Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Local Media
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of local media.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I will start by giving hon. Members some reassurance: I intend to give way every time someone asks, because I fully expect this to be one of the most intervened on speeches that I have ever given.
Tom Hayes
I look forward to collecting the prize. Does the hon. Member agree that local media is critical? In Bournemouth we have the Daily Echo, which dates back to 1900. With his grace, I give a shout-out to Toby Granville, James Johnson, Sarah Cartlidge, Benjamin Paessler, Alexander Smith, Erin Rhodes, Jess Skelton, Simran Mehan, Richard McLaughlin, Amy Woodward, Emma Joseph, Isabella Holliday and Will Frampton. If that were not enough, does the hon. Member agree that it is great that we also have new media starting in Bournemouth? Pier Journal launched in 2022 with Sammy Murphy and Laura Williams at the helm, and Bournemouth One launched last year. We need to see more new media.
Peter Fortune
Well played! That was very good, and of course I agree. I used to work with Toby Granville, so I know him well. I think that sets the tone for a lot of the interventions that will come during this speech.
Where was I? Line two: I fully expect this to be one of the most intervened on speeches that I have ever given. Why? Because all hon. Members present will wish to pop up to record their love for their local newspaper, be it the Watford Observer, The Oxford Times, the Farnham Herald—
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Farnham Herald. The Tindle group also includes the Haslemere Herald, the Liphook Herald and the Bordon Herald. Does he agree that local papers keep politicians honest, weigh behind the key issues that matter to our local communities and deliver real journalism, whether that be sport or news. Week after week, quality journalists, who live and breathe their own towns and know their areas, are working for the people in those areas.
Peter Fortune
I of course agree with my hon. Friend. The role that local media plays at the centre of the community is what I will develop during my speech, if I get to the second page. I mentioned the Farnham Herald, which he intervened on, and go on to the Isle of Wight County Press and the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press—all of us have examples of great local newspapers, which are at the heart of our community. We know that what they report matters, because it reflects our communities. While national and regional news have expanded, and the offering has widened, local, trusted news is still the go-to place for residents across our communities.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have excellent local media, such as the Epping Forest Guardian newspaper and Everything Epping Forest online, which provides invaluable coverage across our district. As he alluded to, many constituents rely on local media for timely and local news. Does he agree that sustaining the local media sector is vital and that the Government should do all they can to protect that community service?
Peter Fortune
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will get to as I develop my speech. I also have to declare an interest: I spent the majority of my working life in local news. Even as a child, I delivered copies of the local Guardian around south London. My first “proper” job was at the South London Press. Back in those days, we sold two paid-for editions each week and delivered numerous free titles across south London. Later, I spent nearly 10 years with Newsquest, with its huge footprint across the UK. I still write a monthly column for the Bromley News Shopper, our local oracle. The News Shopper dates back to 1965 and counts Norris and Ross McWhirter as former contributors. Indeed, it was deemed such a bastion of information that a young Rupert Murdoch took temporary ownership of it back in 1969.
Peter Fortune
Tell me about it. It remains the go-to place for my constituents across Bromley and Biggin Hill for the news that counts, and that is local news. It is where we go to find out what is happening, what new shops are opening in the high street, what that planning application is that everybody is talking about, or why the heck they have put in that stupid roundabout near Mike’s house. It is the place we go for the things that matter.
But times have changed. Since 13-year-old Peter spent his afternoon stuffing numerous leaflets into hundreds of papers ready for delivery in the early ’90s, technology, advertising and expectations have changed. The traditional model of delivering local news has evolved, and that has put real pressure on the industry—note that I say “model”, not the need for local news. In fact, I would argue that in an age of fake news—Mrs Fortune told me not to do an impression when I said “fake news”—and increasing pressures on council services, the need for trusted, informed and relevant local media is more important than ever before, but it is increasingly challenging to deliver it in the traditional paper format. A newspaper sliding through the letterbox once a week is simply no longer financially viable, especially with the model that relies on advertising revenue to fund the printing and delivery of the product. That does not remove the need for local news; it just changes the delivery method.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I want to give a big shout-out to the Hampshire Chronicle, which I write a monthly column for; that is one of the most vital ways to communicate with my constituents. I was speaking to the owner of the Meon Valley Times, which is a free service that anyone can access and is not behind a paywall. He told me about the difficulty of big social media companies populating their feeds with content from local journalists, who rarely get any financial benefit from that, despite doing the work. Does the hon. Member agree that these companies should be made to support local journalists and their hard work?
Peter Fortune
I do agree. That has been happening in local media since the invention of Facebook, which I will come to later.
Across the UK, local journalism attracts 42 million readers each week. It is the first port of call, be it print or digital in format, for communities who value a trusted source of information. While some formats may have changed from print to pixel, the trust in local brands has not, but the sector faces challenges, including the rapidly evolving digital environment, engagement with Government and public notice funding, and the conversation around a new relationship with the BBC.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I started and ended my journalism career at the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press, which has had a name-check, and I am delighted to report that people still queue up on a Thursday morning to buy it. It is thriving, but the BBC is a key issue, because the BBC’s website is killing local papers—it is as simple as that. People can access the local news for free, although obviously we pay the licence fee. Is there an opportunity through the new charter to address the damage the BBC is doing to local papers?
Peter Fortune
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on the BBC charter later in my comments.
Let us start with the digital environment, which the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to. For an industry that relies on advertising revenue, the emergence of platforms such as Facebook fundamentally changed the marketplace. Over time, the industry has learned to adapt and channel-shift to keep pace with the changing news environment, but 20 years on from one epoch-defining technological advancement, we find another.
We marvel as we see artificial intelligence developing and becoming the new intermediary between readers and news. This technology can now scrape the internet for information and pump out unchecked, unverified content, which undermines the faith in professional journalism and the financial sustainability of newsrooms. This undercuts the very institutions that produce the content, results in decreasing web traffic, and drains advertising revenue. The Government must act to ensure a fair licensing market, transparency in AI training data and strong backing for the Competition and Markets Authority to level the playing field between publishers and the tech giants.
I touched on public notices. These statutory notices in local papers are a cornerstone of democratic accountability, ensuring that residents know about changes that affect them, yet the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill risks removing this requirement and irreparably damaging the public’s right to know. The Government should commit unequivocally to keeping public notices in local papers, especially at a time of major reform in local government.
Coming to the role of the BBC, the corporation has made valuable contributions through initiatives such as the local democracy reporting service, but we need to better understand how the relationship between local news and our national broadcaster can work more effectively to ensure that commercial operators are not inadvertently impacted due to BBC overreach.
Mr Gregory Campbell
On the issue of local and national BBC, does the hon. Member agree with me about one tremendously heartwarming story this week? I am not a rugby league fan but Kevin Sinfield does fantastic work, going beyond any category of endeavour to draw attention to the vile, awful condition of motor neurone disease. The promotion of that on local and national media helps to drive forward the campaign.
Peter Fortune
I entirely agree on that extraordinary story. I think Kevin Sinfield has run further than I have ever driven. The way he has used national, regional and local media to highlight the issue shows the strength and power of media, when harnessed and targeted properly, to have a positive impact.
When touching on the BBC, I want to talk about the royal charter, which is now being reviewed. This is the moment to reset the relationship with local media, focusing on collaboration, not competition, and ensuring that commercial newsrooms can thrive. Finally, I come to Government advertising: 80% of UK adults trust the information they see in local media, yet Government campaigns remain heavily skewed towards social platforms, missing millions who rely on print and digital news. Shifting more advertising spend to local publishers would not only improve reach and engagement but strengthen the financial sustainability of the sector.
I will draw my remarks to a close, because I wish to give hon. Members as much time as possible to share stories of their local news providers, although many have already done so. I am sure everybody recognises the value of their local title as much as I do the Bromley News Shopper. Although, as politicians, we may not always appreciate being the focus of news, I am sure we all recognise the huge importance of a trusted media source that is from and for the community.
With its sharp focus on local issues, scrutiny of key decisions and responsibility for training the next generation of journalists, local journalism is a public good. It informs, scrutinises and binds communities together, but it cannot survive on good will alone. The Government have the tools to act on artificial intelligence, public notices, the BBC and advertising. If we value trusted local journalism, now is the time to secure its future. Finally, by my reckoning, I have said the word “local” 28 times in this speech, because that is the point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Many hon. Members wish to speak. I suggest a ballpark time of approximately four minutes. I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I do not do that baloney about what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, but congratulations on your elevation to the chair, Dr Khan.
John McDonnell
I will be brief. I declare an interest as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) is the chair. This will be like a Metropolitan police interview between us, and I am not sure which element I am doing.
These debates have gone on for at least the 20 years that I have attended. What usually happens is that there is a large attendance, and hon. Members get up and list the names of local journalists to ingratiate themselves as much as possible. From the NUJ’s point of view, however, that never works.
I will briefly run through the stats because what we are facing at the moment is pretty stark: 300 local papers have gone out of publication since 2005, which is when we had one of our earliest debates. An estimated 5.4 million people now live in deserts where there is no local paper. In my local area, like that of the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), we had five but we are now down to one that is not really local. I take pleasure in the local journalism students at Brunel University doing their best to revive a paper, but it is a real struggle. We are almost in a monopoly situation now. Nationally, Newsquest, NationalWorld and Reach cover 51% of local papers. The situation is even worse for DAB radio, which is two thirds controlled by Bauer and Global; they have 60% of analogue radio as well.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill mentioned the issue with AI. The problem now is that the use of AI is very clever, because it looks as though news is almost localised when it is not—it is just a different use of language. It is a betrayal of local people that AI has been distorted in this way. We have stood back and watched this happen while the tech companies have exploited the whole industry and made fortunes. One calculation in our briefing was that the US tech firms have made about £15 billion of profits, a lot of it from us in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and I will both dwell on something fairly obvious to us: regulation definitely needs to be looked at again. The NUJ has always suggested that there should be a 25% limit or cap on how much is owned by any particular corporation. We also want to look at new models of ownership. We have had this debate before and stimulated some development, but it was not consistently resourced. One argument we have put to the Government is that we need a journalism foundation that looks at new ideas to bring together people from all sides of the industry. We are also calling on the Government to look at a tax on techs that can be reinvested in local journalism. We suggest 6%, but even limited taxation on the techs would mean we could provide a lot more support at local level.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it was a bit of a knock-back recently that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will not require local authorities to advertise in their local press. That is a valuable source of money. I am talking about information on alcohol licences and other local notices. We think that is a real step backwards and might, in itself, be make or break for some local newspapers. We would also like newspapers to be defined in the Bill as community assets, so that they have the same protection as other local community assets when they come up for sale.
The BBC charter renewal has been mentioned, and we think there is a real opportunity there. I should also mention the local reporter scheme via the BBC, which we negotiated under a Conservative Government. It was an advance, but it is now being exploited by some local papers that are exploiting the individual journalist to do other work, rather than local reporting. We need to review that, but we think the scheme is good in itself.
I have outlined a programme of reforms that we think the Government could readily work on. As we can see today, there is a lot of cross-party agreement on how we can go forward. As I repeat time and again, there is not a person here who does not value their local paper for holding him or her to account.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan—and that is not baloney, because I mean it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on leading the debate. Local media is so important, especially for our communities. I have listened closely to what Members have said so far, and others will endorse that because we are all on the same page—literally. I, for one, strongly believe in local media and everything it stands for, so that is why I am here.
From newspapers to local radio, we sometimes underestimate the role that local media plays in society. It is so important for the likes of us as public representatives. It allows us to get in touch with the reader or listener directly. I remember my first story in the local press: it was about potholes at the harbour in Ballywalter. The guy in charge of the council said to me, “You do that. It’s your lead-off story as you start your life as a councillor.” That was in 1985. I can remember many of the things that were done to highlight what I was working on in our local newspapers. It is not a generational issue—for me, it probably is—but many others now go online to TikTok or X to get their news, and perhaps do not purchase the likes of papers any more.
I have a routine: every Monday I make a phone call to the editor of the local paper, Paul Symington, when I am at the airport or on the tube train on the way here, and tell him the things I am going to campaign for that week. He is very kind, he wants stories about the things we do, and we do it with a purpose in mind. I am a great believer that one photograph in the local paper is worth three paragraphs, so I try to feature pictorially in the paper—although I might not look all that well—at least one to three times a week, maybe more, because that is another way to tell a story.
My local newspaper, the Newtownards Chronicle, started way back in 1873—over 145 years ago—and I would love it to remain for many years. It is still going strong—it is probably the strongest newspaper we have. I love reading about the local stories and what is going on around the villages in my constituency. It allows me, perhaps from a distance, to learn what is going on and, more so, what needs to be done.
Each Friday, I read and scour the local papers—the Chronicle, the Mourne Observer and sometimes the County Down Spectator—to get the stories about people who are retiring from schools, hospitals and churches, about those who are being installed or have done charity fundraising, and about the schools that have achieved something. After that, some 20 to 30 letters go out to individuals to congratulate them. We should use our local papers for that purpose—that is the right thing to do.
I have talked about the Newtownards Chronicle, but I was saddened to hear that the Down Recorder closed its doors very recently. That was another long-standing paper in the area. The owner Marcus Crichton, who is a great man, said it is a difficult time for the industry, and he is right. It is so different from how it was 20 to 30 years ago. My girls in the office are all tech-friendly—unlike myself, unfortunately—and they sometimes show me news headlines on their phone. I say to myself, “My goodness! How did they get that headline so quick?” In modern society, that is now the way our staff and others do that for us.
As I have stated before, my constituency as a whole is very rural, and many down my neck of the woods do not have access to the same broadband as some urban areas, so access to online news is not great. My constituents rely on the local post office or corner shop to get their news by buying their local Newtownards Chronicle, or they keep the one radio in their house on all day to get the updates. That is the essence of local news and media, and I will forever fight to protect that.
As we have heard today, and will hear from others, there is a dangerous shift in how media is being portrayed. I want to be a voice for the home-grown methods of giving the people their news, and for not always relying on online websites or social media apps, which are inaccessible for many. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the contributions of other Members.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.
The future of local news in the UK stands at a critical crossroads. I recently heard from the editors of two Bedford publications: the Bedford Independent, an online locally owned newsroom, and the Times & Citizen, with its digital platform Bedford Today, owned by National World. Both are concerned about proposals in the national licensing policy framework, which they fear will limit their ability to inform the public about decisions that affect their lives.
One proposal would remove the requirement to advertise new or varied premises licences in local newspapers. Public notices are often the only way that residents learn about licensing changes, redevelopment plans or proposals that could alter their communities. I recognise the Government’s rationale for reviewing an outdated and sometimes cumbersome system. Modernisation, digital accessibility and simplification are worthy aims, and innovations such as the Public Notice Portal show how publishers can use digital tools to strengthen engagement. But reform must not come at the expense of local journalism.
Local newsrooms already operate in a tight fiscal environment. Public notices provide modest but vital revenue and the content for public-interest reporting. Removing them without a viable alternative risks undermining local democracy. That is especially acute for independent publishers like the Bedford Independent. With one full-time journalist and two part-time co-founders, as well as volunteers, it provides daily, regulated reporting that fills the gaps left by large corporations. Yet it remains excluded from public notices, overlooked for Government advertising and disadvantaged by algorithms that favour national outlets.
Nearly half of the UK’s districts now have two or fewer local news outlets. As the Department for Culture, Media and Sport develops its local media strategy, I urge the Government to safeguard the financial and civic functions of local journalism. Levelling the playing field is essential to sustaining informed communities and a healthy local democracy.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this debate, and for his brilliant speech. I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the NUJ parliamentary group.
Since 2005, nearly 300 local papers have closed their doors. Millions now live in communities with only one local title, and millions more live in what we can only call news deserts, where meaningful local reporting just does not exist. We all know what that means: when there is no one in the room holding power to account, decisions are taken in the dark. When there is no local reporter at council meetings, in our courts or on our high streets, communities lose their voice. People lose the very information they need to understand what is happening in their constituencies, and what is happening in their lives.
The broken business models that we see today are a direct result of the local media market being dominated by a handful of corporations whose priorities have been consolidation, cost-cutting and the extraction of profit from once-thriving community institutions. Three companies now control over half the UK’s local papers and websites, and two companies dominate local radio. The same patterns are being replicated in the national media, with potential takeovers threatening to concentrate nearly half the newspaper market into the hands of a single individual. That is why new market rules must be introduced—not to punish success, but to safeguard the public interest. No private company should control more than 25% of the media market. Those holding more than 15% should be required to divest or establish publicly accountable structures.
I must stress that this crisis is not simply about ownership; it is about the hollowing out of newsrooms across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the redundancies at Reach, with over 300 editorial jobs gone in September alone. Titles that once had rich, thriving newsrooms are being left with one dedicated reporter, or sometimes none. Communities are being stripped of their chroniclers. Journalists are being stripped of their livelihoods. While the cuts happen, companies increasingly turn to AI to churn out homogenised, centralised copy. It is content that imitates local voices rather than reflects them, and that is just not journalism; it is misrepresentation, and the public know it. The overwhelming majority of people want transparency in AI-generated news, and they do not believe that the current safeguards are enough.
At the same time, tech giants continue to siphon off the advertising revenue that once sustained local titles, while refusing to contribute meaningfully to the journalism they profit from. They have taken billions, paid a fraction back in tax, and flooded our information environment with disinformation, extremism and chaos. This has gone on long enough. It is time for a reset. I urge the Minister to do what was suggested in the NUJ’s news recovery plan, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington did a fantastic job of outlining.
The key points from the plan are: reform media ownership rules with a strengthened public interest test; establish a journalism foundation to support new media and invest in public interest journalism; introduce a 6% windfall tax on tech giants; retain public notice requirements, thereby protecting a vital revenue stream and a vital democratic function; designate local papers as assets of community value; reform the local democracy reporting scheme, to ensure that public money supports genuine local journalism; and finally, use the BBC charter renewal to reverse the damaging local radio cuts and guarantee sustainable funding for trusted independent local news.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this timely debate, and everyone who has spoken so far. This really is an important issue. In Melksham and Devizes, we are lucky to have a local print newspaper in the Melksham News, which is both well regarded and widely read. It is staffed by fantastic journalists who work hard to bring local people the news that matters most to them. Importantly, those journalists are rooted in the local community, something that is essential to good local journalism.
Speaking to the Melksham News, I have been made aware that many local authorities exclusively publish their statutory advice for things such as road closures and consultations with larger corporate news outlets. I agree with the paper that it would surely be fairer, and indeed provide wider and more effective reach, if some of that ad spend was shared out among local, independent news outlets. Those notices should be an important source of income for small, independent publishers and it would be one small way in which we elected officials can continue to help our free and fair press.
Of course, it must be acknowledged that the way in which people consume their news is changing, and has been for many decades now—from broadsheets to radio to television and social media. However, we must do everything we can to preserve and help independent local news organisations, which are keeping the flame of honest journalism alive. It was not lost on me that local papers were essential in pushing back on the misinformation spreading online last summer.
If the Government are serious about changing local media and its landscape and helping local journalists, they need to implement the changes recommended in the 2023 “Sustainability of local journalism” report. I now have a regular column in the Melksham News myself, and I have noticed that what I write about is picked up and discussed around the town. It is clear that it is being read and that there is a real desire for local news for local people.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be called in this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune).
With the media industry’s moves from print to broadcast to digital, and we with the rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence, there are new challenges before us. We must ensure that we have inclusive, authentic media that we can depend on as a reliable source within our democracy—media that can enable close scrutiny and ensure that we hold our country to account, while reaching deep into our communities and creating the connectivity that is so desperately needed in this time.
I am grateful that we have a daily paper, The Press, in print in York. Although its content has thinned over the years, it still provides a substantial record of all that is occurring within our community, with high-quality journalism and interest, as it has done for 143 years. It is so important that local news outlets continue; many journalists learn their skills and cut their teeth there, and they ensure that proper accountability within our communities. As we have heard already in this debate, it is important to ensure that the industry can continue to put planning applications and alcohol licensing information in the papers—not just because of the revenue stream, but because it enables our community to engage. We have seen that in our city, where communities have campaigned as a result of seeing such placements of information.
I also recognise the breadth of media within York, including the newer forms. There is YorkMix, That’s TV, the Yorkshire Post—a campaigning paper—YO1 Radio and Jorvik Radio, a real community-based radio station. Our universities also have papers, and I when I visited Archbishop Holgate’s school last week, I found that my Q&A there was on the record. It is great to see young people engaging in the future of media.
In the light of the fact that we are looking at the new royal charter, I want to turn to BBC Radio York. It has battled so well to bring its expertise and experience to our city, and to shine a light on good-quality journalism and connectivity. If we are to rebuild our national sources of media, we have to start with the local. I therefore urge the Government to look at how we can move more content to local outlets, rather than pursuing the regionalisation that we have seen. That regionalisation breaks connectivity and, in its last iteration, has not been a positive step; we must review that. What we need are more hours of local content—that hyper-local approach makes a difference. If we are to rebuild trust in the BBC, we need to go from the local to the national, not the national to the regional.
The new media in this volatile and heated media space provides unfiltered, biased content, when we need critical analysis of what we are witnessing and a recognition of the profiteering of the tech giants. We need serious regulation, and fast: this new digital world is spinning out of control and the toxicity it generates is making some people incredibly vulnerable. It can be incredibly dangerous, and it is building division and hate. A media that started out to extend democracy is now rapidly shutting it down. We must look at regulation—we could have a commission that pulls the industry together to do that. I recommend the NUJ’s “A Future for News” plan, which sets out a balanced approach to how we move forward.
As we navigate this new world of fact and fake, we must ensure that the route out is through our local media outlets, so we can hold on to authenticity and rebuild trust.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
A couple of Members have dropped out of the debate, so we have a bit more time. There is no time limit, and anyone who spoke for four minutes or who has not yet spoken may make another intervention.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan; it is great to see you at the top table, keeping these debates in order.
This is an important debate. The connection that Members have shown to their local titles speaks volumes about the significance that they hold in their communities. In my own town, titles such as the Oldham Evening Chronicle, The Oldham Times, Oldham Reporter and Manchester Evening News, as well as the wider ecosystem that includes Oldham Community Radio, ITV Granada and BBC North West, contribute to trusted, deep-rooted reporting that has told the story of Oldham, Chadderton and Royton for well over a century in some cases.
None of those outlets has been able to stand still; each has felt the pressures of a rapidly changing media landscape. In the UK, print news consumption has decreased from 59% of residents in 2013 to just 12% in 2025. I pay tribute to the journalists, editors, photographers, production teams and printers who keep that ecosystem alive; above all, I pay tribute to the local reporters who turn up to court hearings, local council meetings, planning committees and community gatherings. Even in an age of live streams, real understanding still comes from being in the room—hearing the side conversations, tone, and context before and after the formal debate has taken place. I also acknowledge the fantastic work of the more than 165 BBC-funded local democracy reporters whose work is shared across multiple titles. By August 2025 this scheme, funded by the licence fee, had produced more than 500,000 stories.
