Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 February 2026

[Dr Rosena Allin Khan in the Chair]

Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.

Although it is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, I do so with a sense of déjà vu, because we have been here before, on the anniversary last year and in debates on the Cumberlege review before that. The issue of redress for the victims is a well-trodden road.

I start by paying tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned tirelessly for justice and change, and to prevent their experience from happening to others. I thank the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, for the work she put into her report. She is with us in the Gallery today, along with many campaigners. I put on the record my thanks to Baroness Cumberlege for her exceptional work, before the Hughes report, to give voice to victims during the two years she led the Cumberlege review. I pay tribute to her for her continuing commitment to the victims.

We are here today because, two years on from its publication, the Government have still not published an official response to the Hughes report. No redress scheme has been implemented and no timeline has been announced. We have repeatedly been told that the recommendations are being carefully considered, yet there is no date, no framework and no mechanism for justice in place. To be clear, the Patient Safety Commissioner did not decide one day to write the report; she was asked to pull it together and to look at the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. The report was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care in late 2022.

In her foreword to the report, Professor Hughes was clear that, in accepting the commission,

“the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’…Secondly, patients must not be subjected to an emotional rollercoaster, meaning that commissioning this work would inevitably raise expectations and that it would be profoundly unfair to do so if the government had no intention of providing redress.”

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I secured a debate on the Cumberlege report 18 months ago; I said at the time that I hoped it would be the last time we debated this issue, yet here we are again. Does the hon. Member agree that the emotional impact on the women involved is hugely important? I was approached by a number of constituents in my constituency, including Debbie, who joined me for my debate. It is so important that the review’s recommendations are acted on.

[Sarah Green]

The emotional toll is significant. It is a daily struggle for some of those affected, and they are battling a system.

Right at the start of her report, the Patient Safety Commissioner was clear that she should not be asked to look into the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and mesh if there was no real intention or desire in the Department to make a redress scheme a reality. Why commission the report and raise the expectations of thousands of families if there was never any intention to follow through on the recommendations?

As colleagues know, 30,000 women and children have been harmed, through no fault of their own, by valproate and pelvic mesh. They are paying the price of the failure to keep them and their children safe with immense pain, agony, fear and guilt. Five years on from the Cumberlege report and two years after the Hughes report, the Government have still not confirmed plans to provide financial redress. Financial redress is unfinished business, and it is past time that the Government responded.

Let us not forget that of those affected by valproate and mesh, 85% report not being able to work, 73% report that their finance has suffered as a result, 91% report that their mental health and wellbeing are adversely affected—as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just said—and 88% report that their relationships have been negatively impacted.

Let me unpack that for a second. Those statistics represent my constituent Carol, a doctor by training who was forced to take long-term sick leave and see her health and her career deteriorate. They represent the valproate families who, on top of the physical effects, face the nightmare of child and adolescent mental health services and personal independence payment reassessments every few years, having to explain what foetal valproate spectrum disorder is to every clinician they encounter because it is not widely understood. They represent the heartbreaking situation of one victim who shared with me, in tears, the devastating impact that mesh has had on her ability to be intimate with the love of her life. The lack of a clear timeline for action by the same slow, dismissive system that harmed patients is further compounding their physical and mental pain.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Although financial redress is an incredibly important part of the Hughes report, it also lays out other important elements, such as healthcare and special educational needs and disability provision. My constituent Debra has two sons. It was only when her second son went to school that the school realised there might be something affecting both boys due to her taking sodium valproate. She had to battle against the system and is now having to drive her eldest son to university because, suffering from autism, he is unable to make that journey using public transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that those recommendations are also an incredibly important part of the Hughes report?

[Sarah Green]

I do agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

This is about so many different aspects of support. One of the recommendations in the Hughes report that has been drawn to my attention is the one on housing, which is so crucial. My constituent was prescribed sodium valproate during pregnancy. Her son, who is now 25, lives with foetal valproate syndrome, requires 24/7 support, and will do for the rest of his life. My constituent said that even relatively modest adjustments to their home and some specialist equipment could make a real difference, but she has not found any way of getting funding for that. Does the hon. Member agree that housing is also a really important area for us to look at?

[Sarah Green]

I do agree, and I thank the hon. Member for raising it.

I know that many colleagues present have been championing this cause for years. There is a string of parliamentary questions going back to the launch of the report two years ago, asking for progress updates. The Patient Safety Commissioner herself used her statutory powers for the first time, in October last year, to ask for more detailed answers from the Department of Health and Social Care. The responses were published in November and just a few weeks ago in January. We now know that there have been meetings, roundtables and briefings, but no progress on redress. If I am reading between the lines of these responses correctly, it is the dead hand of the Treasury that is the issue.

Before I conclude, I wish to mention Carol. I have shared Carol’s story before, and I return to it today because it lays bare the cost of years of Government inaction. When I first met her online—I hope she will not mind my saying this—she was a physical wreck. She needed assistance to get a visa to the US during the pandemic for urgent medical treatment following a hysteropexy and rectopexy using surgical mesh. A procedure that was intended to resolve her pelvic organ prolapse instead caused devastating harm.

Carol was left with a serious autoimmune disease, struggling to walk and unable to live her daily life. Her prognosis was bleak, and she needed to have the mesh urgently removed. That treatment was not available to her on the NHS. While suffering from chronic pain, and with limited mobility, Carol accessed private treatment in the United States. A combination of determination, medical knowledge and personal resources allowed her to do so, and Carol is now mesh-free following a successful surgery.

Carol attempted to pursue a clinical negligence claim against the surgeons who harmed her, but multiple law firms declined to act because the same surgeons were advising them on other cases. Those conflicts of interest blocked Carol’s access to justice. In one case, the surgeon who caused her life-changing harm acted as an expert witness in an unrelated mesh case. The judge in that case found that the surgeon selectively chose evidence supportive of the defence, failed to provide balanced evidence, and failed in his duty to the court. That finding is on the record.

Such conflicts are not isolated. Conflicts of interest and the closing of ranks among professionals remain a structural barrier to justice for victims. That is just one of the reasons why an independent redress scheme is long overdue. The current system is failing these women, children and families.

I have two questions for the Minister. What conversations are she, her Department and her officials having with the Treasury and Downing Street to make redress a reality for the victims? Will she meet some of the affected families to hear directly from them why redress is so important to them?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an incredibly important topic. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. Because so many Members want to get in, I would be grateful if you can try to stick to approximately four minutes each, to allow everyone to get a say.

09:41

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for bringing this issue to the House. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her tireless commitment to this campaign and for her leadership in chairing the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group.

Like many Members here, I was present in the debate a year ago on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. Although it has been two years since the publication of the report, the Government have sadly still not responded to it, and justice has still not been delivered for the many women impacted by pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.

In the very first paragraph, Dr Henrietta Hughes makes it clear that the report must lead to Government action. We often hear that justice delayed is justice denied, yet we continue to deny justice to the women who have suffered. Redress must be delivered swiftly. The Hughes report recommends a two-stage non-adversarial redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial support to women who have suffered avoidable harm due to pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.

Although financial compensation is of course vital—a two-stage scheme would involve a quick initial payment followed by a more tailored scheme for the payment of compensation—just as important is access to appropriate support, including specialist healthcare, and a formal acknowledgment, with an apology, of the harm endured by these women. Dr Hughes laid out in detail how such a scheme can be implemented, and it is for the Government to put one into effect as soon as possible.

Alongside delivering justice for the victims of the mesh and sodium valproate scandals, I urge the Minister and her Department to commit to doing everything possible to prevent future scandals of this sort and to better protect our constituents and communities. I also welcome the work of campaign groups such as Sling The Mesh, and urge the Government to consider making yellow card reporting mandatory so that potentially harmful products can be identified sooner, and action can be taken before damage is done.

I have a particular interest in this debate. Although I have constituents who have been affected, before becoming an MP I worked as a solicitor and specialised in representing women who had been given plastic polypropylene mesh implants for vaginal mesh surgery as a quick fix to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, without being properly advised by the doctors who gave the treatment. All those women did was trust a medical professional who told them they were receiving the gold standard of care, as we all would. The mesh then eroded, cut through vaginal tissue and caused chronic pain, loss of mobility and sexual disfunction, and often resulted in relationship breakdown. Many of those women were unable to continue working and suffered life-changing injuries. Their lives were ruined.

When pursuing legal claims for compensation for these women, I was always acutely aware that compensation and legal costs would ultimately fall on the NHS. A compensation scheme as recommended by the Hughes report would save the excessive costs of litigation that the NHS would have to pay out—money that could then be used for the treatment of patients. I would also like the Government to consider alternative approaches such as an insurance-style levy paid by companies when they bring new products to the market, which would create a dedicated fund for future claims and thereby protect our vital NHS resources while incentivising manufacturers to ensure that their products are of the highest safety standards.

