Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14 January 2026

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

Ajax Programme

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the Ajax Programme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. This debate has been a long time coming. Such is the Kafkaesque procedure for selecting debates that this application was granted only at the eighth time of asking; I had first requested a debate on this subject on 1 September 2025—over four months ago. Since then, the Ajax programme has gone from on track to throwing a track, and the outlook for the programme and our armoured capability, the future of armoured infantry as a concept and the current deployability of 3rd (UK) Division are now all very much under the microscope.

In this debate, I am not seeking to apportion blame, point fingers at individuals or orchestrate a witch hunt. It is clear that the Ajax programme has been failing for a number of years, although I will go on to question some of the recent specific decision making regarding the programme. Accountability sits with successive Ministers. The slow progress on delivery appears to be an issue between the Army, the Department and General Dynamics.

We can skip over the potted history of the Ajax programme—others will cover that—but, to paraphrase Rodgers and Hammerstein, “How do you solve a problem like Ajax?” Although it was based on an existing General Dynamics platform, the Army made so many additions and revisions to the existing capability that it is now considered to be bespoke technology. We are talking about a staggering 1,200 capability requirements for each of the six vehicle types under the Ajax umbrella.

The March 2022 National Audit Office report on the Ajax programme details the fact that neither the Department nor General Dynamics fully understood some component specifications or how they would be integrated on to the Ajax vehicle, leading to consequential changes to the overall design, disputes between the Ministry of Defence and General Dynamics and, inevitably, programme delays. Both the MOD and General Dynamics have been criticised for underestimating the scale of the work, the technical challenge and the sequencing of the work. General Dynamics blamed the MOD for not having fully defined acceptance criteria; the MOD blamed the General Dynamics safety documentation. The contingency within the programme was quickly used up and the programme was suddenly four years behind schedule.

Noise and vibration issues were recognised in mid-2020, with a stop notice issued in June 2021. All dynamic movement and transition activity was halted while the programme underwent a significant reset. The Army resumed training on Ajax in 2023, but paused again in November 2025. The programme’s issues from 2020 to 2021 are well documented. Those issues are a failure to establish effective governance, complex assurance arrangements, high turnover of senior staff, an ineffective programme board, weak project controls—the list goes on. The most stark, however, was

“an over-emphasis on achieving its IOC”—

initial operating capability—

“target date, which meant that it prioritised time and cost over capability. As a result, it pressed ahead with the programme without resolving performance issues.”

Given what we know now and the issues encountered less than three weeks after IOC was declared, I would like to hear an assessment from the Minister as to whether he believes that that is still an issue today.

Initial operating capability for the Ajax programme was declared on 5 November 2025 by the Government; I stress “by the Government”, because several stages to that process were not made public until last month. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed to me:

“All criteria for Ajax Initial Operating Capability…were met on 23 July 2025 and following a period of review, IOC was declared by the Army on 15 September 2025.”

We know that only because it was written on a cake in a General Dynamics promotional video of the Minister’s visit to Merthyr Tydfil. Additionally, he confirmed:

“Before declaring Initial Operating Capability, I received written assurances from the Chief of the General Staff and the acting NAD”—

national armaments director—

“that the vehicle was safe to operate. Within the letter note AJAX the vehicle was described as ‘demonstrably safe to operate’.”

The Minister added that

“prior to Ajax Initial Operating Capability being announced, I sought assurances in writing from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the National Armaments Director that the system was safe to operate, which I received.”

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for initiating this important debate. Does he agree with me that it is important for the Minister to set out that in 2022 I and colleagues on the Defence Committee went to Merthyr Tydfil, did a review and clearly stated that IOC was nowhere near deliverable in the timeframes proposed? Does my hon. Friend think it is worth the Minister setting out what checks against the Defence Committee report were done when looking at IOC?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. I was not going to cover it in my speech, so it is definitely worth adding to the record for the Minister to address in his response.

The interim National Armaments Director, the new National Armaments Director, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff represent our most senior leaders within defence. It is hard to believe that they all would have signed off a vehicle platform that was inherently unsafe or where it was a sketchy 50:50 decision. How did we reach a point where four-star senior officers and equivalents had the confidence to sign off the vehicle’s initial operating capability, which then received ministerial approval, only for it to blow up in everybody’s face weeks later like a Wile E. Coyote Road Runner trap?

The March 2022 National Audit Office report states:

“The Department believes that the contract also incentivised GDLS-UK to prioritise production milestones over the quality and performance of the capability.”

It goes on:

“The contract incentivised GDLS-UK to achieve production milestones resulting in it continuing to manufacture vehicles while technical issues remained unresolved.”

Can the Minister give any clarity on whether that is still the case today, given that General Dynamics signed off achieving all the criteria required to meet initial operating capability, only for the entire programme to collapse less than four months later? Initial operating capability was also signed off by the Army on 15 September, before ministerial sign-off was granted on 5 November.

Last year, the then Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry stated that

“The Armoured Cavalry Programme (Ajax) is projecting the delivery of over 180 operationally deployable platforms by the end of 2025.”

Despite the various travails of the Ajax programme, production has continued throughout the training pause. As a result, we know that the Army has received just under a third of all Ajax platforms across all variants. It should be noted that the 2022 National Audit Office report highlighted that the compressed programme schedule flagged that there would no longer be time to validate the design of capability drops 3 and 4 before manufacture. Given that we are now in capability drop 3, can the Minister confirm whether the designs were validated before these vehicles were assembled and delivered last year?

The Minister also confirmed that

“It is anticipated that a further 110 platforms will be delivered in 2026, with the remaining 297 platforms delivered by 2028.”

With 180 Ajax platforms delivered, a similar number still to be accepted by the Army and all 589 hulls having now been completed in Spain, on current timelines the complete production run will have been completed by mid-2027. I believe that includes bringing all vehicles up to capability drop 4 standard.

Assuming that any resolution to the current training pause does not involve the mother of all factory recalls, there could potentially be an idle factory in Wales. What plans are there for the Merthyr Tydfil factory beyond the middle of next year? With only 18 months’ work left to complete, can the Minister assure General Dynamics employees in Wales that they will have a job once Ajax production is complete? Can he assure those employees that there will be no redundancies, given that we have no plans to purchase any more vehicles and that export plans are yet to materialise? While I appreciate that UK Defence and Security Exports sit within the Department for Business and Trade, can the Minister confirm what progress UKDSE has made regarding any potential export sales?

One of the main reasons why we are debating this topic today, and the reason for such media interest, is the social media content that has emerged from the factory and from Army personnel regarding the workmanship on the vehicles. To that end, I would like to recognise the efforts of Alfie Usher, aka Fill Your Boots, who has been instrumental in putting heat and light on this issue on behalf of service personnel. For obvious reasons, I am no trade unionist, but he has been the unofficial secretary-general of the unofficial armed forces union for some time.

I know that the Armed Forces Minister has previously liaised with Alfie on issues, and—I say this only partially in jest—perhaps the Government should reconsider his application to be the Armed Forces Commissioner. The Government are struggling to fill the role. Alfie’s application got binned back in August, but he has been doing the job unpaid since then anyway.

For those who do not follow Alfie’s account—any politician with an interest in defence really should—I should say that between the exposés and topical memes, Alfie has been the bête noire of General Dynamics and the Army, operating as chief whistleblower and ensuring that the voice of those on the ground can be heard. There have been multiple examples of concerns shared by him via social media on behalf of service personnel tasked with prepping newly delivered vehicles. A variety of issues have been highlighted and I ask the Minister, if he has not done so already, to include Alfie within the scope of the ministerial-led review to ensure full transparency and the inclusion of service personnel. They are the end users of this vehicle, and too often we ask our personnel to put up and shut up. An organisation that dines out on moral courage and pretends that it values 360° feedback should make sure that it listens to our soldiers, irrespective of how refreshingly blunt their views might be.

The evidence shown by Fill Your Boots has put heat and light on the production and assembly issues upon which blame has been placed. During the first pause in 2021, the MOD and General Dynamics did not agree on whether the levels of noise and vibration of Ajax vehicles breached contractual requirements. Given that the same noise and vibration issues potentially remain unresolved six years later, can the Minister clarify what does constitute a contractual breach?

Through 2020-21, General Dynamics undertook a supposedly in-depth review of the Ajax programme to confirm the root cause of noise and vibration issues, identify solutions and then validate them through extensive testing. They identified that noise and vibration issues were caused by the track, suspension and running gear; the engine and its mounting in the vehicle; quality issues including bolting, cable routing and welding; and performance and integration of crew headsets. The vehicles were thoroughly assessed using a noise and vibration calculator, whatever that is, to determine

“the safe operating envelopes for the platform across different speeds and terrains.”

The noise and vibration calculator provided by General Dynamics did not measure noise and vibration, which the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory raised concerns about. It estimated the maximum safe exposure time on Ajax vehicles for given conditions based on measurements from early trials. In August 2020, the first noise-induced hearing loss symptoms were reported by soldiers. In September 2020, DSTL discovered an error in General Dynamics’ measurements, which meant that vehicle crews might have been overexposed to noise and vibration. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has told me:

“Whole Body and Hand Arm Vibration Levels were well understood, and effective mitigations were in place.”

But they cannot have been effective, or why would personnel still be suffering from noise and vibration-related sickness? Will the Minister confirm that any analysis of the root cause of the current noise and vibration sickness does not use the General Dynamics noise and vibration calculator, and instead seeks to use a metric that does not raise concerns with DSTL?

The measures implemented by General Dynamics included the implementation of an effective hearing protection and combined communication system, an improvement to the overall Ajax build quality, a review and amendment of build tolerances for key crew interfaces, changes to seat structures to provide greater vibration attenuation—that sounds very much like new seat cushions—and improvements to track tensioning procedures to ensure correct track tension, which reduces vibration.

On the track tension, I am aware that composite rubber tracks are now mature enough to be viable for a vehicle the weight of Ajax. Although there are still issues regarding track replacement, given that the whole track has to be replaced rather than a single track link, I note that the General Dynamics Ajax Blackjax demonstrator vehicle at DSEI had this fitted. I ask the Minister what assessment his Department has made of the feasibility of switching to composite rubber tracks as a potential solution going forward?

The 2022 National Audit Office report outlined that there were 27 limitations of use on Ajax vehicles in September 2021; 22 were safety-related and 11 were critical to achieving IOC. Can the Minister give the House assurances that those 11 limitations were resolved prior to initial operating capability being declared in 2025? Could the Minister also confirm what contractual payments were made to General Dynamics on the achievement of the criteria for initial operating capability in July 2025 or the formal declaration of initial operating capability on 5 November 2025? What is the total amount paid to General Dynamics as of today, and how much still remains to be paid? What delivery milestone will trigger the remaining payments?

With those resolutions to the previous issues identified in mind, we know that three exercises took place between IOC criteria being achieved on 23 July and ministerial IOC declaration on 5 November. We have not heard of any instances of noise and vibration sickness occurring among vehicle crews during those three exercises. Will the Minister confirm that there were no noise and vibration sickness issues among crews during those three exercises?

I asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry what discussions his Department had had with General Dynamics, the senior responsible officer and the British Army regarding the Ajax programme between 23 July and Exercise Titan Storm in late November. Instead of a response, the Minister told me:

“I have directed a Ministerial review that covers elements of his question. I will update the House in due course.”

The Minister was happy to tell me that he met with key stakeholders, including meeting General Dynamics after the programme was paused, but, much as I have tried, the Government have scrupulously avoided disclosing any information about what ministerial discussions have taken place with stakeholders between 23 July and 5 November.

On 1 January, I asked a named day question for answer on 7 January 2026. I asked:

“how many noise and vibration injuries were sustained…between 23 July 2025 and Exercise Titan Storm”.

Strangely, I have not received a response yet, a week after one was due—it is almost as if this is an issue that the Government do not want to disclose. Will the Minister clarify the answer to written question 101920 and put on the record how many noise and vibration injuries were sustained between the achievement of initial operating capability criteria by General Dynamics and the start of Exercise Titan Storm?

The March 2022 National Audit Office Report states that the Department

“knew of noise and vibration issues before soldiers reported injuries but was not aware of the severity of potential problems. Reporting of issues identified in trials was limited and slow, meaning that safety concerns were not shared or escalated by the Army or…DE&S”.

Has that culture been addressed? Concerns were first raised about noise and vibration by the Army trials team in late 2019, but did not appear in quarterly programme reports until March 2021. To what extent have we seen the same issue repeat itself last summer?

In December 2025, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed to me that

“Of the 61 vehicles of all AJAX types involved in the exercise, 23 AJAX Vehicles were linked to soldiers suffering from noise or vibration injury.”

I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed where those 61 affected vehicles were manufactured. Were they part of the first 100 Ajax vehicles manufactured and assembled in Spain, or were they later vehicles whose hulls were manufactured in Spain but were assembled at the Merthyr Tydfil facility? Can he also confirm whether the early production vehicles from capability drop 0 to 2, which were identified as not being fully compliant with requirements, have now been retrofitted and what capability drop are they currently equipped to?

The Minister also confirmed that

“On 22 November…during a routine training exercise, around 30 soldiers operating in Ajax reported being affected by noise and vibration exposure.”

For 30 soldiers to be affected by the same noise and vibration sickness, with identical symptoms, as a result of a known issue supposedly resolved by 2023 is simply unacceptable. It is incredibly important that we are able to understand whether there were any instances during the three exercises prior to Titan Storm and indeed to identify whether there have been any instances of General Dynamics employees affected by noise and vibration exposure during the same period, prior to or after the 23 July IOC criteria achievement milestone.

In November, I asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry how many compensation claims related to noise and vibration symptoms incurred during the use of Ajax variants had been made since the start of the armoured cavalry programme. The Minister informed me that it would take time to collate and review the information needed to answer the question, and that he would write to me. It is now mid-January and I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide that information in his response. It should not take two months to work out how many compensation claims have been made relating to Ajax. If I were Minister, I would have a close eye on the running tally, particularly in preparation for this debate.

On 8 December the Minister confirmed:

“We are currently undertaking reviews into the medical injuries sustained by Ajax crews, and more details on the findings will be published in due course.”

Will the ministerial-led review he has commissioned or the report from the Defence Accident Investigation Branch contain the details of those findings? In that review, will he confirm how many service personnel are undergoing treatment or have been diagnosed with hearing loss following audiometry protocols after operating within an Ajax variant?

Regarding when the vehicles will be able to recommence training, any decisions on the pause are to be made by Ministers after the investigations by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch have concluded. That suggests that the pause will be lifted after the investigation but before the conclusion of the ministerial-led review. Will the Minister clarify the timeline for the investigation, which he previously stated would take at least two weeks and so should be approaching conclusion, and the ministerial-led review, for which we are yet to see the terms of reference, which were due before Christmas? I appreciate it will still be autumn until the defence investment plan is published in March. Will the pause on the use of Ajax be lifted before the conclusion of the Minister’s review, given that the noise and vibration issues may not have been identified, let alone resolved?

This debate is about the future of the Ajax programme. Although the near future revolves around the resolution of the immediate issues that followed Exercise Titan Storm, beyond that the programme will need to achieve full operating capability, but crucially, it will be the tip of the spear in our armoured doctrine. So, a good start would be to have an armoured doctrine that is coherent.

In 2014, we ordered 589 vehicles out of an optional 1,328—below the Army’s required fleet size at the time of 686. Although that was not necessarily a defining error at the time, subsequent decisions, even as recently as last summer, have compounded the issue, bringing us to a situation where our armoured fleet is now completely unbalanced—increasingly so given the evolution of modern conflict since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the ubiquity of drones at all levels, and the current global arms race.

When Ajax was commissioned, we were still undertaking combat operations in Afghanistan. Since then, we have had multiple defence reviews, and changed our focus to the Indo-Pacific and now to the High North, and now we are talking about putting troops in eastern Europe as a deterrent to a belligerent Russia. The irony is that we still have much of the same armour designed to do that job the first time round.

The original plan was for Ajax, alongside Boxer and Challenger 3, to provide the backbone of the Army’s armoured capability within Integrated Force 2030. March 2021’s “Defence in a Competitive Age” outlines how the Army would use Ajax in its two close-combat armoured brigade combat teams, and as part of its deep reconnaissance strike brigade combat team—formations that are now putatively in place.

We cannot discuss the future of the Ajax programme without discussing how the Army plans to use Ajax within those brigade combat teams. As somebody with a background in armoured infantry, who formerly held an admittedly niche specialisation in anti-tanks, I have more than a keen interest in the future of our armoured capability. Being something of a tank-spotter, I note some glaring capability gaps based on the information provided by Ministers over the past year or so.

Let us start with the basics. In December 2024, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement and Industry, stated in a written answer to my question:

“On current plans, Boxer will be delivered to four Heavy Mechanised Infantry Battalions and Divisional Enablers.”

Seven months later, however, on 15 July, she stated:

“The Army intends to reorganise its Heavy Forces units in 3 Division, such that all four would become Armoured Infantry Units based on the Ajax and Boxer family of vehicles.”

She subsequently went on to state:

“The Army intends to equip the Regular Infantry Units within 3 (UK) Division with Ares in the infantry troop carrying role: 1 Mercian, 1 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, 1 Royal Welsh and 5 Rifles.”

What happened between December 2024 and July 2025 that saw such a fundamental change to the future of the infantry, and indeed our entire armoured capability? The number of Ares platforms to be provided has not changed since 2014: just 93. For reference, the current land equipment table shows that we currently have 604 Warrior. Ares’s role was originally “protected mobility reconnaissance support” and latterly to “deliver and support specialist troops”. It has never once been earmarked as an infantry-fighting vehicle.

The present Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), then gave this written response to my question:

“The Ares variant of Ajax is designed for mounted close combat and is being delivered to the Field Army. The decision to field Ares with Infantry Battalions was taken after a considerable assessment programme.”

I would be interested to know whether the aim of the Ares assessment programme was simply to justify the existing total of 589 vehicles, or actually to highlight the capability required, because whichever question the Army asks, the answer always appears to be 589 Ajax vehicles. I asked to see the outcome of that assessment programme but was told that its disclosure would

“be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces”.

I suggest that, given the enemy knows that Ares does not have any armour-defeating weapons capability, the issue around prejudicing capability lies elsewhere.

Let’s walk that back a step. In my opinion, the Ares variant is not designed for mounted close combat. It is equipped with a remote weapon station that can mount a 50-calibre machine gun at the heaviest. As someone whose specialisation in the Army was armoured infantry, I know my way around a 30 mm canon. A 50-cal cannot defeat armour; it is no substitute for 40 mm APFSDS, which is the round that its Ajax brother uses.

In September, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport stated in a written answer that Ares would be,

 “used to deliver and support specialist troops across the battlefield. The term ‘specialist troops’ is used informally, and in this context refers to Anti-Tank Javelin Teams, Snipers and Support Troops.”

But by November that had changed again, with the same Minister contradictorily stating:

“Anti-tank platoons within Armoured Infantry units will be equipped with Boxer variants”.

So which is it: Ares or Boxer for Javelin platoons? Will armoured infantry battalions be tracked or a mix of wheeled and tracked, with the logistical implications of that? Will Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers light aid detachments have both Ajax and Boxer repair and recovery variants? Where are we going to keep the additional vehicles? What is the training burden of mixed armoured fleets, thereby doubling driving cadres, maintenance training, and vehicle commanders’ courses? Have we even bought a recovery variant of Boxer yet? The Army’s own website suggests it is not one of the variants within the 623. This approach is incoherent and suggests that the Army does not really know what to do with the capability it will shortly have.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On Boxer specifically, just before Christmas I received an answer to a parliamentary question from the Department, saying that it now will not give the initial operational capability date for Boxer, and that it is subject to the long-awaited defence investment plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that Boxer has already slipped by years, and that we cannot let it slip any further?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I absolutely concur with my right hon. Friend that Boxer is a vital capability—even more so, given the training pause that we are now encountering with Ajax—and we need to get Boxer into service as quickly as possible. I welcome the speeding up of that process overall.

Meanwhile in October, the then Minister for the Armed Forces had stated:

“Currently ARES will be fielded to Training Regiments, Armoured Cavalry units and Armoured Infantry units.”

As I said, we have ordered only 93. For reference, in order to reflect the establishment of an armoured infantry battalion, we would need 45 Ares to replace the capacity of the Warrior FV510, notwithstanding how many Athena variants we would need to cover the 511 command variant. Where is the capacity to have vehicles at training regiments and armoured cavalry units? There is no redundancy built into the current vehicle fleet.

The 93 Ares platforms equate to just 23 per battalion with no spare capacity, which is not even enough to replace three rifle companies’ worth of the Warrior FV510 variant. Can the Minister explain what the future establishment of these armoured infantry battalions will be? I appreciate that he will not have that information to hand—I do not think the Army knows yet—but will he write to me and explain how an armoured infantry battalion will be structured using Ares and Boxer?

The demise of Warrior leaves a yawning capability gap that will be difficult to adequately replace without a new IFV. The then Minister for the Armed Forces stated that,

“there is no direct replacement for Warrior”,

and:

“There are no plans to extend the out-of-service date for Warrior beyond 2027, and as such an extension is not under consideration.”

The then Minister also stated:

“As the ARES platform is delivered into service, tactical doctrines will be reviewed accordingly.”

I do not expect the Minister to answer the question or to know the ins and outs of armoured infantry doctrine, but he should raise the question with the Land Warfare Centre, and with the infantry battalions that will receive Ares, to ask them how the platform will be used and what capability will then be lost.

By removing a main armament from the armoured infantry’s firepower we fundamentally change the way that the vehicle is fought. It changes the way the vehicle can move cross-country, effectively removes the option to move in bounding overwatch, and means it can never engage enemy armour. Doctrinally, it turns the armoured infantry into mechanised infantry.

Doctrinally, Ares is more akin to the Mk3 Bulldog. Despite that, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry this week informed me that Ares

“is more suitable to be employed in the direct battle, rather than in the close support role”.

Given the glaring absence of a main armament on Ares, I would dispute that assessment, which seems convenient rather than well thought through. Bulldog itself is due to be replaced in 2030, so what progress has been made in procurement of the Patria 6x6?

Crucially, in December, the same Minister stated:

“There are no other platforms within the Army’s armoured fleet which can fulfil the armoured reconnaissance role; Ajax has been specifically designed for this purpose.”

With that in mind, and given that the entire Ajax fleet is grounded for an unspecified length of time pending an investigation by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch, with support from the Army Safety Investigation Team and General Dynamics, can the Minister state how the armoured reconnaissance capability of the British Army is currently being provided given that statement, and therefore what is the deployability of 3rd (UK) Division without any formation or armoured reconnaissance capability, or even the deployability of an armoured battle group from within 3 Div?

The parlous state of the British Army’s armoured capability is on the cusp of being thrust into stark relief by the Prime Minister’s announcement last week that we had committed troops to the multinational force for Ukraine. While any detail on that force structure is currently pure speculation, it was reported by The Times that those troop numbers would not exceed 7,500. On a three-form cycle, that is circa 22,000 troops—the majority of the field army. If they are to be more than a speed bump for the vanguard of the Guards Motor Rifle Brigade, they will need capability that they simply do not have today.

Challenger 3 has no timeline, with manufacturing due to commence only once the tank’s performance has been proven in the demonstration phase. It is not going to appear anytime soon. The Government have no plan for the remaining 140 Challenger 2s that are not due to be upgraded, and not even a promise that the plan will be outlined in the mythical defence investment plan. That is against the backdrop that the defence investment plan is unfunded, with a black hole of somewhere around £20 billion, give or take an Ajax programme budget. There will be cuts, and there will be delays. Out-of-service dates are going to be stretched to their limits. Bulldog is already 63 years old, and I am sure that it is no coincidence that it will be 67 when it reaches its out-of-service retirement date.

The Chief of the General Staff wants to implement the 20-40-40 land warfare concept, of which Ajax is a key part, working in tandem with Project Asgard. That is the capability that could and should provide a continuous on-land deterrent along the eastern flank defensive line, reduce our sensor-to-effector time, and achieve the nebulous tenfold increase in lethality by reducing the kill chain to well inside the sub-seven-minute timeframe that defines the current frontline in Ukraine.

