Westminster Hall

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 16 December 2025

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

Quarries: Planning Policy

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered planning policy for quarries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the issue of planning policy for quarries to Westminster Hall today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate.

I would like to declare at the very outset that, like many hundreds of my constituents, I will be impacted by the development that I am going to refer to. My South Leicestershire constituency has been home not just to me and many hundreds of my constituents, but to many quarries throughout the years. In 2022, a new proposal from Tarmac was floated for a mega-quarry in the hamlet of Misterton, which will have a huge impact on residents in Lutterworth, as well as the villages of Walcote, Cotesbach, Kimcote and Kilworth—to name just a few.

In engaging with that proposal, I have come to understand just how outdated, inconsistent and, in some places, inadequate the planning guidance for quarry operations has become. Nowhere is that clearer than the guidance on air quality. The documents that local authorities are expected to follow do not reflect comparable environmental standards in developed countries, the latest science or the reasonable expectations that residents like mine hold about their air that they and their children breathe.

I have had regular meetings with residents and the Misterton and Walcote residents group to examine the proposals for the mega sand and gravel quarry. I am pleased to say that some of those residents are here today. Three main concerns have emerged: the first is the scale of the proposed development, which covers 74 hectares—the equivalent of 104 full-sized football pitches—and will extract 400,000 tonnes of sand and gravel a year for at least 20 years. It has caused understandable concern over dust, noise and the movement of heavy goods vehicles, especially given that the site is directly opposite a proposed flagship housing development. There is an interesting potential conflict here, because Leicestershire county council is, rather unusually, the promoter of that housing development, as well as being the minerals authority tasked with approving the proposed quarry on the doorstep of its own proposed development.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. That is an everyday reality for my constituents in Epsom and Ewell: we have a chalk pit and residents are faced with dust, noise and traffic. Three agencies are involved: the Environment Agency, Surrey county council and Epsom and Ewell borough council. They all have different and sometimes overlapping responsibilities, so residents find it difficult to raise issues, and some just fall through the cracks. Does the hon. Member agree that the current system for regulating pits and quarries is too complex for residents to navigate and get their issues resolved?

[Alberto Costa]

As the hon. Lady will hear in the remaining parts of my speech, I entirely concur with her comments.

Given that the proposed quarry site is not allocated in Leicestershire county council’s minerals plan, which runs until 2031, we can understand why a group such as the concerned residents present today would try to seek the advice of a professional minerals planner to review the proposals, consider the data and write a report that the residents group could use as the basis for their representations to Leicestershire county council, as the appropriate local planning authority, on Tarmac’s proposal. What surprised me, as their Member of Parliament, was that it was nearly impossible to help them find someone in the industry willing to produce a report that the residents association could use. Why? Because virtually every qualified planner we approached—and there were a great deal—cited potential conflicts of interest with Tarmac. In fact, Tarmac is such a big beast of industry that it took nearly a year to find a planner willing to produce and put their name to an impartial report reviewing Tarmac’s Misterton quarry application.

I am concerned that ordinary groups of residents who want to hire a specialist barely stand a chance because of Tarmac’s influence on the industry. Does the Minister share my concern that local communities often struggle to access independent, impartial technical advice, particularly where the applicant is a large and influential company in the industry? If the Minister is unable to answer any of the questions I put to her today, I would be grateful if she would answer in writing, not least because the residents association would be most grateful.

On air quality, I have a specific concern about the regulation 25 notice issued by Leicestershire county council to Tarmac. Forgive me, Dr Murrison, for the highly technical nature of some of my speech. That relies on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2021 background model, which produces artificially low PM_2.5 figures that no longer reflect the current conditions on the ground. We now have local post-pandemic monitoring data from Harborough district council, showing that background PM_2.5 levels in rural areas close to Misterton are already at or above the Government’s future legal target. Even Tarmac’s own consultants—Vibrock—reported significantly higher background levels than those quoted by the county council.

Does the Minister agree that, to ensure evidence-led decision making, it is imperative that baseline data should be up to date and, if more recent local data exists, it should be used? Does she consider that, where a proposed major industrial development has the potential to increase community exposure to PM_2.5, a mandatory period of local monitoring should be undertaken to establish a reliable baseline before permission is considered?

The main guidance that developers and local authorities rely on comes from the Institute of Air Quality Management. Although the IAQM is a respected professional body that works closely with regulators, it is important to recognise that it is a membership organisation and, therefore, potentially vulnerable. For example, its members may also have commercial interests in consultancy firms that deliver air quality services to clients seeking planning consent, such as Tarmac.

The most relevant document used as guidance for developers and local authorities is the IAQM’s 2016 “Guidance on the assessment of mineral dust impacts for planning”. It is fundamentally used as the de facto industry standard by all who work in the industry, including developers, consultants and local authorities, but that guidance is now nearly a decade old. The document sets the industry standard for how dust, particulates and emissions must be modelled or evaluated when a quarry is proposed.

Last year, I wrote to the IAQM, raising concerns shared by my constituents, such as whether the IAQM guidance adequately distinguishes between nuisance dust and finer, more harmful PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 particles; whether the 250-metre screening criterion remains appropriate for fine particulates, given the emerging evidence showing that those dangerous particles can travel considerably further; and how well it aligns with forthcoming legal PM_2.5 targets, with which the Minister will no doubt be familiar. The IAQM has since contacted me and put a note on its website to say that the guidance on assessment of mineral dust for planning is now under review. That note says:

“The 2016 IAQM Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning is now nine years old and as such there are some elements of the document that are dated”.

I repeat:

“there are some elements of the document that are dated”—

this is the document being used—

“and the focus of assessment is changing.

A full review is being carried out by an IAQM Working Group established specifically with regards to this guidance.”

Is the Minister’s Department liaising with the IAQM to ascertain when the review will be completed and a report published?

With the guidance now formally under review, developers and planning authorities need clarity on the interim approach, such as the one faced by the residents in my constituency. The Government’s own interim planning guidance on PM_2.5, published by DEFRA in October 2024, already encourages local authorities to take the 2028 interim and 2040 targets—10 micrograms per cubic metre annual mean—into account in planning decisions. Dr Murrison, I promised you that this speech would be full of technical details, and I hope that I am not letting you down.

Given the legally binding obligations under the Environment Act 2021 and Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations (2023), can the Minister confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, how planning authorities should apply the most up-to-date scientific evidence and statutory air quality objectives when assessing quarry applications, especially given that the relevant IAQM guidance is under review, as I have just outlined?

The IAQM guidance to which I am referring is used by developers and planning authorities to assess air quality impacts, particularly in relation to fine particulate matter such as PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. I welcome the fact that it is under review, but I wonder: had the residents group not informed my team, and had my team and I not written to the IAQM to raise the concerns of South Leicestershire residents, would the review be under way now? The 2016 primary guidance documents from the IAQM, which are now under review, are used by the industry, and I understand that overall it is very good guidance, but in key areas it is behind current scientific understanding of the risks of respirable dust particle behaviour and the Government’s own commitments under the 2021 Act and the clean air strategy 2019. The guidance is also far too subjective, offering scope for varied interpretations and approaches.

We now know that PM_2.5 particles—those fine particulates that penetrate deep into the lungs—can travel much farther than previously assumed. The use of a 250-metre screening threshold, still applied in the current guidance, significantly underestimates risks, because it treats those dangerous particles as behaving in the same way as nuisance dust. Evidence from recent legal cases, including the Corby litigation, which was depicted in the Netflix hit series “Toxic Town”—I encourage listeners and viewers to watch that—has shown that those particulates can travel well beyond 250 metres, exposing far more people to harm than our assessments currently acknowledge.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a very technical speech, but it is bringing to light the challenges in the planning process. Although the situation in Scotland is devolved, I recognise quite a lot of what he is saying. He is talking powerfully about the impact of air quality on people, but it also affects nature and wildlife. In my constituency there is a proposal to extend a quarry at Lucklawhill in Balmullo, and the local community is concerned about the impact on the nature around it. Does the hon. Member agree that there does not seem to be a way to properly recognise that when planning is considered?

[Alberto Costa]

I absolutely agree, and I sympathise entirely with the hon. Lady. I would go further. I made the point earlier about finding suitable experts who are able to apply their technical expertise to help campaign groups or MPs to rebut planning applications on a technical basis. They are simply not there, for fear of a conflict of interest given their commercial interests with large-scale developers. The hon. Lady makes an important point and has put it on the record.

The UK has committed, through regulation 4 of the Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2023, to achieving an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms of PM_2.5 per cubic metre by 2040, with an interim target for 2028. That is a legally binding obligation, and rightly so, but we will not meet it if the standards we use to assess air quality for quarries are not up to date with the latest scientific evidence. If we keep relying on outdated guidance, we will keep underestimating the risks to public health, particularly for children, older people and those with respiratory conditions who live near quarry sites.

Furthermore, when key guidance is issued by professional bodies rather than statutory authorities, it is far harder for us as lawmakers, and for the public, to scrutinise and challenge their work. That can lead to accountability issues. At the same time, the reliance on organisations such as the IAQM places a significant burden on them, and they may lack the resources or mandate to keep up with changing scientific and legal requirements. Accordingly, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, whether she believes it is right for professional bodies like the IAQM to set air-quality guidance for quarries, as opposed to the relevant statutory public bodies, given the possibility of a conflict of interest between public health goals and financial gain.

Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that the guidance that underpins air-quality assessments is independently reviewed, regularly updated and aligned with statutory obligations on air quality and public health? In addition, the regulatory framework for quarry safety could be strengthened. The Quarries Regulations 1999 focused primarily on workplace safety, but do not require the same structured pre-emptive risk management that is now standard in other high-risk sectors. Would it not make sense for quarry operations to be brought under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, for which the Minister has ministerial responsibility? She knows that the CDM regulations are not just best practice but required under the 2015 statutory instrument, which requires comprehensive risk assessments, formal hazard identification and clearly defined duties of care for all parties involved. Those measures are now standard practice across the construction industry.

Quarries present many of the same hazards as large construction sites, including airborne dust, heavy plant machinery, vehicle movements and complex site operations, but under the current framework there is no consistent requirement for structured design or risk assessments, no formalised application of the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle, and no robust mechanism for protecting the public from involuntary risk. Incorporating operations into the CDM framework could deliver more rigorous and consistent risk assessments, clearly documented mitigation strategies, legal accountability for duty holders and, crucially, better protection both for workers and for the surrounding public. Does the Minister agree that environmental protection, worker safety and public health will benefit if we treat quarrying operations as the major industrial undertakings that they are?

Finally, I hope the Minister will agree that targeted reforms, the clarifying of interim assessment standards and the modernising of safety regulations will deliver better outcomes for the industry, for workers and, most importantly, for all our constituents, wherever they may be.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I intend to start calling Front Benchers at 10.28 am, which means we are oversubscribed, so I will impose an indicative limit on speeches of four minutes, an exemplar for which will be Adam Jogee.

09:50

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

Thank you very much, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate and giving me the opportunity to speak about the impact of quarries once permission for them has been granted. Newcastle-under-Lyme has regrettably been tarnished in this place for far too long by the events at Walley’s quarry landfill site. I look forward to the day, as do my neighbours back home, when we can finally put this disgraceful situation behind us.

When Walley’s quarry was granted a licence to operate as a landfill site, the assumption was that the site would be managed safely, responsibly and with the local community in mind. But we know all too painfully that that did not happen. Odour complaints began many years ago, but from 2020 onwards they surged to intolerable levels. The experiences of my constituents were beyond comprehension: respiratory irritation, headaches, disrupted sleep and mental health strain, with children unable to play outside, elderly residents housebound and families unable to open their windows. That is not to mention the disgraceful experience of my young constituent Matthew. I pay tribute to him, his mother Becky Currie and their family for all they have done to shine a light on the disgraceful situation at Walley’s quarry.

It is clear that the impact of the hydrogen sulphide emitting from Walley’s quarry was not just a nuisance; it was a public health crisis that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme were forced to live with. Although we cannot go back in time, we must ensure that our experiences are not repeated anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Walley’s quarry reveals a fundamental gap in the UK’s planning system. Even when technically compliant, planning permission does not guarantee that a waste site in a former quarry will remain safe or tolerable for those who live around it. Too much trust was placed in conditions that lacked enforceability and, in our case, an operator who consistently failed to do the right thing. In my working life I have never seen cowboy operators as irresponsible, as greedy, as reckless and—to put it bluntly—as criminal as those in the details I shall share with the House today.

I have received news that Nigel Bowen, who was once responsible for the operations at Walley’s quarry, died last month. I of course acknowledge the impact on his family, but I am also concerned about what this means for the criminal investigation. We cannot be in a situation where people who know what happened, who can provide answers and who must be held accountable avoid justice for whatever reason. I hope that the criminal investigation reaches its conclusion sooner rather than later.

I have received reports, which I have raised with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that the former operators at Walley’s quarry owe in the region of £80 million. I urge all relevant authorities to go after every single penny, because the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme deserve no less.

The Environment Agency has been clear in its assessments. It recorded repeated breaches by the operator, identified poor management, and concluded that Walleys Quarry Ltd had failed to demonstrate that it could control fugitive landfill emissions. Between 2021 and 2024 the Environment Agency undertook more than 180 inspections—far more than would be considered normal for a landfill site—and still the problems persisted.

The problem is not simply a bad operator or political leaders at all levels of government who fail to act when needed; it is a system that allows a badly managed site to continue operating for years, even as the harm grows and enforcement escalates. Planning permissions granted decades ago no longer reflect modern environmental standards, population densities or public health evidence, and the law does not make it easy to intervene when things go wrong. Two weeks ago we celebrated a year since Walley’s quarry was closed down, and I am grateful to all those who campaigned so hard to help to make that happen.

Local planning authorities must require far more vigorous assessments of the long-term environmental and public health risks associated with converting quarries into waste sites. Before any waste site is granted permission, operators must provide fully protected bonds or trust funds that are capable of covering decades of aftercare. When companies collapse, the public must not inherit their liabilities.

I have two specific requests of the Minister. First, no quarry with the potential to become a landfill site should be opened within 500 metres of any homes, and no planning application should be approved. Secondly, I urge Ministers to create an excess of supply for the responsible disposal of gypsum. All planning permissions for landfills should require separate stable non-reactive hazardous material cells to be constructed, because this will help to deter the mixing and misclassifying of such waste. What happened at Walley’s quarry must never be allowed to happen again.

09:54

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for his highly technical and broad speech, and particularly for his points about the environmental concerns about quarries.

I want to talk about Whitehall farm and the surrounding area, in which there have been several applications for gravel extraction by Cemex. That part of my patch used to be entirely in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency but, as a consequence of the boundary review, is now on the border between it and Windsor. The area is a wholly inappropriate place to build a gravel pit for a whole range of reasons. The need for gravel extraction at the site remains to be seen, bearing in mind that we are expecting the River Thames scheme, which will produce a lot of aggregate as part of the construction process. The traffic in the area is highly stretched, to say the least. Inappropriate HGVs going down small roads in Egham with level crossings are already causing traffic carnage.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The picture the hon. Gentleman paints is very familiar to me. There was recently an application on the edge of a village in my constituency. The heavy lorries would cause vibrations on the narrow roads. However, as well as the environmental impact, there is the economic impact on rural areas, where agriculture is trying to diversify. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a tension between the tourism industry and the need to diversify, and the impact of quarries, which discourages people from coming to an area?

[Dr Spencer]

That is a very good point. Of course we need aggregates to be produced, particularly for the construction sector. I find it confusing that there has been such a push for the site at Whitehall farm. Industry and the residential sector need to work with each other. We need industry because people want jobs, but there are egregious examples, such as the one I mentioned in my constituency, that just do not make sense. I will expand on that point later. To go back to the issues with Whitehall farm, the broader traffic impact would be highly problematic, as would the pollution impact, particularly for a local school that is downstream. There would also be a flooding risk if gravel extraction goes ahead.

Aside from all the problems with the site, which I have been campaigning against, it is a really good example of the importance of community and elected representatives working together to stop something that does not work. Over the years, several applications have been made for the site, and I have worked closely with other elected representatives and the community group to oppose them. I pay particular tribute to Residents Against Gravel Extraction and Professor Moreton Moore, who has done a huge amount of technical work to fight against the site, and local councillors, particularly Councillor Jonathan Hulley, who has worked to oppose the developments. I am pleased that, as a consequence of the boundary review, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) will join us. I know that he will also work to prevent the site.

It is clear from the intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire said that this issue affects a lot of constituencies. The best defence against inappropriate development is close working among community groups and elected representatives. Will the Minister comment on how Labour changes to planning infrastructure will hamstring our ability to stand up for our local residents?

09:59

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve, Dr Murrison. Back in October, I went to Laxton and met with the parish council, a fine bunch of people. One of the main issues was the impact of the nearby Wakerley quarry. People turned up because it is affecting their homes and their lives. Residents told me about blasting, the noise, and cracks appearing in their houses. In older homes especially, people said their houses actually shake.

I have met residents since that meeting; they have complained to Mick George, which runs the quarry, and to Burghley, which owns the site, but they feel ignored. Their complaints have not been dealt with. I am trying to get a meeting with Mick George and when I raised the issue with North Northamptonshire council, I was told that everything is being reported properly and no action is needed. Here is the problem: when planning permission was granted, people were given all sorts of promises about monitoring and limits. When what is on paper and what residents experience are so far removed from each other, we have to rethink what we are doing.

We may need quarries to build the homes of the future, but companies have a duty to be good neighbours. Being a good neighbour is not about reports and assurances; it is about listening and doing the right thing. I will continue to seek those meetings to ensure that the residents of Laxton are heard. In the meantime, I suggest that those companies and those that run the site do the right thing by their people and their neighbours.

10:01

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing the debate, which is vital to me and my constituents.

Over the past six years, since being elected in 2019, I have been fighting against a proposal for an aggregate quarry down Hamble Lane in my constituency, which was recently given permission by the planning inspectorate on appeal. In the four minutes that I have to speak, I want to get across to the Minister that the planning system is fractured, disjointed and weighted against local communities. It does not take into account the true nature of quarries or the stuff that they produce; it does not take into account air quality or water run-off that will go into the River Hamble. The Planning Inspectorate is also culpable in not looking at regulations set down by locally elected planning authorities. In my case, it has been acknowledged in local planning authority notices that the Hamble Lane highway—which has one lane going in and out that 200 lorries a day will have to use—is already oversaturated and at capacity, and yet the minerals and waste authority has granted that permission.

We have a slightly strange process in Hamble that I want to outline briefly. As I said, we will have 200 lorries a day, but there has been a lack of consultation by Cemex, the company proposing the quarry. I will go as far as to say that Cemex are cowboys and bullies of local communities. There was not one physical consultation with people during covid, the company treats the community with utter disdain, and it treats the planning process as one of its personal toys that it can afford to challenge and manufacture. The Minister needs to be aware of that.

The quarry in Hamble is being proposed 50 metres from a primary school and 100 metres from a secondary school. That was not taken into account at all by the planning system. Physical highways data has not been taken account of since covid, but since then hundreds of houses have been built on Hamble Lane. That was not taken into account. Even more concerning is what happened after the regulatory committee of the minerals and waste authority refused the quarry: when 300 of my constituents turned up to attend the final meeting, the minerals and highways authority chose not to defend the reasons for refusal of democratically elected councillors without telling me or a single person in the community. That meant it went to an appeal.

My local residents group, the Hamble peninsula residents group, has done a fantastic job in raising funds to defend the appeal, but it was based on flawed data. At no time in my six years as an MP have I been consulted and no one on my local council—I have been working very closely with the Liberal Democrat administration on Eastleigh borough council—has been consulted. That is not good enough.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

The hon. Member’s situation sounds very familiar to me. In my constituency, in the middle of Kingsteignton, we have a large clay quarry called Zitherixon, whose operators are trying to extend their permission for mining, even though it has been established for some 300 years and planning permissions are somewhat ancient. Does the hon. Member agree that, however the mining is permitted, whether by appeal or by planning some time ago, those doing it must be held to the most modern and best possible environmental and residential standards for local people?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. His situation sounds very similar to mine. I do not blame the Minister, as she has inherited a system that has been in place for decades, but what confidence can local people have in maintaining high standards when they are not in the guidance? What confidence can local people have in challenging the impact of quarries if the democratic body that refused permission in the first place is overturned by an unelected inspector, with the rug pulled out from under the local authority?

Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss the circumstances of this case? There is a clear democratic deficit in the way in which this has been granted. It was handled by officers who superseded locally elected councillors. We are going to seek a statutory review, but that is now at the cost of the local community. That is not good for local people. People feel absolutely let down in Hamble, as they do across the country. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to meet me in the coming months to discuss this case specifically.