The transition to digital has been deeply challenging, however. In many towns and cities, the daily printed paper is no longer the anchor that it was. News now appears instantly and freely—and often without any attribution at all—across apps that are designed to capture attention and keep users locked to the platform, rather than directing them back to the journalist who created the work in the first place. Commercial advertising has also migrated to global platforms, but the platforms do not send anyone to cover Oldham council meetings, the magistrates court or community events.
It is a fact that the UK has historically been slow and timid in confronting such challenges. We have a highly regulated broadcast media and press in this country, yet multibillion-dollar platforms operate with standards far below those that we expect of our newspapers and broadcasters. A newspaper is a publisher; it takes full legal responsibility for its content and is subject to clear regulation, complaint mechanisms and restrictions on foreign influence.
Platforms such as X or Facebook are still not held to the same standards. Some are deliberately structured to amplify foreign influence and cause political disruption, without any consequence at all in the law. Yet those platforms rely on journalism created by others to hook in readers and give credibility to their feeds; there, it sits alongside misinformation, conspiracy theories, racism and online hate. A public good is used to normalise extreme content, which grooms and radicalises its audiences through the algorithms.
How do we sustain local media in a world where facts and fiction are constantly blurred? Other countries have recognised the challenge and have acted. In Australia, the news media bargaining code requires platforms such as Facebook and Google to negotiate payments to publishers or face binding arbitration. As a result, nearly 250 million Australian dollars a year now flow back into Australian journalism, supporting around 30 organisations and saving local titles that might otherwise have folded. Across the European Union, article 15 of the copyright directive requires platforms to pay for the use of news content. France, Germany and Spain now have frameworks ensuring that revenue is distributed from the tech giants. Those models are not perfect, but they prove that intervention is possible, workable and effective. They also mean that the UK now is an outlier.
There is no good reason why we cannot take action. The issue could be addressed by the Government introducing a proposal for a British news co-operative, jointly owned by regulated news organisations, empowered to negotiate collective licensing agreements with global platforms, backed by firm legislation and distributing the dividend to support a vibrant local press. If we take action, those titles that we have all talked about today will be something of the future as well as something of our proud past.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Back in 1991, when I was 15 years old, I applied for work experience at Central FM in Stirling. I was meant to be there for a week, and I stayed for 10 years as a broadcaster. Those were golden days of Scottish local radio, shaped by stations such as Central, Radio Forth and Radio Clyde, by familiar voices, great music and genuinely local news. When a winter storm hit, we tuned in to hear which schools would be closed. We rallied behind Cash for Kids and other campaigns that defined that era.
A few years later I began writing for the Stirling Observer. I can still picture the newsroom buzzing with reporters, sub-editors, photographers, and the sense of a team that knew its community inside-out. Then came the world wide web. None of us realised how profoundly it would change everything. When I started at Central FM, I had 17 radio stations to choose from. Today my teenage children can access almost any station on earth—if they choose to listen to radio at all, that is. They consume radio in ways that would have been unimaginable to me as a teenager.
I start with those reflections because they remind us that change in the media landscape is not new. What is new is the speed and scale of the disruption we now face, and the reality that the future of local journalism is genuinely at risk if we choose not to protect it. The consolidation of power among the world’s tech giants and the unprecedented influence they hold over what information we see is deeply troubling. They extract extraordinary profits, while Governments and communities are left to face the democratic and social consequences of their decisions. The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee’s “The future of news” report warned that,
“the period of having informed citizens with a shared understanding of facts is not inevitable and may not endure”,
and it is right.
Recent legislation has helped. The Media Act 2024 gives broadcasters clarity. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 begins to address imbalances between publishers and platforms. The Online Safety Act 2023 is a great first step, but it will need constant attention to ensure it remains up to the task. It is clear that much more will be required.
We might need better legislation to ensure that local journalism has a fighting chance in a world being reshaped by AI, which is already challenging how people access news. Too often AI is scraping journalists’ work without permission, payment or attribution. By serving up instant summaries of that material, it risks becoming the main gateway between readers and local information, using content it did not create and preventing those who did create it from earning a living or building the trusted relationships that sustain local reporting.
One of the biggest missteps we made at the start of the age of social media and smartphones was to blindly follow the tech companies into the brave new digital future they were creating without proper oversight or guardrails. Let us not make the same mistake with AI.
The upcoming BBC charter renewal is an opportunity to look again at how the BBC can support local news, rather than compete with it. The BBC is a vital institution and the local democracy reporting service shows the good it can do, but the move into local online news has created pressure for commercial services that rely on digital audiences to survive. In rural areas like mine, resilience has to be part of the conversation. When the BBC begins to ask whether it is time to switch off digital broadcasting because digital connectivity is almost universal, I would invite them to visit places such as Killin in my constituency, where residents are still waiting for FM radio to reach them—a technology first introduced by the BBC in the 1950s.
Grassroots competition should not be feared. Many talented journalists who have faced redundancy are using platforms such as Substack to build genuinely local alternatives. They may well become the next generation of local media. The Government have a procurement role, too. Our advertising and procurement choices should reward those who are genuinely investing in local reporting—yet that commitment is not always clear. Reach’s recent redundancies, including that of a Stirling Observer reporter with nearly 30 years of experience, and STV’s shocking plans for significant redundancies in the north of Scotland show how fragile the ecosystem has become. Public money should support organisations that maintain real journalistic capacity, whether that is a long-standing local title rooted in its community or an experienced local journalist building a new platform.
A healthy, sustainable and independent local media sector is not a luxury; it is part of the democratic infrastructure of our country. I welcome the Government’s plans for a local media strategy and would be grateful if the Minister could update us on how that work is developing. We should support and invest in local media. If we lose it, we will miss it more than we can ever imagine.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue, which is fundamental to our democracy. We have some fantastic local news sources in our area, from Talk of the Town in Loftus to Greater Nunthorpe News, to which I am proud to contribute a column.
This debate is all about the people who make our news and the people who rely on it—people like Lynne and Steve Nicholls from Moorsholm, who for 14 years produced the excellent Coastal View & Moor News, a two-person operation delivering a free community newsletter to every home. They celebrated our area’s achievements, campaigned on our local fights and gave communities across East Cleveland a voice of our own. Their retirement last year marked the end of a remarkable chapter, but their work shows what genuinely local journalism can achieve.
This debate is about the future, but this tradition goes right back to our roots as a democratic society. In the 1840s, Teesside Chartists such as 19-year-old George Markham Tweddell produced radical newspapers, including his Stokesley News and Cleveland Reporter, which set out to
“give the ordinary people of Cleveland a newspaper that would reflect their more liberal opinions rather than those of the landowning classes”.
That was not a view shared by the Stockton Conservative association at the time, which grumbled about the
“newspapers and tracts of an objectionable and mischievous tendency”
that were
“exclusively circulated among the lower classes”.
However, that determination—that refusal to be silenced—is where local journalism on Teesside began.
Today, the main local news presence, Teesside Live, serves hundreds of thousands of people across our area. The journalists are dedicated, but it is fair to say they are working under immense strain. The traditional advertising model is collapsing. More than 300 local newspapers closed between 2009 and 2019. Reach, which owns Teesside Live, deserves credit for keeping the paper alive, but in doing so it has had to make cuts. We have heard about some of the decisions that Reach has made across the country recently. Reporters are expected to cover far more ground with far fewer resources, and with the shift to online, the pressure to publish quickly and at volume is intense. We have seen elsewhere in the country how that can lead to lapses in standards, such as the clickbait headlines recently ruled “misleading” by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Ultimately, this is about our democracy. Just as it was for Tweddell, we now need to prepare for a wholly new age. If local media is diminished, so too is our democracy: communities become less informed, space for debate narrows and trust erodes. More than half of people now get their news from social media, and people are more exposed to misinformation than ever before. Ofcom says that 43% of UK adults recall encountering misinformation—and those are only the people who are equipped to recognise it.
Meanwhile, hostile states exploit this landscape. The Washington Post reported last year that the Russian Foreign Ministry is using disinformation online to weaken western democracy. Such tactics aim to destabilise free societies, and they rely on weakened, hollowed-out information environments to succeed. That is why strong, independent and accountable local journalism matters. It provides trusted information about the places where people actually live. It can counter falsehoods with facts and create a democratic culture that is rooted in community.
The challenge now is to meet audiences where they are without abandoning the standards that make local journalism trustworthy in the first place. First, we must build sustainable funding models for public interest journalism, including community and co-operative ownership, as Members have spoken about. Secondly, we must uphold high standards with stronger regulation. Thirdly, we must help local outlets to innovate safely and embrace digital tools, including AI, without sacrificing trust. Fourthly, we must strengthen media literacy in schools and communities so that people can recognise misinformation when they see it. I welcome the measures in the curriculum review in that regard.
Above all, we must remember that local media is not a luxury, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) said. When it collapses, civic engagement falls, scrutiny is weakened and communities lose the mirror to themselves. Tweddell wrote that his paper sought to be
“the unflinching advocate of civil and religious liberty.”
Let us ensure that 200 years later our local media can adapt to be the same.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate.
According to the Press Gazette, nearly 300 local papers have closed since 2005. We are at a tipping point. The Public Interest News Foundation estimates that 12.5 million people live in areas where there is only one local paper, while 5.4 million people live in news deserts. Local papers provide reliable information at a time when misinformation runs rampant online.
My constituency is lucky to have The Scarborough News and Whitby Gazette, which publish a quality weekly paper with a small and dedicated staff. Regionally, we have the York Press, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the campaigning newspaper The Yorkshire Post. On the air, we have This is the Coast, Coast & County, and of course BBC Radio York and BBC Radio Tees.
However, journalists have told me that they are increasingly worried about their own survival—and these journalists are veteran survivors. They have raised concerns about Government proposals to remove the legal requirements to publish alcohol licensing notices and notices on local authority governance changes. The National Union of Journalists has highlighted that local papers remain the main source of news for the digitally excluded. One local editor put it plainly when he said that
“denuding print audiences of the right to know what is happening in their community does not feel like community empowerment to me.”
I agree with him.
Taken together, the changes would deliver a double blow to an already fragile sector. They would deprive titles of reliable revenue, potentially putting papers at risk and impeding the flow of information in our communities. The Secretary of State has committed to publishing a local media strategy to ensure that there is trusted local news across the UK. Ahead of the publication of that strategy, I urge the Minister to consider the impact on these valued and trusted titles of proposed changes to the requirement to report notices. If we value local media and the democracy it sustains, we must legislate to protect it.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Thank you, everyone, for keeping to such good time and enabling all colleagues to get in. We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate. I want to start by paying tribute to the brilliant work being done in my constituency by news outlets such as the Frome Times, The Midsomer Norton, Radstock & District Journal and The Somerset Leveller. Publications like these hold power to account. They inform people on issues that matter locally, and they keep our communities engaged. They are exemplars of what local journalism should be. Many of us in this House would not be as connected to our local community without local papers, often thanks to columns in our local papers that reach people who might not otherwise be following politics or who may not have access to the internet.
However, local news is facing many challenges. As we know, audiences are migrating from print and television to online sources. Advertising revenues have fallen dramatically. Online intermediaries dominate the news value chain, and local publishers face fierce competition for attention from audiences who are increasingly unwilling to pay for news. Perhaps most worryingly of all, a growing number of people are disengaging from news entirely.
News providers have responded with innovation—for example, exploring AI, developing podcasts and implementing paywalls and subscription models—but conditions remain extremely tough, and that has led to a huge variation in local news provision across the UK. Some communities are well served, while others face local news deserts, and this postcode lottery of democratic accountability should concern us all.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The constant consolidation of local newspapers into large news corporations risks a difficult balance between their need to make money and the audience size. We have lost papers in Lyme Regis, and Sherborne is now covered by Somerset’s Western Gazette as almost an afterthought. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we understand the need for these companies to make profit, recognising the need of local people is equally important?
Anna Sabine
I do agree, and I will come on to talk about the community impact of how we support local news.
The Frome Times—which, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill might like to know, does slide through letterboxes for free every fortnight and employs a band of teenagers to do newspaper rounds—is an example of a local newspaper that is serving communities. A recent survey by the town council found that the newspaper is the way that most people in Frome find out what is happening locally. The editor of the Frome Times told me:
“For many years, successive governments have discussed local journalism, including the 2023 report on the Sustainability of Local Journalism. Yet, from the coal face, little has changed. The most meaningful support the industry could receive is a genuine ‘levelling of the playing field’. For too long, dominance has rested with three corporate publishers, whose sales are declining and whose journalism is increasingly distant from local communities. Yet, government bodies (via Omnicom) and local authorities continue to rely on them for advertising spend. Decisions about which parts of the industry to support must ask one simple question: does this actually serve the community it claims to represent?”
I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to reviewing how local councils and Government Departments procure their advertising spend and ensuring that some account is taken of the community impact of that spending.
The DCMS’s BBC mid-term review published in January 2024 made 39 recommendations for the BBC and Ofcom. Ofcom’s subsequent review of local media examined how we maintain widespread availability of local news, communicate its importance, provide easy access to reliable news online and secure genuine audience engagement. Its proposals deserve serious consideration: an innovation fund for local news providers, a public interest news institute to support sustainability and develop a talent pipeline, and news vouchers, allowing citizens to directly support their local outlets.
It is frustrating that the Government have recently taken steps that will make funding for local journalism less sustainable. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure that when public notices are printed, at least one must appear in a local newspaper. Public notices are worth £32 million a year to local journalism. We cannot pull the rug from underneath the sector while business costs are skyrocketing.
Liberal Democrats also support the expansion of the BBC’s local democracy reporting service. That scheme has been a lifeline, placing dedicated reporters in local newsrooms to cover councils, courts and public bodies, although we recognise the challenges that the online content can pose to local news outlets. The scheme thrives, but only if it is provided with sustainable funding. Has the Minister spoken to colleagues in the BBC about future funding for the scheme?
In a time of fake news and misinformation, we increasingly recognise the importance of an independent and free press in our society. It is not a luxury; it is essential to a healthy democracy. My party has consistently defended public service broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4. We need to ensure that we protect their independence and impartiality. That is why we want the BBC to remain universally available, properly resourced and free at the point of use, and why we will continue to champion high-quality independent journalism at both local and national level. If we are serious about protecting our democracy, we must ensure that local news is properly supported, fairly funded and given the tools it needs to continue informing, empowering and connecting the communities it serves.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on bringing forward this very important debate and on giving a characteristically heartfelt and amusing speech.
It is a particular pleasure for me to be speaking in this debate, coming from the Isle of Wight, which is probably a rare example of a very vibrant local area for independent local press, including the Isle of Wight Observer, Isle of Wight County Press, Island Echo, OnTheWight, Isle of Wight Radio and Vectis Radio. We are very far from being a local news desert, as sadly too many places in this country are. Quality journalism is a cornerstone of any democratic system. In order to exercise the right to vote, the public needs to understand what decisions have been taken in their name and what those seeking power propose to do with that power. It is the media that helps people hold decision makers to account. It was Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who once said, “All politics is local.” It must therefore follow that local media plays a central role in the functioning of our democracy. Indeed, the Opposition say that it does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill put it, “It is the place you go for the things that matter.”
The UK news media sector serves audiences on more platforms than ever, with 96% of UK adults saying they consume news in some form. However, hundreds of local newspaper titles have closed in the past two decades, a trend accelerated by the covid pandemic, and those that have survived now often operate with reduced resources and fewer journalists. Local journalism is under unprecedented pressure from corporate consolidation—as we have heard—big-tech dominance and declining revenue models. Audiences have migrated from print and broadcast to online platforms, advertising revenues have fallen, and global tech intermediaries such as Google and Meta now capture the vast majority of digital advertising income.
At the same time, competition for audience attention has intensified, driven by clickbait metrics, and a growing proportion of people are disengaging from news. However, the migration to online should not be seen entirely as incompatible with vibrant local media. Indeed, the Island Echo on the Isle of Wight was established in 2012 and is entirely online. It is a successful and highly relied upon source of local news for residents on the Isle of Wight, making full use of digital opportunities, including updates via phone and tying in with some of those big social media giants such as Facebook.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The shadow Minister makes a very valid point about businesses diversifying and utilising the new online space. I have V2 Radio in my patch, which is a relatively new radio station, but in order to attract people to its radio station, it also puts its news on social media and has a really active website. It also plays a huge role with the voluntary sector in large campaigns that spread across the constituency. It does a Christmas appeal every year and a “Beds for Kids” campaign earlier this year, getting beds for young people who do not have them. Does the shadow Minister agree that the companies that are diversifying and making sure that their news gets to everybody who wants it are more likely to succeed in this complicated framework that we now live in?
Joe Robertson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Some of those local independent media are some of the best innovators. OnTheWight is an independent news outlet run by Simon and Sally Perry in my constituency. It started as a town-based Ventnor blog, and by using online opportunities, is now a trusted source for Isle of Wight news.
The growing consolidation of local media ownership and the dominance of major companies such as Newsquest, Reach and even the BBC—whose role I will touch on later—is reshaping the local media landscape and presenting challenges. It leads to reduced local editorial staff, more standardised content produced from remote hubs and, in some cases, the disappearance of physical distribution. However, the intervention of large companies is not always problematic for local news. The Isle of Wight County Press is owned by one of those big corporates, but it is still dominated by local news that is produced by local journalists, with a local editor. Indeed, it is the biggest selling weekly local newspaper in the UK.
In my constituency, there is also a newsprint-based outlet called the Isle of Wight Observer, which was launched in 2018. Its success is largely based on the weekly hardcopy paper that people pick up from the local newsagent on a Friday, showing that such outlets are thriving in many parts of the UK. It has done well by reporting on local issues and holding those in authority to account. There is nothing quite so concerning as when I get a call from the editor of the Isle of Wight Observer; I can assure Members that it causes much more anxiety, when I know that my local newspaper editors have spotted something and need clarification, than a phone call from an editor of a national media outlet, such as The Sun or The Mirror. I am sure we are all better Members for the role of local media such as the Isle of Wight Observer.
Without the journalists, photographers, editors and designers who dedicate their careers to serving the communities that they know and love, who will be the first to raise concerns when something goes wrong? It is worth remarking on the fact that some of the national household names—the journalists we know today who report on current affairs, politics or sport—started their careers in local media, in local titles. Local media is a breeding ground for many of those big, successful journalists, and it is one that national outlets rely on.
Local authority advertising has already been referred to by Members, including public notices and planning applications. Historically, it has provided an essential revenue stream that supports true local journalism. As councils move more notices online—indeed, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill aims to remove the requirement to publish public notices in local newspapers—it presents a challenge in not only lost revenue but the transparency of councils’ decision making, which are of course held to account by local people understanding what is going on. Statutory notices play an important role not only online but in print, because many people, especially older people, still consume much of their local news in a hardcopy print format.
The role of the BBC has also been discussed. It plays a vital role in our public service media environment, and it is also a competitor at local level. The charter review presents an opportunity for the Government to look at that relationship again. The local democracy reporting service has been successful in using the licence fee to support local news output, although the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly commented on some of the challenges with, and caused by, that service. It has reached the major milestone of locally producing over 500,000 pieces of independent journalism, covering some of the information that would not ordinarily be reported on, and which may not, in basic terms, have commercial value, but again casts a light on local decision making, particularly that of local councils. The service was launched almost eight years ago.
In conclusion, politics is the better for local media. It is where decision makers are held to account, and it is the medium through which people can better understand the world around them. Like anything, local media needs to adapt, but it also needs the support to do so in a rapidly changing world.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It is brilliant to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and it is great to have this wonderful debate with you presiding over us. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing an important debate. We can see from the contributions that it has been an important one, which everyone is interested in. I am delighted that he graduated from stuffing leaflets into newspapers at 13 to stuffing Tory leaflets through letterboxes at 45; he has certainly gone a long way. I, too, had a newspaper run when I was younger, a morning run, which I hated—it was underpaid, too long and too early in the morning—although apart from that, I loved everything about it.
Local media provides a vital and unique service to our communities in its provision of trustworthy—which I emphasise—public interest journalism. Local journalism fosters a range of social benefits, much wider than that itself, empowering local communities and reflecting the issues that matter to us. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said at the start of his contribution that many people would want to pop up to talk about their local titles. I agree that that might not make a blind bit of difference to the way in which we are treated as a local MP in our local newspapers, but it was nice to hear.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that excellent local titles such as the Bridlington Echo, the Driffield & Wolds Weekly and The Holderness & Hornsey Gazette need support? We need to ensure that the income stream from local authority statutory notices continues, so that such thriving local titles continue into the future.
Ian Murray
One hundred per cent, and the hon. Gentleman has just secured a column.
We heard from many Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), about the Isle of Wight County Press, the Island Echo, the Isle of Wight Observer and OnTheWight. He hates getting calls from the editors of those newspapers to clarify things, but I am sure his relationship for leaking stuff back to them is rather strong.
We also heard about the Hampshire Chronicle, the Bromley News Shopper, the Biggin Hill News Shopper, the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press, the Meon Valley Times, the Bournemouth Echo, Bournemouth One, the Greater Nunthorpe News, The Oxford Times, the Epping Forest Guardian, Everything Epping Forest online and The Comet. We heard about The Independent Melksham News, Talk of The Town, Coastal View & Moor News, The Yorkshire Post, Yorkshire Radio, the York Press, the Bedford Independent, the Bedford Today, Coast & County, BBC Yorkshire and Tees, the Witney Gazette, The Scarborough News, the Farnham Herald.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the editor of his local newspaper, Paul Symington, but did not tell us the name of the newspaper, but I believe it is the Newtownards Chronicle—they might pronounce “Newtownards” differently in the east of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) talked about local radio—Radio Forth, Central FM and Radio Clyde, such that I thought he was going to burst into a jingle at one point with his experience—and the Stirling Observer.
We heard about the Somerset Western Gazette, The Somerset Leveller and the Bath Chronicle. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) mentioned the Oldham Evening Chronicle, The Oldham Times, the Oldham Reporter and the Manchester Evening News. He even went on to talk about ITV regional news.
I am not going to get involved in the childishness and churlishness of mentioning all our local newspapers, so I will not mention the Edinburgh Evening News, The Edinburgh Reporter or Edinburgh Live. All that shows us, however, the impact that local newspapers have on our life, locally and across the country.