Ajax cannot be scrapped. The Army needs it. There is no plan B, and given that it is a fixed-price contract, scrapping it will save no money anyway, despite Ministers confirming that the Government have sought legal advice from the Government Legal Department. The Government have not even considered a viable alternative option in CV90, and starting that process from scratch will take the best part of a decade before we even see a vehicle, based on current queues.

Put simply, Ajax needs to be delivered, primarily because the Army needs to restore its armoured reconnaissance capability. Additionally, there is a second order effect: confidence. The British Army badly needs to restore faith in Ajax as a platform. For all the negative stories and press, the Army and the Government must work out how to rebuild confidence in their ailing platform. I know what it is to be given kit that I do not have confidence in, and to have to use it on operations and wonder whether it will let me down, or worse. I know that the Minister can sympathise with that view. We must restore faith in the platform, not only for the soldiers expected to operate with it, but for its appeal from an investor and export position.

The long-term future of Ajax depends on the ability of General Dynamics to sell it overseas. The most advanced armoured fighting vehicle in its class should be an easy sell to the nations currently in the process of rearming and upgrading. We have a history of exquisite sovereign capability that nobody else really wants: Challenger 2, Warrior, even the SA80. Each of those has suffered from a lack of development over its life cycle, too often a day late and a dollar short.

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. As well as the delays to Boxer, there are now strong rumours about further delays to the upgrade of Challenger 2 to Challenger 3. As Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land is responsible for both programmes, does my hon. Friend agree that it really needs to sort itself out and get on with it?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank my hon. Friend again, and I absolutely concur. With the delays to Ajax, we can no longer afford to fail to upgrade Challenger 2 to Challenger 3. The fact that the timeline of that has slipped to indefinite is a serious concern for our armoured capability.

A successful export programme would fuel development of the platform and allow it to improve over multiple iterations. It would enhance our own capability, and allow us to benefit from the first-mover advantage of adopting a common vehicle platform that can be expanded with the addition of an IFV and a mortar variant, putting us in the vanguard of armoured development in the drone age. But that cannot happen without the vehicle proving its capability—first with the soldiers, then with our allies. In a crowded field, that should be a top priority.

In “The Iliad”, Ajax loses a competition to Odysseus and, distraught by the result and conquered by his own grief, plunges his sword into his own chest, killing himself out of shame at his own failure. The irony should not be lost on any of us. Fix Ajax, and fix it quickly. There is a war coming.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. We are looking at around three and a half minutes each.

09:59

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this important debate. My constituency is home to General Dynamics, and its site at Pentrebach is where Ajax vehicles are currently assembled. I am here today to try to represent the views of the 700 or so workers at the site, many of whom are my constituents.

In relation the concerns raised in November, as I said in the Chamber following the recent urgent question, safety is the priority and of paramount importance. It is essential that everything possible is done to keep our brave servicemen and women safe. I am aware that General Dynamics is working closely with the Government and the MOD to try and get to the bottom of what happened in November and put right anything that needs to be in response. Since initial concerns were identified in 2021, the company has worked closely with the Government and robust testing has been carried out over a number of years by the company together with the MOD and the Army.

General Dynamics has operated in south Wales valleys for many years and acquired the site in Merthyr Tydfil in 2014. Since then, hundreds of my constituents and others from surrounding areas have been employed on the Ajax programme and have dedicated themselves to playing their part in building a platform that is at the forefront of our defence readiness. Just two months ago, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry was in Merthyr Tydfil to celebrate the milestone of the IOC being awarded. I was present that day and the whole workforce was upbeat about the contribution that it was making to the nation’s defence story.

General Dynamics has been committed to the local area, and I am aware that there are ongoing discussions around export of the Ajax platform to other countries. This, of course, would mean sustaining jobs and creating additional jobs in my constituency and in the supply chain across south Wales and beyond.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents are employed in this sector, by General Dynamics and in the wider supply chain. Would my hon. Friend agree that those are the very types of secure, well-paid jobs that we need across the south Wales region?

[Gerald Jones]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s comment. It is important that we have certainty for those jobs and sustain and increase such jobs across south Wales, because that is integral to this Government’s growth agenda in communities in Wales and across the UK.

Merthyr Tydfil has a long, proud and historical association with the defence of our country. Merthyr was the largest iron-producing town in the world at the time of the industrial revolution, producing cannons and cannonballs for the Royal Navy, leading to a visit from Admiral Nelson himself in 1802 to the Cyfarthfa ironworks. Our area is keen to renew that role in the 21st century and play a part in creating quality defence capabilities with our dedicated and committed workforce.

As I mentioned earlier, currently more than 700 people are employed at the site and those skilled and long-term employment opportunities are vital to the ongoing regeneration of the valleys—an area where heavy industry, such as coal mining and steel, has now ceased, and new industry and employment opportunities are so important to creating hope and growth in our communities. In addition, as a proud supporter of the Union of the United Kingdom, it is hugely important that people across the whole of the UK feel included in the defence sector and ongoing Government investment in the defence capability should benefit communities in the UK and particularly the south Wales valleys.

In closing, I ask the Minister to address a few points. While I fully appreciate that the investigation has to take its course, does he have any indication of what timescale is in place for the investigations to be concluded? The longer the uncertainty goes on, the more impact it will have on the morale of the workforce in Merthyr Tydfil.

Finally, while I appreciate that the Minister is responding on behalf of the MOD, in the Chamber last month, I asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry if he would meet staff and trade unions at General Dynamics as soon as possible to provide them with as much reassurance as possible, something he committed to doing. Today I ask the Minister if he will undertake to raise with the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry the importance of that visit taking place at the earliest opportunity. In the event that the investigations take longer than expected, will he commit in the meantime to asking the MOD to find a way to provide regular updates to the staff and workforce until more certainty can be provided?

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will be bringing in the Front Bench speakers at 10.28 am.

10:04

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this debate today.

As has already been laid out, the Ajax programme has been a disaster. It has been repeatedly delayed and enormously expensive. We have known for years about problems with noise and vibration. It is mystifying how these vehicles were signed off as safe, despite so obviously not being so. British soldiers have been permanently injured as a result. Clearly the problems with Ajax did not begin under this Government; the vehicles were expected to be combat ready by mid-2019. However, the decision about what to do with the programme now does fall to this Government. Whatever they decide, this debacle cannot be allowed to continue.

The programme’s consistent failure sends a clear signal to those who have committed their lives to serving our country that, while they may be doing their duty to this country, the British Government are not performing their duty to them. How else are our armed forces personnel supposed to interpret a programme that has been repeatedly delayed, has racked up enormous costs and, as we heard last year, poses a direct risk to soldiers? When we ask people to put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, the very least we can do is provide them with functional equipment, on time, that does more harm to the enemy than to our own troops.

The Ajax programme does an appalling disservice, not just to Britain’s armed forces—although that is awful—but for British taxpayers. The programme has a budget of £6.3 billion, enough to pay for the running of every court in England and Wales for two years. It is £6.3 billion of people’s hard-earned money. These vehicles do not work, and I would like my money back.

If Ajax was the only failure, that would still not be acceptable, but it might at least be written off as an aberration. However, the pattern of the British Government failing their duty to the armed forces is, sadly, far more widespread. In March 2024, a former armed forces Minister told the House of Commons that the British Army’s ammunition stockpile would be exhausted in just 10 days of warfare. The Ministry of Defence has said it believes we will need to spend an additional £28 billion to meet its costs over the next four years—yet at the Budget just two months ago, defence spending rose by £500 million less than was projected in the summer.

The Government have not just failed in supplying our armed forces with the tools they need to keep us safe. In repealing the protections put in place by the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, for example, they are opening the door to another wave of prosecutions against those who have previously served. How can all of that be the right way to treat those who have risked their lives to keep us safe? What message does it send to those who might consider enlisting in the future? What other country would treat its former service personnel with such disregard?

Ajax does not tell the whole story, but it is one recent and important example. How the Government choose to proceed from here will send a signal to those who are serving, and those who might serve in the future, about whether their Government intend to uphold their side of the bargain. Regardless of political party, we should all want our armed forces to know that we support them, not just with words, but materially. I hope the Minister will provide some clarity on when we can expect a final verdict on Ajax, and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that future procurement is faster, more cost-effective and safer for those who are serving. That is the very least that our armed forces deserve.

10:07

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on introducing the debate, and thank him for his service in the Royal Yorkshire Regiment. May I take the House back to a visit I made to the NATO Forward Land Forces contribution as part of Operation Cabrit? I spent time in a Challenger 2 tank, and what was most impressive was not the size, the armour or the firepower, but the complete confidence that its crew had in the vehicle. Ajax was meant to deserve and earn the same trust. Before I come on to the failures in the programme, however, I want to say something about the workers in south Wales: they deserve credit for their graft and determination, not blame.

The Public Accounts Committee, of which I was previously a member, has made it clear what went wrong. It found that the programme was over-specified from the outset, with about 1,200 individual requirements imposed on what was supposedly an adapted off-the-shelf design. In reality, Ajax was neither off-the-shelf nor fully bespoke, and what was in between was far riskier. Never again must defence procurements over-specify requirements; that should be a red flag right from the start. Computer models were relied upon to assess vibration and noise rather than vigorous early testing. The Public Accounts Committee found that that approach had failed, and that the Department at the time did not fully understand the vehicle’s characteristics before subjecting soldiers to trials. Our armed forces should never have been used as human guinea pigs.

The independent Sheldon review is more damning: it found a culture in which bad news was softened as it travelled up the management chain. Senior leaders were left without a clear, honest picture of what was really happening. I thank all the soldiers who stepped forward to raise safety concerns. Despite the warnings that were given, the safety notices that were issued and the whistleblowers who came forward, GD repeatedly underplayed the scale of those issues, so it is reasonable to ask a simple question: if the design ultimately lay with the contractor, would the chief executive officer of GD be happy to have their son or daughter sent on to a battlefield in an Ajax? If those design failures did rest with GD, the taxpayer should not be left carrying the cost of retrofit.

I will touch briefly on defence exports. We must learn lessons from those abroad, particularly Leopard, which is a main battle tank. That platform was modular, upgradeable and interoperable, which meant it was a much stronger prospect for our defence export. When it comes to procurement, we should always bear defence exports in mind.

There are wider lessons too for the forthcoming defence investment plan, which must make a decisive break. We need a system that is capable of designing and testing earlier on, rather than one that rushes into production in the hopes that problems can be fixed later on. Ajax must be a turning point, not just for this vehicle, but for how we procure defence capability in this country in the future.

My hon. Friend the Minister is one of the most impressive forces in British politics; if he can climb Mount Everest in just five days—to raise money for our veterans, no less—I have no doubt about his ability to get to grips with one of the most challenging problems facing defence procurement today.

10:10

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate.

I want to briefly link the lessons of Ajax to wider concerns in MOD procurement. My hon. Friend has frequently mentioned the Boxer; having met with a key local manufacturer in my constituency, I have been made aware of the potential implication of issues with the UK Boxer mechanised infantry vehicles and Project Hunter, the procurement of laser protection and signature reduction systems under the alternative individual weapon programme. It is essential that we are agile and apply the lessons of Ajax to other such procurements. That is important locally in my constituency, since Royal Marines 42 Commando are based there and are potential customers of some of the equipment, and it is important nationally to make sure we ensure value for money, national security and operational capability.

The business in my constituency has raised issues with the Boxer, such as the procurement and performance of the periscopes, the driver’s modules and the mission module. These have been raised with Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land, the prime contractor; with GuS Periscopes UK, the supplier; with the relevant defence equipment and support teams; with UTAC; with local MPs, one of whom is the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry and another of whom serves on the Defence Committee, and with the Secretary of State for Defence. To date, no response has been received. I raised a question in the recent Ajax statement and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry was interested I am waiting for a response from him to agree a meeting. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we take lessons from Ajax and speed up talking about the potential issues with Boxer as well.

Project Hunter was designed to procure up to 10,000 KS-1 rifles for our military over a 10-year period. Included was an optical scope with a laser protection system, and a noise and muzzle flash suppression system. To date, of the significant number of rifles procured, zero have been equipped with that system. We have heard from Ukrainian veterans’ charities that up to 360 snipers have been blinded as a result of using that equipment—something we should be taking very seriously. The implication, if funding is not allocated for this promised addition to the weapons, is that we will not have the laser protection system. That would leave our soldiers vulnerable to offensive countermeasures and risk significant injurie; due to the reflective nature of unprotected sighting systems, the threat of counter-detection would also be significantly higher as it would allow opposing forces to target our soldiers.

There is also a significant reputational risk for our Government if we deploy those systems without adequate protection, especially given those reported threats. I thank you, Mr Stuart, for allowing me to mention that within this wider debate. Could the Minister use his powers to speed up the conversation that my local constituency business is hoping to have with senior figures, including the Minister for procurement, to ensure that we, at speed, learn from the lessons of Ajax and apply them as we are spending multimillions of pounds of our money at a considerably risky time in the international landscape. We may not be able to change the direction of a tanker—I appreciate it is a big job—but if we do not take this new information seriously we risk having another debate like this one, but on a different topic, in the future.

10:14

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate.

I pay tribute to our armed forces and those who put their lives on the line to keep our country safe. We ask a great deal of our servicemen and women, so the least we can do as parliamentarians is ensure that our armed forces have the equipment they need. Like other Members, I was extremely concerned to hear of soldiers reporting noise and vibration symptoms during a training exercise on 22 November last year. I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for moving swiftly to respond to those concerns; the safety of armed service personnel must remain paramount.

Given the importance of the Ajax programme, I welcome the Government’s focus on ensuring that the ongoing investigations are concluded swiftly—the facts must be identified urgently. I remind the Minister that any delay will come at a cost: it will mean workers being concerned about their futures, ongoing confusion about the safety of the rigorously tested Ajax, and opportunities to export Ajax to our allies being put at risk.

The Ajax programme is a welcome product of a deliberate choice by successive Governments to develop our sovereign capability to design and manufacture Britain’s next generation of armoured fighting vehicles. Ajax is not only built in Britain; it is, more importantly, built in Wales. The General Dynamics UK facilities in south Wales are a critical part of the Welsh manufacturing landscape, supporting 680 employees across sites in Merthyr Tydfil and Oakdale in my constituency. I was delighted to visit the General Dynamics Oakdale facility just before Christmas to meet some of the 200-plus staff. I saw the wide range of skills employed on site, and especially the integration of the advanced digital technologies that make Ajax such a pioneering vehicle.

As the world’s first fully digitalised armoured fighting vehicle, Ajax is well positioned in the international market as allied countries seek to update their armoured forces. Many of their procurement cycles are expected to conclude in the next 12 to 18 months, making the timing of the MOD’s review of Ajax critical. Successful export of the Ajax could be worth up to £20 billion in the future and is essential to sustaining and growing sovereign AFV manufacturing facilities in south Wales. In learning the lessons of the Challenger programme, we cannot allow the British Army to be loaded with the lifetime costs of a unique vehicle.

In responding to current threats, the latest strategic defence review highlighted the need to expand the capabilities of armoured platforms and integrate them with evolving digital technologies. Ajax will play a vital role in delivering on those aims and the wider objective of digitising the British Army. The technical functionality and pioneering nature of Ajax also mean it is unique and cannot easily be replaced by an alternative.

In closing, I would reinforce to the Minister the importance of the ongoing reviews to not only the welfare of our soldiers, but wider supply chains and our sovereign manufacturing and defence capabilities. I urge him to ensure that the reviews are completed as quickly as possible so that we can have certainty for everyone involved.

10:17

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I want to say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for setting the scene incredibly well and providing lots of detailed information that is beyond my knowledge; hopefully he helped to set the scene for the Minister’s answers.

Ajax was, and is, intended to be a cornerstone of the British Army’s future capacity, providing modern awareness while protecting the soldiers who operate it. Getting it right is therefore essential, not only for military effectiveness, but to ensure the safety of those who operate it. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I know we will not be disappointed.

There have been issues surrounding Ajax, and it is of major importance that they are resolved. For example, some service personnel experienced injuries from excessive noise and vibration, which resulted in manufacturing being paused and major safety investigations being launched; those issues were put down to design integration issues rather than error. There have also been major delays, with full operational capability delayed by many years. The programme is valued at some £5.5 billion—with billions spent before vehicles are even usable—and there are major concerns regarding value for money.

The Ministry of Defence is responsible for keeping personnel safe and ensuring that the programme delivers value and capability. Ajax must meet the Army’s operational needs and fit into wider defence plans, and we should not persist with a system that cannot be safely or effectively used. Hon Members have concerns regarding the use of Ajax—the hon. Member for Huntingdon told us what they are—so I was pleased that the Minister committed after the last debate on this topic in Parliament in December to resolve the issues. That is why his reply today is important.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Member may know that the previous National Armaments Director, Andy Start, was paid a performance bonus in 2023-24 of £165,000, and another one in 2024-25 of £160,000, while this was going wrong on his watch. Does the hon. Member agree that if Ajax is, unfortunately, finally scrapped, Mr Start should pay that money back?

[Jim Shannon]

If he has not done the job, there should be no bonus. That would be the same for anybody, no matter who they are—you get a bonus because you do it right. But the Minister can perhaps answer that question better.

It is important that these issues have no knock-on effects on essential supplies getting to the battle zone. These delays have left the Army without a modern tracked reconnaissance vehicle, forcing reliance on ageing platforms that are not up to speed for the modern world of today. Full operating capability is now expected for 2028-29—years later than originally planned. It is down to the MOD to ensure that our Army does not suffer as a result.

To conclude, resolving the issues with the Ajax programme is vital for the safety of personnel, the effectiveness of the British Army and the credibility of the MOD’s procurement process. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and the Government how they can address these issues and restore confidence in what should have been a successful programme for the United Kingdom.

10:20

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Minister will be fully aware that an enormous amount of expertise, investment and effort has gone into the development of the Ajax vehicle, producing a vehicle of significant and unique capabilities. I absolutely understand that we want to ensure high-quality performance and safety, and there has been extensive testing of the vehicle over thousands of kilometres, with noise and vibration limits well within acceptable levels.

I understand that the latest testing will be completed shortly, so my ask of the Minister is simple: once the latest testing results are available for ministerial consideration, we need Ministers to give absolute priority to the analysis and consideration of those results and to ensure that decisions on next steps are made without delay. Time is of the essence, and we need clarity on Ajax as soon as possible. It would be unforgivable if the latest tests vindicated the quality and viability of the Ajax project, but ministerial schedules and the machinery of government then caused delays, compounding the problems and losing us valuable opportunities.

Uncertainty is a pervasive killer. Any delay will sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of potential customers. There has been huge investment in Ajax, and if it is to pay its way and justify the investment in such an advanced capability, we need to attract orders from abroad. There is an important opportunity to showcase Ajax in early February, and it would be crazy if that opportunity is lost through poor prioritisation of the Procurement Minister’s priorities.

Then there is the workforce. For them, uncertainty—the fear of losing their job—is devastating. We have a very loyal workforce in Merthyr, who have gone above and beyond to deliver on Ajax. They not only want jobs now, but to see a future for young people, and that is dependent on securing orders for Ajax. There are also all those who work in the supply chain.

Ministers may decide that further work is needed. If so, I again stress that it needs to be done as nimbly as it can be. Decisions on Ajax will have a ripple effect on wider industry. I support our industrial strategy and our determination to rebuild our industrial base to make sure we have the capabilities to develop the likes of Ajax. For too long, procurement procedures have looked only at headline price and failed to give due consideration to the huge benefits of securing jobs here in the UK—good jobs, tax revenue, social cohesion and, as brought home more vividly through covid and the Ukraine conflict, our resilience and security.

When we look at the current Ajax situation, we can see why some might ask, “Why invest? Why bother with the risk? Wouldn’t it just be easier to buy off the peg and let another nation take the risk?” Apart from the fact that we may end up with a substandard product, with the problems emerging only after purchase, what happens when, as we saw in covid, other nations prioritise their own needs or supply routes are otherwise sabotaged?

No one factory exists in isolation, and if we need further proof of our interdependence, the Jaguar Land Rover cyber-attack brought it home starkly. If the JLR crisis had led to one local company—for example, a supplier of a specific part for JLR—going bust, there would have been contagion, because that would have had an immediate effect on the other car companies it supplied. Conversely, if we implement our industrial strategy by supporting foundation industries such as steel and developing advanced technologies such as semiconductors, and we make the UK a vibrant hub of new high-tech industries, they will feed off each other. That creates an attractive environment for investment and aspirational workers. Ajax is an important part of this ecosystem.

To sum up, I urge the Minister and his colleagues to ensure that the necessary analysis is undertaken as soon as they are provided with the testing information and data, and that they make their decision without delay. Any delay would undermine confidence among potential purchasers of Ajax, lead to us missing vital opportunities in the purchasing timetables of key potential customers, further demoralise the workforce and undermine broader investor confidence in our industrial strategy. A lot depends on how the Minister handles this issue.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I thank colleagues and congratulate them on their discipline. Last but not least, Chris Evans.

10:24

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It would be easy to blame the last Conservative Government for the operational difficulties burdening the Ministry of Defence, General Dynamics and the British Army from the outset of the Ajax programme, but I could not do that with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) sitting in front of me. He was often a critic when he sat on the Government Benches, and I have lost count of the number of times he said that heads should roll at Abbey Wood—it is a shame nobody listened to him at the time.

When we stood here three years ago, 37 of 39 projects were marked as either red or amber by the National Audit Office. That is unacceptable. Criticisms of the Ajax project included realistic targets not being set for the vehicle’s bespoke capability, and its complex requirements being largely ignored. As we have heard, whistleblowers were not listened to, resulting in the Ajax demonstration and manufacturing phases overlapping, which posed acute technical safety risks.

Progress reports were also often vague or overly optimistic, as we experienced in November. Ministers were assured that Ajax had achieved initial operating capability and was prepared for the Salisbury exercise. We have to ask why that was the case. A gross overestimation put the health of 30 soldiers at risk, and that is the nub of the problem. This is not simply economics; as the Minister knows, when we send someone into theatres with obsolete equipment, we are putting their lives at risk. If they lose their life, it is their family we have to be accountable to. That is what we have to remember. It is not about the defence companies or the equipment; it is about the soldier we are sending into theatre, and we should never lose sight of that.

We also have to look at the cultural issue at the MOD, which the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford constantly spoke about. Between 2011 and 2023, the Ministry of Defence welcomed five project managers, and each served for approximately two to three years. The job was unsustainable due to the complexity and breadth of its portfolio, which did not allow for effective oversight.

I will now turn to the Morpheus project, which was unfortunately delivered by General Dynamics land division. It was intended to supply the computing system for Ajax, but the system fell short of its requirements, even though the same company developed it. Ajax was expected to be the Army’s first set of vehicles based on one fully digitised platform, which was to include advanced sensors and enhanced communication systems, allowing vehicles to gather and immediately share information with other units. In stark contrast, Morpheus incurred significant costs and a delay of three years, during which time Ajax’s ability to exchange information was severely limited. The platform had the potential to significantly improve the British Army’s digital capabilities, and this country could have been a world leader in that sector. Its failure was nothing short of unacceptable.

There is no doubt that the MOD has been and is a uniquely failing Department. In opposition, Labour called for the MOD to be the first Department subject to the new Office for Value for Money, with a commitment to commission the NAO to conduct an across-the-board survey of the MOD’s wants and needs.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I call James MacCleary, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

10:28

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this timely and important debate.

Ajax takes its name from the “Iliad”. In that great epic, there are in fact two Ajaxes—Ajax the Great, the famous hero of Greek mythology, and Ajax the Lesser. I think it is pretty clear, from what we have heard today, which of them this project most resembles. Ajax stands as perhaps the starkest illustration of everything that has gone wrong with defence procurement in this country.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

The new medium helicopter contract has reportedly been delayed. We now risk losing the site at Yeovil if the contract is not awarded by March. Does my hon. Friend agree that such delays to contracting are undermining our national and economic security, and that the new medium helicopter contract must be awarded as soon as possible?