We cannot leave these women in limbo waiting to receive the redress they so clearly deserve. I ask the Minister to please respond to the Hughes report, enact Dr Hughes’s recommendations and ensure that justice can finally be delivered for these women.

09:45

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

I will try to add something new to the excellent start to the debate by both the previous speakers, who showed a great command of the overall situation, by quoting my constituent Emma, who got in touch with me yesterday after learning that the debate would take place. I will briefly summarise her concerns, which she set out in the following way:

“In the main, the point is that so many have been injured, left on NHS waiting lists, paying for prescriptions and transport to and from appointments. Not being able to work—or restricted working hours. Limited access to PIP…Very little support for those who had mortgages due to the benefit system not supporting mortgage costs”

and

“loss of pension contributions, as none of us is getting any younger.”

This lady is exceptionally strong. Despite the injuries she suffered personally, she has been a rock and a leader for other mesh-injured women in or near my constituency. I hold her in the highest esteem; in fact, I salute her courage. What she has to say is, in a sense, an argument that has already been won. The Cumberlege report won that argument, and the Hughes report wanted to recommend what should happen next. I am delighted to see Henrietta Hughes in the Gallery—and seemingly acknowledging that I am right about that difference between the two reports.

Let me briefly quote from Henrietta Hughes’s admirably concise list of 10 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was:

“The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.”

Recommendation 3 was:

“The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.”

Recommendation 4 was:

“The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.”

Recommendation 8 was:

“Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.”

What is the point of an interim scheme? It is to recognise that there will be tremendous complexity in individual cases, but at least these mesh-injured ladies would get a minimum of help—I think £25,000 has been suggested—straightaway, while the more complex calculations can be done later. Yet despite that being the very point of an interim scheme—that we can do this quickly and work on the harder parts subsequently—we have seen no progress.

What does that remind us of? It reminds me of the Post Office. It reminds me of the infected blood scandal. What do all those things have in common? A large number of people who have been injured in some way or another—either physically, or with their character or freedom damaged, often beyond repair—and who are owed very large sums of money by way of redress or compensation. We know what happens in the end: there is enough public protest to ensure that there is action. I hope that the level of public awareness is no less for this cause than it is for other, similar scandals because all the victims were women. That would be even more disgraceful than that this all happened in the first place.

09:50

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.

On behalf of constituents who have written to me, I want to begin by quoting the comments of the Patient Safety Commissioner for England, Professor Hughes, to the BBC when her report was released two years ago:

“These families weren’t listened to by a system that really turned its back, and fobbed them off with information which led to them not only being harmed, but thousands of others being harmed.”

The Hughes report has still not received a proper response—from either the Conservative Government or current Labour Government—and that is the key. That is deeply disappointing and a massive let-down for all those women and children affected by this scandal. I appreciate that this is an important issue, and it warrants due process, but there has been a two-year wait for a response, not to mention that the wait for the families affected has been so much longer.

Although the Patient Safety Commissioner’s remit extends to England only, this is a UK-wide issue. The regulation of human medicines and medicinal products is reserved. The report said that the Department of Health and Social Care should

“engage with the devolved governments”

on where and how the two-stage redress approach should apply across the UK. The UK Government have indicated that those conversations are taking place. That is encouraging, and I hope that it continues, but we in Scotland have been disappointed by this Government more than once. The well-worn saying applies: justice delayed is justice denied.

This Government promised change, and here is a case in point. The unreserved apology offered by the previous Government in July 2021 was welcome, as was the invitation in December 2022

“to look at what a potential redress scheme could look like.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 478.]

But that was more than three years ago. Of course, this Government rightly deserve praise for acting to redress the problem and offer compensation, albeit slowly in some cases, following the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal. Please do not add this situation to that of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the nuclear test veterans and others, where successive Governments have taken a negligent approach.

In summary, I am speaking up primarily on behalf of my constituents. We need urgent action on this report and a proper system of redress for the countless families affected by this scandal. Please let us get on with addressing recommendation 4 of the Hughes report without delay. I hope the Minister will address that in her response.

09:53

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.

I spoke in last year’s debate to raise the experience of my constituents Paula and Gillian, who had experienced the impact of having pelvic mesh fitted. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then, and Paula tells me she is still living with the devastation that pelvic mesh has caused in her life. She had the mesh implanted in 2012, and between 2020 and 2023 she experienced painful bladder stones that were linked to the mesh. She finally had surgery last year to remove a 3 cm bladder stone, which revealed that the mesh had completely eroded into her bladder. She will need further surgery to remove the remainder of the mesh, and will need to undergo a further recovery period. That story is like many others we have heard.

As I did when I spoke about valproate last year, I would like to thank Emma, Janet and the campaigners who are here today, who do so much in this area. With regard to the Hughes report, the Epilepsy Research Institute continues to ask the Government to allocate dedicated ringfenced funding for research into epilepsy drugs and to ensure that regulatory bodies act swiftly on safety concerns, and that pregnant women with epilepsy have access to the best possible information and care.

I will take us down a slightly different path now because, as some Members know, my wife and one of my daughters have epilepsy. When my wife and I tried to conceive, I saw at first hand the issues women have when they have to come off valproate. My wife was seizure-free for 12 years, and her life was turned upside down when she started having seizures again. Those resulted in her falling all the way down the stairs; falling into a bathroom cabinet and trapping her head—I had to try to disengage her; having a seizure in the bath, after which I had to resuscitate her on the bathroom floor; and having to surrender her driving licence. At one stage, she thought she would never go back to her teaching job, although she has now successfully gone back to it. She will be three years seizure-free this year, mainly because she has gone back on to valproate.

Those many years when she had seizures and other issues show why research is desperately needed for drugs to control epilepsy. Unfortunately, for many people, valproate is the only drug that allows them to lead a normal life. I have seen that; the rules are there for a good reason, but my daughter, who is 12 and who, as Members may know, has no mental capacity, has had to come off valproate because of the rules. We need to understand these issues and that wider issue, because for many people valproate is the drug they need to support them. That is not to disrespect Emma and Janet for the work they do to support those, including their children and families, who have been so desperately impacted by valproate.

I welcome the noises we have heard recently about forthcoming updates from the Department, but I also say, on behalf of my constituents and the wider community, that we need concrete measures for the implementation of financial and non-financial redress, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

09:57

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for this valuable and vital debate.

I pay tribute to all families who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, and in this case to all those who have been impacted by sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. I am especially grateful to my constituent Emma Friedman, and I salute her and her son Andy for educating me about this issue, and particularly about sodium valproate, but also for their real strength and perseverance and their unwavering commitment to justice.

Achieving justice should not really be so hard, but unfortunately it is. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, we have seen this all before: 30,000 people were infected and affected in the contaminated blood scandal in the ’70s and ’80s; 700 hard-working postmasters and postmistresses were falsely prosecuted and their lives destroyed; and billions and billions of pounds were wasted on unusable personal protective equipment during a national emergency.

Sodium valproate is an effective drug. It was developed in 1962, and it has transformed the lives of countless people with epilepsy and bipolar disorders. However, it has always been known to cause serious harm when taken during pregnancy, and the risks are stark: around 30% to 40% of children exposed in the womb develop neurodevelopmental disorders and approximately 10% suffer serious congenital malformations, including spina bifida, cleft lips and other lifelong disabilities. The sadness is that 20,000 children in the UK are estimated to have been affected.

The concern is that evidence suggests doctors were aware of the risks from the early years. However, according to the minutes of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, it made the extraordinary decision in the 1970s that fully warning women may cause “fruitless anxiety”. The warnings were not given, and the fact that that decision was made after the thalidomide scandal makes it all the more shocking.

Some parents report that they were warned about the possible side effects to themselves, but never about those to their unborn babies. That pattern appears to have been repeated again and again. Clear warnings did not emerge until the late 1990s and were only strengthened around 2010. The first GP toolkit was published as late as 2015—and it still did not mandate direct, informed conversations with patients, so GPs simply did not have to tell patients.

As has been mentioned already, women were often dismissed. No long-term study was ever conducted; even today, some women are only discovering through their own research why their 30 or 35-year-old child lives with a disability linked to valproate. That is truly shocking, and it is still ongoing—it is not history. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege published its First Do No Harm report in 2020. It concluded that women had been misled and ill-informed, and recommended an independent redress agency, specifically a compensation scheme for those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept those recommendations. In December 2022 the Patient Safety Commissioner was asked to explore options, and on 7 February 2024 the Hughes report clearly called for an independent two-stage scheme providing both financial and non-financial compensation. The Government have yet to respond.