10:06

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing this debate. It goes without saying that quarries are integral to our infrastructure. My constituency is home to many quarries, and I have been able to visit Bardon Hill, Cloud Hill and Breedon on the Hill. Quarries can be difficult for residents, whether that is navigating the planning process or dealing with issues once they are opened. Lorry queuing dominates my casework at the moment. Since becoming the MP for North West Leicestershire, I have been contacted repeatedly by constituents about huge queues of lorries, sparking safety concerns. Earlier this month, a constituent shared that lorries have been parking on the island of a main road into Coalville, as well as on local pavements. The lack of a response from authorities is frustrating. There appears to be little redress when issues arise, leaving residents worried when new proposals are put forward.

On particulates and air pollution, North West Leicestershire district council’s latest air quality report covers data from 2022. It specifically mentions high levels of nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates of PM2.5 near to Bardon quarry. As a former health scrutiny member of Leicestershire county council, I know that this type of pollution is much higher near our quarries in Leicestershire. We must therefore consider the impact on local people when we go through the planning process. These pollutants can cause residents concern, for in addition to the associated dust and the smells generated from this type of heavy industry, nitrogen dioxide levels have been exceeded 216 times on the monitoring site. We need a new planning system, but we must also be able to deal with the impact of existing quarries. I would welcome the Minister’s response on how we deal with that going forward.

I do, however, want to give people some faith that quarries can be good neighbours. Whitwick quarry has an understanding with local residents. When there are flood alerts, the quarry will stop pumping water into the local brook. The operators send out text alerts when there are going to be blasts and explosions, and they wash the wheels of the lorries down before they leave the site to minimise the dust dragged on to the street. We also have the opportunity brought by Bardon quarry leasing a private line that connects to the Ivanhoe line, which could potentially be reopened to passengers in the future. In the long term, we need to look at the balance between the resilience that hardcore material provides us and the impact that quarries have on local people. Being good neighbours should be the focus of managing planning going forward.

10:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for leading the debate. I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, but first, I want to say that quarries bring economic life to communities. They create jobs. All the debate so far has been about the negatives, although we cannot ignore those either. Back home, I always try to find ways of going forward in relationships both with local people who have concerns and with the quarries so that they can continue their work. Quarries can cause noise pollution, environmental impacts, and health risks. It is crucial that the planning policy is correct and properly analysed, and that is why we are having this debate.

Back home in Northern Ireland, we have a range of active quarries. First, there is North Down, a quarry in Newtownards, in my constituency. It is an operational quarry site, supplying stone and aggregates. There is also Whitemountain Quarries, which is listed on the Ballystockart Road in the Comber and Newtownards area. Those quarries are part of a materials and contracting business, supplying ready-mixed concrete. The rock that was brought to build and reinforce the roads around London came from the Ballystockart quarry. Many years ago, I was able to be with those working there one night at 12 o’clock when the stone came across, and they were also doing the roads. Quarries play an intricate and important role in our lives. There are also historical quarries, such as the ones at Scrabo Hill, where there are old sandstone quarry workings, Killynether Wood old quarry and South quarry. Ballygowan quarry, beyond Comber and Newtownards, is one of the largest quarries in the area.

I want to focus on planning policy—it is so important and ensures that the construction process is done properly. For example, materials such as sand, gravel and other finite natural resources are widely used in Northern Ireland and further afield, and planning policy helps to ensure that resources are identified, managed and protected, so that they are available for current use and are managed properly. As an elected representative, I have worked with North Down Quarries. The guys were arriving every morning at half-past 5 or 6 o’clock in the morning, and they were sitting by a row of houses until the quarry opened. After negotiation with the quarry owners and lorry drivers, we ensured that for those neighbours who had concerns, those concerns were alleviated.

Neighbourhood notification allows for greater integration between developers and communities, especially when it comes to managing the impacts of noise, dust and other disturbances. The inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process helps to provide balance, along with protecting the wellbeing of residents. Neighbourhood notifications can also warn residents about blasting, heavy machinery and truck traffic. Dealing with the vibrations of machinery can severely disrupt lives, especially for people who work from home. There can also be damage to property, as has been mentioned, and many people plan their day based on expected noise or vibrations.

The enforcement of rules is critical. The Minister is not responsible for Northern Ireland, but regular and clear communication about quarry operations can help to maintain a long-term, positive relationship between the quarry and the community. That can be essential for future expansion or continued operation. Back home, planning provides clear benefits in relation to protecting the environment and communities, while ensuring correct resource use. However, as we have witnessed in Northern Ireland, there can be huge delays, leading to higher costs and waiting for the unknown. That must also be taken into consideration, for the betterment of public services and for local communities.

Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland how we do planning back home? It is not that we are better than anybody else—we are not—but it is about asking: how do we do this in a way that can help us to move forward, and bring quarries and communities together?

10:13

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for so fully introducing the debate. It is of real interest to me. I am always amazed, when I go to cities, that so much of what we see above ground was once below ground. I want to speak about two quarries in Edinburgh South West, and my speech might be a bit more positive than some of the others we have heard.

Back in April, I had the opportunity to visit Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West. It is operated by Tarmac, and that site demonstrates what a collaborative approach between operators, planners and the community can achieve. Ravelrig extracts about 450,000 tonnes of stone every year, and that stone has built the foundations of the Queensferry crossing, filled countless roads across the region—I think some more of it may be needed to fill the potholes—and helped to underpin Scotland’s renewable energy infrastructure, including wind turbines.

Behind the impressive scale of that operation, there is an incredible ethos. The quarry’s processes are powered largely by electricity, keeping its carbon footprint remarkably low. About 90% of the stone is used within 11 miles of the site, genuinely minimising the environmental impact of transporting that heavy stone. Not all stone from Edinburgh quarries has stayed so local, however. The stone used for statue of Nelson at Trafalgar Square was extracted in Edinburgh. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is not here to hear me say that, because it is from her constituency.

When the city considered the planning extension for Ravelrig, it did so through a framework of conditions—31 in total. That ensured that the community and environment were not afterthoughts, but integral to the decision. The conditions eventually agreed on will limit blasting times, restrict operating hours, cap HGV movements and put rigorous noise, dust and wildlife protections in place. They also set clear restoration timelines, and expect Tarmac to put forward a financial guarantee to make sure that it happens, so that it cannot walk away from it.

I am proud of the work that Balerno community council has done to broker this agreement with Tarmac, and I look forward to working with it to make sure that Tarmac keeps its side of the bargain. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire: although those in the community council were not quarry experts, they had to become experts quite quickly—a daunting task, but one they absolutely embraced. That is what planning for quarries should look like; it should be focused on engaging with local residents.

On the issue of restoration, another quarry in my constituency is a great example of what restoration could look like. Hailes quarry was a quarry between 1750 and 1920; at its peak, it employed around 150 people, and its stone was used to construct much of the New Town, as well as the fantastic St Cuthbert’s parish church in nearby Colinton. Thanks to the Wester Hailes community enterprises, it is now a fantastic public park. I find myself there every Sunday to support the local junior parkrun. There have been lots of requests made of the Minister this morning, but I will put a nice one in: it would be great to see her at the junior parkrun. I am sure that she would be very welcome to run it alongside the children, if she has the energy to do so.

Other former quarries in Edinburgh have now been converted to fantastic attractions, including what is now an international climbing centre and an outdoor surf arena—I guess the Minister could also go surfing at a quarry while she is in Edinburgh. The standard of restoration that we see across Edinburgh, particularly that of Hailes Quarry Park, is what we should aim for. Quarries are necessary, as we have heard, and they can be run responsibly, but planning policy must always ensure that collaboration, community benefit and long-term restoration are built in right from the start, not treated as optional extras.

10:17

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. When I first supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) in applying for this debate, there was an ongoing planning application in Silsden in my constituency, to reopen a local quarry at Horn Crag. I am pleased to say that since then the application has been rejected—not only at the initial stage, but on appeal. While Horn Crag quarry may no longer be a current threat to Silsden, the whole experience throws up many issues relating to quarries and our wider planning system.

I met a number of Silsden residents, my neighbours on the ground, who had fought tooth and nail to have their voices heard by Bradford council and the Planning Inspectorate. It was only after considerable effort on their part that their concerns—about the environment, the impact on nature, air quality, complex site operations, ecology, drainage, potential water pollution challenges and congestion through Silsden and Addingham—were heeded.

It is easy to understand their passion and anger when we consider the broader planning context in Silsden. The town has been inundated with hundreds of new homes in just the last 10 years, and many of those strongly opposed proposals went through without Bradford council even batting an eye. Many were expecting the Horn Crag quarry application to be simply another case of the council ignoring local wishes. People might accuse those Silsden residents of nimbyism, but when the Isherwood family made a proposal for a new farm shop on the outskirts of the town, which was well supported by many local people, it was rejected by the same planning authority that had no issue with approving a huge number of new houses across Silsden.

While stopping Horn Crag quarry was a definite win for those residents, it will not be enough to restore local people’s confidence in our planning system. That is why I think it is really important that we continue to have these debates in the Houses of Parliament, to explore how the planning system for quarries can better reflect local views and provide assurance to local planners that schemes are suitable. It is clear, from the many contributions that we have had today, that the system is currently not fit for purpose. It is also clear that many quarry applications are not sufficiently considering the impacts on air quality, water quality, noise and vibration.

What has not yet been mentioned in the debate is the possibility of requiring a bond when quarry developers put forward an application. That money, which will have been negotiated by a local authority in putting the bond in place, will then be able to provide financial reassurance that, if a quarry operator goes bust, restoration and aftercare can still take place. However, when bonds are being negotiated, they are not being negotiated robustly enough to deal with current economic pressures and inflationary challenges. When things go wrong, the bond should be there to provide reassurance. It is frustrating that, when landfill sites are not considered, bonds are not put in place at the start, and I would like the system to reflect that.

I am concerned that the legislation currently going through the House is not dealing with the challenges. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill that has been put forward by this Labour Government, alongside the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, is actually having negative implications on environmental mitigation, as well as the ability of local people to have their say as part of the planning application. No one wants to say no to any development, and of course quarries are needed, but we must ensure that we have robust ways to manage their undesirable consequences, and that local people are brought along as part of that process. At the moment, I feel that they are not. I am just glad that, in the case of Silsden, common sense prevailed.

10:21

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Thank you for squeezing me in, Dr Murrison. In the limited time that I have, I want to put on record that the experiences of my constituents in Preesall are echoed by communities right across the country, as we have heard in the debate. Preesall saw a proposal for a quarry to extract sand and gravel. Thankfully, we are in a similar situation to that of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), as the quarry application has been turned down, but we are now waiting to see whether the developer will appeal.

The community feels that it has all the necessary arguments on HGV movements on narrow country lanes and health data from the Over Wyre Medical Centre on the proportion of residents with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, who could be adversely affected. The proposed quarry site is within a kilometre of a primary school, and there is another school just 2 km away. We know that when children’s lungs are developing, they are more vulnerable to the kind of things that will be floating around in the atmosphere, with the potential health implications. The health issues combine with having HGVs on narrow country roads and the implications of unstable ground and an area historically associated with localised flooding.

[Paul Holmes]

It is actually worse than that, is it not? In my case, the quarry is 50 metres from a local school. Parents are already talking about taking their children out of two very successful schools, which adds to the pressure on communities and the associated infrastructure.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point—it does have an economic impact on the area. Preesall is located in a beautiful corner of Lancashire, with the Wyre estuary on one side and Morecambe bay on the other. Who will want to visit this beauty corner of Lancashire if the landscape is littered with quarries? It will have an impact on our tourism offer.

All in all, this issue is concerning to my local residents, and I want to put those concerns on record today. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa); I know he has been pursuing this debate for a long time. When I supported his application to the Backbench Business Committee, I was unsure where my local application would end up. While I hope this is the end of it for my constituents, the reality is that we do not know. Current planning applications for quarries are not fit for purpose.

10:24

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing this important debate, which is of real concern to not only his constituents but those of Members around the country. As a child growing up in Somerset, I well remember the occasional roar of the neighbouring Dulcote quarry, which is now worked out. I no longer live near a quarry, so I do not experience the very genuine issues and concerns of those who do. In particular, significant concerns have been raised about respirable silica dust, especially when the particulate matter is PM₁₀ or smaller, which means that it is fewer than 10 micrometres across.

Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that respirable silica dust, inhaled over prolonged exposure—for example, by workers who do not receive proper protection—is potentially carcinogenic. It can lead to silicosis and other respiratory diseases. Environmental impacts from the dust, which could affect local residents, are therefore a concern to those who spend time near quarries.

HSE studies of those environmental effects in 2002 and 2003 led it to conclude that no cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that the levels of environmental exposure to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause the occupational disease. Notwithstanding that finding, the impact of dust in residential environments is a genuine concern rightly held by many residents, and a potential hazard.

As we have heard, the new Environment Act targets would reduce PM_2.5 concentration levels to no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040. People also suffer wider immunity impacts from the dust, noise, vibration and flyrock that quarries emit. The fact that PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 pollutants can travel further than 250 metres and that IAQM guidance is under review emphasises those effects and immunity impacts.

We must also remember that quarries are vital to the building of homes and other needed infrastructure. According to the Mineral Products Association, UK quarries produce 177 million tonnes of aggregates and support thousands of valuable jobs. On housing, the Liberal Democrats differ from the Government in that our ambition is for 150,000 council and social rent homes per year—but, to the extent that new homes are needed, we agree that quarrying in the UK needs to continue apace rather than be curtailed.

None the less, health and wellbeing of the public is the main priority of the Liberal Democrats, and must be the main concern in this debate. We would therefore pass a new clean air Act to cover not just quarries, but all air pollution, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, including funding for local pollution centres and a new vehicle scrapping scheme for cleaner transport.

Clean air is important not just around quarries, but across all our communities. While life expectancy in Somerset and the south west is higher than in other regions of the UK, in my constituency it differs by 10 years from one side of my hometown, Taunton, to the other.

A report from Public Health England in 2018 attributed 250 deaths to black carbon—unburnt fuel from motor vehicles. As with quarries, there is little people can do about these sort of environmental health factors, but they still shorten people’s lives, sometimes by years. Therefore, as well as controlling quarries, we must do all we can to encourage people to replace their cars with zero emission vehicles at reasonable costs that they can afford. The Government must hold firm against the Conservatives and Reform, who seem no longer to care about that air pollution or the related deaths it causes. Flirting with climate deniers, the Conservatives want to reverse a position they once held, announcing that they will continue burning petrol in vehicles around people’s homes, schools and neighbourhoods.

While it is welcome that the Government have set out a delivery plan for nature’s recovery, we are waiting for a commitment to a new clean air Act and for them to get on with giving regulators the powers and resources they need. Instead, we are seeing unacceptable cuts to DEFRA—and therefore to the Environment Agency, which among other things regulates quarries—of 1.9% in real terms this year.

I turn now to the issue of buffer zones around quarries, which some hon. Members have raised. While imposing a buffer zone on an existing quarry—such as requiring a distance to residential properties to perhaps a kilometre—could detrimentally affect its operations, the imposition of some sort of environmental limit, as planning permissions already do, is an entirely reasonable proposition.

Some have argued that introducing a buffer zone could be devastating for the thousands of jobs in the sector. If that is the case, it would be equally devastating, not to mention reckless, to suggest no buffer zones or limits at all between quarries and residential properties. Presumably, even the most ardent quarrier is willing to stop when they reach someone’s garden wall or the threshold of their front door. Therefore, in a very real sense, the question is where to draw the line.

The Canadian example has much to commend it. For example, over the 600 metres under the Canadian rule, 100 dB from quarrying—a common level of noise from a building site—would degrade to around 40 dB. That is a typical level for background noise in residential areas—it is a little higher in cities. It has to be recognised, of course, that topography and other factors play a part in those calculations. Subject to assessment, Liberal Democrats would set in planning policy a buffer zone of 600 metres to 1 km for new quarrying consents. Local communities, through their elected councillors, should be empowered to impose such a zone and to make exceptions to it only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the Government are going in entirely the wrong direction on the voices of local people being heard in planning.

[Dr Arthur]

In my experience of dealing with Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West, a 600-metre line on a map is not always the best way to proceed, because the impact of blasting on properties varies considerably depending on the underlying geology and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy needs a bit more rigour than a simple 600-metre line around a quarry?

[Gideon Amos]

I accept that further assessment is needed before the policy is finalised, but the experience in Canada shows that the distance is appropriate for reducing noise. At the moment, no buffer zone at all is set as standard, as I have pointed out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not be the quarrier I described quarrying up to someone’s front door, but a buffer zone of some sort is needed.

Clear and understood safeguards, such as a buffer zone, or something similar to the 21-metre back-to-back standard for houses, give people more confidence in the planning system and enable them successfully to live side by side with development, but under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Secretary of State will remove decisions from local councillors and the people who elect them. A new direction will force councillors to report to the Secretary of State and get his permission before they can refuse anything more than 150 homes, and we are told that there is more centralisation, and more community and nature bashing, to come this week in forthcoming announcements on the planning system.

We need quarries and we need development, but unless the Government change direction, we will have forgotten the most important lesson: that we develop for our environment and for people, not in opposition to them. In a world where a staggering 73% of global wildlife has been lost in the last 50 years, we need to save the remnants of nature for everyone’s sake, and we need people’s voices, and the safeguards they desire, to be heard in the process.

10:32

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate about planning policy for quarries. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate. I appreciate that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have local examples and experience of this issue, and I thank those who spoke before me for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents.

Our quarries and mineral extraction sites are of great economic importance to the UK. Nationally, we are rich in key mineable materials such as lithium, nickel, tungsten and rare earth alloys. Furthermore, we are a nation in need of more homes to help make the dream of home ownership a reality for people up and down the country; we are in need of more buildings; and we are in need of more infrastructure. Quarries are a key factor in providing many of the materials that our nation needs to build more of those things. Having said that, the Government already have 2,000 active quarries at their disposal, and I am not sure what number the Minister would need to get close to the Government’s increasingly distant target of 1.5 million new homes.

Despite that, it is important to recognise that no two quarries are the same, and that their context—be that their economic value, social impact or environmental footprint—is always of great importance when considering planning permission. That is why the national planning policy framework has long made it clear that those factors are critical to assessments of the planning conditions for quarries. The current draft says that, in areas of mineral extraction including quarries, minerals planning authorities must always keep the health of local communities and people in mind, alongside the potential impact on

“the natural and historic environment”.

That includes making sure that

“unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations”

are accounted for, ensuring that their impacts are mitigated and controlled.

It is always important that such safeguards are in place when a new quarry is proposed or when opportunities for expansion are explored. The application of these safeguards, namely the health and safety aspect, is currently governed by the Quarries Regulations 1999, which include an approved code of practice. The regulations define our quarries as

“an excavation or system of excavations made for the purpose of, or in connection with, the extraction of minerals or products of minerals, being neither a mine nor merely a well or borehole or a well and borehole combined”.

We are, therefore, talking not just about small sites or eyesores, but about vast landscapes of machinery, dust, industry, and health and safety risks.

In 2024-25, falling from a height, being trapped by something collapsing or overturning, and contact with moving machinery accounted for 65 fatal accidents at work in the UK, or 67% of the top five most common fatal accidents. All those kinds of accidents have been recognisable health and safety concerns in quarries, and the 1999 regulations sought to prevent their number from being higher.

There must be safeguards to protect the local people and local communities who suffer health and safety risks from quarries without ever even working in them. For example, it is important that proper safety procedures are discharged when planning permission is granted for quarries. That includes proper adherence to paragraphs 135 and 137 of the approved code of practice on the 1999 regulations. The code states in respect of regulation 16:

“Barriers are appropriate where it is reasonably foreseeable that members of the public, including children, are likely to trespass on the site and could suffer injury if they did so… where there is evidence of persistent trespass by children which places them at significant risk, sophisticated metal paling fences may be required.”

It is not just the quarry site itself that should be considered when a quarry is proposed; consideration of the impacts on local people and their local area must extend to transport concerns. The approved code of practice makes it clear that

“Where site vehicles cross a footpath or turn onto a public highway, particular consideration needs to be given to safeguarding the public. This may involve discussions with the planning, highway or police authority.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) presented a Bill on this very topic in 2023. I recall his concerns about small rural roads—rural infrastructure that is completely unsuited to the task—facing 100 or more lorries a day. I know that many hon. Members from across the House have shared or could share examples and figures to much the same effect, and I hope the Minister is listening to those examples closely.

In assessments of planning applications for quarries or anything else, the views of local people are not a burden; they are among the most important factors. Putting local people and local concerns high up the agenda is a long established and democratic precedent that successive Governments have followed. However, I fear for local voices under the current Administration. As the Government railroad their Planning and Infrastructure Bill through Parliament, it is increasingly clear that the planning system that they are not just envisaging and planning for but actively creating is one in which it is much harder to raise local concerns.

As I mentioned at the start of my speech, it is vital that the economic benefits of quarries are properly realised. That is especially the case when more homes are needed right across the country in the light of the Government’s failure to build anything close to the target for their first year in office. However, His Majesty’s Opposition do not believe that local people and local democracy should suffer for that. The Government are eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between themselves and local people. That is why we are clear that local voices, and not just those in Whitehall, must play a key role in any planning decisions. Having heard the important testimonies of Members from both sides of this House, I believe that is especially the case for developments such as quarries.

10:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate, his constituents for attending, and all hon. Members who have spoken. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the development of quarries and referred to specific planning applications in their constituencies. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific cases, but I hope that the position I am about to set out will provide some reassurance.

I recognise that proposals for new or extended quarries are often controversial and unpopular locally. Once permitted, minerals extraction at individual sites can often take place over very many years, so if it is not planned for and managed in an appropriate manner, communities living nearby can be faced with the impacts associated with the development for a long time.

However, I want to reassure hon. Members that the planning system provides a robust framework to make sure that the impacts of minerals development are appropriately considered and addressed through both the plan-making and decision-making processes. Chapter 17 of the current NPPF sets out policies on facilitating the sustainable use of minerals to support that. In relation to plan making, the framework is clear that planning policy should

“set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality.”

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Samantha Dixon]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on.

In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to

“ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”.

The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that

“any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”.

As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Samantha Dixon]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech.

The NPPF further states:

“Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Samantha Dixon]

I am not going to take any interventions.

The NPPF continues:

“and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development.”

That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).

[Paul Holmes]

On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I am desperately sorry, and I am not usually this kind of politician, but a number of Members have raised specific issues and contributed lived experiences, which relate directly to what the Minister is saying, yet she is not giving way. I seek your advice on how we can interact with the Minister and get some answers from her.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Whether the Minister gives way is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Minister.

[Samantha Dixon]

Thank you, Dr Murrison.

I know that the issue of increased HGV movements and congestion is important to hon. Members. Although quarry development can often result in additional HGV movements, where necessary, access roads can be constructed and routeing agreements can be made to reduce the impact on local roads, residents and the environment.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Will the Minister give way on that point, please?

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes.

[Dr Spencer]

Brilliant. I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am glad that she has reflected on the importance in our democracy of Members being able to raise points with Ministers—something that I mentioned in my speech in terms of local representation. Given that she is explaining, in effect, that the system is perfect and there is nothing to see here, could she comment on why so many Members decided to participate in the debate?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will come to that point in due course.

Proposals in respect of transport impacts should be supported by a detailed transport assessment, which is considered as part of the decision-making process. Further information to support the implementation of the policies set out in the national planning policy framework is provided in planning practice guidance.

To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, I should highlight the fact that the Government are about to launch a consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, including a clearer set of national policies for decision making on mineral extraction and other matters. This is a great opportunity for all Members and the communities they represent to engage. In the light of the concerns that they have raised today, I encourage them to take part in that consultation.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Samantha Dixon]

With your indulgence, Dr Murrison, I would like to continue.

As part of the planning application process, applications and supporting information, including statutory environmental assessments where required, are consulted on with stakeholders and the public. Where issues are identified, the imposition of conditions can assist in mitigating impacts to acceptable levels. Where planning conditions are breached, including during quarry operations, and issues arise as a result, the mineral planning authority has powers to take action to make sure issues are addressed.

Although much of today’s debate has focused on the negative impacts of quarrying, I would like to thank the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for recognising the vital role that quarries play in providing the raw materials needed to support our society. The Government have an ambitious growth agenda, which cannot be delivered without a sufficient supply of minerals to feed our construction and manufacturing sectors. The intrinsic link between growth and the provision of minerals is recognised in the national planning policy framework, which is clear that we need a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. The framework also sets out that, when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy, except in relation to coal extraction.

Importantly, what distinguishes quarries from most other forms of development is that their location is driven by geology, which is fixed. In this context, minerals can be worked only where they are found, which influences where quarries can be located. Working of minerals is a temporary land use, and all planning applications for extraction will require an approved restoration and aftercare scheme. The NPPF indicates that mineral planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes.

[Robbie Moore]

Great, that is very kind of the Minister. Seven days ago, the Campaign to Protect Rural England commented that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is working its way through the House, will have a detrimental impact on environmental regulation and reduce the influence of local people and their ability to have their views heard when quarry applications are put forward. I wonder whether the Minister might like to comment on that.

[Samantha Dixon]

I refer to my earlier comments about the consultation due to be launched on the national planning policy framework, which I hope the CPRE and all local communities will participate in.

Restoration also offers the opportunity to enhance the environment. Possible uses of land, once minerals extraction is complete, include the creation of new habitats and biodiversity, and use for agriculture, forestry and recreational activities, such as surfing centres.

I conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and other hon. Members for participating in this debate. I want to reassure them that the Government take planning policy for quarries and the concerns that they and others have raised very seriously. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire has set out a number of issues and put a number of questions to me—

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way briefly before she concludes?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will just finish my sentence. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for South Leicestershire set out his specific concerns to me in writing, so that I can make sure that a response to every point he has raised is forthcoming. Similarly, I would encourage other Members to write to set out their concerns.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She will recall that in my speech I did not attack the Government at all, so I am not sure why her tone this morning is quite dismissive of other Members of Parliament. I think she should reflect on that. I asked specifically whether a Minister in the Department would meet with me about my case and she has not answered that. I wonder if she could, please.

[Samantha Dixon]

Dr Murrison, it is not my intention to offend anybody. I have previously referred to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. If he writes to me, I am sure his concerns can be addressed in the appropriate way.

The Government do take these issues seriously, as is reflected in our robust planning framework, which protects communities and the environment while enabling industry to get on with the job of providing the minerals that we need to build 1.5 million new homes and new infrastructure, and to support our growing economy.

10:50

[Alberto Costa]

To conclude, there is no doubt that quarrying plays an extremely important role in delivering the homes, roads and infrastructure that our country needs, as the Minister has said and I acknowledge. That cannot and must not, however, come at the expense of the health of the people of our country. The residents of Misterton, Walcote, Lutterworth and the surrounding villages, as well as all our constituents, are asking us to pay attention to the latest science and heed the lessons of the past, particularly on air quality.

I am grateful to the residents who travelled here today: Liz and Nick Marsh, Paul Mann, and to those who have taken part in the Misterton with Walcote residents group, including Adrian Lott, Graham Jordan, Paulette Murrell, Mark Denton and Richard Nunn, among others unable to be here. I also thank Lord Bach of Lutterworth for his strong support. I am grateful that the Minister said she will respond to the technical issues I raised; I will send her a letter shortly.

We all want to ensure that vital mineral extraction proceeds responsibly. I am grateful to all MPs who have spoken on behalf of their constituents. Local communities must have confidence in the process and confidence that public health is firmly at the heart of planning decisions, while allowing for the building of infrastructure, with the necessary mineral extractions that entails.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered planning policy for quarries.

10:52

Sitting suspended.

No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

11:04

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered No Recourse to Public Funds and homelessness. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I point hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project for the work I do in this area. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.

This is the second debate I have secured this year on no recourse to public funds. It is also the second time I do so with a profound concern that our stated ambitions of prosperity over poverty, and reducing homelessness and child poverty, are being actively undermined by immigration policies that are designed to do the very opposite.

This debate could not be more timely. Just days ago, the Government published their homelessness strategy. While I welcome the strategy—there are a number of measures contained within it—it is disappointing that it stops short of introducing meaningful action to tackle homelessness among one of the most vulnerable groups, which is migrants affected by the no recourse to public funds condition. As was highlighted in my previous debate, that group includes many children.

Our understanding of homelessness remains partial and fragmented. Official data routinely fails to capture hidden homelessness, which is especially prevalent in migrant communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady—I spoke to her beforehand. It has been brought to my attention in this last period of time that there is a proportion of people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are survivors of trafficking. They were brought to the UK with unresolved status and they therefore struggle to access public funds for secure accommodation. Does the hon. Lady agree that those who are here illegally, but not because of their own choices, should be able to access the necessary support to help them gain safe and secure accommodation while they figure out how to get out of the mess they are in?

[Olivia Blake]

That is a very timely intervention, as we consider our aims to reduce violence against women and girls. As we know, many women are trafficked and suffer sexual abuse and sexual violence as a result. I absolutely agree: the least we could do is make sure they have a safe roof over their heads when they come forward for help and assistance. The hon. Member highlights an important point.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has repeatedly highlighted the urgent need for robust data on migrant homelessness and no recourse to public funds. Will the Home Office commit to collecting better data on the number of people subject to no recourse to public funds who are at risk of, or are currently experiencing, homelessness?

Even in the absence of comprehensive figures, every available indicator points to a growing crisis. Around 4.5 million migrants in the UK are subject to no recourse to public funds, which means no access to universal credit, child benefit, personal independence payments if they are disabled, or social housing. The latest rough sleeping figures underline the scale of the problem. On a single autumn night this year, 27% of those sleeping rough in the UK were non-British citizens. That is the highest proportion recorded since 2017. This is clearly a growing problem.

Migrants face the same pressures that could push anyone into homelessness, which is something we are all at risk of, including low wages, a shortage of affordable housing, the lack of support for mental health needs or substance abuse, but these challenges are compounded by the additional barriers imposed by the immigration system. These include prolonged settlement routes, high visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, lack of rights to homelessness assistance, the local housing allowance and discrimination from private landlords due to the right to rent.

As a result of being routinely locked out of social housing and housing-related benefits, people with no recourse to public funds are often forced to rely on overcrowded, unstable and often unsafe accommodation. When those arrangements break down, as they often do, people may be unable to access the last resort safety nets that exist to prevent homelessness. People with no recourse to public funds are therefore far more likely to fall into rough sleeping, not because services do not exist, but because their immigration status prevents them from being able to use them.

Once someone with no recourse to public funds becomes homeless, the reality they face is bleak. I have many examples, but most homelessness accommodation services have little or no provision for people excluded from the social security system. With services under immense pressure, more and more people are being forced to compete for fewer and fewer bed spaces. Too often, that leaves people relying on short-term emergency help from charities and faith groups that are already stretched beyond their limits.

Nowhere are the consequences of no recourse to public funds more stark than for survivors of domestic abuse. Many migrant survivors have their documents, finances and movements tightly controlled by a perpetrator through coercion and abuse. Those survivors are among the most vulnerable, yet they may be barred from welfare and housing support because of no recourse to public funds, leaving them unable to access safe accommodation, including refuges. Women’s Aid has found that over a quarter of women refused refuge spaces in the UK had no recourse to public funds, with many being forced to sleep rough, sofa surf or even return into the hands of their abuser. I know that some people can submit a change of conditions application to have the no recourse to public funds condition lifted, but the application process is complex and often requires legal advice to navigate and complete successfully. That advice is also in desperately short supply.

In South Yorkshire alone, two out of the five legal aid firms have stopped delivering legal aid and immigration services entirely, and there was a gap between provision and need of nearly 9,000 cases in 2023 and 2024 across Yorkshire. Research has found that 90% of people surveyed who attempted to have their no recourse to public funds status changed unassisted were unsuccessful. Yet when professional advice was sought and provided, 95% were subsequently successful.

Successive Governments have justified no recourse to public funds as a way to save money for the taxpayer and to ensure that migrants earn their settlement. The reality is very different for local authorities. Their statutory duties to support families with a child in need or adults with care needs means that councils end up supporting thousands of migrant households experiencing destitution and homelessness each year. Research from COMPAS, the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, estimates that if all local authorities recorded data consistently, the annual cost of supporting no recourse to public funds households would be around £102 million each year. In 2023 to 2024, Sheffield city council spent at least £1.2 million supporting people with no recourse to public funds.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is right that it is not cost free to do this. London councils spend tens of millions of pounds supporting families through emergency accommodation. Does she agree with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report in the last Parliament, which suggested exempting parents with dependent children from no recourse to public funds?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes, I think that that is a very valuable solution. It is one that we discussed in the last debate we had on children. This is an issue that affects children profoundly; therefore, councils have to pick up that cost, so the Work and Pensions Committee makes a very valid point.

I am glad that the commitments in the homelessness strategy provide £3.5 billion to homelessness services and welcome the renewed emphasis on prevention. However, despite those positive steps, the strategy falls short in its response to homelessness driven by the immigration system. It fails to grapple with the impact of restrictions on access to public funds and ignores the damaging consequences of the 28-day move-on period for refugees, which is another pinch point where people find themselves falling into homelessness.

I am glad that the Home Office is included as one of the key Departments responsible for delivering on the cross-Government strategy. However, it is disappointing that the Home Office is not held to the same standards as other Departments, which have been given clear measurable targets to end the discharge of people from institutions into homelessness. The strategy mentions a pilot in four council areas for people with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on that initiative and how local authorities are expected to use funding to support such migrants.

However, it is not clear how local authorities should use funding allocations to prevent and reduce homelessness among migrants at the moment. Existing successful schemes such as immigration advice services for people who are rough sleeping, including the Sub-regional Immigration Advice Service in London, the Restricted Eligibility Support Service in Manchester and the Home Office homelessness team and escalation team should be maintained, extended and replicated if we are to meet the challenge we face.

In the immigration White Paper the Government claim they want to halve long-term rough sleeping and tackle homelessness, but the policy outlined in the paper will inevitably prolong the risk for migrant communities for decades, extending qualifying periods to settlement to 10, 15 and 20 years. Prolonging the time without access to public funds will inevitably inflict penalties for those who do not receive benefits, which will exacerbate homelessness among migrants and create longer periods for which homelessness will become a concern and an issue for individuals.

Examples highlighted by Praxis are a stark reminder of the profound consequences of the policy. A child brought here at 14 on a visitor visa could face waiting until middle age for settlement. A mother who lawfully accessed universal credit after losing her job could be forced on to a 20-year path, and someone who lost their immigration status following a mental health crisis, already street homeless for two decades, could now confront an additional 30 years of uncertainty. Applying the proposals retrospectively would be a profound injustice for the hundreds of thousands of migrants and their British families who have already invested years of their lives, built communities and contributed financially to this country. I remind the Minister that anyone can fall victim to homelessness. We are each of us in a precarious state in the UK. We can pretend that some of us are isolated from it, but certain communities are exceedingly vulnerable to it, including migrant communities.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. The points she makes are extremely accurate and relevant. She talks about the ease with which people can fall into homelessness. It is incredibly sad that at this time of year my inbox is seeing an explosion in homelessness cases, including hidden homelessness and people living in cars, some still in work. No recourse to public funds is especially painful in rural areas, where there might be limited additional support of the type she talks about from charities and a shortage of emergency accommodation. Does she think that the recommendations she has made to the Government and what the Government need to look at should also focus on the peculiarities of rural areas and the difficulty of providing services there?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes, it is more challenging to provide support in rural areas, but there is also huge pressure on cities as well. As I mentioned earlier, the financial burden that falls on councils as a result of the policy is huge. Wherever they are in the UK, I think local authorities would say it is a challenge. That is why this needs to be taken in the round and why we need to look at how we tackle individual support.

I would also like to ask the Minister, in relation to the White Paper, on what basis the Government will be applying rules retrospectively. Will holders of indefinite leave to remain be subject to no recourse to public funds? How will local authorities be supported to manage the resulting poverty and homelessness? Will there be new burdens funding, for example, for local authorities, as they have to pick up the pieces? Does the Minister generally think that the Home Office’s earned settlement model is compatible with the Government’s ambition to halve rough sleeping and get back on track to end homelessness?

In my debate in June, I urged the Government to ensure that immigration policies do not deliberately plunge people into destitution and homelessness. I find myself stood here today repeating that call. Instead, we should be reviewing restrictions on access to public funds. We need clearer guidance on the legal powers and responsibilities of local authorities so that councils know when and how they are expected to accommodate and support migrants with limited eligibility for public funds. Crucially, we need proper funding from the Government so that local authorities can provide minimum standards of safe, suitable accommodation regardless of immigration status. That should move beyond trials and pilots so that every local authority can benefit from it.

We urgently need to create a system that no longer traps people in poverty or pushes them into homelessness. Without that, we fail some of the most marginalised people in our society, increase pressures on public services and deepen the social divisions and instability in our communities that so many of us are so concerned about.

11:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing this debate on a topic that I know is of considerable interest to her, and indeed to other Members. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed to what has been a wide-ranging and interesting discussion, and I look forward to meeting her in the new year to discuss this further.

I will come on to some of the issues and questions that have been raised, but it may be helpful if I set out the positions in broad terms first. As Members are aware, the no recourse to public funds policy is a long-standing one. In essence, it seeks to ensure that those coming to the UK are able to support themselves and their families while in the country, thus avoiding unexpected pressures on the welfare system. When applying for permission to enter or stay in the UK, most migrants must demonstrate that they can financially support themselves and their dependants. On that basis, a no recourse to public funds condition is attached to their permission to stay or enter. That means that most temporary migrants will not have access to benefits that are classed as public funds. Those in the UK without an immigration status who require one are also subject to the NRPF condition.

There are certain specific exemptions to the NRPF condition. Certain benefits, such as those based on national insurance contributions, may still be assessed. A number of safeguards are in place to protect more vulnerable migrants. Those here under the family or private life routes, the “appendix child relative” or the Hong Kong British national route have the option to apply for a change of conditions to have their NRPF condition lifted for free if they are destitute or at risk of imminent destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a relevant child or they are facing exceptional circumstances affecting their income or expenditure. If there are particularly compelling circumstances, discretion can be used to lift the NRPF condition on other immigration routes.

I will turn to the issue of homelessness, a central theme of this debate. This Government inherited a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. There is no single or simple solution, but our cross-Government strategy, published just last week, sets out a long-term vision to end homelessness for good.

The national plan to end homelessness has three key pledges to be achieved by the end of this Parliament: to halve the number of long-term rough sleepers, to end the unlawful use of B&Bs for families and to prevent more households from becoming homeless in the first place. The strategy is backed by ambitious goals to deliver lasting change. That includes a duty on public services to work together to prevent homelessness, a boost to the supply of good-quality temporary homes and £3.5 billion—a £1 billion funding boost over and above previous commitments—to combat rough sleeping and support services.

Furthermore, the Home Office has made a strategy commitment to ensure that all local authorities receive information from asylum accommodation providers for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness. That will enable local authorities to commence a homelessness assessment, which will be received within two days of an asylum discontinuation and within 14 days of family reunion visa issuance.

I will outline the safeguards specifically in place for rough sleepers with NRPF. The Home Office provides a dedicated homelessness escalation service, which helps local authorities and service providers swiftly clarify and resolve the immigration status of individuals if they are rough sleeping or at risk of doing so. I will also highlight an ongoing piece of work directly relevant to the issue. As we know, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are running a pilot in four council areas. It focuses on access to immigration advice and short-term accommodation, and provides a named point of contact in the Home Office for rough sleepers. Its aim is to provide more support to councils so that they can better help people sleeping rough with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam says about moving beyond the pilot, and we look forward to the results to see whether we can move it forward. We will consider its evaluation, which we expect to receive next year, to understand whether the approach is working.

For some people, returning to their home country can be the most viable route out of homelessness. To that end, the voluntary returns service will work in partnership with trusted and willing civil society organisations, establishing a clear and accessible process to identify and assist individuals who would benefit from being supported to return to their country of origin. The Government encourage councils and partners to explore all lawful options to help those who cannot access statutory homelessness assistance due to their immigration status. Our shared aim is to work together to identify pathways off the street for everyone, including individuals with a no recourse to public funds condition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of data. We will continue to explore what further information on NRPF can be produced. At this time, we are unable to provide a specific timeframe for data publication or confirm what will be published. Additionally, the Home Office has committed to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to develop questions on no recourse to public funds for inclusion in the 2026-27 family resources survey, which is a household survey undertaken annually to explore living standards in the UK. The Home Office continues to develop the underlying dataset used for its publications so that it can show where NRPF has been applied to leave to remain applicants.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of safeguarding. It is important that safeguards are in place to protect the most vulnerable. A change of conditions application provides that safeguard for temporary migrants, but I hear what my hon. Friend says about access to legal aid in South Yorkshire, and I would like to cover that in more detail when we meet in the new year. There is an option to apply if someone is destitute or at imminent risk of destitution, if there are reasons relating to a child’s welfare that outweigh the considerations for imposing the condition, or if they face exceptional circumstances affecting income or expenditure. On applying the rules retrospectively, we are going through a consultation period in which transitional arrangements are still under consideration. Any representations on that issue are encouraged; the consultation ends early next year, when there will be more detailed guidelines.

To conclude, the NRPF policy is and will continue to be a means by which we operate a managed but fair immigration system.

[Olivia Blake]

I wonder if the Minister wants to make particular comment about violence against women and girls and the impact of the NRPF condition.

[Mike Tapp]

That quite rightly falls under any additional safeguarding issues and circumstances that apply to migrants, which can and will be taken into consideration. As I have set out, the Government are committed to driving down rough sleeping across the board. Our cross-Government strategy will help to deliver on that. Ours is a compassionate and generous society, as has come through in the contributions that we have heard in this debate. One of the tasks of governing is to ask ourselves constantly whether our systems and processes strike the right balance of firmness and fairness. On this issue, we believe that they do, but that does not make the discussion today any less worthwhile. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam for securing the debate and thank all who have participated.

