and we should make it a priority. Too often it has been shunted into the background by successive Governments, on both sides of the fence. Now is the time to act, and I urge the Minister to give us a clear timetable for when he will act and how the Government will sort out this problem.

09:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for bringing forward this important topic. The severe lack of driving tests has a profound impact on people’s ability to work, study and participate fully in everyday life. Also, as a parent of teenagers, I really need them to be able to pass their test and not rely on me for lifts, so this is an important subject for me personally. [Laughter.]

I acknowledge, as many colleagues have done, the Government’s recent announcement to limit the use of bots that scrape and reserve driving test slots. That is certainly a step in the right direction, and I welcome any action that reduces unfair access to appointments, but evidence from my constituency makes it clear that the problems in the system run much deeper than automated bots alone.

I recently conducted a survey of learner drivers in Frome and East Somerset, and the results were stark. About 80% of respondents told us that they were learning to drive because public transport is unreliable or simply not available. I know all too well the problems that people have with buses locally: it is almost impossible to travel from east to west across the constituency. Others said that they work right across the UK and employers increasingly prefer, and in some cases require, staff who can drive. A significant number told us that employers simply will not hire someone who relies on public transport. When asked why they needed a licence, 23% said it was essential for accessing education and 54% said it was necessary for travel to work—more than half of respondents need to drive simply to be employed. Learning to drive is often an economic necessity.

However, the greatest concern that people raised was the severe shortage of driving tests. In our survey, the majority of learners waited four months or more for a test date, one in five waited more than six months, and nearly 29% waited between four and six months. When two thirds of candidates are waiting more than four months for a test, the system is not merely stretched—it is absolutely failing. Some constituents were forced to book their initial test in Liverpool, Nottingham, Swansea, Plymouth, Newport or even Aberdeen, and then spend months trying to swap to a local date. That is not a functioning national system.

Let me use the example of my constituent Poppy, a graduate who has come back to Frome after finishing university and is looking for a job. Poppy tells me that no driving tests are available to book, seemingly anywhere in the country, for the next 24 weeks. She says:

“The govt’s idea to ban bots and booking tests in other areas is a good start”,

but she goes on:

“Basically the solution is more examiners; there isn’t really a way around it.”

Poppy has already missed out on promising local job opportunities thanks to her lack of a licence, so will the Minister explain what the Government are doing to increase the availability of examiners?

The consequences of the lack of tests are severe. When we talk about NHS waiting lists, we often talk about how people’s lives are on hold while they wait for an appointment. The same is true of many young people in constituencies like mine, waiting for a test and feeling that their lives are on hold. Families face significant financial pressure from having to book additional lessons to remain test-ready, travelling to unfamiliar cities, paying for multiple apps and even retaking the theory test because their pass has expired during the wait. That burden falls hardest on low-income families, students and apprentices. There is then the emotional toll: the stress of trying to secure a booking, the anxiety of delaying work or education, and a sense of utter frustration. Constituents who took part in my survey described the system as “a nightmare”, “a joke” and the “bane of my life”.

Limiting bots is welcome, but it is only part of the solution. We urgently need a modernised booking platform, increased test capacity and targeted support for rural and semi-rural areas where public transport simply cannot meet people’s needs. When access to a driving test is delaying education, limiting employment and placing real financial strain on households, we cannot call this a minor, administrative issue: it is a barrier to opportunity and growth. My constituents, like so many across the county, deserve a system that supports them, rather than one they have to battle against.

10:00

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Harris. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate, which is particularly valuable because it primarily affects a cohort of people who are not directly represented in this place.

For the vast majority of MPs, including me, passing our driving tests is far in the rear-view mirror. With hindsight, many of us perhaps take for granted how easy it was to take our test or, in my case, take it for a second time, as I did when I passed at Brighton Marina test centre nearly 20 years ago. Not only has that test centre now shut down, but there is no practical test centre whatsoever in Brighton and Hove, a city and much wider area of over 250,000 people that includes my constituency of Lewes. This lack of availability across the country is made even more acute by the lack of local test centres, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow).

When I submitted a freedom of information request to the DVSA last year, I was told that the three open test centres nearest to my constituency in Sussex have a combined waiting list of 7,500 people—let that figure sink in for a moment. I simply booked my test, turned up and failed, and then booked another test, turned up and passed. There are 7,500 primarily young people waiting for tests in our corner of Sussex alone, trapped in an administrative limbo that is holding back their lives.

Like other colleagues, I will share a few examples of what this means in human terms for my constituents. One constituent, a mother, contacted me because she has found it utterly impossible to book a practical test for her son. She explained to me that slots are released on Monday mornings at 6 am, as many Members have mentioned. She sets her alarm, logs on, waits in the digital queue, and by the time she reaches the front, every single appointment has vanished. Week after week, it is the same story. Her son has passed his theory test, which is valid for only two years, and she now fears that he will have to sit it all over again through no fault of his own.

Another constituent told me that her daughter failed her practical test back in April. It is a disappointing moment that I have been through myself, but it should lead to another attempt within a reasonable timeframe. When I failed my first test, I remember the retake simply being taken for granted, “We’ll just book it for a few weeks’ time. When is convenient for you?” For this constituent, however, the earliest available slot she could find was six months later—in Scotland.

We live on the south coast of England, as far south as we could be—if we went any further south, we would be in the sea, and then we would be in France. Scotland is quite far from us. It is extraordinary to expect somebody to wait six months and then travel hundreds of miles to the north of this country—beautiful as it is—to take their test. Is it really acceptable that someone should have to travel that kind of distance simply to have a second attempt at their driving test?

A third case is perhaps the most dispiriting of all. A mother and daughter tried three times a day, day after day, to secure a booking, and still they could not get through. The daughter’s theory certificate expired, and she was forced to re-sit the entire examination, paying and studying again, all because the system had completely failed her.

As a number of Members have mentioned, what makes the situation even more troubling is that the shortage has created a market for exploitation. Unofficial booking websites have sprung up, hoovering up appointments and reselling them at inflated prices. The DVSA warns that such sites pose a risk to personal data and charge unnecessary fees. I welcome the Government’s announcement this month, but I would be grateful if the Minister could outline a timeframe in which he anticipates we will start to see results from the Government’s action to tackle the bots that are exploiting people all over the country.

Of course, the backlog has its roots in the pandemic, when testing was suspended entirely, but we are now four years on and the queue has not been cleared. People have been locked out of jobs that require them to drive, and they have been isolated from education and social opportunities, as well as from the independence that a driving licence represents—particularly in rural areas like mine, where public transport is sparse or non-existent. It is simply not good enough, and we need action.

We must keep vital test centres open, especially in rural communities. We must crack down on those predatory bots and third-party sites, and I welcome the news from the Government on those issues. We must expand the number of driving examiners, as has also been touched on, and offer more tests outside standard hours to eat into the backlog. We must require the DVSA to set out proper contingency plans so that bad weather or disruptions do not add further delays to an already failing system.

Learning to drive is a rite of passage for millions of young people across this country, and for many in my constituency of Lewes it is the key that unlocks employment, education and independence. The current state of affairs is failing them badly, and I urge the Government to act.

10:05

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for ensuring that this important topic could be debated today. It of course affects people of all ages, but I wish to focus particularly on the impact it is having on young people in my constituency.

We currently face a 24-week waiting list for a practical driving test at the Guildford test centre. That is a six-month delay before a young person can even attempt to pass their test. As someone who, I confess, passed on my third attempt, being able to start that journey early is really important. For many young people, the ability to drive is a vital gateway to obtaining work or accessing education, particularly in those areas where public transport links are limited or non-existent. More than one in six job adverts in the UK explicitly require a driving licence, and that figure rises still further in key entry-level sectors. In trades, care work, delivery and property services, the ability to drive is not a luxury but a fundamental requirement.

Young people are ready and willing to work, but they are being excluded—not because they lack competence or enthusiasm, but purely because they are stuck waiting months for a test. That sits alongside a worrying regional picture. The south-east now has one of the highest rates of young people not in education, employment or training, recently rising to just over 13%. These are not disengaged young people. Many are actively seeking work but are prevented from doing so because they cannot drive. The driving test backlog is not simply a frustration; it is directly contributing to regional youth unemployment.

Beyond the delays themselves, the system has become dysfunctional and, in some cases, blatantly exploitative. One constituent had to book a test for her daughter in Erith, a place they have never visited and would never normally go, but she did it simply to get into the test system. I have heard from other constituents who have gone to Winchester, Cardiff and beyond. People should not have to travel miles from home to a place they have never visited, potentially staying overnight and incurring extra costs, simply to take a test.

To book a test, my constituent tried to find an alternative slot, as many families do, so she found herself in a digital queue at 6 am with 60,000 others doing the same. That forced her into joining an unofficial online group to exchange test slots, where she was scammed. She sent £10 by bank transfer to someone claiming to assist in securing a test, only for that individual to later demand £100. The bank later confirmed that more than two dozen similar fraudulent payments had been made on the same day to the same account.

Another family in my constituency spent two months waking at 5.30 am every Monday to attempt to book a test. Last week, they were number 7,561 in the queue at 6 am. By the time a slot appeared, it vanished before they could even complete the booking. I, too, faced this as we sought a test for my son. We eventually got a test, after many very frustrating and unsuccessful early mornings, but it was nine months later in Tolworth. On a personal note, I am delighted to share that my son passed his test last Friday.

Another constituent passed their theory test more than six months ago, yet still cannot find a practical test slot before their theory test expires. We are penalising young people for the failures of the system, not their own. Within this messy and frustrating system, we are also seeing third parties bulk-booking and reselling test slots at inflated prices. This is the exploitation of scarcity, and it is completely unacceptable. Although the Government have acknowledged the problem, enforcement has not yet met the scale of the issue. We currently have a system that prevents young people from accessing work, which is contributing to rising levels of young people who are not in education, employment or training, wasting time and money, and exposing families to scams and fraud.

I acknowledge and welcome that the Government have signalled corrective action, but it is not enough and, critically, it is not happening fast enough. Many of these changes are not expected to be fully implemented until 2026. Furthermore, I respectfully note that the changes to address bots are simply not working, based on what I hear from my constituents—too many are still in the 6 am scramble. In the meantime, waiting times remain extreme and young people continue to miss out on employment.

One additional change the Government have not yet committed to is extending the validity of theory test certificates in cases where the state cannot provide a timely practical test. It surely cannot be right that someone should lose their pass because the system has failed them. I urge the Minister to consider this seriously, and I hope he will go into detail on the Government’s thinking.

This is not simply a transport issue. Some may argue that driving is a privilege and not a right, but in reality it has become a precondition for employment, independence, accessing education and entering the economic world. When young people are prevented from getting a driving test, we are not just limiting their mobility; we are limiting their future. This is a barrier to social mobility, employment access and regional economic participation, and it needs to be urgently addressed.

10:11

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this important debate. The availability of driving tests is a subject of growing concern for families, young people and businesses in every constituency across the south-east and beyond.

We have heard many fantastic interventions from Members representing areas ranging from the highlands of Scotland, down into the south-west and beyond. For many young people, learning to drive is not a luxury; as we have heard, it is a key to independence. It is the ability to reach a job, attend education or training, support family members and participate in society.

I know this myself, having passed my test just before I turned 18. Fortunately, I passed first time with only a few minors. However, I lived in an area surrounded on three sides by North Yorkshire, so I had to cross the boundary into a different county to get to college. Rural public transport is poor, so driving really was necessary. Today, across the south-east and the whole country, that independence has been put on hold, limiting people’s opportunities. Driving test waiting times are at some of the highest levels in memory, and the effects are being felt deeply.

I will reinforce some of the points made by my hon. Friend about the impact of long driving test waits on individuals across the country. Although this debate focuses on the south-east, it is undeniably a national problem that affects all corners of our United Kingdom. Learners and instructors—from my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, down to Cornwall, up to Cumbria and beyond—are all reporting the same patterns of delay, frustration and rising costs.

I recognise that the Department for Transport is committed to tackling the issue and that steps have been taken over the past year to bring the system back under control. Progress is welcome, but there are still real concerns about the timelines for implementing these changes, as well as about the unforeseen challenges arising from some of these decisions.

We know the Government will not meet their commitment to return test waiting times to seven weeks by the end of this year, as originally promised. In fact, they have not been able to commit to meeting the target even by next summer. That is unacceptable, and it leaves those waiting for tests with little reassurance that there will be real, meaningful improvement in the short-to-medium term. We need clarity for learner drivers, so can the Minister tell us when the target will be met?

Last year’s seven-point plan promised the recruitment of 450 new examiners, but a year later, we have seen a net gain of only about 40 examiners. That is a remarkable shortfall, so I would appreciate reassurance from the Minister about what additional steps will be taken to recruit and retain examiners. Recent retention payments are welcome, but it is a late intervention that does not address the structural issues of high staff turnover for test centre workers and examiners. We need a credible workforce strategy, not simply an emergency patch.

The redeployment of MoD examiners is also welcome; every extra pair of hands makes a difference. However, it will only provide about 6,000 additional tests in a system that needs to deliver about 2 million tests in any given year. Frankly, it is a drop in the ocean. It will not meaningfully shift the national average waiting time, which is over 22 weeks, with many test centres already booked out to the maximum booking limit of 24 weeks.

We have already heard much about the deeply unfair use of bots and third-party selling sites, which push up the price of tests. Let us be clear—such behaviour is entirely exploitative, undermines trust in the DVSA, and blocks genuine learners from accessing the transport they need to get around and have more opportunities.

Recently, the Government have promised action and tried to beat bots in the ticketing industry. If we can combat profiteering for concerts and theatre bookings, we must ensure that we are doing the same for a core public service, such as the provision of driving tests. There must be a clear and enforceable ban on the resale of test slots, combined with tools strong enough to prevent bots from hoovering up appointments. Unless this issue is confronted head on, every other reform risks being undermined.

A driving instructor in my constituency recently wrote to me describing the very real impact on her livelihood of long waits for tests. She is not in the south-east, but her experience mirrors those across the country. Students wait for months on end, blocks of lessons continue for far longer than necessary, and the financial pressure mounts for both learners and instructors.

Driving instructors have also raised some serious concerns about recent proposals to prevent them from selecting test slots for their students. Although I understand the reasoning, namely to prevent manipulation of the booking system, the proposals risk having the opposite effect. Instructors play a vital gatekeeping role; they ensure that learners only book a test when they are ready to take one and an instructor is available to accompany them. Removing instructors from the process would risk making more learners book prematurely and consequently failing their test, which would add further pressure to an already strained system. It also increases the likelihood of cancellations when instructors are unavailable because they were not part of the booking process.

The removal of a test swap function is another area of concern. Instructors often use this tool to correct honest mistakes or to allocate unused slots to other suitable learners. Removing it while bots remain rampant would simply give profiteers more opportunities. Until bots are under control, the Department should proceed cautiously in this regard.

[Peter Swallow]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is exactly that mechanism that bots rely on to operate and manipulate the system, which is exactly why the Government have announced closing it? They are doing so to stop the bots.

[Tom Gordon]

I recognise that that is part of the problem, but we need a comprehensive solution in the round that does not simply add to the backlog and the other pressures on the system, which I have outlined. I would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he could come up with any solutions: I am sure the Minister would be all ears.

I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what discussion he has had with instructors and professional bodies. Although the public consultations were rightly open to learners, there was concern that the voices of experienced instructors were overshadowed. Those professionals understand the system in a way that few others do. Their insight should be central to meaningful reform.

Rural areas also face additional pressures. Limiting learners to booking at only two test centres disproportionately affects learners in remote areas. For places such as north Yorkshire, where test centres are sparse and over- subscribed, those restrictions can make securing any driving test at all nearly impossible.

Rural test centres also experience greater disruption during severe weather. As we enter winter, the Department must now set out how it will prepare for and mitigate weather-related delays or cancellations, because otherwise the backlog will worsen further as we go into the depths of winter.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are campaigning to ensure that, especially in rural areas, more test centres are allowed to close the black market for bots, so that they are rooted out. We also want to ensure that more tests are delivered by increasing the instructor workforce and offering greater flexibility in scheduling, including out-of-hours tests where appropriate. We also want to see a clear plan for how test centres will operate during bad weather, which is an issue of growing importance as our winters become more severe and unpredictable.

This issue is not just a procedural problem; it is a matter of fairness and opportunity. People’s lives have been held in suspension because of endless delays. Families are paying the price, rural communities are being left behind, and young people are being denied the independence they need to build their future. The Government must act with urgency, ambition and clarity. Learner drivers deserve nothing less.

10:19

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate on an issue affecting families, young people and local businesses across the south-east, including in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, and indeed across the whole of our United Kingdom.

The backdrop to this debate is a driving test system that is under unprecedented strain. Data obtained through a freedom of information request submitted by the AA Driving School shows a staggering deterioration since the start of this calendar year. There has been a 60% increase in the number of driving test centres with average waits of 24 weeks. In January 2025, 161 centres were at the maximum wait time of 24 weeks. By 5 May 2025, that figure had risen to 258 centres. Shockingly, more than 80% of all test centres are now operating with the longest possible delay. Those are astonishing figures that illustrate a system not merely struggling but spiralling. It is not a regional anomaly. It is a systemic failure and responsibility sits squarely with this Government.

When the Conservatives left government in July 2024 the average wait time was 17.1 weeks. That was unprecedentedly high as we were recovering from the backlog created by the pandemic. If anyone still doubts that this crisis has worsened after the election, the Government’s own data sets it out plainly. In the first two quarters of 2024, just over 1 million driving tests were conducted. In the same period this year, under this Government, that number fell to 914,000. At a time when the backlog should have been the priority, capacity has gone backwards. Learners, parents and instructors feel the consequences every single day.

Driving, particularly for young people, is not a luxury; it is essential. It is often the difference between securing an apprenticeship, a job or a place at college and missing out, or between being able to take an opportunity or left without options. It provides access to education, healthcare, caring responsibilities, family life and independence. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. Youth unemployment is now at 15.3%, the highest level since before the pandemic. At a moment when we should be opening doors for young people, the Government have instead allowed driving test delays to become yet another barrier in their way.

A genuinely pro-motorist Government would have grasped the urgency sooner. A genuinely pro-opportunity Government would recognise driving as a lifeline, particularly in areas where public transport is limited and where a licence is the gateway to employment. A Government serious about growth would not tolerate a system in which a young person must wait the best part of half a year or even longer simply to sit a driving test. The Government’s approach has not only failed learners. It has alienated the professionals who keep the system safe and functioning—our driving instructors.

In my constituency, I have heard directly from two established driving schools: Chiltern Learners and Alltime Driving. Both have always been able to book tests on behalf of their pupils responsibly and professionally. They have told me how disruptive, damaging and ill-considered the Government’s new measures are, introduced without genuine consultation with industry and without any understanding of how the booking system is used in practice. They feel as though they are being treated as the problem, as if they were the bots—we all want to see the bots stopped—rather than the driving instructors recognised as part of the solution. Their experiences are echoed by instructors across the country.