Meanwhile, families continue to struggle. In many cases it is the mother, who may herself still be suffering with epilepsy, who is the primary carer of a disabled child. Many families are living in difficult socioeconomic conditions and they are barely surviving. We cannot even begin to imagine the emotional toll and the feeling of guilt that many parents talk about. Many feel that it is their fault. We cannot imagine their mental anguish.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the people who have brought this issue so far. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the emotional toll he speaks of is living large in the lives of those families and that they deserve, at the absolute least, an apology and redress?

[Shockat Adam]

Yes—that is the least that we can do.

Sodium valproate is effective, as was powerfully demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), and women must not abruptly stop taking the medication, as that can be seriously dangerous. However, this issue represents a serious failure of communication between regulators, GPs, specialists, fertility clinics and pharmacists. We must modernise the safety system, with better data sharing, digital alerts, clear warnings on packaging and, above all, mandatory one-to-one consultations so that every woman of child- bearing age understands the risks and the alternatives.

Mistakes will always occur in medicine, but how quickly we acknowledge them, learn from them and compensate those harmed is the true mark of a progressive society. The current Health Secretary, when in Opposition in February 2024, expressed frustration at how slowly justice was progressing. Those words must now be matched with action.

10:02

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve here today under your chairship, Ms Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

I am going to focus on sodium valproate, which was prescribed for decades without proper warnings about the effect on unborn children. As a result, those children were harmed and, despite multiple Government-commissioned reports, families are still waiting for accountability and redress. Two years on from the Hughes report, that delay can no longer be justified.

Sodium valproate is a medicine used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder. It is a very effective medicine for many but, if taken while pregnant, it can cause serious harm. Those harms include major physical birth defects, developmental delays, learning disabilities and a significantly increased risk of autism. Many of the children affected will need lifelong care.

For years, despite those risks being known, women and prescribers were not given clear or adequate information about them. Even after the effects were more widely known, prescriptions continued without proper safeguards in place. At least 7,000 children have been affected by this medicine since it came on to the market in 1973, but the real number is quite likely very much higher because of the lack of awareness around foetal valproate spectrum disorder.

My constituent Nicola was one of the many women affected. Her children were profoundly harmed by exposure during pregnancy. Like so many others, Nicola trusted her doctor and followed proper medical advice. She was badly let down. She has explained to me just how immense the impact has been on her and her children and, of course, what a difference compensation would make to her kids’ lives.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate case for her constituent. My constituent Gill has told me how she has suffered for around 11 years as a result of the pelvic mesh scandal. She is a member of the Sling the Mesh group. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether on sodium valproate or pelvic mesh, such groups deserve to be listened to, and that we should pay tribute to them for campaigning for these courageous women?

[Lizzi Collinge]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This scandal follows a pattern that we have seen far too many times before: early warnings ignored, information withheld or downplayed, measures to protect people not effectively enacted, and public bodies closing ranks rather than being open and honest when things go wrong. I have done a lot of work on maternity safety, and I have seen those patterns again and again; the parallels are really clear. Had concerns been properly addressed at the outset, so much harm could have been avoided, and so many more children would not have been born with lifelong, preventable conditions.

Their families have been waiting for far too long. There were initial recommendations for redress six years ago in the Cumberlege review, but the previous Government failed to act. Through the Hughes report, we have an even more comprehensive examination of what needs to be done to support those families, but they are no closer to getting even a formal response to that. That constant delay increases the cost, delays support and builds up ill-will with affected families, who have already spent their lives fighting for their kids.

I urge the Government to provide an interim payment for those families. We know that that is possible; Dr Hughes has outlined how to do it in this case, and we have seen it in the infected blood scandal. The main question for the Minister is this: when will we get a full response to the Hughes report? When will we actually see some action?

Like so many of my colleagues, I pay tribute to Emma and Janet from the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust, who are here today. Their children were affected by sodium valproate, and they have been tireless campaigners for compensation for affected families—I have known them for many years now. They have been invaluable in raising awareness about foetal valproate spectrum disorder. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who has worked with In-FACT for many years on this and has been a staunch advocate for their campaign.

Despite all their hard work, progress from the Government’s side seems to have stalled yet again, and families are left waiting. We know that things go wrong in medicine, and that all drugs have side effects, but when a harm that is caused was preventable, and when the state fails to act on warnings, the Government must step up. We should do what we should have done years ago, and give justice and support to the families who have already paid a heavy price for our failings.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that it is discourteous not to attend for the opening speeches and then to make interventions. As a result, those Members who have been here from the start and will be here until the end will now have a shorter time limit imposed on them. Because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three and a half minutes.

10:07

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for giving us the opportunity to contribute, and allowing me to mention Northern Ireland and what is happening there. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for all she does.

The Hughes report was for England only, but the ripple effect is UK-wide. As of February 2026, Northern Ireland victims remain in limbo. The Northern Ireland Department of Health has stated that its approach will be informed by the final position of the UK Government—right here—but their final position has not been determined. Because nothing has been done here, nothing happens in Northern Ireland, so we are being affected. I know that the Minister will be responsive, but I ask her to give us some indication of the timescale.

Patients continue to contact me and Members of the Legislative Assembly in an attempt to see the adoption of the report’s recommendation, and the phrasing is that families feel abandoned by the lack of progress and financial compensation. I can understand that the Department of Health (NI) needs guidance from Westminster; the UK as a whole is waiting to see what implementation and redress will look like. While financial payments are stalled, some progress has been made on the non-financial report, with the continued operation of specialist mesh centres and improved clinical guidelines for prescribing valproates. That is welcome but—to put it simply—it is not enough.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Women have been left in lifelong pain; children have been born with preventable disabilities; families have endured financial and emotional stress; many women have lost their jobs, their homes and even their marriages. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although financial and non-financial support are important, to prevent such issues in the future it is also important that the dots are joined up early and that early warning signs are not buried in bureaucracy?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A specially accredited unit operates at Belfast city hospital, featuring a multidisciplinary team to treat mesh-related problems. If complex removal surgery is required, there is also the option to perform it locally, so we are doing our best in Northern Ireland to address the issue. Even so, advocacy groups such as Sling the Mesh Northern Ireland have expressed concerns over the conflict of interest in requiring the original implanting surgeon to sign off on referrals for outside treatment. All those factors must be taken into consideration, which was the very point my hon. Friend made.

Between 1998 and 2018, some 11,000 vaginal mesh implants were performed in Northern Ireland. Other Department of Health figures indicate that nearly 7,000 procedures occurred between 2005 and 2015 alone. With conservative estimates suggesting that between 5% and 10% of those patients experienced significant problems, the scale of the issue is clear.

For children affected, while the UK-wide estimate is roughly 20,000, specific Northern Ireland figures often have to be extrapolated. Reports for the Republic of Ireland, for instance, estimate that there are some 1,250 children affected there; those significant numbers down south are separate from Northern Ireland figures, but based on similar prescribing patterns. As of 2023, the Patient Safety Commissioner noted that even now, across the UK, an average of three babies a month are born having been exposed to the drug.

I will not take an extra minute for the intervention, Dr Allin-Khan, because I recognise that others need time to speak.

All those people, including the 600 members of Sling the Mesh NI, are awaiting action. On this, the second anniversary of the report, the stagnation of action is not acceptable. I take this opportunity to speak on their behalf, as well as on behalf of my and my hon. Friend’s constituents in Northern Ireland: I ask that we stop waiting and start moving on the compensation, providing help for those who are suffering this very minute, even as this debate takes place.

My request for the Minister is that we hurry the process, so that we in Northern Ireland can fall in behind what happens here in Westminster. Let us not see a third anniversary without fulfilment of the recommendations and of our word in this place.

10:12

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, but it is not a pleasure to be here marking two years since the publication of the Hughes report. Sadly, in that time, those recommendations seem to have been in a holding pattern somewhere in the Department for Health and Social Care.

Other Members have rightly spoken about the victims. Today, I think mostly about one of my constituents, who contacted me more than five years ago, raising concerns about the tragic loss of her son when he was 30. She believes that the sodium valproate medication that she took during his pregnancy was responsible for his learning difficulties and, ultimately, his early passing. Quite understandably, she feels let down by the state. She is also concerned about the profound effect that it may have had on her other children, and the fact that she was not alerted to the risks of this by the authorities.

What I find particularly disappointing, having contacted numerous Secretaries of State during that time, is that we have had no more than vague commitments and assurances that this issue will be addressed in due course. That does not cut it for my constituent; nor, sadly, does it do anything to assuage the guilt that she—wrongly, in my opinion—feels.