John McDonnell
No, I never mentioned it; don’t worry. Does the Minister agree about the sense of urgency in this debate? I will give an example from my constituency. We had those demonstrations outside the asylum hotels, largely fuelled not by local people, but by organisations, quite ruthless ones, with masked men trying to break into the hotels and all the rest. Also, on social media, we have had allegations made against asylum seekers that are completely untrue, but specifically designed to sow division in our community.
We lack a very locally focused newspaper, so people have no access to finding out what the truth really is. They get beguiled and misled by that social media, which is deliberate, because those social media clicks become clickbait, and those individuals make money from it. That is the significance of local media, in particular local press, at the moment when our society is under such threat from those individuals and far-right organisations.
Ian Murray
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. In fact, he pre-empted what I was about to say on the way in which it is more important now than ever for our local news to be part of the ecosystem of how people digest current affairs and what is happening.
We saw the division and tensions that were created in Southport. Thankfully, those were headed off at the pass because of local people turning to local news outlets, such as the Liverpool Echo, the Southport Visiter and others, where they could trust that the news they were picking up—either in a newspaper or online—was truthful, up to date and in the best interests of local people. Those examples, as well as the ones my right hon. Friend gave, show how important it is to have trusted local news to deal with mis and disinformation.
Rachael Maskell
I was certainly referring to such an example in my speech, but I am particularly concerned about the influence that disinformation is having on this place and on the policies of Governments over time, which have been brought out in response to that social, unregulated space. Is that not all the more reason for the urgency behind ensuring that a properly regulated environment is put in place, so that we do not have those influences, and we instead pull on the real stories and evidence out there?
Ian Murray
That is really part of the Government’s response to this challenge, as I will lay out in my contribution. The Government are committed to devolving more power and funding to local leaders and communities to bring decision making closer to the people it affects. That, of course, allows local journalism and local news to exercise that transparency and hold power to account by being in the public interest and having that strong accountability. Those are all essential in the examples that we heard in the previous two interventions.
Local media plays a key role in all this—not only in helping to build a more socially cohesive country and providing trustworthy information at that local level, but in countering the false and divisive narratives that are percolating through all our communities, and in helping to keep communities informed, scrutinising local decision making and fostering civic engagement. These are all things that hon. Members have covered in their contributions.
At the same time, never before has this role been so endangered. We have also heard from many hon. Members about the dangers and the challenges. The way that we consume news has transformed—people say over the past 20 years, but actually it has been transforming daily. The way that people consume the news of tomorrow will be different from the news of yesterday.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I understand the importance of involving those at the coalface in the Government’s deliberations on the upcoming media strategy. Would he agree to meet the National Union of Journalists and consult it on the local media strategy?
Ian Murray
I will come on to that, but yes—I will lay out later what the local media strategy has done so far, how we have been consulting through the roundtables we have undertaken, and where the Secretary of State has been taking a leading role.
As we know, people are increasingly looking to their mobile phones rather than their local newspaper. I do not know when hon. Members last actually bought their local newspaper—picked it up off a shelf and paid for the physical copy. Across news publishing, local TV and radio, these changes have prompted significant financial challenges, as traditional business models for local journalism are under more pressure than ever. Those pressures are more acute for local news publishers, both in print and online, although many local outlets are now moving online.
Around 300 local newspapers, as we have heard already, have closed since 2005—equivalent to as much as a third of the sector—and the number of journalists employed by the three largest news providers, which have 60% of the market, fell from around 9,000 to 3,000 between 2007 and 2022. Over that 15-year period, revenue for those three publishers fell from nearly £2.5 billion to a little more than half a billion. We can see the challenge of revenue for our local newspapers.
The effect has been an overall decline in the provision of high-quality local media across the country. More than 40% of UK citizens who are interested in local news do not consider that their local news needs are being met. As many as 38 local authority districts now have no print, online, TV or radio dedicated specifically to that area, leaving up to 4.7 million citizens in local news deserts. That is why the Government are committed to the local media strategy.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Does the Minister recognise that, while we are talking about the struggles local media outlets are facing—and that huge drop in revenue over 15 years—taking away £32 million by removing the opportunity for them to carry advertisements for licence changes could have a huge impact?
Ian Murray
I will come on to examine that point in more detail, but it is well made and certainly understood by Government. That is why we have committed to the local media strategy—to address all of the issues, but particularly those around sustainability—because our vision is for a thriving local media that can continue to play an invaluable role as a key channel of trustworthy information at local level, reporting on the issues that matter to communities, reflecting their contributions and perspectives, and telling their stories at that local level. The Government also want to empower local media to hold local public services to account, to help foster a self-confident nation in which everyone feels that their contribution is part of an inclusive national story, and, of course, to counter damaging mis and disinformation.
To achieve that, the Government intend to support local media in three key ways. In the short to medium term, we will help the sector, particularly local news publishers, to innovate and transition to sustainable online-focused business models. Over the longer term, we will help the industry to adapt to changing online audience habits and to foster a collaborative and complementary relationship with those that have most influence over citizens’ news diets, particularly big tech—as we have heard—and the BBC, with the important role that it plays. Finally, we will make it easier for journalists to scrutinise local public services and other institutions, conduct investigative journalism and report without fear or favour. Innovation funding is part of that. We have not ruled out the option of financial support being a key part of the local media strategy, bearing in mind the fiscal constraints in which we currently operate.
Jim McMahon
I get the Government’s intention, which I strongly support, and I credit the Minister for the work that he is doing, but none of us would accept a member of the public going into a newsagents, taking a newspaper off the rack and walking out without paying for it, yet that is exactly what is taking place with these online giants. They are taking the news off the rack without any payment, commercialising it and making billions in the process. That is what we need to consider. I hear the arguments about whether local authorities should continue with statutory notices—I have a different view; I am not sure that we should hold on to something from the past if it is not adding real value that can be demonstrated from the public investment—but we need to move to a modern way of funding a sustainable local press. Surely that requires a bigger intervention from the Government.
Ian Murray
I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data Use and Access Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 12 December. The impact assessment will include an assessment of each of the options put forward in the Government’s consultation on copyright and AI, including the economic impact of each option on copyright owners and AI developers. That will include the publishing and the news sectors.
In the meantime, the Secretaries of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and at DCMS have jointly shared three meetings with representatives of both the AI and the creative sectors. We are convening expert working groups and parliamentary working groups to consider all the options. We are dedicated to protecting our world-class creative industries and to ensuring that they thrive in the age of AI. Our creative industries sector plan is all part of making sure that that sector flourishes. I am interested in what my hon. Friend said about that British news co-operative model, which might be able to be used as a collecting agency for those kind of issues.
That assessment will be reported to the House by Christmas. There will be great interest in that and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to supply some more information on those particular industries. We are very much dedicated to protecting our world-leading creative industries. I hope that gives him some assurance.
On the local media strategy, in the spring we had a roundtable with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and local news editors. We set up an industry working group to consider the issues in more detail and explore areas for collaboration. I have not dealt with the roundtable yet, being relatively new to this role—I do not know whether the National Union of Journalists is part of it but I will check and inform my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) whether it is. If not, we will make sure that it has input into that working group. That roundtable has been meeting since June and has been invaluable in shaping our approach. We thank all those journalists who have given their time to help us shape that work.
A whole host of other things are happening. Let me touch on a few that address some of the issues that have been raised. Many hon. Members raised concerns about the recent Government proposal to relax statutory requirements—this goes to some of the interventions—to publish and print applications for alcohol licences in local newspapers. That proposal is being explored as part of a wider set of licensing reforms that aim to create a modern, proportionate and enabling system that supports economic growth, revitalises high streets first, as vibrant communities, and helps local authorities. The call for evidence closed in November. We are carefully considering the responses and will take forward the final decision as part of that local media strategy. Of course, the contributions that hon. Members have made in this debate, and others on this topic, will be taken into account in that process.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Councils are currently required to place a notice in one or more newspapers circulating in their area; that Bill would enable councils to decide how best to publish any relevant information. In practice that provision will apply to very few councils, since over 80% in England already operate a leader and cabinet model and will therefore not be required to make any changes to their governance models. The DCMS and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are considering how that measure interacts with the forthcoming statutory notices review that sits alongside it.
At the same time, the Government recognise that statutory notices of all types are important in helping to inform the public of decisions made by the council that affect the quality of their lives, local services and amenities or their property, and the impact that has on the financing of local media. A separate part of the strategy will look ahead to the long-term future of local media. It is important that we consider the role of the BBC as part of that, as many hon. Members have mentioned. As the charter review approaches, the Green Paper will be published soon. That is an opportunity to consider how the BBC can best support and defend local news through its work.
In that context, as the shadow Minister mentioned, the local democracy reporting service plays a key role in helping communities and local businesses to scrutinise decisions that impact them and in holding public services to account through fact-based local reporting. We will look to extend and improve that service as part of the licence charter period. The BBC underpins a lot of local reporting and the local news ecosystem.
We are taking action through the digital markets regime, which came into force at the beginning of the year and which should help rebalance the relationship between the biggest tech firms and news publishers. The issue of big tech companies not being subject to the rules was raised in the debate. We welcome the progress made by the Competition and Markets Authority, in particular in designating Google’s and Apple’s services as being subject to its rules. Measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 on the treatment of journalists’ content will add a further layer of protection for the industry against the erroneous takedown of content by social media platforms, especially at the height of the news cycles that we have seen, once implemented by Ofcom. The local media strategy will explore whether further action may be needed to support local media in adapting to changing audience habits online, and guaranteeing public access to high-quality local journalism, particularly in the context of AI-generated news summaries and aggregators.
On Government advertising expenditure, we are committed to ensuring we make the best use of local media in Government advertising campaigns. My Department has been working closely with the Cabinet Office on that as part of the local media strategy, because we know local media provides that trustworthy environment for those kinds of governmental issues, and is a vital source of revenue. We are working on taking that forward.
I will refer quickly to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the Government establishing a journalism foundation to co-ordinate support. The Cairncross review recommended something similar. Our local media strategy will seek to achieve the same ends by co-ordinating support for this vital industry. That possibility is on the cards and I look forward to working with him to see that happen.
The Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025, which passed in the summer, extends public interest considerations to further protect plurality in our system; there are public interest considerations about the need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises. The statutory instruments about control by a single publisher, which was also mentioned by many hon. Members, have gone through.
I will finish by talking about the protection of journalists, which is hugely important. They need to be protected from harassment, abuse and threats, whether online or offline, of an illegal nature. As co-chair of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, alongside the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), I welcome the delivery of many of the group’s commitments to ensure that journalists can operate free from such threats. The NUJ has been very involved in that hugely important process. That includes the work of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which confirmed in September that each police force across the UK now has an appointed single point of contact for journalists to reassure them that they can operate in the field and online with a direct point of contact to the police should any issues arise.
We are committed to a plural, trustworthy and independent media landscape. Our local media strategy will play a key role in fostering that at a local level. More will be announced on the strategy in the coming months. I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that the local media strategy delivers for all our local newspapers.
Peter Fortune
I do not have enough time to thank everybody individually, so please take it that all are thanked and loved, especially the people who gathered outside to beep in support of the Westminster Hall debate.
One of my heroes, George Orwell, believed that local journalism should reflect lived experiences, and that it is often overlooked by the national media in what he called a “reporting deficit”. He talked of good journalism being about honesty, clear language and exposing lies, and he used those principles to write “The Road to Wigan Pier”, one of his many great works. Society and civilisation are fragile and, when news can be weaponised, the clarity and trust provided by local media are vital to holding our communities together. I ask the Minister please to remember that and support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of local media.
Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Robin Swann to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Before I begin, I direct Members to my entry in the register of interests.
As we approach the end of the year, Northern Ireland’s farming, veterinary and animal welfare sectors are facing a potential crisis that can no longer be ignored. On 31 December, the veterinary medicines grace period is due to end. Without a clear, workable plan from Government, the supply of hundreds of essential veterinary medicines is set to be disrupted. Last Friday, my party colleague, Robbie Butler, the chair of the Northern Ireland agricultural committee, met with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, Baroness Hayman, to press the urgency of securing a long-term solution.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that the continuing uncertainty is driving the problem and causing issues for the medical profession and consumers in Northern Ireland, and that it has to be clarified and resolved immediately?
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first of several interventions. At that meeting, we made it clear to the Minister that a solution must be in place by the end of this year. If it is not, the consequences for animal health, human health and our agrifood economy could be severe. Time is running out—we have only four weeks to go.
This issue has been known about for some time. In February of this year, I hosted an event with the British Veterinary Association in Parliament to highlight the concerns and to urge Government to act while there was still plenty of time. That was 10 months ago. Since then, the warnings have grown louder. Recently, more than 19,000 vets from across the United Kingdom signed a joint letter to Government stressing the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s access to veterinary medicines.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given that the National Office of Animal Health has warned that, in a worst-case scenario, up to 50% of veterinary medicines could be withdrawn from Northern Ireland, with serious consequences for animal health and agrifood, should the UK Government commit to urgent, targeted support for farmers and vets, who are heavily reliant on those products?
Robin Swann
I agree. The potential loss of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland threatens animal health and welfare. Essential vaccines and treatments may become harder to obtain, increasing disease risk and undermining herd and flock health. Our vets and farmers would be forced into reactive treatment, adding strain to veterinary capacity and raising the risk of avoidable animal suffering and public health impacts.
Pet owners will also be negatively impacted, particularly in filling veterinary prescriptions from online veterinary pharmacies, which are currently based in Great Britain and, for many, are more cost effective.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While it is always lovely to see the Minister here, there is a role for the Secretary of State, who seems to be avoiding all the questions and letters that we sent him. I have been contacted by some of my constituents about the online pharmacies, regarding not only veterinary medicines, but specific types of dog food that their pets must eat. There is no doubt that greater clarity is needed on this subject. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be greater understanding of how dog food will be impacted and of the exact provisions surrounding online pharmacies?
Robin Swann
The hon. Member raises another valid point. Northern Ireland is exposed because of the divergence caused by the terms of the Windsor framework. Our supply chains, unlike those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are subject to the additional EU rules.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. He is right in saying that it affects not just us, but vets, distributors and manufacturers. Over eight major organisations are saying that. Does he agree that there has been secrecy and a lack of transparency on the part of the Government and the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State needs to stop pretending that this is manageable and publish the full details? Over 40% of key products and pack sizes will be impacted, and that will ultimately affect animal health. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not sufficient to say, “Stockpile and see how it goes”? The Government should deal with the issue immediately and unilaterally.
Robin Swann
I agree with the hon. Member. It is not just the politicians who are saying that: the British Veterinary Association has said:
“From 1 January 2026, the supply of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland will be thrown into uncertainty on account of the end of a post-Brexit grace period. The issue of veterinary medicines was not sufficiently addressed in the Windsor Framework, and in the absence of a veterinary agreement between the UK and the EU, the supply of critical products like vaccines for production animals, companion animals and horses, cannot be guaranteed.”
In June 2025, the Government announced the veterinary medicine health situation scheme, which was meant to permit the use of suitable alternative products from outside Northern Ireland through exemptions but, with only weeks to go, the definition of exemption is still unclear. It was also announced that the veterinary medicines internal market scheme will enable vets to use, when needed, specific individual medicines that are not authorised or available in Northern Ireland. Again, the process for accessing those is still unclear.
It has been reported that between 10% and 15% of drugs and pack sizes are expected to be discontinued in Northern Ireland, and we know that 20 of those have no suitable alternative available on the Northern Ireland market. If manufacturers find it unviable to continue supplying Northern Ireland, vets, farmers and pet owners will be left with far fewer options.
Ministers have informed me that they are working with four online retailers to ensure a continued supply of veterinary medicines in the new year. Animal owners with a prescription from a vet will be able to order medicines through one of those sites, but there is still no clarification as to who will be able to order and when—or even which medicines will be available—through what is, for many, a way of accessing affordable veterinary medicines.
It is important to note that, even if any of the four retailers comes online, not all drugs currently used by animal owners may be available. In some cases, alternatives or substitutes will need to be found, sometimes at very short notice, and unfortunately substitutes are not a fix-all solution. Allergies, intolerances and other sensitivities mean that some animals will not be able to use those alternatives. That highlights the ongoing risks and the need for a long-term solution.
Marketing authorisation for a product does not necessarily mean that it will continue to be supplied. Indeed, manufacturers are still finalising their decisions, which they may or may not communicate in advance of January. Northern Ireland farmers are already under pressure from the threat of disease, rising costs and the introduction of the farm family inheritance tax. Losing access to essential veterinary medicines would make it far harder to maintain healthy livestock and sustainable family businesses. Not only will pet owners feel the impact, with everyday treatments potentially becoming scarce or expensive, but animal rescue charities, which already operate on tight budgets, fear that the disruption could prevent them from providing for the animals in their care.
As a former Health Minister, I know that any threat to animal health is also a threat to human health. Effective disease control in animals underpins food safety, public health and the security of our agrifood sector, and antimicrobial resistance is a real threat to both humans and animals.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He is right to invoke the issue of human health, because it was the European Union that went as far as to invoke article 16 to frustrate the supply of covid vaccines in Northern Ireland, before it realised that doing so was politically inappropriate. On this issue, the EU wishes to prioritise its single market, but the fundamental failure is that our Government are not prepared to stand up and ensure the protection of our single market. The European Union will talk about food chain supplies, but when it comes to domestic animals, I have young owners coming to me now complaining about the lack of availability of online supplies for their dog. Can we have a recognition that there are a lot of domestic animals that receive online veterinary medicines that will never enter the supply chain—and that it would be illegal if they did?
Robin Swann
The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. I remember well the Saturday when the EU tried to use article 16 of the protocol for covid vaccinations.
At that point much work was done for human medicines, but that was a number of years ago. It was done between the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, the Cabinet Office and, indeed, the European Union. I am still at a loss as to why the same emphasis was not applied to animal medicines at that point in time, because it was not as if the challenges were not known back then.
Human medicines can be licensed by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for use in Northern Ireland, allowing the same provisions for medicines in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but the same is not true for veterinary medicines. Once the grace period ends on 31 December this year, any veterinary medicine that comes directly from GB to Northern Ireland will be treated as a non-EU import into Northern Ireland and subject to additional red tape.
We have seen the grace period extended multiple times, but extensions are not a solution. We need certainty. The Government’s commitment to provide timely advice and information during the transition period is welcome, but that engagement alone will not secure supply chains in the long term.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is it not a fact that one of the most appalling aspects of this is that our Government have been so shy and so much in deference to the EU that they refuse to stand up for Northern Ireland farmers and pet owners and are allowing the EU belligerently to enforce its laws as a demonstration of just how superior it is in controlling Northern Ireland? There is no logic in it. Our EU veterinary medicines in most cases come from the EU, but under these regulations they are no longer allowed to pass through GB to come to Northern Ireland. Therein is a diversion of trade, which is supposed to be prevented by article 16 of the Windsor framework but which this Government are absolutely blind and tone-deaf to.
Robin Swann
That was part of the reason for bringing forward this debate today. Any Minister or any organisation I have spoken to that has been involved with the committee on veterinary medicines regulations, which was established under the last Government, seem to be doing a lot of talking and engagement, but there does not seem to be much proof of what is going to happen come 31 December in regards to the continuation of veterinary medicine supply to Northern Ireland. It is another example of how this Government are treating farmers across the United Kingdom—seeing them as a second set of industry—and how they do not seem to grasp the concerns and real effects that their decisions are having.
There are four core concerns that remain around this issue. One is confidence. The Government estimate that the number of products under supply and discontinuation threats is actually extremely low. However, there is limited transparency around the evidence base, which raises questions about the reliability of that claim. The second concern is communication. Despite the impending deadline, vets have been provided with limited guidance on the practical application of lease schemes. The lack of urgency and targeted messaging risks disruption, confusion and concerns about liability.
The third concern is that of cost. Divergent legislation and bureaucracy in a smaller market like Northern Ireland’s will raise the cost of veterinary medicines. Those pressures could flow through practices to pet owners as well as farmers, with a potential knock-on effect to the agrifood economy. The fourth concern is criminality. There is a concern that a threat or complication to supply will lead to a move to replace a legitimate supply chain with black market or indeed illegal supply chains.
Northern Ireland cannot be left exposed. A secure settlement on veterinary medicines is essential for animal health, human health, and the future of our agrifood sector. I, along with others, have made the argument, and it is now up to the Government to act to protect the health of our animals and farms. Will the Minister answer three specific questions? Can she confirm when clear professional guidance will be issued to veterinary professionals and farmers in Northern Ireland regarding the continuity of access to veterinary medicines post 31 December? Will the Department work closely with organisations such as the BVA and National Office of Animal Health to ensure guidance is practical, accurate and communicated effectively to all relevant stakeholders? And will she outline what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that vets and farmers receive timely updates on any changes to access, prescribing routes or fallback options? To date, those questions remain unanswered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to respond to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) for securing this debate on a highly important matter and for his continued commitment to the veterinary medicine supply in Northern Ireland. He might have noticed I am not the farming Minister, but I am pleased to be here to respond on her behalf.
I recognise how important this issue is to the people of Northern Ireland and all the communities the hon. Gentleman represents. He has raised many important issues with me today; I will endeavour to address as many as possible. Baroness Hayman was in Northern Ireland just last week meeting the hon. Gentleman and many of our organisations. She met vets, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the permanent secretary, and the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group to demonstrate how important the issue is to the UK Government. Those channels of dialogue remain open.
I thank industry stakeholders for their ongoing support and work to make the changes necessary to continue supply to Northern Ireland. We have done extensive work with industry, which has given us the confidence in the arrangements we have put in place to manage a smooth transition into 2026. Before responding to specific questions raised in the debate, I want first to outline the Government’s view on veterinary medicine in Northern Ireland.
Safeguarding the supply of veterinary medicine in Northern Ireland after the grace period ends remains a core Government priority. We are committed to ensuring that the health and welfare of all animals is maintained in all circumstances. We are aware of concerns raised about pack size, discontinued products and the potential for increased costs, and we take those concerns extremely seriously. We have engaged extensively with stakeholders on those issues. Based on the evidence available to us through this engagement, our view remains that disruption at the end of the grace period will be limited and the arrangements we have in place will manage supply into 2026.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the intervention. Does she accept that the fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach is to accept the premise that the European Union controls what access there should be from one part of our United Kingdom to another and that we are accepting that there should be a chink in the UK internal market? Does she understand that when the grace period comes to an end, the European Union cannot and will not be able to demonstrate any detriment to their single market because of the ongoing availability until the end of this year. There has not been any detriment to their single market because of the availability of veterinary medicines from GB to Northern Ireland; and nor will there be, so all this is wholly disproportionate and unnecessary.
Emma Hardy
I thank the right hon. Member. He will recognise that it is important for the UK to be legally compliant with all of our international agreements. We take seriously the Windsor framework and the rules that it gave our country. I would not want to be part of a Government who disregard international agreements, but I completely understand his concerns around veterinary medicines.