A colleague has shared similar correspondence from an instructor who described the shock felt across the profession when the reforms were announced without notice, transparency or any meaningful engagement. Instructors consistently say that preventing them booking tests or managing test slots sensibly will make the system less efficient, not more. They warn that stopping instructors swapping tests will result in more wasted appointments and unused examiner time. They are concerned about the future of intensive driving schools, many of which are already struggling due to a shortage of the availability of tests. And they highlight, rightly, that little thought has been given to vulnerable or neurodiverse pupils who might not be able to navigate the system alone. What they all say in different ways is the same thing: the Government have pushed ahead with a sledgehammer approach that punishes the wrong people, ignores expert advice and risks making a bad situation worse. We all welcome the action to stop the bots, but that needs rapid action with rapid, real enforcement, while at the same time leaning on those, like the instructors I have just mentioned, who can make a real difference.

We also see the Government grasping for headlines and distractions rather than solutions. The decision to bring in Ministry of Defence driving examiners has been presented as a major intervention. In reality, that means 36 military examiners will conduct public tests one day a week for a year, just 6,500 extra tests when hundreds of thousands are needed. As one instructor put it, that is little more than moving the deckchairs around. It is no substitute for a serious plan to recruit and retain examiners and fix the underlying issues.

The result is a system in chaos: record delays, shrinking capacity, frustrated instructors, disadvantaged pupils, and young people being held back at the very moment they need opportunity and support. Instead of leadership, we see press releases, gimmicks and a refusal to confront the scale of the problem. Driving should be a route to opportunity, not another obstacle created by Government. Learners deserve better, instructors deserve better and motorists across the south-east and the whole of our United Kingdom deserve far better than the declining service they face today.

10:26

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate on driving test availability in the south-east. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents.

We fully recognise the frustration felt by families and young people, especially in the south-east. We recognise the financial strain on families, from lesson costs to travel and accommodation for distant tests. No learner should have to travel hundreds of miles for a test. Reducing waiting times and making the system fairer will help to ease those pressures, especially in rural and semi-rural communities. The Government are committed to restoring fairness and functionality to the driving test system. The ability to drive is not a luxury; it is a necessity for many, opening doors to employment, education and independence, as has been mentioned.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make some progress first because there is a lot to cover. When access to driving tests is delayed, those opportunities are put on hold and, frankly, that is unacceptable. Across the south-east and the country, driving test waiting times remain a significant concern. Across Great Britain, the average waiting time for car practical tests in October 2025 was 21.9 weeks. In England, it was slightly higher at 22.4 weeks. In some parts of the south-east, learners face waits of five to six months; in London the figure can reach 23 weeks.

Those are not just numbers; they represent real frustration for learners, families and businesses. The pandemic increased demand for provisional licences, and more learners passing theory tests and population growth have all contributed to unprecedented pressure on the driving test system. I need to be transparent: the approaches the DVSA has taken so far have not been sufficient to meet the aspiration of reducing waiting times to seven weeks.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I do not wish to delay the Minister, but there is a concurrent theme throughout, which is the sheer incompetence of the DVSA over a long period. Does the Minister think that it would be better to have an inquiry into what is wrong with the DVSA and its failure to deal with these issues? It should not be left just to politicians; it should have tackled those issues. Will he commit to having a serious look at the functionality—the bureaucratic dysfunctionality—of the DVSA?

[Simon Lightwood]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I will leave no stone unturned when looking for solutions to drive down those test delays. Even with all the measures we have put in place—including the additional test allowance incentives for examiners, which resulted in 56,000 additional tests being conducted between June and October this year, when compared with the same period in 2024—we are still not able to keep up with the rising demand. Reducing waiting times remains our top priority and we will continue to do all we can.

I want to update right hon. and hon. Members on the measures announced by the Secretary of State for Transport to the Transport Committee on 12 November. They are based on the outcome of a major consultation—not rushed or knee-jerk as the Opposition said—that received more than 90,000 responses, and are designed to make the driving test booking system fairer and to stop learner drivers being exploited.

I acknowledge the stress experienced by those who feel the need to join the early morning website queues. There are more new booking slots available on Tuesday to Friday for those who choose not to or cannot book tests on Monday mornings, but there is more that we can do. That is why we are taking strong action against bots and third-party resellers. We will reform the booking system so that only learner drivers themselves will be able to book and manage their practical driving tests. The number of times that a learner can move or swap a test will be limited to two, and there will be a limit on the area that a test can be moved to once booked.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister elaborate on whether there will be further input from driving instructors? Has there been an impact assessment of the effect that removing their ability to book tests will have on the system overall?

[Simon Lightwood]

These actions were taken as a consequence of the 90,000 submissions and the work that we did in the DVSA and the Department, so they are based on feedback. These changes will make access fairer and will prevent unofficial businesses and third parties from reselling tests at inflated prices. They will prevent tests from being booked in quiet areas, only to be moved to high-demand areas.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make some progress.

Local learners in quiet areas will have better access to tests at their preferred centres, and examiner resources will be focused where demand is highest. Reform to the booking system will give greater control to learner drivers. It will remove the ability for third parties to exploit the system, and will make booking a practical driving test fairer for all.

These changes require both legislative and technical updates, and implementation is expected to begin by spring 2026. I assure Members that I will do everything I can to move as quickly as humanly possible.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

As the mum of three teenagers, I know at first hand the challenges of getting a driving test—it took us a year to get one for my son. Constituents have shared their concerns with me. One person said that they logged in at 6 am on Monday morning, and they were 24,000th in the queue. I welcome the Government’s crackdown on bots and third party bookings—that is good to hear—but will the Minister clarify what plans he has to help constituents between now and the implementation in spring 2026?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will come on to those points. I assure Members that I will provide regular updates on the bots work as we move towards delivery. I absolutely accept that it is urgent.

Our agreement with the Ministry of Defence is not a headline-grabbing gimmick. It is important that we do everything at our disposal to drive down the wait for tests, and I make no apologies for that. Thirty six defence driving examiners will conduct driving tests for one day a week for 12 months. They will focus on car tests, but that offers the flexibility for vocational testing if required.

Those measures are in addition to the action we have taken so far, which includes doubling examiner training capacity to accelerate the recruitment and qualification of new examiners; introducing tougher terms for driving instructors who book tests on people’s behalf; reintroducing the additional testing allowance scheme for up to 18 months to provide more tests; continuing with the Ready to Pass? campaign, which 95% of users rate as useful, to encourage learner drivers to take the right action to prepare for the driving test; and recruiting and training 450 new examiners.

Despite the DVSA recruiting and training 344 driving examiners, the number of full-time equivalent examiners has increased by only 46, so retaining driving examiners is just as important as recruiting them. That is why we are giving examiners an exceptional payment next year of £5,000 to encourage more to stay. Those combined actions demonstrate our commitment to tackling this issue systematically and listening to feedback to create a fairer system for everyone.

Let me pick up a few of the comments from hon. Members. On temporary test centres, obviously we continue to review the DVSA estate, but frankly we need to focus on ensuring that we have enough examiners. I hear the pleas from some hon. Members, but it is not possible to have a driving testing centre in every town, although we do try and make sure it is as equitable as possible. I hear the idea behind extending the hours. However, our regulations state that we have to ensure that the eye test is done in good light.

The DVSA is already increasing capacity by conducting more tests through overtime and additional testing allowance. I am assured that it is not possible to block-book car practical driving tests. A driving licence number can be assigned to only one car practical driving test within the booking system at this time. Additionally, it is not possible to book beyond the 24-week window; DVSA only releases tests for that period.

We have been honest in admitting the challenges that the DVSA faces to meet that seven-week target. We will be assessing the input of the new measures that we announced the other day, as well as continuing to look for more ways to get waiting times down. We will be looking to that new leadership to get a grip of this as its top priority.

There was an ask to extend the two-year validity for theory test certificates. I have every sympathy with that ask, but theory test certificates are valid for two years by law, for road safety reasons. Safety should always be of paramount importance. Road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills must be up to date when the customer takes their practical test, and the Government have no plans to change this.

[Zöe Franklin]

We are here in the UK Parliament, and it is within our power to change the law to address the current situation around theory test validity. It is clear that people are struggling as a result of the two-year limit.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I went on to say, it is important for road safety reasons, and we should never we should never relax road safety. It must be paramount. I have every sympathy with that position, but it is not something that the Government plan to change.

Driving is a lifeline for many, especially in areas where public transport is limited, and we remain committed to ensuring that learners in the south-east and across the country can access tests promptly and safety. We are determined to restore confidence in the system and ensure that every learner who is ready to drive has the opportunity to enjoy a lifetime of safe and sustainable driving.

10:37

[Dr Pinkerton]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this very important debate for our constituents. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) for their sagacious contributions.

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing some of the genuine frustrations of our constituents. I am also grateful for his honesty in acknowledging the ineffectiveness of the DVSA in tackling this issue internally. I echo the call of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for a thorough investigation to be undertaken into the DVSA to ensure that, in fact, it is a functional organisation. That may lead to the changes that we all want to see on behalf of our constituents.

I also second the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) that an impact assessment be undertaken into the decision to block driving instructor bookings of test appointments because, as we have heard in several contributions, that can have a very significant impact on the way the system works in practice.

I also say to the Minister that a £5,000 bonus does not an effective workforce plan make. Although it may address a short-term issue, it does not necessarily ensure long-term retention of hard-pressed driving instructors. I do not think a Member in this Chamber would ask for a driving centre in every town, but there is a need for a proper geographical understanding of where the main pressure points are in order to seek to develop a regional plan to tackle some of the greatest pressure points. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) tempted me earlier to back his plan for a test centre in Bracknell; of course, I know that he will support my plan for a test centre in Camberley. We already welcome many of his constituents to our wonderful Frimley Park hospital. Let us continue in that vein.

I am being asked to wrap up—I know it is a busy day in the House—but I pass on my thanks to everyone who has made such valuable contributions, and I hope the Minister has heard some of the very valuable plans that have been laid out for him.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the availability of driving tests in the South East.

10:40

Sitting suspended.

Children of Alcoholics

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the children of alcoholics.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, particularly on this day, when there are other events going on in Parliament. I am grateful to colleagues from all parties who have come to support this debate, and to the Minister on what I know is a very busy day for his Department.

Today is a chance to speak on behalf of the children of alcoholics. They are the children who suffer in silence around our country, and sadly there are now many of them; nearly 2.5 million children live with one or both parents suffering from serious alcohol dependency or abuse. It is my great privilege, standing here today as chairman-elect of the all-party parliamentary group on children of alcoholics, to introduce this debate and formally launch our campaign across both Houses and all parties for this Parliament to take forward the work of the National Association for Children of Alcoholics.

The APPG has been brilliantly and ably led by my colleagues Jon Ashworth and the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who have passed the baton to me now that I am no longer in government. As a freelancer, and the deputy chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I am free to speak without fear or favour. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) saying that I have always spoken without fear or favour.

I start by saying that there are many children of alcohol in this great Parliament. For many children, it is a terrible trauma of silent suffering from which they never really escape. It also drives into many children an extraordinary ability to take on responsibilities too young, as well as tasks and duties that should really fall only to adults, and it often engenders a drive to make a difference. We see 11, 10, nine or eight-year-olds face things that nobody should have to cope with, let alone a lonely child carer. It is perhaps not surprising that much of the drive that lies behind many people in this Parliament comes from some of those experiences, whether of alcohol or other addictions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman; we spoke about people who have lived with this before the debate, which he might refer to, and I was very moved by what he told me. Across Northern Ireland, there are some 40,000 children living with parental alcoholism, and there has been a rise specifically in alcohol deaths. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be more focus, and that antenatal and health visitors should routinely screen parents who are dependent on alcohol to not only support the parents but ensure that the children are protected in the home? I have a friend who grew up with this, and I always remember their story—it has stuck in my mind all my life.

[George Freeman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I want to reassure the Minister that I am not here to hit him with 20 demands—that will come in due course. Today is really a chance to raise the flag of the all-party parliamentary group. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one of the things in our manifesto for change, and I am grateful to him for raising it.

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

I am really grateful for all that the hon. Gentleman does in this place. I want to raise the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We know that its prevalence is now 4%, which is higher than autism, and there is no screening programme for pregnant women, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just mentioned. It is really important that we understand these issues and find a sensitive way to protect children from developing such a disorder.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes another excellent point. As I know the Minister and his Department understand, not only is there no magic bullet but many of these issues circulate and form secondary complications that cost—which is the least of it—huge amounts to the health system later.

I will touch on some of the mental health issues. In our society, 80% of us are reasonably lucky, but 20% of us struggle to escape these difficult syndromes related to living with addiction or suffering from mental health. Many of our prisoners are people who are still suffering—they are prisoners, actually, of mental health and addiction—and many of our children are born to parents who have no chance of giving them a start in life. There is a circularity here that drives a lot of underlying health conditions, predispositions and comorbidities.

Without indulging my own back story too much, I want to make the point that this affliction knows no class or geographical boundaries. When I first joined the all-party group back under the coalition Government as a newly elected Conservative MP, I went with some trepidation because it was—very proudly—led by Labour MPs pointing out that poverty is a major cause of addiction and alcoholism, and they were right. The point I made was that it is a curse that goes across our society, too.

I was very lucky to have one of the most materially privileged childhoods—packed off to the greatest schools money can buy and given all the material support—but as a child in a family of two alcoholic parents, in the end it does not matter. If you are suffering that experience, you are lonely and you are on your own. I acquired at a very young age a habit of spotting which adults could see below the line. By that I mean those adults who would look at an eight-year-old, see what was going on and quietly acknowledge it, saying, “And how are you, young man? Things can’t be easy.” That is all you need as a child—to know that somebody has spotted it.

Children are very loyal. The last thing they would ever do is dob their parents in. In fact, it is quite the opposite: many children end up having to lie for their parents to get them out of difficult situations. Those are habits that no child should learn. The thing I learned above all is that there are two types of adults: those who understand—who look, who acknowledge, who see—and those who do not see below the line. That is not shaped by class or geography at all. It is the same in this House: there are some colleagues who really understand the importance of children, who do not have a voice in here unless we speak for them.

I am speaking today on behalf of all those children, wherever they are, whoever they are and whatever background they come from, to let them know that we are listening. This Parliament is here to speak for them. They may not vote, and they may feel silent or unheard, but it is not the case. Many of us here do understand and want to help them.

You probably know a child of alcohol, Mrs Harris, as do colleagues. I say that because people often say, “No, I don’t.” Well, they probably do, because there are sadly over 2.5 million children in this country who are living not with parents who drink a little bit too much—that probably applies to many of us—but with one or two parents with a serious alcohol dependency problem.

Alcohol is part of our cultural history and something that we have come to live with, accept and in many ways encourage as part of our society. However, that often means that we forget the difficult consequences for the children who live with the aftermath, whether of social drinking, binge drinking, the habits that alcoholics acquire—the habits of deceit and often forgetting what they said or did—or the unintended consequences that undermine their ability to parent and that lead to children normalising those behaviours. I am speaking for those children, wherever they are and whoever they are.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Alcohol was a very prevalent part of my childhood. I was very fortunate to have grandparents who were able to step in when it was necessary, but I will never forget. It was the fear of knowing that the pubs had just closed and that my parent would be coming home in a horrible state to disrupt what would normally be a very productive and pleasant household. Sometimes, those are the things that children take away—they are the things that I remember and cannot get away from. Those experiences also impact our relationship with alcohol, to the point that it is not something that I enjoy or particularly partake in, simply because my memories were formed by those experiences at a very young age. While I was lucky to have my grandparents, you cannot get away from those memories.

[George Freeman]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for making a powerful, personal and political point. He is absolutely right.

For my part, people often ask me how on earth I ended up in this place. My mother, who went on to become an alcoholic—tragically, my father had been an alcoholic and she suffered terribly through that; it is her funeral on Friday—asked me after I was elected, “When did you decide that you wanted to be an MP?” I said, “Actually, mum, I came on a school trip aged 10 or 11,” as schools do; it is wonderful to see children coming in. Nobody in the class knew that I was then a solo child carer of an alcoholic parent, dealing with the things that those children do.

What struck me about the thing I was living with was the fact that there seemed to be no one I could turn to. There seemed to be no network of support, and no one I could raise it with. One was on one’s own. I walked into the Chamber of the House of Commons, in which we have the privilege to serve, and was literally electrified by what struck me: the fact that there is a place where the nation tries to take responsibility for itself, where people are elected to take responsibility and actively seek it. That, to me, was an electrifying idea.

I remember that I was the least prepossessing boy in the class. I was the smallest boy, with a mop of red hair, a very bad stammer, crushing confidence issues and a double brace. I was the least likely boy in that class to become a parliamentarian. I remember walking into the Chamber and seeing the signs saying, “Don’t touch”, “Don’t sit down”, and staring at the Dispatch Box—it was at my eye height. I remember my teacher behind the Speaker’s Chair saying, “Stop dawdling, Freeman—keep up.” I said, “I’m not dawdling, sir; I’m intrigued, because it says ‘Don’t touch’, but someone has been touching it,” as the Minister will have touched it—the sweaty corner of that Dispatch Box where nervous Ministers, being cross-examined, hold on as they are being forensically held to account, something I now realise having had the privilege of doing it.

My teacher said, “No, no, no—that is not for the public; that is where Ministers hold on when they are being cross-examined.” I was electrified by that idea, and I left the Chamber thinking, “What a place.” If we can give the children out there who are suffering some confidence that we are here for them and that we are listening, I think we will be doing them a great service, and this Parliament and our democracy too.

I want to make a point about the geography of this matter because, as with so many social malaises, we sometimes think of it as an inner-city issue. Many of the formulae that the Government use to allocate money are largely driven by the formulae shaped after the inner-city riots of the 1980s. I used to be a specialist in local government finance, for my sins, and when we look at those formulae, a lot of them allocate money to areas that have high-rise flats and high incidences of minority ethnic families—all important indicators of certain types of deprivation.

In rural areas and many areas that do not fit those qualifications, however, there are many social issues that are often hidden. In rural Mid Norfolk—an area that people drive through on the way to the most beautiful coast in the land—behind the hedges and the beautiful villages there is a tidal wave of mental illness, depression and suicide, with a farmer a week taking their life, and children suffering. We often overlook that rural dimension, and that is equally true for mental health more broadly.

That is why last year I set up the Regeneration Theatre company with my wife, to take her inspiring one-man “Hamlet” made by her ex-husband—a former alcoholic who has been to prison and has been on a journey now—around prisons to help connect with prisoners and help them understand that many of the traumas they have experienced are actually to do with addiction and the behaviours that go with it. I am grateful to the prisons Minister for his support of that.