With other national scandals, such as infected blood and the Post Office Horizon system, the Government have eventually provided funding for mechanisms to compensate those affected, but they too had to wait decades. It is disappointing that the recognition that we all had at the time, that those systems were introduced that those delays had compounded the injustice, has not translated into any visible progress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh.

I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that, in those schemes, the interim payment system has been seen as a way to get at least some measure of redress. I am disappointed that we have not been able to learn from that experience and use a similar system for the people we are talking about today. I have sympathy for the view set out by the Secretary of State that redress must be considered alongside that for other patient groups, but that does not justify inaction.

Those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh are frustrated by the delays and the obfuscation. The state has acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It has commissioned and published two reports on the matter, both of which have recommended that redress is provided to patients, but we have reached the point where reports and recommendations are not enough. It is time for the Government to act, and to provide the support that the many victims of this scandal deserve and need to manage their ongoing conditions. The can has been kicked down the road for too long; campaigners and those affected are understandably frustrated and anxious for change.

I would like to ask the Minister two things, echoing the questions raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). First, can the Minister confirm whether there has been an estimate of the total cost of providing redress? If so, can she share that today? That might, at least, give campaigners some hope that things are actually moving forward. Secondly, can she confirm whether she has discussed funding redress with the Treasury for inclusion in future fiscal events? I look forward to the Minister’s response—or, if she is unable to provide specific answers today, to a commitment that she or a colleague will do so in future, and a clear sense those who have suffered are now being listened to.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. I know that people are keen to hear from the Minister, so I will bring the speaking time down to three minutes. If there are any interventions, I will have to bring it down even further.

10:15

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this vital and timely debate. First, I want to recognise the victims of the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals, their families and especially the women who are yet again, through no fault of their own, another example of the UK’s unacceptable gender health gap.

I have spoken about my constituent Mary on several occasions in the House. It is a pleasure to welcome her and other women affected by these scandals here to watch this debate. I thank Mary and other campaigning mothers, such as Karen and Deborah, who have already been mentioned, for their tireless work to bring foetal valproate syndrome to my and other Members’ attention, and to keep this injustice in the spotlight. Mothers such as Mary have had to reckon not just with looking after their children with complex needs, who regularly require round-the-clock care, but with continuing their exhausting campaign work to try to keep the focus on the plight of their children in an attempt to receive better support.

One of the points that Mary and other mothers with children affected by foetal valproate syndrome are clearest about is that this is an evolving disability. No one knows the true damage that the drug may be causing victims as they grow older; those symptoms are evolving as they do, and children’s complex conditions often deteriorate. That can make appointments with GPs and other healthcare specialists incredibly difficult and complex. The lack of awareness and understanding about the situation among the medical community simply exacerbates the issue, and makes it even harder for mothers to get on with helping their children. It is vital that measures are brought into the clinician training curriculum, and those absolutely must feature testimonies from victims of medical scandals so that the medical community truly understand what they are facing.

It cannot be underlined enough that all these challenges are not hypothetical questions to these women and their families; they are their everyday realities. For that reason, it is incredibly frustrating—and, to be quite honest, angering—for those mothers that, more than two whole years after the publication of Professor Henrietta Hughes’s report into sodium valproate and mesh implants, the Government have not only not responded but have, of late, been stating that they

“will respond in due course.”

I am sorry, but what a totally rubbish, useless and uncaring answer! Much is said about distrust in our politics and our politicians in this country; that sort of mealy-mouthed answer, I am afraid, does absolutely nothing to restore that trust. We must do better.

I have so much more to say, but I am conscious of time. I will just say that Mary told me this morning, “We are exhausted from fighting.” Her plea is for MPs to find out more, to do more and to raise more awareness. I leave that plea with the House. The Government have an obligation to support families like Mary’s, and I hope that they will do the right thing.

10:18

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for introducing the debate. Like other Members, I was here last year on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. It is a stark reminder of how issues can drift. For those who have suffered, the passing year has not just slipped by quietly, yet we still hear the same language from Ministers about a response coming “in due course”. Those words ring very hollow to the victims whose patience has long since run out.

Ministers have previously said that this is a complex issue requiring action across multiple Departments. I readily accept that, but that is precisely why Professor Hughes recommended the interim scheme and those payments in 2025—and 2025 came and went with no response and no payments. Professor Hughes wrote that report, as she said, to drive action; she would not have done it otherwise. It is about how the compensation is paid, not whether it is paid, and it is extraordinary, frankly, that she felt she had to use statutory powers to go to No. 10 and the Prime Minister to drive progress on the issue.

In the debate last year, I spoke about my constituents Colleen and Andy, and other families who have been blighted by the scandal. When I met them they talked about their son, Byron. Colleen has epilepsy and was prescribed sodium valproate, but she was never warned that it could harm her unborn child. Byron lives with autism, learning disabilities, communication difficulties and epilepsy. The family’s experience is far too common. Families like them deserve decisive action from the Government. When I pressed the Health Secretary at health questions last month, he said that we were

“right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire”,—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 753.]

He said that work was happening across Government and promised updates. But there have not been any updates.

The Health Secretary has previously spoken about the failure of the state to recognise and put right wrongs and its mistakes, yet two years on we are still waiting for some action. Victims do not need any more words; they need action. As Professor Hughes has said, the lack of a response feels devastating to those families. For the sake of the families who have suffered, the Government need to act now. There has been plenty of time to learn from other compensation schemes, to secure funding from the Treasury for compensation and to set out even just a timeline for redress.

I ask the Minister: when will interim payments finally be made to those affected and give families the relief they urgently need? At the very least, can the Minister commit that the Government will make interim payments this year? Otherwise, it would be an utter disgrace.

10:21

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on securing this debate. I will put one family at the heart of my response: my constituent Catherine and her son Matthew, whom I mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions last February, 12 months ago.

When she was pregnant, Catherine did what any parent would do: she trusted the medical advice that she was given. She was prescribed sodium valproate, a medicine used to treat epilepsy. Matthew is now 24 years old, and as a result of that medical advice he has lifelong needs and a learning disability. He has done incredibly well, securing a part-time job and maintaining a level of independence while walking around the village where he lives.

Matthew was also incredibly proud to take part in the 2024 general election, and he voted in the hope that there would finally be redress for those affected by the valproate scandal. Matthew has since written to the Prime Minister; I put on the record my frustration at seeing how his correspondence was passed from pillar to post. It was only after several chases by me that Matthew received a response—a response entirely inappropriate for somebody with a learning disability.

Catherine and her family provide significant support to Matthew, and his life is all the richer for it. But that is not the case for all children impacted by sodium valproate, and there will come a point in time when Catherine will not be able to provide that support any longer. Catherine, and other families in the Public Gallery today, fear that day, and they want the state to ensure that specialist assessments, therapies, adaptations, lost earnings and round-the-clock care are provisioned for now, so that a secure future for their children is guaranteed.

That is why the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report is so important. It sets out a clear and workable route, and it is the responsibility of this Government to acknowledge that. Every month of delay is another month when parents are left to patch together support, fight for diagnoses, battle through fragmented services and carry costs that should never have landed on their shoulders.

Today I ask the Minister directly, as I asked the Prime Minister 12 months ago: will the Government commit to a clear timetable for implementing the Hughes recommendations? For Catherine and Matthew, the argument that the situation is complex simply does not land. Their lives are already complex—more complex than most of us can even imagine. What they are asking the Government to do is simple: accept responsibility for the scandal and act now while the redress can still be meaningful.

The question today is whether this Government—the Government who both Catherine and Matthew were desperate to see when I first met them, as a candidate—will match that urgency with action. I hope that the Minister will take seriously all the representations made today.

10:24

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

We have had the findings of the Hughes report for over two years now. It called on the Government to provide financial redress to patients and families affected by the use of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The previous Government refused to act and increasingly it feels as though the current Government are also burying their head in the sand rather than confronting the scale of this injustice.

My constituent Nick is one of those living with the consequences of that inaction. His son Oliver was born with foetal valproate syndrome after Nick’s wife took valproate during pregnancy to control her epilepsy. Tragically, Nick’s wife has since died, leaving Nick to raise Oliver alone. Nick told me that it is hard for him to adequately explain how difficult Oliver’s life has been and how much he worries about his son’s future.

Valproate has changed Oliver’s life forever, and all Nick wants is answers and meaningful action from the Government. Quite rightly, Nick continually chases me for answers on when the Government will make a decision on the Hughes report. On behalf of Nick and Oliver, I ask very directly: can the Minister say when we will finally get a response to the Hughes report? How much longer do the Government need to “carefully consider” recommendations that have already been scrutinised, evidenced and endorsed? Families such as Nick’s cannot wait indefinitely while the Government deliberate.