Question put and agreed to.

11:25

Sitting suspended.

Grassroots Cricket Clubs

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[KARL TURNER in the Chair]

14:30

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for grassroots cricket clubs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. There is something quintessentially English about amateur cricket: the thud of the bat on ball, the awkward silence after a catch goes down—I know, I have been there—and the beer mats hanging out of trouser pockets, as players hope to dry the ball on another soggy May afternoon. Mostly importantly, this summer 2.5 million of us played the game, which is a force for good in so many ways.

I want to reflect on why grassroots cricket is so important to our communities and needs to be nurtured and invested in, and to ask the Minister how the Government can work with clubs, schools and the game’s governing body, to ensure that our great game thrives and is open to all. Cricket has always been a big part of my life. I am wearing the tie of Bishop’s Stortford cricket club, where I first rocked up as a six-year-old. I have played for a few clubs in my time. The excellent Play-Cricket website, used by clubs across the country, records that I have batted 193 times and scored 3,854 runs in club cricket. This is a 90-minute debate, so we have plenty of time—[Interruption.] No, don’t worry, Mr Turner. I was sorely tempted but, as I intend to stay in your good books, I will resist the temptation to talk any more about my career.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It was a great privilege to serve under the captaincy of the hon. Member this summer for the Lords and Commons cricket team, in our valiant defeat against Marylebone cricket club. I note that, despite that valiant defeat, neither I nor he has received a call-up from Brendon McCullum or Ben Stokes in Adelaide. My constituency is home to some wonderful clubs: Epping, Theydon Bois, Loughton, Buckhurst Hill, Roding Valley and High Beach. Such clubs are the beating heart of our communities. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should do all they can to support those fantastic institutions, which offer so many opportunities to people young and old?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I remind Members that interventions are meant to be very short.

[Andrew Lewin]

Of course, Mr Turner, but I hope we can make an exception for a teammate. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have played at some of the clubs that do so much for his community. I know that that is true of many hon. Members who will take part in the debate. As for future call-ups, there are still three test matches to go.

I want to thank Welwyn Garden City cricket club in my constituency. This August, I played a small part in helping to organise a tournament to raise money for two brain tumour charities. The driving force behind the day was Connor Emerton, the club captain, whose brother Shay was diagnosed with a brain tumour aged just 24. Shay and Connor both played on the day, and £10,000 was raised for brain tumour charities. That epitomised the best of a grassroots cricket club: a community coming together, enjoying an English summer’s day and raising money for an exceptionally important cause.

Grassroots cricket is in good shape: 2.5 million played the game in some form last year, and 216,000 fixtures were recorded across England and Wales, which is the first time the amateur game has surpassed the 200,000 mark in a single calendar year.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The Co-operative party, which I chair in Parliament, believes that community ownership and local control really matter. Does he agree that stronger protections for grassroots cricket organisations such as Harborne cricket club in my constituency, and greater support for communities to safeguard and run their own facilities, are essential if we are serious about community support?

[Andrew Lewin]

I strongly agree, and will talk a little more about the protections we can offer clubs and what more we can do to build and establish clubs of the future.

Cricket clubs set a new record for participation in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s All Stars and Dynamos youth programmes this year, with more than 105,000 children signing up, including a record number of girls taking up the game. Just short of 3,000 girls’ teams played fixtures this summer—another double-digit percentage increase on the previous year.

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

The hon. Member makes a good point about the growing diversity in cricket. My constituency is home to Challow and Childrey cricket club, as well as to Didcot cricket club, at which there is a junior division, one of Oxfordshire’s largest disability cricket associations, and a women and girls division. Didcot cricket club is also very diverse. Does he agree that cricket, and sport in general, can bring communities closer together and therefore need more central Government support?

[Andrew Lewin]

I could not agree more on the power of cricket in bringing communities together. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member has such a thriving club in his community.

As in all good teams, complacency is not an option. We are in a good place, but when we reflect on grassroots participation in our game, and who has access to it, we must question whether facilities are always truly open to all. Many of the best cricket facilities in the country are located at private schools—that is not a new phenomenon. There are good examples of such facilities being opened up and shared with a much wider community. King Edward’s school, Birmingham has been highlighted to me as an exemplar. It has a decades-long relationship with Warwickshire county cricket club, and makes its pitches and indoor facilities available all year round. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. I would be grateful if the Minister said a little about what her Department is doing to build on examples of best practice, and to encourage more private schools to open their facilities to the whole community.

High-quality pitches and outfields will always be core to our game—they are an essential tenet of it—but our sport is evolving fast. I was delighted by our Government’s commitment to the first two cricket domes in Luton and Lancashire earlier this year. The domes will provide a unique opportunity for the game to be played all year round. I would value hearing more from the Minister on the Government’s plans to accelerate and expand the roll-out of these domes.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about indoor cricket, which is particularly vital in Cumbria because our weather requires slightly more cover-ups than cover drives. I recently learned that, through the Super 1s programme, Cumbria Cricket is now offering table cricket to young disabled people in a number of schools such as James Rennie school and Richard Rose central academy in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Lord’s Taverners funding that makes that possible is absolutely vital to ensuring that the game of cricket is inclusive at a grassroots level?

[Andrew Lewin]

I agree. My hon. Friend’s constituency has a proud cricketing history. I know a little bit about the work of the Lord’s Taverners; it is an inspiring organisation that helps young people with disabilities and additional needs to thrive and enjoy our great game.

In respect of domes, it is so important that we keep an eye on urban centres in particular, where there is so much passion for our game but far fewer opportunities to take part.

We also need to plan today for the facilities of tomorrow. I support the Government’s planning reforms and believe that we need a collective focus on building homes and communities that stand the test of time. Sports facilities, cricket pavilions and pitches are part of what distinguishes a community from a simple housing development. Sports England has been a statutory consultee in the planning process since 1997. In the 18 years prior to Sports England being given that status, 10,000 sports pitches were sold off. Since 1997, that number has fallen to fewer than 600.

We need a planning system that values sporting facilities—not simply to preserve them, but to recognise that our most successful places often have a sports club at their core. As the NHS rightly shifts its focus from sickness to prevention, the public health benefits of getting this right today will be felt for decades to come. I appreciate that much of the decision-making power here lies in the remit of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I would be grateful if the Minister said a little about the representations that she is making to ensure that protecting existing sports facilities and building them for the future is part of live conversations about planning reform.

The biggest and best change to happen in cricket since I was playing as a kid is not Bazball—sorry, Brendon—but the growth of the game for girls, women and people with disabilities. I have also had the privilege of visiting a Super 1s cricket programme at Chancellor’s school in Brookmans Park in my constituency. It was one of my most uplifting days in this job—I saw young people with disabilities and additional needs come together in the simple joy of playing a game of cricket. Hatfield Hyde cricket club in my constituency is another leading club in Hertfordshire for disability cricket, and my visit for next season is already booked in.

The growth of the women’s game has the potential to reach new heights next year as we host the women’s T20 world cup. I hear that ticket sales are going well—I can say with certainty that they will be drastically more affordable than tickets for a certain event happening at the same time in the US. May I invite the Minister to tell us what plans she has to capitalise on England’s hosting of the world cup next summer, so that it lives long in the memory, not just as a tournament but as a catalyst for further growth of our game?

Grassroots cricket is in good health. The top order has built a good foundation, and there is much to be optimistic about, but in cricket parlance we need only add two wickets to the scorecard for things to start looking a bit more vulnerable. Now is not the time for overconfidence or any rash shots outside off-stump—and that is as true for our long-term stewardship of the game here as it is for England in Adelaide over the next five days. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how she plans to play it from here to ensure that grassroots cricket keeps growing, is open to all, and can be a success story in constituencies all across the country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob should they wish to catch my eye to speak in this debate.

14:40

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

I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate, despite what may be happening down under at the moment.

Grassroots cricket plays a fundamental role in shaping us as individuals. Although such cricket clubs clearly help to keep us fit and healthy, their influence extends far beyond physical activity. They are often where we first learn what it means to be part of a team, and how to respond to frequent setbacks, stay motivated and take responsibility, both individually and collectively. I am sure that many Members present, as well as those of our constituents who are watching from home, will reflect on their own experiences of grassroots sport, whether in childhood or in later life, and recognise how profoundly those moments have stayed with them.

Lessons learned on the pitch or in the clubhouse so often translate directly into later life, such as working with others towards a shared goal, striving to meet clear objectives, and developing the discipline required to train early in the morning or late into the evening, just as we do in our professional lives. Grassroots sport therefore contributes significantly to quality of life for individuals and families, building not only physical health but resilient, confident characters.

I am very proud to have seven grassroots cricket clubs in my Surrey Heath constituency—Camberley, Frimley, Valley End, Bagshot, Chobham, Pirbright and Normandy —each of which plays a vital role in shaping lives and strengthening our community. These clubs support both children and adults, providing opportunities that promote physical and mental wellbeing. Indeed, my wife and son have both played for Camberley cricket club over recent seasons, so I have seen at first hand the positive impact that it has had on our whole family—I only wish that my diary as a Member of Parliament allowed for more time to watch my son play on sunny weekend afternoons.

More broadly, those clubs have had a profound impact on the people they serve, particularly women and girls. Although girls are of course encouraged to participate in sport, there remain far too many barriers to their continued involvement, especially as they reach adolescence. Factors associated with puberty, including changes in body confidence, concerns around kit and facilities, and a lack of appropriate female role models or coaching provision can all contribute to girls disengaging from sport at a critical stage in their development.

That is why access to welcoming, inclusive grassroots environments is so important. Outreach initiatives such as the ECB’s All Stars cricket programme play a vital role in encouraging girls and boys to start playing cricket early, build confidence and foster a sense of belonging before the effect of those barriers takes hold. Just as importantly, clubs that actively invest in girls’ pathways through dedicated coaching, suitable facilities and clear progression routes can help to ensure that participation does not fall away as girls grow older.

This summer, I had the great privilege of visiting Pirbright cricket club to observe a training session involving girls and boys. Seeing girls confidently taking part in a summer training session, supported by coaches who understood their needs and fostered an inclusive culture, was a genuinely fantastic sight. It is so important to have environments just like that, where girls feel visible, and are supported and valued.

However, it is also important to recognise the challenges that grassroots cricket clubs face. While my constituents are fortunate to benefit from seven clubs in the constituency, each with strong outreach and summer programmes, growing participation in cricket is limited in part by the availability of high-quality cricket grounds.

A cricket pitch is a highly specialised and bespoke facility, and unlike football or rugby pitches, it does not easily lend itself to multi-purpose use. As a result, cricket facilities are too often overlooked in the planning of new developments and communities. That is why it is so welcome to see an exception at the new Mindenhurst development in my Surrey constituency, where a brand-new cricket pitch and pavilion are being created right now. Indeed, we are looking forward to the first summer of cricket on that ground in just a few months’ time. I truly hope that that example will be replicated across the country, ensuring that future communities have access to the facilities that they need in order to support and expand grassroots cricket for generations to come.

With that in mind, I ask the Government: what investment and incentives are being put into grassroots sport infrastructure, particularly given the changes to the national planning policy framework and the overwriting of so many of the protections that are currently in the planning process? What steps will be taken to ensure that facilities such as cricket pitches are properly considered and provided for as part of future planning?

Finally, I pay tribute to the volunteers, club coaches, PE teachers, participants and parents—and the parents who are also participants and volunteers—who dedicate their time, week after week, to supporting grassroots sport. Their commitment is the foundation on which those clubs that I have mentioned rely. I wish the best of luck to all the budding cricketers who are honing their skills in winter nets over the coming months, in readiness for next summer—some of whom may go on, one day, to represent their county or even their country.

14:47

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate. Grassroots sport offers so much to so many across my constituency. Whether it is personal fitness, social interaction or a chance to emulate a sporting icon, the importance of our local clubs and teams should not be underestimated. People in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes do not just “like cricket”; they “love it”. We are proudly home to two major clubs—Cleethorpes cricket club and Grimsby Town cricket club—both successful teams and pillars in their communities, offering achievements on and off the field.

For all that passion and commitment, grassroots cricket is fragile. It relies on volunteers, fundraisers and facilities that are often one extreme weather event away from crisis. That is exactly what Grimsby Town cricket club has faced this year. It has been flooded three times in 2025 alone, most recently—fortunately—just days after a very successful charity day. It has not only affected the pitch but disrupted junior coaching, women’s cricket, training sessions and matches. It has hit a club that gives young people structure, confidence and aspiration, and that brings communities together, week after week.

What makes it even more frustrating for those involved is the lack of clarity about responsibility and accountability —getting clear answers from Anglian Water has been painfully slow, and small, volunteer-led clubs simply do not have the resources to battle large utilities on their own. While I am very happy to lend my support and the weight of my office, it highlights exactly why Government support matters—not just through funding streams for grassroots sport, important though they are, but through backing local clubs when they are seeking answers from water companies and regulators.

Clubs such as Grimsby should not be left feeling stumped when looking for answers, so what assurances can the Minister offer to grassroots cricket clubs so that they do not stand alone when batting for the survival of their club? I hope that this debate underlines why protecting grassroots sport must mean protecting the places that it is played in and the communities that keep it alive.

14:49

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for setting the scene so well.

I have to say, I was never much good at cricket, to be truthful, but I loved it. I was one of those guys who went to the crease and would bat about three or four balls. Usually, my idea was just to hit the ball as hard as I could, and if I missed it, the wicket was away. My prowess at the cricket crease never lasted more than about four balls. But I never got a duck; I always got at least a four, a two and maybe a one, but that was as far as it went. However, cricket is one of the many sports that I enjoy watching. I still follow the Leicestershire cricket team; I do that because I followed the Leicester football team back in 1969, when I was at boarding school at Coleraine Inst.

When the Ashes come, everyone’s national pride rises. As my old mother always taught me, I always support the home nations, so I root alongside most of the hon. Members in this Chamber, whether it be for England, Scotland, Wales or indeed us back home. However, the benefit of cricket is not simply giving the Aussies what for once in a while—and I have to say, it is once in a while these days. The benefits are felt in communities throughout the United Kingdom.

I want to talk about those grassroots, as that is in the title of the debate. The benefits are felt everywhere. Grassroots cricket in Northern Ireland thrives through clubs under the Northern Cricket Union, offering youth and adult programmes across Northern Ireland. I am very proud to say that a number of the popular clubs lie within my constituency. There is absolutely no doubt that everybody else here is going to talk about their cricket clubs as well—and why shouldn’t they? We want to promote them. We have Ards cricket club, Bangor cricket club and North Down cricket club, which is in Comber and is probably one of the better ones out of the three. These cricket teams provide coaching, matches and community for all ages and genders, as seen with the initiatives from Cricket Ireland. I read a synopsis on cricket, which sums up the benefits to the local community as follows:

“Grassroots cricket clubs in Northern Ireland are vital community assets, fostering social cohesion, physical health, and personal development by providing inclusive, accessible sporting opportunities for all ages and abilities, building local pride, offering guidance, and creating spaces that bridge divides, supported by funding from Sport NI and local councils to improve facilities and coaching.”

All of those things are admirable.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the work of fantastic charities such as Derbyshire Cricket Foundation is essential to nurturing the game from the ground up and ensuring that people from all walks of life can enjoy it?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to highlight the issue of Derbyshire, as I and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) will do shortly; we will also highlight the attributes and the plusses of Leicestershire cricket team as well.

I love the fact that sport draws people together, as the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) referred to in his intervention. With the increase in adverse mental health in Northern Ireland, particularly in young men, we must promote and support these clubs, now more than ever, to help them get people involved and part of something worthwhile—something positive for them, that they can grasp and be part of—and hopefully take away the concerns, anxiety and even depression, sometimes, that they may have.

Only last month, the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland was at Lisburn cricket club to announce that its application has been approved for the next stage in the Olympic Legacy Fund. That fund is designed to build on those breathtaking Northern Ireland Olympic successes —and boy have we had a brave few in the last few years —and ensure a lasting legacy for local sport. It just so happens that the Communities Minister is one of my colleagues in Northern Ireland; I understand the good work that he does.

That funding will help sports clubs grow stronger, enable facilities to be modernised, and help communities come together through sport. I believe that it will secure many benefits for the local community. Indeed, part of that funding awarded by the Minister for Communities is reliant on the club also crowdfunding a contribution towards the total investment, so the money comes, but the club has to match it. That will mean community fundraising events, which will inevitably draw more people into involvement in the club.

It is clear that we must invest in the grassroots clubs that deliver so much in return. I look to the Minister—where it is within her remit—to ensure that clubs throughout the United Kingdom have access to funding to create fit-for-purpose clubs and facilities. This is not just simply about funding, but about an investment in health and mental wellbeing, and in communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on what can be done to help those volunteer clubs that really are a lifeline in so many rural communities.

14:55

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this debate. It gives me a chance to wax on about surely the greatest cricket league in the country—the historic Lancashire league, of which my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen has been at the heart throughout. Three of the founding 14 members—Haslingden, Rawtenstall and Bacup—were there right from the start.

Haslingden is just outside of my constituency, unfortunately. It was the first club, formed in 1853. Rawtenstall and Bacup have proud histories. Bacup has been at Lanehead Lane since 1860—160 years at the same cricket ground—and I think it is England’s highest sporting ground. Clearly, weather plays a factor. Rawtenstall has been at Bacup Road since 1886.

These clubs are steeped in history. Perhaps their greatest moment, which epitomises the nature of Rawtenstall and Bacup’s rivalry, was the championship title game of 1922. Both teams were tied at the top of the league and had to play a play-off in Haslingden in front of 5,000 spectators. They got as far as the fourth innings and fell out over the playing conditions. For the next five days, the teams turned up on alternate days, until the match was finally abandoned and they shared the title. That rivalry continues to this day.

One of the great factors of the Lancashire league is the international professionals that we welcome. There are too many to list. Rawtenstall had Sydney Barnes for three years—one of the true greats. Bacup had Everton Weekes, at the height of his powers. In the year he was named Wisden Cricketer of the Year, he was playing at Bacup. It is absolutely remarkable. When I moved to Bacup back in the 2000s, I was stunned to find that Chris Cairns was the professional. He was a great New Zealand all-rounder. These places have deep histories.

[Dr Hudson]

The hon. Member is talking about sporting and cricketing heroes. Kids need to be able to look up to those role models and heroes. There is no doubt that broadcasting deals have ploughed money into grassroots cricket. Does he agree that the ECB should look at enabling more access to international cricket on terrestrial TV, so that children watching the Ashes or the England-India series can see these heroes and aspire to be like them?

[Andy MacNae]

I remember that great series of 2005 where we all saw the Ashes on Channel 4 playing out with great drama. It was amazing. There is no doubt that access to those moments on terrestrial TV is massively important.

Through the all-party parliamentary group for cricket, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield has been convening many meetings around this issue, with broadcasters. There are subtleties to it, but the fundamental is that people need to be able to see their heroes. That is one of the great things about the Lancashire league. People could go down and see Viv Richards or Everton Weekes playing. Past generations have stories about seeing these players in the flesh—it was massively inspiring. Modern formats like the Hundred play a real role here. The number of kids in the audiences there is really inspiring.

Darwen are relative newcomers to the Lancashire league, only joining in 2017, but were champions in 2022. The club has gone from strength to strength in recent years, under the brilliant leadership of chair Chris Lowe. It has drawn in money through partnerships with Blackburn with Darwen council, the Aldridge trust and the ECB. It has invested in a brilliant new club house and, more recently, a cricket dome, one of only two currently in the country, and a brilliant indoor facility for kids. I was involved in opening it recently. It is a truly inspiring sight and it is so important that we have these year-round facilities in places like Lancashire, because kids want to play all year.

That is one of the great risks in our patch: we have these wonderful summer programmes—All Stars and Dynamos—and yet the spark can be so easily lost during the winter. Innovations like cricket domes are brilliant value for money. The Darwen club has already established a partnership with 13 local schools, which gives them a conduit into the game all year round. These are clubs with all sorts of different histories, but what they have in common is brilliant youth programmes engaging kids and great community facilities. At Bacup, where my son was involved in the All Stars, we have brilliant, inspiring trainers—Terry, Lawrence, Ben and Sam. On a Sunday morning in the summer, the sight of all the groups across the pitch is wonderful and inspiring. Indeed, the sausage sandwiches in the clubhouse afterwards are equally inspiring in their own way.

As I said, all these clubs have great facilities, which have become the heart of their communities. The first birthday party I went to at my kid’s school was in the cricket clubhouse. We have our town board meetings in Darwen clubhouse. We have so many major, vital community events in these community sports facilities; they are so important to us.

The other thing these clubs have in common is that they could do so much more for our communities, which brings us to the funding question. Some great stuff has been done with grassroots funding over the years, but, as all colleagues have said, it has a fragile status. I think we all recognise that there is perhaps a disconnect between the investment we put into sport and the great value of sport across society in terms of health, wellbeing and economic outcomes. One question I am sure the Minister will want to reflect on is the extent to which our investment matches the huge benefits that sport can bring to our communities.