Today is really about the children of alcohol, and I particularly want to pay tribute to NACOA, the National Association for Children of Alcoholics. Hon. Members will know that there are many all-party groups in this great Palace—although rather fewer than there used to be, which I think is probably a good thing. There were ones for jazz, teddy bears, and even I think “Brideshead Revisited” at one point. Those light, frothy, frivolous all-party groups have gone. They are now generally very serious groups, committed to issues that do not lend themselves well to individual party politics—causes that often get lost. It has been my great privilege to chair a few.

I have to say that the all-party parliamentary group on children of alcoholics is the most extraordinary I have ever seen. The meetings are packed, with 100 or 200 people. We hear from children who come to Parliament to speak about their experiences. We hear from very high-achieving adults who are still dealing with the damage of their experiences. I will mention in particular Calum Best, whose father George Best was one of the greatest footballers in the land, if not the greatest—and a Northern Irelander to boot, I believe. Funnily enough, my mother met George Best at a drying-out clinic 40 or 50 years ago. Calum is an inspiring advocate for this cause. I also want to pay tribute to Hilary, Piers, Amy, Maya and all of those who volunteer to support the children, who without them would have no voice. I will also give a shout-out to Camilla Tominey, who has been a great supporter of our work.

We have supporters in the House of Lords as well. Sometimes, I think people think that privilege comes with a disconnection from some of these ills, but people might be surprised to know how many people there are in the House of Lords who have suffered as children of addiction of all sorts. This is not an issue that lends itself to advocacy by those from just a single party or geographic area.

I welcome the Minister—it is the first time we have had the chance to engage like this—and congratulate him on his appointment as the Minister with responsibility for life sciences, a role that I was lucky enough to be the first to hold. It is great to see him in his place. Having served in his Department, I know how many difficult issues he and the Department have to deal with; there is no magic silver bullet for any of them.

Over the course of this Parliament, the all-party group will try to set out a manifesto of reasonable, deliverable, fundable, understandable and relevant reforms that we hope the Government can work with us on. We do not suggest that the Government are the only body that can deal with this; we require a culture change and a broader network of support to help the charities, the community groups and those on the ground in communities where so many children suffer in silence. I will not go through the list of issues in the manifesto, and I will save for the Minister the duty of reading out the speech that his officials have probably carefully written and gone through point by point, but may I lead a delegation from the all-party group to see him and officials in due course, once the group is formally constituted, to run through the manifesto and talk through what else we might be able to do to help these children?

I want to give the Minister the chance to respond, so I will not detain the Chamber any longer, other than to say this. Let us all keep it in our minds that there are 2.5 million children out there who are, right now, watching the bottles, watching the levels, keeping an eye on their parents, distracted from their school work, struggling to do all the things that children should, learning to normalise anxiety and learning a lot of habits that will stay with them. For some, extraordinary tenacity might serve them well, but for many it will cause them long-term problems. I think that if we can grip this issue, we will be able to do a lot for long-term public health. I am grateful to the Minister, and to you, Mrs Harris, for allowing me this debate.

11:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing this important debate, in particular during what must be an unimaginably difficult week for him. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we send him our love and sympathy. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for sharing his powerful personal story, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for their thoughtful contributions. I will be very happy, once the APPG has been convened, to liaise with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who has responsibility for public health, to see what form of meeting can be arranged.

Alcoholism is a tragedy that blights communities across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency of Glasgow South West and the west of Scotland. Having practised as a medical doctor for more than 20 years, I have seen it, including in some of the transplant patients who have arrived across my operating table. As much as I love my job as a surgeon, I would love nothing more than for those transplants to never be needed again.

I want to reassure colleagues that this brief sits not just with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, but with all Ministers across Government, who are rightly focused on raising the healthiest generation of children in history. We want to support children whose parents have alcohol problems, but we also want to support their parents to get better.

Although not all children of parents with an alcohol problem will experience harm, they are clearly at far greater risk and, as we have heard, far too many of them will have their childhood scarred by their parents’ drinking. In 2024-25, 14% of child social worker assessments cited parental alcohol use, and in 2023-24 alcohol or drug use was identified in 43% of child safeguarding practice reviews where a child was seriously harmed or, sadly, died.

Children growing up in these environments are more likely to face additional challenges, such as parental mental health problems and sometimes, unfortunately, domestic abuse. The trauma from such experiences can last well into adulthood, which means that the cycle can repeat, with the trauma passed on through multiple generations. We must do everything we can to break that cycle.

As we have heard, alcoholism can affect anyone, but at times it hits hardest in some of our deprived communities. That is why from April next year, the Government will be rolling out Best Start family hubs to every local authority. Those hubs will provide a high-quality service for parents, and will focus on early child development and the digital resources to facilitate that. They will be open to all and based in communities where alcoholism is most prevalent, ensuring that services reach the children and families who are likely to benefit most from them.

The Government have also confirmed that we are giving vulnerable families and children better access to local support services. Our strategy is based, first, on breaking the cycle of late intervention and, secondly, on helping more children and families to stay safely together as a unit. We are doing this through the national roll-out of the family help multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making reforms, which will be delivered through the Families First Partnership programme led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. The programme’s funding amounts to £2.4 billion over the next three years. To help identify vulnerable children and families affected by parental alcohol problems who need a helping hand, my Department will support local authorities with an additional range of resources, including local prevalence and treatment data, and child safeguarding guidance for alcohol and drug treatment services.

We are doing this for children and their families, but we must also target our support to make a sustainable difference to pregnant women with alcohol problems. Timely and effective treatment is key, because drinking in pregnancy leads to long-term harm for babies—for example, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which has already been highlighted in this debate. Unfortunately, the more that women drink, the greater the risk. That is why the UK chief medical officer’s guideline is that if a woman is pregnant or thinks she might become pregnant, the safest approach is not to drink at all.

It is a genuine tragedy that pregnant women and mothers with alcohol problems are sometimes the most stigmatised and harshly judged people in our society. That means it is incredibly difficult for those women to speak out about their issues and to let services know that they have children, which prevents women, children and families from getting the help they deserve. We cannot forget that many women who drink during pregnancy come from homes where their own parents were dependent on alcohol and are often at the sharpest end of not only inequality, but complex and multiple other needs. Many of them were victims of trauma and abuse in their own childhood.

That is why the Government are committed to reducing stigma, improving the quality of treatment and making support available to every woman who needs it. First, we are piloting local approaches to reduce stigma among doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Secondly, we will soon publish the UK’s first clinical guidelines for alcohol treatment that include advice for supporting pregnant women and parents to stop or safely slow down their alcohol use. Thirdly, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are finalising the co-occurring mental health and substance use delivery framework, which will outline the commitments that we are making to improve integration of alcohol and drug treatment with mental health services at a national level. Fourthly, we plan to publish guidance on how treatment providers can better support and improve service provision for women. We will work with local commissioners to ensure that they consider in their drug and alcohol treatment commissioning plans the specific needs of pregnant women and parents.

We are also continuing to invest in improvements to local alcohol treatment services, which faced significant cuts followed by a decade of disinvestment. Just last week, the Government announced an investment of £13.4 billion—a 5.6% cash increase—over the next three years in local authorities’ vital public health work through the consolidated public health grant. That includes the overall £1 billion of drug and alcohol treatment and recovery improvement grants over the next three years. But treatment alone is not enough to improve outcomes for children. The evidence suggests that alcohol treatment, combined with support to help parents raise their kids, can increase the likelihood of recovery from alcohol dependency, reduce the risk of child neglect or abuse and, crucially, keep families together.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate. It has given me the chance to outline how the Government are laser-focused on improving outcomes for children from all kinds of backgrounds who find themselves in these situations—children who, through no fault of their own, were born to parents who suffer from alcohol problems. I hope I have demonstrated that our approach is based not on stigmatising, but on keeping families together. That is why our strategy is based on Best Start family hubs and the Families First Partnership programme, so that we can make sure that parents in alcohol treatment services also receive vital parenting and family support.

The Department for Education has released statutory guidance called “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, and I want to pick out one line from it:

“Nothing is more important than children’s welfare.”

That could not be more true. Everything we are doing across Government is aimed at improving children’s health and protecting child welfare, so that every child can thrive in a loving, safe and stable home.

Let me end by speaking directly about the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. Today he has spoken not only in this place, but to the nation. In doing so, he has ensured that more Members and citizens of our nation will now look, acknowledge and see below the line, so that together we can ensure that more children do not continue to suffer in silence.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

1994 RAF Chinook Crash

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

14:29

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The date of 2 June 1994 was a dark day in the history of our United Kingdom. On that day, on the Mull of Kintyre, Chinook ZD576 crashed, killing everybody on board: nine senior military officers, 10 Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch officers, five MI5 officers, a senior civil servant and four highly skilled members of the RAF. They were not only servants of the state, but husbands, fathers, sons, brothers and friends. They carried on their shoulders some of the most sensitive responsibilities in the defence and security of our country, and lost their lives in the course of that service.

More than three decades on, the quest for truth and justice in relation to that crash remains as relevant, urgent and morally compelling as ever. Sadly, the investigations and inquiries to date have not met the standards that those families or this country are entitled to expect. We have seen gaps in the chains of evidence, missing or incomplete documentation, the then Secretary of State for Defence being given an incomplete briefing, key information withheld or redacted, and manuals produced with missing pages.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. It follows a series of interventions, most recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) with the Prime Minister. Given the Hillsborough disaster and the change in the law to create a duty of candour, with the tools in place and the onus on Government to be open and answer unanswered questions from the families, does the hon. Member agree that this is a most opportune time, and one that the Government should seize?

[Alex Easton]

I wholeheartedly agree—we need to get the truth, and there are mechanisms for that truth to come out. To put it bluntly, all that has gone on before has been weighed in the balance of justice and found to be severely wanting. It is now undoubtedly clear that we must give a proper final opportunity for the truth to be told in full, in public and under oath, with the power to compel witnesses and require the production of documents. Those on board Chinook ZD576 gave their lives in the service of our country. In all conscience, the minimum we can give in return is a process worthy of their sacrifice and the trust that their families once placed in the institutions of the state.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Indeed, is that not the ultimate insult? Those who lost their lives had given indescribable service to this nation and were a huge loss to our intelligence community, but what has happened since has been a series of events of obfuscation and probably cover-ups. That is compounded by the fact that documents have been sealed for 100 years, causing families to question what on earth there is to hide. Only if that question is answered will there be any rest for those people or a final, acceptable conclusion.

[Alex Easton]

I totally agree with everything the hon. and learned Member says. The families deserve better; they deserve the truth, and we in Parliament deserve the opportunity to get them that truth.

Today, with the clear backing of tens of thousands of British citizens—as evidenced by the Change.org petition—I rise to demand a full public inquiry, because nothing less will provide justice for the dead or restore faith among the living. At the very least, any functioning democracy must be able to answer three basic questions in circumstances such as these: what happened; why did it happen; and what have we done—or what are we going to do—to ensure that it can never happen again? To put it in the terms set out by 24 of the 29 bereaved families, the bare minimum requirement is a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry with statutory powers to compel witnesses and to take evidence under oath; access to all relevant material, including currently sealed documentation; and clear, robust recommendations for systemic reform, so that nothing like this can ever happen again.

The integrity, clarity and reasonableness of what is being sought could not be more evident. This is not a radical demand; it is the basic standard of accountability that a mature democracy owes to its citizens and, above all, to those who lost their lives and the families. Having identified the gaps, as well as the remedy—a judge-led public inquiry—the question before us is whether we have the will to act. We are here not simply to catalogue injustice, but to confront and correct it. That is ultimately the purpose of this House: to ensure that when wrong has been done, justice is not just spoken of, but delivered.

Let me turn to the doubts and divisions that have marred this process. The record shows that from the very outset, the handling of this tragedy has in many ways been a second tragedy. It has been marked by profound and enduring concerns, including the initial findings of gross negligence against the pilots; the long and painful campaign by the pilots’ families—I pay tribute to them all—to overturn that verdict; serious concerns about the airworthiness and software of the Chinook fleet at the time; questions about pressures on crews, training, procedures and decision making; and deep unease, to put it mildly, about conflicts of evidence and missing, incomplete or constrained documentation.

Years later, the pilots were posthumously cleared of gross negligence. When I look at what evidence ever existed for such a grave accusation, I find it inexplicable that the original conclusion was reached. That should make every Member of this House stop and think. Let me be absolutely clear: if the state can wrongly pin gross negligence on two dead airmen—men who could not speak in their own defence—what confidence can we possibly have that the whole truth has been properly and fully explored?

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have a history with this story. Back in 1999, the late Lord Chalfont and I tried to draw attention to the fact that even at the time, the rules said that only if there was no doubt whatsoever should dead airmen be blamed for gross negligence. Since this case, under no circumstances are dead airmen blamed for gross negligence. That should be some comfort to the families, at least those of the airmen, because there have since been cases in which the Chief of the Air Staff has rightly ordered records to be changed retrospectively to clear airmen in other crashes who were unfairly blamed. That is a result of the furore about this terrible case—it is something for which the relatives of those who died can take credit. It will never happen again to any other airman who dies in the course of fulfilling his or her duty.

[Alex Easton]

The right hon. Member makes some very poignant points, and makes them well. I appreciate that they have been made.

I will tell you what I do have confidence in, Mr Dowd: I have confidence in the words of Niven Phoenix, a bereaved son who lost a heroic father. He said that if he were choosing the aircrew again, he would choose exactly the same ones. That is the measure of the men we are talking about. The clearing of the pilots did not close the book on the story; it reopened it, raising further fundamental questions. If not pilot error, then what? What combination of factors—technical, procedural and organisational—contributed to this disaster? Why were certain lines of inquiry seemingly resisted or, at best, left under-examined? Why were experts put under a direct order to cease their investigation? For many of the families, and for many observers, those questions remain profoundly unresolved.

Let me turn to why a judge-led inquiry is not only desirable but necessary. To the cynics who say, “This has been looked at before; it is time to move on,” let me be absolutely clear that that argument fails on three levels—moral, constitutional and practical. First, I will set out the moral case. There is a clear and unavoidable duty owed to the dead and to their families. The men and women on board ZD576 were in the service of their country; they were doing their duty, often in the most sensitive areas of national security. The very least they deserve in return is something fundamental: if they are killed in the line of duty, the state will move heaven and earth to discover how and why.

Instead, for 30 years, the families have had to fight again and again for answers that should have been offered willingly. They have had to endure conflicting official narratives, piecemeal disclosures and technical complexities sometimes being used as a shield and barrier against proper lay scrutiny, as well as long periods of silence, delay and dismissal. All this has unfolded while families have grown older waiting for justice, and some parents have died without ever seeing their child fully cleared, or having received a clear and honest account of what happened to them. We cannot change the past or undo this terrible crash, but we can decide how we face it; we can choose either candour or continued evasion. Make no mistake—that is the moral choice that Members of this House are making today.

Secondly, there is the constitutional case, which is a question of trust in the state itself. Our democracy fully functions only if our citizens can believe with confidence that when something goes terribly wrong, the state will not close ranks to protect itself. When tragedies such as this aircraft crash occur, in which decisions at the highest level may have played a part, the very minimum that the British public are entitled to expect is that evidence is not buried, mistakes are not quietly airbrushed away, and those in authority are not shielded simply because of their rank or department.

A full judge-led public inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath is the gold standard in our constitutional toolkit for restoring truth and trust—for examining major disasters, exposing state failings in policing, health, security and transport, and confronting painful truths about institutional abuse and misconduct. If the deaths of 29 people, including senior security and intelligence figures, on a military aircraft in the service of their country do not meet the bar for such an inquiry, it is very hard to see what ever would. It would be a profound constitutional error for this House to imply that there are areas of state activity that can never be fully examined, regardless of how serious the consequences are. I do not believe that any Member of this House would be content with that.

Thirdly, let me turn to the practical realities. We insist on a judge-led inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath because it is the only form of inquiry that has tools equal to the task. This House knows that only a full public inquiry can compel serving and former officials to give evidence; require the disclosure of all relevant material across departments and agencies; hear expert and technical testimony with the rigour needed to weigh competing interpretations; test accounts against each other in a structured and forensic way; and place everything within a publicly accessible framework in a clear, reasoned report. Let us be honest: without the power to compel, we rely on voluntary co-operation, which is by its nature selective. Without evidence given under oath, we cannot properly test credibility or consistency, and without judicial leadership, we cannot guarantee the independence, discipline and authority needed to command public confidence.

Let me tackle the objections to a public inquiry head on. Some people say, “This happened a long time ago.” Indeed, the crash was in 1994. Time has passed, but it has not healed; it has fomented doubt, leaving a growing sense of injustice. Memories may fade, but documentation does not. Technical records can be scrutinised. Policies, processes and decision making can be examined. Many witnesses are still alive and capable of giving evidence. The delays we have seen to date are not an excuse to fail to act now; they are, in truth, a reason to act.

Some people say, “There have already been investigations” —well, yes, of sorts. There have been fragmented processes, internal reviews and limited inquiries, but we have never had the single, judge-led public inquiry that the gravity of this tragedy demands. Those piecemeal processes cannot substitute for a full public reckoning. If previous procedures had been adequate, we would not be standing here now three decades on. The fact that this question remains unsettled is deeply telling in itself.

Some people say an inquiry will cost money—of course it will: truth, justice and confidence in democratic processes have a cost, but what is the cost of failing to act? It is the cost to the families in prolonged anguish and uncertainty. It is the reputational cost to the RAF and our democratic institutions, given the inadequacies of past investigations. It is the cost to the wider public’s confidence when it appears that some tragedies receive full scrutiny, while others are expected to be quietly managed and forgotten. When heroic lives have been lost in the service of the Crown, the cost of an inquiry is not a luxury or an optional extra; it is part of the debt we owe.

Some people say that an inquiry might endanger national security. We have heard that before in other contexts, yet time and again it has been shown to be possible to balance transparency with legitimate secrecy— inquiries can take sensitive evidence in closed session, for example. Highly classified material can be handled through carefully controlled procedures. Redactions can be made, subject to independent oversight. National security must never be used as a blanket to smother legitimate questions. The families are not seeking operational secrets; they are seeking an honest account of why their loved ones died and whether the actions or omissions of the state played a part. I contend that it is not only possible, but now entirely normal for a public inquiry to both protect the safety of our nation and respect the rights of citizens to the truth.

The issue is about far more than one crash, one aircraft and one dark day in 1994; it goes to the heart of how we treat those who serve, and how we respond when they are lost. Failure is not an option because if we continue to fail the families of those who died on Chinook ZD576, we send a chilling message to every current and future member of the armed forces and security services: “We value your service, but if the worst happens the truth about your death may not always be negotiable.” I do not believe that a single member of this House finds that acceptable, let alone tolerable. A proper judge-led public inquiry is not simply about revisiting the past; it is about learning lessons for the future. It is about airworthiness, risk and how we respond to concerns over equipment.