[James MacCleary]

My hon. Friend is a committed advocate for his constituents in Yeovil and has raised this on a number of occasions. I absolutely agree: we run a real risk of not only losing the ability to build our own—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. We will stay focused Ajax, notwithstanding the intervention.

[James MacCleary]

Indeed.

Let me be clear from the outset: the possible collapse of this multi-decade, £6.2 billion programme is deeply alarming. It demands answers, it demands accountability and, most importantly, it demands urgent action. The facts are stark and troubling. Just weeks ago on Salisbury plain, during what should have been a routine training exercise, more than 30 of our soldiers fell ill. They were not injured in combat or facing down an enemy on some distant battlefield; they were training on British soil in British vehicles built with British taxpayers’ money. They were vomiting, and they were shaking uncontrollably. Some spent 10 to 15 hours in these vehicles and emerged requiring urgent medical care.

That is not the first time we have heard such reports. Indeed, the Ajax programme has been plagued by issues of noise and vibration since mid-2020. A stop notice was issued in June 2021 and all dynamic movement was halted. The programme underwent what was termed “a significant reset”. Training resumed in 2023, only to be paused again in 2025. Astonishingly, this programme has been on pause for 20% of its entire life—20%.

What was the response from those in charge? In November, just before the latest incident, we were told that Ajax had achieved “Initial Operating Capability”. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry visited the General Dynamics factory in south Wales and declared that the issues were “firmly in the past.” He told us that he had been

“reassured from the top of the Army”

that the vehicle was safe. Indeed, the programme was apparently so successful that the MOD announced in November that it had just won an international award for mega-project of the year.

Three weeks later, the Minister had to return to the House to confess that he had been misled—misled by the Chief of the General Staff and the then acting National Armaments Director. These are not junior officials; they are the most senior figures in our defence establishment providing assurances about safety that have proven to be utterly unfounded.

I must ask, what kind of system allows this to happen? What kind of institutional culture permits such a fundamental failure of honesty and accountability? What does it say about the state of our armed forces that senior officials and officers declared initial operating capability when long-standing problems had merely been mitigated with new seats and earplugs in some cases, rather than actually fixed?

The Minister must now be absolutely clear about what the Government’s contingency plans are if Ajax is deemed unsafe. Moreover, he must explain what the impact will be on our NATO commitments if Ajax is further delayed due to required upgrades or scrapped altogether. Our allies are watching, and our adversaries are watching, and what they see is chaos.

This is not simply about one troubled programme, catastrophic though Ajax’s failures have been; this programme illustrates the deep-seated problems with defence procurement that have plagued our armed forces for years. They deserve better than the endless delays, cost overruns and capability gaps that have become the hallmark of how we equip those who defend us.

Let us consider the litany of failures. Ajax was ordered in 2014. It was supposed to be fully in service by 2019. Here we are in 2026, and not only is it not in service, but we are now investigating whether it is fundamentally unsafe. The vehicle was originally designed for weights of up to 26 tonnes. Through what defence analysts politely call “scope creep”—the Army loading the programme with 1,200 separate capability requirements—the weight ballooned to over 43 tonnes.

A single vehicle can now cost well over £10 million in its most expensive form, and what have we got for this money? We have vehicles that make our soldiers sick. We have a programme that has consumed vast resources and delivered nothing but embarrassment. We have General Dynamics winning awards for project controls while producing vehicles that cannot be safely operated. I note with interest that when asked whether performance bonuses relating to Ajax had been paid to officials over the last three years, the Ministry responded:

“This information is not held centrally and therefore can not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.”

[Mr Francois]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Ministry could tell us the bonuses of the head of Defence Equipment and Support, so the idea that it does not know who else got a bonus is totally and utterly laughable?

[James MacCleary]

I do; it is an extraordinary response. All we can conclude is that the Ministry means, “Yes, bonuses have been awarded—some of them quite substantial—but we would rather not tell you exactly how much people have been rewarded for presiding over this disaster.” The senior responsible officer for Ajax earns a salary in excess of £160,000—nearly as much as the Prime Minister—with the potential for bonuses of 25% to 30% on top, so we have people earning £200,000 or more while delivering a programme that has been stopped for a fifth of its existence and is now under multiple safety investigations.

This is not merely incompetence; it is systemic failure. The 2023 review of the programme exposed precisely that—systemic and institutional problems. We need to know what progress has been made in fixing these issues, and we need to know what safeguards are in place to prevent further delays, cost overruns and, most importantly, threats to our soldiers’ safety. I ask the Minister directly: is the Ministry of Defence considering an internal investigation into how the programme could have progressed so far without those major issues being identified? Someone, somewhere, has been signing off on milestones and accepting deliverables when the fundamental problems are still unresolved.

The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a fundamental reform of defence procurement, and Ajax demonstrates precisely why such reform is so desperately needed. We would tackle these long-standing problems by replacing the current system of defence reviews with a more flexible system of continuous review of security threats and evolution of defence plans. As has been dramatically demonstrated in recent weeks, the world does not wait for our periodic review cycles, and neither should our procurement system.

We would ensure that defence procurement is part of a comprehensive industrial strategy, securing a reliable long-term pipeline of equipment procurement. Industry needs certainty, as do our armed forces, but the current approach provides certainty for neither, especially with the continued delay in releasing the defence investment plan. We would collaborate properly with our European and NATO partners on the development of new defence technologies, equipment, systems and training. We would make capital spending allocations more flexible to reduce what is called annuality, and focus instead on meeting the required in-service dates. We would invest properly in recruiting, retaining and training staff with specialist skills at the Ministry of Defence, reducing its dependency and expenditure on external consultants.

The concerns about Ajax should raise alarm bells about the continuing poor state of procurement at a time when Britian must be rearming rapidly. The geopolitical situation demands that we get this right, and Ukraine has shown us what modern warfare requires. Our adversaries are not standing still, and we simply cannot afford these failures.

The fact that the Army has paused the use of Ajax vehicles raises serious questions about the operational readiness of the units that rely on them. How does this disruption affect deployment plans at a time when our armed forces need to be fully prepared? What is the impact on training schedules? What message does it send to our personnel about how we value their safety?

The Ministry of Defence has launched a safety investigation, citing an “abundance of caution”, but the public and this House deserve clarity. What exactly is being investigated, who is involved, and when will the inquiry conclude? The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said:

“It will be conducted at pace, but it will not be rushed.”

Which is it? The armed forces deserve transparency and reassurance, and they deserve it now. This all sends a worrying signal to our adversaries, which is why it is vital that the Government outline how they will move quickly to resolve the issues and adopt our proposals for a wider overhaul of the procurement system. We cannot afford to lumber on with a broken system while the world around us becomes more dangerous.

Difficult decisions lie ahead. The Defence Secretary has indicated that scrapping the programme in its entirety is possible. Given what we know—given the years of delays and billions spent, and given that soldiers are still falling ill in these vehicles—it is right to seriously consider that option. The mythological Ajax died of shame; one hopes that those responsible for this modern Ajax programme might feel at least some measure of that emotion. More than shame, we need action. The Ajax programme must not be allowed to fail in silence—too much is at stake. The most important thing of all is the safety and wellbeing of those who serve and being able to depend on them absolutely.

10:38

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on very ably introducing this debate. I should begin by declaring an interest—as consistently being one of the greatest critics of the Ajax programme in the House of Commons for around a decade. Indeed, being very much an Ajax sceptic, I once described it to the Defence Committee as a reconnaissance vehicle that is

“about as stealthy as a Ford Transit van full of spanners!”.

My real epiphany, however, came when I visited the Ajax factory with that Committee in March 2022, when even the shop floor staff, for whom I had much sympathy in this situation—it was not their fault—were telling us that the vehicle was deeply flawed.

[Stuart Anderson]

I do not want to steal my right hon. Friend’s thunder, but when we were on that visit, I was absolutely shocked that the team building Ajax said that no two hulls had ever left the factory that were the same. They were all slightly different, and that was a flaw in the whole building project.

[Mr Francois]

I have with me the actual minute of the Committee’s 2022 visit, which confirms exactly what my hon. Friend said.

Ajax’s genesis goes back several decades, under Governments of multiple colours. It effectively began life in the 1980s under the Conservatives as an Anglo-American reconnaissance vehicle programme called TRACER—the tactical reconnaissance armoured combat equipment requirement. Eventually that programme broke down, and the United States continued to develop the Bradley family unilaterally. Back in Britain, under Tony Blair’s Labour Government, the programme evolved into the future rapid effect system—FRES—which itself ran into considerable trouble. As the Defence Committee report of February 2007—I have it here—brutally concluded:

“This is a sorry story of indecision, constantly changing requirements and delay...It is high time the MoD decided where its priorities lay.”

That was 19 years ago.

Following much criticism, FRES was abandoned and eventually re-emerged as the Ajax family of armoured vehicles, with six variants. In March 2010, during the dying months of the Brown Government, the decision was taken to meet the requirement by purchasing the vehicle known as ASCOD, which was also being procured by the Spanish army, in Spain, from US contractor General Dynamics. Crucially, this was originally intended to be an off-the-shelf procurement, with minimal design modification, to enter service in 2017.

The coalition Government, at the Cardiff NATO summit in 2014, announced that Ajax would be manufactured in Merthyr Tydfil, using hulls imported from Spain. In short, Labour originally ordered Ajax, but the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats decided where it would be built. Unusually, this was to encompass both a development and production contract running simultaneously. Moreover, an early decision was taken to up-gun Ajax from a 30 mm to a 40 mm weapon, involving a major redesign of the turret. In all, the Army eventually insisted on an incredible 1,200 additional requirements, totally contrary to the off-the-shelf principle.

Concerns regarding vibration and noise-related injuries to crews were first flagged by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory as far back as 2014, but it was not until November 2020—six years later—that Ministers were first informed that trials had been suspended over safety concerns. Defence Equipment and Support, after much internal angst, then issued a formal stop notice in June 2021. Ajax trials were eventually restarted in 2022, but not before the programme had been subject to trenchant criticism from the Defence Committee, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, the National Audit Office—which famously concluded that Ajax was “flawed from the start”—and the Public Accounts Committee to boot.

In 2022, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, rightfully exasperated by the endless delays and the quality of advice being given to Ministers, commissioned the wholly independent Clive Sheldon KC to undertake a detailed review of Ajax. Sheldon’s 172-page review—I have it here—was excoriating. To summarise it in one sentence, it painted a picture of a completely dysfunctional UK procurement system, in which serious concerns articulated at junior level were routinely ignored or explained away by senior managers. Nevertheless, the Army began preparing to bring Ajax into operational service.

On 5 November last year, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry headed up a major media event at General Dynamics’ Ajax production facility in Merthyr Tydfil to declare that Ajax had successfully achieved “Initial Operating Capability”. Given the controversial history of the programme, the Minister—who cannot be here today, but who is no fool—did exactly what I would have done, which was to ask for written assurances that the programme was safe, including from the Chief of the General Staff and the National Armaments Director. One key question, incidentally, is: who told both of them that it was safe?

Armed with letters from both of those very senior gentlemen confirming that Ajax was indeed ready to enter service safely, the Minister went ahead—we believe in good faith—and declared to the media that Ajax is

“a vehicle that is safe, effective and truly cutting-edge.”

I can therefore only imagine his horror when, on 22 November, a major regimental exercise on Salisbury plain to test Ajax’s battle-worthiness—involving two squadrons of Ajax vehicles, along with command and support variants, some 60 vehicles in all—had to be rapidly abandoned after 23 crew members reported serious vibration and noise-related injuries. Subsequently, the Minister even halted trials on individual Ajax test vehicles, after further injuries to test crews were discovered.

The response of GD UK, in the form of Mr Robert Skivington, one of its then managers, was—disgustingly—to blame the Army’s crews and their commanders in an expletive-ridden social media post. In my sorry, decade-long experience of General Dynamics, that just about sums up their management—not their workers. Moreover, I had a chance encounter with the Ajax senior responsible owner, Mr Chris Bowbrick, at the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition last September, during which he categorically assured me that Ajax was now safe—and he even shook my hand on it. If the Minister feels angry that he was misinformed, I feel exactly the same way.

Everyone agrees we simply cannot go on with this endless stop-start cycle regarding Ajax, not least as it represents the Army’s largest procurement programme at £5.5 billion for acquisition, or £6.3 billion including life-cycle costs. It is also the Army’s biggest chunk of the long-delayed defence investment plan. In short, as safety is paramount, Ministers now have one of two stark options over Ajax: either they must fix it or fail it once and for all. Let us look at both.

Ajax has always been too big to fail. Many senior generals, senior civil servants and GD directors have their careers effectively invested in the programme. Indeed, Sheldon relates in some detail the reluctance over a long period of DE&S senior management to even admit that there were serious failings with the vehicle. I am not a qualified engineer, so I cannot pronounce on whether the problem is fixable. Some analysts argue that the vehicle is now so heavy—at up to 43 tonnes it is just two tonnes lighter than a world war two Panther main battle tank—and flawed that it cannot be saved, short of a fundamental redesign which would cost billions of pounds.

However, if this really can be sorted by technical means, then conceptually we surely need a deep fix which effectively puts the problems to bed definitively. If that can somehow be achieved at GD’s expense, then all well and good. Nevertheless, the risk is that the MOD and GD merely tweak the vehicle yet again and then rerun that exercise—perhaps six months from now—with almost exactly the same outcome. In that context, I would humbly remind the Minister of Einstein’s definition of madness, which is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different result.

Conversely, if it emerges that Ajax is somehow fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed, then the other option is to end the cycle of denial, rip off the plaster and fail it. That would then involve the Ministry of Defence in potentially tortuous negotiations with General Dynamics, in essence, to get its money back so that it could spend it on something else, such as the BAE CV90, which now successfully serves in many NATO countries—and which lost out to Ajax in the first place. If GD was not willing to accept liability, although many think it should, the MOD would probably have no recourse other than to sue it for liquidated damages for delivering a vehicle that was demonstrably not fit for purpose. To conclude, that could involve the Department in a highly aggressive court case potentially lasting years, but which would no doubt also be highly injurious to the reputation of General Dynamics as a global defence manufacturer. This cannot go on; Ministers must fix it or fail it once and for all.

10:48

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this debate.

It will not be lost on the audience that I am not the Minister of State for Defence Readiness and Industry, but I am a former Royal Marine with 24 years of service and now also the Minister responsible for the armed forces. I can assure hon. Members of this Government’s commitment to the safety of our service personnel. That is absolutely paramount. It underpins a bond of trust between all MOD activity and the Government, and it is a vital strand of our responsibility to ensure that our service personnel are provided with the correct equipment that is safe, but also reliable and effective.

That is why Ministers were so alarmed by the symptoms reported by 35 soldiers who operated Ajax vehicles during November’s exercise Titan Storm. I can update Members that of those 35 people, nine are now back to normal duties, two were found to be suffering from symptoms unrelated to Ajax and the remaining 24 continue to be monitored by our medical services, primarily for hearing and vibration. We will ensure that they receive all necessary support as they progress. I can also confirm that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), alongside the Chief of the General Staff, will visit affected units and speak to affected soldiers later this week, having written to them at the end of the year.

Exercise Titan Storm represented the latest chapter in a programme that has been well documented by parliamentary Committees and independent MOD reports. Ajax was approved in 2014 with a date for initial operating capability of 2020. Today, after significant delays, just over 180 vehicles have been delivered. The symptoms reported by some of our soldiers operating Ajax during Exercise Titan Storm have led to four separate, rigorous investigations. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry plans to further update the House on this matter next week, so hon. Members will understand that I may leave some of the specific questions—including the 37 from the hon. Member for Huntingdon; on average, one a minute—for that Minister to answer in detail.

Along with the investigations into the vehicles by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch and the Army safety investigation team, which were set out to Parliament by the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry on 8 December, a ministerial-led review into the implementation of previous recommendations has also been commissioned. It focuses on the basis of written assurances given to Ministers ahead of the announcement of initial operating capability in November. As set out in his written ministerial statement on 18 December, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry subsequently also directed a pause on all Ajax trials to allow for an investigation into a second safety incident reported during a trial at Bovington on 12 December.

Each of the 23 affected vehicles have now undergone 45-point inspections, with further instrumental testing, including for noise and vibration, taking place literally as we speak. In that incident, the affected soldier received medical support and did not require hospitalisation. The vehicle involved was not one of the 23 from Exercise Titan Storm; it was a separate vehicle being used to establish a safety baseline for comparison. I can confirm that that soldier has now returned to duty with no issues whatsoever, and that discussions are ongoing between the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry and officials within the Department on appropriate next steps regarding the potential restart of those trials.

As many of my Welsh colleagues have pointed out, the Ajax vehicles are built in Merthyr Tydfil to support a UK-wide supply chain of more than 230 companies and over 4,100 jobs. Because of the importance of the programme to south Wales, Ministers have been in close contact with the Welsh Government; the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry met the Welsh Economy Minister, Rebecca Evans on 15 December.

As I mentioned earlier, because previous investigations and adjustments should have fixed the recent challenges to the programme, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has put in place a ministerial-led review that will assess how the Department has implemented the recommendations of previous reviews, and suggest improvements to the process of providing timely and accurate information to Ministers. To ensure the independence and rigour of that process, that review is conducted by experts who are not part of the Ajax programme. Ministers, the Chief of the General Staff and officials are also working closely with General Dynamics to resolve the issues, and will continue to do so. Most recently, at ministerial level, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry met senior managers from General Dynamics on 9 December. He plans to meet them again next week, and has future plans that are in train to meet the workforce again.

It is important that each of the investigation teams are given the time and space required to get to the bottom of the recent incidents, and past failures, so that we can take the most appropriate and accountable next steps. I want to be clear that there is no predetermined outcome. Ministers will be led by the facts and all options are absolutely on the table. As the Defence Secretary has said of this programme, we must either back it or indeed scrap it.

[Stuart Anderson]

When or if trials resume, what assurances will we get that no future British troops will be put in harm’s way by testing Ajax?

[Al Carns]

I can assure the hon. Member—and I note his background—that the safety of our armed forces will be the No. 1 priority when we commence those trials. That has to be the baseline common denominator as we move forward. I reiterate that the Defence Secretary said that we must back it or scrap it; the evidence will allow us to make that decision.

I will cover off some of the 37 questions that were asked earlier. When we talk about initial operating capability, there is a slight dichotomy. We mentioned a perceived rush to IOC for Ajax on the one hand; on the other hand, collectively hon. Members are asking why Boxer’s IOC is moving. It cannot be one or t’other. We have got to allow the teams and experts to ensure that IOC is met in the safest possible manner and that any lessons from Ajax are pulled across into the Boxer programme and other big capability programmes, as has been mentioned by some hon. Members, so that we can understand and learn from them.

We are also, in some cases, our own worst enemy—we have had over 1,000 capability requirement changes throughout the programme. As we change the capability, the platform changes, the cost changes and the time-trialling system changes, and we need to reduce that as we move forward with major capabilities. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will update the House in due course, covering things such as capability changes and requirements and how many noise vibration issues there were in Titan Storm, and he will answer the rest of the multitude of very detailed questions that were asked earlier today.

On British military doctrine, it is really important to recognise that Ukraine is changing the whole character of conflict and how we fight. Terms such as armoured recce, ranges of gun systems and the reason why we built the tank in the first place—to carry a gun and to deliver firepower at pace—are changing because of the development of technology. We are wrestling with a whole set of capability changes, which are changing the character of conflict. We must not learn false lessons from Ukraine but pull the most effective ones and draw them into our capability programmes that in some cases were set in place 10 to 15 years ago. It is a very complex system of moving forward, but I can assure Members that we are learning those lessons from Ukraine and trying to incorporate them as best we can into the current programmes. What I would say is that Ajax started in 2014, and we have had 10 years of progress, but also a huge amount of mistakes. Those lessons will be pulled across into Boxer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) outlined the invaluable skills and capability of the staff that have actually created these systems, and some of the capabilities that they have brough to bear are absolutely second to none. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will report next week, and he is more than happy to meet both union and industry visitors in due course.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) highlighted some issues with the direct threat to our armed forces that the capability may present. What I would say is: allow the facts to do the talking, allow the review to come out next week, allow the report to be presented to the House, and then let us work out whether this capability can actually add value, whether it is in the armoured recce space or armoured infantry roles and so on. From my perspective, it is important to allow the facts and the honesty of the review to pull through.

I express my gratitude once again to the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon for introducing the debate and to all Members for their continued attention to Ajax programme. I trust that we have collectively been clear about where we stand on this. Multiple investigations are under way. All Ajax activity—training, exercise and trials—has been paused until these investigations are complete. Ministers will receive findings in the coming weeks, and all options remain on the table.

Importantly—it has been mentioned multiple times, and I have been at the bottom of the food chain in the military as well—I thank Alfie and Fill Your Boots; I thank the men and the officers for highlighting these concerns and speaking truth to power; and I thank the armed forces collectively for working collaboratively with us to come to an amenable solution that gives them the capability that they deserve.

10:58

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank everybody who participated in this very detailed debate. The Welsh Members who spoke represented the workers at the factory in Merthyr Tydfil extremely well; it is important that their voices are also heard in this debate. From my perspective, it is very important that we focus on how to deliver Ajax as a capability. I appreciate everything that the Minister said about the changing character of conflict and the changing nature of warfare. Ukraine has certainly moved the dial, particularly on armoured warfare and the survivability and lethality of armour going forward, and I know that the Chief of the General Staff has a very detailed view on how he wants to progress our lethality across the Army, particularly with regard to what that looks like going forward.

Ajax is in danger of being superseded by events; indeed, there is a potential that it is almost out of date. It is important that we consider how to make it relevant for the future, given that it has had a significant investment. Yes, it is late, but we can still utilise it, if we can harness its capability. I spoke to soldiers who have used the platform successfully—there are some—and they were positive about the capability of the vehicle. The wider issue is that we do not have an armoured capability that backs that up. It is the tip of the spear, but the handle of the spear is not up to standard. There are some serious concerns around how we maintain the capability of Challenger and what the armoured infantry looks like in the future. I would like to thank everybody for participating in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the Ajax Programme.

Factored Energy Arrangements: Pricing

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call Graham Leadbitter to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister—you need both. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. We are trying to bring this debate swiftly to a close in order to allow the proposer to reach Scottish questions.

11:01

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered energy pricing for consumers with factored energy arrangements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am pleased to have secured this debate on a systemic regulatory failure that is quietly draining the bank accounts of residents across Scotland and the wider UK. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, yet large numbers of domestic residents are being charged inflated business electricity tariffs for the essential communal services that keep their buildings safe and functional.

In a nutshell, the issue is that in many residential developments, services such as stairwell lighting, fire alarms, lifts and door entry systems are powered via shared electricity meters. Despite that electricity being used entirely for domestic living, residents are routinely charged business energy rates. It is not a niche issue; it is a systemic failure driven by outdated rules and weak enforcement.

The financial harm to our constituents is stark. A typical communal supply, using around 1,000 kWh per year, would cost roughly £380 on a fixed domestic tariff. Under the frequently used standard variable business tariffs, that same usage can rise to around £1,465, an excess cost of approximately £1,100 per meter every year. Across a modest development of 75 flats, it can add around £12,000 annually to residents’ collective bills.

What makes that particularly galling is that many residents are entirely unaware of how their communal electricity is billed. They may not know whether it is on a separate meter, how many accounts are involved, or whether it is charged at domestic or business rates. The costs are simply absorbed into factoring charges, leaving consumers unaware of both the issue and their rights—unaware when they are being roundly fleeced for someone else’s failure to either act properly or correctly inform them. The root cause of the issue is simple: it is a regulatory mismatch. The problem sits at the intersection of Ofgem regulation, supplier interpretation and third party management structures.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He and I spoke beforehand, but he might not be aware that consumers with factored arrangements in Northern Ireland were historically vulnerable to high, unregulated prices, similar to consumers in GB, but the Northern Ireland Assembly moved to correct that vulnerability. Does he agree that, UK-wide, those in communal schemes must have protection from gouging and be able to access better priced energy?