In that regard, I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield about Sport England and its role as a statutory consultee. To get the benefits, we have to have the facilities retained in our communities. We have to protect them, and Sport England plays a vital role there. I cannot remember the exact stat, but it only objected to something like 3%—a tiny number—of the applications that it was consulted on. It is not a barrier, but it brings much value and vital expertise into the mix.

I will finish with one final reflection on funding, from the point of view of someone who lives in a small town and whose cricket clubs are in small towns. The role of sports clubs in small towns and villages is disproportionate to that of those in big towns and cities. They are vital, so I ask the Minister to consider how our funding approaches and prioritisation might reflect the value that those clubs—not just cricket clubs, but football clubs, rugby clubs and so on—have to our small towns. They are the heart of our communities and we must retain them.

15:02

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing the debate.

Cricket is our heritage. It has probably been played since the mid-1500s and was formalised in the late 1700s. The sport likely originated with shepherd children using shepherd’s crooks as bats and rags or wool as a ball. It is a legacy of the empire and is enjoyed globally. Cricket is also a major business, generating billions in revenue when done right, mainly from the Indian premier league. But fundamentally, for many, cricket is more than a sport; it is a passion. As the hon. Member alluded to, nothing says England more than a green with players in white and the sound of leather hitting willow. In the summer I am blessed, because there are so many cricket clubs in my constituency that barely a weekend goes by when I am not invited to a tournament to hand out a trophy. I would like to mention SASA cricket club, just because it provides really great food and hundreds of people of all ages come—it is fantastic to see.

In April 2024, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), made a pledge to invest £35 million in grassroots cricket. It was much needed, given that 80 school cricket pitches had been lost over the decade since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, and 150 publicly accessible cricket pitches had also been lost. This is part of a larger erasure of grassroots sporting facilities, including 2,488 school grass pitches. I know it is a different sport altogether, but 677 publicly accessible tennis courts were also lost. Unfortunately, in October 2024 the present Government reversed that promise, citing the financial black hole and saying that the pledge belonged in fantasy land.

Simply, we need more cricket facilities, ranging from dedicated facilities with well-manicured lawns, changing rooms and scoreboards, to the strip of synthetic turf that is all some people need. All such facilities are unfortunately in short supply in my city and my constituency. That is a shame, as the city of Leicester is cricket mad.

The issue is that countless grassroots teams are competing with minimal resources. Teams that play just for fun come to play on one solitary turf—the only one available for miles around. If one team cannot play, hostilities sometimes arise, and then, if the teams are from different ethnicities, races or religions, an issue of resource constraints suddenly escalates into something much bigger. Sacco, the largest cricket club representing south Asian players in Leicester, unfortunately has no home to play in at the moment and may have to face extinction, while the wonderful SASA team that I described earlier just needs a piece of turf and would be delighted with a small changing room. Small investments now will sustain these clubs and save us millions in terms of community cohesion and other issues in the future, while delivering the benefits that we all know only sports can deliver.

I also want to speak briefly about women’s cricket. It is expanding but, again, a lack of infrastructure, volunteers, coaches and ground shares could put a halt to that. What are the Minister’s plans for the growth of women’s cricket in this country?

My final points are on a slightly darker subject: the lessons learned from the horrendous racism and discrimination faced by Azeem Rafiq. Many will know the young, talented cricketer who paid the price for his honesty. It ruined his career, but it could have been a lot worse. I spoke with the former Yorkshire county cricketer this morning. It would be fair to say that he is somewhat disappointed that the implementation of the findings of the “State of Equity in Cricket” report, which was instigated after his case, has not matched their intention, but he remains hopeful and so do I.

The report speaks of opening

“access to the talent pathways through reducing financial barriers”.

Cricket is very expensive, and talent is everywhere but opportunities are not. Children from poorer and ethnic backgrounds are literally paying the price. They need support and we need to reverse the trend—I think we are going some way towards doing so—whereby over 30% of recreational cricket is played by south Asian children but only 3% of professional players are south Asian. We have to bridge that gap somehow.

We also need more diverse boards across the county game. It is difficult to obtain information about diversity on our county cricket boards. Women in senior roles are few, so it was wonderful for me to meet the new Leicestershire county cricket club chief executive officer, Emma White, who has strong ideas and plans to bring the club back to the community. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Leicestershire county cricket club—the mighty Foxes—on their promotion to division 1. A “hear, hear” would be nice. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you very much.

However, there is a real lack of representation of black people on cricket boards, and much further to go to ensure that the recreational game has the capacity and expertise to deal with discrimination issues. Disability cricket also requires deeper integration within county and club systems, and more work is needed to develop disability cricket for women and girls. Grassroots cricket is the lifeblood of the future of the game. We must invest in it or, simply, it won’t be cricket.

15:08

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing the debate.

I do not want to start with something controversial, but I will. The hon. Member said that cricket is “quintessentially English,” and I think the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) was surprised, too, to see me and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—two Northern Ireland MPs—in the Chamber to take part in a debate about the values of cricket.

To start with, I do not think that the hon. Member for Leicester South should be surprised at the fact that the hon. Member for Strangford is here, because I do not think there is a debate in this place that he does not attend—he is always at the scene. But cricket has deep, embedded roots and love in our villages and small towns in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the island of Ireland. The owners of the old flax and spinning mills created their own cricket teams around the mills, and many of those teams are still in existence today. That is why I want to take the opportunity to talk specifically about two cricket clubs in my constituency.

The first, Muckamore cricket club—or, to give it its full title, Muckamore cricket and lawn tennis club—was established in 1874 and just celebrated its 150th anniversary. It is still going strong, with its own grounds and a number of teams across all ages. Over the years, it has grown to become one of the premier clubs within the Northern Cricket Union, culminating in its second Challenge cup victory on its 150th anniversary last year.

The club includes all ages and abilities. Its older members still come together to form a walking group that walks around the town of Antrim to keep up social interaction. They still take that opportunity to call into my constituency office to tell me what I should and could be doing and give me their opinions on everything. That shows the strength of the connection through the cricket club that has been built up through the years and generations. The hon. Member for Leicester South talked about the number of tennis courts that have been lost. The lawn tennis club has taken the next step and developed a partnership with a group to build padel courts that can be used in all seasons. That shows its commitment to a healthy lifestyle and keeping people fit and active.

The second club is Templepatrick cricket club, which plays out of the Cloughan in Ballyclare. If anybody knows Northern Ireland, there is a slight confusion because it is named after a different town from the one it plays in. That club formed more recently, in cricket terms—in 1969. Cricket in Northern Ireland is a cross-community sport. It is often not recognised for the work it does in that regard. Templepatrick was recently shortlisted for Cricket Ireland club of the year and has one of the biggest youth systems across the island of Ireland. The club capped a successful 2024 campaign by winning section 1 and securing promotion to the top flight.

This debate is about Government support, which is obviously an issue. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the support that exists in the devolved nations, but unfortunately, a number of different clubs and sporting codes in my constituency have been raising with me since I was first elected the issue of support from local government and from Antrim and Newtownabbey council. That is why I conducted a survey earlier this year of all the sporting clubs across the constituency and of teams across different codes, which engendered a significant response. On the back of that, I produced a sports development report for the constituency with the intent of informing a plan to improve provision, boost investment and deliver support for local teams and clubs.

Given the subject of the debate, I want to concentrate on the issues raised by Muckamore and Templepatrick cricket clubs. Those issues have already been mentioned, but they are not unique to England. They include an appeal for indoor areas and nets at council leisure facilities, which could benefit continual practice all year round, especially in cold and adverse weather. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned Government grants. Although both clubs said that grants were important to maintain safety standards and good facilities, they found that the new process in Northern Ireland of match funding grants can often be restrictive for some clubs. It means going back to the same people time and again to get match funding, whereas previously core grants were made for a specific issue.

The last issue that both clubs mentioned, which was also mentioned by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Leicester South, is the benefit of increasing and upgrading existing facilities to bring about an increase in the number of women and girls taking part in the sport. There is a wide interest in that. The biggest obstacle for both clubs is setting up changing facilities to make their facilities more accessible.

I commend the other Members who have spoken about the benefits of cricket, both physical and from a mental health point of view. I know that the Minister will respond on the subject of the debate, but I seek assurance that she works with her devolved counterparts to make sure that the benefits of sport, and especially cricket, are fully recognised.

15:15

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. Cricket is not played much in Germany, so I had to come a long way when I married my cricket-loving husband who spent most of his summer weekends either playing or listening to endless—and I thought monotonous —commentary on the radio, but I quickly brushed up on the meaning of “googly” and “duck”.

In those days, cricket was very much a man’s game, and the woman’s role was to sit and watch. I felt I had become a cricket widow—I had the option to take along my toddlers, who would then invade the pitch as children do, or to wait at home long into the evening until a game was finished. As the years went by, it got better, becoming something my husband did with his sons.

It got a little worse again when, under my husband’s watch, my son knocked out his front tooth—with very little sympathy from his dad, who said, “He knows he has to catch like this and to get his head out of the way,” and very little sympathy for me as a mother, who thought her beautiful son was ruined forever. He has since found love. Of course, I learned to love the game—and what a beautiful game it is.

Grassroots cricket clubs are a vital part of my community in Bath, with some fantastic local initiatives. I will begin by repeating some of the challenges facing grassroots cricket clubs in state schools. The findings of the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket report are clearly unacceptable.

The report found that children in state schools remain heavily under-represented on the sport’s talent pathways. It described widespread and deep-rooted elitism and class-based discrimination, alongside structural and institutional racism and sexism, as we have already heard. Two of the biggest barriers are the lack of cricket provision in state schools and the high cost of equipment. All of us in this room agree that a child’s opportunity to get involved in sports should never depend on their parents’ income or the type of school they attend.

The England and Wales Cricket Board responded with its state school action plan 2024, which also laid bare the inequalities that exist within the sport. An independent school is eight times more likely to have a proper grass pitch and 10 times more likely to have a qualified coach. Given these facts, it is no wonder that most county and national-level players come from private schools.

I will now come on to the positive part of my speech about the inspirational work of Lansdown cricket club in Bath. Founded in 1825, it is the oldest club in Somerset. I was proud to attend its 200th anniversary this year, where a microphone was put in front of my face and I had to say what is great about cricket. I said, “It covers so many sporting talents: you have to run, you have to catch a ball, you have to bat and you have to”—at that point, I could not think of that special word, so I said, “throw the ball.” Even though I had spent so much time watching and listening to cricket games, I could not think of that important word—bowl.

The anniversary was a wonderful community event, and it showed that cricket clubs provide so much for their communities beyond sport. Lansdown’s partnerships with local state schools have been transformative. Using a cluster model, it has worked with three local primary schools and one secondary school to deliver more than 200 coaching sessions to nearly 5,000 children.

Lansdown’s success shows what can happen when local clubs, schools and sponsors pull together, but it also shows how fragile those projects can be without sustained investment. Bath is blessed with many grassroots clubs, but significant constraints remain, particularly regarding facilities for girls and access to local coaches. That is why Government investment must reach the grassroots directly.

Alongside centralised cricket domes in major cities, funding should flow to proven networks such as Chance to Shine, the Lord’s Taverners and the Somerset Cricket Foundation. Those excellent organisations already know the local landscape and can ensure that funds reach the children who need them most.

Earlier this year, the Government announced a much reduced investment of £1.5 million for only two cricket domes in Luton and Preston, after cancelling the previous £35 million commitment made by the former Prime Minister in April 2024, as we have already heard. That decision was deeply disappointing, and will limit the potential to reach children in underprivileged areas who do not have access to cricket at school.

The case for support is wider than just sport. Through initiatives such as “Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams”, we have seen how structured team sport changes lives. It improves mental health, reduces anxiety, builds self-esteem and creates a sense of belonging for young people who may struggle elsewhere. Cricket can be such a wonderfully inclusive game if we want it to be. It values patience and teamwork—yes, listening to a lot of cricket commentary requires patience too—welcomes a range of body types and personalities, and offers a place for every child to thrive.

Finally, I echo two of the key recommendations from the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket. First, the Government should make resources available for significantly higher levels of cricket provision in state schools. Secondly, Ministers should work actively with private schools to open up their facilities and gift coaching hours to local state schools. I ask the Minister: what progress has been made on achieving those goals? Clubs such as Lansdown have shown us that, when local partnerships are properly supported, cricket can be a genuine force for community inclusion and opportunity. I hope that Bath’s success can be replicated across the country.

15:21

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. I am pleased to wind up for the Liberal Democrats. In place of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), I am acting as our 12th man on this occasion. I am pleased to be the opener for the Front-Bench speeches; I hope to put in a good innings, something of a rarity for English openers at the moment. I must warn hon. Members that my speech takes a Bazball approach to cricketing puns: I am trying to score as many as I can as fast as possible.

I know that Norfolk is a first-class county in every way, and I still remain hopeful that the ECB will see us that way as well. I could use this speech to lobby strongly for a new Hundred franchise based in Norfolk, or for a 2027 Ashes test to be played at Cromer cricket club. I hope hon. Members will indulge me in a brief journey through the proud cricketing heritage of Nelson’s county, and how much of that is rooted in North Norfolk.

Of the handful of first-class matches that Norfolk has played, our first was in 1820, when a team took on Marylebone cricket club at Lord’s. It is believed that that team was primarily made up of Holt cricket club, based in my constituency. We also have a strong heritage of cricketers hailing from Norfolk. Recent England internationals Olly Stone and Emily Arlott hail from Thorpe St Andrew and King’s Lynn respectively. Perhaps most famously, the legendary cricketer and commentator Henry Blofeld was born in Hoveton, in my constituency.

Grassroots cricket is a much loved part of North Norfolk’s culture. I am reminded particularly of the village of Aldborough, with The Cricketers pub sitting next to the traditional village green pitch, and the houses behind the stumps aptly named First Slip and Second Slip cottages.

Grassroots cricket is beloved across many Liberal Democrat constituencies, with an array of great clubs: South Petherton cricket club in Yeovil and its All Stars programme for five to eight-year-olds; Sherborne cricket club in West Dorset, which dates all the way back to 1837; Bradford on Avon cricket club in Melksham and Devizes; and Malmesbury and Sherston Magna cricket clubs in the South Cotswolds. There is also all the work that Hampshire county cricket club does across its county, based in Eastleigh; Lansdown cricket club, which we have heard about; and, obviously, all seven grassroots clubs in Surrey Heath—as well as many more that are pillars of their local communities.

For many young people, a grassroots cricket club is their first encounter with the game. It is where they learn to play in a setting that is safe and supportive. Those teams are where the next Ben Stokes or Nat Sciver-Brunt are currently learning their craft. Without support and investment, the bright sparks of the future of English cricket could fizzle out—and after the first two tests in Australia, it is clear that we could use some hope for the future.

Looking at the root of the issues, it is clear that access to cricket must be widened. Of the 11 players starting the next Ashes test, only two were not privately educated. The dream of being an England cricketer must be equally accessible to all the young people growing up in my constituency, not only those with the ability to attend a fee-paying school.

I want to reassure the Minister that she should not feel stumped, as the Lib Dems have ideas to help. One way to take easy action is to look again at the amount of free-to-air international cricket available in this country. Before the general election, the Lib Dems sought to amend the then Media Bill to allow for one ODI and one test match to be free to air every year. Sadly, the Conservative Government voted that down and the Labour party abstained, but I hope that this Government might consider looking at that again. Inspiring more young players through their TV screens, who may then seek out their local grassroots club, is a sure-fire way to support the long-term existence of those teams. It is a simple change that can deliver broad benefits.

Those benefits are wide-ranging. We know the power that sport has to support community cohesion, bonding people over their shared passion and bridging divides that may otherwise exist. We also know that sport is a key tool for battling health inequalities, which is a huge issue in coastal communities such as mine, where health outcomes and life expectancy are poorer. When the Government consider the support they can give to grassroots clubs, I hope they see it as an opportunity to tackle health inequalities around our coastline.

I remain hopeful that there are future Ashes winners playing in Aldborough, Holt, Ashmanhaugh, Bradfield and the many other clubs across the towns and villages of North Norfolk. Cricket is an icon of our country, a sport recognisable as truly British the world over. All Governments have a responsibility to ensure that it has a secure future, and it is vital that this Government do not duck it. They should take inspiration from England’s bowling attack in Perth and deliver this at pace—although hopefully with a little more success. Grassroots cricket clubs will want them to play a straight bat and cut out the spin. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you.

Despite that being tongue in cheek, I hope the Minister recognises the passion for our grassroots cricket clubs displayed across the Chamber today. I have been bowled over by the breadth of contributions this afternoon; Members have really hit for six in supporting their local clubs. I wish all Members a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that we will return in 2026 to the sight of an England comeback and a 3-2 Ashes victory.

15:26

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this important debate. His timing is excellent, because I am confident that tonight we shall witness the start of a resurgence by the England men’s cricket team, as they begin their Ashes comeback in Adelaide. Although the first two tests have not exactly gone to plan, it was fantastic to see Joe Root finally score his first test century in Australia, taking his grand total to 40.

Around 2.5 million people play cricket each year, which includes 1.4 million under-16s. In 2025, 43,000 teams competed in 216,000 fixtures—passing the 200,000 mark for the first time. This popularity is reflected in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s All Stars and Dynamos youth programmes, with over 105,000 children signing up, including a record proportion of girls. The girls and women’s game is growing fastest, with the number of women’s teams up 18% and girls’ teams up 13% in 2025 compared with 2024.

It is against that success and momentum that we must consider how the Government can provide support to build on the progress made. In the last four years, the ECB has awarded £55 million in grants, invested £32.2 million in 6,638 awards for recreational game projects, invested £22.8 million to create more welcoming and inclusive stadiums, invested £12.7 million in women and girls’ cricket, and invested £4.9 million in improving equality, diversity and inclusion in professional cricket. The previous Government committed £35 million to grassroots cricket in state schools, aiming to reach 930,000 young people, including 80,000 with special educational needs. That included £14 million for accessible cricket, 2,500 new pieces of cricket equipment and 16 cricket domes in cities due to host the women’s T20 world cup and the men’s T20 world cup.

That investment was allocated and it sought to make a substantial impact for those who are currently underserved. The Government may say that the funding was not allocated, but that is simply not true. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the short-sighted decision to reallocate the funds elsewhere, especially given the vast benefits that cricket brings, not just to our communities but also by supporting a healthier population? The decision to backtrack is a disappointment. If all the Government can offer is warm words, that is plainly not enough. The Government must work alongside the ECB, as they still finance the hubs programme. Has the Minister considered how much further and faster the programme could go if it is delivered with the Government rather than despite the Government?

We know that clubs are desperate for support. The Cash4Clubs initiative, which gives away £2,000 to 250 clubs for community sport and to drive participation, saw 1,400 applications this year, with recent cricket club winners including the Young Lions. It had hoped to double the pot this year, but the Budget and gambling tax have haltered that progress. Cricket is the only major sport that does not receive any direct funding for tournament or legacy delivery because of hosting major cricket events. Will the Minister commit to review that ahead of the 2026 and 2030 T20 competitions to be hosted here?

The average age of a cricket pavilion in England and Wales is more than 70 years. Although clubs are already struggling due to rising maintenance costs, including energy, lighting and other upkeep, the Chancellor has further burdened them with increased business rates bills. Many clubs also seek to contribute to their local communities by employing locally. The increase in national insurance contributions has prohibited that.

In my constituency, Ventnor cricket club is the island’s largest and highest performing club. It runs senior men’s, women’s and girls’ teams, junior disability cricket and over-50s walking cricket. The club’s facilities include a main building valued at just under £1 million, incorporating a three-lane indoor net and sports hall. Despite that success, the club faces significant challenges. The Government are failing to address the growing accessibility problems facing cricket pitches, as local authorities, particularly in urban areas, deprioritise maintenance to make savings, offloading responsibility, leading to a managed decline of sports facilities. Does the Minister not recognise that if clubs are forced to make significant savings, that will impact the positive action they take, which contributes to the communities they serve?

Furthermore, the proposal to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee is deeply concerning. In the past five years, 90% of applications it reviewed resulted in pitches being improved or protected. Without its expertise, and amid local authority budget and capacity pressures, safe and sustainable cricket facilities are put at risk. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield about Sport England and its role as a statutory consultee.

Although the Minster may claim that local authorities will upskill, does she not share my concern that they may face challenges in prioritisation, budget constraints and lack of sport expertise? Does she agree that facilities planning must include schools and public leisure facilities? Before building new developments, the Government should assess the reasons why existing assets are not accessible, such as high hire costs, and should consider solutions such as local subsidised hiring. It is disappointing that the opening schools facilities fund, which aimed to do exactly that, was scrapped.

Finally, the outlook is concerning and Government support must be provided at the earliest opportunity, not years down the line when the opportunities may have passed. I urge the Minister to consider what more could be done to reduce bureaucracy and get on with delivery. Sports bodies, including the ECB, are ready to provide support, as we all want the best for our communities.