I take this opportunity to say that it is also vital that we recognise the devastating impact of Primodos, a hormonal pregnancy test used until the 1980s. Primodos was not considered by the Hughes report, but it was part of the Cumberlege review of hundreds of children born with foetal abnormalities. Many of those affected are now older; tragically, some of them are dying without ever receiving acknowledgment, accountability or compensation.

The pelvic mesh, valproate and Primodos scandals are some of the most significant health scandals of modern times. They have disproportionately affected women, yet time and again we see the same pattern: warnings being ignored; evidence being dismissed; and victims being left to fight for justice on their own. These scandals have gone on for far too long, with little action from successive Governments. Those affected by valproate and Primodos are not asking for the impossible; they simply want those responsible to acknowledge the mistakes made and to take responsibility for the harms caused.

If we are serious about restoring trust in our healthcare system and serious about supporting women, we must start by delivering justice to those who have been failed so profoundly.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call Caroline Voaden.

10:27

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

Last Saturday marked two years since the publication of the Hughes report—two years since Patient Safety Commissioner Dr Henrietta Hughes set out clear and compassionate recommendations for redress for those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Yet two years on, families are still waiting, women are still suffering, children are still living with devastating disabilities, and the Government are still silent.

Like many other speakers this morning, I salute the courage of all those who have campaigned so hard on this issue for so long, many of them doing so while living with devastating injury. I would like to share the human cost of this scandal by giving an example of a life destroyed by a medical procedure that was badly performed and that went horrifically wrong. That has been the experience of my constituent, Susan. In 2009, Susan underwent a transvaginal tape procedure for mild stress urinary incontinence. The mesh was catastrophically misplaced, causing immediate and lasting harm. Within months, her health had deteriorated so badly that she was forced to close her Care Quality Commission-registered medical clinic, and to abandon a professional career that she had built up over three decades.

Believing the mesh to be the cause of her poor health, Susan sought help and was referred to a surgeon presented to her as an expert in mesh removal. She gave clear written consent for the removal of all remaining mesh. Instead—unbelievably—an additional reconstructive procedure was carried out without her knowledge or consent. It was never discussed beforehand and never explained afterwards. It was not even disclosed to her GP. Susan was then told that the mesh was “probably all removed”. It was not. Years later, specialist MRI imaging confirmed that substantial mesh remained embedded in her pelvis and abdominal wall. However, by the time the truth became clear, she was out of time to pursue a legal claim.

Recently, when Susan tried to pursue her case again, the legal system demanded over £10,000 for a barrister’s opinion. Given the loss of her high-end professional career, she no longer had the financial means to proceed. The financial ruin caused by the mesh injuries effectively barred her from accessing the courts and seeking the compensation that she so rightly deserves. Today, she lives with constant pain, severe incontinence, chronic infection and profound psychological trauma. Her financial losses run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds, and she is still waiting for a Government response that should have come two years ago.

I will share another constituent’s experience. In 2016, Caroline underwent mesh insertion. Within just three weeks, serious complications began, but what followed was not prompt medical care; it was six years of being repeatedly dismissed and gaslighted by multiple healthcare professionals, including the very surgeon who had implanted the mesh. When Caroline expressed concerns during an internal examination, the surgeon’s demeanour changed significantly for the worse. Her symptoms continued to be disregarded and for 12 months she had to self-advocate persistently before finally being referred to a specialist mesh complications service.

The specialists identified that the mesh had twisted, leaving Caroline with no option but full mesh removal surgery. That surgery took place in July 2023, more than seven years after the original procedure. The impact on her life has been devastating. She has endured years of significant physical pain and declining health. She has been forced to become financially dependent on her personal savings, as her ability to work has been severely limited. Universal credit and NHS travel support are means-tested, leaving her out of pocket for essential medical travel and other related expenses.

Susan’s story is not just one person’s story, and neither is Caroline’s. Across the country, thousands of women are living with that reality every single day. Women are living with chronic pain, infections and life-altering complications from pelvic mesh implants. That mesh was supposed to help them, but instead it eroded into their organs, caused urinary problems and bleeding, and left them unable to work, exercise or have intimate relationships with the people they love—in short, unable to live normal lives.

As well as that, children are living with devastating neurodevelopmental disorders and birth defects caused by sodium valproate exposure in the womb. Parents are at breaking point, struggling with the emotional, practical and financial burden of caring for children whose conditions were entirely preventable. As Janet Williams and Emma Murphy, two mothers of children with foetal valproate syndrome, wrote to the Prime Minister and Chancellor:

“Families affected by sodium valproate exposure do not have the luxury of time. The children are growing, their care needs are increasing, and their families are at breaking point.”

Let me remind the House of the timeline of this shameful delay. In July 2020, the Cumberlege review recommended urgent redress. The Government refused. Two and a half years later, they finally tasked the Patient Safety Commissioner to look at the issue again. On 7 February 2024, two years ago last Saturday, Dr Henrietta Hughes published her report. It was unequivocal in calling for an independent redress scheme, including £100,000 interim payments for valproate victims, and comprehensive medical and financial support for mesh survivors.

Those were not radical demands; they were the minimum response required to address preventable tragedies that have devastated thousands of lives, yet the response remains a hollow promise of careful consideration. There was no published response from the previous Government, and 18 months into this one, we are still told that action will come in due course. The delay is not just a bureaucratic failure, but part of a disturbing pattern seen in the Primodos and infected blood scandals. It is a pattern where women and vulnerable patients are ignored, evidence is dismissed and recommendations are left to gather dust. Running through it all, as Susan and Caroline’s cases demonstrate so starkly, is a persistent culture of cover-up and denial. Compensation alone is not enough. We must ensure that such harm is never inflicted again.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a policy response that protects patients from the horrors of mesh implant side effects in absolute terms, with a full and continuing moratorium. Far too often, the recommendations from inquiries into medical scandals are neglected. There should be annual reporting to Parliament on progress, including on how the Government are addressing every issue highlighted by the Hughes report.

Central to preventing future scandals is ending the culture of cover-up that has been exposed time and again by medical scandal inquiries—the culture that allowed Susan to be told her mesh had been removed when it had not, and Caroline to be gaslighted for six years by the very professionals who should have helped her—and the doubtful legal procedures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.

That is why we support the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which will enshrine a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities and provide bereaved families with equal legal representation at inquests. The collapse of the Bill at the eleventh hour was deeply disappointing. Ministers now need to listen to the Hillsborough families and urgently bring forward a solution that ensures that everyone, including the security services, is covered by this law.

However, a duty of candour must go hand in hand with protection for brave individuals who speak up when they see harm being done. We strongly oppose the Government’s decision to scrap key patient safety organisations, including whistleblowing and speak-up programmes such as the National Guardian’s Office. We also oppose moves to remove patient voice, including the proposed abolition of local Healthwatch organisations.

The sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals represent fundamental failures of our healthcare system to protect vulnerable women and children. It was a major failure of the previous Conservative Government not to deliver compensation, which was recommended by not only the Patient Safety Commissioner, but the Cumberlege review that preceded it. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for every recommendation from the Cumberlege review to be accepted and for a full response to the Hughes report setting out how the Government will provide redress for these terrible injustices.

Two years since the Hughes report is long enough to wait. Four years since Cumberlege is far too long. For women like Susan, who have been waiting since 2009 for justice, 16 years is unconscionable. Families deserve answers. Women deserve compensation and corrective surgery where appropriate. Children deserve the support and care they need. They all deserve justice. Everyone affected by the valproate and vaginal mesh scandals should have an apology, compensation, corrective surgery where needed, and psychological support.

I ask the Minister again: what active conversations are currently being held with the Treasury about redress payments? I urge the Government to commit today to publishing a full response to the Hughes report, implementing its recommendations in full and ensuring that no family or individual affected by medical negligence ever has to fight this hard or this long for basic recognition of the harm that was done to them.

10:37

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing today’s debate. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, giving a voice to thousands of women who have been let down by the state. I also thank Henrietta Hughes for the Hughes report.

Thousands of pregnant women were prescribed sodium valproate between 1973 and 2017 despite growing evidence of harm. In 1972, scientists found in animal studies that it was harmful to foetuses, and in 1984, foetal valproate syndrome entered the medical literature. Studies in the 2000s highlighted the link between valproate and birth defects. I remember, as perhaps you do, Dr Allin-Khan, learning about it at medical school. Yet it was only in 2018 that the valproate pregnancy prevention programme came into force, which was too late for more than 20,000 children with entirely preventable disability.