[Graham Leadbitter]

That is absolutely the case. To take Scotland as an example, consumers have a route to address complaints about this issue through the regulation of factors, but it is complex and cumbersome. There should be a simpler way to do it through the energy regulator, as I will touch on later in my speech.

Many communal meters are correctly classed as profile class 01, a domestic designation based on usage. However, where a property factor, managing agent or company holds the contract, suppliers often automatically apply the business tariff.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Business owner Gary Helliar, from Yeovil, signed an energy contract through a broker who convinced him that energy prices were going to rise to 35p per kilowatt and that the 15p kilowatt was a great deal. Energy prices have fallen below that, but Gary has been stuck in that contract and is facing bills of about £390,000. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater oversight of energy brokers, so that local businesses are not pushed into rip-off contracts?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I certainly agree on that point. It is not entirely the purpose of my debate to address that issue today, but it one that I recognise. I think there has to be a route for people to challenge the advice they are given and to take to task those who have given incorrect advice, and that has to be reasonably simple. In many cases currently, it is not.

Ofgem’s guidance on domestic communal supplies, which suppliers ought to follow, is very clear: where the non-commercial collective purchase of energy is for mainly domestic use, that should be treated as a domestic supply, provided that the arrangement is not commercial in nature. That guidance makes it clear that classification should be based on how the energy is used, not on the legal entity holding the contract, yet in practice it is inconsistently applied and weakly enforced.

Inconsistent supplier behaviour has created staggering inconsistency across the energy market. Some suppliers, including Ecotricity, Octopus and OVO, correctly apply domestic rates based on usage and do not override domestic classifications simply because a factor is involved. However, others, including EDF, British Gas, E.ON and SSE, often default to business rates, based solely on the identity of the contract holder. Indeed, in research carried out by my office, representatives of EDF have explicitly stated that they

“override the domestic classification if the usage is for a communal area managed by a business entity”.

That is in clear contradiction to Ofgem’s advice. The result is a supplier lottery. Two identical buildings on the same street can pay vastly different amounts for the same stairwell lighting, purely because of which supplier the managing agent selected.

The lack of regulatory oversight is deeply frustrating for our constituents. No meaningful reform has followed the 2023 call for evidence and multiple parliamentary questions. The current Government have carried out some further consultation, but have not yet moved things on, either. When I come to my conclusion, I will have specific asks for the Minister in that regard.

In April 2024, the Minister’s Department suggested that, due to physical set-ups, these consumers would continue to receive energy via non-domestic contracts. I have additionally met Ofgem on this issue. It recognises the problem, but consistent standards have not been enforced. Residents who do not choose their supplier are excluded from key domestic protections, including price cap coverage and Energy Ombudsman access. They are effectively trapped. More worryingly, when debts arise, suppliers may pursue residents directly as the “end users”, despite residents having no control over the contract. It is a Catch-22, where responsibility exists without authority, leaving residents unable to discuss the debts they are being chased for, because they do not hold the contract. If residents wish to complain, they often find the ombudsman route unavailable to them because the contract is held by a third party, leaving courts or tribunals as the only effective route for redress.

I therefore have six targeted and practical policy asks of the Minister. No. 1 is to reform standard licence condition 6 in order to prioritise actual usage over contract structure. No. 2 is to mandate a standardised appeal process for tariff classification across suppliers. No. 3 is to enforce profile class integrity, so that domestic or PC 01 meters are not billed at business rates. No. 4 is to strengthen Ofgem’s enforcement powers, so that protections are enforceable and not just advisory. No. 5 is to reopen the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero call for evidence and commit to legislative change. No. 6 is to ensure that residents under third party communal contracts can access the Energy Ombudsman.

The current system is a failure of logic and protection and a further cost of living blow to the people who can least afford it. We are effectively telling residents that, because they live in a flat with a shared hallway, rather than in a semi-detached house, they must pay business prices to power their light bulbs and fire alarms. To put it simply, the current situation is like someone being charged a commercial freight rate for a first-class stamp simply because the person posting the letter for them happens to be a professional administrator. It is time that the Government and Ofgem ensured that domestic use always equals a domestic price, and that residents are made fully aware of their rights when communal energy arrangements are put in place.

11:10

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) on securing this debate and giving Members across the House a rare and, I am sure, welcome opportunity to discuss factoring arrangements in Scotland.

The Government recognise that households in factored buildings and their equivalents face more complexity in securing the energy they need than typical households. I hope to address the six points that the hon. Member made at the end of his speech, but if there are any that he would like to discuss further with me, I will be more than happy to do so after the debate.

Factors and other property managers have an important role to play in ensuring that they secure the best-value energy contract for their building. When looking to renew their energy contracts, they should be actively comparing quotes across the non-domestic market and considering available customer service data such as Citizens Advice’s energy supplier performance league table.

Small tenements have different needs for communal area pricing from those of a large council complex, for example. Although the existing approach has generally benefited households and offered protection from unfair reselling, some households can be exposed to high prices, as we have heard from the hon. Member and others. The Government are committed to ensuring that our approach to these issues delivers the best outcomes for our citizens as our energy system evolves.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) on securing it. I am grateful that the Minister recently took the time to visit my constituency and meet residents who had been battling with their factors. They manage a heat network but are all too often left without heat and hot water, which happened again over the Christmas period. My constituents were very grateful to hear the pace at which the Minister is working to put in place regulations and projects that will protect residents like them. Does he agree that we need to see action from the Scottish Government to redress the balance of power between factors, companies and residents?

[Martin McCluskey]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work to advocate on behalf of her constituents—I think it was at Saltire Square in Granton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) is doing the same with a heat network in Greendykes. At that meeting, we heard how important it is that we get on top of this. The Ofgem regulation kicks in on 27 January, and we will be looking to Ofgem to implement it as quickly as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) that there are more actions that other Governments across the UK can take in this space. I will turn to that point in a moment.

As I say, the Government are committed to ensuring that our approach to these issues delivers the best outcomes for our citizens as our energy system evolves. Ofgem keeps all the standard licence conditions under review to make sure that they are working in the best interests of consumers. As part of that, Ofgem will look again at standard licence condition 6 to ensure that the definitions continue to meet the needs of consumers and the evolving energy market.

Before I turn in detail to other energy policy issues, let me briefly say something about factoring as a whole. It is a devolved responsibility, and it is for the Scottish Government to make decisions relating to it. However, there is widespread interest in factoring reform in Scotland, and there is clearly an interaction between the effectiveness of the factor and our ability to provide the best deal in energy, and many other areas, for the consumer.

There is clearly a need, and there are widespread calls, for factoring reform in Scotland. There have been no major reforms to factoring since 2011, when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), in her time as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, took a Member’s Bill through Holyrood. The Scottish Government have recently rejected amendments to housing legislation that would have increased transparency in charging and made it far easier for homeowners to take action against factors. I believe that further work in the area would be welcomed by many across this Chamber and by tenants and homeowners in Scotland.

As we have heard from the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, when residents do not have direct control over their energy supply, access to the Energy Ombudsman depends on the specific arrangements between them and the intermediary contracting with the supplier. If residents do not have control over the party that contracts with the supplier, allowing them access to the ombudsman fundamentally changes the role and purpose of the Energy Ombudsman as a service between the supplier and the contracted customer. Ofgem is always happy to clarify where consumers are currently able to access the ombudsman, to make sure that customers are not missing out on any avenues of redress to which they are entitled, but I am happy to take away the hon. Member’s point and raise it when I next meet the Energy Ombudsman in person.

Meter profile classes, which the hon. Member also raised, are the responsibility of Elexon. Ofgem has previously clarified that, for communal supply arrangements, profile classes should not be the final determining factor in the supply type offered by suppliers. If further clarification is needed in that area, it can be explored by Ofgem and Elexon. I encourage the hon. Member to write to both of them on that point.

We are aware that not having direct control over all aspects of the supply can create difficulties for households. Where households do not have direct control over their individual supply arrangements, Ofgem’s maximum resale price rules protect them from being overcharged by limiting the price of energy charged to consumers to the price paid by those procuring the energy. The principle is that profit should not be made when reselling energy in those kinds of arrangements. The Government are very clear that resellers such as factors or landlords should not profit from the resale of energy. The maximum resale price is set at cost pass-through, meaning that the maximum price at which energy can be resold is the same as the price that the reseller paid. Many who are resold energy have limited choice over who supplies them. The maximum resale price is important, as it is the main protection against resellers exploiting their position.

The energy system has evolved significantly since the last substantive review of maximum resale price. The transition to an increasingly decentralised, digitalised and decarbonised system, driven by net zero ambitions and technological innovation, has seen new challenges and opportunities emerge. Ofgem has begun a review of the maximum resale price to determine whether it delivers fair, transparent pricing and adequate consumer protection and whether it enables investment in the low-carbon infrastructure and services necessary to deliver net zero at the lowest cost.

Ofgem has identified that enforcement mechanisms for the current maximum resale price rules are failing to protect some consumers. That is a key area of its current review, and decisions on any further action that may be needed will be made on the basis of those findings. The review started with a call for input in autumn 2025 to gather evidence, and Ofgem aims to publish a policy consultation in summer 2026. The MRP has an important role across the energy industry: as well as improving the situation for households, changes to the MRP have a potential positive impact on other areas of the energy industry.

I will like to touch briefly on the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) raised about his constituent. He may already know that we have announced regulation of third-party intermediaries. We will take that forward through upcoming legislation—this is an important point—to give people more power in brokered energy deals.

Ultimately, households in factored properties feel that their energy costs, for communal areas and otherwise, are too high—because fundamentally they are too high. As hon. Members will know, international gas prices are still 40% higher than in 2021. Permanently reducing energy prices can be achieved only by moving to home-grown, clean power that we control. That is why my Department’s central mission is to deliver a clean power system by 2030 through renewables and through new nuclear power. This is the way to break our dependence on global fossil fuel markets and permanently protect bill payers from higher prices.

The Government are determined to deliver on that mission, and my Department is leading an ambitious programme of work that will make it happen. For example, the creation of GB Energy will help us to harness clean energy; contracts for difference will continue to drive clean power investment, as we have seen from today’s announcement of allocation round 7; the results of AR7 improvements to the capacity market will ensure security of supply while maximising bill payer value for money; and network improvements, with network providers finally making significant investment after years of under-investment, will reduce the costs of operating the energy system for decades to come.

Across all fronts, the Government are taking action to drive down energy bills. Many households in factored properties will also benefit from the announcements that the Chancellor made in the autumn Budget, with action to take an average of £150 off the cost of domestic energy bills by closing the energy company obligation scheme, and providing Exchequer funding to reduce the cost of the renewables obligation for domestic energy suppliers from 1 April. Those measures are designed to provide immediate relief for people across the country and set the foundation for sustained long-term reductions in energy bills through a transition to clean home-grown power. That support, as many hon. Members will know, comes on top of the £150 off energy bills, a measure that was provided by the Government for about 6 million families and was extended—almost doubled—under the warm home discount this winter. It is cutting fuel poverty right now for those consumers who are in receipt of it.

In addition to our work on reducing energy prices, the Government are delivering record investment in upgrading our housing stock through the warm homes plan. We have committed £15 billion to making the biggest ever public investment in home upgrades, upgrading up to 5 million homes by accelerating the installation of heat pumps, solar panels, batteries and insulation. When it is announced, it will come with Barnett consequentials for the devolved Governments, including the Scottish Government, to develop their own schemes under the funding. Alongside our action to make electricity cheaper and more flexible, that is how we are delivering warmer, more affordable homes and repairing a broken energy system.

I thank hon. Members again for being present at the debate, for raising these issues and for all their contributions, which I assure them will be taken into consideration by the Government and by Ofgem as we move forward.

Question put and agreed to.

11:20

Sitting suspended.

Science and Discovery Centres

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

00:00

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of Science and Discovery Centres on national science and technology priorities. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to have secured this debate and look forward to contributions from hon. Members representing some of the 28 science and discovery centres, or SDCs, across the UK. My connection with science centres, and in particular Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr’s own Centre for Alternative Technology, commonly known as the CAT, is deeply personal. It is, in fact, the reason I am here today representing my constituency.

Representing a rural Welsh constituency might seem unusual for someone with a father from Surrey and a mother from Camberwell. My father was the first in his family to go to university, where he studied agricultural economics. After graduating, my parents moved to Montgomeryshire in the 1970s and settled in Machynlleth. They were among the founding members of the CAT, one of the oldest science centres in the UK. My father went on to create the agricultural section at the CAT, introduce livestock to the site, and even welcome the King—then Prince Charles—on his first visit.

My family then moved to Glyndŵr. Since they left, the CAT no longer has livestock, but it now has hot water—a luxury that the founding members of the CAT could only have dreamed of. In the intervening decades, the centre has grown from strength to strength, and now welcomes learners of all ages on visits, from schoolchildren to its own postgraduate students, as well as businesses and local authorities that want to explore the solutions that we know are possible to combat the climate and biodiversity crisis. I am immensely proud that my constituency is home to the CAT, but although Members might expect me to be partisan, it is just one of many brilliant science centres across the UK.

SDCs are a unique national asset and a proud legacy of the last Labour Government. They exist to make science open, accessible and aspirational for everyone. Their mission is to ignite curiosity and nurture a lifelong interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, driven by the principle that access to science is a fundamental right. Broadening participation from diverse regions and backgrounds is good not only for individuals, but for UK society and for science itself.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on leading this debate and on finding a Government Department to respond to it; until now, a number have eschewed any responsibility. He is right about the world of opportunity that is open to our young people. I am privileged to have in my constituency Northern Ireland’s only SDC, the Odyssey, and particularly W5 within it. He is right to credit the last Labour Government for bringing those forward as part of their millennium investments. Does he recognise that, 25 years on, there is a challenge around capital investment, and that it would be wonderful if this Labour Government could invest again in SDCs?

[Steve Witherden]

I am in full agreement. As the hon. Member will see, one of my key asks is that we look at the funding for SDCs moving forward.

As a teacher, nothing matters more to me than ensuring that people have access to opportunity. As a drama teacher, STEM was never my strongest suit, but the importance of fostering curiosity—and, most importantly, ensuring that everyone can access it—has always been central to why I became a teacher and an MP.

SDCs operate in all four nations of the UK, reaching more than 5.2 million schoolchildren, families and communities through science and technology in the last year alone. Over the past two years, these organisations have worked with more than 37% of all UK schools. Fifty-five per cent of all visitors identify as women and girls, and many centres provide visits completely free of charge, enabling over 450,000 people from communities traditionally under-represented in STEM to participate in science, research and innovation each year. They are among the few places where broad and inclusive community engagement, the development of essential STEM skills among future generations, and cutting-edge scientific research all come together under one roof.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate, and on his excellent and inspirational speech. The Centre for Life in Newcastle celebrated its 25th birthday last year. I have been inspired by its openness and how it supports young people from all backgrounds and different areas of the north-east to engage with life sciences. As an engineer from an impoverished background, knowing that the Centre for Life in Newcastle is opening up the huge universe of science and scientific curiosity is so reassuring.

[Steve Witherden]

It is lovely to hear that my hon. Friend is just as passionate about the SDC in her patch as I am about the one in mine.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving so much time for interventions. He will not be surprised to hear that I represent one of four science centres in Scotland. Over the last 25 years, Dundee Science Centre has given STEM experiences to more than 2.5 million people, and we look forward to enhancing that through the Eden Project at the city’s former gasworks. He mentioned climate change and environmental degradation, and these things need to be challenged. I am happy to hear that the hon. Member agrees that public funding should be committed to this area. Will he go further and suggest to the Minister that there be a timetable for that funding, so that both the Eden Project and our science centres across Scotland and the rest of the UK can be supported?

[Steve Witherden]

I am happy to convey that ask.

Through their role as trusted anchor institutions with strong civic ties to schools, teachers, industry and research partners, SDCs have an important role to play in a number of areas. The UK faces a serious STEM skills shortage. Nearly half of engineering and technology businesses report recruitment difficulties, and these shortages are estimated to cost our economy £1.5 billion a year. The centres can help to harness the skills needed for future growth in key industrial sectors. They are also essential for building public understanding and trust around new technologies, including artificial intelligence. They can help to deliver the Government’s TechFirst programme, providing digital skills and AI learning opportunities for 1 million secondary school students and 7.5 million workers, ensuring that innovation is not only technology-led but user-centric. They can even serve as national testbeds for ethical reflection and citizen co-design in research and innovation.

The Centre for Alternative Technology is truly the jewel in the crown of Montgomeryshire. It has always been ahead of its time in pioneering a more sustainable and environmentally friendly world. For over half a century, the CAT has combined cutting-edge research with world-class education to accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon future. Its history is remarkable: it installed the first hydroelectric turbine on site in 1974, followed by the first wind turbine and the UK’s first completely solar-heated building in 1975. In 2003, it installed the first community-owned wind turbine in Wales, on the hills above the CAT. From installing the first photovoltaic roof to building eco-cabins and a water-balanced cliff railway, it truly has provided a blueprint for change. In 2023, the centre celebrated 50 years of ecological innovation.

The CAT is a major employer in mid-Wales and currently supports 78 staff, with an extensive reach. It has trained over half of all UK councils in carbon literacy and hosted STEM Learning’s POP25—Protecting our Planet Day 2025—broadcasting live to more than 200,000 schoolchildren. These initiatives spark curiosity in young minds, open pathways into STEM subjects and inspire green careers. A visit to the CAT as a child can have a lifelong impact.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this excellent debate and on his excellent speech. One of the most important and exciting aspects of SDCs, such as the excellent Xplore! Science Discovery Centre in my constituency of Wrexham, which neighbours his constituency, is their ability to reach those from disadvantaged and lower-income backgrounds, and to let them see the possibilities of a career in science and where that can lead. Does he agree that it is time for the Government to recognise these SDCs, so that they can build on that?

[Steve Witherden]

I have a confession to make: after CAT, Xplore!, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is my second favourite SDC—I have visited it many times. I am in full agreement with him, as the House would expect.

Solefield school has brought pupils to the CAT for 40 years. Its head of science, Kevin Farmery, said:

“I can teach them all this in the science lab, but here they see it come to life. That makes a real impact.”

Dr Dai Morgan, who is now at the University of Cambridge, first visited the CAT as a child. That experience inspired him to study sustainable engineering, and he brings postgraduate students from Cambridge to the centre annually to encourage global action.

Our constituency may lack a university, but we have something better in the CAT. With its unique history, it continues to offer outstanding degree and postgraduate courses in partnership with Liverpool John Moores University and the University of East London. Currently, 700 postgraduate students are enrolled in programmes covering renewable energy, sustainable food and land use, sustainable architecture, green building, ecology and behaviour change.

The CAT’s influence extends beyond education. Its legacy includes the growth of over 50 sustainable businesses and organisations via its postgraduate students, inspired volunteers or research experiments that take place directly on site. Such organisations include Dulas, Aber Instruments, Adaptavate and IndiNature. Dulas, established at the CAT in 1982, invented a solar fridge that preserves vaccines and saves lives worldwide. IndiNature, founded by the CAT graduate Scott Simpson, was named manufacturer of the year by the UK Green Business Awards in 2025. The CAT is not just a centre; it is a catalyst for change locally, nationally and globally.

However, like many SDCs across the UK, the CAT is facing significant challenges. Unlike museums, art galleries, theatres and libraries, which can access Government and national lottery funding for their infrastructure needs, SDCs have historically been excluded from public funding. Like other publicly accessible cultural spaces, SDCs’ costs have risen significantly in recent years due to factors such as the cost of living crisis and energy prices. Unfortunately, these centres’ ability to grow revenues from their core audience to offset the increased costs is limited. They need to keep entry prices low and offer subsidised or free access to deliver their charitable mission and maintain access for underserved groups and communities.

As we have heard, most SDCs were built 25 years ago or more. Their buildings are reaching the end of their design life and need urgent repairs. Roofs are leaking, heating and cooling systems are outdated, and glazing no longer meets modern standards. At the same time, rising sustainability and health and safety requirements mean that repairs are far more expensive. These challenges are compounded by the fact that no central Government Department takes responsibility for the sector. Recent parliamentary questions have confirmed that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education do not see SDCs as falling within their remits, leaving these centres at a loss.

The Association for Science and Discovery Centres has identified urgent infrastructure projects across its member organisations. Nearly £20 million is required to deliver these works, many of which must be completed within the next 12 to 18 months. Importantly, these projects would be match funded by the centres themselves, demonstrating both commitment and value for money. A December 2025 report made it clear that without that investment, many centres will be forced to close or to operate more commercially, scaling back STEM learning, outreach, and free or subsidised access for marginalised and minority groups. That would be a real loss, not only to communities but to the UK’s future skills pipeline.

The CAT faces similar pressures. Although it continues to welcome school groups, such as those from Solefield, it had to close its visitor centre to day visitors, and future Dai Morgans currently are not able to visit with their families. The visitor centre has seen no significant capital investment for over 25 years and is in desperate need of redevelopment. Unlike universities and many charities in Wales, the CAT receives no statutory core revenue funding.

An urgent example of the work that needs to be done is the “leaky roof” project. As anyone who has visited the area knows, it rains a lot in mid-Wales. The CAT requires £500,000 to keep open the Wales Institute for Sustainable Education building—an education centre that has grown graduate courses and the innovation lab, supporting councils, communities and other organisations to take action on the climate and nature emergencies. If it is forced to close, the CAT’s entire operating model would be undermined, threatening its unique hands-on climate and sustainability education programmes.

The project is not about patching roofs simply to keep buildings open; it is about preserving the science, engagement and learning that happens beneath those roofs. SDCs are powerful but undervalued. They are beacons of sustainability, education and innovation. With recognition and investment, they can flourish, supporting national climate goals, inspiring future scientists and engineers, and ensuring that science remains accessible to all.

Given that SDCs are uniquely positioned to help unlock the full potential of UK science and technology, in order to drive growth, create jobs and ensure that all citizens live healthy, secure and sustainable lives, thereby delivering on DSIT’s science and technology framework, does the Minister accept that, although the work of the centres touches on the agendas of DSIT, DCMS and the DFE, DSIT should become the lead Department responsible for this area? That is not to suggest that all funding should come from DSIT, or that cross-departmental responsibilities should be relinquished; rather, it is to suggest that his Department should take the lead in developing shared solutions.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for the passionate points that he is making. I want to support him by pointing out that the answer to a parliamentary question of mine in October stated that the Minister for Science, Lord Vallance, was following up

“with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to explore a coordinated approach to supporting these centres.”

Just before Christmas, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology wrote to me to say that

“officials from across departments with an interest in SDCs are meeting to discuss options for sustainable support.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we had an answer to the question of where sustainable support—which, as he said, DSIT should lead—would come from?

[Steve Witherden]

Yes, I do. I do not think that DCMS and DFE should be completely absent from the equation, but I agree that DSIT should lead.

What meaningful action does the Minister intend to take to address the funding and infrastructure challenges currently faced by science centres? Will he respond to the request from the Association for Science and Discovery Centres, supported by more than 3,100 leading scientists, academics, business leaders and educators in an open letter to the Prime Minister and the Department late last year, for £19.5 million of public funding, match funded by £19.5 million from the centres themselves, which is essential to address immediate infrastructure risks?

Does the Minister also agree that it is essential to formally recognise science centres as part of the UK’s scientific and cultural ecosystem, whether by expanding eligibility for existing funding streams or by creating a dedicated science engagement fund? Does he agree that it is unfair for SDCs to be excluded from public infrastructure funds that are available to comparable organisations, including museums and libraries?

I urge the Minister to meet the Association for Science and Discovery Centres and its members, and work with them and MPs representing science centres to find a solution to these issues. Will he collaborate with colleagues in DCMS, the DFE, English mayoral combined authorities and the devolved Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that SDCs and their work are adequately recognised and supported? Solutions must work across all four nations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being here at the very beginning of the debate; as I explained to you, Mrs Harris, I was running late because I had a meeting with a Minister beforehand.