15:34

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing it. I applaud his work chairing the all-party parliamentary group for cricket. He is an incredibly important champion for the sport.

This nation has a rich and proud cricket history, and I am not going to pass judgment on how the Ashes are going—I will leave that to other Members—but I share the optimism of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for a comeback.

In mentioning the Ashes, it is important to say that I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with the victims, families and everyone affected by the abhorrent Bondi Beach terrorist attack. Both teams will be wearing black armbands this evening.

I will begin my response to the debate by addressing some of the specific points put to me; I will address others as I progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield is right to point out that this year 2.5 million people played the game. It is incredibly important to communities up and down the country. I know that from my own constituency.

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

Does the Minister agree that grassroots cricket clubs are essential to community integration? I give the example of Thames Ditton cricket club, which welcomed the Afghan refugee community to play in its youth team. They made solid friendships, which will last for life.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point—one that I am sure all Members agree with. Indeed, I have seen that in my own constituency of Barnsley South. I visited Darfield cricket club a few months ago, and since we last debated cricket in this Chamber, my town lost the late, great Dickie Bird, who hailed from Barnsley. I pay tribute to all the work he did over a long and happy life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who is no longer in her place, spoke about the importance of her local club, Harborne cricket club. Indeed, my cousin and his family have been members of that club for many years.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave many examples of clubs in his local community, and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), asked me specifically about engaging with my counterparts. I am always delighted to do that; I visited Northern Ireland a few weeks ago and met with and chaired a meeting of Sports Ministers. I am also due to meet them tomorrow in relation to a separate subject. I am always keen to engage.

There were a number of questions about private schools, and I can see the huge benefit from opening up facilities. A good example from Birmingham was given, and I will certainly reflect on the points made to the Department for Education. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) asked me specifically about class, disparity and some of the statistics. I share her concerns and her worry. To close that gap, we want to increase opportunities for state school children. We intend to start a new teacher-training programme, which aims to reach more than 160,000 students over the next year, and to train 1,000 teachers by 2030. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with more details if she is interested.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) made an important point, which I really appreciate, about flood damage. I had a similar challenge in my own constituency, albeit with a football club, rather than a cricket club. Sport England’s movement fund can offer specific support for flood damaged facilities. I will perhaps write to my hon. Friend after the debate and can facilitate a meeting, if that would be helpful, with Sport England to help her and her club.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), who is no longer in his place, made a point about broadcasting. We debated broadcasting and cricket on 9 September in this very Chamber. Broadcasting revenue is, of course, very important to the ECB and is reinvested into sport. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), made a similar point. It is important to remember that the evidence shows that watching live sport is the thing that most inspires people to get involved, so it is a balance.

I will come to cricket domes shortly, but I want to address the point about funding head-on. Language is very important, and it is particularly important in this place. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) spoke about a commitment and the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). The hon. Member for Bath spoke about funding being cancelled, and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, spoke about funding being allocated. The simple truth is that the previous Government announced £35 million, but it was not costed or delivered. This Government are not only funding facilities with £400 million over the spending review period, but also through Sport England funding of more than £250 million, and an additional £1.5 million for cricket domes, so I simply do not recognise the characterisation of the points that those three Members made.

The hon. Member for Leicester South made an important point about the importance of cricket to his community and gave an interesting overview of the long history of the sport. I want to pick up the point about the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket. My Department continues to monitor progress. I will reflect his comments to the ECB and I will write to him, and if it is helpful, we can certainly set up a meeting.

I know that I have not covered all the points, but I intend to address them in my speech. As we watch the England men’s team, it is important to remember that each player began their cricket journey at a grassroots club. Grassroots cricket reaches a broad and diverse range of communities. For example, a third of recreational players come from south Asian backgrounds that overwise make up just 8% of the overall population, as the hon. Member for Leicester South said. He asked specifically about women’s cricket, as did a number of other Members, which I will talk about a few times in my speech.

I have been delighted to see growth in women’s cricket, particularly over recent years. The England women’s team has inspired thousands of women and girls to pick up a cricket bat, and I applaud the team for its work to champion the game and for acting as role models for fans across the country. I am thrilled that England and Wales will be hosting the T20 women’s world cup next year. I look forward to watching some great cricket, but it will also be a fantastic opportunity to showcase the sport to new audiences.

The ECB’s investment in community cricket is supporting the growth in participation. I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of ECB’s cricket projects across the country, and I can attest to how that work, coupled with the exceptional and tireless support of volunteers, is helping people to discover a love for the sport. ECB figures show that 2024 was a record-breaking summer for all recreational cricket, with over 190,000 games played across England and Wales, which is up 12,500 on the previous best. I am sure all Members will join me in hoping that that upward trend continues in the figures for 2025 and the years to come.

As participation in the sport continues to grow, it is important that we recognise grassroots clubs and the positive contributions they make in their local communities. The Government recognise that grassroots sports clubs, including cricket clubs, are the beating heart of communities up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) asked me to reflect on the value of sport. I am really aware of its value as Sport Minister, and all the club volunteers I have met over the last 18 months have really brought that to life for me. The social value generated by sport and physical activity is calculated to be £123 billion a year, and we are committed to breaking down barriers to ensure that everyone has access to, and benefits from, quality sport and opportunities for physical activity.

Cricket clubs make a huge contribution to their communities, and I know that week in, week out, local people come together to support their clubs, their children’s teams and young players. They engage people from all backgrounds and foster an inclusive environment, as Members from across the House have outlined. I witnessed that during my visit to a women’s and girls’ cricket festival at Sheffield Collegiate cricket club, which brought together four local grassroots clubs. The club is a prime example of how cricket clubs provide important community hubs for a diverse range of people.

Cricket clubs also provide opportunities for young players, like Joe Root, to progress to the elite level. The Government provide the majority of support for grassroots sport through Sport England, which annually invests more than £250 million of Exchequer and lottery funding. That includes long-term investment in the ECB, which receives up to £13.4 million over seven years to invest in grassroots cricket initiatives in local communities and get people involved in cricket.

Earlier this year, I saw some of the great work that the Chance to Shine project does to provide opportunities for under-represented children to play, learn and develop through cricket at its 20-year impact report event in Parliament. I was delighted to see that work in action when I visited the Chance to Shine project in my constituency in Worsbrough in Barnsley last year. This Government are committed to supporting such initiatives, which not only break down barriers to participation but allow everyone to get involved in the sport they love.

I am particularly proud of the Government’s recent commitment to invest £1.5 million of capital funding for two new state-of-the-art cricket domes, one at Farington cricket club in Preston and the other in Luton. I was lucky enough to visit Luton women and girls cricket club earlier this year with the local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), and to hear at first hand how this investment will benefit local clubs. It was really inspiring to speak to the young girls involved in the club.

We are proud that this investment is in addition to the funding that Sport England provides the ECB to support grassroots participation. In June, we announced that a further £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities, which will remove the barriers to physical activity for under-represented groups, including women and girls. This funding will support more women and girls to take part in the sport they love, particularly by ensuring that funded sites across the UK provide priority slots for women and girls. This is vital investment that will improve sports facilities, including cricket facilities, across England and Wales. Part of the work will involve assessing sports facilities in communities—for example, sports facilities that may be made available for wider use, a point raised by a number of Members.

Members have also raised the issue of planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned the importance of protecting cricket grounds in planning reforms. I completely agree. Improving the planning system should not be done at the expense of playing fields. As the Minister for Sport, I want to ensure that communities have the sports facilities and playing fields that they need.

The Government are currently consulting on proposed changes to Sport England’s statutory consultee role in the planning regime and the national planning policy framework. I encourage anyone interested to feed into those processes. My hon. Friend acknowledged that that is a MHCLG lead. I have of course spoken to the Minister responsible directly, and this is something I also spoke about when I appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

The Government are very much looking forward to England and Wales hosting the Women’s T20 world cup in 2026. The tournament provides a great opportunity to showcase our world-class cricket venues, while making sure that women and girls have opportunities to see elite female cricketers compete at the highest level. I encourage everyone taking part in today’s debate to get behind the tournament and lend their support—I know from the quality of the debate and from hon. Members’ enthusiasm that they will all do just that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield for securing this debate and all other hon. Members for taking part with such passion and insight. I hope my hon. Friend takes from my response that the Government are committed to supporting grassroots cricket and ensuring that it continues to flourish across our country.

15:46

[Andrew Lewin]

There were so many good speeches, and I want to briefly reflect on the highlights from each. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on the new cricket pitch and pavilion landing this year. I was really sorry to hear about the flooding that impacted the club of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). Cricket is particularly exposed to the damage of climate change in this country and across the world. We need to be really conscious of that.

We already knew that there has never been a parliamentary debate missed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); now we know he has never got a duck either. That is particularly big news in Westminster.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) talked about the brilliance of the Lancashire league. I largely agree with him, but as I went to York university, I will say no more—I want to remain friends.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) gave a really powerful speech. I particularly support his comment that while there is talent everywhere, opportunity is not equally shared. He made a powerful point about state-of-the-art facilities—some young people just need some synthetic turf. His point was very well made.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and I got off on the wrong foot. He is absolutely right to say that cricket has a very proud history in Ireland. It is not just the Aussies who have beaten the English in recent history; the Irish team has as well, as has Scotland—a lot of people share in that.

I love the journey of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) from cricket widow to a champion of the sport, and the opening up of the game. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), is, I think, all out of puns. He might be a little optimistic in thinking that there will be an Ashes test at Cromer cricket club, but the parliamentary cricket team is always looking for fixtures, so we can talk afterwards.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) and I might not agree on everything, but we can agree on the class and permanence of Joe Root, whose career has spanned six Prime Ministers.

Most importantly, I thank the Minister for everything she is doing for our game: for her commitment to raise the issue of opening up facilities in private schools with the Department for Education, for the specific £400 million investment, and for considering how those two things can work together. I think that will matter to a lot of the Members who have spoken today, and many more colleagues as well. She finished by encouraging submissions to the MHCLG consultation. I do not need any excuse to write about cricket, so I will certainly be doing that. I thank everybody who took part in the debate today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for grassroots cricket clubs.

15:49

Sitting suspended.

Budget 2025: Impact on Graduates

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Jack Rankin will move the motion, and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. No Members have indicated to me that they wish to speak, but Members may try to intervene on the mover of the motion and, indeed, the Minister. As is the convention in a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Autumn Budget 2025 on graduates.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the Minister for taking time from his busy schedule to attend the debate today. I will start by painting a picture of two graduates at two different points in their lives—both taxed to death. Let us start with Nick, now 30. He has done all the right things. He got his GCSEs and A-levels, went to a Russell Group university, secured a place on a decent graduate scheme—in London and the south-east perhaps—and has even got himself a lovely girlfriend. Yet Labour’s most recent Budget will see his student loan repayments increase. His rent will go up. He will end up paying more tax because of the freeze on income tax thresholds. At work, his company is making redundancies and blaming rising employer’s national insurance. He cannot buy a house. His finances are pushed to the edge every month, yet a family on his road receiving benefits seem to enjoy the same quality of life without ever leaving the house.

The Centre for Social Justice found that someone would need pre-tax earnings of £71,000 a year to match the disposable income of a family with three children and receiving benefits. Even if Nick earns more, as a headline figure, than someone on benefits, he faces so many extra costs—for commuting, council tax, rent and suits for work—that his disposable income will end up being very similar to, if not less than, that of someone who sits at home. In my view, Nick has every right to feel aggrieved. Writing in the Telegraph at the weekend, I estimated that a young person earning £40,000 a year and renting in my constituency is left with less than £500 a month in disposable income after reasonable expenses.

Then there is Henry, or Henrietta—a high earner, not rich yet—who is perhaps slightly older, and might have excelled working in engineering or a tech start-up. Yes, they may have more disposable income, but often they are still far from financially free. We are seeing a bubble in the data for younger professionals earning just under £100,000, because crossing that threshold, for a parent of two, could well mean a £20,000 tax hit due to the high income child benefit charge and the withdrawal of child support.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. The plan 2 student loan repayment threshold was frozen until 2030 under new announcements in the Budget. That means that graduates begin repaying sooner, but it is also almost like a hidden tax on career incomes, whereby students will pay more over their working life even if their earnings stay the same. Does he agree that for many students, who could be paying up to £40,000 in student debt, there could be a significant impact on their early month-to-month salary, which could put people off attending university and pursuing their academic dreams?

[Jack Rankin]

I intend to get to the implications of plan 2 loans—both the freeze in the threshold for repayment and the freezing of the interest rates in a falling-interest-rates environment. I think the hon. Gentleman will find in the Budget papers that that raises about as much money as the mansion tax does, for example. I think that is deeply unfair.

More broadly, what is the incentive structure here? Are we not punishing some of our most productive people? Of course many people across the country have it worse, but the point is that Nick, Henry or Henrietta should not have to apologise for striving and being ambitious. After all, it is their tax money that is used to prop up the welfare state, whether that involves benefits, pensions or housing illegal migrants. But they are the lucky ones; we now have about 1 million young people not in work, education or training. Worse still, we have 400,000 graduates claiming out-of-work benefits.

I hear from graduates in my constituency who have applied for hundreds of jobs but get rejected or hear nothing at all. At the end of 2024, the Institute of Student Employers found that, on average, organisations were receiving 140 applications per job.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

With research indicating that up to three quarters of higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26, and with plans being drawn up for course closures and staff cuts, does the hon. Member agree that there is an onus on the Government to act so that we secure a richly educated generation of UK graduates, and not simply the educated rich?

[Jack Rankin]

I am not sure that I agree 100% with the hon. Member. I suspect that, in this country, we are sending too many people to university, and we should have a higher focus on higher quality courses and courses that add economic value, while investing some of the money saved in apprenticeships. But I take the hon. Member’s point, which he makes well.

There are hundreds of people, like Nick, who have done everything the right way—just as the system told them to—but who are not seeing the results in their lives. We have a huge disenfranchised cohort of young people, ranging from Gen Zers who have just graduated to millennial young professionals who are trying to get on and start a family.

I am afraid that many are now voting with their feet. In the last year to March, 176,000 people aged 16 to 34 left Britain. Net migration may be down, but that is only because young Brits are fleeing the country under this Government. This is a national crisis, and it is really a question about the future of our country. If young people do not think they can thrive, they will not put down roots and have families, and there will be no next generation to fund the pensions and public services of the future that we will all rely on.

That feeling of disillusionment has not come around by accident. I would not pretend to the Minister, who gives as good as he gets, that my party delivered in some of these areas, particularly in house building and the intergenerational compact, but the past two Budgets have made things demonstrably worse.

The increase to employer’s national insurance in the first Budget created a freeze on hiring, and saw vacancies down and unemployment up. The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that this could cost almost 50,000 jobs, and stats out today show that unemployment has risen to 5.1%. Increasing the national minimum wage has an impact on hiring and it further squeezes those on middle incomes. It could mean that baristas and shop assistants are dragged into paying back their student loans despite seeing no benefit from the so-called graduate premium.

At this year’s Budget, the Government raised £26 billion on the backs of working people. If the Minister will not take it from me, maybe he will take it from the Resolution Foundation, which found that a worker on £35,000 a year will be £1,400 poorer because of the freeze. It also raised concerns about the negative impact of increasing the minimum wage on levels of employment.

The most directly damaging policy is the latest changes to student loans, which have largely gone under the radar. Freezing the threshold for repayment will mean that as graduates’ starting salaries increase with inflation, they will end up paying more and earlier. There are also the perverse disincentives whereby those on plan 2 loans who earn more than £50,270 per year will pay a higher interest rate of 6% RPI—retail prices index—plus 3%. This means that they will have to earn up to £65,000 before they start paying off the actual loan, rather than simply the interest accumulating on it. They are being punished for success. That interest rate freeze, in an environment where rates are falling, is unjustifiable. Even the New Statesman has been critical of the grad tax, making the point that it will raise roughly the same amount as the mansion tax. Do the Government really see graduate workers as rich or as having the broadest shoulders? They are not being asked to chip in; they are being bled out. Moreover, the Minister and I may have different political perspectives, but an idiot he is not. He knows that national insurance for landlords will be passed straight on to rents, walloping exactly the same people.

All those choices will affect recent graduates: the Intergenerational Foundation estimate that they will pay an extra £24,500 on average as a result of this year’s Budget. But young people everywhere still want what young people everywhere have always wanted—the chance to own a home, start a family, be productive and get on in life.

I want to articulate a centre-right approach where we reform welfare, saving £23 billion, and cut anti-growth taxes such as stamp duty to galvanise the housing market. I have also been pushing for the liberalisation of planning reform and a bonfire of regulation to give young people a future to believe in.

In the light of that, I have several questions to put to the Minister on behalf of all the Nicks, Henrys and Henriettas out there. What message does it send to graduates when their taxes and student loan repayments increase while those on benefits get more? How can the Government explain record low house building in London while some on benefits live in council properties in London worth more than £2 million? What would he say to the young people who are considering leaving these shores because they do not feel that they can get on in life, buy a home and start a family here in Britain? And what risks does he perceive in the impact of the anti-graduate approach on future productivity, and really, the future financial stability of this country?

16:10

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing this important debate. Budget discussions, which there have been lots of in the past month, tend to focus on economic statistics, GDP and borrowing. Those are very important, but they can sound abstract. What ultimately matters is what happens to people, including young people, and their wages and bills, the firms they work for and the public services they rely on.

I welcome the hon. Member’s focus on young people and what is happening to their wages, homes and student finance, as well as apprenticeships actually, which he did not touch on much. I also welcome his honesty about a number of the trends and policies put in place by the previous Government. I would add to his critique of the previous Government the 40% fall in youth apprenticeship numbers, which has had a real effect on the volume of routes available to young people.

Across all the fronts that he mentioned, the Government are supporting graduates and, for that matter, non-graduates. I know he would agree that the most important thing we can do for them is to make sure our economy overall is strong, because in the end, that is what provides graduate opportunities. He will be aware that Britain outperformed the growth forecast this year, with growth upgraded from 1% to 1.5%. Lots of things in the long run matter to economic growth, but raising Britain’s investment levels is high up the list. That is why public investment is up by £120 billion and why we place so much emphasis on the old-fashioned idea of actually getting things built in this country. He raised the issue of housing, which I will return to shortly. We have also seen real wages rise more in the first year of this Government than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government, but there is a lot further to go, and the Budget does go further.

Let me touch on some of the areas that the hon. Member mentioned. On the microeconomic policy side, Britain is already the best place to start a business in Europe. That can be seen clearly in all the statistics, but it needs to be the best place to scale up a business and for a business to stay. That is exactly what we dealt with in the Budget, with tax breaks to make it easier to grow and keep attracting capital and workers. In the long run, that is what creates more graduate jobs, which he rightly focused on.

On the macroeconomic strategy, we aim to support growth by cutting borrowing and inflation. That in turn helps the Bank of England to keep interest rates falling—they have already been cut five times since the election—and that is crucial to give businesses the confidence to invest and to directly cut mortgage bills for millions of Henrys, Henriettas and everybody else, because those with mortgages are disproportionately graduates.

The hon. Member rightly raised the question of assets. He touched on housing but in my day job dealing with pensions, the same thing applies, because the young people he referenced will also be saving for pensions in a very different environment from those who came before them.

Briefly on housing, what are the Government doing? We aim to tackle two things: first, the security of rental accommodation through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, making sure that if people are renting, whether that is for a temporary period or an extended period, they cannot be evicted at short notice, with no certainty. Secondly, we have to tackle housing costs, and in the long run that means building houses. There is no substitute for that. It means building affordable housing and market housing. The hon. Member mentioned London, where a package of measures has been announced to deal with the building trend over the last few years towards lower building levels than we would like, but we also need to see this around the country. We need to see all enthusiastic MPs not opposing planning permissions when that is their easiest path to take.

On pensions, I will add two things that I think matter for today’s younger generations. The first is the adequacy of the system that they are saving into, largely via defined contribution pension schemes. We have launched the Pensions Commission—I think that has cross-party consensus—to make sure, when we look ahead to 2050, that young people are on course for an adequate retirement. But we also need to address the fact that it is not just the amount of the pension, but the level of risk that younger generations are being asked to bear—in longevity, investment, inflation and other risks. That is exactly what the Pensions Commission is doing.

I agree with most of the comments about young people in the labour market. It is a disgrace that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training—I think we would all agree about that. Of course, it is a disgrace that we inherited from the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Windsor is well aware. It is good that the number of NEETs has not continued to rise, but I absolutely agree that it is far too high, and that is on all of us. That is why we have committed to tackling it, not least through a youth guarantee. That needs to continue, as does the work on mental ill health. We have committed to expanding the use of talking therapies in the NHS, delivering an additional 384,000 courses of treatment by 2028-29. There is one thing that I would gently add, in thinking about some of these issues, and mental health is a good example. We must not forget that the long-lasting effects of mental ill health, for example in the labour market, tend to be felt among those with fewer qualifications, even though, on the health side, that affects a very wide range of people.