Behind each of the 29 lost lives was a unique and irreplaceable story: a pilot who trained for years and took deep pride in his aircraft and his crew; specialist officers who sacrificed family life and health to confront some of the most brutal terrorism western Europe has ever known, placing their own lives between the innocent and those who would harm them. Parents, wives, husbands and children have been left with an empty chair at the table, birthdays never celebrated, and milestones never reached. Children have grown up with treasured photographs and cherished memories instead of a living parent. Then there was a knock on the door, the formal words of condolence and the long, grinding aftermath of unanswered questions.

For so many of the families, the search for truth has required them to become unwilling experts in aviation, procedure and bureaucracy, simply so they could argue their case on something approaching equal terms. They have pored over reports, examined technical data and followed every thread of the investigation to date. They have written to Members of the House again and again in the hope that somewhere in authority there might be a listening ear with the courage to act.

We should hang our heads in shame that three decades on the families are still having to ask. Their position is not radical or unreasonable; it is, in fact, an appeal to simple integrity. They want a judge-led full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses—past and present—to attend, with the ability to take evidence under oath and with access to all the relevant documentation, to produce a public report that clearly sets out what is known, what is not known and what must change. That is not some dramatic departure from constitutional norms; it is entirely in line with the very best of our tradition of providing accountability when things go badly wrong.

We face a stark choice today. When the victims’ families knocked on our doors, did we listen politely and then quietly turn our backs or did we take their pain seriously? Did we recognise the limitations and shortcomings of the earlier processes? Did we accept that in a mature democracy the state must submit itself to the discipline of searching, independent scrutiny?

What is being sought is a fair route to the truth and to justice: an honest account of what happened and why. It should not be feared. Indeed, it should be embraced if we truly believe in the rule of law, accountability and the dignity of those who served and died. Today, we choose between courage and convenience. I urge Members to choose courage.

14:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd? You are known as probably the most friendly Chair in the House, so we are pleased to have you here. We all enjoy your company. I certainly did last night; you and I had a good time together. Thank you very much for that.

I also thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), my constituency neighbour. He has fought this battle for a long time. He has also been a good friend of mine, going way back to the time of the council and the Assembly.

[Alex Easton]

To 2001.

[Jim Shannon]

Was it 2001? My goodness! There we are—that is how long ago it was; I was not sure. I was really pleased to see the hon. Member set the scene so incredibly well today.

As I listened to the hon. Member’s speech, my mind—my memory—went back. Last night, Mr Dowd, we talked about things from many years ago and this debate has given us the chance to look back on that fateful day in June 1994. I remember what happened at that time; the story has been regurgitated each time the possibility of an inquiry has been mentioned since. I also remember the mists of the Mull of Kintyre. At one time the theory was that the IRA had done it, which was probably a reasonable assessment to make, but the fact is that it was not.

I pay tribute to the families of the victims, who over the years have given time and energy to pursue the truth. They have been patient over the years, even though every time they think about what took place, they must relive the trauma that they experienced then. We must be very aware of that. In the past, constituents have come to me about this issue, but we always seemed to hit a brick wall when it came to asking questions. The families had the questions and the questions that we asked as elected representatives were the questions that they asked us to ask for them. I should have said this before; forgive me for not doing so. It is nice to see the Minister for Veterans and People here today. I wish her well in her role. I understand that the Government have agreed to a meeting with the victims’ families. That is the right thing to do because the families are the reason we are all here today. I appreciate that.

The background to this case is very well known. There were 29 victims of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash back in June ’94, including 25 very senior Northern Ireland intelligence experts who deserve the transparency and accountability that only a judicial review can compel. As the years have passed, the evidence that the victims’ families have gauged and brought together is the work that the Government should have done, but did not. What a pity that is.

As I have said before, and as the Minister and others will know, Chief Constable Jon Boutcher supports a public inquiry, and that is of major importance. The fact that he is backing one is clear evidence that there should be an inquiry at the highest level. He, of course, might have known some of the victims, or none of them, but his present role is to ensure that the questions that the families want answered are answered, and the only way of doing that is through an inquiry. He further highlighted the need to address the uncertainty of the event—an endorsement at the highest level in relation to an inquiry.

Those who died in the Chinook crash of June 1994 were undoubtedly the cream of intelligence—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and those involved in other realms of intelligence. It is important that we deliver the justice and truth that their families seek. We have heard on numerous occasions about the cross-party support for a judicial review, and we have now engaged that collectively in this House: when we ask for this, it is on behalf of all parties. I am sure that those in the Labour party are equally anxious to ensure that we get justice and that those questions are answered.

This is not a political issue, though—it never has been. It is about taking the steps that are true and right. This is about justice for the families. The lack of transparency in this matter only betrays the truth and the victims’ service to this great nation. The hon. Member for North Down referred to their sacrifices—the efforts that they put in, the years that they spent in their jobs—and the families’ quest for justice over all those years. I am glad that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made the point about the pursuit of the airmen; their credibility was never questionable. We thank him for that. The right hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous Member of Parliament over all the years I have known him. His interest in this matter is deeply appreciated.

The families have been grieving for too long; that feeling of loss and unanswered questions will never go away. The Ministry of Defence’s lack of willingness to pursue the matter only prolongs that lack of trust. Was the helicopter airworthy? The evidence seems to show that it was not, and the pilots were certainly not to blame. There also seems to be evidence that this was not the first time the helicopter had broken down and had to be fixed, only for the same repairs to be needed again. The evidence suggests that. The families brought that evidence together, and we appreciate that. There are many questions that the families want answered.

I understand that the Minister will agree to a meeting with the victims’ families, and that that will involve more than one Minister. The Chinook crash has been described as the worst single loss of life in the history of the RAF during peacetime. We have all heard the speculation about the technical difficulties and the allegations of gross negligence. The evidential base that the families and others have brought together clearly shows that that was not the case. It is now time for the MOD to step in and step up.

Historically, documents such as the ones we are discussing have been sealed, sometimes for a century. I just cannot get my head around why anyone would want to seal something for a century if it has some impact on the inquiry that we are all seeking on behalf of the families. Releasing necessary documents allows for a restoration of trust, which some feel is wanting. Can the Minister say whether the decision to seal the information for 100 years —a century—can be reviewed and overturned? Many of us are asking that question on behalf of the families.

The second thing I would ask for is an apology to the victims’ families and friends, for having to wait for all these years to have the meetings and the inquiry that they have asked for. The Minister might be able to respond to that. There must be a formal acknowledgment of the tragedy—not for any admission of legal liability, but as a recognition of the emotional and societal impact that it has had on so many for so many years. The fact is that for years the Government and the MOD have tried to suppress what was happening; now, hopefully, the chance to hear about that is drawing closer. Confidence when it comes to the victims of the Chinook disaster of June 1994 has been wanting since that time.

My third ask is this: the overarching goal is to rebuild trust through transparency, accountability and genuine engagement, so will the Minister and the Government prove that that is what they are trying to achieve? Simply providing information is not enough. Families need to feel that the MOD is taking responsibility and prioritising justice.

Along with Northern Ireland colleagues, I will continue to represent the families of the Chinook crash until accountability prevails. As always, we offer our deepest sympathy to the families, who to this day are still living with the devastation of the events that occurred in 1994. Today, Government have the opportunity to give truth and justice to the victims’ families. We ask for that on their behalf.

15:00

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate and speaking so eloquently on the issue, which I know is close to his heart.

This event, the tragic crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, has left an indelible mark on the lives of many families in Northern Ireland and across this United Kingdom. Twenty-nine lives were lost that day, including 25 intelligence experts from the security services, the RUC and the British Army. The majority of the UK’s senior Northern Ireland intelligence and counter-terrorism experts were wiped out, along with four crew members. The loss shook not only their families, but the communities they served and the nation as a whole. Many of them served on the frontline, standing against terrorism in Northern Ireland at some of the most dangerous times.

In recent months, I have been approached by families who continue to seek answers, clarity and recognition for the profound suffering they have endured. They are not merely questions about the past; they are urgent calls for justice and transparency. Families who lost loved ones were denied answers to their questions by successive Governments who hid behind the Official Secrets Act. Their grief and loss has not been adequately acknowledged or addressed, and I believe they deserve answers.

The families are frustrated and angry at the continued lack of transparency. I recently spoke in Tesco to the wife of one of the gentlemen who lost their life, and it was plain to see that the pain is still as raw today as it was back in 1994. Their lives were changed forever on that day.

Important Ministry of Defence documents remain sealed, limiting the public’s understanding of the decisions made that day. The families and, indeed, the wider public have a right to know what happened. It is not simply about accountability; it is about openness, honesty and their right to know the circumstances leading up to their loved one’s death. The cloak of secrecy has heightened suspicions.

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

One of my constituents is a cousin of Master Air Loadmaster Graham Forbes, who was one of the four crew members who died that day. The bereaved families were never informed that the MOD had sealed those documents for 100 years, and it took a BBC investigation for that to be revealed. Will the hon. Lady comment on that? It seems utterly outrageous that the families were not informed in the first instance.

[Carla Lockhart]

I will mention that later in my speech, but it is absolutely outrageous that families who had been seeking answers learned of it from the BBC and not from our Government.

It is difficult to summarise the failings within a 90-minute debate. Despite the repeated claim that there have been six investigations, none had the legal powers of a full inquiry, none could compel documents or witness testimony, and all relied almost entirely on information controlled by the MOD and RAF—information we now know was incomplete, withheld or simply wrong. Early investigations wrongly blamed pilot negligence, only for those findings to be overturned some 17 years later, after the families of the pilots put up such a fight and campaign. It is right to mention Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper today.

At the heart of the tragedy lies one central fact: the Chinook Mk 2 was officially deemed unsafe. MOD test pilots described its FADEC—full authority digital engine control—software as “positively dangerous”, and the aircraft was grounded. The release to service in 1993 falsely declared it airworthy, even though only one of its 60 regulatory components was fully compliant. Repeated engine faults, unpredictable flight control behaviour and warnings dating back to 1988 were never resolved, yet ZD576 was allowed to fly. And 29 people paid for that decision with their lives.

Key evidence disappeared from the crash site. As has been said, we know through a BBC documentary that those documents remain sealed for 100 years—to find that out in such a way is absolutely outrageous. Senior figures, including Defence Secretaries and fatal accident inquiry participants, were not told about ongoing MOD litigation over FADEC failures at the time, but they were expected to deliver judgments on its safety.

Today, we must ask: why were passengers placed on an aircraft deemed unfit to fly? Who authorised its use, despite unresolved technical faults? Why were MOD test pilots prohibited from flying the Mk 2, yet the 29 who lost their lives were not? Why were airworthiness concerns ignored, expertise overruled and evidence withheld? How can we prevent future disasters if the truth remains locked away?

The families are not seeking blame; they are just seeking answers. They are calling for an independent, judge-led public inquiry with full legal powers to compel documents and testimony, review technical and regulatory failures, and recommend reforms to ensure such a tragedy never happens again. After 30 years, transparency is not just overdue; it is a moral obligation. Only a full inquiry can deliver justice for the 29 lives lost and restore public trust in military aviation oversight.

I asked the Prime Minister for a meeting in a recent parliamentary debate on the duty of candour, and I am pleased that it has been confirmed to the families that they will receive a meeting with the MOD before the end of the year. That critical step is a recognition of the pain the families continue to carry, and a signal that their voices are being heard at the highest level of government. However, meetings and discussions alone are not enough. We must ensure that the families’ calls for a judge-led public inquiry are granted. We owe them a process that is thorough, independent and capable of uncovering the truth, unimpeded by bureaucratic delays or secrecy.

It is essential to acknowledge the work of the Chinook Justice Campaign. The campaigners have fought tirelessly. They have come together, they have gelled and they are on a mission to get answers from this Government. By supporting their efforts, we reinforce the fundamental principle in a democratic society that no tragedy should be hidden and no family should be denied answers.

The Chinook tragedy is not simply an historical event; it is a living wound for the families and friends of those who perished. They have now waited 31 years and counting for clarity, recognition and justice. It is our duty, as elected representatives, policymakers and citizens, to ensure that their voices are heard and that the process in place reflects fairness and compassion, and is one they can support. I urge the Government to act decisively. Let us ensure that the families have access to the information they need, that those who were involved in the aftermath are recognised, and that lessons are learned so that we safeguard our service personnel and communities in the future.

In closing, I reiterate the simple truth that guides my engagement on this matter: these families have suffered unimaginable loss, and they deserve transparency and justice. Let us commit to supporting them, to honouring the memory of those lost, and to ensuring that no evidence is left unheard in the pursuit of truth. If I had time, I would read out the 29 names. I encourage every Member to read them, because behind every name is a family who remain broken because of unanswered truths.

15:10

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I, too, begin by thanking the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate and for the thoughtful and considered way in which he opened it.

This debate is long overdue, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s hope that it will be the start of a process that leads to a much-needed and much-called-for fully independent, judge-led public inquiry. That inquiry must be able to compel people to give evidence so that we and, more importantly, the families can get to the truth of exactly what happened on the evening of 2 June 1994 when that ill-fated Chinook Mk 2 crashed into a fog-shrouded hillside on the Mull of Kintyre at the southernmost tip of my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency.

It was of course a tragedy for the families, but it has also had a deep and lasting impression on the community of Campbeltown and south Kintyre, many of whom were first on the scene of the accident and are still haunted by the experience. This is deeply personal for many of my constituents. The issue has come up time and again since my election to this place in 2015, brought to my attention by people in the local area. I recall attending a packed memorial service at Southend parish church on 2 June 2019 to mark the 25th anniversary of the disaster, before joining scores of local people on that desolate, windswept hillside on the Mull of Kintyre for a ceremony at the memorial cairn erected to the memory of all those who died in the crash.

The families have fought for more than three decades to get to the truth of what happened to their loved ones, only to be met by a wall of silence and obfuscation by the Ministry of Defence and repeated refusals to meet with them. No doubt the Minister will point to the fact that there have been numerous inquiries and investigations into the crash, but she knows that not one of those investigations has examined the central question of why the decision was made to authorise a flight in an aircraft that was known to be unfit and not airworthy. She knows, too, that every inquiry hitherto has not had the power to compel evidence, which is why it is essential that we have an independent, judge-led public inquiry.

The Minister will also know that many of the findings of those early investigations have been thoroughly discredited, particularly the shameful attempt by the Ministry of Defence to pin the blame on the flight crew—Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook—who she knows were both subsequently fully exonerated. As one of the family members told me recently,

“Rick and Jonathan were the best pilots, flying the worst aircraft.”

Of course, if the MOD was so confident that it had got to the bottom of what happened on the Mull of Kintyre that evening and that there is nothing more to learn, why would it lock away and seal the key technical and legal documents for 100 years? There is a catalogue of such incidents, which means that the trust between the families and the MOD has completely evaporated over the past 31 years.

That suspicion and loss of trust is deeply entrenched among the families. I recall, in 2019, raising on the Floor of the House of Commons how rumours were circulating that the Ministry of Defence was about to destroy some of the files pertaining to the crash. I had to ask the then Leader of the House to make sure that her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence did no such thing. That was the level of distrust back in 2019, and sadly, it has not improved.

Last month, I was honoured to be asked, alongside the hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), to join the families when they handed in a 51,000-name petition to Downing Street, demanding an independent judge-led public inquiry to get to the bottom of why that unairworthy aircraft was allowed to leave Belfast, and why it subsequently crashed into a Scottish hillside. After we handed in the petition, a few of us sat with the families for a few hours to hear about the impact the crash has had on them—not just the crash but the subsequent cover-up.

I leave Members with some of the statements I jotted down from those meetings with those still-grieving family members. One of them told us:

“It is like living with a chronic disease… the pain is always there.”

Another, whose father was a senior police officer on board, said that because of their circumstances,

“we all held our lives so dearly, but officers and Ministers held it so cheaply when they loaded them”—

their families—

“on to that Chinook.”

A third added that

“this is not a political issue. It is just an old-fashioned issue of right versus wrong.”

I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is hugely significant that two former Defence Secretaries, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Sir Liam Fox, have publicly expressed their support for the families’ campaign, stating that they now believe that they were misled regarding the circumstances of the flight. Given that, it has become increasingly difficult to conclude anything other than that what we have witnessed for the past 31 years is simply a cover-up. It is not a cover-up for reasons of national security; it is a cover-up for reasons of national embarrassment.

15:17

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, given your insight on matters of national security. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing the debate today.

This summer, a constituent joined me in my surgery at Honiton and explained that she was the widow of one of the victims who had been killed in a helicopter crash in 1994. Her husband was one of the 29 security personnel who were killed when Chinook Zulu Delta 576, in which they were travelling, crashed over the Mull of Kintyre. In my speech, I want to focus on what has happened since: the years of uncertainty, the fragmented investigations, the unanswered questions and the decision to seal key documents away until 2094.

My constituent is now a member of the Chinook Justice Campaign, led by 24 of the 29 families who are seeking answers about the crash itself, but also accountability for way that it was handled in the aftermath. They have set out a long list of unanswered questions—a stark reminder of how much remains unresolved for the families—including: “Why were our loved ones placed on an aircraft that even the Ministry of Defence and its most experienced test pilots were prohibited from flying?” and “Were the passengers on board told that the proper authority in the Ministry of Defence had determined that the aircraft was not to be relied on in any way whatsoever?” After three decades, those are modest and entirely reasonable requests.

The withholding of information has denied families the answers that could have brought some closure to their grief. Across 31 years, six separate investigations have examined the Chinook crash, yet none has provided a full or coherent account of what happened. The original RAF board of inquiry in 1995 blamed the pilots without ever resolving the serious airworthiness concerns known about at the time. Later reviews, culminating in the 2011 Lord Philip review, overturned the negligence verdict but still did not address why the aircraft was allowed to fly despite being declared unairworthy by the MOD’s own testing centre in 1993.

Even subsequent parliamentary scrutiny and internal MOD examinations, including through the 2000s and the 2010s, left major questions unanswered. Those include how the false declaration of airworthiness was made, why crucial information was withheld from the pilots, and what is contained in the documents now sealed until 2094.

[Tessa Munt]

When the Minister replies, I wonder whether she might answer this question, with which I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. When did the MOD stop allowing so many critical personnel on one flight? Those on board included members of MI5, RUC special branch and the British Army intelligence corps, as well as Northern Ireland security experts—almost all the UK’s senior Northern Ireland intelligence capability on one flight. We know that in the case of the royal family, the monarch and the heir are not allowed to fly together. Will the Minister explain exactly when the MOD stopped the practice of putting everybody on one flight? Has that actually happened?

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I understand that so many high-value, senior and experienced personnel would not be put on the same flight today. If we reflect on that collision in 1994, we have to ask why six inquiries have not brought clarity. Instead, families are left with a patchwork of findings, and gaps where the truth should be.