The hon. Gentleman is right to underline these issues, which affect not just England, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—all of us. At the W5 in east Belfast, science is to the fore. It has exhibits on science, technology, maths and innovation, but they are always educational, and schools by their thousands attend it. But it is not just that: we have the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium, the Ulster Folk Museum, the Ulster Museum and Exploris in my constituency. I support the hon. Gentleman’s request for a meeting, but will he ask for those in Northern Ireland to be part of that process? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I could also be invited.

[Steve Witherden]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention. I am an MP from a devolved nation, too. There are few of us here, and it is fundamentally important that we recognise that this is a four-nation issue. It is complicated by the fact that education is devolved, which is the main reason that I think science centres should sit with DSIT so that all four home nations can be encompassed more easily.

Finally, I request a meeting with the Minister on additional support for Welsh science centres. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given our size, Wales has only a handful of science centres: the CAT in my constituency, Xplore! in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) and Techniquest in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I am eager to ascertain how we as Welsh MPs can best support our science centres, not only to ensure their continued survival but to create a climate in which they grow, flourish and thrive. I would therefore greatly appreciate a meeting with the Minister to address that issue.

I thank the Association for Science and Discovery Centres, Eileen and all those who work tirelessly at the CAT, and every dedicated individual across the 28 SDCs nationwide. Their contributions inspire curiosity, advance STEM engagement and create truly invaluable climate solutions. SDCs are not optional extras, but vital national assets. The UK-wide network of 28 centres is a cornerstone of our broader science and research ecosystem. That is a key legacy of the last Labour Government. With proper recognition, urgent investment in infrastructure and long-term capital renewal funds, the CAT and the other outstanding centres across the UK can continue to ignite curiosity, expand green skills and unlock the full potential of UK science and technology for a healthy, secure and sustainable future. I am confident that today’s debate will demonstrate the strength of cross-party support for this cause.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I will start the Front-Bench contributions at 3.28 pm, and I will impose an unofficial five-minute limit to start.

14:54

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing the debate. His absolutely fantastic speech got everyone really enthusiastic, riled up and excited about supporting science.

One reason I am here is that the Winchester Science Centre is not just the biggest indoor attraction in Hampshire, but the UK’s largest stand-alone planetarium, and it has 185,000 visitors a year. I am so pleased to have it in my constituency, because science has given me the most wonderful career. I look back on the amazing things I have done because I studied science at school and took science A-levels. I have worked in Africa studying how to improve cattle production by making them more resistant to a protozoan parasite spread by the tsetse fly called trypanosomiasis, trying to create more cattle genetically resistant to that disease. I have worked in Iraq, India, all over the UK and New Zealand, simply because I studied science at school. It is the most exciting, enabling subject to study.

Growing up on a farm, loving animals and loving science at school, I naturally went down the veterinary route, but my first love in science was astronomy. On the farm in Devon where I grew up there was little light pollution and the stars were incredible. I could name every constellation from the age of eight. The reason I am so moved to speak about this subject today is that the single most exciting trip we made when I was at primary school was to a planetarium. That fired up my love of science, and then watching “Star Trek” and nature documentaries while growing up on a farm shaped my world view and career trajectory.

When I was a teenager, I had a favourite magazine. [Laughter.] I should probably clarify that it was New Scientist. To be asked a few years ago to write a few articles from a veterinary perspective for New Scientist was an ambition fulfilled. When I look back on those visits to science centres and planetariums, I wonder how many people got into science because of stars and dinosaurs. It sounds like a cliché, but they bring science to life for everyone, especially children. They help them realise what an exciting subject science can be, opening their eyes not only to studying science for a career, but to better understanding our place in the world and the importance of conservation.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to recall his youth and how his love of the countryside energised him to seek the job and life he wanted. Marine biology and local sea life can do something similar. In my earlier intervention on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), I mentioned the Exploris Aquarium in Portaferry in my constituency. Thousands of children and adults attend every year to learn about marine biology. Young people are stimulated by the project to rescue seals and invigorate them prior to return to Strangford lough, as part of the ecosystem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the sort of programme our children should be chasing every day?

[Dr Chambers]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. We are not here to support science centres just for themselves, just for the tourist industry or just for the economy. Some of the biggest challenges facing civilisation at the moment—global challenges such as climate change, antimicrobial resistance, risk of pandemics, biodiversity collapse, and even how to feed and provide energy sustainably for 8 billion people—are also science challenges. We need to inspire the next generation of children to recognise those as urgent problems that need to be solved. They are not hypothetical challenges; they are current challenges.

Science centres are vital to inspire children to create the next generation of scientists who will help solve all those problems. We are in an era of rampant misinformation, with geopolitical turbulence and global health challenges. Places such as the Winchester Science Centre inspire collaboration, learning and the sharing of information. In a world of falling vaccine uptake, climate change denial and precarious geopolitical frameworks, it is the scientists who will do the heavy lifting to keep us all safe, and yet they are probably the most overlooked.

Museums have the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to back and champion them; science centres do not have a Government Department specifically to do that. I urge the Minister to consider getting a Department such as DSIT to really champion them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members continue to exceed five minutes, I will have to impose a formal time limit.

15:00

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing the debate and on making such a brilliant case for science and discovery centres. I am not sure many of us could add much more to the core case he made, other than to talk about our own areas.

I am very pleased to speak about this issue today and its importance to our communities and, more widely, to the UK’s proud history as a world-leading pioneer in science and technology, which we should not forget. My hometown of Widnes is somewhat different from Devon; it was a very industrialised area in the ’60s and ’70s, when I was growing up, and it was dominated by the chemical industry.

It was once a rural village on the northern banks of the River Mersey, and in 1801 it had a population of just 1,063, most of whom were engaged in farming and fishing. By the end of the 19th century, it had become a town of more than 28,000 people. The cause of that remarkable transformation was the creation of the chemical works on the banks of the Mersey. Progress was made possible thanks to the superb infrastructure, with the likes of the Sankey navigation canal, railway links from the river to St Helens and a dock created at the southern end of the town.

Immigration from Ireland and eastern Europe brought workers, while industrial entrepreneurs such as John Hutchinson, Sir John Brunner, Henry Deacon and Holbrook Gaskell helped to turn Widnes into the heart of the modern chemical industry. There were not many people without a family member who worked in the chemical industry when I was growing up, not least in Imperial Chemical Industries, which also dominated the town.

The legacy is reflected in the prosperity of many local businesses. That chemical industry is now gone, but we still have many really good prosperous, local businesses—a fact reflected recently when the Prime Minister came to Hutchinson Engineering in my constituency to launch GB Energy, heralding a new chapter in our national industrial history. That rich, local legacy leads me on to today’s debate.

John Hutchinson’s original administrative building is now the grade II listed Catalyst Science Discovery Centre. It is situated on the River Mersey, with amazing views, including of three huge bridges—the Railway bridge, the Silver Jubilee road bridge and the huge new billion-pound Mersey Gateway bridge, and looking across to Runcorn. That brilliant institution is a hub for research, development and learning. Generations of people from our region have benefited from the pioneering work done at the centre and its outstanding STEM education. It is a point of pride that my constituency serves as its home.

The centre plays a very important role generally in bringing science, technology and engineering to young people, including in disadvantaged areas such as mine in Widnes and Halewood. We cannot overestimate the importance of these science and discovery centres in doing that and enthusing young people to want to get involved. I am very grateful that Catalyst continues to raise awareness and belief among the local population, making them aware that science is relevant to them, their lives and their future careers.

Other Members today, as we have heard already, will have similar appreciation for the science and discovery centres in their own communities. We therefore share the same concerns that the hubs are now at real risk. Financial pressures threaten not just individual centres, but a network of technological heritage, research and development that has made an important contribution to our national development.

The Government are well aware of a petition signed by more than 3,000 scientists and leading figures urging us to work with the sector to find an urgent solution. As we have already heard, increased financial costs are having a major impact, so I ask the Minister to consider carefully every feasible option to support these centres. The Government are right to take such an ambitious approach to their green energy plan, but without the skills pipeline and a framework to help young people—our future scientists and engineers—to engage with that future, our targets will be far more difficult to meet.

The Catalyst centre receives no public funding of any kind and operates as an independent charity. Its trustees tell me that they spend a huge amount of time fundraising because of the rising operational and salary costs and the ageing capital and building, as we have heard from previous speakers. The catalyst building, I must add, is stunning. It dates back to the beginnings of the chemical industry and overlooks the Mersey but, again, it is an old building that needs a lot of maintenance and support.

Centres including Catalyst do truly remarkable work every day to preserve our heritage and work towards a better, greener future. I pay tribute to all those who contribute to this vital sector, and I hope we can demonstrate that we recognise their support and invaluable work. There are a lot of people who work very hard at Catalyst, but I want to point to a couple of people: Dr Diana Leitch MBE, who is a trustee director of Catalyst, and Chris Lewis, who has been involved in Friends of Catalyst for as long as I can remember. They keep these centres going. I do not believe that anyone who has ever visited the Catalyst has gone away disappointed; I urge the Minister to come and visit the as soon as he possibly can.

15:05

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for keeping us all in line today, Mrs Harris—although I think this is a fairly good-tempered debate, because we are all in favour of our local science centres. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on introducing the debate. It was really cool to hear about the CAT; it is one of those science centres that has been around a bit longer than the others, but it sounds as though it is doing absolutely amazing work.

That is one of the things I wanted to touch on: although this is a network of science centres, they are all different. They all work for the benefit of their local communities, looking at the innovation, technology and science that makes the most sense for those, rather than the Government’s priorities, because that is how it should be. They should be capturing the imagination of the people in the local area, and they can do that only if it is relevant and if they are able to keep moving with the times and catching that imagination.

In Aberdeen we have the Aberdeen Science Centre, which was in my constituency until the boundaries changed. It was refurbished in 2020 and is in a stunning building—it was an old tram shed, so it looks really cool—but it was first opened in 1990 on a different site, and next month it will be 36 years old. I think I first visited the Aberdeen Science Centre, which was originally called Satrosphere, before I even went to school. It has always been part of the fabric of our city. Everybody goes there as a schoolchild; it is a place that everybody goes along to and visits, and that everybody knows about.

When the centre moved to the new premises, it suggested getting rid of one of the exhibits, which is a sheep: visitors press the button and the sheep eats the food, and it goes around the sheep and then something comes out the other end. There was uproar from the parents of the children who currently go to the centre, saying, “How dare you get rid this exhibit that we loved when we were children?” The comment that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr made—that a visit as a child can have a lifelong impact—absolutely resonates. Everyone who has had those science centres in their life for as long as I have will remember those visits when they were a child.

I sometimes find it difficult in debates when we talk about the economic impact of these things or the innovation they drive. We could also just talk about the fact that they are joyful places to be. We do not have to justify an art gallery on the basis of its economic impact; we can justify these science centres on the fact that they create curiosity and joy in children—and adults. I love going to science centre; it is very difficult to get me out of Aberdeen. I come to London for work, but I do not like leaving my city; it is the best place on earth. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) that the Dundee Science Centre is one of the few places that I would trail to with my children when they were little, because it is absolutely excellent. It had diggers that they could play with, and my little boy, who was tractor-obsessed, completely loved going to visit.

As the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) was saying, in this time when people are willingly denying facts and we are fed up of experts, having that hands-on experience of science and actually talking about how the earth moves and the way that climate change is changing our society and creating extreme weather events, or about the industries in the local areas and the science that fuels them, gets the next generation of people excited about those things. It gets them thinking about how those things work in a way that the school classroom cannot always manage. Sometimes it does—sometimes we are lucky enough to have an inspiring teacher who can make us think and consider the future; there are many of them out there—but going and getting hands-on in a science centre is something really special.

Lastly, on the differences that there are, our science centre in Aberdeen has, in recent times, covered climate change and has had a link with NASA when it had a spacecraft made in the science centre. It is currently running a Demystifying AI programme and there are some ridiculous photos of me in the science centre trying out virtual reality, because I always get super excited by it. Given the importance of these centres to us and all our constituents, the changes they make in people’s lives and their lifelong impact, it is reasonable for us to ask two things: please look at funding, and please choose a Government Department. It does not cost the Government anything to do that. Just choose one—and champion these centres.

15:10

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing this important debate. Seeing the passion and excitement among the speakers, I have found my people—let us go with that.

It is also wonderful to meet another trypanosomiasis person, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). I also studied that in Dundee, so I thought, “Amazing—where have you been?”—and there is our love for Dundee and the amazing science centre there. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr made many incredible points in this debate, so I will skip to the fun bits.

I am a research scientist and a science teacher. My real love of science was fostered when we were able to visit places in London, because we lived nearby. Learning about Alexander Fleming—about antibiotics and the impact they have had on our world, which we now take for granted—was amazing. The challenges we have coming forward in the next few years, if not longer, are those big questions that the hon. Member for Winchester spoke about: how we feed 8 billion people, and how we power the nation. We have the talent in this country, and that is what these science centres really represent.

Obviously, 25 years ago there was a slew of new centres off the back of Aberdeen and other places, and they have been inspiring youngsters and adults throughout that time. I made one quick visit to the Dundee Science Centre last summer, where they have a water drop machine. Someone can watch the water drop and then, as it makes impact, have a photo taken of them going, “Oh!” It is quite cool. It also has volcanoes, and the brainwave machine, which is also quite cool, where someone has to calm their brain so the ball moves along. I nearly had it—then I saw I was winning, and the ball came back to me.

That centre is so much fun and bring so much curiosity and excitement. I think the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made the point that we sometimes get bogged down in the economic and inspiration arguments, and they are incredibly valid, but fun and memories are also incredibly important.

My asks are that SDCs have a home and a Department that champions them. From meeting with and speaking to representatives from science and discovery centres, there is currently a revolving door, and they need a home. I raised this with the Secretary of State fairly recently, and she is looking at it. I hope the Minister can provide an update today on where that home might be. More than 3,000 scientists, academics, business leaders and educators have signed an open letter on this issue. It is something that is desperately needed.

We live in a world challenged by misinformation and disinformation about what is fact, what is not fact, and how we consider evidence: these are places where we can prod that evidence and gather understanding. I will conclude by saying that I hope the Minister has heard all these things loud and clear, and will have many stories of his own to draw on, and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr again for securing this debate.

15:14

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) has departed, because I remember spending much of my time as a child in the Centre for Life, and to hear it was 25 years since it opened has made me realise that I have aged quite a bit in the meantime.

I want to speak primarily about the Kielder Observatory, and I am delighted to see so many scientists observing our proceedings; but first I want to take a brief moment, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) did, to reflect on the worrying attacks on scientists, on the truth and on the concept of science itself that are taking place not just in this country but globally. I take note that no Reform MPs have come to discuss the importance of the sciences to our national life; I think that tells its own story quite powerfully.

Kielder’s dark skies observatory is a world-leading facility. It marks the rural west of Northumberland as a real gem, not just for the amazing landscapes it offers and the fantastic contribution it makes to our national life through our hospitality and our tourism, but also for our ability to understand space and the stars and to see them. There is a moment of tranquility that you get when you go into Kielder forest and into the communities around it, and you see how special it is to be able to look up and see the darkness and the stars within it.

I will not repeat the points that my more eloquent, better qualified colleagues have made about the importance of investment in the sciences, but I know the Minister is an incredibly capable and dynamic individual, and I hope that he will cut through the siloing that Whitehall sometimes brings and take responsibility for SDCs and ensure that Kielder receives some of the attention that it needs in order to continue its function. It provides an incredible function in opening up space to schoolchildren. It has reached about 10,000 pupils and engaged about 50 schools, while also getting 15,000 visitors. Those who have come to rural Northumberland know that it is not the easiest place to get around, often involving long drives. People who visit my constituency often get to the Tyne valley and then realise there is another significant drive up the smaller roads from the A69 to get to Kielder forest.

I want to touch on the work that Kielder does with the tourism sector, which is a major employer in my constituency. It is not simply promoting the sciences; it is also promoting local establishments like the Twice Brewed inn and the Battlesteads hotel. If I can depart from the subject of the debate slightly, the tourism industry in Otterburn is also well supported by visitors to Kielder; I would like to thank the staff at Le Petit Château there for hosting my wedding reception on new year’s eve, which remains one of the greatest days of my life.

I also want to speak about the importance of the wider science sector in the north-east. I am privileged to represent many scientists studying and working at both Newcastle and Northumbria universities, making incredible contributions not just to academia but to industry. When I meet them, a lot of it goes well above my head. I emphasise that I got a 2:1 in history, and therefore I can read the history of the subject without necessarily understanding the particulars of it.

In my remaining time, I would like to echo a plea not only for those silos to be cut through, but for the infrastructure around the SDCs to be considered. I often joust with my local Conservative council, as Members would expect, but unfortunately, rural west Northumberland does not have world-leading infrastructure—it deserves it, but it does not have it. I would like the Minister to go away and make the case that access to these centres is incredibly important, and although it is not his Department’s responsibility, it is essential that the roads leading to these centres are properly repaired and that opportunities to access them are properly promoted. He is more than welcome to visit Kielder with me at any point, to sample some of the local hospitality that I praised and see the dark skies for himself.

15:15

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) for securing this very important and enlightening debate. Science and discovery centres have a crucial part to play in nurturing and developing curiosity and scientific endeavour for thousands of young people across the country, including in my Bracknell constituency.

The Look Out discovery centre in my constituency played a defining role in my childhood, and fostered in me a lifelong love of science, and I know that many constituents will have similarly fond memories of visiting the Look Out as children. I have been delighted to return there not only last year as Bracknell’s MP, but with my nieces, to introduce the next generation of Swallows to everything that this remarkable place has to offer. The Look Out offers more than 90 interactive exhibits: visitors are invited to touch, pull, push, launch flying machines, play with circuits and explore their senses. That is all designed to spark curiosity in children aged three to 12, as well as in the adults who accompany them.

This Government have been clear that they want the UK to take a leading role in the development of new technologies, and that that will accelerate development not only across our economy, but in our health system, our universities and our national security. I welcome that ambition, but it will not be possible to achieve those aspirations without a strong foundation on which to build. Whether it is AI, semiconductors, lifesaving research or cutting-edge innovations, bringing up a young generation with a love of learning and a passion for the pursuit of the new—in our ever more complex world—is a fundamental prerequisite for the pioneering role that this Government want the UK to take.

This year, I have heard about how the outdoor learning programmes and discovery shows at the Look Out have taken young people who did not believe that STEM could be for them, and transformed their attitude and perceptions to such an extent that the same young people are inspired to enter STEM-based careers. Discovery centres provide a vital space for exploration outside the pressures of school. At the Look Out, young people are given the opportunity to develop a wide range of skills in a relaxed and fun extracurricular environment—as a former teacher, I say that learning should be fun, and it should be fun to learn.

For those who alight on a newly discovered passion, the Look Out also takes on work experience students to support and provide a step up in their STEM-related career ambitions. Colleagues may know that the opportunity to engage and measure skills-based learning both in and outside of schools is a particular passion of mine, and I am pleased that a renewed recognition of the importance of skills-based learning is driving much of this Government’s approach to education. It is critical that we recognise that centres such as the Look Out have a fundamental role to play in inspiring and developing the workforce of the future and equipping them with the skills that matter.

The Look Out is also an important place for our community to meet. It hosts live family-friendly science discovery shows such as the “Superhero Science show”, birthday parties, school group visits, home educator days and toddler days, as well as offering inclusive facilities such as wheelchair-accessible play. It is also a place for many members of the community, including those with toddlers and those supporting adults with special educational needs and disabilities, to meet. Overall, science centres across the country welcome more than 5.2 million people every year. This Government are firm in their belief that educational opportunity must be accessible to everyone, whatever their needs or background, and science and discovery centres play a huge part in delivering that commitment in communities.

The Look Out is special not only for what the centre itself offers, but for its location—situated, as it is, in the heart of Swinley forest. I know that many families use the Look Out as a launch pad to explore nature. The land is actually owned by the Crown Estate, which I thank for its ongoing support for the centre.

The misinformation and disinformation that are spread, particularly online, about lifesaving innovations such as vaccinations do nothing for our unity and prosperity as a nation; they serve only to erode trust in expertise, science and, ultimately, democracy itself. That is why it is so important that we support science and discovery centres, which have a role in building public trust, understanding and dialogue about new technologies. That has to come alongside making sure that we have the right support for capital funding. As other Members have mentioned, discovery centres do struggle to access some of those grants.

I am committed to working with Bracknell Forest council and other partners to ensure the long-term future of the Look Out, so that not only this generation of Bracknell Forest children can access it, but many generations to come can continue to visit and enjoy the centre. I know that you are keen for me to wrap up, Mrs Harris, so I will just finish by saying a huge thank you to everyone who works at the Look Out for all that they do to make science accessible and exciting for young people in Bracknell Forest and across the country.

15:25

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing the debate and on his excellent opening speech. Indeed, his speech and all the speeches we have heard today have been really enthusiastic, and that is the whole point of these science centres: to generate enthusiasm. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about how his enthusiasm for astronomy ended up with his becoming a vet, so we do not know precisely where that young person will end up, but giving them that enthusiasm gets them exploring and thinking about STEM and maybe, ultimately, what career they might do. The Liberal Democrats believe that curiosity and engagement in STEM subjects should be encouraged from a very early age.

We all know that science, technology and engineering will forge the future of this country, by generating advanced technologies, rethinking national infrastructure and making strides in new medical treatments, yet we face a serious shortage in STEM skills. Science and discovery centres play a central role in engaging millions of young people around the country every year, and lighting that spark of enthusiasm could hopefully form the foundation of their future careers. I agree that the Centre for Alternative Technology is a fantastic place, and it gives many examples of how we can all live more sustainably through things we can easily do in our own homes.

As we heard earlier, it is very good that this debate has found a Minister to respond, because, like many people, I was shocked that there does not appear to be a Department wanting responsibility for these wonderful places. I suggest that DSIT grabs it with both hands, before somebody else does.

I am proud to host, within my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire, Cambridge Regional College, Cambridge science park and the Cambridge science centre. Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, I do not have a university in my constituency, but I have three around it; the science park hosts many of their spin-outs, and the science centre is what is encouraging young people to study STEM subjects, either into apprenticeships or through to university.

Cambridge science centre will soon begin its “building a better future” programme, which will engage young people in STEM by considering real-world problems that our communities face into the future—things such as house building, energy, transport and green technologies. They are all critical to the lives of young people, and it is exciting to consider the potential of science centres in building local skills to tackle issues within our area. However, Cambridge science centre told me that it has serious concerns over, in its words,

“the growing chasm existing between innovation in STEM sectors and younger people”.

It wants to play a key role in making sure that our young people know what is going on in STEM, with all the new developments—and there are some exciting, cutting-edge ones in my constituency—but it needs money and support to do that.

Science and discovery centres are clearly a national asset, with an important role to play in growing our STEM skills base, investing in national renewal and rebuilding our reputation as a leader in science and innovation. As we have heard, they are also important local assets, connected to the local industries and skills needs of the area, and able to mobilise the enthusiasm of local young people for STEM towards tackling the problems facing their communities into the future. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on which Department will be responsible for the science centres, and for developing a coherent strategy with funding. Will the Minister agree to fully engage with science centres across the country on a plan to ensure that the education and engagement of young people keeps up with the pace of change in science, technology and engineering?

15:30

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing this debate and bringing parliamentary attention back to a subject that has not been properly considered for some years: the role of science and discovery centres within our tech and science ecosystem, the pressures they face, and the contribution they continue to make.

I enjoyed hearing about the hon. Member’s connection to the Centre for Alternative Technology, which clearly has such personal resonance given his father’s link, as a founding member in the 1970s. I knew the hon. Member was a teacher, but I did not realise he was a drama teacher, which perhaps explains why he is so fantastic at carrying his voice in this Chamber and speaking with such incredible passion.