We expect 10% to 15% of currently licensed veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland to be discontinued, but most are either dormant and not sold in Northern Ireland or have multiple alternatives available. We have analysed each discontinuation against multiple criteria to determine the position. However, we appreciate we can never have perfect data and that situations change. That is why we have also announced the veterinary medicines internal market scheme and the veterinary medicine health situation scheme: to help to address any gaps, should they arise.
The veterinary medicines internal market scheme removes administrative burdens from vets moving medicine that are not vaccines from Great Britain to Northern Ireland when, in their clinical judgment, that is needed. It is based on the existing cascade procedure, with which vets are very familiar. These simplifications allow the scheme to be as responsible as possible when managing supply issues.
The veterinary medicine health situation scheme allows the Government to temporarily authorise an alternative medicine when a discontinuation is expected to lead to a health situation. It is designed to provide a dedicated supply mechanism to address supply issues, should they arise.
Jim Allister
Sadly, we live under EU law, and the EU law that governs these matters says that only where there is exceptional breakdown can there be alternative arrangements. Have the Government obtained permission from their EU masters for the two schemes to which the Minister refers? According to the Government, they are going to be routine, rather than for exceptional breakdowns.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman; of course, I reject the phrase “EU masters”. These schemes are really important to make sure that the vets or those who require the medicine have the medicine that they need in Northern Ireland.
I want to take this opportunity to make a few further remarks about our assessment on discontinuations. In June, the Government said that “fewer than 20 products” are expected to be discontinued where there was risk of “significant adverse impacts” if not addressed through our schemes. I am pleased to announce that further analysis has reduced that figure to six. Following extensive engagement and detailed analysis, we are now satisfied that none of these discontinuations would lead to a health situation or other significant adverse impacts.
In some cases, the products will no longer be discontinued; in others, there are sufficient alternatives available in Northern Ireland or from the EU. However, we will of course continue to monitor the list and any new discontinuations, and we welcome stakeholder feedback. On divergence, the veterinary medicines regulations for Great Britain were updated in 2024 to reflect the comparable EU regulations 2019/6 and 2019/4, thereby basically bringing Great Britain and Northern Ireland into closer alignment.
These are the regulations that will apply in Northern Ireland from the end of the grace period. Divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland veterinary medicine regulation is minimal, and is something that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate monitors closely in considering where alignment may be beneficial.
I will now address some of the other concerns raised. We have heard that stakeholders are concerned about insufficient pack sizes being available and about that leading to cost increases and issues with dispensing veterinary medicines. However, based on our extensive engagement, we have no evidence that pack size changes are a systematic issue. Where pack size changes occur, we expect the most popular sizes to remain, but of course, if the situation changes or if new evidence comes to light, we will look to use the schemes we have in place.
More broadly on costs, we have had positive reassurance from a number of pharmaceutical companies that they will not increase prices, but we will closely monitor the situation into 2026.
Robin Swann
With regard to market surveillance to look at costs, what powers do the Government have, should a pharmaceutical supplier decide to increase costs? That would be interfering with the commercial market, and I do not see where the Government have the powers to do what they say they want to do, or may do, in that instance.
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We would of course look at whatever powers we have at our disposal, but as a Government we do not want to see costs unfairly increased for Northern Ireland customers. That is the important principle that we are trying to address by doing this. We hope that that will not be the case, but if it is, we would need to work closely and carefully with all stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and we would of course follow up with meetings with representatives from Northern Ireland about that.
We are not complacent. The Government’s position is based on our assessment of the best possible evidence available, and we take stakeholder concern extremely seriously. As I mentioned at the beginning, Baroness Hayman was in Northern Ireland just last week for a couple of days, meeting with people about this very issue. I know that it is something she cares about and sees as incredibly important.
Our view is based on what we can see. The transition to new arrangements at the end of the year will be manageable, but if there are unexpected problems, we have our two schemes to manage that. I also note that there will not be a cliff edge on supply at the end of the year. All medicines supplied to Northern Ireland before the end of this year will remain available, and some of those products have long shelf lives. We have advised businesses to take prudent action, but that is just in case. We have put in many different mitigations to try and resolve this issue. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, and we will respond rapidly if issues arise. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we want to continue and maintain open dialogue with all representatives.
Robin Swann
The Minister has been gracious in taking interventions. One issue that she has not touched on yet is pet owners with a prescription who buy medication online from GB suppliers. What reassurance can she give us there? I have heard everything that she has said to date, but I have not heard her address that issue.
Emma Hardy
Through our engagement, we are aware of multiple companies that are either being established in Northern Ireland or planning to set up as online retailers there. That is expected to ensure that medicines will remain available through online channels. The Government appreciate that access to online retailers for pet owners to obtain veterinary medicines for their pets is of great importance, so this is something we are monitoring closely. Of course, it would be a positive outcome if those companies were setting up as online retailers in Northern Ireland. As a pet owner myself, I recognise how important it is for pet owners to be able to get the medication their beloved pets need.
We will continue to monitor the situation closely and will respond rapidly. We welcome feedback from stakeholders on specific issues and will continue to work with industry as we have done.
Carla Lockhart
Forgive us for not looking at this through the rose-tinted glasses that the Minister has presented today. I feel that what we have heard is another Minister with their head in the sand, utterly tone deaf to what industry, manufacturers and distributors are saying in the public domain. They have put their heads above the parapet. Will the Minister today commit to publishing the list? No one has seen it or has any understanding of it. Will the Minister actually engage with those industry leaders and not just the Department in Northern Ireland, which also seems to have its head in the sand? These industry leaders are saying that we will be at crisis point come the end of this year.
Emma Hardy
With respect to the hon. Lady, I refute the idea that this Government have their head in the sand. If we had, we would not have just sent a Minister, Baroness Hayman, to Northern Ireland for two days to meet with everybody there and speak to them, and maintain the extensive engagement that we have. I completely recognise that this is an issue that the hon. Lady is concerned about, and I know how important it is to her. I do not want to be seen to not be taking it seriously, when we absolutely are taking it seriously. As I have tried to outline—because I know that this is an important issue—if there are things about which the hon. Lady remains concerned after the transition period ends in 2026, then the door is open to continue those conversations.
Emma Hardy
I will just answer the hon. Lady about the list and then I will.
As to why the list has not been published, it is because of commercial confidentiality. We are unable to share businesses’ supply intentions. Businesses are increasingly providing clarity to their customers, and we encourage those who have not done so to do so.
Carla Lockhart
The Minister just talked about what to do if I need to continue to raise my concerns. We need the message to go back very clearly that there has been a veterinary medicines working group and it has been absolutely useless when it comes to raising concerns. No concerns are taken on board by the very same Minister who this Minister just said went to Northern Ireland in the last few days. They have listened but not acted. There is no mechanism to raise concerns or for them to be taken seriously.
Emma Hardy
I hold the Minister, Baroness Hayman, in the highest of regard, and I am sure that she is doing absolutely everything she can to listen carefully to concerns and will continue to do so.
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim for securing this debate and allowing us to discuss the importance of medicine in Northern Ireland. Let us continue to discuss this and continue to talk if any issues are raised. I hope that will not be the case, but if issues are raised, let us work together on that as representatives of our fantastic United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on plans that have been talked about for many years and that seem, finally, to be coming to fruition. I should declare at the outset that I am a council member of Innovate Cambridge.
In this debate, I will first outline my experiences of the growth corridor project over the decade I have been in this place, to illustrate the stop-start nature of the previous Government’s approach. I will then make some broader points, particularly from a Cambridge perspective—I am sure that others will wish to make points from other perspectives—and conclude by seeking assurances from the Minister that the next decade will be very different from the last, and that we will actually make this happen.
Before that, I would like to thank many of the people who contacted me to raise points in advance of the debate or whose advice I have sought. They include Cameron Holloway, the leader of Cambridge city council; Dan Thorpe of Cambridge Ahead; Peter Freeman of the Cambridge Growth Company; the University of Cambridge; Andy Williams and the Oxford-Cambridge Supercluster Board; the ever watchful Harriet Jones of Universities UK; Marshall in Cambridge; England’s Economic Heartland; Luton airport; and those who speak on behalf of motorsport and Formula 1—to name but some. There is a lot of interest in this issue and in this debate, and I welcome that.
Let me start with a bit of history. When I was first elected, back in 2015, the idea of recognising that the area between Cambridge and Oxford could become something rather special had been talked about before, but I have to admit that in Cambridge—the same may well have been true in Oxford—support was somewhat lukewarm. The focus was on links to London and the wider world. Yes, there was a hankering after the old Oxford-Cambridge railway line, and yes, people bemoaned how long it took by road, but the real driving force when I came into Parliament was coming from Milton Keynes, where people could understandably see real advantages. Over time, though, I and many others have become completely converted to the position not only that this is an idea whose time has come, but that we need to get on with it and make it happen.
It is so frustrating to me to look back at all the false starts and missed opportunities of the last, lost decade. At first, the Conservative Government talked of a new road, calling it a super-highway. A huge amount of time, money and discussion went into a project that was rightly described at the time by the then chief executive of the sub-regional transport body England’s Economic Heartland as a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem. In my view he was right, and, as a shadow Transport Minister, I secured a promise from the Labour Front-Bench team at the time that we would scrap it. We did not win the election, but we had won the argument—alongside, I have to say, some very effective campaigners—and the plan for the road was dropped.
In the meantime, plans for the rail link ebbed and flowed, with a distinct lack of clarity about what it was for. Was it a link between the two cities? Or was it a way of getting people in and out of those cities, opening up desperately needed housing and avoiding situations such as Cambourne near Cambridge, where major developments were allowed to go ahead without proper transport links—a legacy that is still argued over today? Was it a freight line? Was it going to be electrified? Over the years, at the annual conferences regularly devoted to the subject, local government leaders came together with other interested parties and were, frankly, pretty amazed to hear that large numbers of civil servants were allocated to the project, beavering away, yet it seemed that little tangible output was coming through. I remember complaining bitterly about this one year. I felt rather badly about the senior civil servant I was tearing a strip off, but it just felt so frustrating.
The following year, I found myself at the same conference extracting a promise from the then chief executive of East West Rail. He promised me that not a litre of diesel fuel would be purchased, although I did wonder whether that might have been because the rail line was never going to get built. Ironically, of course, the technology has completely changed and moved on in the years that have passed, so the choice is now much less binary than it was then. We could spend a long time this afternoon discussing the rail line—I know that some have a view on it—which remains controversial in the areas where, of course, any new rail line is disruptive.
Richard Fuller
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He is right to talk about the torrid history of East West Rail, but he misses some crucial points. First, the railway loses taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Secondly, East West Rail chose a long, hilly, environmentally damaging route that it did not need to choose. Thirdly, the railway brings with it the fundamental question of how it will be propelled. The hon. Member talked about the problems of a 20th-century technology; railways are a 19th-century technology. Does he accept that the Oxfordshire part of the railway has been built on the assumption it would be diesel, and now we are looking to retrofit that with a 21st-century technology? This is still a terrible mess, is it not?
Daniel Zeichner
I was expecting an intervention from the hon. Gentleman because we have discussed this issue before. I absolutely disagree with him, not on some of the points of detail, but on the benefits that railways bring. This is absolutely the right approach, although we can argue about the details. There are people in this room who are more expert than I am on the battery technologies that are now available, which I think will be the solution.
Partly due to the hon. Gentleman’s hard work, this whole project came close to being scrapped a few years ago. I remember well that the then Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, in a famous intervention—possibly by Zoom—gave a thumbs down to the project, which was widely taken to be the end of it at the time. I now have to praise a leading Conservative politician, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who got the argument about how important this was, not just for the arc but for the wider economy. I remember having a number of coded exchanges with him across the Chamber, and being greatly reassured.
So the project survived, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I was delighted to join the Minister for Rail, Lord Hendy, in Cambridge a couple of weeks ago to unveil the latest stage in the process. It feels that we are getting past the debate about whether it is going to happen and moving on to how we make it happen. To go from concept to action will, of course, take some years yet, but we are building a piece of transport infrastructure that will be transformational.
There is so much more to the corridor debate than the rail line. The housing opportunities are significant and the knowledge clusters that are likely to emerge are exciting. There were times when the previous Government seemed enthusiastic. I remember MPs along what was then described as the arc being invited to attend a drop-in at the Minister’s office. I turned up, expecting a healthy queue of people, only to find a slightly bemused Minister, who shall remain nameless, looking amazed that anyone showed up, doing his constituency correspondence. We had a perfectly civilised conversation and I queried who they were thinking of appointing as the recently announced business tsar. It was clear that insufficient preparatory work had been done, because he gently asked if I knew anyone who might interested. I came away fairly convinced that there was a lack of grip associated with the project.
Others were more organised. When the project was under threat, the University of Cambridge put on its best Rolls-Royce operation and got involved, with some excellent work from the then pro-vice-chancellor, Andy Neely. That was instrumental in keeping the project alive at a key moment. With others, it then helped to bring together universities along the corridor to pool their efforts. Much more could be said on that, and there are many other players to be acknowledged, but I hope, Sir Jeremy, you get my drift: this has been long in gestation.
Daniel Zeichner
Absolutely, although I am puzzled as to the relationship between Ox-Cam and Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon
The relationship is that I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for coming to Portavogie in my constituency when he was the fisheries Minister. He left a great impression on the people and was greatly loved. I came here to support him in what he is trying to achieve: a better economy, better jobs and better research. What do we need for all those things? It is housing. Does he agree that there must be housing to meet the demands of the economy and for jobs?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I was worried when the hon. Gentleman was not on my list.
Daniel Zeichner
I am very grateful; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) never disappoints. He is absolutely right that housing is important everywhere and is a key part of this project.
I was thrilled with the appointment of Lord Vallance as the Minister and leader of this project. I think we are now finally getting into gear. Last year’s Budget identified it as a key priority for the Government, and the Chancellor’s publication of the prospectus is a statement of intent. I hope that the Minister can report on the progress that is being made.
I would like to make some brief observations from the Cambridge end of the corridor. Recent announcements about revving up the Cambridge Growth Company are very welcome, but could the Minister give an assurance that the funding announced will be made available quickly? That will mean that the very best chief executive officer can be sought with a green light that the funds are readily available, and will give investors the confidence they need. Could he also comment on his preferred approach on land value capture, including on direct Government purchase?
The Supercluster Board, which covers this whole area, includes some of the country’s leading FTSE 100 and privately owned companies, including AstraZeneca, GSK, Airbus and AVEVA, and other investors and Britain’s top universities. They have welcomed the ambition to double the economy of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge region by 2035. Among their key asks is for what they describe as “taskforce-led governance”, modelled after the successful vaccine taskforce, which would embed a permanent partnership between Government—local and national—funding bodies, industry and academia to co-ordinate delivery. They want the taskforce to provide consistent decision making across Government that prioritises the growth corridor in national-level policy areas, and to be empowered to instruct Departments to act where existing rules prevent delivery. That is a very big ask, as I well know, but the governance issues really do matter. I well remember Sir John Armitt from the National Infrastructure Commission reflecting on how hard it is to co-ordinate when dealing with some 22 local government bodies along the corridor.
The University of Cambridge points out that together the universities of Oxford and Cambridge have produced over 400 spin-outs, which is the highest of any UK academic institution, and that in the last decade the University of Cambridge has curated no less than nine unicorn businesses. Its spin-out companies have also raised over £3 billion of investment in private venture capital.
The university also highlights the need for skills, seeking collaboration across the corridor to ensure that a pipeline of talent is available and that those living across the corridor benefit from the opportunities that it will provide. It wants to ensure that there is provision for training the highly skilled technicians who are needed to support world-leading research; they are critical to everything that the university does and vital to support emerging spin-outs. Can the Minister spell out what the Government are doing with local authorities and employers to develop a strategic skills plan to deliver infrastructure both in the corridor and the wider east, and how they will use this plan to raise outcomes and incomes for local people?
My local authority, Cambridge city council, rightly highlights the need for sustained and meaningful engagement with local residents and significant investment in social housing, including council housing. It also highlights the need for investment in skills to provide opportunity for local young people, and it supports having a wider talent pool for local businesses. It highlights the need for the corridor to be environmentally sustainable and seeks support for a doubling nature target. When the Minister was in Cambridge at the Innovate Cambridge event a few weeks ago, there was widespread welcome for his announcement of a new forest. Perhaps he could say more about that today.
The organisation Cambridge Ahead highlights the existing challenges that have to be tackled, including the way in which the infrastructure gap is constraining growth in the corridor. That includes issues around the fresh water supply, waste water treatment capacity, electricity grid capacity constraints, and intracity regional transport connectivity. It is worth asking what reassurances the Minister can provide about infrastructure-enabled capacity through to 2050 at least being in scope for the Ox-Cam project.
England’s Economic Heartland tells me that delivering an integrated transport system in the corridor should not be a choice for Government, because that is absolutely essential—and it is right. The global significance of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor means that it should be matched with a world-class transport offer, embedding the principles of the imminent integrated national transport strategy from the outset. It makes economic sense to do so, and the corridor should be an exemplar for that strategy.
Many others along the corridor will have similar asks and stories, and I am looking forward to hearing them. The Formula 1 sector tells me that the Formula 1 ecosystem employs over 6,000 people directly in the UK, and its teams work with 3,500 British-based companies that support approximately 41,000 jobs, including 25,000 highly skilled engineers. In total, the Formula 1 industry contributes more than £12 billion annually to the UK economy, and the key point is that from 2026 onwards, nine of the 11 Formula 1 teams will have bases within the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, alongside a dense supply chain of advanced engineering firms. This cluster supports tens of thousands of local jobs and positions the region as a global centre of excellence for motorsport engineering and innovation.
Similarly, London Luton airport, which I am sure we will hear more about today, is well placed to serve the corridor and has an important role to play in Universal’s plans to build its first European theme park near Bedford. The airport’s location and growth are both potentially key factors in the company’s decision to choose a location within the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.
I am conscious that I have been speaking for a while now. There is much more to be said and I suspect that many hon. Members will take the opportunity to raise their own issues. However, I hope that the Minister gets a sense of the enthusiasm that exists along the corridor and a sense of the huge opportunity that exists, not just for the area in question but for the UK economy in general.
I leave the Minister with the question that I posed at the beginning of my remarks. Will this be the decade when we move to action and, if it is, can he set out exactly the plans to make that happen?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should stand if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest that there is in this debate. If everyone keeps their speeches to between three and four minutes, I hope we will get everybody in, but I will not impose an actual time limit yet.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) both for securing this debate and for laying out so well so many of the issues that relate to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
I am proud to represent a dynamic centre of innovation, growth and job creation in Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock, which is rightly at the heart of the Government’s growth ambitions and at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the Government’s prospectus on the corridor, and I will take this early opportunity to say gently to the Minister that this area would love to be recognised as a hub in the next prospectus, given that we host leading firms, such as Oxford Ionics, YASA, Airbus, Sauber and NewPower among many others, and contribute significantly to the new creation of growth and opportunity in the region.
My part of Oxfordshire is central to this Government’s plan to drive national productivity and housing delivery. However, such growth is being undermined by fragmented decision making, lack of a cohesive plan and chronic underfunding of infrastructure. Communities such as those in my constituency are willing to support growth. Parents want houses for their children and people want good job opportunities, but they also want to see the Government play their part in delivering infrastructure first, not as an afterthought.
Too often we see major projects approved in silos, each one through a separate Department, and planning routes that do not take into account the cumulative impact of different projects on an area. This lack of cross-Government co-ordination leads to delays in projects, higher costs and—most importantly—a loss of public trust in the whole process.
I will divide such projects into two different categories. First, we have some projects in my area where there has been a lack of co-ordination on specific initiatives. For example, there is the London Road in Bicester, where East West Rail will result in the closure of a level crossing. There has been a five-year campaign by the local community to ensure that the impact of that closure locally is fully recognised and that the Government step up to play their part in maintaining connectivity.
In Woodstock, another part of my constituency, the surgery provides for only 38% of the growing population, based on the numbers set out in NHS guidance. It has been extremely hard to work with the valuation office to have it realistically assess rental values in the area, which is necessary to build the financial model that would allow for a new surgery to be developed.
In north-west Bicester, the Government want to support local plans for up to 9,000 new homes. However, those homes cannot be built because of a lack of grid capacity and supply to the area, which is halting the development of homes that have been consented, leading to real difficulties for Cherwell district council when it comes to its local housing land supply. Recently at the Botley West solar farm in the west of my constituency we have seen a very extensive process by the National Infrastructure Commission and the Planning Inspectorate, with relatively poor engagement by the developer. It has not engaged with local people in the way that would be expected in order to build the consent for such a project.
The second category relates to areas where we have multiple national projects with relatively poor co-ordination. At the end of September, I attended a meeting convened by local councillor Gareth Epps with over 30 local parish councils that are concerned about the proposals for four separate major national projects within a three-mile area. None appears in the local plan, all were to have significant impacts and each is sponsored by a different national Government Department: the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the case of a new town, the Department for Transport for a strategic rail freight interchange, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a major new tourist attraction, with the local district council sponsoring new warehousing.
Local people are saying, “We are open for growth, and want to see the creation of housing and job opportunities, but we need the Government to step forward and help with the co-ordination, so that this is done in a structured way.” I gently invite the Minister to respond with regard to how best the Government think this can be developed. Will the Government look at the concepts of spatial delivery boards, or similar, that can be stood up in areas where there is a significant set of proposals beyond local plans? Will the Minister say more about the Government’s plans in this area?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to be part of this important debate.
I very much share the assessment given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner): after many years of rhetoric, we are finally starting to see delivery for the growth corridor under a Labour Government. Recent months have seen so many announcements and so much practical action, including the creation of the Oxford growth commission, under the excellent Neale Coleman, on top of local financial commitments—with money, at last, for the reopening of the Cowley branch line. I am pleased to see that East West Rail is powering ahead, and there are new towns, artificial intelligence growth zones and reservoirs as well. Now is the time to drive this forward.
I will focus my remarks on areas where we need to see even more action, particularly so that we can realise Oxford’s potential for contributing to the corridor and to economic, scientific, social and cultural growth. First, local government reorganisation has to align with the goal of inclusive growth, not push against it. It is imperative that LGR delivers a greater Oxford, rather than the growth-sapping, democracy-reducing option of a great Oxfordshire or a split of the county into two. Research from Volterra shows that by focusing growth on Oxford city, Oxfordshire-wide annual gross value added could increase by 70%.