The Chinook Justice Campaign poses a crucial question: how can future tragedies be prevented through changes to oversight and accountability? That brings me to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which passed its Second Reading this month. Its central idea is that public servants should have a duty of candour—a legal requirement to act truthfully, to co-operate and to avoid the kind of defensive practices that have deepened the suffering of victims’ families in the past.

The Bill contains a significant exemption under clause 6: the duty of candour does not apply to the intelligence agencies or others who handle material falling within the definition of “security and intelligence” in section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I entirely understand why some agencies and the broader intelligence community might need to be exempt, but if certain institutions are to be exempt from a statutory duty of candour, Parliament must at least strengthen the independent mechanisms that can review and oversee sensitive decisions behind closed doors.

At present, that mechanism is the Intelligence and Security Committee, but its remit no longer reflects how all national security work is carried out across Government. In its 2022-23 annual report, the ISC warned that the

“failure to update its Memorandum of Understanding”

has allowed key intelligence-related functions to shift into policy Departments outside its oversight, creating what it called an “erosion of Parliamentary oversight”.

Families want to see the full truth and have urged MPs who represent them to call for relevant documents to be released where possible. Liberal Democrats support the families and are calling for the release of those sealed Chinook documents that can be released, and a judge-led public inquiry in due course with access to all relevant material, so that the unresolved questions about airworthiness and accountability can be answered. We are also urging the Government to follow through with a duty of candour on public bodies, which should of course include the Ministry of Defence, in which the Minister and I and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), all served.

We need to ensure that bereaved families are never again forced to fight for decades to have basic transparency. Where documents relating to the Chinook crash can be released, they should be, so that families can finally understand the full truth of what happened and why. If there are elements relating to national security that genuinely cannot be made public, the Government must put in place trusted, independent parliamentary oversight with the authority to examine that material. For the sake of my constituent, and for every Chinook Zulu Delta 576 family still waiting for answers, we must not let this injustice endure for another generation.

15:25

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and giving us the chance to revisit what more can be done for those involved in the Chinook Justice Campaign. We have already heard in detail the circumstances surrounding the fatal crash of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. Like others, I begin by paying tribute to the 29 people who lost their lives that day in what remains one of the worst tragedies in the history of the RAF.

Many of the passengers were members of the Northern Ireland security and intelligence community. Their deaths were not only a serious loss to this country’s security but, above all, a profound personal tragedy for each of the 29 families who lost loved ones that day. It is deeply saddening that, 31 years on, those families still feel that their fight for truth and justice—we have heard those two words repeatedly today—is unfinished.

I am genuinely honoured to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Like many others here, I remember watching the BBC documentary series on this tragedy when it aired early in 2024. It laid bare the lasting impact of that horrific day, the grief carried by the families and the distress caused by the RAF board of inquiry’s now-discredited findings, which placed blame on the pilots. Long, determined campaigns have followed to clear their names, and I pay tribute to the families for those efforts. We can all agree that those documentaries were deeply sad to watch. For those who remember the event itself, it was a horrible mark on this country’s history in Northern Ireland.

I do not believe that anyone who saw the documentary could fail to feel disappointed, or indeed frustrated, at the wholly unnecessary suffering that these families have endured. It took a 16-year fight, and a determined campaign by these families, for a formal acceptance that an injustice was done—that is a long time to have to live with that. In 2010, it was right that the Government at the time listened to the families and the repeated concerns raised by various Committees across both Houses, and commissioned the independent inquiry that finally set aside the findings of gross negligence against the pilots. Lord Philip’s conclusions cleared the pilots’ names, and formal apologies were issued to the families for the distress that they had carried for so many years.

Many of today’s contributions have outlined what action Members would like to see from the Government, and I believe that there is cross-party consensus on our asks. The hon. Member for North Down reiterated the two aspects of truth and justice, and he laid out a practical approach to getting answers, as well as the mechanisms needed to find out what really happened. I completely agree with him that the families deserve truth, and I align myself with a key point that he made: we need to provide justice for the dead and—from what we have seen recently—restore faith among the living. Ultimately, we are all asking for this because no one wants to see such a thing happen ever again. The hon. Member laid out the three parts of the argument—the moral, the constitutional and the practical—and I think we can all agree that they are very compelling.

I also put on record my apologies to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for missing him out in my last wind-up speech. He brings a great deal of experience to this House and contributes to many debates. He is also a veteran and speaks up for the people of Northern Ireland repeatedly. I completely align myself with his approach. The time and the energy that the bereaved families have had to put into the campaign to get basic answers is a stain on multiple Governments, and I really hope that answers can be found. I am glad that the Minister and the Government have agreed to meet the victims’ families before Christmas. That is important, and I look forward to hearing the findings.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said that an indelible mark has been left on so many lives across Northern Ireland. She lives and breathes that every day, and I know she fights for her constituents. She highlighted the loss to our intelligence and security community; losing such key personnel at a time of increased instability will have had a massive impact on operations in Northern Ireland. She talked about the need for openness and trustworthiness. It is right that the families and those who are interested in this matter find out what happened. We have heard several times today that there were significant inconsistencies in the multiple investigations over 31 years. She rounded off by saying something that the families would agree on: they are not seeking to blame anyone; they just want to find out what happened.

The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) talked about the impact that the crash had on his constituency. I have watched the documentary and seen the interviews with the families, but it is difficult to put myself in the shoes of the local people who were just going about their daily businesses when such a horrific crash was inflicted on their community. It has had a lasting impact across multiple generations. He spoke about the previous investigations, many of which have been discredited. I am glad to see the effort he put in to get together the 51,000 names to be presented to the Prime Minister in a petition, and I heard his calls for a judge-led inquiry.

The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my neighbour in Devon, talked about the years of uncertainty. He looks into matters of intelligence and security in this House and brings weight to this conversation. He talked about the inconsistencies between multiple investigations, and about the six inquiries over the years, which have not produced an acceptable response to the families.

This issue is personal to me. I spent much of my career in the Royal Marines, and I relied on Chinooks. After a long night’s work in a hostile country, the moment that we heard one coming over the hill was the moment that we allowed ourselves to breathe. We trusted the aircraft and, of course, we trusted the people flying it even more. I know how highly trained and highly skilled the men and women who fly these aircraft are. They are utterly committed to their jobs. Having had the pleasure of being transported by special forces Chinook pilots, I can personally attest to their consummate professionalism. We knew that they would do everything in their power to keep us safe and get us where we needed to go.

That is why the original finding of gross negligence was so hard to accept, given the complete lack of evidence. It ran directly against the RAF’s rule that deceased aircrew should be found negligent only when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Aircrew deserve the assurance that when something goes wrong every other explanation will be examined and, unless clear evidence points to fault, they will be given the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, as we have heard multiple times across the investigations, there was a great deal of doubt, yet two of the RAF’s finest special forces pilots, unable to defend themselves or explain what happened, were held responsible. That decision ignored the uncertainty and the RAF’s own regulations. For those of us who have placed our lives in the hands of aircrew, I can understand why that feels like a breach of the trust that every service person must have in those responsible for bringing them home.

We also know that there were persistent concerns that the aircraft itself may have suffered a malfunction—we heard that again from right hon. and hon. Members today. As has already been acknowledged, Boscombe Down, the military aircraft testing site, had repeatedly raised worries about the airworthiness of the Chinook HC2 variant. In the period leading up to the accident, those concerns became significant enough that Boscombe Down stopped flying the HC2 altogether. This is a very important point: if test pilots—people whose job is to push aircraft to their limits—decline to fly something because of safety concerns, that cannot be overlooked. Despite those warnings, the aircraft were still brought into operational service.

I have waited for Chinooks in some of the most dangerous moments of my life. The Minister probably has similar experiences. I cannot imagine being sent an aircraft that was even suspected of being unsafe. If we ask people to risk their lives for our country, we must ensure that the equipment they depend on and the decisions taken on their behalf meet the highest possible standard. I very much hope that lessons are learned from this incident so that nothing like it ever happens again. With that in mind, I again offer the families, some of whom are here today, my deepest sympathies that the full facts of what happened on that day remain largely unknown. I can only imagine the anguish that brings.

I understand entirely why the families are asking for the 100-year closure to be lifted. When the Chinook Justice Campaign approached my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, he wrote to the Armed Forces Minister seeking an explanation for that decision. I understand that the Government’s answer pointed towards GDPR restrictions and the assumption of a 100-year lifetime for sensitive material. I hope the Minister might expand on that. Personal information must be protected, but a century-long closure is a substantial barrier. Surely there is some way to provide the families with at least some sense or measure of clarity. Under the current approach, they will never see the information in their lifetimes. That is deeply sad for anyone who has lost someone and wants to find out what happened.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the inconsistencies of the wider Government position. One of the main arguments that we have heard time and again over recent months in support of repealing the Northern Ireland legacy Act is that the victims’ families have a right to know what happened, but that principle does not seem to apply in this case. I hope that changes when the Minister meets with families. It is difficult to reconcile.

The Ministry of Defence has said that the 100-year closure will be reviewed in 2029. Although I appreciate that that is part of a regular cycle, it must feel very far away for families who have spent decades searching for answers. I am willing to work with the Minister and the defence team to see what can be done. I ask the Minister to work closely with the Chinook Justice Campaign in the meantime and to provide whatever information can be safely shared.

15:38

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and speaking with such passion on behalf of the bereaved families who were impacted by this tragic accident 31 years ago. As he will know, I am a veteran myself. I know that the pain of losing loved ones does not diminish with the passage of time, and nor should it. In this case, there is the added hurt for families of not knowing, after more than three decades, precisely why the Chinook crashed or why their loved ones died. As he may know, I served in the Intelligence Corps. The loss of the Intelligence Corps personnel on board was felt when I joined in 2014 and, indeed, I discussed it with former colleagues recently. Their legacy is very much still alive and the impact of their service very much still remembered.

Colleagues will be well aware that the courts are considering the Chinook Justice Campaign’s request for a judicial review of the ministerial decision not to grant a new public inquiry into the accident. The judicial review process is a vital mechanism to hold public bodies to account and the courts will make their decision fairly and impartially. I will not provide a summary of our response to the courts or justify our position, but I will touch on a few points, including those raised in the debate.

I want to focus on the lessons that have been learned and applied as a lasting legacy of the 29 people who we lost that day and I know are greatly missed. It is vital that the public have confidence that those of us in positions of responsibility will honour our commitment to the duty of candour. That is the message at the heart of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, which I am pleased to say has cross-party support for the reasons that we have heard several Members address today.

I want to address some of the points about the files that are held in the National Archives. There are claims that the files contain vital information about the cause of the crash, and that the information has been intentionally withheld. As we have stated publicly, the documents contained in the files have been reviewed by officials, who have confirmed that they contain no information that would offer new insights into the crash. I understand that only 0.1% of the documents are subject to the 100-year review. Most of those relate not to maintenance or repair logs, but to compensation or personal details, which of course was the reasoning for the 100-year closure in the first place.

[Tessa Munt]

I have done quite a lot of reading and received information from the family, but it is not clear to me the date on which the documents were sealed or by whom. Can the Minister confirm that? Who made the request that they be sealed, who made the decision that they should be sealed, and when was that decision made? I do not expect her to be able to answer off the top of her head, so I am happy for her to write to me.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I do not have the exact details to hand right now, but it is quite routinely the case that, where documents of this nature contain personal information, they are closed for 100 years to allow for the people whose details they contain to have passed away, at which point the privacy considerations obviously change.

[Tessa Munt]

I understand why they have been sealed. I would like to know who made the decision to seal the documents for 100 years, and on what date it was made. It was clearly not in June 1994, because it lasts for 100 years. Somebody made the decision after that date to seal those documents.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I will get the hon. Member the information. I understand that they are sealed until 2094.

Carrying on the point I was making, there is some material, from various sources, that puts forward theories relating to the crash, but those theories have been publicly aired in previous investigations, and I reiterate that the reason for those documents being closed is that they contain personal information. As has been mentioned, that is up for review in 2029. Although these documents are FOI-able, personal details would none the less remain redacted. The files have been transferred to the National Archives, which is standard practice, and the personal data has been marked as closed.

There have been six investigations and inquiries into the crash of Chinook ZD576. As a result of those, and the inquiries into the tragic fatal crash of RAF Nimrod XV230 in 2010, the Department has made a number of very important changes to its air safety and incident—

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Did the Minister just say that all of these documents would be FOI-able and would then be released, albeit in redacted form, presumably in the usual way, with personal details being blacked out?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

Yes, that is the information I have been given.

The Department has made a number of important changes to its air safety and incident review processes since 1994. As we heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the change to the board of inquiry process so that negligence is not attributed to dead airmen is a hugely important step, which resulted partly from the investigations of this incident.

Chief among the changes is the establishment of the Military Aviation Authority, an independent and autonomous body that ensures that expert, no-blame investigations of safety-related incidents and near misses across all defence domains are independent, impartial and timely. As recommended by the board of inquiry report, accident data recorders and cockpit voice recorders are now installed across the vast majority of Ministry of Defence air fleets, and formalised instrument meteorological conditions climb procedures were introduced throughout the RAF to support aircrew to safely negotiate poor weather conditions. Today the RAF has a robust and effective safety management system, and a commitment to total safety is embedded in the culture of the organisation.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I apologise for intervening after having stepped out for part of the debate—this may already have been covered. Has any consideration been given to possible embarrassment over the decision to put so many staff, in so many sensitive positions, into a single aircraft? Despite my past interest in this case, I am not sure that I have ever heard that rules have been changed so that so many precious resources are not put at risk all in one single vehicle.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

It is a very interesting point. I understand the reference, and I would be interested to know about further standard operating procedures. I am sure that, as the right hon. Member will understand, it is quite a rare occurrence to have that many senior people on the same airframe in the course of business, but I cannot say right now that that is definitely the case, or what the bounds are in terms of ranks and so on. I am sure the right hon. Member will appreciate that.

[Tessa Munt]

rose—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. If the Minister wants to give way, she is perfectly entitled to, but you should not force it by standing up.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

indicated assent.

[Tessa Munt]

Exactly as has just been said, I asked earlier whether, and when, that practice had been changed. I would very much like to know the date on which that decision was made, the nature of the decision and its wording, which I would share with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and note her request.

The hon. Member for North Down spoke movingly in his compelling speech about our moral duty to uncover the truth. I am committed, as I know my colleagues are, to the contract with those who serve our nation—we are serving them. Part of that contract is that when we ask them to do dangerous things, or put them into harm’s way, we have a moral duty to have done what we can to mitigate the risks they will face. To do that, we must do all the preparatory work necessary and learn the lessons when there is the opportunity to do so.

Let me briefly address a point—a single point, and not necessarily the entire argument—raised by the hon. Member for North Down and others. Although the review by Lord Philip was not statutory and therefore did not have the power to compel, I note that nobody who was called to give testimony absented themselves. Although they were not compelled, nobody refused to come.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made an excellent point about the need for the Government to be open. I wholeheartedly agree on that, and on the need for accountability. I have already addressed the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke passionately, as he always does, on behalf of those who have suffered. I reiterate the importance of getting to the truth of what happened. That is the central driving point and why we are all here for this debate.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke passionately on behalf of her constituents, and rightly called for justice and transparency. She called on us to read those 29 names, as I will do after this debate. She made the valid point that we must remember each and every person we lost in the crash. I thank her for her impassioned call.

The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) asked some very important questions, and I will write to her on the specifics. I hope I have already addressed at least some of her questions about the closed documents. Her point about the families not being told about the documents being sealed is a valid one. In this and similar situations, it is incumbent on us, the Ministry of Defence, to communicate everything we can to the affected families. I thank her for raising the point.

The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) raised the issues that the families have faced over the past 31 years in getting to the truth of what happened to their loved ones and why, and in achieving an understanding of the factors in the flight. I thank him for speaking so passionately on their behalf.

The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) spoke very well on behalf of his constituents. He made an important point about the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. As he will know, some Government business is quite rightly classified, but there is still, of course, a need for accountability. He may be aware of my previous military service, and he will know that I absolutely understand the value of being able to carry out classified work, but the issue of accountability is valid whether we are talking about classified or unclassified work. I will certainly take his point away with me.

The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke very well, particularly about his own personal experiences. We heard a Chinook go overhead—

[David Reed]

Twice.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

Exactly. It is a sound that the hon. Gentleman and I obviously know very well. Again, this goes back to my service in the Intelligence Corps. Before I deployed to Afghanistan, someone who was interested in my safety, and who was in the corps, told me to be careful, because it is when travelling that, unfortunately, we in the Intelligence Corps tend to lose our personnel. I am well aware that this is not the only crash in which we have lost members of the corps.

We are well aware of that every time we get into a military aircraft, particularly if it will be flying in hostile conditions. Every time I climbed into an aircraft, predominantly RAF Pumas, that had to fly in certain tactical ways—a bit more acrobatically than usual—I, and every single person on that flight, put so much trust in those who maintained, certified and produced the airframe. It is the work of many people to ensure that someone, whether the pilot or a passenger on the flight, can trust that it will get them from A to B as it should. That trust also extends to knowing that if anything happens to a flight, there will be truth and accountability in getting to the bottom of what went wrong, whatever the cause may be, without fear or favour. I very much acknowledge that principle today.

I also acknowledge the level of anger felt by those represented by the Chinook Justice Campaign. The noble Lord Coaker has written to them to invite representatives to meet him, the Minister for the Armed Forces and me, with the meeting scheduled for 16 December. I understand that the families and loved ones of the 29 people killed that day continue to search for answers to explain what went wrong. The review that was undertaken by Lord Philip concluded that the cause of the accident is likely never to be known, and I am truly sorry for that. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Before I call Alex Easton, I remind Members that I have allowed them more flexibility in coming and going than I would ordinarily, given the sensitivity of the issue and people having arrived late. Please bear that in mind in future.

15:54

[Alex Easton]

I thank all Members for their speeches and interventions. On behalf of the families, we appreciate the interest and the real reason: trying to get to the truth. Will the Minister to confirm something the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned about FOIs? Am I correct in saying that if somebody submits an FOI request for the documents that were sealed for 100 years, they can all be obtained, with redactions? I am willing to take an intervention.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

They would have to go through the FOI process, which of course is not—[Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Let the Minister answer the question.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I cannot prejudge the outcome of an FOI process for something that has not been asked for, but they can absolutely go through that process.

[Alex Easton]

I thank the Minister for her answer. We will certainly look at an FOI on that, just to see.

For too long, questions have remained unanswered. Why have the Ministry of Defence documents been sealed for 100 years? Why were repeated warnings ignored time and again? Where was the due diligence on the Chinook Airworthiness Review Team reports, which identified systematic failings? Where was the due diligence in response to the September 1993 report that described the FADEC software as “positively dangerous”? Where was the due diligence on the October 1993 findings of MOD test authorities that were unable to recommend the aircraft for flying? These are not just abstract questions; they go to the very heart of accountability, trust in our institutions, and justice for the families, who have waited far too long.