I confess that I had not appreciated how extensive the network of SDCs is. The Eden Project, which I visited again last year, is just one of the 28 science and discovery centres spread across every part of the UK, and it is a perfect example of what these institutions do so well. It is a major visitor attraction, it is deeply rooted in its local economy, and it has scientific discovery and public engagement at the heart of its mission. These centres are not arms of the state; they are independent, agile and largely self-sustaining organisations, generating income through admissions, partnerships and commercial activity.

Many SDCs were established around the turn of the millennium. Indeed, my first visit to the Eden Project was back in 2000, on my very first girls’ holiday. We did not, as Essex girls, choose Marbella; we chose Cornwall and Devon—very rock and roll. But the Eden Project really embodies the optimism of that moment. It is an old claypit, turned into a very future-focused and futuristic-looking plant wonderland with a scientific mission at its core.

While there were early Millennium Commission grants and support, that funding rightly came to an end, and these centres have now operated for many years without routine public subsidy. That independence has been a strength, allowing them to innovate and respond quickly to new scientific developments and to retain the trust of the communities they serve. But there was always an understanding that the materials in the buildings designed for the SDCs would require renewal after around 25 years, which is now. Many centres have now reached that point and face major capital projects at exactly the same time in a far more difficult operating environment.

SDCs are a distinctive part of our national infrastructure. They are the only places where cutting-edge science, public engagement and development of essential STEM skills come together under a single roof. Collectively, they reach more than 5 million people every year, and they have engaged with over a third of UK schools in the past two years alone.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) talked with beautiful passion about the role of science in his own life, having been fired up by an early visit to a planetarium. It was the same for the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). We also heard from the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about his connection to the Look Out; as he was speaking, I thought back to the time I was hit by a Segway in Bracknell forest, and I started to get PTSD.

As SDCs rely on their own income rather than public subsidy, they have been particularly exposed to recent shocks, such as the pandemic and the energy price surge after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Although Government support schemes helped many organisations through that period, SDCs fell between several stools. They were not eligible for cultural recovery funding, and they did not have national lottery support either. They survived those challenges, but they did not anticipate facing simultaneous capital renewal pressures alongside the impact of the 2024 Budget.

We have all spoken to hospitality businesses in our constituencies about the sharply rising costs, particularly when it comes to employing people, given the national insurance and business rates issues coming through. Those pressures are now pushing some of these science and discovery centres towards a tipping point. Two of the largest in the UK have announced significant redundancies. One set of accounts explicitly cites the inflationary impact of the Budget and increased national insurance costs, and 75 jobs have already gone at one centre. Some centres have warned that, without intervention, closures within the next 12 to 18 months are a real possibility.

All of this matters because the mission of science and discovery centres is to make science, technology, engineering and maths more accessible, engaging and relevant to people from all backgrounds. They provide trusted spaces where the public can explore new technologies to understand their applications and build confidence in engaging with them—a recent example is a project to demystify AI. The hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) mentioned how these centres play a critical role in the skills pipeline.

Glasgow Science Centre’s learning labs programme has worked with thousands of teachers and reached over 100,000 pupils. That shows how these centres complement formal education and help young people to see themselves as future scientists, engineers and innovators. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) talked about the importance of SDCs in challenging anti-science narratives. I congratulate him on his recent nuptials—I am sure Le Petit Château had a very lively night over the new year.

Ministers have recognised all these strengths. The Secretary of State herself has spoken in this Chamber about the National Space Centre, which is in her own city of Leicester, and the role it plays in future jobs and prosperity. The constituency of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is one of her Ministers, neighbours the amazing Dynamic Earth SDC. I know his constituency is not close to Montgomeryshire, but I am sure he does not want to take on and disappoint the Welsh mafia, if I may say that, in this Chamber by not backing SDCs very fully.

That touches the heart of the problem. These centres need a Department to recognise them, engage with them and champion them, and DSIT is their obvious home. These centres were born of a Government-led vision to create trusted environments for public engagement with science and tech, and they have built strong partnerships with universities, industry and local communities. They are ready to support national missions, but they need the Government to show them that ownership.

I have a number of fairly straightforward questions for the Minister, which are reflective of the very disciplined briefing behind the scenes by the Association for Science and Discovery Centres. I would be grateful if he could let us know whether DSIT will formally accept responsibility for the sector and act as its champion across Government. Will Ministers meet SDC representatives as a matter of urgency? Will the Department consider whether underspends can be directed towards the £20 million that the SDCs believe is essential for capital upgrades, which they are confident they can match-fund through partnerships? Will Ministers engage directly with DCMS colleagues on opening up access to national lottery funding for science and discovery centres? Finally, will the Minister make representations to the Treasury about the wider impact of current tax and business rates policy on SDCs, which runs directly counter to what the Government say they wish to promote when it comes to science and technology?

SDCs are a quiet success story. They are independent, entrepreneurial and deeply embedded in communities. They support public understanding of science, they develop future skills and they are inspirational to future generations. They are not asking to be taken over or paid for, and they know what to do when it comes to continuing their great work long into the future, but they need help with short-term challenges that are not of their own making. They are asking to be recognised, engaged with and enabled to continue doing what they already do well for the benefit of science, society and the economy.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

As a senior member of the Welsh mafia, I am presumably the Godmother.

I now call the Minister, and I remind him to make sure he leaves time at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.

15:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. I pay my due respects to you as the godmother of the Welsh mafia. It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, but particularly on this occasion. With my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) initiating his first Westminster Hall debate on this deeply important subject, you in the Chair and me responding on behalf of the Government, I am deeply proud that the Welsh enthusiasm for science and technology is right at the heart of the debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr for securing this important debate on the impact of science and discovery centres on national science and technology priorities. I am grateful to all Members who contributed to the debate. It has been a total delight to hear about the wonderfully distinct flavours of science and discovery centres across the country, and about the distinct stages of our lives at which they have touched us. As my hon. Friend said, they include the experiences of our parents, of our childhood, of our schooling, of our enlightened first girls’ holidays, of our weddings and of our professional work too.

Growing the economy is the Government’s No. 1 priority, and science and technology are central to achieving that ambition. That is why the Government have committed to an unprecedented £86 billion investment in UK research and development over the next five years—the largest ever by any Government. That investment is about driving innovation, creating jobs and securing long-term economic growth. It signals our determination to put science and technology at the heart of our national priorities.

Of that investment, £38 billion is allocated to UK Research and Innovation to deliver our core priorities across the research and innovation buckets. That includes £14 billion for advancing curiosity-driven research, £7 billion to support the formation and growth of innovative companies and £8 billion for funding research into the Government’s priorities, including the industrial strategy priority areas. For the first time, UKRI will map its investments against priority sectors, with £9 billion of direct support for the industrial strategy across buckets 2 and 3. Those allocations reflect our national science and technology priorities, ensuring the UK leads in critical fields such as artificial intelligence, clean energy, advanced manufacturing and life sciences—areas that are essential to our future prosperity.

I am conscious that investment alone is not enough. To turn this unprecedented commitment into real-world impact, we need a world-class STEM workforce—a pipeline of talented individuals equipped to transform ideas into breakthroughs. That is why the Government believe in the value of a strong STEM workforce and have committed to ensuring that everyone, regardless of background, has the opportunity to pursue a rewarding career in science, technology, engineering and maths.

A strong, skilled STEM workforce is vital to delivering innovation, driving productivity and strengthening our country through our mission-led approach. That means inspiring the next generation, broadening participation and ensuring that science does not just happen behind closed doors but belongs to everyone. That is exactly the motivation behind our £187 million TechFirst programme, which will touch the lives of 1 million young people right across the UK.

The Government acknowledge that that is one of the key areas in which science and discovery centres play a deeply important role. Although some centres conduct research, their primary purpose is to serve as cultural institutions and visitor attractions that embed science within the UK’s cultural fabric, making it open, inclusive and aspirational. They maintain strong civic links with schools, teachers, industry, businesses and research partners, and they meet the growing demand for STEM education and learning opportunities for people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities. Through their engagement right across the UK, these centres enrich our cultural life, much like museums and galleries do for art and heritage. They deliver outstanding experiences that spark curiosity, foster critical thinking and build problem-solving skills, which are qualities that collectively drive innovation.

The Explore Your Universe: Valuing Inclusion programme has taken hands-on science into schools and communities that rarely have access to those opportunities, building confidence and inspiring future STEM careers. The Life Science Centre in Newcastle and Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh are active delivery partners in this national programme, bringing inclusive, practical physical science engagement to schools and families.

Through Next Gen Earth, centres are connecting young people with climate and environmental science, linking classroom concepts to real-world data and local action. The Centre for Alternative Technology in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr continues to play a leading role in this programme, helping young people to engage with climate science through hands-on workshops and youth-led projects. Mindsets + Missions has supported new ways for science and discovery centres and museums to co-create with local audiences, strengthening trust, inclusion and civic value, alongside scientific literacy. UKRI support, through its research councils, has been pivotal in enabling those programmes, aligning public investment with priority sectors and ensuring that research outcomes reach learners, teachers and under-represented communities nationwide.

The scale of these centres’ reach is remarkable. In 2024 alone, they welcomed over 5.2 million visitors, including hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren and families. More than 450,000 people from disadvantaged or under-represented communities were able to access the centres free of charge. Over the past two years, science and discovery centres have worked with 37% of UK schools, supporting the science curriculum and STEM skills in 96% of parliamentary constituencies. Importantly, these centres help us to tackle one of the biggest challenges in science and technology: diversity. Last year, 55% of visitors were female, and targeted outreach programmes are bringing science to communities that have historically been excluded from STEM careers.

Close to my heart, I am particularly excited about the way in which the centres speak to diversity of place as well, ensuring an offer for rural places, such as those highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr and for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). That is the case right across every part of our Union, as represented so ably by Members’ contributions today from across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—diversity not just in theory, but in practice.

I listened carefully to the concerns expressed by Members about the financial and operational challenges faced by the centres. As highlighted, many have ageing infrastructure, which needs replacement, and many operate as charities without a consistent funding stream. They often rely on low ticket prices to ensure that accessibility is a priority and to deliver on inclusive community engagement. I recognise those pressures, as we do right across Government, and we understand the difficult decisions that many centres face, but with limited income sources and major infrastructure needs, building financial resilience will be a key part of long-term success for the centres. I know that they will reflect on diversifying income and exploring innovative ways to strengthen sustainability as part of the solution.

I am also keen to highlight the available funding streams that UKRI will continue to provide, some of which may be of relevance and support to the centres. I am conscious of the focus on investment that delivers the greatest impact across the centres—working with centres to develop sustainable models and innovative partnerships will deliver on resilience and value for money.

[Dr Sullivan]

To clarify on UKRI, will the Government therefore allow it to distribute funds to the science centres? Will the Minister clarify the point that he made?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her experience of science societies that she described so vividly. Historically, as I mentioned, UKRI has funded specific programmes. I am conscious that where there is available programme funding for eligible centres, they ought to ensure that they apply for it. I am keen to make sure that UKRI is working keenly and engaging with the centres, flagging up such funds as relevant.

Looking ahead, we remain committed to strengthening the STEM pipeline in collaboration with science and discovery centres, UKRI and industry, so that together we can inspire the next generation and secure the UK’s future as a science and technology leader. We will continue to champion programmes that broaden participation and that embed science in our culture, while exploring practical ways to support the infrastructure that enables the centres to thrive, always guided by the principle of long-term sustainability.

I am particularly conscious of the questions asked by Members from across the House. In response to the question about departmental engagement, I am keen—I have turned up here—that DSIT engages closely, but I am also conscious that the cultural contribution of discovery centres is a fundamental part of what motivates them and those who visit them. I am therefore keen to commit to close cross-Government working right across DCMS, DSIT and any other Departments.

I am keen not just to meet the low bar of having turned up to the debate as a Minister, but to take up the requests of hon. Members across the House to ensure that today is the start of the conversation, not the end of it. I am therefore delighted to commit to a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr and with the Association for Science and Discovery Centres to progress the conversation in a tangible way as well.

On the question of potential sources of funding, whether underspends or Treasury, I am afraid that I have neither the power, nor—on this occasion—the willingness to commit to particular sources of funding and to write a fiscal event live in this debate, but I have heard loud and clear the concerns expressed about the funding resilience of science and discovery centres.

It would be remiss of me not to pay a personal tribute to the science and discovery centres. As true as the preference for magazines of the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is, it is also true that growing up faced with the choice between Techniquest in Cardiff Bay, and the cinema and bowling alley neighbouring it, I made a commitment to my parents—and I commit the same to the House—that my preference was always Techniquest.

On that note, I thank all Members who have spoken today. The debate has highlighted not only the extraordinary contribution of science and discovery centres, but the shared responsibility that we all have to ensure that they succeed in a sustainable way, and that the inclusive way in which they engage young people and families right across this country is maintained for as long as possible.

15:49

[Steve Witherden]

I thank all the speakers in today’s debate. There were some lovely speeches. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) speak about his work on tsetse flies in New Zealand, which emphasises the global contribution that our science centres make. I was extremely relieved to hear that his favourite magazine in his youth was the New Scientist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) spoke at length about the chemical industry. Our two constituencies have a very close link: Glyndŵr, the other half of my constituency, was home to the biggest chemical plant in the world in the 1920s and was the biggest producer of the chemical phenyl. Just as in the last two centuries science and technology were the driver of the industrial revolution and growth and development of this country, I hope that in this century it will be the cleaner science and technology that drives the green industrial revolution.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke passionately about Aberdeen’s science centre. I was very glad to hear that it had kept the defecating sheep. That is great news. Learning about the digestive system is incredibly important. Like her, I live in dread of boundary changes because the CAT sits very close to Ceredigion and Dwyfor Meirionnydd.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) is another Member who has had a fantastic science career, with a great passion for the pedagogical aspect of science centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) was not the only Member to speak about the concerning rise in what we might call anti-science and anti-facts. One of the things that inspired me to get into politics was when the former Member for Surrey Heath famously said he thought people had “had enough of experts”—the antithesis of what I think. If I hurt my back, I want to speak to an expert in back injuries. I will take experts, thank you very much. I was glad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) still regularly visits and supports his local science centre and never forgot visiting as a child.

Turning to the two Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), politics can be quite a cynical game, but it is so lovely when there is cross-party consensus on a topic, so I really enjoyed hearing both those speakers. I can reassure the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster that I am most certainly not a member of the Welsh mafia.

I thank the Minister for coming here today. He spoke very reassuringly, and I look forward to meeting him. For too long, the issue of science centres has been treated like a bride left at the altar by the groom. No one is representing it, and no Departments are taking it on, so I hope that DSIT does. I look forward to working with him on that in the near future.

Finally, as well as thanking all the visitors in the Gallery, some of whom have travelled a very long way to come here to be with us today, I also want to thank you, Mrs Harris, for your excellent work in the Chair. As always, it gives me great pleasure that this debate has been a very Wales-centric affair. Diolch.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

In the spirit of sharing and showing how shallow I am, my favourite magazine is Vogue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of Science and Discovery Centres on national science and technology priorities.

15:53

Sitting suspended.

UK-France Relations

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

16:00

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK relations with France.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I have called this debate because we are at an important and promising moment in the UK-France relationship. It has been a bumpy few years. Brexit and its fallout placed the relationship under real strain. A couple of years ago, we had a Prime Minister unclear on whether the French President was friend or foe. But those days are behind us, and six months on from an extremely successful state visit and UK-France summit, the relationship is back on track. This, therefore, is the right moment for Parliament to recognise that fact and to take stock of how the relationship can serve both countries better. This relationship matters, not just for diplomatic niceties, but because so many of this Government’s core objectives depend on it: our security, our borders, our energy system, our economic growth and our standing in the world.

The UK-France relationship is not new; it is one of the longest continuous diplomatic relationships in the world. This year marks 1,000 years since the birth of William the Conqueror, and as a Scot I note with pride that last year was the 730th anniversary of the auld alliance, which Charles de Gaulle called

“the oldest alliance in the world”,

and which I was pleased to celebrate at St Giles’ cathedral in my constituency, along with the French community in Edinburgh. Seen from that perspective, the difficulties of the past decade are no more than bumps in the road, but they were real bumps, and it matters that we now mark their passing and recognise that the relationship is moving forward with purpose.

Let me begin with defence and security. The UK and France are Europe’s two nuclear powers and its two permanent members of the UN Security Council. Together, we account for roughly 40% of Europe’s defence spending and around half the continent’s military research and technology investment. Six months on from the state visit, Lancaster House 2.0 and the entente industrielle, our defence sectors—both public and private—are more deeply intertwined than ever. Our armed forces, our intelligence services and our defence industries operate not just in parallel but in partnership.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about the relationship between the UK and France, and we have fought many battles against each other. However, we always remember that the last two battles we fought, we fought together, and we took on fascism across the world.

Does he agree that although the historical connection with France has perhaps always been one of friction, a symbiotic relationship has always existed and it must be built on in terms of cross-channel trade and relationships, but also immigration crossings. We have to address that issue, and the French need to resolve it in co-ordination with our national security requirements—the very thing the hon. Gentleman reminded us of in his last few words.

[Chris Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is right that, strategically, our interests are aligned, even when there are key issues. I will come on to migration in just a second.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech that highlights his love for and expertise in this subject. One of the greatest threats to our shared security is from Russian sub-threshold activity, which could well escalate further later this year. Through the Franco-British Council—my hon. Friend and I both work with it—I have been working with the Royal United Services Institute and the Institut Montaigne on ways that the whole of both our Governments could work more effectively against that threat, including through joint National Security Council meetings—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but this is an intervention, not a short speech.

[Chris Murray]

I agree entirely with the point my hon. Friend makes. Like him, I have worked a lot with the Franco-British Council, and he is right that Europe’s strategic autonomy and ability to act collectively and in coalitions of the willing—an issue I will come to in a second—is important, given the changing geopolitical situation we clearly face.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that both our nations are currently subject to disinformation online, and we also face the challenges of artificial intelligence, as well as its promise. Does he therefore agree that we need to continue the work from the Bletchley and Paris summits on AI, and to really intensify that work on technology in the future?

[Chris Murray]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK and France have substantial military technology sectors, which are critical for not only our security but the rules-based international order that the relationship between the two countries props up. When it comes to new technologies, whether it is AI or military hardware and kit, the rules-based international order needs—the liberals in the world need—the UK and France at the forefront. They need our technology and defence industries to work with our political objectives to achieve that. I think that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) was about to make.

That takes me to exactly the point I was about to make in my speech. At the UK-France summit last year, the Prime Minister and President Macron reaffirmed in the Northwood declaration the declaration from 1995 about our nuclear posture and our shared nuclear weapons objectives. They said:

“we do not see situations arising in which the vital interests of either France or the United Kingdom could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened.”

There are not many countries in the world that we could say that so baldly and so clearly about. In other words, we are saying that British security is French security, and French security is British security. Despite all the bumps in the road, that strategic truth endures.

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

My constituency was home to the Free French forces during the second world war, and that is representative of the kind of security relationship our countries have had in the past. May I urge the Government, through the hon. Gentleman, and in the spirit of strategic futures, to get back round the table and to ensure that we have a safe and secure SAFE—Security Action for Europe—deal to allow the UK to take part in common European defence?

[Chris Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing the history of his constituency on this important issue. SAFE is an issue that the Government and other actors in both France and the UK are working quite deeply on. Obviously, we are not in SAFE now, but we can still hope for the future.

The point about UK-France relations is not just that they are good for British or French security, but that they are good for world security, and nowhere is that clearer than in Ukraine. For example, the Storm Shadow long-range missile developed by MBDA, a joint Franco-British company, has been one of the most effective weapons supplied to Ukraine in terms of repelling Russia’s invasion.

However, this is not just about kit; it is also about political leadership. The UK and France have been at the heart of the coalition of the willing, convening 35 countries to support Ukraine’s security. That includes last week’s incredibly significant announcement that both countries are prepared to contribute ground forces in support of a future peace settlement.

At a time when we are seeing a change in strategic posture in the United States—if I can put it like that—Russian aggression in Europe, the rise of China, and crises in the middle east and South America, it is no small thing that Britain and France stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of the rules-based international order.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is right that we recognise, despite the ups and downs in the relationship between our two countries, that the interaction of their histories and cultures has made them what they are today. However, relationships take work, so will the hon. Gentleman—I do not think he will have to declare an interest as a former distinguished diplomat in Paris—join me in paying tribute, as I hope the Minister will, to the fantastic diplomatic team that we have in our Paris embassy, and that the French Government have in their embassy here in London, both of which build and strengthen the relationship between our two countries, often behind the scenes?

[Chris Murray]

I will first declare an interest: I worked at the UK embassy in Paris—the quality has improved a lot since I left. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman: the UK staff in France, both in Paris and in the consulates, and the French staff here in the UK, both in the embassy in London and in the consulates—including the consulate in Edinburgh, in my constituency —do fantastic work to smooth the relationship and stop crises erupting, which is so important. Of course, they also support nationals in the two countries, which is important, because tourism and business relationships, as well as political relationships, are what make this relationship so important to the country.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentioned tourism. Does he have any thoughts about the fantastic work that organisations such as Harrogate International Partnerships do in town twinning—a lot of which was set up off the back of world war two—and about how the educational, cultural and tourism exchange that such organisations provide can deepen the France-UK relationship?

[Chris Murray]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Speaking as an MP whose constituency is a tourist centre—we welcome people from across the world, and particularly from France—I know that such organisations contribute so much. Many businesses in my constituency are dependent on tourism from France but find it difficult to navigate, so organisations that have helped to mitigate bumps in the road are the backbone of the economy in places such as Edinburgh and Harrogate, and I pay tribute to them.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. On cultural relations, he may not be aware that the Festival Interceltique de Lorient, which celebrates the Celtic identity that is so strongly felt in regions of the UK and in Brittany, will this year focus on Cornish identity. Does he agree that cultural enterprises play a vital role in strengthening the close relationships between the UK and France, alongside other fundamentals, such as youth engagement, particularly through the Erasmus+ scheme?

[Chris Murray]

I did not know that the Festival Interceltique de Lorient was focusing on Cornwall this year, but I have another interest to declare, because I remember going to that festival as a schoolboy; it is one of the things that inculcated in this Scottish person a love of French and Celtic culture. I absolutely know the importance of what my hon. Friend is talking about, and I thank him for raising it.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. We talk about smoothing the relationship, so will he join me in welcoming the new entente amicale between the UK and France? Will he also join me in recognising how that is strengthened by the 11 French-English bilingual schools in our country, such as the tremendous Fulham Bilingual in my constituency, which is a partnership between the French lycée and the local Holy Cross school? It is a living, breathing symbol of the entente amicale in action, so will my hon. Friend proclaim with me, “Vive les écoles bilingues de Fulham!”?

[Chris Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had the entente cordiale, the entente industrielle, which I referred to earlier, and the entente amicale. Bilingual schools have a huge role in allowing children not only to understand one another’s cultures, but to live both sides of their identity. In the 21st century, that is really important. The French model is something we should be looking at to allow people in wider communities in the UK to be more comfortable in their identities. I will of course cry, “Vive les écoles bilingues de Fulham!”

If there are no further inventions on those issues, let me turn to how other components of the UK-France relationship are critical to the Government’s objectives. The UK-France relationship is central not just culturally and to communities, as those interventions have suggested, or to security and geopolitics, as I outlined earlier, but to some of the Government’s domestic political priorities, including restoring control to our migration system. As we all know, illegal immigration is, by definition, a transnational problem, and thus requires a transnational solution and international co-operation. After Brexit, we left instruments such as the Dublin regulation, Schengen information system II, the Prüm treaty and others. That makes bilateral co-operation with the French so important.

When I visited northern France with the Home Affairs Committee last month, I saw the scale and seriousness of the effort underway by French police, soldiers and reservists in order to disrupt the organised crime gangs, work on maritime interceptions, work on the one in, one out pilot, reach out to migrants and change the calculus of their decision making, and create new safer routes for the future. None of those objectives can succeed without work with the French, and none would be sustained without a genuine partnership between our law enforcement agencies, border forces and political leaders.