Turning to tax, we are certainly not hiding from the fact that the Budget asked everybody to make a contribution. The reason for that is simple: people have had enough of failing public services that are not doing the basics, and they know that borrowing levels must be brought down. The hon. Member will know that the Budget reduces borrowing in every single year of the forecast, because spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals is already quite enough. The Budget included the freeze on the repayment threshold for plan 2 student loans from April ’27—where the threshold remains above that for other student loans, such as the plan 5 loans.

The hon. Member mentioned some details of the plan 2 rules, which, again—I gently say—were introduced by the Conservatives, who looked to rebalance the system away from having as much taxpayer funding of students in the university system as there had been, with the cost being passed on to individuals. The measures are part of a wider package of reforms, including in relation to higher-value properties, electric vehicles and changes to income tax rates on income from assets. Those are part of the Budget so that we make sure that the wider contributions we are asking for from everybody can be kept to an absolute minimum.

More broadly, there has been a cross-party consensus that a fairer system of university funding will require a lower net contribution to universities from the taxpayer, particularly from taxpayers who did not go to university—I think that the hon. Member still agrees with that. In 2025, 34% of loan debt for full-time plan 2 graduates was forecast not to be repaid, so what we are talking about is still substantive. I agree with him more broadly on the need for other higher-quality qualifications in greater numbers; he will have heard the Prime Minister referring to that in his conference speech earlier this autumn.

We must also not lose sight of something that is still very true, despite the call for more and a wider range of qualifications: graduates still genuinely benefit from higher earnings and higher employment rates. We have talked about NEET numbers, and a degree still provides a very high level of protection against that. That does not mean that we should not continue to focus on ensuring that we get the best value for money for everything that young people go on to do.

It is important that we have a sustainable student finance system, and also one that is fair to students and to the taxpayer. Students will pay nothing back unless they earn above the threshold, as they do now, and no one whose salary remains the same will see their monthly repayments change as the years of the freeze continue. Of course, we will keep the system under review.

I again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. It is vital that we secure the best possible future for graduates and, I think we all agree, for all young people and the younger generations. We will do that by tackling inflation and making sure that we bring down debt, as well as by ensuring that this is a country where wages and living standards are rising, where people can get things built again and where firms are able to grow. The Budget goes about delivering exactly that.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of healthcare for transgender people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. This debate is about healthcare for trans adults. I know that a lot has been said in this House in recent weeks about care for young people questioning their gender identity, and particularly about the recent announcement of a trial of puberty blockers. I do not wish to repeat that debate here, other than to say that I welcome the fact that the trial is going ahead to ensure we can get the evidence that we need.

I want to begin with the experience of one of my constituents, because this debate must be about real people, not headlines in The Times or the Daily Mail, not culture war soundbites, not the opinions of Donald Trump or J. K. Rowling, and certainly not whatever bile is being pushed out by transphobic trolls on social media. This is about real people’s lives.

Earlier this year, my constituent, a trans woman, came to my surgery to share her experience of accessing healthcare locally. At her GP practice, she was told that she could not use the women’s toilets and must use the men’s instead, and she was repeatedly misgendered by staff. She faced difficulties simply getting her preferred name recorded correctly. On one occasion she was even told that she could not wait in the waiting room because she “scared other patients.”

My constituent is also struggling to access the gender-affirming care that she needs. There are no adult gender services in Birmingham, let alone in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth, meaning that she would have to travel to Nottingham for treatment. She is stuck on a waiting list with no idea when she will finally receive care. Because she cannot get NHS support, she is taking hormone replacement therapy on a private prescription and is understandably anxious about dosage and the lack of monitoring or regulation. She is not alone.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and bringing the debate back to people, which is where it needs to be. I want to highlight a case in my constituency of a young transgender person who spent two years on the under-18s waiting list for an initial appointment. They have now aged out of that waiting list and potentially have a six-year wait, meaning that when they are able to speak to a doctor or a health professional it will have been eight years. Their parents approached me to tell me how much that is damaging their young one.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that interventions need to be very short. Lots of Members want to take part in this debate and long interventions eat into the time for speeches.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that experience. It reflects the reality for many trans young people and adults in the UK: discrimination from healthcare professionals, waiting lists stretching over years, a complete lack of local provision and a reliance on less well-regulated private providers. That is the state of healthcare for trans people in Britain today. It is woeful and inadequate, and it is letting people down.

The consequences are serious. Almost one in four transgender people avoid going to the doctor altogether for fear of mistreatment. They delay cancer screenings and push aside chronic pain, and their health outcomes worsen as a result.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The NHS has finally issued a call for evidence regarding a clinical pathway for adults who wish to detransition. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a welcome and long-overdue first step, and that the NHS must continue making serious efforts to improve care for detransitioners?

[Rachel Taylor]

As I welcome services for trans people, I also welcome services for those people who do not feel happy in the gender that they have acquired. That is only right, but we have to get all those services right.

Trans people are now seeing their health outcomes worsen. Waiting times for gender-affirming healthcare are nothing short of a national scandal. Across the UK as of March 2025, more than 48,000 trans adults remained on waiting lists for that care. We rightly debate NHS waiting lists in this place: a year for a hip replacement; months for cancer screening. Nobody finds those waits acceptable, but freedom of information requests reveal that the average wait for gender services is 12 years in England, two years in Wales, 41 years in Northern Ireland and a staggering 58 years in Scotland. At one Scottish clinic, the wait was three times longer than the average British life expectancy.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the waits that transgender people face in Scotland, which are far too long. I recently met a group from the transgender community in Dunfermline who are concerned about their safety when they are out on the streets, whether going out on a Saturday night or doing anything else that they would like to. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must work with the police across the UK to make sure that transgender people feel safe on the streets?

[Rachel Taylor]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trans people are fearing for their lives in my constituency, in his constituency and in many others up and down this country.

Let us imagine being told that the wait for a hip replacement or a cancer check was 224 years—it just would not happen. Some Members in this House might not want to hear it, but the reason that the NHS provides gender-affirming treatments—hormones, surgeries, and mental health and social support—is because they are proven to improve mental health, reduce gender dysphoria and significantly reduce depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

Doing nothing is not a neutral act—doing nothing allows suffering to grow. The Women and Equalities Committee heard that directly earlier this year. To echo the findings of the Trevor Project’s 2024 report, LGBTQ+ young people’s suicides are preventable. Prevention means tackling discrimination, hostility and unaccepting environments. Safe, supportive, affirming care saves lives. One trans adult told the LGBT Foundation:

“The only effective treatment for gender dysphoria is transition and leaving this untreated is killing people.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachel Taylor]

I will make some progress, if I may. I am part-way through something that a trans person said, so it is not an appropriate time to intervene. They went on to say:

“I have personally used alcohol, cannabis, cocaine and self-harm to survive the last year and a half since referral and I have now been told I will have to wait several more months because of the backlog.”

[Jim Shannon]

I am reminded of last year when a mother came to me back home. Her son wanted to transition. The mother was under real pressure, as was the young boy. We tried to help as much as we could through the health system back in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a journey not only for the young person who wants to transition, but for their parents? Everyone needs support to get them through that difficult transition.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful contribution. Of course, parents need help and support through this process.

In 2022, a coroner ruled that a 20-year-old trans woman had died in part because of delays in accessing gender-affirming care after two and a half years on a waiting list. Trans people also struggle disproportionately with general healthcare. A third of trans and non-binary people, rising to almost half among people of colour, received no NHS or private support during pregnancy, compared with just 2.4% of cis women. Nearly one in three trans and non-binary birthing parents said that they were not treated with dignity and respect in labour, compared with just 2% of cis women.

According to TransActual, 60% of trans people surveyed had been refused care because they were trans. Hundreds reported that their GP refused to prescribe hormones, even when they had been recommended by NHS gender clinics. Participation in cervical screening is also significantly lower, with trans and non-binary people estimated to be up to 37% less likely to be up to date with appointments. This Labour Government are the right Government at the right time to tackle these issues.

I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on the HIV action plan that was announced this month. I remember vividly the stigma and shame of an HIV diagnosis in the ’80s and ’90s, which often led to suicide, as the alternative was a death sentence and a life spent facing discrimination and abuse. This HIV strategy is groundbreaking and sets us on the right path to end new HIV transmissions. I applaud its commitment to ensuring that all prevention efforts target underserved populations, including trans people.

The Government pledged in their manifesto to ensure that trans people receive the healthcare and support they need. I welcome the review being led by Dr David Levy into adult gender services, and I hope it will bring forward strong recommendations to cut waiting lists, expand access and deliver timely, appropriate and sensitive care. I know that trans people and LGBT organisations have been awaiting its publication, so I ask the Minister: when can we expect Dr Levy’s review to be published?

In April 2025, the Secretary of State also commissioned NHS England to undertake an LGBT+ health evidence review. That review seeks to identify the barriers to healthcare for all LGBT+ people, from examining the poor treatment of lesbian couples seeking IVF treatment to looking at insufficient mental health support for LGBT+ people. The review is highly anticipated by the whole community. Therefore, I ask the Minister: is Dr Brady’s review still due to conclude in January 2026, and when can the public and parliamentarians expect to see it?

Although I applaud the Government’s work to improve healthcare for transgender adults, I know that reviews alone will not fix the problem. We need to know that these reviews will be followed by action. I know that getting this right matters to the Government, so I ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to reduce discrimination and transphobia in healthcare settings?

Will the Minister commit to mandatory training for clinicians on the respectful and appropriate treatment of trans patients? Will the Government commit to significant sustained investment in trans healthcare, with reducing waiting lists and expanding local provision as urgent priorities? We must build a healthcare system rooted in science, not stigma, and in compassion, not fear. We must decide whether we want to be a society that listens to people, supports them and gives them the tools to thrive.

There is one final point I would like to make. Those who know me will know that I first got involved in politics in the 1980s when Thatcher was introducing section 28. That policy was intended to make people like me feel shame about who we were, and to reverse the progress that previous generations had fought for. I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything that it represented.

I am a gay woman who grew up in the ’80s, so I know what it feels like to be told, “It’s just a phase. Maybe you’ll grow out of it. Maybe it’s not really who you are. Maybe there’s just something wrong with you,” so believe me when I say that I have heard it all before. LGBT people have heard this all before. We know what bigotry is when we see it, and we know that bigotry is back. Let us make no mistake: the people who are organising against trans people now are no different from the people who campaigned for section 28. They want to present parts of our movement as a danger to society and push them to the margins. I will never let that happen.

To all those in this room and in this House who are totally convinced that trans people are not real, that they are making it up, that it is TikTok, Reddit or foreign TV that has turned them trans, that somehow this is some kind of new phenomenon, let me assure you all that I have had trans friends for as long as I have been out. Trans people have always and will always exist.

To all those in this room who used to say warm things about trans people back when it was popular to do so but who decided when the wind changed that they would blow in the other direction, and to the Conservatives who in 2018 introduced an LGBT action plan promising trans equality but who now are quite happy to laugh along with cruel mocking jokes about trans people in front of the mother of a murdered trans teenager, we see you, and much like history condemns section 28, history will condemn you too. Meet trans people, talk to them, understand what they are going through and believe them, then we can all stop fighting our toxic culture wars and get back to doing what we as lawmakers are elected to do: make things better for every single one of our constituents—not some of them, all of them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in this debate. I have to put on a time limit of three minutes for speeches.

16:45

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for such a passionate, incredible speech. Although she focused on adults, I would like to talk more about young people.

I am not sure whether the recent outrage about the puberty blockers trial is a result of misunderstanding, or whether those who do not accept that trans people have a right to affirmative care are simply using it as another opportunity to cause distress and harm to young people who are already marginalised and deeply frightened about their future. I am going to be generous and say it is the former, and I will help by providing some clarity.

Puberty blockers have been used since the 1980s. Although in a small number of high-profile cases, an individual has transitioned back to the gender assigned at birth, the vast majority do not. An Australian study found that 5% ended up identifying with their sex assigned at birth, but only 1% of those did so after receiving puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy. The others did so during their initial assessment at the clinic. That is significantly lower than the regret rate for breast implants, tattoos or any other change to someone’s body. Puberty blockers are not permanent; they are to delay puberty and pause development.

Imagine a young transgender child who starts to live as a boy as they end the primary phase of their education—taking part in boys’ sports and changing their name on documentation—then having to contend with breast growth and menstruation at school. Or think of a teenage trans girl, who is fully accepted by her friends, suddenly experiencing the growth of facial hair and a dropping voice, and waiting years for an appointment. Imagine how they feel sick, showering a body that physically repulses them, binding to ensure they pass among their friends, and hiding from any situation where they are exposed.

Children whose puberty is advancing too quickly can access these drugs, but trans children cannot. When the drugs were banned last year and the Government announced that there would be a trial, I thought that those who genuinely wanted fair and safe healthcare for trans children would have welcomed it. Instead, they described those children as guinea pigs. The trial must go ahead and needs to be expanded.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Trans healthcare is challenging to access and afford. Waiting lists are ludicrously long and treatment options are limited. There is a massive gap between the treatment that trans people need and what they are being offered. Does the hon. Member agree that, as we just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), trans people are human beings who deserve to be treated as such, with equal access to healthcare?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank my neighbour for his intervention. Of course they are people; they are our friends, family and neighbours. Puberty blockers are of no use once someone reaches 16 or 17, as by that time the damage is done. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) may pull a strange face at me but, frankly, for those children the damage is often done. They have often attempted suicide multiple times and their lives have been damaged. All they want is access to the support, the hormones and the treatment that they should be entitled to. When they reach 17 years and nine months, however, they are transferred to adult services. In some cases, they have been waiting since they were 12 or 13, only to be told that the south-west of England is currently dealing with referrals from 2017. That is simply not acceptable. We know it is dangerous for people to wait long periods. Coroners repeatedly refer to long waiting lists in the context of trans people’s deaths.

In my last few seconds, I want to address shared care. A constituent of mine, a trans man who transitioned at about 18, has had NHS care in place for many years. He has now been told by his GP that they will not offer him shared care. He has been told that the practice has had a letter from the gender identity clinic saying that the practice does not have the systems, capacity or expertise in place to provide the level of monitoring and care. That is simply unacceptable. This is NHS care. My constituent has NHS prescriptions. Now his own GP says that they will not support him, despite being required to do so. I ask the Minister to look carefully at this issue to ensure that trans children get the services they need and trans adults continue to receive them.

16:50

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for securing this important debate and for all her work to champion trans rights in this place.

First, I want to speak about the delivery of general medical care to trans people and the discrimination they experience. Constituents have told me how unrelated health problems have been attributed to them being trans. One person described this as “exhausting and frightening”, stating that it discourages them from seeking help. Meanwhile, 14% of respondents to a survey by TransActual reported that they had been refused GP care on account of being trans. One trans man told the Nottingham Pastel Project that he had been turned away for a cervical smear and treatment for a urinary tract infection.

The second issue I want to raise is the difficulty of accessing gender-affirming care. Trans people will be the first to say that the delivery of gender-affirming care in this country is deeply flawed and in need of serious reform. Instead of taking their experiences as the starting point, discussions about trans healthcare have been rooted in transphobia, misinformation and moral panic. Meanwhile, waiting times for gender-affirming care stretch into years. One Nottingham resident said that they waited seven years for a diagnosis. Another has been waiting for an appointment with a gender identity clinic for five and a half years. Someone who joined the waiting list two years ago has been told to expect to wait a further four years.

Faced with an eight-year wait for gender-affirming surgery on the NHS, one trans person in my city worked two full-time jobs, sold their car and held fundraising events to cobble together £20,000 so they could have that surgery abroad. They are emphatic that it saved their life, but they should never have been forced to go through that ordeal just to access healthcare.

Reports of GPs denying gender-affirming care have increased dramatically. One constituent told me they had huge problems finding a private gender clinic with which their GP would do shared care, and that delayed their treatment by six months. Another Nottingham resident who was on testosterone for more than a decade has not received a single dose in 16 months because their GP has refused to prescribe it. I could go on and on with examples just from my city, and I have not even spoken about the appalling situation that trans people under 18 face.

It is clear that the Government must act, from increasing funding for gender-affirming healthcare to improving training for GPs, modernising assessment and treatment pathways and ensuring co-production of services with trans patients, because this is an emergency. Inadequate healthcare is ruining trans people’s physical health, their mental health and their lives. It cannot be allowed to continue.

16:53

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Turner.

It is a pleasure to represent a constituency with a thriving trans community. Too often, however, when I hear from trans people who live in Bristol Central or their loved ones, it is because they are struggling to access healthcare. Whether they are stuck on a waiting list to access a gender identity clinic or whether they are a parent looking for support for their child who is questioning their gender, again and again, trans people are refused healthcare that they are entitled to.

Despite the invaluable work of organisations such as TransActual and Stonewall nationally, and Trans Pride Bristol and Trans Aid Bristol in my home city, investment is not being made in public services; instead, trans people find that their rights are sacrificed to the same culture war that scapegoats migrants and people of colour.

When I speak to young trans and gender-questioning people and their families, a major concern is the ban on puberty blockers. Many were heartbroken when the Labour Government made the Conservatives’ temporary ban permanent, rather than rolling it back. That forces young people to go through puberty in a body that does not match their gender, as we have heard. I strongly urge the Department of Health and Social Care to think again on the puberty blocker ban.

I welcome the announcement of the pathways trial, which will give some young people a route to access puberty blockers. I asked the Secretary of State a year ago to clarify the size of the trial, and he assured me in the main Chamber that it would be uncapped. Yet it turns out that the trial will allow just 226 young people to take part. Please will the Minister explain why the numbers were capped, contradicting what I was told in the Chamber last year? Will she also respond to concerns that young people are being pressured to take part in the research because it is the only way to access the care they need?

Healthcare is no better for trans adults. As we have heard, waiting lists for gender identity clinics are unmanageable, with an eight-year wait in the south-west. Coroners have repeatedly referenced the length of such waits following trans people’s deaths. As a result, more than half of trans people have used private healthcare, creating a two-tier system for a community that already faces economic disadvantage. While I am pleased that a pilot wellbeing programme will be introduced for those on the waiting list, that is no replacement for getting trans people the timely healthcare that they need.

Trans people face more barriers to accessing healthcare than I have time to cover in this speech, but I want to highlight that I have had plenty of casework about shared care agreements that have suddenly been stopped, even for people who had accessed healthcare successfully for years through their NHS GP. The Levy review on adult gender dysphoria services might cover some of the issues, but I hope that it will cover all of them. I would like to hear from the Minister when that review will be published, if possible.

16:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I think I speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say that it is a privilege to be in the room with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), and to hear her passion for this subject and her honesty about the impact. Too often, that voice is missing in our politics. Wherever we stand, I think people can recognise that.

I am so grateful for this debate, because in the time available to me, I want to highlight what we have been doing in Walthamstow on this issue. We were worried that we would never find allies for our work, and today is a reminder that we will, because the majority of people in this country understand a simple and decent point: trans people pay for the NHS too, and they should be entitled to services that suit their needs. The reality for that very vulnerable and small group within our society is that they are not getting the services they need. This is not just about gender-affirming healthcare; it is about healthcare across the piece. That is the challenge that we have been dealing with in Walthamstow.

I pay tribute to the members of my local trans community who have had the bravery to come forward and speak about their experiences. I will not name them because, sadly, we live in a world where people would demonise them simply for speaking up about the fact that, because they cannot access their local GP—particularly in shared care agreements, which many others have mentioned—they cannot access healthcare at all, even for other conditions. They might also have physical disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but they struggle to access services accordingly. No one can think that it is acceptable for a patient group in the NHS to be systematically excluded. I pay tribute to the North East London integrated care board, which has risen to the challenge and recognised the problem, and is now looking at how to resolve it.

I think we all recognise that shared care agreements are complicated, but the reality is that not every shared care agreement is refused. Not every person in my constituency with a referral from an NHS provider, let alone a private one, gets a doctor who says, “We do not cover that agreement”. Some in our local trans community are self-prescribing hormones and not getting the blood tests and monitoring that they need, and they face a delay in getting support. I want to put on the record that there have also been some very positive responses from my local GPs, but it is patchy.

In the time available to me, I make one simple plea to the Minister. It is great that we have the David Levy review, but I ask for the Minister’s help and support for my local clinicians. They are cutting through the heat in this debate and asking a simple question: how can we serve this local community better? How can we make services work better for them? I will stand up for the right of every single one of my constituents to get decent healthcare, but I ask the Minister to work with us to get it right on the ground.

16:59

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for securing this important debate. She is the champion we all deserve, and she almost brought me to tears with her passion in opening the debate. I commend her work and her advocacy. She is a modern-day LGBT icon, and I feel privileged to serve with her.