A 100-year blanket ban of secrecy cannot be allowed to smother the quest for truth, so we will test that with an FOI request. Light must be shone into the darkness. Today we have a choice to continue to hide behind delays and smokescreens, or to honour that long-held principle that justice delayed is indeed justice denied, and finally deliver the truth that is owed to the families through a judge-led public inquiry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash.

15:57

Sitting suspended.

Home Insulation

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, Retrofitting homes for net zero, HC 453, and the Government response, HC 1260.]

15:59

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can only make a speech with the prior permission of both 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.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of home insulation on energy bills.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Across the country, 12 million households are in fuel poverty, with almost 5 million of them spending over 20% of their income on energy. Like many other people across the country, my constituents in Shipley face a cost of living crisis, and energy bills are a huge part of that crisis.

Increasing the energy efficiency of our homes is a crucial way in which we can reduce bills, yet the rate of home insulation installations declined under the previous Government. I am pleased that this Labour Government have taken positive steps to reverse that decline with the warm homes plan. In addition, I particularly welcome today’s Budget announcement by the Chancellor to scrap the disastrous Tory energy company obligation scheme, which cost more than £1 billion per year and cost many families more money than it saved. All of this will bring down energy bills for the average household by £150 from next April, reducing the cost of living and lifting more people out of fuel poverty.

However, there is an urgent need to upgrade our homes. The UK’s housing stock is among the least energy efficient in Europe. According to research by Imperial College London, homes in the UK lose heat up to three times faster than homes in the rest of Europe. Perhaps that is not surprising, given that almost a quarter of properties in Great Britain with cavity walls have no cavity wall insulation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand. The problems that she is outlining in her own constituency of Shipley are similar to those we have in Northern Ireland, where 65% of dwellings have full cavity wall insulation, 15% have partial cavity wall insulation and 20% have no cavity wall insulation. Does she agree that more must be done to lower the threshold for programmes such as the boiler scheme insulation grant, so that more households can apply for such grants to support them in heating their homes properly?

[Anna Dixon]

It is vital that people in all types of tenure and even low-income households—indeed, everybody—can access modifications that could save them money on their bills.

Poor-quality housing particularly traps households in fuel poverty, because people need to spend a fortune to keep warm. Data from Friends of the Earth shows that there are 17 energy crisis hotspots in my own constituency. These are neighbourhoods that have below-average household income but above-average energy bills.

In Shipley, we also have a higher than average proportion of homes that are non-decent, which means they do not meet the standards for a warm and dry home. Indeed, 64% of homes in Shipley have an energy performance certificate rating of D or below. As a result of the extortionate cost of energy, the unnecessary additional high usage due to poor insulation and the flatlining of living standards under the previous Government, energy debt is soaring. Millions of households across the UK now have a combined energy debt of over £4 billion.

To help people to deal with this situation, fantastic organisations such as Christians Against Poverty work to tackle poverty. In Shipley, CAP provides a debt advice service. Across the country, this service has helped more than 20,000 people to become debt-free since 2010. We also have local food banks that offer fuel vouchers to those on pre-payment meters who cannot afford top-ups. However, energy companies must also act to support those people who have large unpaid debts, by bringing in programmes such as social tariffs and other forms of fair pricing to help those living in fuel poverty.

Poor-quality housing not only harms people’s finances; it also has a severe impact on their health.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

It is well known that cold and damp homes are detrimental to both physical and mental health, with nearly three in every 10 children in cold homes at risk of developing health issues. Does she agree that home insulation is vital to improve public health alongside tackling fuel poverty?

[Anna Dixon]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well, and I absolutely agree that poor housing is part of a public health emergency. Young and old alike suffer from cold and damp homes. At the extreme, cold homes kill. It has been estimated that they contributed to 5,000 excess winter deaths among older people in 2022-23. For me, that figure is shocking and unacceptable.

Poor-quality housing affects people differently. The Centre for Ageing Better and the Fabian Society recently published research showing that as many as 80% of owner-occupiers aged over 55 live in poor-quality homes.

I probably should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests in that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and care for older people. I support the proposals put forward in the “Forward Planning” report. One that is relevant to today’s debate is the suggestion that older homeowners could receive loan guarantees for improvements through the national wealth fund. That would reduce the cost of borrowing for those who want to use it to pay for improvements, as well as crowding in private investment.

There are significant inequalities. According to the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, 3.2 million of those in fuel poverty are pensioner households, with 964,000 pensioner households in deep fuel poverty. People on low incomes are also at greater risk of fuel poverty, as are renters and households with children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) mentioned. The cost of poor quality housing is colossal; it affects the health and wealth of individuals and the prosperity of the country, and it exacerbates existing inequalities.

There are also inequalities between north and south. In the north of England 41% of homes were built before 1944, 1.47 million homes are considered non-decent and £1 in almost every £4 spent on household heating is being lost due to poor insulation. The cost to the NHS of those non-decent housing conditions is estimated at £588 million per year, in addition to the societal cost of £7.77 billion, according to the Northern Health Science Alliance.

In response to this crisis we see really strong, innovative local efforts. I pay tribute to the charity Groundwork, which provides a “warm homes healthy people” scheme across the Bradford district, including in my Shipley constituency. It installs energy efficient measures, including insulation, and offers support and advice on energy bills.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. While she is looking at good local organisations, let me say that National Energy Action has often said that Stoke-on-Trent ranks first in the country for fuel poverty, but we are very lucky to have Fiona Miller and her team at Beat the Cold, who for 25 years have helped lead the fuel poverty action group in Stoke-on-Trent. They work with a whole variety of organisations to help homeowners and renters look at small local actions that they can take to increase insulation and reduce their bills. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to tell us what more he and the Department can do to help organisations on the ground today with those small acts that bring down bills before the big roll-out of energy insulation?

[Anna Dixon]

I commend the work of local organisations such as Beat the Cold and the charity Groundwork. I also hope that the Minister will say how he can help support those efforts locally.

Another local project that I would like to pay tribute to is Saltaire Retrofit Reimagined. It is a community-led home retrofit initiative supported by the UK shared prosperity fund, as well as the Footwork Trust and the Shipley area committee. It has focused on improving heating and energy efficiency in our beautiful listed heritage properties within the Saltaire world heritage site. The project engaged with homeowners, tenants and landlords to understand their perspectives on what effective energy and insulation retrofit should look like. Based on that, the team developed bespoke, heritage-sensitive guidance for upgrading listed homes that were originally built in the 1850s and 1860s, and which are some of the most challenging properties to retrofit. The blueprint and toolkit that it has produced removes both time and cost involved for individual homes to get surveys, and provides confidence that they will get planning permission to retrofit their listed homes. Its work is inspiring and supports our national goals to reduce energy and achieve net zero. I invite the Minister to visit Shipley and Saltaire and see at first hand the great work that it is undertaking—it is a national exemplar of heritage retrofit for homes.

Given the clear evidence of harm caused by poor-quality housing, it is concerning that under the previous Government, we saw measures under the energy efficiency obligation plummet from around 80,000 per month in early 2014 to less than 20,000 from mid-2016 to 2020. The Conservatives significantly reduced the rate of energy efficiency installations. Meanwhile, energy bills rocketed. Between 2020 and 2024, UK-based energy companies made a profit of £420 billion. I am proud that Labour not only proposed imposing a windfall tax on oil and gas companies in opposition, but increased it when in Government in 2024. We should adopt the polluter pays principle and ensure that we continue to tax excess profits. I greatly welcome the Government’s warm homes plan, a £13.2 billion commitment designed to improve home energy efficiency, tackle fuel poverty and reduce carbon emissions.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of warm homes. Does she agree with my constituents who have formed the WarmHomesLeics Coalition that insulation is one of the most proficient and efficient forms of climate action that we can take locally?

[Anna Dixon]

I absolutely agree that home insulation is essential in tackling not only rising energy bills but climate change. I hope the Minister will confirm the Government’s ambition to upgrade 5 million homes by the end of the current Parliament; it is a fantastic goal that will reduce energy bills.

We are also expanding the warm homes discount. I was pleased to see that 2.7 million families across the country will get £150 off their energy bills this winter, doubling the number of people able to access vital support. Around 900,000 families with children, and a total of 1.8 million households in fuel poverty, will receive extra support thanks to this Government, in addition to the winter fuel allowance being reinstated for those with incomes up to £35,000. Upgrading our homes not only puts money in people’s pockets but helps us tackle what is perhaps the biggest challenge of our age: climate change. According to the Northern Health Science Alliance, if all homes had an EPC standard of C or higher, emissions could be reduced by an estimated 97 million tonnes of CO2.

It is deeply concerning to see the political consensus around climate change fracture, and both the Tories and Reform jumping on board with Trump and climate sceptics, against all scientific evidence and sense. I welcome this Government taking climate action seriously. Labour’s clean power mission is right for both people and planet. It is the long-term solution to tackling energy insecurity.

It is vital, however, that the public can trust any support they receive to install energy efficient measures in their home. Recently, I have been contacted by two constituents who had cavity wall insulation fitted under the Government ECO4 scheme. The work was faulty and caused serious damage to the properties. My constituents then hired the solicitors firm SSB Law, which had gone door to door to look for business in particular areas of the country where problems with faulty cavity wall insulation were discovered. This law firm operated on a no win, no fee basis and took the construction firms’ insurers to court on behalf of the individuals.

The firm went ahead with the cases, often without the likelihood of winning, and did not have the appropriate litigation insurance for when it lost. This meant that, when the cases were lost, the construction companies’ insurers counter-sued for their legal costs, which led to the collapse of SSB Law, whose insurers would not pay out. In response, the construction companies’ insurers directly sued the people who engaged SSB Law. Not only were my constituents let down by shoddy workmanship done under these eco-schemes; they were then chased for large sums of money by disreputable law firms and insurers.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee; we held a hearing on the last Government’s ECO4 scheme that was frankly jaw-dropping. Some 98% of external wall insulation done under that scheme was faulty, and oversight outsourced to the private sector meant that companies got away with shoddy work and left people, including my constituents, in damp and mouldy homes. It is utterly shocking.

At the hearing, we pushed Government officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Ofgem, the regulator, on how they would fix the problems and ensure that faulty work was put right, without its costing my constituents. Can the Minister please confirm what the Government are doing to address the issue of faulty insulation installations? How will they restore faith in schemes designed to insulate homes, as well as other energy-saving measures? It is vital that the Government rectify the mistakes of the disastrous ECO4 scheme and, more broadly, restore trust in Government-backed insulation schemes.

To conclude, poor-quality housing is a huge problem for my constituents in the villages and towns across the Shipley constituency, and for people up and down the country. It leads to higher energy bills, higher personal debt and higher levels of destitution. It also leads to increased health problems and increased excess deaths. Home insulation is a critical tool to mitigate those issues, and I am incredibly proud of the work that the Labour Government have begun to do, from the warm homes plan to establishing Great British Energy. In the run-up to last year’s general election, colleagues and I pledged that voting for a Labour Government would lead to a reduction in household energy bills. I am confident that, with the Chancellor’s announcement today in the Budget, we are going to deliver that; I would like to hear from the Minister about how ensuring that our homes are properly insulated is perhaps the best way to deliver that pledge.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today, and I thank particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), not only for securing the debate, but for all her work on the Public Accounts Committee in scrutinising the ECO4 scandal. Over the last few months, she has fought extremely hard for her constituents who have suffered from substandard insulation through Government schemes.

When I came to this brief, about 10 weeks ago, I was presented with the outcome of the National Audit Office report. I was shocked by the extent of the failures under the previous Government, by the system that we inherited and by the many personal stories of people impacted by damp, mould and other issues.

Homes hold a special place in people’s hearts. They are places that we pour time and money into. We make memories in them. They are sanctuaries, shelters, places of care and settings for our lives. People will not put their homes at risk unless they can be absolutely sure that things will not go wrong—or that, if they do, they will be put right. That is why we are making consumer protection reform such a central part of the upcoming warm homes plan.

Just a few months into this new Government, widespread cases of poor-quality insulation were identified under the ECO4 and Great British insulation schemes. The Government, including both me and my predecessor, have spoken extensively about our actions on this. To give hon. Members reassurance, those include enhanced checks and oversight of contractors and TrustMark; new restrictions on installers operating through the multiple certification bodies we have; updated standards for retrofit co-ordinators and designers; and an offer of a comprehensive on-site audit to every household with external wall insulation installed under those two schemes, at no cost to the consumer. I see hon. Members present who I know are advocated for constituents facing particular problems with ECO4; they will all be receiving notices of audits, or maybe they have already. I encourage hon. Members to make sure that their constituents take up that offer of an audit, because that is the gateway to remediation.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for the reassurance that householders affected by faulty work will be getting an audit and that there will be remedies. Can he confirm when those letters will be going out, if they have not already, and whether they will be from Ofgem?

[Martin McCluskey]

The letters will be sent, I think, from today. Many of those households will already have received knocks on the door or possibly direct contact from scheme providers. We are clear that the system needs to remediate this in the first instance. The issue was caused by the system, and there are guarantees available through the schemes to ensure that they are remediated. If any Member is dealing with constituents whose audits are not getting done properly or who are having difficulty with the guarantee providers, I ask them please to come directly to me, because we need to know exactly what is happening as this action takes place.

Despite all the actions we are taking on ECO4, we still need to think about the future system. That is why we have committed to reforming the system and to accelerating that process. I can confirm that we are looking at the entire landscape of consumer protection, from how installers work in homes to where people turn for rapid action and enforcement if things go wrong. The Government are planning to consult on the specific proposals early in the new year, and are already working with industry and consumer protection experts to develop and stress-test plans, including through the retrofit system reform advisory panel, which was set up under my predecessor and began work in July.

As this is one of the most urgent challenges that the Government face in our mission to improve the lives of working people, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister gave me the clearest of instructions on my first day in the job: to reduce bills by making millions more homes warm, safe and fit for the 21st century. We face a number of challenges, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley alluded to. More than 80% of UK homes rely on gas for heating—among the highest percentages in the world, meaning that we are particularly exposed to crises or energy shocks, as we saw after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, we have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe; more than a third of houses were built before the second world war, most with uninsulated walls, meaning that yet more money and fossil fuels are needed to heat them.

My hon. Friend mentioned a project in Saltaire, and I will be more than happy to visit. I have had good and constructive conversations with Members across the House regarding heritage retrofit. That is something we have to address in the new plan.

[Gareth Snell]

Stoke-on-Trent has some of the oldest housing stock in the country: brick-built terraces, single skinned and in some places still single glazed. A programme by the last Labour Government that made a real difference was the housing market renewal programme, which ran up until 2010 and then was unceremoniously guillotined by the incoming Tory Government. It was able to retrofit housing in a style that matched the local communities, but it was done with communities as part of a more progressive regeneration programme. It meant that houses were better looking and warmer, they lasted longer and residents wanted to live there. Why the Tory Government got rid of it I do not know, but it is something the Minister might want to look at for future ideas.

[Martin McCluskey]

I would be more than happy to look at that. I have been working to help develop the warm homes plan and am looking particularly at area-based approaches; one of the most effective is when entire communities and neighbourhoods are upgraded at once. The effect is much larger, and neighbours can see the impact on their bills, which helps to spread the benefit.

The warm homes plan will set out in more detail how we are going to meet the challenge addressed in this debate. We have been working hard behind the scenes to get it right and will publish it in full soon. We have been clear from the moment we came into government about the scale of the ambition. My hon. Friend mentioned £13.5 billion; after the Budget today that number is actually £15 billion, and we have extended our ambition to upgrade 5 million homes.

As a student of history, I think of the first Labour Government in the 1920s with their housing Act—the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924—which upgraded and subsidised half a million homes. What we are trying to do with the warm homes plan is 10 times that. That is the level of ambition we have. It means entire streets and whole neighbourhoods benefiting from solar panels, heat pumps, home batteries and better insulation. We have already kick-started that. We are not waiting for the plan to get on with delivery. We have allocated £1.8 billion through the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund. We have set out proposals to increase minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales to EPC C or equivalent by 2030 and introduced a minimum standard in the social rented sector, which is incredibly important for many of our constituents. Those measures, combined, will lift hundreds of thousands of households out of poverty.

For homeowners, we are making it cheaper and easier to install a heat pump. To the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we announced the extension of the boiler upgrade scheme to new technologies last week, and we have an ongoing consultation on alternative technologies. We have doubled the funding for the boiler upgrade scheme to £295 million this year and, because of decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, we will be increasing it year on year up to 2030. Just this month, as I said, the expansion has meant that we are able to extend the scheme to air-to-air heat pumps, a technology that I know many of our constituents were calling on the Government to make a change on last summer.

While we deliver the plan, we know there has to be short-term as well as longer-term action. That is why we have expanded the warm homes discount this year to every household where the billpayer is on a means-tested benefit. That is £150-worth of support directly to billpayers this winter. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned Beat the Cold; I met Fiona Miller yesterday and had a very good conversation with her about the work she is doing on data sharing between the NHS and her organisation. That is something I want to look at, and I am keen to visit Stoke-on-Trent Central to see in person the work that Beat the Cold is doing.

All those action that are taking place are good in the short term, but how do we tackle the cost of living and bring energy bills down for good? In the long term, we do that by pushing for our target of clean power by 2030: clean power generated in Britain, which we control and which will end the rollercoaster of energy bills that, bluntly, are at the moment decided by dictators and upheavals beyond our borders. We do that by upgrading homes with electrified, energy-efficient technologies, putting people in a position to benefit directly from clean, secure, affordable energy.

My immediate focus remains on some of the issues that we have heard about today, and on the people across the country living in homes that they can barely afford to heat. As we enter another winter, people should not have to choose between heating and eating. A large part of the reason the Chancellor took the action that she took in today’s Budget is that she wants to stop people having to make those incredibly difficult choices. When we publish it, the warm homes plan will set out our path to a future that we all want to see. We want warmer homes, no matter where we live or whether we rent or own—homes that are smarter, cheaper to run and greener, and are protected by a system that keeps them free of damp, mould and other issues. I welcome this debate, and I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

Question put and agreed to.

16:26

Sitting suspended.

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for young people not in education, employment or training.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am delighted to introduce this debate on an incredibly important topic. Young people not in education, employment or training are often referred to as NEETs. As Members will know, the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who are NEET has been rising since 2021, and is now nearing its highest level since 2014. Too often, the narrative we hear—be it in the media or from some Members of this House—is that these young people are lazy, unmotivated or overly sensitive, but that view is short-sighted and reductive, and ignores the complex reality behind that growing number.