Over 10,000 women in England were harmed by pelvic mesh. Mesh kits were issued in the 2000s to treat urinary incontinence and prolapse, despite a lack of long-term safety data. Women suffered hideous complications: mesh tearing through tissue, bleeding, infection and sexual dysfunction. Shockingly, it took until 2018 for NHS England to suspend the routine use of these implants.

I want to raise the case of a lady, now in her 30s, who had a mesh implant put in to prevent a hernia in her abdominal wall, something that is often missed from the discussions about mesh. She describes how she is unable to leave her home because there is a hole in her stomach wall where the mesh has eroded. It cannot be removed. The surgeon described it as being stuck in there like chewing gum. She described her wish for a family. She described the smell of the constant infections. She described the fear of waiting for the next infection and wondering whether the sepsis from it will kill her. Yet there seems to be no way for her to get this mesh removed.

The previous Government did not sit on their hands. The former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), commissioned the independent medicines and medical devices safety review after hearing from over 700 affected people and medical stakeholders. The previous Government issued a formal apology to victims and appointed a Patient Safety Commissioner. They began to establish a network of centres to provide treatment, care and advice for those affected by the implanted mesh. I would be grateful for an update on that from the Minister, particularly in the light of the case that I described.

In 2022, the previous Government asked the new commissioner to report on options for compensating victims. Dr Henrietta Hughes did so in February 2024, a full 24 months ago, and that report set out what justice should look like for victims: an interim redress scheme and a permanent one to follow. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it was a package of clear, practical steps to right the wrongs done to so many women. Yet two years on, we are no further forward.

After the 2024 election, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked the Government when they would respond to the Hughes report. The response was that the Government would consider the recommendations and meet with the commissioner. In January 2025, when asked by Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, the Government said they were “carefully considering” report and would provide an update “at the earliest opportunity.” In March, in this very room, a Government Minister said that recommendations were being actively considered and that a report was coming “at the earliest opportunity.” In that debate, the Minister suggested that research by Dr Rebecca Bromley was material. Can the Minister update us on that research?

In October, when the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) asked whether funding had been allocated for redress, a Minister said that recommendations were being carefully considered and a response would come at the earliest opportunity. In December, when the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), asked whether financial support was forthcoming, the Government said that recommendations were—still—being carefully considered. Last month, when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked whether funding was forthcoming, a Minister said the Government were “carefully considering” the report and an update was coming “in due course”.

What we have heard from Ministers is so frustrating. For 18 months, Members have asked what is being done, and time and again, this Labour Government have refused to give a clear answer. I note that the previous debate was responded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and both she and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), have answered questions on the matter. We have a different Minister today, and it is a delight to see her, but perhaps she can confirm which Minister takes responsibility for this issue in the Commons.

I have some further questions for the Minister. On which date did work begin on a response to the Hughes report? How many civil servants are working on the response? Have there been any conversations with the Treasury about the costs of the redress scheme? If work has been taking place, why is it invisible? If, in fact, nothing has been done, why have the Government persisted in telling Members that a response is forthcoming? Why, despite Dr Hughes visiting the Department in December, has nothing materially changed? Will the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked, make an interim payment this calendar year?

Over the weekend, the Patient Safety Commissioner told ITV:

“This is a disgraceful way that patients and families are being treated by those in power.”

She is absolutely right. The state’s No. 1 duty is to protect the public from harm, yet after inflicting harm, the state has failed to make things right. This is part of a pattern under Labour whereby systemic failings, particularly those affecting women, go unresolved. Every day that victims of mesh and valproate do not receive justice, confidence in health professionals is undermined.

We know that the Chancellor is fast running out of other people’s money, but it is wrong to balance the books on the backs of those who are suffering. Justice is the state’s duty. It is not optional. It is not something just to be carefully considered for years on end, indefinitely, while women and children suffer. The Government can respect the victims and the work of the Patient Safety Commissioner today by answering our questions, or they can continue their parade of platitudes and evasions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

10:44

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House following the second anniversary of the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes. I pay tribute to her work and, as others have, to Baroness Cumberlege for her work in the lead-up to that report. I also thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate. It has been a thoughtful and constructive debate on an issue that is highly sensitive for Members across the House, for campaigners and people who are here today, and for people watching online.

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). He is the lead Minister for this area, but unfortunately cannot be here today—as Members will understand, that is often an issue, but I am happy to stand in. This is a matter of great interest to him personally. As colleagues know, he is a clinician, so has valuable insight into patient safety and how it works from a clinical perspective.

My hon. Friend wanted me to be clear that he is very happy to meet campaigners, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked, to discuss our work in more detail. He met the Patient Safety Commissioner in December to discuss the Department’s ongoing work in relation to her report. Since then, he has continued his engagement with the commissioner on how we can do more to address the immediate needs of those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. As we have heard, and as many of us know from constituents—I know that many other Members have affected constituents but were not able to attend the debate—some of these women’s lives, as well as those of their families, have been changed forever because they were misled about the effects of sodium valproate and surgical mesh.

Many examples have been given in the debate, and constituents of mine have shared the most intimate details of the impact of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. It has been truly harrowing for me and many other Members to listen to those details, as I am sure it was for those women who bravely shared them with a stranger, their Member of Parliament. That point was made well by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who spoke on behalf of her constituents.

We owe honesty, transparency and contrition to all the women affected, and we are determined to make sure that the lessons are learned and to keep patient safety at the heart of the reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly highlighted the issue of trust in the system, which is so important as we go forwards. Our focus remains on building a system that listens and that acts with speed, compassion and proportionality. Everybody who has suffered complications from sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants has my deepest sympathies. I express my gratitude to Dr Hughes and her team for the report that was published two years ago, and I am grateful, too, for her continued engagement with the Department as Patient Safety Commissioner.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will, but I do want to respond to Members’ comments.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Minister said that she supports a system that acts with speed. Could she give us an idea of when there might be a response to the report?

[Karin Smyth]

I want to address the main concerns and, as I said, the Under-Secretary of State is very keen to talk with Members and campaigners.

We remain committed to working alongside Dr Hughes and her team to better support patients and ensure that steps are taken to prevent similar harm in the future, both in this area and across the wider patient safety landscape. That is obviously crucial. Many Members mentioned the importance of women’s voices being heard in this area, and many of us were involved in the campaign in the previous Parliament. We must make sure that women’s voices are better heard in the health system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, the campaigners are doing that, and I pay tribute, as she did, to In-FACT, as well as Sling the Mesh and the very many other patient groups that have raised this on behalf of women. They should not have to, but I commend their work.

I assure Members and people listening to the debate that we remain committed to advancing this work across Government and to looking at lessons from any cases in which patient safety has been affected. I fully understand why colleagues are asking for an official response to the Hughes report here and now. It is important that we get it right, and we need to carefully consider all options and the associated costs before coming to a decision on the report’s specific recommendations. I am sure that many Members have seen the letter that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote to the Patient Safety Commissioner in November, and I reconfirm, as he wrote, that that work includes looking at the costs.

We must take forward the lessons learned from this work—including, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) highlighted, work on similar areas—and the Government are doing that. We must ensure that our approach provides meaningful, often ongoing support to those who have been so profoundly affected.

The Government have to consider options for financial redress collectively, with input from a number of Departments, and we started that work immediately. As was mentioned, the previous Government did not respond to the report when it was published, but we have picked up that work. Initially, Baroness Merron was the lead Minister, and it is now the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West.

I assure the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) that my hon. Friend recently met the devolved Government Health Ministers to discuss their respective positions further. He will continue to do so across all devolved Government areas; as Members have said, patients there are affected too. We have to proceed with care to ensure the correct approach. We are committed to providing updates at the earliest opportunity, once all relevant advice and implications are considered.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will continue, if I may.

On non-financial redress, the Department is committed to meeting the needs of current patients with clinical requirements via three principal avenues. The first is improving clinical services and treatment to patients, and the second is commissioning further research and development programmes on sodium valproate and pelvic mesh to address the remaining knowledge gaps. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for sharing again his personal experiences and for laying bare the deep complexity and the need for more research and development, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is committed. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), with his clinical knowledge, also added useful experience to the debate. That is absolutely what my hon. Friend will be taking forward. The third avenue is initiating longer-term preventive measures that will help ensure that the system can pick up on adverse trends in patient care and act more quickly in the future.

I will take each avenue in turn. On improvement of clinical services, although the number of women up to the age of 54 who have been prescribed sodium valproate has nearly halved since 2018, there is a significant group of patients already affected who have complex and varied needs, and the health system has to ensure that that cohort receives high-quality and tailored care. NHS England has committed to a pilot project on foetal exposure to medicine in the north of England, involving multiple clinical specialties and a wide range of clinical experts, that will undertake a comprehensive review of the service. Eighty patients have been seen as part of the pilot, representing 560 appointments and 650 clinical hours. We have received feedback from patients on the value for their quality of life of being seen by clinical experts and wider multidisciplinary teams. We are considering options to commission this service further nationwide.