Housing is critical, as has already been mentioned. Oxford has extreme housing need, for a range of reasons, from the under-bounded nature of our city to the anti-housing approach of neighbouring local authorities. We are the least affordable city in the whole UK, with average wages at 68% of average rent levels and average house prices 13.6 times the average wage. As was mentioned, there is an overwhelming need for social housing, as well as genuinely affordable homes, as part of the corridor.
The duty to co-operate, such as it is, will cease to apply from early next year, so it is really important that LGR leads to a greater Oxford, not an anti-growth unitary Oxfordshire, and that that is confirmed quickly so that the city can be in control of housing delivery. We also need a homelessness prevention grant that is based on genuine needs, not on inaccurate proxies such as claimant count, and there must be no dilution of the ability for high-demand areas such as Oxford to impose conditions on developers for genuinely affordable and social homes. I would be grateful if the Minister could refer to that in his response.
We also need inclusive growth. I was encouraged by the launch of Equinox by the University of Oxford. The clue is in the name: Equitable Innovation Oxford. Some amazing companies are already delivering on this locally, and the city council has been pushing the Oxford living wage.
We have heard about motorsport. BMW Cowley is a jewel in the crown of advanced manufacturing not just in Oxfordshire, but nationally. We need the changes in industrial energy to speed ahead as quickly as possible to support production, including at BMW Cowley. We also need a campaign to show the public that electric vehicles are still cheaper. We must recognise that, although our country will need luxury electric cars in the future, it will also need affordable ones, such as those produced at BMW Cowley.
We need to tackle educational inequality. Sadly, some of the schools in my area of Oxford have some of the worst results in the whole country. We are trying to deal with London-style problems with a shire’s budget. That needs to end.
Finally, we need transport infrastructure that matches the challenge. That means getting the Kennington bridge sorted out so that the Oxford flood alleviation scheme can be unblocked. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the Minister smiling; I know that he will persuade his Department for Transport colleagues to also smile, and to give it the green light.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate. Many today may claim the same, but my constituency sits right at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. We are home to Cranfield University, world renowned for cutting-edge research and technology and some of the most innovative companies in Britain, growing our economy and delivering high-value jobs for our communities. Subject to planning approval—I do not seek to influence the Minister’s decision in any way—we will soon be home to the Universal UK theme park. Universal will welcome more than 8 million visitors to our part of Bedfordshire every year, bringing in £50 billion to the UK economy.
Mid Bedfordshire is a constituency full of potential. That includes potential to contribute to the Government’s growth agenda, and potential to connect the growth corridor through East West Rail, which will run along the Marston Vale line and the midland main line, providing easy connectivity to the soon-to-be-expanded Luton airport, to London and right across the region. Our local economy already benefits from easy access to the M1, with major multinationals such as Amazon calling Mid Bedfordshire home. The Millbrook Proving Ground in my constituency is one of the largest vehicle testing centres in Europe, and we are a hotspot for defence technology, with the Lockheed Martin site at Ampthill delivering the next generation of equipment to keep Britain secure.
To fulfil our potential, we need the Government to support Mid Bedfordshire’s role in the growth corridor. Junction 13 of the M1 desperately needs to be upgraded. It is a key point of access for Cranfield University, Millbrook Proving Ground, Amazon, the future Marston Valley development and so many other local employment centres, but without an upgrade, we risk the only sustained growth in Mid Bedfordshire unfortunately being the time stuck in traffic jams. To ensure that our rural lanes are not overwhelmed by traffic as our areas grow, we need Government assistance to unlock the long-promised M1 to A6 link road. That project will alleviate the growing problem of HGVs using rural lanes as a cut-through, and support the delivery of central Bedfordshire’s local plan. At this point, I declare an interest as a councillor on Central Bedfordshire council.
My communities are desperate for new infrastructure to ensure that housing growth does not mean growing waiting lists for local services. That particularly includes a GP surgery for the new town of Wixams, for which I have campaigned since I was elected to Parliament.
Richard Fuller
On the point of cross-Bedfordshire roads, we will have potentially Tempsford new town in my constituency and an entirely new railway being drawn across the area, in addition to Universal Studios and the expansion of Luton airport. Over time, that will all create enormous internal pressure. To amplify the point about co-ordination, does my hon. Friend agree that local councils will be overwhelmed without clear support from the Government?
Blake Stephenson
That was a very helpful intervention. Local councillors in our area are crying out for Government support to deliver the growth that the Government want in our area. It would be very useful if the Minister could respond to that.
To take the most advantage from Universal, our county needs to join the majority of others in establishing a local visitor economy partnership. Without an LVEP, we risk missing out on the level of local expertise needed to direct growth and reap the rewards that the significant new tourism will attract. It cannot be right for one of the largest tourist attractions in Europe to be opened in one of the only places without a tourism strategy. We also have the opportunity to deliver another fantastic local tourist attraction—the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park—but we need Government investment to unlock it. I know that Members representing Milton Keynes and Bedford might comment on that.
Finally, my communities need to be assured that rail infrastructure on East West Rail and the midlands main line is fit for the needs of a growing economy—the heart of our growth corridor. That means delivering step-free access at Flitwick and Harlington stations and on the Marston Vale East West Rail line in time for Universal to open. I would welcome an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss how we can work together on a cohesive plan that delivers for my constituents and the Government.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate. I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. After years of underfunding and neglect from the previous Conservative Government in constituencies such as mine, this investment will reap significant economic benefits for my constituency and the wider region, with the proposals forecast to contribute £78 billion to our economy by 2035.
I also welcome the further £500 million investment package recently committed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to deliver growth in the Oxford to Cambridge corridor and cement its status as a global innovation hub. Working people in my constituency will benefit from access to thousands of new jobs, improved regional connectivity and more opportunities.
As has been mentioned, Luton is located at the heart of the golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and others have noted that the publicly owned London Luton airport is a key entity in ensuring economic growth in our region, contributing £1.8 billion to the UK economy each year and £830 million annually to Luton.
The airport also has the most densely populated catchment area of any UK airport. It serves London, the midlands and the east of England, and is one of the best connected airports by rail and road. Its prime location will help to support the delivery of other regional projects, including the East West Rail line. It is one of the most significant transport projects and of course links into the proposals for the Universal UK theme park near Bedford in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), with Luton airport acting as a key driving factor in Universal’s decision to invest in Bedfordshire.
There are also significant redevelopment and regeneration projects under way in Luton. The football club’s new stadium at Power Court, which will be based in the heart of our town centre, includes plans for a 25,000-capacity stadium, as well as an adjacent hotel, music venue and housing development. Work on the Stage development at the old Bute Street car park will also soon be under way; it will be a major mixed-use destination with nearly 300 flats alongside commercial units, a multi-purpose food and events venue and new public garden square. The delivery of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor will be key in widening the reach and impact of redevelopment projects in Luton, drawing more footfall to our town as a hub for sporting and leisure events and contributing further to economic growth there.
Crucially, Luton is a thriving and young town—in fact, the third youngest in the UK—
Rosie Wrighting
I will take that. The Bedford College Group has campuses in both of our constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is crucial in delivering the high-quality technical skills needed to deliver the growth corridor?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making a brilliant point about the contribution that further education colleges make to the agenda for skills, apprenticeships and ultimately good jobs for our young people.
The delivery of East West Rail, improving connectivity with Oxford and Cambridge as world-class education and innovation hubs, will be vital in providing more opportunities for young people in my constituency for study, apprenticeships and jobs that previously would have been out of reach.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
We have 10 speakers to come and I have to start Front-Bench speeches at about 3.30 pm, so speeches will need to be nearer three minutes, I am afraid. I call Pippa Heylings.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my neighbour and colleague, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for securing this important debate.
Over the last 20 years our region has experienced unprecedented change and growth. According to the latest Office for National Statistics census analysis, the population of my constituency alone has risen by 21.6% since 2011—one of the fastest increases of any area outside of London. In what used to be a semi-rural constituency, schools, GP practices, hospitals, utilities and roads built for a much smaller population are now supporting tens of thousands more people than they were designed for and delivering well beyond their capacity—and the growth is not stopping. Local projections show that South Cambridgeshire’s numbers will increase the most out of all of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, expected to rise by 22.1% by 2031 and as much as 37.2% by 2041.
Pippa Heylings
No, I will continue, if that is all right.
Across Cambridgeshire almost 50,000 additional homes are forecast by 2041. The reason for this growth is that greater Cambridge, which constitutes the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge and mine of South Cambridgeshire, is one of the most economically dynamic regions of the country, with an annual turnover of £30 billion, employing more than 110,000 people.
Although Cambridge is the brand, my constituency includes the largest biomedical campus in Europe. It is home to the global headquarters for AstraZeneca, the Addenbrooke’s, Rosie and Royal Papworth hospitals, and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, whose researchers have won 12 Nobel prizes. We have the Wellcome Genome Campus, one of the world’s largest concentrations of genomics and biodata, and the Babraham Institute and Granta Park, home to the European headquarters of Illumina—I am just saying that a very small rural constituency is a great partner within the corridor. But with that, as we have heard, comes chronic underfunding, and under successive Governments growth has not kept pace with infrastructure.
Take healthcare: the A&E department of Addenbrooke’s hospital was built to serve only a quarter of the patients it now sees, and the Cambridge University hospitals trust operates with a deficit of around 162 acute beds. The new acute strategy has been developed as a design, but there has not yet been any decision on a new A&E hospital.
Transport tells the same story, as Members from across the Chamber have said. The appalling public transport options currently available and the commuting gridlock damages the quality of life of all residents. I join the east of England all-party parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) in calling for the Ely and Haughley junction to be improved to manage freight, to get lorries off the road and to enable more passenger trains.
East West Rail purports to have resolved some of the transport connectivity issues across the corridor, but in my constituency it has been dogged by problems from the very start. There has been really poor community engagement, and nothing has been offered except huge infrastructure going through it. I repeat my invitation to the Rail Minister to come to my constituency to answer the questions of my constituents. The proposed Cambridge east station is in my constituency, not in Cambridge, so it would be very good to have the Minister there.
This cannot just be about house building. The Greater Cambridge shared planning service has just won an award for being one of the best planning authorities in the country, because it does strategic planning and community engagement. Let us keep water and nature—the deal breakers in this—sustainable. Would the Minister convene with Lord Vallance to deliver joined-up infrastructure, together with all the relevant authorities?
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate about a place where innovation really happens, but which is also a great place to live. The whole idea of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is fantastic, but the name is absolutely terrible: politicians love the word “growth”, but the public at large are scared by the idea of growth. They think it is going to ruin their way of life—and then “corridor”? I mean, that just sounds like a place we never want to be in. It is somewhere that gets people from A to B, but what about that bit in the middle? To me, it just conjures up the Tories running down the NHS and being stuck in a corridor in a hospital.
However, it is the right place to be focusing on. We can already see that, because the universities play such a good role and businesses invest there all the time. There are more than 8,000 high-tech firms in the wider area already. Given that it is thriving already, we might ask what the role for Government is? We do not want to mess it up at all; we want to try to improve it. I would argue that there are still bucket-loads of potential, and the three areas where the Government can add value are governance, transport and a sense of place.
Let us start with governance. For investors wanting to invest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, particularly those from overseas, it is really difficult to know who to pick up the phone and call. Regional devolution will help with that, particularly with the duty in the Bill for mayors to co-operate with each other. However, we need to get to a position where the whole area has mayors, and we cannot allow some councils, such as the one in my area, to block that progress. We also need to make sure that devolution means that mayors have genuine powers, because sometimes I think there can be an overemphasis on co-operation and consensus, which actually gives us stasis and stalemate.
On transport, I absolutely welcome the £2.5 billion the Government have invested in East West Rail. In recent weeks, it has felt as though we are ramping up on that. East West Rail matters to all the stations along the route and those that are nearby—I made that point to the East West Rail chair the other day. It is less than 10 minutes from Leighton Buzzard to Bletchley, and that opens up a world of opportunities for people in Bletchley as well.
Finally, on a sense of place, when I used to think about the wider east of England region and what on earth linked it, I sometimes thought it was only our fantastic local broadcaster “Look East”—
Alex Mayer
Indeed. It is so important to make sure that we have things that link us, and I think Universal will make a real difference on that. I very much urge the Minister to make sure that Paddington Bear is a key feature—what an ambassador for our region that would be! The forest is also fantastic news for us; I finish by urging my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge to agree with me that the national forest really is a tree-mendous opportunity.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate.
The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor has had something of a tortured history. For nearly two decades, various iterations of the vision have promised transformational change, only to be shelved, rebranded or, as was reported in 2022, flushed down the toilet in mime by a previous Secretary of State, who is fortunately no longer here. As we discuss the growth corridor, I hope that the knowledge and experience of constituencies such as mine and others represented in the debate, which are already living with rapid growth, can inform a better approach this time.
This really does matter in my constituency, sitting as we do immediately to the west of Cambridge. St Neots is a genuinely strategic location, at the intersection of the east coast main line that runs north to south, the planned East West Rail connection, the A1 running north and south, and the new A428 running east to west. The new towns taskforce has identified the Tempsford area just to the south for a new settlement of potentially 40,000 homes. That area sits at the confluence of multiple local authority boundaries—different authorities with different, overlapping responsibilities.
The complexity I have outlined makes integrated transport planning in particular essential from the outset. Sustainable transport connections between existing towns and villages and new railway stations at Cambourne and Tempsford on East West Rail need to be a key focus from the very beginning of planning. I hope the Minister can commit to that.
There is some understandable uneasiness about the Tempsford proposal. There are worries about local schools and GP practices being stretched, and concerns about water scarcity and flooding issues. How healthcare infrastructure grows is a particular concern, and one with which my constituents are well familiar. Northstowe in my constituency is said to be the UK’s largest new town since Milton Keynes, with 10,000 homes by 2040. Its first residents moved in eight years ago, yet there is still no permanent GP surgery. That places enormous strain on surrounding village practices.
The pattern has been clear: houses get built, but the health infrastructure lags behind. Will the Minister assure my constituents that he is actively working with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to pump-prime healthcare services for new developments, ensuring that services are built to grow sustainably alongside the new communities they serve?
I had much more to say about skills and education—which have already been talked about—and about the environment. The Fens 2100+ programme is grappling with the reality that parts of Cambridgeshire are below sea level and face increasing flood risks. That should be considered.
The growth corridor project is a genuine opportunity, but it will be realised only by genuine cross-governmental working. No single Department can deliver what is needed. We need to ensure that communities such as St Neots can actively participate in and benefit from growth, rather than simply absorbing its pressures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am trying to avoid setting a formal time limit, but people will need to help me; I am afraid speeches will need to be sub-three minutes.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing the debate, and the East of England all-party parliamentary group for its report “Opportunity East: One Year On”, which rightly highlights our region’s huge potential.
The Oxford-Cambridge arc is already an innovation engine, home to world-class universities, leading research institutions and a dynamic private sector. Universal Studios’ proposed multibillion-pound investment in Bedfordshire offers a once-in-a-generation boost to jobs, tourism and long-term growth. East West Rail will better connect our research, technology and business clusters, thereby spreading opportunities far beyond the line itself. Yet alongside the potential, I must again record my opposition to the demolition of homes in my constituency for the East West Rail project. Residents’ concerns must be heard and decisions made with transparency and fairness.
The report is right to note deep-rooted challenges such as housing shortages, but I want to focus on one issue that particularly concerns me: water. The east of England is the UK’s driest region, receiving barely two thirds of average rainfall, and Water Resources East warns of a shortfall of 800 million litres a day by 2050.
Housing targets matter, but water and sewage capacity must be central to planning from day one. Water pollution, mentioned only once in the report, is a major concern to my constituents. I welcome the Government’s action to hold polluters, including Anglian Water, to account and to modernise infrastructure, but we need stronger protections against over-abstraction. I oppose building on the flood plain in Kempston, and I believe we must invest in rivers and waterways across Bedford, Milton Keynes and the arc so that they become the natural and economic assets they should be.
The Opportunity East report makes it clear that our region is ready to deliver green energy, growth, research, skills and new homes for the whole UK, but only if our basic infrastructure is secured, with water treated as a strategic priority. The water industry needs root-and-branch reform, and I hope the forthcoming White Paper and water reform Bill set out a credible path to deliver the improvements our region urgently needs.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this important debate.
It is a joy to represent the city of Oxford, particularly the university bits that I have inherited from my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I am glad she got to keep her own college, though; that just felt right. As such, I am able to wax lyrical about our university—a powerhouse of innovation at the centre of a hub of science and technology businesses, with the highest concentration of science research centres in western Europe. Irene Tracey, its new vice-chancellor, is a personal example of Oxfordshire’s potential. Born in Oxford and educated at a local comprehensive in Kidlington, she is herself a powerhouse in the life sciences, and she has a vision for the university as a global leader of innovation, while recognising its rootedness in our community.
Oxfordshire, as a county, is one of the most productive regions in the UK. In 2025, the global innovation index ranked Oxfordshire fifth globally for the most innovation-intensive clusters relative to population density. In order to build on that, like so many others, we need the infrastructure and, in particular, connectivity. Oxfordshire county council’s OxRAIL 2040 plan sets out an ambitious but realistic programme of investment to support sustainable growth and link homes with key employment sites across the county. It started with the Cowley branch line, which was a huge achievement, and I was delighted that it was realised. However, that must be only the start, because what we need to do is connect people with jobs and with homes, and create communities as we go.
It is for those reasons that I am sorry to say that I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Member for Oxford East and her assessment of what is right for local government reorganisation, because to divorce Oxford University and the city from the rest of the area fails to understand the interconnectivity of our county. I will give one example. Under the current Greater Oxford plan, it cuts off Abingdon from Culham. At one point, Abingdon had the highest number of PhDs per square kilometre in Europe because of the Culham Science centre, yet the two would be artificially cut off even though they are absolutely adjacent. It makes no sense.
The better, more practical approach, with fewer barriers, is to focus on the county as a whole and make sure that, when we look at where we put jobs and drive innovation, we create communities across the whole county. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the same position again, looking at a constrained city centre and a constrained greater Oxford, wanting to expand ever more. I hope that the Government look coolly at the numbers. I am sure they will be convinced that the “One Oxfordshire” vision for the whole county, with the city and the university at its centre, is the right way to go.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Chancellor said that the Ox-Cam growth corridor has £78 billion of potential for our economy, but only if we get housing and infrastructure right. However, I would argue that it is much more than just housing and infrastructure that is needed to get the connected core of Ox-Cam absolutely right.
The south-east midlands local industrial strategy recognised that without the core of Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Luton working together, we cannot drive the growth that the Government need now. The south midlands region is the home of advanced logistics, manufacturing, the automotive—as has been mentioned—agritech, food and drink and growing digital, creative and tourism industries. To deliver the growth that we want to see through the Ox-Cam growth corridor, we have to get a functioning central spine in the area right.
There are already great building blocks that we can build on here. The south midlands authorities have worked together to create a shared economic strategy. They were moving towards devolution, but unfortunately some local gerrymandering and faffing about meant that we did not get the devolution deal. There is now an opportunity to look at how we move forward to deliver something that works for the region.
There is already transport connectivity through England’s economic heartland and people are getting back to work through the Department for Work and Pensions’ south midlands programme for Connect to Work. There is regional infrastructure connectivity. The south midlands distribution network operator ran out of my constituency, and the DNO is critical for regional energy planning. There are businesses working together for the South Midlands Business Board, led by the fantastic Jason Longhurst.
There is connected work in education. As well as the Arc Universities Group in Northampton, we now have a group including the University of Northampton, led by Anne-Marie Kilday; Northampton college, led by Jason Lancaster; and Moulton college, led by Oliver Symons. They are working together to create a skills strategy that delivers the Government industrial strategy at a local level for the benefit of the south midlands corridor.
We used to have the pan-regional partnerships. Although I disagree with the Government closing those down en masse, I can understand the reasons—many were bloated, but ours was efficiently run and worked well for the region. Whether it is the taskforce that was recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), or other ways of doing it, I think a designated economic area that starts to put those building blocks in place for the south midlands region as we work towards devolution in the future is how we give the region proper teeth, ensure investment is focused across the region and join up all the things that already exist to create a great, vibrant central spine for the growth corridor.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing today’s important debate. I want to make three brief points in the time that is available to me. First, I will provide some support for the wider principle of investment in rail infrastructure, based on my experience of the benefits of the Elizabeth line in Berkshire. Secondly, I will talk about the potential enhanced benefits for a wider geographical area just beyond the current concept. Thirdly, I will make an appeal to the Minister on exactly that point.
It is fair to say that the benefits we have noticed across Berkshire and the other 80-mile stretch covered by the Elizabeth line provide a compelling argument for investment in rail infrastructure. It had £18 billion of capital investment, and after three years, according to the best study on it, generated £42 billion of economic growth—that is in housing, business development and greater connectivity. That can clearly be seen in the Reading area.
My constituency, which includes the town centre of Reading, has benefited enormously. We have had a number of business relocate to what were unutilised sites near our station. We have had over £1 billion of investment in the Station Hill redevelopment, which was opened this summer by the leader of our local council. Companies such as Ericsson have moved from out-of-town industrial estates where there are huge problems with traffic and transport into an area of better rail connectivity.
A number of Members have mentioned the problem of congestion on country lanes and other related issues. It is worth remembering that one train on the Elizabeth line can transport 800 people. That is the scale of what we are talking about—and something similar is being envisaged for the growth corridor. It allows large numbers of workers to move between different employment centres—whether that is a university or an industrial complex—and from an employer’s point of view, it provides an appealing pool of skilled workers. Ericsson specifically told me they moved to Reading and away from a site in Surrey because of the greater connectivity and the greater pool of skilled workers to work in telecoms. That is a very important point.
I strongly support this debate, and I think it is absolutely wonderful to have so many hon. Members here. The one thing I regret is that we are not sat in the order of stations that would benefit, which would have been quite nice—I obviously would have to be at one end, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge would be at the other.
I will briefly talk about the area south of Oxford and towards Reading. The train from Reading to Oxford takes 25 minutes. A number of my constituents work at Oxford University, Harwell, Culham and various other centres of employment along that route, and equally vice-versa. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) described, there is a travel corridor south of Oxford. Opening up the wider line and promoting it would have huge benefits for the wider Thames valley region, and possibly for other routes heading north towards Warwickshire. There is a wider shoulder of the main central core of this project that could benefit significantly, including as far away as Reading. It would be wonderful for that to be emphasised.
I appreciate that I am out of time, so my brief request to the Minister is that when officials consider this, they talk to some of the business groups within the Thames valley and think about the wider benefits. Obviously, the core of the line will benefit most, but there is clearly an argument for areas towards the edges to also benefit from the wider connectivity and the shift towards regenerating areas around stations, where there is often a lot of brownfield land and lots of scope for new industrial and business employment. I ask for that to be at the heart of the Government’s thinking.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. The limited time means that I will not focus too heavily on the importance of the region, which has been covered by my colleagues, but as the first MP proud to have been born and grown up in the new town of Milton Keynes I want to remind everyone that it is the largest and most economically significant city in the corridor.