Every Labour MP knows that we were elected on a promise to clean up the mess left on immigration. The public will not forgive us if we fail. The UK-France relationship is critical to meeting that public expectation, and woe betide us if we do not.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

We have a big, thriving French community in Hampstead and Highgate who have told me they are concerned that the UK is becoming a high-risk destination for French nationals who want to live and work here because of the issues around indefinite leave to remain.

Locally, French parents are particularly concerned about having different settlement timelines to their partners because of childcare responsibilities, as it reduces their salary threshold. Does my hon. Friend think the Government should consider childcare responsibility when they reform the ILR situation for French nationals in our country?

[Chris Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The immigration system needs reform and needs to meet the public’s expectations, but that must happen in a way that works for the economy and works for families and individuals, taking cognisance of the fact that these are people’s lives. I believe that is possible within the parameters that the Home Secretary has set out, but we will need to see the detail of that policy. Like my hon. Friend, I will be watching closely to see whether it meets the objective she has just set.

Our relationship with France will be critical in managing the public’s expectations on immigration, but it goes even further than that because, beyond the domestic political imperative of getting a grip on immigration, both our countries face a bigger challenge—a dysfunctional immigration system fuels anger and distrust, and that fuels the populist right, both in Britain and in France. As two countries facing that challenge, it is important that we work together to tackle it to make sure we deal with the rise of populism.

The French relationship is also critical in some of the Government’s economic objectives, not just because France is our fifth biggest trading partner and our third largest services-sector market, or because more than £100 billion of trade is done with France every year or even because London is the fourth biggest French city—and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) must be one of the Frenchiest—but even thinking about just our energy sector illustrates a vignette of our relationship with France.

The transition to clean energy is the defining economic public policy challenge of our age. France is one of the biggest investors in Britain’s nuclear sector. EDF Energy is central to the delivery of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. French engineering, finance and expertise will be indispensable to achieving this Government’s clean energy mission, so the relationship is critical, but it actually goes further than that. It is not just commercial or economic; it is radical.

Britain and France were among the first countries to industrialise. We were also major colonial powers, and our global footprint still shapes the world today with the Francophonie and the Commonwealth. That gives us a shared responsibility to lead on climate change, not only to decarbonise our economies, but to show that a prosperous net-zero society is possible.

I have something else to say about the future of the relationship. There are those of us who will want to look back nostalgically to the days that we sat together in the European Union, and many people lament the Brexit vote. Some of them are outside singing in Parliament Square, but nostalgia is a poor basis for foreign policy. Hankering for a golden past that never really existed is not the way to move forward. I would argue that that was one of the fundamental problems behind Brexit. What matters is not the architecture of the institutions but the reality of the co-operation, so I strongly welcome the Government’s progress in resetting relationships with the EU, particularly on dynamic alignment on food and energy; working together on shared objectives such as migration, Ukraine and the geopolitical challenges that we face; and building the relationships between people, which several Members have raised.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am loath to interrupt such an excellent speech, but does the hon. Member agree that, as Members of Parliament, we all have a role to play in forging those relationships with our contemporaries in the Assemblée Nationale? I also congratulate him, in that vein, on becoming a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group.

[Chris Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that relationships between political leaders are critical to developing relationships between nations, and I look forward to the work we will be doing on the APPG in that regard.

I welcome the return of the Erasmus+ and youth experience schemes. I studied in France under Erasmus and it changed my life. It has been heartbreaking that my own young constituents have not had that opportunity, and I am really pleased that the Government are now restoring that. As my hon. Friends mentioned, programmes such as the Franco-British Young Leaders—whose cohort I am part of this year—do vital work in building networks of trust across politics, business and civil society. Later this year, as a result of the state visit, we will have a huge cultural Franco-British moment when the Bayeux tapestry comes to the British Museum—it will probably be its exhibition of the decade.

This relationship is not abstract; it is human, cultural, strategic and economic all at once. It is one of the country’s closest relationships—

[Mr Bailey]

I will try and be sufficiently brief this time. The French have a very tight-knit strategic culture—something that we do not understand—that centres on European autonomy and being able to protect our interests as Europeans. Does my hon. Friend agree that that strategic culture is something we must relearn, post our Suez lessons, and that it should shape our outlook going forward?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is now 4.22 pm and the Minister has to speak, so I would be grateful if he could start to wind up.

[Chris Murray]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I was on the point of winding up there, do not worry. My hon. Friend made an excellent point; he and I could spend hours discussing the Government architecture distinctions between the UK, France and, I would argue, Scotland—Scotland makes different mistakes in its Government structures in comparison with the French. The key point is that, given there are such similarities in our challenges and objectives, we can learn a lot from each other about the kind of architecture that does and does not work in each situation. The compare and contrast between cultures and structures is how we drive change forward; there are a lot of things that the UK could learn from France and vice versa.

I will sum up by saying that the UK’s relationship with France is finally back on track. We are no longer indulging in symbolism but focusing on something fundamental: that, in an unstable world, we are closer together than we are separate, and our future security, prosperity and global influence depends on that.

16:23

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) for securing the debate. It is a particular pleasure, as always, to hear about different constituencies’ histories; my own constituency’s history with France involves fighting a moderately successful battle to prevent France’s invasion of England—defended by the suspiciously French-named Nicola de la Haye, who was then the constable of Lincoln castle. It was a successful but bloody affair, so I am glad that my hon. Friend and so many others have carried off their commentary about their historical links with our neighbour over the channel with rather more élan than Lincoln can manage. I am grateful for the contributions of hon. Members and will endeavour to respond to the points they have raised. The Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), would have been very glad to be here, but he is conducting a general debate about Ukraine in the main Chamber today.

We have a deep shared history with France, not just in combat but in many other things: values, trade, cultural links and partnerships on the international stage—in NATO, the G7, the United Nations and beyond. Our relationship remains vibrant, ambitious and essential. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said so graciously, since this Government came to power, we have prioritised resetting and deepening relations with our European partners to deliver tangible benefits for our security, people and economy. France is central to that—even in Lincoln.

As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Europe’s leading defence and only nuclear powers, our countries share responsibility for international peace and security. We are at the forefront of efforts to support Ukraine and uphold European security. Our deep defence relationship under the Lancaster House treaties has enabled us to convene the coalition of the willing, sustaining long-term support for Ukraine and preparing conditions for a just and lasting peace.

Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister co-chaired a meeting of the coalition of the willing with President Macron in Paris. Alongside President Zelensky, they signed a declaration of intent on deploying forces to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, paving the way for a legal framework of British, French and partner forces to operate on Ukrainian soil to secure Ukraine’s skies and seas, and regenerate its armed forces. The Paris declaration, agreed with the US and others, sets out guarantees to be activated once the ceasefire comes into force.

My colleague the Minister for Europe is in regular contact with his counterpart: they met last month in Vienna, and in London last October ahead of the Berlin process summit. The Foreign Secretary visited her counterpart in Paris last October, and they are in regular touch. Last July’s state visit by President Macron marked the renewal of our shared bonds at every level of Government. As part of that visit, at the 37th UK-France summit President Macron and the Prime Minister strengthened our partnership with groundbreaking agreements covering migration, defence, growth and culture.

The Lancaster House 2.0 declaration will accelerate our bilateral defence and security co-operation to new levels and strengthen Europe’s contribution to NATO. We agreed to overhaul the combined joint expeditionary force to refocus it on the Euro-Atlantic area and to address evolving security threats. We reaffirmed our commitment to nuclear co-operation through the Northwood declaration, an important declaration that states that our nuclear forces are independent but can be co-ordinated. The new UK-France nuclear steering group met in December to co-ordinate work across nuclear policy, capabilities and operations. At the summit, the Prime Minster and the President also committed to strengthening co-operation on illegal migration, and tackling the criminal gangs responsible for the small boat crossings that have cost so many lives. This has been an important part of the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh in Parliament.

France is also a key part of our growth and energy security. I will not dwell on the important and vital investments that EDF has made in Sizewell C; they were covered effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh—he is also a former colleague in the Foreign Office. He also covered the important cultural and educational co-operation opportunities between our two countries. The exchange of the Bayeux tapestry and the Sutton Hoo treasures is a real celebration of our joint history. Our re-association to Erasmus+ in 2027 will create new opportunities for young people in exactly the way my hon. Friend described.

Across Government, we will continue to strengthen the bonds between our countries and our people in our many areas of shared ambition and co-operation. Through our co-leadership of the coalition of the willing, the UK and France will continue to provide global leadership in an era of renewed instability.

Question put and agreed to.

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I beg to move, 

That this House has considered horse and rider road safety. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to have secured this debate and grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that has, for far too long, not received the attention it deserves. It is a timely debate as well, because just last week the Government published its new road safety strategy, stating that

“every individual deserves to feel safe and supported”

on our roads. Unfortunately, for many horse riders across the country, that aspiration does not reflect their lived reality. While the Government’s strategy does reference horse riders in some places, alongside other vulnerable road users, this is not consistent, and there is no specific mention of their safety.

The issue goes far wider than a single document. Building a stronger foundation of road safety education, with clearer rules and guidance, is essential to ensure that all road users understand how to behave safely and responsibly when encountering horses on the road. According to data from the British Horse Society, in 2024 there were more than 3,000 road incidents that involved horses.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I was shocked to read those statistics, but in Devon since 2020, there have been 375 road incidents involving horses, with 19 horses injured and three killed, and 29 riders injured and one killed. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for asking riders across the country to use body cameras to record evidence of dangerous driving, as many motorists and cyclists do today?

[Mr Dillon]

I agree that body-worn cameras can help to produce evidence to bring drivers to account when they are causing horses or people to suffer injury or death.

Fifty-eight horses lost their lives in 2024 and a further 97 were injured.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I apologise for intervening so soon, but it is important to emphasise how significant this debate is. It is not a niche issue. During my career as a horse vet, I have stitched up and euthanised more horses that have been hit by cars than I can remember—they get broken legs and their owners are injured. This is a very regular occurrence for vets. Just this morning in Winchester, in Hambledon on the B3041, a horse was hit by a car and had to be euthanised. This is not a niche problem, nor is it an unusual occurrence, so I fully support the action that my hon. Friend has taken in securing this debate.

[Mr Dillon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I ask him to pass on my best wishes to his constituent. That shows why the debate is so important, because this is a daily reality on our national highways.

Behind all the figures we talk about, there is a rider, a family and a community affected by trauma and loss. I was contacted by many people from across the country when they heard about this debate. Laura from Essex experienced a devastating accident while riding her horse, Angel. The pair were struck by a car travelling at 53 mph. Laura was extremely fortunate to survive, but tragically Angel, who was just three years old, did not. That incident starkly illustrates the life-threatening dangers that riders face when sharing the road with fast-moving vehicles, and the heartbreaking consequences that can follow.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, a constituent contacted me ahead of this debate and told me that, although many motorists act responsibly, there is an increasing problem with drivers behaving more aggressively and passing horses at unsafe distances. Given that horses can react unpredictably when they think their lives are at risk, that puts everybody’s lives at risk. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that teaching equestrian safety as part of driver training would be an important way of tackling this issue?

[Mr Dillon]

I absolutely do, and I will come to that later in my speech and also highlight some of the good work happening in police forces across the country on driver awareness, once drivers have been caught going too close to a horse.

Turning to my own constituency, in Lambourn the horseracing industry contributes over £22 million to the local economy each year and supports approximately one in three jobs in the area. It is not just an emotional issue; it is a financial one, too. That concentration of equestrian activity also means there is a higher number of horse-related incidents in my constituency.

Unfortunately, Laura from Essex’s story is not an isolated one. Last May, I had the honour of joining the Project EDWARD—Every Day Without A Road Death—equestrian road safety awareness ride out from Lambourn to Windsor. It is held in memory of a racehorse named Knockalla, a two-year-old racehorse that was killed on a road in my constituency. Heavy rainfall caused flooding and standing water and a local driver who was familiar with the road was proceeding slowly down the centre of the carriageway to avoid aquaplaning. But horses are flight animals and as they approached from the opposite direction a splash of water startled Knockalla, causing her to move into the road. In that split second, Knockalla was struck and suffered injuries so severe that she had to be euthanised. Importantly, this case was not about speeding or reckless driving but was rather a tragic accident, and it demonstrates that even when motorists act cautiously, horses and riders remain extremely vulnerable, as horses are flight animals that can react unexpectedly.

Eighty-one per cent of incidents involving horses and vehicles occur because drivers pass too closely or too quickly. That is why I have consistently campaigned for stronger protections for horses and riders.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that clear rules on the speed and distance required when passing walkers, cyclists and horses on the road are needed, and that this should be included in driver theory tests and must be at the heart of driver education? Too many walkers, cyclists and horse riders have been hurt in our constituencies, including mine, and it must come to an end.

[Mr Dillon]

The hierarchy of vulnerability introduced in 2022 is important in establishing who are the most vulnerable on our roads, but the highway code could go further and say “must” go at 10 mph rather than “should”.

Last September, I introduced the Road Traffic (Horse and Rider Safety) Bill. Through that presentation Bill, I called on the Government to strengthen the highway code guidance for passing horses and to improve driver education so that motorists better understand horses’ behaviour and the potentially devastating consequences of their actions. Those changes would raise awareness among all road users and provide greater safety and reassurance when horses are ridden or are pulling horse-drawn vehicles or carriages.

As I have mentioned, last week the Government published the road safety strategy. Although I welcome many of its measures, it missed some relatively straightforward opportunities to better protect horses and riders. The strategy announced that the Ministry of Justice

“will consult on a new victims’ code.”

I welcome that, but it raises an important issue. Under current law, horses are classed as personal property, which means that when one is killed or fatally injured in a road traffic collision, compensation is largely limited to financial loss.

I have recently been contacted by Cathryn from Leeds, a long-standing horse rider and a solicitor who supports people who have suffered serious injuries from horse accidents. She highlights the psychological trauma experienced by injured riders as a recurring theme, which is often compounded by guilt, grief and gratitude that the horse took the main impact and saved the rider from even greater harm. The current legal framework significantly restricts recognition of that emotional distress. I urge the Government to use the consultation on the new victims’ code to consider how horse riders and owners who lose horses can be properly recognised in that framework.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I strongly support his proposed legislation; indeed, I am a sponsor of it. Does he agree that, in order to advance new regulations, the Government need to review whether there is sufficient bridleway capacity across the countryside to avoid the necessity of using roads? It is clear that there are insufficient bridleways across much of the countryside, which is why riders end up having to use the roads to traverse.

[Mr Dillon]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Councils are responsible for maintaining bridleways, but unfortunately their funding has been cut over numerous years and they do not have the money to do so. That forces more riders to use the roads because other routes are not available. Indeed, I was contacted this morning by a lady who said that they do not have any bridleways where she rides, only pavements, so she always has to be on the carriageway. She asked whether we would consider allowing horses to use public pavements in that instance.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate and his Bill. Does he agree that it is not just about bridleways? Forestry England has recently introduced quite substantial fees for carriages, which are used by a lot of disabled people, to use their paths, and complex paperwork more akin to that for people organising events. Does he agree that we should call on Forestry England to review that for individual carriage drivers?

[Mr Dillon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Forestry Commission looks after our forests. They should be open for us to be able to enjoy, and the Forestry Commission should work with all relevant groups to make open access as easy as possible.

The road safety strategy also announces the establishment of a new road safety board. Given that horses and riders are among the most vulnerable of road users, will the Minister commit to ensuring that an equestrian representative organisation, such as the British Horse Society, is included on that board? I know that horse-related bodies have been on previous safety advisory boards.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of equestrian representation in these structures. In my constituency, there is a major equestrian centre at Somerford. We also have many horse riders throughout the area, and there have been multiple accidents. We really need to take action on this issue, and I know that the Minister will be listening carefully.

[Mr Dillon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which shows that this is not a party political issue; rather, it is about the safety of riders. I am sure that the Minister, too, will take the hon. Lady’s views onboard.

I welcome the commitment to publish the national guidance on road safety education training and publicity, but I urge the Government to align that work with the measures in my Bill and in particular the need for stronger education in the driving test for new drivers.

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

Horse riders in my constituency are absolutely spoilt for hacking on Epsom downs, but there are lots of busy roads to navigate. Even at Pegasus crossings, drivers are jumping red lights as horses are approaching, which makes it incredibly dangerous. Many have reported near misses, and there have been instances of loose horses in Epsom as a consequence. Does my hon. Friend agree that better education on Pegasus crossings is vital to reducing the number of near misses and potential deaths of riders and horses?

[Mr Dillon]

My hon. Friend makes a key contribution with that intervention: it is that holistic approach to all road traffic management systems that people need to be aware of.

It is vital that young drivers understand how to drive safely on our rural roads and how to behave when encountering animals. Alongside that, I urge the Government to consider requiring companies that operate large vehicles, such as buses and delivery lorries, to include specific equine road safety training as part of their initial driver training. In 2019, a horse rider suffered serious injuries, including a fractured pelvis, after being thrown on to a pavement when her horse was spooked by a bus that passed too quickly and too closely. I think that shows why we need that initial driver training.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; I will have to buy him a pint for making him wait.

Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many rural communities where horse riding is a much-loved and much-enjoyed way to spend time. My constituent Carol Whitehouse took me out recently on her horse, and Sarah, who runs Horsleys in Audley, lent me her boots because I was wearing trainers. Both spoke of the fear and concern they feel as they ride their horses, particularly as a result of big lorries, so the points that the hon. Member has raised about Berkshire and other places across the country are felt strongly in Staffordshire, too.

[Mr Dillon]

rose—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I just want to bring it to Members’ attention that we will get to the Opposition spokespersons and the Minister at 10 past. Lots of people wish to speak and we have had lots of interventions. I am going to be as flexible as I possibly can, but I am not quite sure that we are going to get through all the Members, so bear that in mind when you are bobbing, intervening, and so on.

[Mr Dillon]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Dowd. I will move on.

I want to talk about some excellent examples of best practice that are already in place. In Leicestershire and Rutland, the rural policing team, alongside Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service, have been delivering the “Virtual Insanity Experience” through the Hazard Express van. That involves a mounted volunteer riding on a bike, and if drivers pass dangerously, they are invited to experience that situation through VR headsets. The scheme is focused on education, not punishment, and it could be rolled out nationally for people coming across horses so that motorists understand the experience of a horse rider when a vehicle passes too quickly or closely. I urge the Minister to look at the wider adoption of that scheme.

Before Christmas, the Minister raised the Government’s desire to re-publicise the 2022 highway code changes. Despite £2.4 million being spent on advertising, a YouGov poll in January 2023 found that 25% of adults were unaware of those changes. Mary from south Derbyshire told me:

“The Highway Code revisions made in January 2022 have not really enhanced our safety when using the roads.”

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Given the lack of knowledge about the changes to the highway code, Somerset council has a road safety initiative that offers training to riders and drivers. Would my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Somerset council on its position and on the training it is providing to make our roads safer?

[Mr Dillon]

I do add my congratulations to the council. This debate pulls out the local innovations that are taking place, which the Government can hopefully consider rolling out to a national platform.

I am conscious of time and of other hon. Members who wish to contribute, but it is important to thank the BHS, the British Horseracing Authority, Project EDWARD, the Blue Cross, Brake and the hundreds of people from across the country who have written to me in support of this debate. I urge the Minister to ensure that horses, riders, carriage drivers and all equestrian users are fully included in the Government’s road safety ambitions, not just in principle, but in practice. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the points raised, and commit to taking this work forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I was about to remind Members to bob if they wanted to speak, so thank you very much for doing so. Members will have only two minutes, so bear that in mind, especially when taking interventions, otherwise we will not get through everybody.

16:47

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who I spoke to beforehand about the issue. He is absolutely on the button with what he has requested.

I am the MP for a rural constituency, and I live on a farm in the midst of the unmatchable and beautiful countryside of Strangford, so the presence of horses on the country roads is not surprising. I see them all the time; my neighbours all have horses, and I know personally to slow down and give the horse a wide berth of 2 metres. There are riding schools and stables in the vicinity as well, so it is not simply the horse signage that tells people to be mindful in their road usage. For people who are not local, however, their knowledge is limited, and that is why it is essential that road users in the country are aware of the potential to come across a number of horses on the country roads.

I support the presentation Bill of the hon. Member for Newbury, and I hope that it can progress further. Some in the city may not be aware of the prevalence of horses on the roads, so their first trip to the country might bring about a whole new world. They might not understand that the need to slow down to pass a horse and give it a wide berth is not only useful—it is vital. Operation Gallop by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, NI Direct and the British Horse Society all promote shared responsibility, because horses are easily spooked. Instead of driving fast by a horse and rider, motorists must slow to 10 mph and pass 2 metres wide of the horse, avoiding noise and sudden movements. Riders should wear hi-vis clothes, use signals and follow road rules, keeping left and to single file if the road is busy. That can be the difference between life and death.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, but I will not give way again.

[Mark Sewards]

Very briefly, a young woman from my constituency described the scenario that the hon. Gentleman talks about. She is insured and wears hi-vis clothes, but now faces regular intimidation and abuse, so she has to go out with a camera. Despite that, she still faces those problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s flagship road safety campaign is exactly the right way to go, but that we need to do more in this area to keep riders safe?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

I will be very brief. As of late 2025, the British Horse Society said that a significant majority of equestrians—78%—have experienced an incident while using the roads, which is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to. Nationally, 81% of incidents occur because a driver passed a horse too closely or quickly.

Knowledge and an understanding of the consequences can and will address these concerns. I support the drive of the hon. Member for Newbury to put safety first on our countryside roads for our horses and riders throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

16:49

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

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

Much of today’s discussion has focused, rightly, on vehicles, but I want to highlight another hazard that affects riders on roads, pavements and paths: uncontrolled dogs. My constituent Katie Smart tragically lost her horse, George, after he was chased on to the road by an out-of-control dog. The dangers that led to this tragedy are present when horses are ridden on roads, on pavements and in many other areas; riders are frequently confronted by dogs off the lead, which can cause horses to bolt, very often into roads, creating a real risk of collision.

I raised those concerns with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I am grateful to Baroness Hayman for her engagement on the issues. She has since met my constituent to discuss them, and kindly agreed to meet her again to explore what further support can be provided to all riders who face this risk. Baroness Hayman’s willingness to consider solutions to help people like Katie is very welcome and constructive. It demonstrates the kind of collaboration that is needed to resolve these issues.

Horse riders should be able to use roads, pavements and shared paths without risk or fear of injury. This is about protecting lives, preventing collisions and keeping our communities safe.

16:54

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

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

Horse and rider safety is a matter of real importance to urban fringe communities like mine, and many of my constituents, both urban and rural dwellers, asked me to attend today. Whether it is the Dartmoor pony on Devon’s coat of arms, Wembury bay riding school by Wembury beach, or Erme valley riding school for the disabled in South Hams, horses are central to urban fringe life, the local economy and our heritage in South West Devon.

In Devon, the issue is especially close to home. Dartmoor ponies, which are an iconic part of our landscape, have roamed freely across unfenced moorland since the bronze age, and they frequently cross roads in the national park —dealing with them is something that new drivers have to learn pretty early on. The ponies are a symbol of our heritage, yet they are regularly injured or killed in collisions. Devon and Cornwall police reports that 144 animals, including ponies, cattle and sheep, were killed on Dartmoor’s roads in 2024. Local initiatives, such as improved signage and reflective collars, make a difference and are welcome, but they are not a substitute for wider awareness and driving safely, as we have heard this afternoon.

We also need to look at localised speed limits. For example, in Ivybridge, the B3213 has a 60 mph limit until just after a road that is used by local riding schools. It becomes a 30 mph road at a certain point because of a new housing development, but the council has pushed back on all attempts to reduce the speed limit on the other part of the road that would be used by riders. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that. Is there anything we can do to incentivise local councils to think about roads used by riders when they set speed limits and road policies?

I thank all those who have written to me to raise this important issue. I continue to work to support them on it.

16:53

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd.