NHS England has also completed an internal review of mesh centres across England. Mesh centres undoubtedly offer a valuable and impactful service, with nearly 3,000 patients now seen since their introduction. However, as a relatively new service, distinct areas for improvement remain, and we will look closely at the results of the internal review and promptly deliver the necessary improvements.

With regard to further research and development, the National Institute for Health and Care Research has been commissioned for a £1.56 million study to develop patient-reported outcome measures for prolapse, incontinence and mesh-complication surgery. In the longer term, those measures will be integrated into the pelvic floor registry, which monitors and improves the safety of mesh patients. Further research is also taking place in this area, and we will ensure that future work takes into account the recommendations of the pilot project and of the mesh centre audit.

On longer-term prevention work, recent discussions with NHS England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency indicate that longer-term improvements in digitisation will help position the UK as a world leader in reducing valproate-exposed births and applying the insights to other teratogenic medicines. The Department will explore increasing centralisation and visibility of the annual risk acknowledgment form across care settings, as highlighted in the Hughes report, and may consider expanding the medicines and pregnancy registry to better link data with research outcomes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karin Smyth]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East.

[Seamus Logan]

I appreciate the complexities of the steps that the Minister is outlining. Nevertheless, in repeated contributions, Members have asked for a timescale, so will the Minister respond by the end of the Session? Will she respond by the autumn? Will she respond by the end of the calendar year? Can she give us some clarification, please?

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to answer that at the end of my comments, but first I will take the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I appreciate that the Minister does not have primary responsibility for this area, but it worries me that we are hearing an awful lot about process. What I fear is really going on is that Ministers have been told at the highest possible level, by the Chancellor or a Treasury Minister, that the money for redress will not be made available and they have to take that as their starting point. She may not be able to confirm this now, but I would like an answer as to whether a conversation of that sort has taken place.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank both Members for their comments. Experienced parliamentarians will know what I will be able to say. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, outlined in his letter, costs—I think that is what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East was alluding to—are part of the overall consideration, along with the complexity, in the work that he is leading on behalf of the Department across all Government Departments.

[Marie Goldman]

Will the Minster give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am going to close by emphasising again that we are profoundly sorry, of course, for the enduring harm experienced by women affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Their pain, which we keep in our minds at all times, and the life-altering consequences they have suffered are truly heartbreaking. We recognise the immense toll, much of which we have heard about again today, that this has taken on them and their families. We have listened closely to calls for clarity, speed and decisive action on the report’s recommendations. To be very clear, we are committed to setting out our response at the earliest credible opportunity while ensuring that it is both robust and deliverable. I think that, as we have heard again today, Members here and people listening recognise the complexity of that. I assure those listening that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is determined to progress this matter, and he is willing to meet campaigners and discuss that in more detail, as Members have asked us to do today.

10:56

[Sarah Green]

In his November letter to the Patient Safety Commissioner to which the Minister referred, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), states in reference to redress:

“Additional information is still required on the practicalities of further action on this area. This includes approaches to cost and affordability, legislation and scope of any potential redress. No final timetable has been agreed at present.”

The thoughtful and insightful contributions we have heard today show that Members are not going to stop asking the question. In tribute to the many families and campaigners, who are so inspiring and yet exhausted, I hope very much that we are not here in 12 months’ time dusting down the same speeches and chasing for progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.

10:56

Sitting suspended.

New Medium Helicopter Programme

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

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

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the New Medium Helicopter programme.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the Minister for coming to answer pressing questions. I recognise how hard he and his team work and the headache that we must be giving him by going on about the new medium helicopter.

After retiring the Puma from service last year, the UK currently has a capability gap. We have no medium-lift helicopter ability for our armed forces, which means there is a clear requirement for helicopters to transport troops, equipment and supplies over long distances and difficult terrain on a wide range of missions. Although we hear a lot about the future of warfare, in the age of drones and even greater technology development, crewed helicopters are still key to a joint force that will allow our military to respond effectively to the ever-growing threats we face.

We have a gap that needs to be filled. That is what the new medium helicopter programme is for. As the last remaining bidder for the £1 billion contract, Leonardo is ready to fill that gap by offering the AW149 helicopter, built at the home of British helicopters in my constituency of Yeovil. The Minister will tell us that it is far more complex than many people outside defence may realise, but I think he can appreciate that it does seem quite simple. There is one bidder in a contract; that is a win, win, win. It fulfils a capability requirement, will help to boost defence spending and modernise our armed forces. It will provide investment in the British jobs and apprenticeships in Yeovil, which is what the Prime Minister told me he is determined to deliver.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to highlight jobs in his constituency and further afield, because many other companies depend on this work. Does he agree that this contract is crucial for replacing the RAF Puma HC2 fleet, and is critical to national security? The Minister and Government must prioritise and fund the replacement accordingly. The dithering must come to an end and action must be taken.

[Adam Dance]

I agree that we need action. We need to ensure that we arm our forces with the correct equipment now. By contrast, not awarding the contract is lose, lose, lose, particularly for my constituency.

The future of the new medium helicopter is the future of Yeovil. Leonardo has been clear that if the programme does not go ahead, it will need to seriously consider the future of the Yeovil site. That puts more than 3,000 skilled jobs at the Yeovil site directly at risk, alongside 12,000 in the regional supply chain and the £320 million contribution to local GDP. It would also lead to a huge loss of investment in my community—starting with £1.2 million to Yeovil college, which does fantastic work training the skilled people we need in our defence sector—and the loss of the Westlands entertainment centre, and would leave a new solar farm unfinished, and so much more. It will be the death of my town. Local businesses have told me that they will shut overnight if Leonardo goes. House prices will fall and young people trained in Yeovil will leave.

Not awarding the new medium helicopter also has a knock-on effect for our country’s defence. That point gets a little lost in jargon of sovereign capability. If the site in Yeovil closes, we risk losing our country’s ability to build our own helicopters from start to finish, at the exact time that the world is becoming unstable and insecure. Put like that, as people back home tell me, it sounds insane not to get on with the programme and secure the future of the Yeovil site.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He will know that many people who work at the Leonardo site live in West Dorset and commute. The company is responsible for providing training and apprentice opportunities for thousands of my constituents. I feel like every strategic defence review about the urgent need to speed up procurement—that is repeated ad nauseam. Even the most recent one recognises that the uncertainty around procurement undermines national security. My hon. Friend has rightly identified that there was a sole bidder, and that the programme is vital for the UK’s sovereign capability. Does he agree that unless the Government start to show that they are serious about speeding up procurement in the defence sector, we will lose vital industries, such as those that secure our ability to make helicopters, as well as thousands of businesses in the supply chain that support them?

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This issue affects not just our constituencies but many constituencies in the south-west. Leonardo is the backbone of our area, and we must secure the contract, but the effect on our area is not the only knock-on effect. The site in Yeovil is making fantastic progress on the Proteus uncrewed helicopter, which was recently successfully tested. Even though we are one of the few nations leading on such technology, if Leonardo cannot sustain its current workforce, skills and funding, we will lose those skills and could potentially lose Proteus. Once those skills are gone, they are really hard to get back, so not awarding the contract will undermine the Government’s drive for greater autonomy in our armed forces.

Given all that, why the delay? As far back as June last year I was told to “listen out”. I have heard so little since that I was worried that I might have lost my hearing—but don’t worry: I had my ears checked and they are working just fine. It seems that the problem is getting the defence investment plan to work. We were told that the DIP would answer all. It would set out the Government’s plan for spending on our defence and armed forces, including on the new medium helicopter, but at this point we might as well call it the delayed investment plan.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

The new Chief of the Defence Staff told me, as a member of the Defence Committee, that the medium helicopter programme was still very much on the armed forces’ priorities list. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that it is in the defence investment plan, because the service chiefs are asking for it? It is not all about uncrewed capability; we will always need crewed capability. This programme needs to be prioritised now, even before the defence investment plan comes out, because the Minister will tell us that they are still working it through. The Treasury and the Ministry of Defence need to get their act together and reinforce the programme to save the 3,000 jobs, plus those in the supply chain of SMEs that enable Yeovil to deliver it.

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to that point and his question to the Chief of the Defence Staff later in my speech.