Our economy is roughly the same size as Oxford and Cambridge combined. In fact, Milton Keynes is now the seventh largest city economy in England outside London, and we are on track to continue climbing that league table. One in three jobs in Milton Keynes is already in the technology sector, generating £3.4 billion a year. We are now home to national security engineering at His Majesty’s Government Communications Centre, global firms such as Santander UK and Red Bull Racing and hundreds of cutting-edge small and medium enterprises. Over 12,000 businesses call our city home.
I set that out because, from time to time, it has been frustrating that the conversation about the corridor has been dominated by either end, with not enough focus on the middle. I can quietly live with Milton Keynes being dropped from the name—the National Infrastructure Commission first described the corridor as the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc in 2016—although I do feel it is a little odd to remove the largest economy from the title. It is a bit like renaming J. K. Rowling’s books “Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley”. I will allow my hon. Friends to decide which is which.
It is not just about branding; even since the relaunch of the project, there are concrete examples of how that policy skew has played out in practice. Take the Chancellor’s announcement in Oxford last year on the new plans for the growth corridor: the press release that followed mentioned Cambridge 39 times, Oxford 25 times and Milton Keynes just four times. Two of those references were about how the Government would make it quicker for people to get from Milton Keynes to Oxford or Cambridge, despite the fact that far more people commute into my city than out of it every day.
The recently released investment prospectus for the corridor barely mentioned any projects outside Oxford and Cambridge. My council submitted several high-impact Milton Keynes projects for inclusion—all of them were cut from the final draft. In the run-up to the Budget, the only corridor-related investments were for Oxford and Cambridge. Let me be clear: investment in those cities is welcome and necessary. They are world-class centres of research, talent and innovation. However, that skew is frustrating.
The easiest way to correct that skew is through devolution. We had an oven-ready devolution deal across Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes—a deal that would have supercharged growth across our region and allowed us to get the many national infrastructure projects already planned delivered quickly. Will the Department work with us to get the BLMK devolution deal across the line as quickly as possible?
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I have drawn the short straw here. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I felt compelled to join the debate this afternoon because I wanted to underscore the point, which has been made by others, that if we want to make the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor a success, we cannot ignore the roles of the towns and cities that lie between them. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) articulately explained the vitality of the MK economy. All I will add to what he said is that I am particularly proud that Pulsar, Envisics and Starship Technologies call Bletchley home.
I particularly welcome East West Rail, as Bletchley and Winslow will host East West Rail stations. I cannot wait for passenger services to start, hopefully as soon as possible. I intend to use the Bletchley investment taskforce that I set up in the spring to catalyse more investment, businesses, jobs and apprenticeships in our town, so that we can realise the full promise of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
I have little time remaining, but as the only Buckinghamshire MP able to participate in the debate, I want to shed light on Silverstone’s contribution to the east-west corridor, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. My constituency is home to a high-performance technology cluster in Silverstone Park, which already has 60 advanced companies, including Mercedes, Aston Martin and Andretti. If we can get the proposed Silverstone incubator village over the line, we can further demonstrate the region’s expertise in net zero propulsion, aerodynamics, meteorology and lightweight materials.
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North about the importance of coherent, strategic and joined-up leadership across the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. I know that hon. Members from across the Bedford, Luton and Milton Keynes region would value more conversations about that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to all the hon. Members who spoke for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an East Cambridgeshire district councillor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. I thank all hon. Members for their strong contributions to the debate.
It is good to see cross-party recognition that the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor will play a critical role in the years ahead in growing the UK economy. To achieve that growth sustainably, we need it to go hand in hand with investment in housing and vital infrastructure. First and foremost, we need a land-use framework in place. The consultation closed in April, but there has still not been a Government response. We cannot plan for housing and the infrastructure needed without that framework, because it is that framework that will ensure we have allocated enough land to nature and to all our needs. Will the Minister tell us when the land-use framework will be published?
The Liberal Democrats believe that growth without corresponding investment in local infrastructure risks leaving communities behind.
Charlie Maynard
East West Rail is a huge project and will bring a lot of benefits, but my hon. Friend’s constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire is at the far end in Cambridgeshire and my constituency of Witney is at the far end in the west. Does she agree that such projects need to be spread county-wide? We desperately need transport infrastructure, such as rebuilding the railway line that links Oxford, Eynsham, Witney and Carterton, to support the 18,000 houses that are coming our way.
Charlotte Cane
I agree that we need to have the wider transport network, and I will touch on that later in my remarks.
Local communities must have a genuine voice in infrastructure decisions that affect them. As we have heard, big projects like East West Rail benefit them in some way, but what would really help communities like Bicester, Cottenham and Milton is investment in proper local bus routes and road upgrades, which would provide an obvious benefit and improvement in people’s everyday lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, connecting people to each other and to work, education and leisure is vital.
At the same time as we are going for growth between Oxford and Cambridge, there needs to be investment to ensure that we have good water supplies; waste water and sewage are managed so our rivers are clean; people can get to see a GP; electricity grid capacity is increased; and people can easily access more active travel and public transport options. My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) was right to highlight the need for GPs, schools and shops to grow as our communities grow.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for the rail project along the A40 corridor to Witney and Carterton, for electrification from Didcot to Oxford and along the whole of East West Rail, and for the redevelopment of Oxford station to be finally completed, along with other important rail improvements. We know that rail is the key to growth, and that it can bring opportunities if we invest in it properly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for supporting my calls for the Ely junction upgrade but, in this speech, I am going to make a different request for rail investment. I would like East West Rail to extend at least to Newmarket, allowing for more frequent, reliable trains through Dullingham into Cambridge and beyond.
I welcome plans for a Cambridge east station, and ask that the current Waterbeach station is kept open. Between the new station in north Waterbeach, the current Waterbeach station, Cambridge North, Cambridge, the soon to be completed Cambridge south and the proposed Cambridge east, we have the makings of a metro-style transport network that could help reduce congestion and improve air quality in Cambridge.
When undertaking such significant rail projects, it is vital that we ensure that they actually deliver tangible benefits for the communities they serve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) told us, the London Road level crossing in Bicester is due to be closed by East West Rail. While the project will indeed have wide benefits, we should do something to support the local community and ensure that that infrastructure benefits them. For example, the Government could commit to a motorised underpass to keep the town connected, and I hope the Minister will do so today.
Recent research revealed that Brexit is costing taxpayers £90 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Let us think how much of that we could invest in the ambitious businesses in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor if we joined the single market. The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about the knowledge clusters, which would be so much stronger with Europe-wide participation.
Since being elected, I have had the pleasure of visiting many exciting and dynamic companies in Ely and East Cambridgeshire, including Xampla, Pragmatic, Hologic UK, the Royal Society of Chemistry and Cambridge Future Tech, all of which want to see the full potential of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor unlocked for new investors and for businesses to join that thriving ecosystem. I am proud to be an MP for such a dynamic, innovative and flourishing region. I am fascinated every time I visit one of those local businesses, and I am struck by their ambition not just for themselves but for our region and our country. They need the Government to follow through on their ambition, and work with them and local communities to deliver a sustainable Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, an area of enormous potential, world-class institutions and a genuine capacity to drive innovation and national prosperity. He is a dedicated campaigner and champion for his constituency—he has been for a number of years—and that emanated from his speech this afternoon.
I would like to mention a few speeches from Members on both sides of the House who have spoken passionately on behalf of their constituencies. The first is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who gave us a wonderful tour of his constituency. I know that the Minister will take away, through officials, his plea for junction 13 of the M1 to be upgraded. We know that north Bedfordshire, like many areas in the community in which he serves, has had a huge expansion.
Whatever the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) had for breakfast, I would like some too, because we had a very rapid constituency tour, quite rightly explaining to us why her constituency is special. She was right about the infrastructure needs, and particularly the nature and environmental concerns. Her party and mine have been very concerned about some of the retrograde steps that the Government have taken in terms of planning and infrastructure regarding nature and the environment.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) quite rightly gave her view, as she is perfectly entitled to do, on local government reform. In this Chamber we actually heard a disagreement between two Members; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has strong concerns about LGR when it comes to a Milton Keynes–Bedfordshire–Luton mayor. That is something that we, again, are concerned about, where local authorities are being forced to reorganise come what may. Projects such as the one we are talking about today suffer as a result and come secondary to a needless reorganisation.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), managed to bring up Brexit in this debate, which I was slightly surprised by. I am never astounded by the tenacity of the Liberal Democrats, even if it does make me wonder why “Democrats” is in their party’s name.
The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, sometimes called the Oxford-Cambridge arc, is not a new idea, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said. Its origins go back to the early 2000s when three regional development agencies came together with an ambition
“to create one of the most successful knowledge-based economies in Europe.”
That ambition was renewed in 2016 when the National Infrastructure Commission was tasked to consider how best to maximise the potential of what is indisputably one of the most exciting, knowledge-intensive economic clusters anywhere in the world. The facts speak for themselves. Within the arc, there are at least 10 major higher education institutions, including Cranfield University, with its world-leading strengths in aerospace and automotive engineering; the Open University; and of course the globally renowned universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Those are institutions that any country would be proud to host, yet this Government’s economic policies are stifling their progress, and the progress of the corridor project.
That is the crux of the problem: the Chancellor wrote, in her foreword to the Government’s policy paper on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, that
“Economic growth is the number one mission of this government and remains at the heart of all we do.”
If this is what it looks like when growth is at the heart of what the Government do, I dread to imagine what they would do if they decided it was not a priority. That statement is not the experience of the institutions, businesses and local communities that work tirelessly to ensure that the corridor remains a leading hub of innovation, productivity and opportunity.
We know that the Chancellor believes that the corridor could add up to £78 billion to the UK economy and we agree, but that number becomes a reality only if the Government provide the environment, the confidence and the long-term stability that private investors need. Instead, they have hiked taxes, raised business rates and plunged the markets into uncertainty. The Government’s own announcements, dropped somewhat sporadically and often without clarity, speak to their confusion. In October, Ministers published a press release promising jobs, homes and better transport links across the corridor. We heard about water infrastructure investment, a proposed new town at Tempsford, £400 million of initial funding to kick-start development in Cambridge and £15 million for the University of Cambridge innovation hub.
All of those things sound encouraging, but this Government have become experts in making announcements while failing to deliver the underlying conditions that make delivery possible. They talk of homes but their housing targets will not be achieved. They talk of infrastructure but cannot secure long-term investment. They talk of growth but have presided over an economy with its growth revised downwards again and again, meaning that long-term problems will be incurred in the progress of this much-needed project. Before the 2024 election, the Chancellor told British people that she would raise taxes by £7 billion. Instead, at last year’s autumn Budget she raised them by £40 billion and at this year’s autumn Budget by another £26.6 billion.
Economic forecasters have not been fooled. Since the Chancellor took office, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and the CBI have all downgraded the UK’s growth prospects. The OBR’s growth forecast for 2026 fell from 1.9% to 1.4%; inflation, which stood at just 2.2% on election day, has risen to 3.8%; the unemployment rate has hit 5%; and the deficit is set to double by ’28-29. The UK now has the fastest rising tax burden in the G7. That does not encourage growth, business investment or the stability that businesses and organisations need to get this project off the ground.
In her 2025 Budget, the Chancellor invoked the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor as an example of a long-term national priority, but what message does it send to the businesses, universities and investors of the corridor when the Government cannot even be transparent about their own growth projections? In this debate, speaker after speaker has rightly emphasised the immense economic, scientific and social value of this region, but potential alone is not enough. Potential needs partnership, consistent leadership and a Government who understand the scale of the opportunity, but everything emanating from the Government has made the aspirations for the corridor more difficult. That is why this debate matters.
This corridor is not just about the south-east or the east of England; it is important to the whole country. It is a showcase for the very best of British innovation, where research excellence meets commercial opportunity, where new technologies are born and where global investment sees a home. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. With the right leadership it could drive economic growth, technological advancement and prosperity for decades to come.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government intend to give the corridor the long-term stability, investment confidence and strategic backing it urgently needs to realise its economic potential? Will he commit to setting out a clear, accountable plan for how the Government will support the institutions, businesses and communities of the growth corridor, so that they can contribute fully to the UK’s future growth, rather than being held back by uncertainty and delay?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I thank him for his enthusiasm: despite the shadow Minister’s attempt to cast doom and gloom on the situation, there is a huge amount to be positive about in the Ox-Cam corridor. Not only is my hon. Friend a powerful advocate for the interests of his city, but he has long recognised the huge potential in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential growth sectors within it, as evidenced by his opening remarks. It is therefore fitting that it is he who has given hon. Members the opportunity to discuss this vital matter.
I also thank the many other hon. Members who have spoken. I am really pleased that it has been such a well-attended debate. I have heard lots of bids for recognition of any kind, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), and support for funding. Support is undoubtedly required when it comes to things like planning capacity and capability, an issue raised by the hon. Members for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). There were also requests, as I expected, for various grant funding pots across Government. I cannot respond to each request directly, but I assure hon. Members that I will make sure that my ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments are made aware of them.
In the time available, I will respond to as many as possible of the thematic and broad issues that have been raised. I will start by outlining why the Government are so focused on supercharging growth in the Ox-Cam corridor as part of our ambitious plan for change. As we have heard today, the Oxford-Cambridge region is already an economic powerhouse. It is home to world-leading universities, to globally renowned science and technology firms and to some of the most dynamic innovation clusters in Europe. For a region of 3.5 million people, it punches well above its weight by contributing £143 billion annually to the UK economy.
As this debate has evidenced, the corridor is not just a stretch of land between two cities with world-class universities; its strength lies in the combined economic power of the entire region. With its highly productive and thriving tech sector, Milton Keynes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North rightly raised, is a magnet for innovation and investment. Silverstone contributes advanced manufacturing capabilities. Luton brings global connectivity through its international airport and its strong Eurospace and engineering cluster. Culham is now a thriving centre for research, innovation and a world-recognised fusion technology cluster. I could go on—there are many other examples of places that are doing fantastic things. Together, these and other places within the corridor form an interconnected economy that is driving growth, attracting talent and delivering benefits for those places and for the UK as a whole.
However—and there is strong consensus across the Chamber on this point—we have not yet realised the region’s full potential. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the entire world, but as things stand, numerous constraints, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, are preventing it from realising its true potential. That is why the Government are determined to do what is necessary and apply clarity and consistency to drive sustainable economic growth in the region, to the benefit of local communities and national prosperity.
As has been said, there are numerous constraints preventing the corridor from realising its potential. We have had a couple of examples today, and I could add to them. It currently takes two and a half hours to travel by train from Oxford to Cambridge; there is no way to commute by rail directly to Cambridge from places such as Bedford and Milton Keynes; and the lack of affordable housing across the region is a major barrier to securing the world-class talent on which world-class companies depend.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge rightly argued, it is now imperative that, after several false starts, we do what is necessary to drive the growth that we need in the region. That is why the Chancellor made it clear in January that the Ox-Cam corridor would be an economic priority for the Government; it is why she appointed Lord Vallance as the ministerial champion for the region.
If we are to drive the growth we need in the region, we must improve its infrastructure. As hon. Members will know, we have reaffirmed our commitment to deliver East West Rail in full. That will provide a direct rail line between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, reconnecting businesses and communities and increasing opportunities for people who live and work in the corridor.
More recently, at the end of October, we committed £120 million to reopen the Cowley branch line in Oxford. That unlocked significant private investment from the Ellison Institute of Technology, which has committed more than £10 billion in science and technology as it expands its Oxford site over the next decade. All of that is on top of our existing projects to improve wider transport infrastructure across the region, such as the upgrade to the A428, which is central to boosting connectivity between Cambridge and Milton Keynes. We are also supporting greater international links for the corridor through our championing of the expansion of Luton airport.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge set out, we need to develop a clear plan for infrastructure in its widest sense. We are therefore working actively across Whitehall and with local partners to consider the region’s needs in areas such as energy and water provision.
Layla Moran
I absolutely agree that the Cowley branch line is amazing, but I underline the point that the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made about the Kennington bridge problem: there is a £70 million hole there. That matters, because the Oxford flood alleviation scheme will protect the Thames valley floodplain, the largest unprotected floodplain in Europe. If the problem is not addressed, the scheme will get held up, which in turn will stifle growth across the region. It is really important—small, but important.
Matthew Pennycook
I have already had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of Kennington bridge to supporting growth and the transformation of Oxford’s west end, and I recognise the significant interdependencies with the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. The hon. Lady should be in no doubt, and my right hon. Friend is in no doubt, that I have made the point to Ministers in the DFT, as my right hon. Friend has done directly. We recognise the importance of the project.
Another key priority for the corridor is affordable housing, which obviously falls within the responsibilities of my Department. We need to deliver ambitious housing with a strong sense of place, creating sustainable communities with a high quality of life. That is why we are taking a strong place-based focus through the work of my Department in Cambridge and Oxford in particular.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, we have established the Cambridge Growth Company, which is chaired by Peter Freeman, whom I met again this morning, to drive forward plans for nationally significant growth in greater Cambridge. We are committing up to £400 million to this work to deliver more homes, commercial space and jobs, and have recently announced our intention to consult next year on a centrally led development corporation for the area. As my hon. Friend also mentioned, appointing a high-calibre chief executive to that work will be vital. I can assure him that the search for an exceptional candidate will begin shortly.
I appointed regeneration expert Neale Coleman CBE to lead work on the Oxford growth commission, which is supporting a programme of work to unlock stalled development sites and deliver much-needed housing, including social housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East will be aware that 60% of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is targeted at social rented homes. We encourage providers in Oxford and across the corridor to put in ambitious bids when the programme opens in February.
The corridor could also benefit from our wider work on the new towns programme, with three of the 12 areas highlighted by the new towns taskforce—Tempsford, Milton Keynes and Heyford Park in Oxfordshire—identified as potential sites for development. Looking at the opportunities at the sites will be a key priority for my Department in the coming months. As hon. Members are aware, we have already commenced a strategic environmental assessment to explore the programme as a whole and the most appropriate sites to take forward.
We are also putting innovation first by combining public and private investment to unlock growth and support essential infrastructure. That is why we established the UK’s first AI growth zone in Culham, and why we have been able to support the reopening of the railway at Cowley to fully connect Oxford’s innovation districts. As I think the shadow Minister mentioned, that has enabled us to invest £15 million for the Cambridge innovation hub, creating a world-class space for science and entrepreneurship.
The corridor is already a huge focus for international investment. Lord Stockwood is the Minister who leads on investment in the ministerial delivery group, and his door is always open for any investors who want to look at opportunities in the corridor. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of Universal’s plans to open a world-class theme park and resort in Bedfordshire, which we believe will generate a £50 billion boost for the economy and create approximately 28,000 jobs. That is an example of the Government’s growth mission in practice and of our realising the opportunities for growth, despite the shadow Minister’s pessimism on that front.
We want to go further, however, and to be ambitious in our support for more investment across the region. I was really pleased that the Chancellor launched our new investment prospectus for the corridor at the regional investment summit in October. It showcased a range of significant opportunities across the region and will be key to our ongoing work to attract inward investment and drive job creation across the corridor.
Before I wind up, I want to stress the importance of the environment. As we drive forward our ambitions for the region, it is essential to address environmental constraints and promote sustainable growth. Water scarcity is a key risk to growth in the region. The Government are determined to ensure that we get the infrastructure in place so that businesses and communities can grow and thrive. As I hope hon. Members are aware, we have fast-tracked plans for two new reservoirs in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire as part of a £104 billion private sector funding package. We are also implementing innovative approaches to water efficiency in Cambridge.
Pippa Heylings
I applaud the Government for confirming and recommitting to those new reservoirs. Will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the new fens reservoir is enough only for the existing ambitions within the emerging local plan, not for the additional thousands of homes that are being considered by the new development corporation? We need to get the water scarcity group working together now to think about other options. Otherwise, water is a deal breaker.
Matthew Pennycook
I assure the hon. Lady that I understand the potential constraint that water may provide. The Cambridge Growth Company, working with local partners in Greater Cambridge, is looking at solutions that can be taken forward. As I say, water efficiency, as well as investment, is needed for infrastructure of the kind that she mentions.
We are recognising the importance of the natural environment by confirming that a new national forest will be established in the corridor to support nature recovery, create green jobs and ensure access to nature for local communities. That is currently in the planning phase, but further details will be released next year.
Lord Vallance cannot respond as the ministerial champion for the corridor, but I stress that this is an example of what mission-led Government means in practice. We have a cross-Whitehall ministerial delivery group that brings together all interested Departments and ministerial champions to ensure that our approach across the region is consistent, joined up and ambitious.
The hon. Members for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), among others, asked how we are to bring together and co-ordinate infrastructure and investment. There are nationally significant projects, such as East West Rail, but key in my mind on the planning side are the spatial development strategies that will be enabled through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on a sub-regional level—high-level infrastructure frameworks for investment and housing growth that can pull together and co-ordinate cross-boundary in the way we need, supplementing national interventions.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge once again for securing the debate and for all the points that he made. I am more than happy to take up land value capture, skills and issues of interest to him. Given the number of meeting requests that I have had, it is probably time for another. Lord Vallance held some engagement sessions for hon. Members earlier this year; I am happy to facilitate, with him, the scheduling of another drop-in session so that hon. Members get the chance to raise specific issues.
The Government are going further and faster to deliver growth. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is not a distant aspiration; it is happening now. It will happen in this decade, to address the point my hon. Friend made in opening the debate. We are building the homes and the infrastructure, delivering the opportunities that the region’s communities deserve and ensuring the corridor becomes a world-class innovation supercluster, driving prosperity for generations to come.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his continuing support and interest, and I thank all colleagues for their contributions today. I think that there was sufficient interest to suggest that we reconvene once a year to have this discussion. We also heard a number of bids for the centre of the corridor. As we approach the quantum future, it may be possible to have more than one centre at once—who knows?
The key theme that has come through is the need for co-ordination and the fact that infrastructure has to come first. I am delighted that Peter Freeman of the Cambridge Growth Company has stressed that that will be his approach. That leads me to my conclusion, which is that it is important to maintain public support for this project. That will only happen if people can see that there is something in it for them. Better transport and environmental gain are key to that.
Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for chairing the debate in such a splendid way. I look forward to further engagement with colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor.