In a world that feels increasingly divided, debates like this matter because they force us to confront and test a simple but critical principle: the great, objective universality of our healthcare system—who gets access to healthcare, and who is treated? My gut, my politics and my experience as an LGBT person say everyone. I am sure that all Members present would agree that healthcare is not a privilege to be earned; it is a right grounded in dignity, compassion and evidence-based care. It is an inalienable right of every citizen of this country. To get to the nub of this debate, that means transgender people too, such as constituents who have come to see me in my surgeries. They are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for the same thing as any of us would expect: timely, safe and respectful healthcare, and dignity.

I am sorry to say, however, that healthcare falls short for them. Thousands of transgender people are waiting years for first NHS appointments. Those are not just statistics, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth said, but people spending years of life in uncertainty and distress—years when people put their lives and careers on hold, delaying their education and questioning whether they will even survive long enough to be seen. Where care is delayed, it is denied, and 48,000 trans people are currently on waiting lists. Many are pushed towards unregulated overseas routes, not because they want to bypass safeguards but because the alternative feels unbearable. Families make decisions out of love and desperation, often fearing self-harm or suicide if they are left without support. That is not a failure of those families; it is a failure of an outdated system, which apparently is unfortunately questioning its duty to these individuals.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Something that I hear from concerned parents of trans children and young people, who are often such powerful advocates for them, is that they feel powerless to help their children, so does my hon. Friend agree that support and guidance for families and friends must absolutely be embedded in gender-affirming care, as we hopefully expand and invest in that?

[Oliver Ryan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very relevant point. He took the words right out of my mouth, to quote Meat Loaf. We must also recognise that the wider picture, though, is that transgender people face questioning or even denial of their very existence as people. They face barriers not just in specialist gender and transitioning services, but across society as well as our healthcare system, including GP surgeries, maternity care, cancer screenings and mental health support. Too many avoid seeking help altogether not because they are disengaged, but because they fear being misunderstood, judged and discriminated against, or turned away, as unfortunately they are, as the evidence tells us.

Taking this away from silly social media debates, evidence-led medicine, properly funded services and clear clinical guidance do not harm patients; they protect patients. In a world where there is still so much hostility, we have a responsibility and a duty to work harder to ensure that everyone has a place. I know that this Labour Government, at their core, believe that. This House has a responsibility to speak up for those individuals who are too often drowned out by fear and misinformation and by the madness of the online space because we owe it to the sort of country we want to be, where we consider everyone in a mature, dignified and rational way to be worthy of healthcare.

I am not transgender, but I believe in fairness and the principle of good, timely, effective, universal access to healthcare, which applies to transgender people as much as anyone else, because at its core, this is about whether we meet people at their most vulnerable moments with care or with closed doors, and I know which side of that choice I stand on. I hope to hear the Minister take up the points my hon. Friend has made, and I hope to see a more dignified approach to this debate from all concerned in future.

17:03

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for bringing us this debate. I am proud to call her a colleague and a friend. She is an exemplary part of the LGBT movement, and I am proud to associate myself with her and her comments in this debate.

We have heard already about the extraordinary length of waiting lists for gender-affirming care. Based on current appointment rates, a trans person can expect to wait an average of 25 years across the UK for an initial appointment to start gender-affirming care. That is simply not good enough, and we would never accept this in any other patient category in our NHS. We have heard much in this debate about the delays in receiving this care and the devastating impact that has on the lives of transgender people. With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister whether waiting times for transgender patients are included within the current target to cut waiting times to 18 weeks by the end of this Parliament. Can she commit specifically to decreasing the length of waiting times for gender care by the end of the Parliament?

The second issue that I want to raise—which we have heard about already—is the operation of NHS gender care services more generally, and shared care as an important component of them. Once a gender clinic deems a trans person’s medical transition complete, it discharges them from its care to that of the GP, who will then authorise hormone prescriptions and contact the clinic about any issues. However, GPs in my constituency —and many that we have heard about in this debate—are increasingly refusing to enter into shared care agreements. The rate of such rejections has gone up from 5% to 21% in the last 12 months. Will the Minister therefore commit to clarifying the roles and responsibilities of different NHS services for the provision of gender-related healthcare? It is unacceptable that those who have waited years or decades for initial appointments, who have jumped through all the hoops possible to get NHS gender care, and who are finally in receipt of NHS prescriptions from NHS doctors, are then in practice unable to receive a prescription because their GP has unilaterally decided not to perform blood monitoring tests and provide that shared care support.

It is vital, as has been said, that we ensure access to a range of health services beyond gender-specific needs, whether sexual health services, reproductive health services, or primary and secondary care more generally. The voluntary and community sector, including trans-specific groups, perform a vital role in providing services, brokerage, networking and support in the health service but they are often poorly funded. I encourage the Minister to see what the NHS can do to support trans-led health organisations within it.

Unfortunately and increasingly, a hostile environment is being developed across much of the media. It seeks to erase the existence of trans people from our past, present and future. It is vital that we speak up about their existence, and about the experience of our constituents. I have been contacted by many of my constituents who are trans to detail the impact that the media, political and public discourse is having on their lives. I welcome this debate as part of resetting that discourse in this place and in our society. Fundamentally, this is about treating all people with dignity and respect, and about recognising that trans people exist, as do their health needs.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

We have four minutes remaining for three speakers.

17:06

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I feel it is incumbent on me to speak out on behalf of parents of trans people and, by extension, their children. On a couple of occasions, such parents have come to see me with, frankly, some of the most harrowing cases I have heard as an MP. One family is planning to leave the country. What kind of country have we become where that is even a possibility? One parent’s child, who is currently receiving puberty-blocking drugs and who has been thriving at school and socially as a girl, has in recent months seen her horizons shrinking just at the moment she hoped they would be expanding, as is the right of any young person. As people opine about rights, and debate the apparent clash of rights on this sensitive topic, hon. Members and members of the public would do well to put themselves in the shoes of that girl. How is that young person to feel, knowing that there is a growing hostility towards people like her that is being weaponised, exploited and unleashed?

Although of course it is right that there is rigorous scrutiny of the efficacy of drugs, given the perceived risk of harm, I ask the Minister to consider that thousands of young people are deeply fearful because they are currently on puberty blockers that are now being banned. Just imagine if we suggested taking drugs away that treated a conventional medical issue. That would cause enough fear, but imagine what it must be like to fear that your very essence as a human being is going to be damaged against your will. As others have mentioned, the trial of such drugs will be for 226 young people, but many thousands are waiting to be seen by gender identity services, some of whom are ineligible for the trial anyway. We must put the humanity back into the debate about human rights, especially when they are seen to clash. We must put humanity back into our deliberations and the human back at the centre of our thoughts. Empathy and kindness cannot be drowned out in a debate about rights, and I will continue to speak up for vulnerable people.

17:08

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will be brief because we are running out of time. Detransitioners are an often marginalised and misunderstood group. Ritchie Herron is a civil servant who underwent gender surgery in 2018 in order to live as a woman. That involved rearranging tissue in the genital area to create a vaginal opening. When he decided to detransition, he was concerned that specialists were unable to advise him clearly about the correct dosages of hormones that he should take during the process to avoid increasing his risk of osteoporosis. In brief, I simply ask the Minister what her Department is doing to look at how the NHS supports those who are detransitioning? That is not to say that those who are transitioning should not be able to access the support that they need, but what is the NHS doing to support those who want to detransition, especially those who experienced puberty blockers at a young age?

17:09

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) on introducing the debate. I will be brief.

A trans woman from my constituency told me:

“Transgender healthcare. Even these words feel contentious… If I have a toothache, I understand that I can book an appointment to see a dentist. The pain I was feeling radiated through every aspect of my day, but for a long time it seemed impossible to name. Even when I finally found a way to begin to understand this pain, I was met with a second, greater barrier. Reaching out to the dentist doesn't make me feel ashamed and like a monster.”

That is just one small snippet of many stories I have, and I could share many more today. Trans people are human beings, and we need to start treating them as such. I await the outcome of the Levy review, but live in hope that it will focus on the safety, dignity and autonomy of trans and non-binary people. Time will tell.

17:10

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for securing this important debate on healthcare for transgender people and the excellent opening speech she made.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe that everyone should have the freedom to live their lives as who they are, with their fundamental rights protected. Nobody’s health or life chances should be limited or determined because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Liberal Democrats strongly support better specialist healthcare services for people who are struggling with their gender identity. These individuals are often the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society, and it is key that they get the support they need from both the Government and healthcare services to ensure they are protected.

I will start with young people. The old system—a single clinic with a shockingly long waiting list, rated “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission—was clearly failing vulnerable people at a very difficult point in their lives. Before the gender identity development scheme closed, more than 5,000 young people were stuck on that list. They were left waiting for a first appointment for almost three years on average.

For teenagers going through what are often incredibly difficult experiences, three years is an eternity. I have met parents in my constituency surgeries who are visibly distressed by the additional pressure and interminable wait for help for their children or teenagers. We must try to do better for these families. Liberal Democrats have consistently campaigned for action to tackle appallingly long wait times across the NHS, whether it is for cancer treatment or mental health, and it is right that we do so for gender identity services, too.

Trans people should not face a delay in receiving healthcare just because they are trans, and the current situation of waiting years is simply unacceptable. That is why change is needed, and why Liberal Democrats have long pressed the Government to establish new specialist services and recruit and retain more specialist clinicians—so that trans people can access the appropriate, individually-focused and high-quality healthcare that they need.

The NHS’s move to create multiple new regional services is therefore welcome, but only three are open now—in London, the north-west and the south-west—leaving those who have already been stuck on waiting lists for years to wait even longer. There is no indication yet of when the other centres will open.

I hope the Government will show far more urgency in getting these centres up and running properly, or more people will be denied the critical care they need as they languish on long waiting lists. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to put forward a solid timeline on delivery for the future centres.

Moving on to adults, we are concerned that the current waiting list for adults trans people attempting to access gender identity clinics in the UK is on average five years, and there are some reports of much longer averages of 12 years in England or even longer, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth highlighted. That is unacceptable for people in distress.

Trans adults have significantly higher rates of mental health conditions, such as autism, dementia and learning disabilities, so timely help is really important. Furthermore, many patients report discrimination, misgendering or the refusal of standard services. Surveys reveal that 40% of trans individuals experience negative healthcare interactions and 21% say their needs were ignored. We have heard about the devastating impact that can have on these real people.

I welcome the commissioning of the Levy review into healthcare for trans adults. Will the Minister clarify when we might expect it to conclude and report back? I hope it will cover both the quality of healthcare and its timeliness. We believe that trans people have the right to be seen by a specialist within 18 weeks, as set out in the NHS constitution, and that they deserve further support while on an NHS waiting list, such as mental-health support and gender-affirming care. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the NHS has doubled investment, opened new clinics and initiated wellbeing pilots offering digital mental health and community support while patients wait, but there is still much more to do.

It is critical in our modern and inclusive society that no one should wait longer or suffer inappropriate care just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I urge the Minister to ensure that all UK citizens are provided with adequate care, support and protection by increasing the availability and quality of specialist gender services across the country.

17:15

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) on securing this important debate. I declare an interest: I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and I have cared for those with gender dysphoria in the past, and am likely to do so in the future. As we discuss a fairly heated topic, we need to remember that there are people experiencing significant challenges, and they deserve the very best healthcare based on need and the best evidence.

One challenge is that name and sex records are sometimes different from how people are referred to in a ward. The previous Conservative Government launched the Sullivan review, which found that a failure of NHS bodies to record biological sex meant that some people were not invited to sex-specific screening. It recommended that we should not combine questions on sex and gender, and that putting politics before patients threatens clinical care. When will the Government formally respond to the Sullivan report? When does the Minister expect to implement its important recommendations? How will the Government ensure that intimate care is provided by someone of the same biological sex where possible?

I would also like to raise the issue of phalloplasty, which is a major surgery on healthy bodies, creating a penis. According to the NHS website, it causes urinary incontinence, loss of sexual function, and in 3% of cases, necrosis and loss of the penis. Is the Minister confident that the NHS is doing the right thing with this surgery?

I want to move on to talk about children with trans identity. We have been talking about the puberty blockers trial. Why is that trial occurring? Drugs are, unusually, being given to children with physically healthy bodies. Despite telling Members of this House that he was comfortable with the trial, the Secretary of State said on Friday to the media that he was “uncomfortable”. Why is it being considered before the completion of the data linkage study recommended in the Cass report?

Some 9,000 children went through the Tavistock gender identity and development services. Many regretted irreversible damage to their bodies. Why have the Government chosen to experiment on a new batch of children before the data linkage study recommended by the Cass report is complete? What steps is the Minister taking to secure that data? What steps is she taking to hold to account the people who are obstructing the data linkage study? What assessment has she made of the motivation of those obstructing a study that, at its heart, is designed to protect children?

What of the trial itself? Some 226 children will receive puberty blockers—is that a limit? Will there be no more by law? They will be randomised into treatment now or treatment after 12 months, and analysed after just two years. When someone receives the drug for only a year, they will still be a child. What meaningful results can be obtained over that period?

The true control group of those not receiving the drugs is not randomised, but chosen or matched from a different trial—the Horizon Intensive trial. Is the Minister concerned that that may introduce a bias? The criteria for getting puberty blockers under the trial require that one parent consents, not necessarily both—one might disagree—and the clinician must think it will benefit the child, but on what specific criteria will the clinician make that decision? Is the Minister concerned to ensure that ideology does not affect judgment?

The Cass review said that the majority of children with gender dysphoria will recover from their distress without any medication, and that it is not currently possible to predict which children they would be. Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of children in this, the Streeting trial, are physically healthy children whose distress would get better without puberty blockers, and that this Labour Government are choosing to give potentially dangerous drugs to children, most of whom will not need them?

17:19

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) on securing this important debate. Without giving away any state secrets, we are roughly the same age; I am not gay, but I also marched and campaigned against section 28—I remember those days from very early on.

I want to say from the outset that this Government stand for the important principle in our healthcare system—which has been echoed this afternoon by many Members—that everyone in our country deserves access to first-class healthcare. I will not rehearse here the mess that we inherited from the last Government; we do not have time. However, we are determined to ensure that what I have set out happens. If we are to make good on that principle, we must take account of the diverse needs of our society. That of course includes trans people and the wider lesbian, gay and bisexual community.

Colleagues are right to say that transgender people experience significant and specific health inequalities throughout their lives. As we have been reminded again this afternoon and should always bear in mind when we have debates in this place, these are real people’s lives. Many people are with us today in the Public Gallery, and I am sure that many others are watching online. That is why this Government have commissioned NHS England to undertake a health evidence review, led by Dr Michael Brady, the national adviser on LGBT health, whom I met in advance of this debate. He has held the position of adviser since 2019 and works as a sexual health and HIV consultant at King’s College hospital. I am pleased that he is doing that review. The work is considering how we can better understand lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender healthcare needs and will provide a clearer picture of what the problems are—the data, the evidence—and how we need to address them.

That is particularly important in relation to preventive healthcare and the inequalities space. The Government have been very clear about our commitment to reversing the shocking health inequalities in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) highlighted where there is good practice across the country. In addition, it is important to highlight the fact that despite the umbrella term of LGBT, needs are different in this group, and equality terms are covered by different aspects of the Equality Act 2010. All of this needs to be clearly evidenced and brought forward in the work to which I am referring. Lots of people asked this question: we anticipate that the findings of the evidence review will be finalised in the new year. We will then be considering those very carefully.

We have talked this afternoon about the fact that trans people—they are the subject of this debate—have unique health needs and specialist services to support them. This Government are improving specialist gender services for children, young people and adults in England. I recognise that those wishing to access gender services are waiting far too long for a first appointment. We are determined to change that, which is why NHS England has increased the number of adult gender dysphoria clinics in England from seven to 12, with the roll-out of five new pilot clinics since July 2020. These clinics are helping to tackle long waits, but we know that waiting times for these services can be distressing and are having a real impact on people’s wellbeing. To support those facing long waits, the Department of Health and Social Care has tendered for a new Waiting Well pilot. That will run for 12 months and provide those on the waiting list for the gender dysphoria clinic in the south-west region with access to support and information before appointments. The aim is for the pilot to launch in early 2026 and to inform plans for a national offer, subject to effective evaluation.

It is vital that transgender people are able to access the high-quality healthcare that they deserve. As we have heard, NHS England has asked Dr David Levy to carry out a review of adult gender services, because that was a specific recommendation from the Cass review of children and young people’s gender services. As an independent chair, Dr Levy will examine the model of care and operating procedures of each service, and is carefully considering feedback and outcomes from clinicians and patients. To respond to a number of questions this afternoon, that includes issues relating to shared care prescribing and monitoring of hormone medication. Dr Levy has been supported in his review by independent senior clinicians and professional bodies. I expect the review to be published shortly, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will inform the House as soon as that has happened, but let me assure Members here, and people listening to or reading about this debate, that we will use the review as a basis to improve NHS adult gender services.

Issues relating to children have been raised this afternoon. I know that children and young people’s gender services are a sensitive topic that elicits strong opinions, some of which we have heard today. Let me be very clear: we will take an evidence-based approach when it comes to the health and wellbeing of all children and young people. Their safety is our primary concern. We are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Cass review, to ensure that children who access these services receive the same high-quality care as any other child or young person accessing NHS services. We believe that the Cass review remains an excellent, evidence-based report. I urge all hon. Members to use it as their guide when making assertions, including in their understanding of gender dysphoria. We welcome that report and accept its work; it is our guidance for navigating healthcare for transgender young people.

It is still my understanding that the report is not supported by the Green party, and not properly supported by the Liberal Democrats, so when we talk about evidence, colleagues perhaps need to check and go back to the source report, because we are determined to follow the evidence and great work done by Hilary Cass.

NHS England has opened three new services in the north-west, London and the south-west, as we have heard. Those services operate under a fundamentally different and new clinical model, in which children and young people get the tailored and holistic care they need from multidisciplinary teams of experts in paediatrics, neurodiversity and mental health. A fourth service in the east of England is expected to open early in the new year. NHS England aims to open service provision in every region of England by 2026–27. That will help to further reduce waiting times and bring these services much closer to the homes of the children and young people who need them.

On puberty blockers and the pathways trial, the Cass review was clear that better quality evidence is critical to understanding the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones. That is why the NHS has removed them from children’s gender services, and why the Government have indefinitely banned them in private supply.

Dr Cass also recommended a clinical trial to understand the effects of these hormones, which is why the pathways trial has been established. In this controlled study, puberty suppression will be offered solely within the context of the comprehensive assessment and psychosocial support now offered by the NHS. The trial has undergone comprehensive review, has received independent scientific, ethical and regulatory approvals, and will soon open to recruitment.

I know that many hon. Members have strongly held views about this research. However, I want to be really clear that safeguarding the children and young people participating in this trial is our absolute priority. In response to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on detransitioning, I will add that NHS England has called for evidence from people with lived experience and from professionals; I understand that the consultation closes on 28 December.

[Nadia Whittome]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will finish.

I met Dr Sullivan recently to understand her report and how it impacts on the Department of Health and NHS England. My understanding is that each Department is looking at the recommendations of her review, and that it is important to have accurate data. I will ensure that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) gets an answer on whether there will be a formal Government response.

This Government were elected on a manifesto to bring down inequality. We are doing so through a number of different measures—on the soft drinks industry, free school meals, the generational ban on smoking and Awaab’s law. In her Budget, the Chancellor lifted half a million children out of poverty at the stroke of a pen.

We are determined to ensure that no one falls through the cracks of our health system, and we will give transgender people the care they deserve. I hope the actions I have set out today demonstrate our commitment to that goal and our focus on improving healthcare provision for transgender people, across all ages, based on good clinical scientific evidence. We will cut waiting lists for gender services, along with all other waiting lists, and ensure that healthcare is always evidence-based, improving health outcomes for trans people and the wider community.

17:27

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate, and all my hon. Friends, for their passion, care, advocacy, understanding, kind words and leadership in this area. The tone of the debate has proved that we can, away from the glare of culture wars, have a sensitive and nuanced discussion about how to guarantee care for some of our most vulnerable citizens and how to support their families.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for her understanding and clarity of thought; she is a strong advocate. I also thank the spokesperson for the Green party, the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer).

I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for coming here divested of some of the toxic and inflammatory zeal, even though she seemed more concerned about the small number of people who are detransitioning rather than about all trans people and their healthcare.

Most of all, I thank the Minister for her remarks. I welcome her commitment to first-class healthcare for everyone. I welcome the Brady review reporting early in the new year, including the fact that there will be between seven and 12 healthcare centres for young trans people, with more clinics to come around the corner. I also very much welcome her Waiting Well pilot and hope that it can be rolled out across the country.

I want to finish by broadening out this discussion. This has not been an easy year for trans people. The Supreme Court judgment and the misguided, unnecessary interim guidance that followed from the Equality and Human Rights Commission have created genuine fear that rights long enjoyed are now at risk. We have heard today about the poor state of healthcare for trans people in this country, and flawed guidance risks making that situation worse.

I have heard from trans and non-binary people who have developed urinary tract infections because they feared going to the toilet. There is no doubt that the toxic culture wars have the potential—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order.

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).