I want to share with hon. Members and the Minister the case of Susi Rogers-Hartley from Wiggenhall St Mary in my South West Norfolk constituency. Susi is an accomplished lady: she is a horse rider, military veteran and GB Paralympic athlete. She was the first horse rider to represent Great Britain at show jumping at the Paralympics. For Susi, horse riding gives her quality time out of her wheelchair and a sense of freedom that is difficult to replicate.

In 2021, Susi was hit by a car. The driver tried to pass her on a single-track road, and got so close that Susi’s leg was trapped between the driver’s car and her horse. The driver picked up speed and the horse bolted. Susi fell on to the vehicle and was subsequently dragged for 20 metres along the road, suffering a head injury and a cracked elbow. On another occasion, on Magdalen High Road in my constituency, a driver hit Susi and her horse from behind. Her horse, whom she loved very much, had to be put down because of the injuries it sustained. In Susi’s words, the driver

“got an awareness course. I got a dead horse and thousands in vets bills”.

Horse riders tell me there is often little to no enforcement in accidents involving horse riders.

Growing up in my constituency, I remember routinely seeing people out and about riding a horse, but as cars have got bigger and faster and as people have become less respectful of our country roads, other users have been pushed out, whether they are walkers, cyclists or horse riders. In addition to safety concerns, the years of austerity and the cuts to local council budgets have seen many bridleways fall into a state of disrepair, meaning there are fewer opportunities for horse riding as many bridleways are simply inaccessible.

I ask the Minister to ringfence support for horse rider safety campaigns, such as the Pass Wide and Slow campaign. I also ask what more can be done to ensure that local councils properly maintain bridleways, which are crucial for horse riding in rural areas.

16:55

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) for securing this important debate in support of the equestrian community. Stratford-on-Avon is a deeply rural constituency with fast-moving country roads and narrow lanes. For many riders, using public roads is not a choice but a necessity, and too often that comes with real and frightening risks. Per mile travelled, rural roads are the most dangerous in the country, accounting for well over half of all road deaths.

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

In my constituency we have Cornish hedges, which are made of stone, and they make it even more dangerous, particularly as a lot of drivers do not realise that they are stone. They make it even more important for drivers to give horses as much room as possible.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that issue. I agree with her.

As we have heard, the figures are horrendous: thousands of incidents involving horses result in injury and death. These incidents are widely under-reported, but the harm they cause is very real. Most concerning of all is that more than four in five of these incidents are caused by drivers passing too fast or too close, and that is despite clear highway code guidance introduced in 2022 advising motorists to slow right down and give horses plenty of space. Too many drivers simply do not know about that guidance or do not understand the danger of ignoring it.

There is also the issue of loud engines, such as those in motorbikes, which can startle horses. That is why I strongly support the Liberal Democrats’ Road Traffic (Horse and Rider Safety) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. Clear rules, proper coverage in the driving theory test and better driver education will save lives. Where possible, horse riders should not have to rely on roads at all. The Liberal Democrats have set out plans to expand safe off-road routes through the countryside, giving riders the freedom to travel safely along bridleways.

Finally, I thank the Warwickshire road safety partnership and Warwickshire horse watch, which work to support the equestrian community and provide advice on safety. Horses are a vital part of rural life in constituencies like mine. Their safety, and the safety of those who ride them, deserves far greater priority than the Government are currently giving it.

16:58

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank all those who have written to me regarding this very important topic, particularly Sandra Downey at Talcarn Farm, who allowed me to have a ride in a horse-drawn carriage on a main road—believe me, that is really scary and it made me realise their vulnerability. Of course, we have the highway code and the guidance to pass wide and slow, but how do we get that message across more effectively? As our new road safety strategy says on horse rider safety,

“despite an investment of £2.4m in paid advertising raising road users’ awareness of the changes to The Highway Code, it is clear from research by external road safety stakeholders that more work is needed to embed these changes.”

Aspects of transport are devolved, and I am aware that the Welsh Government have taken action on this, including by incorporating key British Horse Society messages into the Pass Plus Cymru training for young drivers, but we all know that more is needed. Last week, on horse safety, the Minister said:

“We will look at what more we can do to strengthen the advice and guidance, and ensure that people are aware of those issues in the highway code.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 478.]

The question is: how aware are drivers of the dangers of rural roads? The speeds that we see drivers do are frightening, and drivers show no consideration for the lack of visibility on bends or at junctions where farm tracks come out on to roads. Could we put a greater emphasis on rural roads, and particularly horse rider safety, in driving tests? What other tools do we have? We can educate the willing and prosecute the transgressors, but that is likely to happen only when there has been a serious accident—when it is too late.

We absolutely cannot be complacent about this issue. I ask the Minister to use all the means at her disposal to identify the most effective ways of getting the message across; to implement a concerted, specific strategy on horse and rider safety; and to work collaboratively with the Welsh Government on any devolved aspects of such a strategy.

17:00

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I congratulate both the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and the British Horse Society for their work on this hugely important issue. The demand to speak in the debate shows the importance of this issue to so many hon. Members and communities. It is especially important in rural constituencies such as mine, which has a very large number of riders and horses, and is home to the Defence Animal Training Regiment at Asfordby. It is rare to be out and about in the constituency and not see people out riding in the Vale of Belvoir or other places; it is an activity that appeals to people of all ages and backgrounds.

BHS stats suggest that there were only 21 incidents in the Melton area out of 234 in Leicestershire between March 2021 and the end of 2024. That is possibly because it is a very rural constituency, and many drivers are horse-aware and seek to pass sensibly—slowly and at the appropriate distance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury for rightly highlighting the work of Leicestershire police and Leicestershire fire and rescue service, but of course every incident is one too many, and we do not know how many incidents go unreported. There is a strong bond with horses in rural communities, as there is a strong bond between horse and rider.

I have been in the Minister’s place, on the receiving end of campaigns by campaign groups, and I have to say that some are challenging to agree to, but the BHS is very measured and pragmatic. What consideration are the Government giving to clarifying highway code rule 215 on treating horse and rider as a single unit, rather than as a person and property? What more can be done to improve communications and awareness? I suspect that many incidents arise from ignorance, not intent. Will she take the opportunity offered by the road safety strategy to improve safety for riders and horses, and indeed improve access to safe routes?

17:02

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. In the interests of time, I shall ditch what I assure you would have been a fascinating speech and reflect on just a couple of areas.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) on securing this debate. I very much agree with and support the points he made. However, I slightly challenge the idea that because the road safety strategy does not mention horse riding specifically and repeatedly, it is not truly covered. The strategy is based on a safe system approach that recognises that all users are vulnerable, that human error is inevitable but deaths and serious injuries are not, and that the road and vehicle environment should be designed to protect all users as much as possible. In covering safe roads, roadsides, road users, speeds, vehicles and post-crash response, it is truly comprehensive. In that regard, it offers a huge number of opportunities to directly impact the safety of horse riders, such as opportunities for education, enforcement, better street design and technology that protects vulnerable road users from human error. I think the strategy is truly comprehensive and can address many of the areas that have been identified without necessarily needing to identify horse riders specifically.

Members have mentioned that the strategy recognises that more needs to be done to deliver on the intent of the 2022 highway code and its hierarchy of road users, in order to recognise the vulnerability of some of those users. Will the Minister reflect on what more can be done to deliver on that intent? Finally, I recognise that safe physical infrastructure and, ideally, getting horses off the road and on to good bridleways or greenways can make a massive difference. What more can be done to ensure that local authorities genuinely have the funding to deliver the safe infrastructure for which local partnerships, including users —horse riders and others—regularly identify a need?

17:04

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) for securing this important debate and for his wider efforts on this issue, including his private Member’s Bill and his early-day motion, which 44 Members from right across the House supported. That is the gold standard for how to champion an issue in Parliament, and credit is due to him.

This campaign came across my desk for tragic reasons, as it will have for many Members here today. Last autumn, I met Maddy Tinton, the 15-year-old rider of Blaze, her mother, Jane, and Coral Sheldrake, the owner of Beaumont Stables in Old Windsor in my constituency. Last August, Maddy was riding Blaze on Priest Hill, a road that must be used to access Windsor Great Park from Beaumont Stables, when the pair were hit following a two-car collision. Disgracefully, the driver involved was travelling at 80 mph at 6 o’clock on a Wednesday morning. Thankfully, Maddy came out of the incident relatively unscathed, but we should be in no doubt that it could have been far more serious. Blaze was not so lucky and had to be put down.

So often, the horse comes off worse, suffering the full force of a collision and often saving their rider in the process. I know from speaking to Maddy, who absolutely loved Blaze, the emotional toll that Blaze’s death has taken on her. It is clear to anyone who hears Maddy and many other riders talk about their beloved horses that we are dealing with a truly unique connection between human and sentient animal. That connection should be reflected in how horses are treated on our roads, in culture, in law and in practice. They are not inanimate objects; they are our friends.

I welcome some of the changes that the previous Conservative Government made on the hierarchy of road users, and I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my letter at the time of the incident. I wonder whether she could develop that in her response to the debate, especially given the wider objectives of the hon. Member for Newbury and the Government’s recently published road safety strategy.

17:06

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

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

Just last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Harry Zimman, a constituent who is a keen rider. He highlighted two significant issues. The first is access to bridleways. Even in areas with excellent riding routes, such as Cheshire, riders must often travel along narrow and winding lanes to reach them. Consequently, they can quickly find themselves in dangerous situations, because even the best-trained horses and most attentive riders cannot eliminate the fact that horses are living, thinking animals that may react suddenly to perceived danger.

Bridleways are too often overlooked in planning and infrastructure decisions. For example, in my constituency the Tarvin bypass cut across a bridleway and was replaced only by signage, effectively cutting off riders.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I am getting an increasing amount of correspondence from Tatton constituents concerned about careless drivers on country roads and the dangers they pose to horses and riders. Does she share my concern about the changes to planning rules by this Labour Government—a Government who show so little regard for the countryside, as we saw with the family farm tax—under which green belt will disappear and cities will bleed into the countryside, making the roads even more dangerous, city dwellers not understanding the etiquette of country roads?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that really important intervention. We need to understand what the removal of our countryside and green belt will mean for people using rural roads, and the real impact that some of these developments will have.

For riders and their horses—I should add carriage drivers, who are also often overlooked—the most obvious dangers on the road are fast-moving vehicles, but less obvious hazards can be just as serious. A plastic bag in a ditch, or a cyclist passing too closely, might startle a horse. Harry described a cyclist squeezing between a rider and a car, badly startling the horse. Cyclists might not be aware of their impact, but such incidents can pose a danger to all road users.

As we have heard, many drivers remain unaware that the highway code requires them to pass a horse at no more than 10 mph and with at least 2 metres’ clearance. We must do more to improve education and ensure that horse riders are properly reflected in road safety policy.

17:08

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) on securing this debate.

Per mile travelled, rural roads account for over 60% of all UK road deaths. Last year, I met a group of constituents who keep their horses in stables in the Forston area. They are experienced riders, and they described repeated near-misses caused by drivers going too fast or passing too close. In fact, there have been 15 motor vehicle incidents recorded in that small area alone.

My hon. Friend has already outlined the changes to the highway code in 2022, but I wonder how many of us here today could say that we have read the highway code since we passed our test. The reality is that on tight, winding rural roads, the guidance is widely ignored.

Dorset police and Dorset Road Safe Partnership do excellent work through schemes such as Horse Safe and Operation Close Pass. Such operations can change attitudes, but they need to happen more often in the places where the risks are highest. My constituents are asking for increased signage, more enforcement and clearer information on how police work with the British Horse Society to track and respond to incidents.

In 2024, the British Horse Society recorded more than 3,000 road incidents involving horses: 58 horses were killed and 80 riders injured. Four in five of those incidents were caused by drivers passing too fast or too close. We cannot continue to accept that as an inevitable toll. That is why I strongly support the Road Traffic (Horse and Rider Safety) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. I hope the Minister will also take this opportunity to support it.

17:10

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Horse riders are not a marginal group on our roads and we should stop treating them like one. They are a vital part of rural life.

I want to thank Sophie from Billingshurst, a village in my constituency, who wrote to me ahead of the debate. She argues that we are facing a cultural problem. There is a fundamental lack of understanding about how to drive in close proximity to horses, whether they are being ridden or transported. She described being tailgated for miles while towing a horsebox. Eventually, the driver overtook and cut sharply in front of her, forcing an urgent and potentially dangerous stop. Anyone who understands the weight and stopping distance of a vehicle carrying live animals will recognise how serious that could have been. Thankfully, neither horse nor rider was hurt.

Riders are being pushed into using roads more extensively, often because there is no alternative. In Shipley, a bridleway bridge has been closed for more than two years with no clear repair timetable, forcing riders on to busy roads, simply to access legal routes. Horse riders seem to count as low priority when it comes to highways funding.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Just last month I presented a petition in this place about a greenway in my constituency between Radcliffe and Cotgrave, which has been closed for two years. That means that people such as Jacqui, who rides a horse, cannot use it. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to encourage the expansion of and investment in this type of infrastructure?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) not to take the opportunity of the extra minute he has just been given due to that intervention.

[John Milne]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention.

We must also place this debate in the wider context of changing rural road use. In Cowfold parish, the accident rate has doubled in the past five years, with three fatalities and 20 serious injuries. Traffic volumes have increased but road infrastructure has not kept pace. Although stronger regulation on speed and passing distances is welcome and necessary, it is not sufficient on its own.

We need better driver education, clearer national messaging and a cultural shift in how horses are understood by other road users. We need to rethink rural road policy more broadly. Can we take action to stop HGV routeing systems sending unsuitable vehicles through villages and bridleway links? Can we look at weight limits and improved road services, and make it easier for communities to introduce lower speed limits, as has been done successfully in parts of Somerset, for example?

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. I very much support the measures he suggests and I hope the Minister will listen.

17:13

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) on securing this debate and his long-running championship of the issue. He is a true champion of rider safety; the riding community could hope for no better advocate in this place.

Our transition to cars has hugely changed the role that horses play in human society, but they are still a treasured species. The pursuit of riding is beloved by many of my constituents. North Norfolk has a proud community of horse riders who enjoy riding through our beautiful countryside and rural landscapes. I have heard from a number of riders who have great concerns for their safety when riding on roads in rural North Norfolk. It is clear that the status quo does not do enough to protect those riders. The contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Horsham (John Milne) and for West Dorset (Edward Morello), and others, are testimony to that.

Riders are vulnerable road users, just like cyclists and pedestrians. Many of them will have been understandably disappointed not to have received greater attention in the Government’s recent road safety strategy. That strategy, however, is not the only thing that lets down riders. In Norfolk, our road safety policies are painfully unfit for purpose. We have seen this play out in all-too-serious reality with injuries and deaths along the A148 in my constituency. That road has a number of stables along it, meaning there is a high chance that riders find themselves on a stretch of road proven to be dangerous. We have to make sure that they are better protected, along with other vulnerable road users, to prevent future tragedies in our rural community. That is why the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is proposing is so important. It makes very modest changes to the current wording around horse riders in the highway code, but would kickstart a change in behaviours around riders and encourage far more responsible driving when sharing the roads. It would also ensure that education around equestrian safety is improved in driving tests, meaning that people will begin their lives as drivers with a stronger awareness of how to drive in a way that best supports riders and keeps drivers themselves safe.

Many riders would find it far preferable to be able to ride off the roads away from the level of risk that many have described in this debate today. Unfortunately for them, the lack of available bridleways and safe paths forces them on to the highway. This is an area on which we Liberal Democrats are pleased to propose solutions: we want communities to be better supported to turn abandoned rail links without the prospect of reopening into safe, active travel footpaths and bridleways, giving vulnerable road users more options to travel away from roads.

Furthermore, in rural Norfolk, aspects of our network are seriously outdated, and narrow and almost unsafe routes into villages have seen most of their traffic replaced by newer, larger roads. We can transform some of those into bridleways and active travel routes, reducing the burden on local authorities to keep almost abandoned roads to a drivable standard and widening opportunities and access.

We can do so much better for horse riders and for drivers, too. There are big opportunities to deliver brighter outcomes for the horse riding community and allow them to feel safe and seen while enjoying their pursuits. What helps them helps so many others: we can improve paths, bridleways and access to nature at the same time. In that spirit, I hope the Minister can reflect on the proposals we are making and fully engage with the riding community about their concerns. I hope that we can move forward with safer roads, happier riders and an end once and for all to the accidents, injuries and tragedies we have heard about today.

17:16

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Too often when we talk about rural activities, too many dismiss them as relics of a bygone age. Those of us who represent rural constituencies know that nothing could be further from the truth. Horse riding remains a vital living part of rural life, deeply embedded in the culture, economy and daily rhythms of our communities. That reality makes it all the more important that we take seriously the safety of the horses and riders on our roads.

My constituency is overwhelmingly rural—home to many stud farms, riding schools and equestrian centres that rely on local road networks as part of their everyday operation. Riders frequently use narrow country lanes, often with no pavements, limited passing places and little room for error. Such roads were not designed for modern traffic speeds or volumes, yet they are shared by horses, cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. For less experienced riders, these interactions can be especially intimidating. Horses can be easily startled by sudden movement or noise, and situations can escalate quickly if drivers approach at speed or pass too closely.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In Buckinghamshire there are many single-lane country roads, which is where many of the accidents occur. It would be wonderful to highlight that and how to address that moving forward.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is absolutely right and I wish her a speedy recovery from her own horse-related incident. What might seem a minor lapse in judgment from behind the wheel has serious and sometimes devastating consequences for riders and horses, given that the rider has limited ability to control a frightened horse.

A further recurring challenge in rural areas is poor visibility. Constituents have contacted me about near misses on lanes with high grass verges and dense hedgerows, especially during the spring and summer. Such conditions can severely restrict sight lines, meaning that horses and vehicles may appear suddenly, giving drivers little opportunity to reduce speed or pass with the care that safety demands. I was pleased to see that Buckinghamshire council, a council I know the Government are keen to learn from, has worked constructively with the British Horse Society to introduce simple and effective measures in partnership.

Horse riding is far from a niche pursuit. The British Equestrian Trade Association estimates that more than 1.8 million people ride regularly, with around 3 million participating overall. For many rural communities, riding is a source of wellbeing, fitness, employment and social connection. Yet all that is undermined when riders and their horses feel unsafe simply travelling on the road. One death is always one too many, and although departmental data records a relatively small number of fatalities in recent years, there remain far too many serious incidents. The British Horse Society’s “Horse i” app recorded that 58 horses were killed in equine road-related incidents, with more than 3,100 incidents in 2024 alone. Many of those involved drivers passing too closely, with devastating consequences.

It has been said in this debate that changes to the highway code under the previous Government significantly strengthened protections for horses and riders. The introduction of the hierarchy of road users was important, but the reforms went further, including clearer guidance on passing distances and how drivers should behave when encountering horses at junctions. Although the current Government have published their road safety strategy, it is difficult to see horse riding as a clear priority within it. Despite describing the strategy as being “for everyone”, horses receive only limited mention and there were no references at all in the consultation to proposed changes to motoring-offence penalties. That raises fair questions about how the Government intend to strengthen protections for riders in practice. I would welcome greater clarity from the Minister on that point, as well as an explanation about why the THINK! road safety campaign budget was cut by £1.2 million last year.

Could the Minister set out what specific campaigns the Government intend to introduce to make sure that drivers are aware of their responsibilities when encountering horses—particularly in rural areas, where these interactions are most common? Ultimately, rules are meaningful only if they are understood and enforced. Dangerous driving that intimidates or endangers horses and riders must be taken seriously, and penalties should properly reflect the risk posed by such behaviour.

17:21

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd; I know you have a deep personal commitment to road safety. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) on securing this debate and thank him for raising the vital issue of road safety and vulnerable users, specifically horse riders. It is clear that this concern is widely shared across the House. I do not know how I am going to do justice to it in the next eight minutes. This debate is aptly timed, as we published our new road safety strategy last week.

I stress the importance of road safety around animals. I know how vital horses are to rural areas, such as West Berkshire, and I have been very sorry to hear about collisions involving horses and riders. I pass on my condolences to all those who have been affected by these tragic incidents, including the death of the racehorse Knockalla in Lambourn. We also heard about Laura, who lost her horse Angel, Katie, who lost her horse George and Maddy, who lost her horse Blaze. We were all horrified to hear the description by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) of what happened to his constituent, Susi. I recognise how horrible it must be to lose an animal in that way, and stress the importance of keeping our roads safe for all road users.

As has been noted, the highway code was updated in 2022 to improve safety, particularly for the most vulnerable road users. The Department for Transport introduced the hierarchy of road users, which sets out that those who can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to reduce the potential threat that they pose to others. The highway code changes included strengthening the guidance on safe passing distances and speeds when overtaking horse riders. I encourage everyone in the country, especially drivers, to look at the “Rules about animals” section of the highway code.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

The highway code needs proper signage to remind drivers of their obligations. Does the Minister agree that it is important the council maintains signage properly, warning users of where there are likely to be horses—such as in Heddon in my constituency, where unfortunately the county council is dragging its feet on getting appropriate signage in place?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I agree with him.

As has already been noted, despite the investment of £2.4 million in paid advertising raising road users’ awareness of the changes to the code, it is clear that more action is needed. As set out in the strategy, we are considering options to improve the safety of both riders and their horses. We will work with stakeholders such as the British Horse Society as we undertake that work.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

What we have heard today is really the business case. We need horses in rural areas for businesses; if we lose a horse, we do not protect our local economy. Would the Minister agree and take that into account when thinking about the future?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has made his point very well.

We will also continue to encourage safer road user behaviours in order to improve safety for all vulnerable road users, including horse riders, motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians and road workers. Our flagship road safety campaign, THINK!, will continue to do that, alongside the use of social media channels and other partner organisations.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency also does important work to promote awareness of horse and rider road safety. The DVSA publication, “The Official DVSA Guide to Driving: the essential skills”, contains a section on horses, and horses also feature in the hazard perception tests that all drivers have to take to obtain their licence.

We have already dealt with a number of the statistics. In 2024, there were 63 collisions involving ridden horses, in which 71 people were seriously or slightly injured. That is according to STATS19 data, and it is completely unacceptable. We know that, through targeted action on speeding, drink and drug-driving, and mobile phone use, alongside the education piece we have already discussed, those tragedies can be prevented.

Experts and campaigners have long called for a comprehensive strategy that treats road safety as a priority. Our new road safety strategy shows that this Government are not only listening but leading to build a safer future for all road users, including horse riders. Hon. Members will know that the strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035. I think that the vital work we will do—and I take on board all the contributions that have been made—will save lives on Britain’s roads and make them safer for absolutely everyone, including horse riders and their horses.

In the short time I have left, I turn to some of the questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Newbury asked about equestrian representation on the national road safety board. That is yet to be considered; however, he makes the important point that we must ensure we hear the voices of all road users as we undertake that work. I will certainly take that point away.

There was a question about whether equine road safety is included in initial driver training for those who drive for work. I have already described how it is incorporated within the driving test, and I will consider what further work we can do to strengthen the guidance and advice that goes to those who employ drivers and riders. I was pleased to hear about the VR headsets in use in Leicestershire; I absolutely agree that understanding how frightening a close pass can be is really valuable. I saw a video produced by Cycling UK on close passes on social media just yesterday. Frankly, it sent a shiver down my spine. Vulnerable road users need that safe space.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) asked about speed limits. They are obviously a matter for local councils, but we are updating our guidance on setting such speed limits. I will take account of the point she made.

A number of matters raised today fall outside my remit. However, I will ensure that my DEFRA colleagues are alerted to the concerns raised regarding the provision and management of bridleways, and indeed the issues my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) raised about uncontrolled dogs. I apologise if I have missed any of the questions raised; I will ensure that I work with my officials and write to Members if I feel that I have not provided them a sufficient answer in the time available.

As I conclude, I again pass on my condolences to all those who have been affected by this issue. Improving road safety is one of my highest priorities, and this Department will continue to work hard to bring down deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I again thank the hon. Member for Newbury for raising this vital issue and congratulate him on what has been a very fulsome debate.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I thank everyone for their flexibility; we managed to get everybody in.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered horse and rider road safety.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.