Advanced Ceramics Industry: North Staffordshire
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Dr Allison Gardner to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members who are present that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister; subject to the discretion of the Minister and the Member in charge, they may of course make an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the advanced ceramics industry in north Staffordshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the House for allowing this debate today. Although the ceramics industry is typically known for producing bespoke mugs and saucers, the advanced ceramics industry plays a critical but often discreet role in the manufacture of specialist components for key industries. We cannot manufacture steel, aluminium, glass, bricks or cement without ceramics or refractories. Materials such as zirconia, silicon nitride, alumina and silicon carbide are hidden components that form a critical part of the supply chain for high-tech industries, including defence, nuclear energy, electronics and aerospace.
I was delighted when ceramics was recognised as a foundational sector in the industrial strategy. The contribution that our local companies make to the IS-8 critical sectors is remarkable. North Staffordshire is a recognised cluster for advanced ceramics. It is home to world-leading companies such as Mantec, Ross Ceramics and Lucideon. Our local industry is particularly important for defence capability. I have been working with the Ministry of Defence to highlight the importance of advanced ceramics to procurement, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises such as Mantec.
Mantec produces for Rolls-Royce ceramic molten metal filters that remove impurities from molten turbine blades used in civil aviation and defence, and it is asking how SMEs can access defence funding projects to bolster their expertise. Will the Minister outline what practical steps SMEs such as Mantec can take to access SME support from the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Defence, and who they can contact for guidance?
Advanced ceramics is the only class of materials capable of enabling hypersonic weapons for defence. Silicon carbide, boron carbide and alumina are used in ballistic-resistant armour and military vehicles. Advanced ceramics are used in antennae and sensors for defence communication and surveillance, and in jet engine coatings for civil and defence aerospace. Without ceramic coatings, aero engines would not be able to operate. Ultra high-temperature ceramics have some of the highest melting points of any material and are used in rocket nozzles and nose cones, and on the leading edge of wings and stabilisers on hypersonic missiles and thrust diverters.
For example, Ross Ceramics in Trentham, which is part of Rolls-Royce, manufactures complex geometry ceramic cores used in the investment casting of gas turbine engine components. Lucideon, which is based in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), specialises in high-tech applications of advanced ceramics in aerospace, nuclear energy and construction. I have been working with Lucideon on its proposal to establish sovereign capability for the development of ceramic matrix composites, or CMCs.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about sovereign capability. Does she agree that a nation of Britain’s standing simply cannot depend on foreign powers for materials critical to our defence and our energy security?
Dr Gardner
Yes, sovereign capability is vital to ensure this nation’s security.
CMCs are essential as lightweight replacements for alloys in high-temperature aggressive environments, such as turbine engines and exhaust systems. They are vital to maintaining technical advantage and capability in defence, offering high temperature resistance, low weight and superior durability. Carbon matrix and silicon carbide matrix composites will be needed in fusion energy systems, hypersonic vehicles, space vehicles and defence infrastructure.
At present, the UK has no sovereign CMC manufacturing capability, and there is no sovereign supply for critical raw materials such as silicon carbide fibres and precursors. The Rolls-Royce CMC factory is in California, and it can only supply some civil aerospace requirements, leaving UK defence turbines vulnerable to export controls, US supply chains and tariffs.
Lucideon wishes to create a UK manufacturing facility to produce CMC materials and components, including oxide and non-oxide composites. Those products would be world leading. They would replace heavy metal rotating parts in high-temperature turbines on jet engines, making them lighter and able to run at higher temperatures. They would significantly reduce fuel burn on aero engines, giving UK aerospace a huge commercial advantage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I talked to the hon. Lady before we came into the Chamber, and it would be really good if we could advance the ceramics industry, as she has argued. It would also be good to give opportunities to young people through apprenticeships and education in science, technology, engineering and maths. Does she see that as a critical aspect as we move forward? I congratulate her and the whole Stoke team on how well they work together.
Dr Gardner
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Absolutely, this is an industry connecting our heritage with our future, and it is vital that young people can see that and get support to help them with apprenticeships.
Lucideon’s proposed site is near the AMRICC—Applied Materials Research, Innovation and Commercialisation Company—centre at Keele University science park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), where the existing Government-funded centre of excellence for advanced ceramics would be relocated. That would cement north Staffordshire as a cluster for advanced ceramics, boosting local research and development and high-value jobs, all while positioning the UK as a leader in high-growth advanced material technology. I thank the Minister and the Department for engaging with me and Lucideon on the proposal. The Minister previously suggested that the National Wealth Fund could support such a proposal, given its alignment with its objectives. Will he outline what practical steps Lucideon should take as it seeks to secure that investment?
I have also been consulting with the Henry Royce Institute, which notes the importance of reduced reliance on imported critical materials, including CMCs. Securing sovereign capability would also support our investment in nuclear power generation. As well as its use in armour, boron carbide is critical to neutron absorption—it is the modifier that controls nuclear reactor reaction rates. China owns 81% of the world’s production of boron carbide, leaving UK supply chains vulnerable. To secure our progress in the small modular reactor scheme, we must invest in domestic production.
Advanced ceramics are used in nuclear fission reactors as coating for accident-tolerant pellets, ceramic coatings are applied to small modular reactors, and ceramics are needed in fuel particle coatings, reflectors and control rods. Will the Minister liaise with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to ensure that advanced ceramics companies in north Staffordshire receive investment as part of the SMR scheme?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this debate. I want to add my voice, and those of thousands of people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, in support of the excellent case she made that there is no better place to invest than our part of the world. The Minister knows this because I put it to him earlier today, but when the Government look to ensure that we are competitive and seizing the opportunities before us, north Staffordshire must be at the forefront of everything they do.
Dr Gardner
I heartily agree with my hon. Friend. The people of north Staffordshire really are ready and waiting to offer their skills and energy, and that history of technology, to our advancement.
We must be forward-thinking and establish the UK as a leader in advanced ceramics manufacturing. The UK’s share of the global market in 2024 was 6% and worth roughly £4.5 billion. There is huge potential for further growth, as supporting advanced ceramics will attract investment in other high-tech manufacturing industries. As noted by the Henry Royce Institute, the electronics industry is expected to increase demand for electroceramics, which can handle higher fields and temperatures. In healthcare, biocompatible ceramics are being used for dental implants, bone replacements and spinal correction segments. The application of advanced ceramics is also being explored in waste disposal. Mantec manufactures ceramic cross membrane filters, which can separate solids from liquids to de-water valuable materials and extract critical minerals, ensuring environmental compliance when wastewater is discharged. These issues are often cross-departmental, so will the Minister outline how he is working with colleagues across all Departments to support innovation in this sector?
Economic growth in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire has lagged behind other regions, yet there is real potential to establish north Staffordshire as a cluster for advanced ceramics. The AMRICC centre already provides testing space for new ceramic technologies and products. Lucideon’s CMC proposal would greatly expand R&D in critical materials at Keele University. Combined with the growing engineering expertise at the University of Staffordshire and Keele University, this would build a cluster aligned with our modern industrial strategy. Traditional ceramics drove industrialisation and wealth in north Staffordshire, led by pioneers such as Josiah Wedgwood. Will the Minister ensure that advanced ceramics becomes the flagship for our modern industrial renewal?
I must also give credit to our beloved tableware industry. Our pottery is our heritage, and beloved household names like Wedgwood and Duchess China have produced bespoke products for hundreds of years, including the tableware used in this House. Cross-working between traditional and advanced ceramics is growing, with traditional ceramics creating a skills pipeline into advanced ceramics. I know of an excellent example in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) between Denby and Ross Ceramics. Investment in advanced ceramics will support our traditional industries, which, as Members will know, have been struggling with energy costs.
David Williams
I am really pleased that my hon. Friend has talked about tableware as well as advanced ceramics. She mentioned Wedgwood, and in my constituency we have names such as Moorcroft that are known the world over. They have been saddled with high energy costs. Does she agree that the Government must look at all the levers they can pull, whether it is gas costs or anything else, to ensure that those companies have a level playing field and can compete globally?
Dr Gardner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Members will know that the ceramics industry has been struggling with rising energy costs. Alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), I have had sustained discussions with DBT and DESNZ about a support package for industry gas and electricity costs. Ceramics production is incredibly energy intensive, and it is the hardest energy-intensive industry to decarbonise; gas-fired tunnel kilns cannot be converted to electric plants without significant capital. I have been working with the TUC and the GMB on a proposal to develop a decarbonisation innovation fund, which would offer capital loans and grants to invest in decarbonisation technologies. As I have raised with the Minister previously, there is further potential to offer innovation vouchers to SMEs and tableware companies to access scaling and testing facilities at larger sites.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I am interested in the energy intensity of the sector. Does she agree that any innovation in advanced ceramics could be shared much more broadly?
Dr Gardner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that well-made point, which is central to my argument. Any benefits we see in advanced ceramics will be felt more widely, not just in heritage tableware ceramics but in the broader field.
SMEs cannot afford to use facilities at other sites, nor can they shoulder the risks of testing hydrogen, electric kilns or process optimisation alone. Some firms are developing more efficient firing methods; for example, in the brick industry, using lightweight insulating materials for kiln cars allows more heat to go into products using less energy. These innovations could deliver real energy savings, but replacing existing equipment requires major capital, and without collaborative R&D, SMEs cannot shoulder the risks of testing new technologies. Production is sensitive: one kiln failure can destroy an entire batch worth tens of thousands of pounds. With collaborative testing environments and access to innovation vouchers, SMEs and tableware companies could access the facilities at AMRICC and Lucideon to trial hydrogen, electrification and other low-carbon processes.
Alongside decarbonisation technologies, there is real potential for AI to reduce energy consumption. Lucideon has trialled using AI to identify efficiency savings in kilns and reduce kiln gas consumption—evidence that innovation can deliver savings. I have discussed these proposals with the Minister, and I am grateful for his suggestion to work with Innovate UK. I would greatly welcome the opportunity to convene colleagues from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and DBT to discuss whether Innovate grants could support this proposal, or whether an alternative scheme could establish innovation vouchers.
With the right investment in innovation, infrastructure and skills, north Staffordshire could become a world-leading growth hub for advanced ceramics. Given its foundation in so many sectors, supporting advanced ceramics requires cross-departmental working. I invite the Minister to attend a roundtable with local advanced ceramics companies to discuss a working road map and a practical support package for the sector. I also invite him to meet us —including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who is chair of the newly founded ceramics all-party parliamentary group—and Ceramics UK for further conversations. I look forward to continuing to work together. Will the Minister please ensure that proper investment follows the Government’s clear recognition of the vital role that both traditional and advanced ceramics play in local and national growth?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) for securing this debate. She knows how much I care about the ceramics industry and how much I appreciate any opportunity to talk about ceramics. I am grateful we have had that opportunity today. Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire have much to be proud of in their rich and diverse ceramics industry. Stoke-on-Trent is the historic home of the UK ceramics industry, but the sector spans so much of our country and is important to the lives of numerous communities.
I know that this year has been a difficult year for the ceramics industry. I was deeply saddened to learn of the closure of ceramics firms such as Royal Stafford and Moorcroft, as I am sure many of my colleagues were. I think not only of the loss of great brands and great capabilities, but of what it will mean to the workforce and the local community, who have taken such pride in their production of ceramics products from those factories over so many years.
Although ceramics encompass decorative and tableware, advanced ceramics are essential as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South outlined. For Members who are not so familiar with the ceramics industry, they have the opportunity to go downstairs to the Westminster Hall fair and buy a very fine teapot from Moorlands, as I did earlier. It will replace a cracked teapot in the Department for Business and Trade of unknown origin—I have been informed that it may be from Turkey. I am very pleased that I will be able to replace it with a British teapot today.
Every time I drink my tea in the Department, I will be reminded of the ceramics industry in the UK, and every time anyone picks up their mobile phone, they could think about the advanced ceramics in it. As we have heard, advanced ceramics are also present in medical devices such as hip replacements and in the space industry. Advanced ceramics are providing essential components for defence, energy and our advanced technology industries. That includes companies such as Mantec, which produces advanced filter technology, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
As set out in the industrial strategy, ceramics, particularly advanced and technical ceramics, are a key input in the advanced manufacturing and clean energy sectors. I reiterate that ceramics is an essential sector, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams). The support that I will set out will help the sector to play a key role in kick-starting economic growth in the country, which is the central mission of this Government.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South on her continued advocacy and championing of the sector and on her vision of the establishment of a sovereign advanced ceramics manufacturing facility in north Staffordshire. In this geopolitically uncertain world, security of critical supply chains is essential, and I encourage her to continue the conversations that she is having with Innovate UK on that subject.
The Government understand that businesses face numerous challenges day to day, particularly the price of electricity. That is why we recently announced an uplift to the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90%.
Gareth Snell
The Minister mentioned electricity prices. I have repeatedly asked the Government to consider the expansion of the supercharger scheme for current industrial use by the ceramics sector. That would be a massive help before the British industrial competitiveness scheme comes online. I know the Minister is going to outline a series of significant things that he believes the Government could do to support the ceramics sector. I encourage him to consider working with the APPG on a bespoke ceramics strategy that would be cross-departmental and cross-Government, so that the support that I know he desperately wants to offer us can be replicated across Government, so that when we have these debates in the future, we can talk about how we implement the help that we need rather than talk about the help we hope we can get.
Chris McDonald
Although the compensation scheme I outlined is delivering £1.7 million to eight ceramics firms, I am acutely aware that it does not cover the vast majority of the sector. I met today with the chief executive of Ceramics UK. We discussed this issue and the fact that eligibility for the scheme is up for review in 2026. I have committed to working closely with him to see what opportunity there will be to extend the scheme to other ceramics firms and to ensure that the review takes every opportunity to see whether there is the potential for greater eligibility for ceramics firms. I am always happy to work with the APPG. Perhaps we can take my hon. Friend’s suggestion further and have further discussions about that.
Adam Jogee
I want to add my voice to that of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). A bespoke ceramics strategy would do wonders for our part of the world—in Newcastle-under-Lyme, in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent and further afield into the east midlands. I want to reassure the Minister that a number of us would make that case, and make it strongly.
Chris McDonald
I know that my hon. Friend will be familiar with the benefit that sector strategies have had in other areas through his work as the vice-chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group. I take his comments very seriously and will absolutely consider them.
Last week, we launched a consultation for the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That is an opportunity for many thousands more additional manufacturing businesses to benefit from reduced electricity prices. I encourage the ceramics industry to participate in the consultation for that scheme. The Government are committed to ensuring that our electricity price support schemes continue to be targeted, effective and proportionate, and represent value for money for the British taxpayer. However, we are not stopping there.
I recognise that many ceramics businesses do not benefit from our electricity price support schemes due to their gas-intensive nature. For some of those businesses, electrification is possible, although it will require capital investment. For other businesses, there are currently no electrification options. Through our engagement with trade bodies, trade unions and businesses, we are working to consider all possible options for how we can help ceramics businesses further. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and other hon. Members as we develop that work over the coming months.
Trade has benefited the UK, and we continue to go from strength to strength in negotiating trade deals. The Government are proud of the work that went into the India free trade agreement and the ongoing work on our free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council. The UK-India free trade agreement will see the immediate or staged removal of tariffs on ceramic exports to India, opening up access to India’s large and growing middle class for producers of consumer ceramics, as well as to India’s many infrastructure projects and manufacturing opportunities for UK businesses in the advanced ceramics sector.
The agreement will also include a comprehensive trade remedies chapter. That chapter, as well as reaffirming existing safeguard provisions, includes a bilateral safeguard mechanism that will allow the UK or India to temporarily increase tariffs or suspend tariff concessions if there is a surge of imports causing injury or threat of serious injury to domestic industry as a result of the tariff liberalisation set out in the agreement.
The UK has been negotiating a modern and ambitious free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council that will boost economic growth and increase investment in the UK. That deal will help to grow our economy and bring benefits to communities across the country.
Dr Gardner
Do I take it from the Minister’s response that we will have some help to prevent china-dumping? GMB and great campaigners such as Sharon Yates have been campaigning to stop the huge foreign imports that are coming in and damaging our locally and British-made products.
Chris McDonald
By elucidating the trade deal with India and the deal that we hope to strike with the Gulf Co-operation Council, I am hoping to outline the fact that there is not only a commitment to trade that will enable UK producers to access markets, but a commitment to fair trade. That is far easier done within the bounds of a free trade agreement where there are existing mechanisms in place. That is why our Department is working so hard to ensure that we get additional coverage of free trade agreements through various jurisdictions around the world.
Turning back to the Gulf Co-operation Council agreement, the UK is currently a net importer of ceramics from the Gulf states. Reducing UK tariffs has been identified as one of the GCC’s priorities. Our objective is to secure provisions that support competitiveness and growth across the UK while safeguarding UK manufacturing interests.
I understand that there is more work to be done to support our local ceramics firms that may be at risk from cheap imports from abroad. The standard response to this—I will give it and then qualify it, if that is acceptable—is to encourage ceramics companies to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. However, I am aware of the significant burden that imposes in terms of cost and time, so I would encourage hon. Members who are in touch with ceramics companies in their areas—I will continue my engagement with Ceramics UK—to carefully monitor the ability of those companies to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority and to ensure that it is possible for their issues to be raised. If there are concerns about time and cost, I would appreciate it if they were raised with me directly.
Gareth Snell
If the Minister is looking at the Trade Remedies Authority, perhaps he could also look at the lesser duty rule, under which a product imported from China or the EU would face a higher tariff under their remedies than it does in the UK, because we have deliberately set our system to apply the lesser duty rather than the injury duty. It is technical, but it would make a big difference if he could consider that.
Chris McDonald
It is a very technical issue, and I have thought of little else since my hon. Friend explained it to me in great detail a few days ago. I will certainly commit to continuing to think about it, and I thank him for bringing it to my attention and placing it on the record.
Dr Gardner
Regarding trade, exporting to the EU is particularly challenging, and I look forward to any trade deals we may see from there to help with that.
Chris McDonald
Yes, I recognise that. Any further improvements in relation to our nearest and largest market would certainly be welcome.
Clearly, decarbonisation will require further innovation, and I commend industry and academia on the groundbreaking research they have conducted, which I know my hon. Friend has vigorously supported. I recognise the work of Lucideon; it is an organisation I know well, and it is indeed a world-leading developer of research and innovation for the ceramics sector. I also recognise the work of its AMRICC centre—the Applied Materials Research, Innovation and Commercialisation centre—and the Midlands Industrial Ceramics Group, which have benefited from direct grant support. My hon. Friend also asked about engagement with the National Wealth Fund. I will be happy for my office to provide contact details for a direct conversation to take place.
My hon. Friend made a point about increasing UK capability for defence. She and the ceramics industry may consider responding to a consultation launched by the Ministry of Defence on 23 October on its offset regime, which has the potential to ensure that we get greater investment in industries such as ceramics in our defence supply chains. The Government, particularly through UK Research and Innovation, work with and support such stakeholders to accelerate that kind of research and propel decarbonisation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) that it is important that we share innovation across multiple sectors. I am thinking particularly of the Foundation Industries Sustainability Consortium, for instance, which shows that there is great opportunity for furnace technology and so on to be shared across the foundation industries.
I very much echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) that north Staffordshire is well placed to attract further investment and to continue to go from strength to strength and become the UK centre for ceramics. In response to the specific request about attending a roundtable, I would be very happy to do that and to have further discussions with the industry. I believe I have a couple of engagements with the ceramics industry already in my diary in the period after Christmas, and I would be happy to attend a roundtable, either separately or as part of one of those events.
Adam Jogee
I thank the Minister for acknowledging the points about Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire. We are happy to host that meeting, so if he can let us know the best way to get it into the diary, we will get it done sooner rather than later.
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend. Far be it from me to adjudicate between a bunch of Stokies as to where the meeting should be—I will leave that to hon. Members themselves to figure out—but I remain ready to travel to the area to take part in the meetings, or to host the meeting at the Department if that is preferred.
Whether it is decorative or tableware, bricks, tiles or pipes, advanced ceramics or sanitaryware—as has been raised with me so many times by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—or even refractories, probably the area I know best, advanced ceramics are essential for the delivery of our industrial strategy. I would be happy to work with hon. Members and the companies in their areas to ensure that the ceramics industry gets the best chance it can to continue to be a great British industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered mental health support for people with terminal illnesses.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am here today because of my constituent Mike, who I am pleased to say is in the Gallery to watch the debate. In 2019, Mike experienced the devastating grief of losing a partner, but out of the trauma he is pushing for change and campaigning for better mental health support for those with terminal cancer. I pay tribute to Mike: he is a remarkable man. I thank him for bravely sharing his story with me, and I will try my best to do it justice today.
In 2016, Mike’s wife, Sarah, started to suffer with terrible pain in her back, and by the end of that year she was in constant agony. In early 2017, they found out that Sarah had lung cancer, which had spread to her spine, and she was given six months to live. A course of gruelling treatment followed, including major spinal reconstruction surgery and targeted therapy. In September 2019, Sarah succumbed to her illness, passing away a week before her 53rd birthday.
Sarah lived more than a year longer than doctors had initially predicted, and in that sense her treatment was a success, but that does not tell the whole story. There was a gaping hole in Sarah’s treatment: the lack of appropriate mental health support. Not having that support had a huge impact on Sarah’s quality of life, as well as her family and her family’s quality of life. Following her terminal diagnosis, as the devastating impact of cancer started to take its toll on her body, Sarah became deeply depressed and suffered with anxiety.
We know about the physical symptoms of cancer, such as nausea, crippling pain or a loss of mobility, and just how horrendous those symptoms are, but we talk less about the mental health effects, even though they are as common and sometimes the most crushing consequence of this awful illness. That was certainly the case with Sarah. A previously happy, outgoing and vibrant woman, who loved design, gardening and reading books, she became a shell of her former self—unwilling to go outside, not even to sit in the garden she had so lovingly cared for. She cried every day, sometimes all day, and could not eat, could not read a book and did not know what pleasure felt like. As Mike said to me the very first time we met, “Sarah disappeared into herself.” I cannot begin to imagine how hard that was or the toll it took on Sarah, Mike, her entire family and her friends.
Shamefully, Sarah never saw a psychologist or psychiatrist, and she never had a serious or rigorous mental health assessment. Sarah was offered counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy by Macmillan Cancer Support and local NHS services, but we all know the issues with those services. Waiting lists can be months long, and when Sarah did get therapy, it was often for just a few weeks at a time, before she was back on another waiting list.
Too often, as in this case, the kind of therapy offered is not appropriate for the needs of the patient. Sarah would leave her CBT sessions clutching leaflets that she was supposed to go away and read, even though she could not even look at a newspaper. She was once told to go and do some gardening when the debilitating effects of her cancer had already taken that big joy out of her life. What was needed was treatment by a psycho-oncologist—someone who would offer specialist psychological care for someone affected by cancer—but the one psycho-oncologist at her local hospital was badly overstretched and the appointment never came.