On Friday, I had the privilege of speaking with two people who understand this issue not from spreadsheets or reports, but from years spent on the ground with young people and the unemployed. The first was Colin at Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centres, and the second was Christopher Nieper, chair of the education trust for the David Nieper Academy, and owner of the David Nieper clothing manufacturing company. They both work in my constituency town of Alfreton. When we talked about NEETs, both raised the same point above all others: the Government must work with industry to facilitate the demand for jobs and educational pathways.

That is also borne out in conversations I have had with constituents. I recently met Shaun Holland at my advice surgery. Shaun is a 22-year-old motivated man who desperately wants to work. He suffers from arthritis and severe foot problems, which makes standing for long periods difficult. The only work he has found is through agencies, which is unpredictable and insecure, and employers are often reluctant to make simple adjustments such as providing a chair to do packaging work.

As Colin told me, agency work has shifted from an emergency measure to a business model that often fails workers, offering no clear career path. He likened it to the old “butty man” system, where men were recruited in pubs for a day’s work when the coal mines were first opened, and sent down the pit. That was not a sustainable or fair practice then, and, as Shaun’s case makes clear, it certainly is not now. For young people to succeed, academic, vocational and technical pathways must not only exist, but feel accessible and achievable.

Another example is Lily Hill, who wrote to me after losing her electrical apprenticeship through no fault of her own. Lily went to a jobcentre, where she was met with

“indifference and a lack of empathy from the staff”.

She described how she was left

“feeling humiliated and let down by a system that is supposed to be a safety net for people like me—people who have contributed and now need help getting back on their feet.”

She was told to update her CV, which got only two responses, but ironically her old CV landed her a job at Nottingham Forest football club, where she now works as a level 3 qualified electrical technician. They said that her CV was the best they had seen. While I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating Lily on her success, the sad truth is that it came not because of jobcentre advice, but in spite of it.

Since being elected, I have spoken to local businesses, teachers, charities and many others like Shaun and Lily. Their experiences have made it clear that the barriers facing many young people are not simply about personal choice or effort, but are structural. The National Centre for Social Research has found that the most significant risk factors for becoming NEET include not having an academic qualification above level 1, having a limiting disability, becoming a parent before the age of 25, living with a mental health condition and being identified as having special educational needs. The charity Impetus has highlighted how those disadvantages compound. A young person with low qualifications from a disadvantaged background is 130% more likely to be NEET. There are also the new challenges brought about by technological change. Artificial intelligence is transforming the labour market, and entry-level jobs in some sectors are disappearing.

Despite all that, much of the conversation on this issue labels young people the problem, as if all the fault lies squarely with them. In fact, the Reform party leader of Derbyshire county council has said that he thinks there is a massive overdiagnosis of what he calls “general behavioural disabilities”, echoing the comments from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that we are creating a “class of victims” in Britain. That overlooks another possibility: that the systems are not designed for those who do not fit the narrow definition of “mainstream”. Our employment structures, training pathways and workplace cultures often fail to accommodate young people with special educational needs and disabilities, mental health challenges or caring responsibilities.

I want to talk about opportunity and aspiration, two principles that must underpin our approach if we are to empower young people to fulfil their potential. Today, the Chancellor said: “Let there be no doubt that this Government are on the side of our kids and will back their potential.” I am proud to have stood on a manifesto that promised every child the best start in life.

The Government have already made progress. The Chancellor has just announced further important measures, including merging jobcentres with the National Careers Service to create a single platform offering personalised coaching, digital tools and real links to employers. The youth guarantee reforms apprenticeship eligibility and funding for foundational apprenticeships. These changes will ensure that people like Lily are not let down in the same way again, and will enable Shaun to speak with a work coach and receive personal advice about stable, non-agency work going forward.

I also welcome the designation of Derby college group as a construction technical excellence college. It is working with the East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward and industry experts to make sure that its excellent programmes and apprenticeships equip students with the ever-evolving skillset needed in construction. Fairer funding will ensure that council budgets reflect need and deprivation. I will be fighting hard to ensure that Derbyshire county council is awarded its fair portion of that, so that it can invest in SEND provision and in our schools.

Those are important steps, but more needs to be done to build a system that is based on the principles of equal opportunity and aspiration. First, we need a joined-up, cross-departmental approach to tackling the root causes of disadvantage, one that is informed by the recently announced independent investigation into youth inactivity. Given that the investigation will not look into the SEND system, it is all the more important that the upcoming schools White Paper upholds legal protections and ensures that SEND children are given the support they need to excel. Secondly, we need to meet demand by ensuring that flexible, inclusive opportunities that dismantle barriers to work and education are readily available. Thirdly, we need to show young people where these pathways can lead and how to access them, including by encouraging stronger links between schools and employers.

I encourage the Minister to visit David Nieper academy, which works with local industry leaders and teaches employability skills. As a result, the academy has achieved zero NEETs aged 18 for the last two academic years. On a recent Friday, I visited Heanor Gate Spencer academy and saw a notice board showing what each of the students went on to do last year. It included their courses, universities and apprenticeships. Like me, many of this year’s students will be the first in their family to go to university. Some will be the first to take up an apprenticeship. Seeing a noticeboard like that shows them what is possible and raises their aspirations.

Whether their talent lies in skilled trades that will rebuild our country, after years of decline, in the green energy projects of the future, such as STEP Fusion in Nottingham, or in academic routes such as university, every young person in Amber Valley deserves their chance to fulfil their aspirations. If we invest in giving young people the tools to succeed, we do more than create jobs; we build stronger communities, restore faith that politics can change lives and deliver hope where it is most needed. That is why, although I welcome the independent investigation into youth inactivity, we cannot just wait until the final report is published in summer 2026. Action is needed now. Will the Minister tell us what steps will be taken before then to prevent this crisis from worsening? Given that the investigation will not look at the SEND system, what assurances can the Minister give to young people with SEND that they will not be left behind? Finally, how will areas such as Amber Valley be empowered to deliver specific, tailored solutions for our children?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I will not remind Members to bob, because you are already bobbing—thank you for that. However, given that so many people wish to speak, I will regrettably be imposing a formal two-minute limit.

16:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for setting the scene so well. Education and career prospects are so important. They affect confidence, mental health, opportunity and long-term economic wellbeing. It is imperative to get this right and provide the necessary support, if possible, and I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions posed.

To give an example from Northern Ireland, in 2023, 15,000 were not in education, employment or training; today the figure is 22,000 and rising. In particular, I refer to the underachievement of young Protestant boys. The potential impact on their future education, training or employment must be noted.

Why has this happened? It has happened because of economic hardship, poor mental health, unstable home life, deprivation in isolated areas and a lack access to transport. There are long-term risks for young people, including future unemployment, higher welfare rates and poor health. Those are the outcomes of the society we live in. The former Member for Harlow, for example, always used to refer to males between 16 and 21; I remember when I was young—not yesterday, by the way—we left school on a Friday and got a job on the Monday. That is the way it was, but it is not that way anymore. It is not the end of everything if young people reach the age of 17 or 18 and are still unsure, but further education, apprenticeships, placements and working opportunities will give them the tools they need to find out what route they might like to go down.

The opportunities available to young people in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland—and especially in my constituency of Strangford and also that of the hon. Member for Amber Valley—must be realistic and accessible in terms of finance and transport. I believe in greater careers guidance both inside school and outside, where people can avail themselves of advice and support. I again commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward—and my two minutes are up.

16:42

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate.

Every generation says, “I’m glad I am not a child today.” That is often a cliché, but I am glad I am not a 16-year-old today trying to decide where my future lies, not least because we are forcing children to start choosing their future from the age of 11. That is because the route to university is so clear, that it is effectively a queue—a queue whose direction and length can be seen from the Moon. But for those who are not academic, there is no queue. We treat those not going to university like free-range chickens—“Just go and find something and please don’t bother us.” Those children often end up in low-paid and insecure work.

Around 65% of school leavers do not go to university, so why are we not focusing on vocational training and qualifications? We all know that we have a shortage of builders, plumbers and care workers—jobs that the country relies on. My team and I have focused our resources on looking at vocational training, education and employment. Many young people on the Isle of Wight do not feel that university is a place for them. Many do not feel the urge to leave the island for work, but feel that they have no choice.

How do we support NEETs? The answer is that we stop them becoming NEETs in the first place. We provide clear, vocational routes for those who do not want to go to university, but want to learn a skilled trade. We create a ladder to good, well-paying jobs—and, crucially, a future on the Isle of Wight for those who want it. In just over 18 months, the Isle of Wight Youth Trust has prevented 65 young people from becoming homeless, returned 98 young people to full-time learning or apprenticeships, and moved 273 young people into paid employment. That is great work.

Since I stood in this place five months ago, speaking on similar issues, we have come a long way. My team and I have convened a group of major employers on the island to ensure that we work alongside employers to provide work experience, training and good apprenticeships, which have become the Isle of Wight’s hallmark. Although I may be the first MP to offer T-levels, I sincerely hope I am not the last. NEETs are not inevitable; they are the product of missed chances and broken links between education and employment.

16:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing the debate.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for skills, careers and employment, I have chaired several evidence sessions over the last year of a skills commission inquiry into the root causes of our worryingly high NEET rates. We engaged with more than 200 participants across a six-month period, and are due to publish our findings and recommendations shortly, but I appreciate the opportunity to talk about them briefly today. We have explored a lot of the reasons why we are in this position, but it is notable that other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, have not seen similar rises in their NEET rates.

I will mention a few of the drivers. Under the last Government, schools were incentivised to abandon vocational, technical and creative courses in favour of more academic options. That has had an impact by limiting choice and options. The system has also failed to properly target young people, with entry-level apprenticeships falling by 26% since the apprenticeship levy was introduced. The careers guidance landscape has become fragmented, with many young people not being told about apprenticeship or traineeship opportunities, and a cliff edge for careers support post-16.

One of our major conclusions is that targeted and preventive support works and is good for the public purse in the long term. We need better data sharing to identify young people at risk; early support to tackle mental health challenges, wellbeing and job readiness; local discretion to tailor support to local needs; and, most importantly, in-work mentoring for around six months into employment—not just job placement.

We must also think about how we can support small and medium-sized enterprises to recruit apprentices and invest in the skills of their workforce. That is particularly important in my constituency, so I welcome the Chancellor’s transformational announcement today about making training for apprenticeships for under-25s free for SMEs.

16:46

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate and the powerful points that she made, especially about how young people are often lazily demonised as being an idle generation. That view fails to take into account how much has changed since many of us here were young—which was more recently in some cases than in others, but let us move on from that quickly.

In my Oxfordshire constituency, despite having perhaps the highest levels of house building in the country, housing costs remain completely out of reach for people on low incomes, and particularly young people. There is a real shortage of affordable housing, particularly for one and two-person households, with many houses having four, five or even six bedrooms. Transport costs are also very high.

The world of skills is changing. I have a lot of high-tech, scientific industries in my constituency—space, biotech, fusion and so on—and we need to help young people to acquire these skills. As has been mentioned, NHS waiting lists can be a barrier to people entering the workplace, and I have many people in my constituency who are young carers. I am pleased that Be Free Young Carers supports them.

I am not alone in my concern about this issue: Didcot B power station in my constituency cites housing costs as the biggest barrier to retaining talented people. As a result, therefore, many young people continue to live at home with their parents. In some cases, I am sure they love that, but in others, it could be a barrier to expressing their freedom and creativity as a young person.

I am really pleased that Oxfordshire county council has an education, employment and training service supporting any young person in year 12 or 13 who is NEET or at risk of being NEET. I know the Government have a lot of ideas and good intentions on this, and I would be very keen to hear what the Minister will do to help young people not in employment, education or training in my constituency.

16:49

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning. This debate matters deeply to my constituency. Hartlepool has one of the highest levels of young people not in education, employment or training in the country, and behind every single number is a young person with untapped potential.

Hartlepool is also paying the price for that unrealised talent. It is a town that used to build things—shipyards, factories and docks. Our people were makers: they built the ships that sailed the world, the machinery that powered the country and the homes and streets that held our communities together. For too long, however, our view of education has not meant education in all its forms; it has meant academic education. That is wrong. Right now, Britain needs welders, bricklayers, engineers and electricians—workers who can build the houses, roads, factories and energy systems that we need to get our country moving again.

I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to scrap the target for half of young people to go to university. That was the right decision, and it starts to change the legacy of the previous Government. The Hartlepool college of further education, for example, had its budget cut by 10% in real terms at the same time as the previous Government put those essential skills on the points-based immigration system—importing talent from abroad instead of training it here at home. That is a salient lesson in how not to deal with skills in our country.

I say to the Minister: let us give vocational routes the respect they deserve by funding them properly, champion technical education, and rebuild further education as the backbone of towns such as Hartlepool. We should remove those key roles from our immigration shortage lists, recognising that the real shortage comes from years of neglect, and instead invest in our young people to give them the skills that they need to rebuild this country.

16:50

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this important debate on NEETs. This is an issue that affects the future of our young people, and it is a persistent challenge that we must tackle head on. In Winsford in my constituency, the challenge is particularly acute: the proportion of young people who are NEET is 5 percentage points higher than the borough average.

In the interests of time, I will make a couple of points that I hope the Minister will consider when he takes the floor. First, sustained funding to tackle this issue needs to be a priority. In the past, this was a specific focus of the European social fund, and schemes such as the education maintenance allowance provided a direct financial incentive to stay in further education. The Government have identified funding through the youth guarantee to ensure that all young people have access to the support they need to earn or learn. That funding needs to be sustained in the long term, to operate across Departments, and to measurably target reducing NEETs not in a decade’s time, but in this Parliament.

Secondly, I ask the Minister to look specifically at the damage done to further education in my constituency by the 2016 review into post-16 education in Cheshire. There is a direct relationship between the distance a young person has to travel for FE and the likelihood of their sustaining that place and gaining a qualification. Mid Cheshire has literally been caught in a perfect storm, with Cheshire FE colleges responding to their quality and financial problems through consolidation and divestment out of my constituency. That remains as unacceptable today as it was then. I urge the Minister to look into the issue and to commission a new review with a focus on undoing the damage caused by the 2016 review.

I hope that the Minister can set out how we can ensure that every young person, regardless of where they live, has the chance to learn, grow and succeed. I hope he will also set out what targeted support the Government can provide for towns with persistently high NEET levels, including funding for local engagement initiatives, so we can unlock the full potential of every young person in an area such as Winsford.

16:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing the debate.

Of the almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, almost 600,000 are economically inactive and disengaged from mainstream employment support, and around 400,000 are hidden NEETs—unemployed, but not claiming universal credit. I will focus my remarks on those young people.

I welcome the measures brought forward by the Government, but this is a crisis of opportunity that cannot be tackled through a strong employment and skills offer alone. That is why we must be more effective in identifying, reaching and engaging young people to bridge them into support.

Youth workers and trusted adults are the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock the potential of NEET young people. They can build young people’s confidence and resilience; address barriers across education, mental health or employment; act as a gateway to proven interventions; and reduce the risk of disengagement through advocacy and guidance. That claim is supported by a growing evidence base: a paper from the Youth Futures Foundation, published earlier this year, identified the unique role that trusted adults can play in identifying and engaging harder-to-reach young people, and explored their role in delivering the change required to address that challenge.

We know, for example, that mental ill health has an impact on economic inactivity among young people, and that this is driven in part by a reduction in child and youth services. We need to take a holistic approach across Government. As we move ahead with some really strong flagship offers for young people—the national youth strategy, the youth guarantee and Young Futures hubs—we have an opportunity to deliver a shared long-term vision for young people across Government that puts relationships with trusted adults and the need for good employment at its heart.

The integration of youth provision, employment and skills support is being explored in some youth guarantee trailblazer areas. In his response, could the Minister reflect on its impact in those areas and whether that offers a model for elsewhere in the country?

16:55

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate.

I believe that where someone is born should not determine where they end up, and I welcome the measures announced by the Chancellor today to lift children out of poverty. That is fundamental to my morals and values, and those of the party I represent, because young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are twice as likely as their better-off peers not to be in education, employment or training. On council estates such as those where I grew up in Nottinghamshire, people’s chances were and are still limited.

I was extremely disappointed when Dukeries sixth form in Ollerton announced it was closing its doors, as access to further education is lifechanging for young people in rural areas. The nearest further education option is now over 7 miles away, which is not accessible for many young people and their families. Opportunities for young people in rural and deprived areas are few and far between.

I believe we can do more to break the cycle. We have a responsibility to stand up for young people in this country, but we must also empower businesses to invest in them. That is already happening in small pockets, including at Murphy, an infrastructure and energy transition company in Ollerton, and Rolls-Royce, which has fantastic opportunities for local people, but those companies cannot do it alone. They need Government support to make sure it is financially possible to offer such incredible services.

The crisis in SEND is also affecting families in Sherwood Forest, and young people with SEND are over 80% more likely to be NEET. I want the life chances of children and young people growing up in Sherwood Forest to be as great as those living in more affluent areas. We must all strive to find better opportunities and better ways to educate and support our young people so that we can all categorically say that where someone is born will not determine their future.

16:56

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this important debate.

Due to the pressure of time, I will focus on one group of young people. At the Work and Pensions Committee this morning we took evidence from two panels about what is driving the increase in NEETs. We heard that post-16 education, employment and training is often predicated on a young person being in a parental home, and that outcomes are severely hampered for care-experienced young people and those in temporary or supported accommodation.

In the year ending March 2024, 14.3% of those placed in temporary accommodation in my constituency were aged 18 to 24, which is higher than the national average. Young people in supported housing do not have security, and they are penalised by the housing benefit taper rate. For those who are unaware, the universal credit of a young person living in supported housing is tapered at 55p for every £1 earned when they start working, meaning that they are restricted in how much they can earn before their universal credit is completely taken away.

After that, separate and steeper taper rates for housing benefit are what really do the damage. The cost of supported housing, including service charges, becomes completely unaffordable for those young people, which means that increasing their work hours can leave young people financially worse off and simply unable to cover their housing costs—that is without the stress of going into education. The essence of the current system, although unintentional, forces thousands of young people to make an impossible choice.

Removing the housing benefit taper rate barrier would create an opportunity for a more sustainable and supportive system for those young people. I would like to hear how the Minister will look at this problem, listen to those organisations and young people on the frontline, and recognise that solving the taper rates for those young people will massively improve the rate at which they are in employment, education or training to secure their future.

16:58

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a governor of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and chair of the APPG on sixth-form education.

I pay tribute to the leadership of the colleges in Stoke-on-Trent—Lesley Morrey at Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and Hassan at Stoke-on-Trent college. They are doing amazing work to reduce what has traditionally been a stubbornly high rate of NEETs in Stoke-on-Trent. In fact, at one point I think we ranked No. 1 in the country for the number of NEETs, but that is coming down because the colleges are working to make sure that every young person in Stoke-on-Trent knows that there is a route for them somewhere, whether it be academic, vocational or technical, into a job in the city.