As Mike has so eloquently said, this is not a criticism of our dedicated NHS or care staff. They are not to blame for a health culture that has always been more interested in the physical than in the psychological. That deficiency, in reality, is unlikely to change without more scientists and funding bodies devoting time and cash to researching therapies to support the mental health of those with terminal illnesses. From my perspective, there seems to be precious little work being done in this area; I spoke to Macmillan and other charities ahead of this debate, and they said the same. That deficiency is despite the fact that 17% of cancer patients will be diagnosed with depression and anxiety, but almost half will not receive the treatment that they need—that must change.
I ask the Minister to seriously consider the policy suggestions made by Mike: more funding to map service provision across the national health service to identify good and bad practice, including an assessment of the effectiveness of current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on mental health support for the terminally ill; more funding to recruit more psycho-oncologists to work in our palliative care system; a commitment to an immediate baseline mental health assessment for patients upon their diagnosis with a terminal illness and, if needed, a clear pathway for referral to an experience psycho-oncologist on diagnosis of terminal illness. I believe that those are practical and, I hope, achievable steps that could make a real difference to cancer patients.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving us an opportunity to talk about this incredibly important issue. I agree 100% with the recommendations that he is making. I also point to the important work that hospices do. A lot of hospices, such as Weldmar and Julia’s House in West Dorset, provide mental health-led hospice services to communities, yet, at the same time, are under extraordinary funding pressures. Weldmar has a £1 million deficit; Julia’s House gets just 8% of its funding from the NHS, yet it is relieving pressure on the NHS. Does the hon. Member think that, along with his recommendations, a sustainable funding model for hospices providing the kind of care that he is talking about is important?
Mr Rand
I am sure that there is recognition on both sides of the House of the incredibly important work that hospices do to support patients in our communities. I am sure that the hospices that the hon. Member mentioned will be grateful for the recognition of their important work. Of course we need to ensure sustainable funding. As he will be aware, this Government have already invested a significant amount in hospice care, but I appreciate the pressures that many hospices still find themselves under.
I would be grateful if the Minister would meet Mike and me to discuss Mike’s policy recommendations in more detail and to see if they could form part of the Government’s welcome review of palliative care services and the framework that has been announced. It feels particularly pressing at this juncture, as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill progresses through Parliament. Although I support that legislation, I worry about the prospects of those with a terminal diagnosis. I am sure that the Minister will want to reflect on that in his response.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing the story of Sarah and Mike—he did it justice. It is really important to think about the whole care of people going through a terminal diagnosis—both the patient and their loved ones. We should make sure that the mental health of those people who are supporting the person going through a terminal illness is also considered in this conversation.
Mr Rand
I could not agree more that throughout treatment we need a whole-person approach. It is the stated aim of the Government to develop that offer in our communities and in our national health service. The extraordinary toll it takes on friends and families is something that our health system should think more about, and we should give more consideration to.
The issue is so important that if we do not get it right, as I think Members across the House would reflect, the consequences may be tragic for people going through their most difficult times and experiences. For Sarah and Mike and the countless other people touched by cancer, I urge the Minister to work with me and Mike on improving mental health support for those with a terminal diagnosis.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I say this mostly for the benefit of those in the Public Gallery, but we are expecting votes in the main Chamber soon. If that happens, I will suspend the sitting and we will reconvene when the votes are complete. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for setting the scene so very well. He obviously has the necessary compassion and understanding. We recognise the pain that he referred to, which is suffered by many across the whole of the United Kingdom.
I am my party’s health spokesperson, so these issues are important to me. The lasting mental impact of a diagnosis of a terminal illness must never be underestimated. Definitions can differ, but have more or less the same meaning. Terminal illness is defined as a progressive, incurable disease not expected to be cured, where medical opinion is that death can reasonably be expected within roughly a year. I know there are exceptions. Some people live for six weeks and some for six years after getting a diagnosis. When someone is given a terminal illness diagnosis, they right away look at their whole life and those around them. I cannot imagine the feeling of being told that news and where the mind must go to. The reality is much more frightening than the thought.
A study by Marie Curie found that nine in 10 frontline staff supporting dying patients reported that patients were lonely—I think that was referred to earlier. A similarly high proportion report loneliness among end-of-life carers. The same report shows that loneliness at the end of life is strongly linked to worse physical health and mental ill health.
I remember a couple of occasions when I had to go and see people I knew who had been given a terminal illness diagnosis. One lady came back from holiday and was not feeling her best, so she went to see the doctor. The doctor told her she had liver cancer, and that lady did not last six weeks. I pay tribute to all the charities that do great work, Marie Curie in particular. The people are so compassionate, understanding and loving, and are always there when people need them most.
Queen’s University Belfast in Northern Ireland stated that there are high levels of death illiteracy in Northern Ireland, meaning that those diagnosed with a terminal illness often have a true lack of understanding about how to access end-of-life and bereavement support, because they are so consumed—I am speaking in a generic way—by what is happening in their life and around them. This can be deeply worrying in terms of the mental turmoil of individuals and the people caring for them in their darkest times. There is a belief in taking the pressure off and knowing what the next steps are. More work must be undertaken to ensure there are no barriers to accessing care and to ensure people are aware of their options for end-of-life and palliative care.
There is no doubt whatsoever that restricting such information will worsen mental health symptoms. That is the nature of life. A person of faith will realise they are only here for a short time and they are going to a better place. For those who do not have faith, perhaps the Minister could suggest that people with a terminal diagnosis could talk to faith ministers for advice and succour.
We must also, I believe, do everything to empower patients and their families. It is not just the person who has been diagnosed with the terminal illness who is travelling on that path; the whole family is travelling with them, and they suffer, because their lives focus on what is happening as well. We must ensure that they receive the best care and access all available support, not only from our wider healthcare trusts, but from the communities in which they live.
I will conclude, as I am conscious of the time and of others wanting to speak. If we are serious about compassion and genuine care, we must be serious about better mental health support for those living with terminal illnesses. Whether someone has faced advanced cancer, motor neurone disease, heart failure or chronic respiratory illness, they deserve more than medication and medical charts; they deserve the highest emotional support and compassion and a reassurance that they are not alone. I look forward to seeing what more we can do to be better. I look forward very much to the response, from a Minister who understands the issues and who can give us the succour and support that we need.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech sharing Sarah and Mike’s experience.
As a former manager in the NHS, I was shocked to read the recent report by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, which described how thousands of people with terminal illnesses spend their final months in poverty, and how the situation is particularly severe in North Ayrshire. In my constituency, high rates of socioeconomic deprivation worsen the quality of life for many people, let alone for those with a terminal illness. Sadly, people in their final months of life are experiencing not only health inequalities, but economic inequalities, exacerbating the need for good, timely and appropriate specialist mental health support.
I recognise the excellent work undertaken by Ayrshire hospice, such as its community-based “living well” hubs and clinics. However, more must be done to support those in need of specialist mental health support, especially at such a traumatic time for not only the person, but their family, friends and wider circle.
New figures from National Records of Scotland show that people in North Ayrshire have the lowest healthy life expectancy in Scotland, at 52.6 years for men and 52.5 years for women. That is about 14 years shorter than for people in areas with the highest healthy life expectancies, and it cannot be allowed to continue.
The Mental Health Foundation stated in its manifesto recommendations for next year:
“Scotland is in the grip of a public mental health emergency, characterised by lengthening waiting lists for diagnoses and treatment, extended absences from work and a mental health workforce stretched towards breaking point.”
That situation makes it particularly challenging to focus on those with a terminal illness.
Finally, it is important, when we speak about mental health support for those with terminal illnesses, that we recognise that it must be delivered in a timely and effective way, to ensure that people have the best support available at the most difficult time, when they absolutely require it.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for bringing this important topic for debate.
When we talk about mental health, we often picture everyday stress, anxiety or the long waits for talking therapies, but there is a group of people whose mental health needs are profound, urgent and too often invisible: people living with a terminal illness. That is not a topic that we often think about in the grand scheme of mental health provision, but the need for emotional and mental support in that medical situation is momentous—a need that I hope none of us here ever experience.
Mental health services and support in our country are at breaking point. More than 1.5 million adults in England—not necessarily suffering from a terminal illness, but just adults generally—are waiting for mental health support and treatment, and more than 500,000 children. Patients are eight to 12 times more likely to wait for mental health treatment than they are for physical health support. While waiting, approximately 42% of patients deteriorate and seek further assistance through A&E and other NHS services, increasing the burden on our already stretched NHS.
For people with a terminal illness, the situation is even grimmer and bleaker; it brings fear, grief, uncertainty and, for many, isolation. Those feelings affect not just the person who is diagnosed, but partners, children and family members, who carry the emotional weight of uncertainty and the news they have just received. Yet mental health support at the end of life is still inconsistent, still underfunded and still far too dependent on location and charity rather than on rights and entitlements. Right now, access to mental health support at the end of life is a postcode lottery—one of the most troubling parts of this whole issue. In some areas, people can receive specialist psychological support, family counselling or bereavement services as part of their palliative care; in other areas, those services simply do not exist.
Whether someone receives help often comes down to the resources of their local hospice, the strength of its fundraising base or the priorities of an overstretched local health system. That creates a deep and unacceptable inequality. Families in the most deprived communities—such as those in my Dewsbury and Batley constituency and in wider Kirklees—already at higher risk of poor health outcomes, are often those with the least access to emotional and mental health support at the end of life. Wealthier areas can sometimes raise the funds to keep services going; poorer areas cannot.
A person’s final moments should not be shaped by how affluent their postcode is or whether their local hospice can afford another counsellor that year. If we are serious about dignity in palliative care, then we must be serious about ending that inequality. Mental health support should be a guaranteed part of end-of-life care everywhere, not a privilege that depends on geography or charity fundraising.
A few weeks ago, I attended a meeting with Forget Me Not hospice in West Yorkshire here in Parliament with other MPs from Kirklees. Forget Me Not staff spoke powerfully about what it means to support people to live well until the end of life, and to die with dignity, comfort and emotional support. They welcome the recent £100 million capital funding, which will allow them to keep operating or to repair their facilities, but they are still short of revenue funding to maintain the staffing levels that they had. This coming year, they have had to cut £1 million from their budget, reducing the number of spaces available for treatment in their two hospices by 800 out of 2,100. The impact on Kirklees and my constituents is severe.
I believe that the Government guaranteed three years of funding for revenue costs for hospices, but £25 million is a drop in the ocean. I ask the Minister to set out what the Government will do to address the huge shortfall in funding for hospices across our country. Without that additional funding, hospices are reducing staff or cannot plan staffing beyond three years now—before it was for one year. They cannot provide specialist therapy or mental health provision with certainty. Yet hospices are the very places offering the kind of care our NHS simply cannot replicate: time, counselling, bereavement support and a community that wraps around the entire family. They are asked to do more every single year, with less stability to do it.
People with terminal illnesses need more than medication and pain management; they need psychological support to process what is happening to them. They need space to talk about fear, leaving family behind and loss of identity. Families—often the forgotten grievers—need support too. No one should spend their final months fighting for the counselling that might help them face the end of life with peace rather than fear. Believing in dignity at the end of life comes hand in hand with mental health support as a core part of palliative care that we should recognise in policy and fund in practice. We owe people living with terminal illness and their families who love them nothing less.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this debate and for speaking so movingly and emotively.
I can only imagine the mixture of emotion someone feels when they receive a terminal diagnosis. We know that around six in 10 people referred for hospice care have significant psychological support needs, but there is a lack of good, standardised mental health provision for people receiving hospice care. More than 10% of suicides in the UK are in some way linked to either chronic or terminal physical illnesses, so there is a mental health undercurrent running through the heart of end-of-life care.
Like many other Members, I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary hospices in my constituency. I have visited them and taken part in local fundraising events for them. I did 12 hours of exercise for Winchester hospice —I was doing boxing around midnight, and I can still feel it now, even though it was about a week ago. The inspiration I got from seeing so many members of the community raising money for Winchester hospice, or for children’s hospices Naomi House and Jacksplace, is unbelievable; so is the dedication of the staff and the volunteers, working in some of the most emotive jobs possible. It is a lifeline for the families affected by having a relative or a child with a terminal illness.
Hospices across the UK are under immense strain, and only 16% of people attending them believe that their psychological support is adequate. Too many people approaching the end of life are pushed towards the overstretched NHS mental health services. If someone ends up on the conventional mental health path, they may be put on a waiting list that is more than a year long—and, I am sorry to say, they may not have that long to live. We must also recognise the quiet heroism of unpaid carers. They give up work, rest and any sense of normality to care for someone they love, and most of them receive no formal bereavement support at all. Their contribution is vast, but their support is minimal.
As an aside, since many Members here have an interest in hospice and medical care, and a couple are doctors, one of the best books I have read on the subject is Atul Gawande’s “Being Mortal”. It is about the wishes of people who receive terminal diagnoses, how they want to die, the experiences they want to have while they are on that journey, and the amount of fulfilling experiences and the sense of purpose that they can have while suffering from sometimes incredibly painful diseases.
As the Government develop the new modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care, we want to ensure that mental health is absolutely at its core. That means regular mental health assessments throughout a person’s illness, embedding psychological support in palliative care teams and creating a sustainable, long-term funding model for hospices so that they can plan with certainty. It also means real support for family carers, paid carer’s leave, guaranteed respite and proper access to bereavement services.
This debate is not about dying badly; it is about helping people to live really well and to live really fulfilled until the end. If we truly believe that every life has worth, that worth does not diminish in someone’s final months or days, so mental health support must be built into palliative care, and not bolted on as an afterthought.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The old adage we often hear is that there are two certainties in life—taxes and death. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about the former and very little time speaking about the latter, even though we know it will affect us; I have argued that both as a doctor and in this House since I was elected.
I take my hat off to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this debate. It is so important and it will affect all of us. We are informed by the work of our constituents, so I also put on record my thanks to Mike for his incredible story and for the memory of Sarah that he has brought to this place, at the highest level, so that we can have this debate about how we can improve the condition of those in their time of greatest need.
In the few minutes I have, I will distil this debate into three areas: first, the location of mental health care, secondly, the workforce and, thirdly, the plan. On the first point—I have raised this with the Minister before—hospices often provide a lot of mental health support, but they are struggling. Many are closing beds and many are in deficit. Together for Short Lives estimates that the national insurance contributions increase costs an average hospice at least £130,000. After a previous debate on hospices, I asked the Government in a letter of 10 November, to which I have not yet had a response, whether they will consider an impact assessment on the state of hospices.
The National Audit Office’s report into hospices states:
“DHSC and NHS England do not know what proportion of the total amount of palliative and end-of-life care provided in England is delivered by the independent adult hospice sector, and therefore how reliant they are on the sector.”
That is an important point in understanding the fabric and make-up of provision, as well as the postcode lottery in provision, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) pointed out. If we want to improve provision, we need to understand what is there in the first place.
To do so, we need to provide a workforce, as I also said in the letter. A letter I received from the Government on the topic of hospices stated:
“This summer, we will publish a refreshed NHS long-term workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service we will build over the next decade so that patients can be treated on time again.”
I raised this issue in the November debate. We are now into December, and winter, and we still do not know when the NHS workforce plan will come forward. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point. It is especially important given that, in the last Budget, the Government cut the proportion of spending on mental health care. At the time, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists said:
“It is illogical that the share of NHS funding for mental health services is being reduced at a time of soaring need and significant staff shortages.”
The previous Government brought in the mental health investment standard, but it is not clear whether this Government are adhering to it or keeping it in place. It will be important in ensuring that we have the investment to provide both the places and the workforce.
I welcome the bringing forward of the palliative care framework, which Opposition Members and many others on both sides of the House have asked for. I am pleased that the Government have set that out, because it will be the framework that provides the care we need across the country. It is also timely, given that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is going through Parliament. An amendment to the Bill, which was nodded through with support from both sides of the House, will ensure that there is a financial plan for what palliative care should look like. It will be imperative that considerations about mental health care for the terminally ill are involved in that framework.
In his November debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of a 24/7 palliative care helpline, which many across the House and many charities have asked for. In the debate—before we had heard about the framework—I asked whether that would be looked at as part of the framework, because that 24/7 point of contact could form part of the mental health support that families get when they are struggling and in their time of need. I would be grateful if the Government would consider that.
I appreciate that this is not in the Minister’s brief, but I would also be grateful if he could set out how the palliative care framework will be put together. Who are the stakeholders? How can people like Mike and interested Members contribute to ensuring that we get it right? We want this House to do it only once; we want to get the framework right for England, and hopefully across the home nations as well, so it will be incredibly important that all stakeholders are involved.
We in this House need to ensure that others can hold what those who are struggling find too heavy to hold. That is the essence of what we are trying to do, whichever side of the House we are on or whether, like Mike, we are outside this House. We are trying to make sure that when someone is in their time of need, and when they feel the burden is too heavy, they can hand it on to someone else, who will help to carry that load.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I start by sincerely thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this debate. I also welcome Mike and his family to the Public Gallery, and pay tribute to Mike for all his efforts.
My hon. Friend raises an important issue that can affect so many people—all people perhaps, at some point—about ensuring that when someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness, they can receive the mental and emotional support that they need in the place that they need it. We want to be a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate and personalised care from diagnosis through to the end of life. The Government are determined to shift more healthcare out of hospitals into the community to ensure that patients receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting.
Palliative care and end-of-life care services, including those provided by hospices, have a big role to play in that shift. Palliative care services are included in the list of services that an integrated care board must commission, promoting a more consistent national approach and supporting commissioners to prioritise palliative care and end-of-life care. To support that process, NHS England has published statutory guidance stating that ICBs must work to ensure that there is sufficient provision of care services to meet the needs of their local population. It also includes references to mental health, wellbeing and support for those with palliative care and end-of-life care needs.
Of course, there are many examples of voluntary initiatives, such as grief or bereavement cafés, or the Good Grief community, which aims to support people at the end of their life and their families through a programme of events and courses, and the provision of resources that often include pre-bereavement advice and support.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West feels passionately about mental health support for those with palliative care and end-of-life care needs, and that he has been supporting Mike’s campaign for improved mental health services and support. I offer him my deep appreciation, as well as a meeting with the Minister for Care and end-of-life care officials, so that we can engage him around the palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework that was recently announced, which we hope to publish in the spring.
The Government are also transforming the current mental health system, ensuring that people get access to the right care at the right time in the right place. That is why we are increasing our investment in mental health support by £688 million in cash terms.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who spoke for the official Opposition, talked about impact assessments. I gently say to him, in the context of this convivial and constructive debate, that when we came into office we had an impact assessment by virtue of the Darzi review, which highlighted in stark terms the difficulties that the NHS in its totality is under after 14 years—the difficulties that we inherited. I also point out that our real-terms investment of £26 billion is an increase to the NHS budget that will translate into, among many other things, a new national cancer plan. That will examine not only the process of getting the best treatments to patients, but improving communication, improving pathways, and instilling better and more bespoke mental wellbeing support into some of those pathways.
Dr Evans
The Minister is indeed right to say that there was an injection of cash, but the proportion of funding being spent on mental health was actually cut. The written ministerial statement is very clear that that proportion went from 8.78% to 8.71%, which the royal college said was about £300 million of investment. Can he confirm from the Dispatch Box—if he cannot, he can write to me later—whether the Government are still committed to the mental health investment standard, or is that commitment going to change? Currently, it is unclear whether they are still committed.
Dr Ahmed
The mental health investment standard is something that we expect ICBs to meet. I will gently push back on what the hon. Gentleman is saying because, as we have been so succinctly reminded in this debate, investing in mental wellbeing is about more than just headline figures. For instance, we need psychology in oncology, in children’s health, and in other forms of cancer care. The provision of such services is not always recorded in the way that the hon. Gentleman would wish it to be recorded, but there are still formats and sub-types of mental health support.
The Government are also keen to press ahead with our 10-year plan, and we are setting out ambitious plans to boost mental health support across the country while delivering the shift from hospital to community. As part of that process, we wish to open around 85 mental health emergency departments, reducing pressure on busy A&E services, which are the last places that people with mental health needs should be, and ensuring that people have the right support they need in a calm, compassionate environment.
We will also use new integrated health organisations to break down barriers between services, which I also think is really important in the context of this debate, and to ensure integrated and holistic care, addressing both physical and mental healthcare needs, with more freedom to determine how best to meet the needs of those local populations. That will build on the work that has already begun to bring down waiting lists. As I said, we are investing an extra £688 million this year to transform mental health services. On staffing, I am pleased to say that almost 7,000 extra mental health workers have been recruited since July 2024, against our target of 8,500 by the end of this Parliament.
We are also expanding talking therapies, and we have committed to continuing that expansion over the coming years. More adults already benefit from better access to those therapies, and the aim is for over 900,000 people to complete a course of treatment with improved effectiveness and quality of services by March 2029. Anyone who develops a common mental health condition, such as anxiety or depression, in any context, including terminal illness, can self-refer to talking therapies. [Interruption.]
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but a Division has been called. I am very much in the Minister’s hands at this point, and I am conscious that there may be more he wishes to say. If he has only a minute or two of his speech remaining, I gather there will be several Divisions, so I do not want to force everyone to come back for just that. If he has more to say, there is of course more time for him to take, and the same applies to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West. I am in the Minister’s hands; does he wish to conclude now, or would he rather come back?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that we will now need to suspend as the Division is active. I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for the first Division and for 10 minutes for any subsequent Divisions. I gather that there may be several Divisions, so I apologise to the Minister and all other Members who will have to wait.
Jim Shannon
On a point of order, Sir Jeremy. We have 15 minutes to go and vote for the first Division. I am not telling you what to do, but if we need only two minutes, can we conclude the debate? There will be four votes; the first will take 15 minutes, and the other three will take 10 minutes each, which means it will be 45 minutes before we can come back.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I do not want to compress the debate, as I appreciate it is a very sensitive subject. If the Minister can complete what he has to say in less than a minute, I will allow him to do so. If he needs longer, I will allow that after the Divisions.
Dr Ahmed
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Can I reassure all Members participating in this debate of the Government’s commitment to deliver on the issues that have been raised? We will work constructively with everyone, including patients and their families, as we develop the framework that Members have already outlined. We will also work with other mental health partners, local authorities and charities so that everyone can be assured that the Government are playing their part in delivering a better standard of access to care for not only palliative care but mental health care in that context.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West may have a very brief word.
Mr Rand
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate in a really constructive way, and I hope that we can work together on both sides of this House to tackle this important issue. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for his response, and for offering a meeting with myself and Mike. Of course, my last thanks go to Mike for sharing his story with me in such a personal and considered way.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered mental health support for people with terminal illnesses.