However, we also recognise that part of that work must start further downstream, with young people in our secondary schools who have an idea of what they want to do and an aspiration to achieve it, but are not necessarily sure how to go about doing it. Under the leadership of Heather McLachlan and Simon French, the CEO Futures Forum is bringing together multi-academy trusts to consider how the curriculum review announced a couple of weeks ago can be used locally to create those academic, vocational and technical gateways into the right subject areas, where we know the jobs will be in the city, so that young people have something to look towards, strive and aspire to. Those are the good things that I wanted to mention today.

We also know that for young people in north Staffordshire who want to go to university, widening participation is incredibly important. The Higher Horizons programme, run by Keele University in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), demonstrates how young people from across north Staffordshire can go to university if they are given the right opportunities and understandings.

Briefly, the key point that I want to make to the Minister today is about V-levels. With the introduction of V-levels, there is a real possibility that a small group of young people will lose out in the next two years by not having access to BTECs, which are being defunded before V-levels come online. That could lead to a large spike in the number of NEETs in the next couple of years. What will his Department do to ensure that those young people are not lost in the transition to what could be an exciting new qualification?

17:01

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Dowd, for calling me to speak—and for saving the best until last. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this important debate. Ensuring that young people in Newcastle-under-Lyme who are not in education, employment or training receive the right support is vital, not only to the lives of those young people themselves but to their families and our whole community.

When faced with the fact that over one in 10 young people are missing out on education and employment opportunities, we must stop blaming individuals or young people as a group and start considering why they are being set up to fail. I say that because I do not believe that 12.7% of all young people in our United Kingdom do not want to work or contribute, or to live without the ambition of having a career that fulfils them. The vast majority of young people, certainly in Newcastle-under-Lyme, want all those things.

I welcome the Milburn inquiry, which should give us the insights that we need to help get our young people into education, training and work. I pay tribute to Keele University and Newcastle College for all the work they do to support our young people. To return the compliment, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), my constituency neighbour, for all his work on this issue. I pay tribute to YMCA North Staffordshire, based in his constituency; its jobcentre and work coaches, co-located on campus, support young people in both my constituency and Stoke-on-Trent Central. I also acknowledge the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), who worked at YMCA North Staffordshire for many years.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way on that point. He is absolutely right to speak about the importance of skills. I point to the Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, because our constituencies share a college. Does he agree with me that colleges such as NSCG, which are already delivering the courses that our labour market needs, must sit at the heart of the Government’s plan to reduce youth inactivity?

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her intervention. She is absolutely correct to talk about the importance of not just our local college but of colleges generally in ensuring that we get this matter right for our young people up and down the country.

For young people affected by the issues we are discussing this afternoon, this debate is about hope, dignity and fulfilling their potential. For too long, far too many young people have been left behind. Now, this Labour Government have begun to respond with bold and targeted initiatives. But we must go further, especially in former industrial heartlands such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and the rest of Staffordshire, to ensure that no young person is written off.

I think my hon. Friend the Minister has promised to come and visit us in Staffordshire and I look forward to him doing so before too long. Today, however, I urge him to build on the progress already made by listening to communities such as mine, investing in tailored local support and using the Milburn review as a catalyst for real and meaningful change. By doing so, we will help to transform the lives of millions of young people up and down our United Kingdom, and build a better, more prosperous and inclusive country.

17:03

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this debate on such an auspicious day: it gives the Minister a chance to truly unpack what the Chancellor has been able to share with us—and consequently amaze us. We are here aghast, waiting for that a little later on. I look forward to it because this debate is a real opportunity.

I am still a councillor on Torbay unitary authority and as a local authority we have the highest level of deprivation in the south-west, so I hear about the issues that we are discussing when I go out and visit some of the local schools. Not that long ago, for example, I visited a school in Torquay and engaged with eight and nine-year-olds. Their real concerns were about the cost of living crisis and their parents being unable to make ends meet. At a school in Paignton, elsewhere in Torbay, the headteacher told me that a number of her children regularly came into school cold, tired, hungry and unable to learn. Given the challenges facing youngsters in an arena where they should be learning, it is not surprising that they leave school facing real issues.

Covid has had a massive impact on the mental health of youngsters, and that cannot be overestimated. A couple of colleagues from around the Chamber have already talked about care-experienced youngsters. It is shocking that a care-experienced youngster is three to 10 times more likely to be a NEET. Youngsters who have had an adverse childhood experience could be left scarred with challenges for significant parts of their lives, unless there is significant wraparound support for them.

This is not just about the individual; the other side of the penny we need to reflect on is the change to our economy. Colleagues have alluded to how the world of work has changed significantly. Brexit has had a significant impact, with a 6% shrinkage of our projected GDP and a massive reduction in opportunities. In the Work and Pensions Committee this morning, we heard that opportunities in retail over the last 10 years have shrunk by 70%. We have also seen significant shrinkage in our hospitality industry. Whether or not one wishes to blame it on the national insurance hike, this summer saw an 85,000 reduction in the number of places in hospitality—often an area where youngsters begin their working lives. There is also the issue of automatisation, as supermarket self-checkouts and being able to order without a waiter are ways in which the job market is shrinking for youngsters. We really need to be alive to that.

I would welcome comment from the Minister on findings from the Resolution Foundation, which suggested that the significant increase in the minimum wage for younger workers, although welcome in principle, could result in fewer jobs. There are other areas I would welcome the Minister being alive to, in addition to the interesting announcements from the Chancellor this afternoon, which I hope he is able to unpack a bit more. In recent weeks, Ministers have had a particular focus on universal credit and health conditions, and the impact on youngsters. Could the Minister talk about how that will be explored? There is concern that some youngsters could be demonised. Furthermore, how can we give long-term sustainable support to youngsters, rather than here today, gone tomorrow schemes?

Finally, I want to talk about something close to home —the shared prosperity fund that we benefited from in Torbay. There is an outstanding organisation called Sound Communities that helps youngsters on the edge of our communities, who may have had adverse childhood experiences such as a parent dying, to access support in getting into work. They have helped dozens of youngsters across Torbay, but their funding is due to fall off a cliff in March. We do not have an elected mayor in our Devon community, while the shared prosperity funding is due to end in March. What hope can the Minister offer to Sound Communities for future funding?

17:09

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.

Conservatives are the party of aspiration. We believe that work is not just a payslip; it is a pathway to opportunity, dignity and hope, but for too many young people across the country, those words may ring hollow. The number of people who are NEET has soared to nearly 1 million, meaning that one in eight people aged 16 to 24 is currently deprived of the sense of purpose that comes from holding down a stable job or training for a future career. In 2024, over half of the NEETs had a health condition, and around one in five had a mental health condition. These are young people with talent and potential; they could, one day, set up a social enterprise or make the next scientific breakthrough, or they could join the workforce as postmen, plumbers and paramedics, as well as countless other roles that form the backbone of our economy and our country. However, they are currently languishing at home with no purpose and no hope for the future.

Being out of work at a young age can cost over £1 million in lost earnings over a lifetime, according to the “Keep Britain Working” review. Every single day of worklessness is a day of wasted opportunity, damaged ambition and diminished income. So far, this Government have not demonstrated an incredible plan to turn the tide; the benefits bill is ballooning, with 1 million more people on welfare than when Labour first entered office, and they are kicking the can down the road with the independent investigation into youth inactivity led by Alan Milburn—we will not hear its findings until summer 2026. Meanwhile, the number of NEETs will continue to grow, with each one costing the economy nearly £200,000.

By contrast, previous Conservative Governments have demonstrated a strong track record of supporting young people into work. [Laughter.] I am glad that some Members find that amusing. We cut youth unemployment by 43.8% between 2010 and 2023, despite the rocky economic terrain that we inherited after the 2008 financial crisis. We oversaw the creation of 1 million more apprenticeships. Our new plan to get Britain working again will give young people a first job bonus, redirecting the first £5,000 of national insurance that they would have paid into a savings account instead, which they can then use to save towards their first home, for example.

However, this Government’s policies are effectively locking young people out of work, denying them the chance to build their own future. The Government have announced a youth guarantee, a new jobs and careers service, and foundation apprenticeships, which are available only to young people. To me, those sound like empty assurances. Labour should not be promising more apprentices on the one hand while slashing accessible jobs in hospitality and retail on the other.

If we are serious about reducing the number of NEETs, we must increase the number of jobs available overall, yet jobs in hospitality and retail have plummeted after Labour’s damaging hikes in employers’ national insurance contributions, with 150,000 jobs having been lost since the last Budget. Between October 2024 and August 2025, a staggering 89,000 jobs were lost in restaurants, bars and hotels, according to UKHospitality.

Additionally, the Employment Rights Bill has rightly been labelled the “Barriers to Work Bill”. Banning probation periods will discourage employers from giving young people a chance. We should be rewarding employers for taking a risk and hiring an inexperienced recruit, not narrowing the talent pool by taking this option off the table. To truly tackle worklessness, we must trust our small and medium-sized businesses to make their own staffing decisions. Increased employment rights mean nothing if there are no jobs in the first place. Shortly after I was elected, I set up the Wyre Forest jobs fair to connect private and public sector employers with local jobseekers, including young people. I recognise that looking for work can, in itself, be hard work, and that was one way to broaden people’s horizons.

Supporting this nation’s NEETs comes with great rewards. If we could get just 5% of unemployed under-25s back into work, the Government would save £903 million over the course of this Parliament, according to research commissioned by the Work and Pensions Committee. Indeed, it found that spending £1 in return-to-work schemes could save the taxpayer £6 through consequential cuts to benefits and increased tax intake from the subsequent jobs. Most importantly, we would also be offering young people the confidence boost that comes from discovering a job where they can thrive.

To conclude, we must ensure that there is targeted support for all young people, no matter what barriers they face, so that they can start and succeed in work. We urge the Government to reverse their damaging economic policies that are crippling the very sectors that offer many young people their first stint in employment. We must back our small and medium-sized enterprises to the hilt, rather than strangle them with ever more costly regulations. Having stronger businesses means more and better jobs for everyone. We cannot afford to waste a generation.

17:14

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this incredibly important debate.

Given the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), it is important to remind Members that we inherited a situation in which nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That can have lifelong consequences for people. As he said, the “Keep Britain Working” review found that someone who leaves the workforce due to ill health in their early 20s can lose more than £1 million in lifetime earnings, and that the impact on their wellbeing is immense. It is bad for employers, too. They need the energy, talent and potential of our young people at a time of more than 700,000 job vacancies. And, of course, it is bad for the country. Failing to help people early in their lives stores up all kinds of problems and costs further down the line. Young people are the future of our country, so helping them to achieve their potential is central to our mission of national renewal.

I want to comment on some of the specific points that colleagues made, but I hope they will forgive me: with the two-minute limit, things came fast and furious. If I miss out anyone or any particular point, they should feel free to grab me afterwards or contact me, and I will provide a response where I can.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for drawing out the examples of Shaun and Lily, which were indicative of stories I hear up and down the country. I offer my congratulations to Lily on securing the role at Nottingham Forest. My hon. Friend has clearly had a dialogue with Lily, so I wonder whether Lily might be willing to have a conversation with me about her experience in the jobcentre. I am always keen to hear about experiences on the frontline.

We are determined, through the standing up of the national jobs and careers service, to look at how we can make improvements to the support provided by our work coaches. In general, they do an important job well, but we are looking to modernise their approach through increased use of technology in support of young people and people who are looking for work across all age ranges. We want to upskill them to support people who might be from less-than-usual circumstances or are further away from the labour market. As we go through that, as well as our journey to increase the extent to which those closest to the labour market can self-serve, allowing work coaches to spend more time with people who really need the help, I am very keen to hear feedback, so if my hon. Friend would ask Lily whether she might consider it, I would be happy to have a conversation with her.

My hon. Friend was entirely right to mention the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market. Some sectors in particular will be potentially negatively impacted, although overall, forecasters suggest that there will be a net increase in jobs as a result of AI. We need to look at particular sectoral impacts and what the Government can do over time to help. She and a number of other colleagues talked about access to mental health support, and I am sure that she will welcome the acceleration of the roll-out of mental health support teams to schools and further education colleges to ensure that we have full national coverage by 2029.

My hon. Friend took the opportunity, as did many colleagues, to make reference to the Milburn review into the drivers of youth inactivity and the number of young people not in education, employment or training. I hope that all colleagues welcome that review. Clearly, I cannot speak specifically to the SEND review that is happening alongside and separately to it, but given that education, health and care plans cover young people until the age of 25, while it is not directly part of that work, I hope that it is common sense to consider the implications of special educational needs and disability support as part of it.

My hon. Friend asked for an outline of the steps the Government are taking. I am sure she will have been pleased to hear today about the £820 million to implement the youth jobs guarantee and the £700 million-plus for the growth and skills levy, in addition to wider work already under way. That includes the eight youth inactivity trailblazers, which have been referenced, the auto-enrolment mechanism that is being put in place to ensure that anyone under the age of 18 who is not in education, employment or training is enrolled with a local education provider, and the shift in apprenticeship funding from all-age apprenticeships to those under the age of 22, where we have the most acute problem with people not in education, employment or training.

I want to assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who called for greater careers advice and guidance, that the jobs and careers service that we are bringing forward will help to address that, certainly for over-18s. It is incredibly important that we recognise that jobs and careers advice extends not just to people not in education, employment or training, but to those in work who may be in sectors where there is not a huge opportunity for advancement or the pay is not particularly good. We are focusing on that as a key strand of our work to develop the service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) talked about the lack of focus on vocational training. I am sure that he welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a shift away from the 50% university target towards a two-thirds target for vocational training and university education routes more broadly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned. That is overdue. If I have one criticism of the policy choices of the last Labour Government, perversely, it is that one, because it meant that apprenticeships in particular, and vocational training in general, lost their value in the eyes of many people up and down the country, to the detriment of young people, industry and, ultimately, our economy.

I am sure that my hon. Friends will also welcome the diversion away from level 7 apprenticeships to apprenticeships to support those aged under 22. That will ensure that while masters routes through university remain for those on level 7 apprenticeships, we are able to target support at those at the youngest end of the spectrum who perhaps have fewer qualifications.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) rightly linked the NEET crisis to the housing crisis. As somebody who could talk about housing for hours, I completely agree with him. Housing is the most fundamental building block in anybody’s development, so I was particularly pleased to note that our new foundation apprenticeships look to address skills shortages that will prove to be a blocker to the Government’s intention to deliver 1.5 million homes, by focusing on construction and engineering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool rightly seeks to champion technical education. I fully agree, and I hope that he will recognise the positive step of scrapping and amending the target, and the significant £785 million of funding for the growth and skills levy. That shows how serious we are about taking this forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) said that the youth guarantee funding needed to be sustained and not short term. I totally agree with him both that the intervention given to a young person must be not a one-off, but lasting—the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned that—and about the Government’s commitment to that. I think that as we see the results from that, the Government will continue to develop it.

On the consolidation of FE colleges across Cheshire, much as I know Middlewich, Winsford and Northwich, and the area surrounding my hon. Friend’s patch, relatively well, I cannot claim to know all the FE colleges in his locality, but that is something that I have experienced in my area with the expansion of the Trafford college group, its merger with Stockport college and so on. That is something that we need to look at, and I will feed that back directly to the Minister for Skills on his behalf.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) is a passionate advocate for young people, and he had an inspirational journey to his place himself. He is absolutely correct about this Government’s investment in youth hubs, our youth strategy and the investment that we are making in children and young people’s mental health. From next year, 900,000 more children and young people will be able to access mental health support in their education setting. The holistic approach that he suggested is critical to tackling the level of NEETs. I will write to him on his specific question about findings from the trailblazers, which is a fair challenge and an important question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) rightly mentioned the link between special educational needs and disabilities and NEETs. This is why those holistic interventions are so important. It is often forgotten that an education, health and care plan covers a young person until the age of 25, so we cannot look at this as purely a skills problem. Although the Department for Education and the Minister for School Standards are leading on that, with the joint ministerial role that my noble Friend Baroness Smith fulfils, working between the Department for Work and Pensions and the DFE, we can hopefully ensure that that is fully played in.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) highlighted care leavers and pointed out the particular problem for young people in supported accommodation, who are caught in a taper trap that disincentivises work. She will be pleased that there were measures in the Budget—hot off the press—that will start to address that. We will introduce a series of new disregards, which we think will lead to 5,000 more people who are currently in supported accommodation being able to enter work, and 8,000 receiving more housing benefit. I encourage her to look at the specifics, but this is something that I and the Minister for Social Security and Disability have been alive to for a long time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome those changes as more information becomes available.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is absolutely correct to highlight the particular challenges faced by young people in his constituency—as he said, certainly at one point, it had the highest number of NEETs in the country—and to highlight the further education and training landscape across north Staffordshire. I join him in commending the Higher Horizons scheme at Keele University, but we need to see more of that. I will come back to him in writing on his question about how the introduction of V-levels potentially impacts other training schemes, and BTECs in particular.

I do not recall promising to come to one of the colleges in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), but if I did not do so, I promise now that either I or the Minister for School Standards will do that. It may be that I had other things on my mind or a pint in my hand when I agreed to that; none the less, I will make sure that we look to take it forward. I share my hon. Friend’s view of the importance of the Milburn review and the need to look at this issue in an all-encompassing manner to make sure that, as we look at the levers to prevent NEETs and the drivers causing them, we leave absolutely nothing behind. Whether I had agreed previously or not, it will now be recorded in Hansard that I am off to his constituency.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), mentioned the challenges facing sectors including hospitality—I know that he has a particular interest in that sector, given the constituency he represents—and their inability to hire young people. I appreciate the challenges that he set out, but I hope that he will be pleased to hear that the new foundation apprenticeships will have a particular focus on sectors including hospitality and will be fully funded. I agree on the need to avoid suggestions of demonisation as we look at the drivers of NEETs, and particularly when considering those who suffer with certain mental health conditions. We know that there is a problem that we need to investigate, but the language that we use in this space matters. I fully accept the need to recognise that young people need support, not abuse and demonisation. On the hon. Member’s point about the need for long-term support and not one-off schemes, he will be pleased to know that the youth jobs guarantee will guarantee six months of paid work for 18 to 21-year-olds. That will not be a single intervention; it will be ongoing.

Finally, I was in danger of being in violent agreement with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) at the start of his contribution, but when he moved into an attack on the Government I had to disagree somewhat. This is not a new problem—indeed, the number of NEETs is down 0.3% against this point last year. This is a problem inherited from the previous Government; what is different is the action being taken to deal with it: our youth jobs guarantee, our roll-out of further youth hubs, our new foundation apprenticeships and the shift in funding there, and the development of the jobs and careers service. This Government are taking this matter seriously. We will deliver the urgency needed to address it, and I hope that all colleagues will be able to support our interventions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for young people not in education, employment or training.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.