In a response to my last urgent question on the defence investment plan, the Minister told me that it will be published when it is ready. That is the real problem, as Leonardo’s best and final offer will expire in March this year. Even more worrying are the reports of the £28 billion funding gap for our armed forces over the next four years, which suggest that the money for the new medium helicopter is not there. That raises quite a few questions that I will ask the Minister—I apologise in advance; he should please grab his pen and paper. I will not bother asking when we will get an announcement on the new medium helicopter, because we all know that the answer will be, “Wait for the DIP”, but if the Minister would like to show me up on that point, he should please do so.

First, the Chief of Defence Staff told my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) at a Committee hearing that, although the new medium helicopter is not at the bottom of the investment list, how high it is up that list is

“ultimately…a matter for Ministers.”

Will the Minister tell us how much of a priority the new medium helicopter is compared with other programmes that his Department is considering?

Secondly, if the new medium helicopter is a priority, then we can only assume that the problem is the money. That begs the question: why did the Government press ahead with the tender as it was, if they knew that Leonardo was the only bidder and that the money was probably not there? One billion pounds is not the kind of money we might lose down the back of the sofa, is it?

That leads me to what my constituents really want to know: what is going on now to solve this? Is the Minister’s Department committed to making sure that the deal does not time out? I know that he cannot comment on the endless rumours about who is causing the delays in the DIP, but will he tell us how many conversations he has had in recent months with colleagues from No. 10 and, importantly, the Treasury on the DIP and the future of the new medium helicopter?

Will the Minister also tell us—yes or no—if his Department has had any discussions with Government and with Leonardo on how changes to the scale or timeline of the new medium helicopter programme could make it workable? If the Minister cannot answer that, will he at least consider the Liberal Democrats’ calls for issuing defence bonds? That could raise up to £20 billion for capital spending on defence over the next two years. Does he recognise that the MOD could make greater savings by improving its counter-fraud work? Between 2021-22 and 2023-24, the MOD was getting a return of only 48p for every £1 spent, when public bodies should save £3 for every £1 spent on counter-fraud. That is money that we are losing and that could surely be going into funding programmes like the new medium helicopter.

Finally, can the Minister tell us what he is doing to manage the fallout from all this uncertainty? Importantly, will he clarify what steps his Government will take to protect the factory site and jobs in Yeovil and the south-west, and to reassure businesses and international partners that the Government are doing all they can to put increased defence spending to work in our fantastic factories? I am worried that the Government’s inability to get a contract agreed with only one bidder has undermined confidence in that.

I hope that the Minister can properly answer my questions, because we need clarity on the future of the new medium helicopter programme. It is good for the future of our armed forces and good for Yeovil and the south-west. If the Minister needs more motivation, I will finally stop annoying him about the new medium helicopter contract—that alone has to be worth it; it will be one headache off his books.

11:11

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

It is good to see you in your place, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for scheduling this debate. I am afraid that he will know some of my answers to his questions, because he has asked me them before, and I will give him broadly similar answers to those he has had before. In relation to his challenge, I will try not to show him up on the questions that I have already answered previously. I appreciate his passion for this topic, and I commend the Westland Helicopters tie that I have spotted he is wearing—we seem to be at a Putin-esque table in this debate, with one person down at the far end away from the other, but we have much in common on this issue, as he knows from our private conversations.

I welcome the opportunity to talk about the contribution that Leonardo UK makes to our armed forces and our economy, especially at a time when we are reassessing every pound of defence spending and investment that we are making. Our intention is very clear, as we set out in the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan: we need to fundamentally rewire defence and build a stronger, more lethal military, which can deter and, if necessary, defeat, those who threaten us. As such, we are looking at the whole programme of defence spending.

Let me get straight to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. He will not be surprised when I say that I cannot announce a decision on the new medium helicopter programme today, but I can assure him that we will announce that decision as soon as possible as part of the defence investment plan. I am acutely aware that the contract decision is of great consequence, not to just Leonardo and its workforce at Yeovil but the wider community. As a fellow south-west MP, I can assure him that the importance to the wider region is not lost on me.

I also remind the hon. Gentleman that when we discussed this in the main Chamber, I committed that we will not allow the decision to time out. He is right that the best and final offer price has an expiry date, but we have committed as a Government that we will not time out—that is, it will not simply fail at that point; we will make a decision ahead of that, as part of the work we are doing on the defence investment plan.

[Adam Dance]

I thank the Minister for reiterating that point. My concern is that we do not have a date for when the DIP will come out, and he has just said that the new medium helicopter programme will be in the DIP. Is he therefore saying that if it is not out by the end of March, he will make a decision outside of the DIP on the new medium helicopter programme?

[Luke Pollard]

I have been pretty clear on a number of occasions in the Commons that we are not letting this decision time out. Therefore, a decision will be made, which is consistent with what I have said before.

[Ian Roome]

This is a really important programme, and I see that the official Opposition have not even bothered to turn up to the debate. I asked the Defence Secretary about the DIP, and he told me it would be out by the end of December. Now it is going to be March. Can the Minister guarantee that it will be March? What is the hold-up? Is it that the Treasury and the MOD cannot agree the finances? Could he be honest and let us know what the delay is in getting the DIP out?

[Luke Pollard]

As a Department, we are working flat out to deliver the DIP. It remains one of the key actions that we are trying to deliver as a Department. As a Defence Minister, I would prefer to get it right to getting it done quickly, with decisions that may not be as comprehensive or clear as we would like them to be. We have committed that we will get it out as soon as we can. I have also said a number of times that we will not let the decision on the new medium helicopter time-out. In the spirit of commenting on ties, it is good to see the hon. Gentleman wearing an RCDS tie; as a graduate of the Royal College of Defence Studies, which I know he is as well, it is good to see that.

I want to set out the engagement we are having with Leonardo, because it is important that we tell the story about what is taking place while we are looking at the new medium helicopter programme, as well as the wider record that we inherited. We have been engaging closely with the management team at Leonardo in both the UK and Italy, and we have stressed throughout that the company remains a vital strategic partner to UK defence. In fact, the Defence Secretary spoke to Leonardo’s global chief executive, Roberto Cingolani, last week. I continued those discussions in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia this week, when he and I were at the world defence show, where I met with both Roberto Cingolani and the managing director of Leonardo’s helicopter division, Gian Piero Cutillo.

Last month, the Secretary of State visited Leonardo’s radar and advanced targeting system centre in Edinburgh to confirm the award of a £453 million contract to manufacture upgraded and new radars for the Eurofighter Typhoon fleet, which is a huge investment in cutting-edge British technology with Leonardo. That investment will support 400 highly-skilled jobs at Leonardo’s site in Edinburgh and Luton, as part of a network of nine main sites that the company operates across the UK, employing more than 8,500 people. The Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), is sitting behind me. The Leonardo site in her constituency will also benefit from that contract, which reinforces the fact that contracts are about not just the point of manufacture but the supply chain across the entirety of the UK—a point that I know has been made in a number of these debates.

It is important to reflect on the challenges as we came into government. We inherited a procurement system that was overcommitted, underfunded and fundamentally unsuited to the threats that Britain faces today. Reforming, refinancing and restructuring that programme for a new generation of warfare is a challenging task but a necessary one, and it is one that we are tackling methodically and thoroughly. This is the first line-by-line review of defence investment for 18 years, a period in which our armed forces have been increasingly hollowed out and yet the world has become a far more dangerous place.

[Ian Roome]

Does the Minister agree that the new medium helicopter programme is a chance not just to upgrade an important capability but to move the service branches on to a common helicopter platform?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that we inherited a situation where there are far too many platforms across all our forces, which complicates servicing, operations and interoperability—the warfighting effect they can have—and does not create the inter- changeability that we are looking to deliver, as set out clearly in the strategic defence review.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but in his intervention he spoke about the Puma helicopter, which is a really good example. Those helicopters were on average between 43 and 50 years old. It is hard to make the case that the Puma helicopter was at the cutting edge of military aviation. It was also an incredibly expensive helicopter to keep up. As we made decisions about removing old technology and investing in new technology, we announced that platforms like Puma would be retired. Retiring old equipment and bringing in new equipment is the right decision, and that is effectively the work we are trying to do at the moment.

[Edward Morello]

I do not disagree with the points the Minister is making, and Lord knows I am happy for us to dedicate the rest of the debate to bashing the previous Administration for their failures. He talks about the need to future-proof decision making. Part of the problem that we have with defence procurement is the length of time it takes to get from a decision to deployment. That means that we end up changing the spec of what we are asking for, which ends up with the Ajax disaster that we are all looking at. In the remaining time, will the Minister speak to what the plans are to speed up defence procurement to make quicker decisions on both smart tech and dumb tech and on crewed and uncrewed, so that we can get to that war footing as quickly as possible?

[Luke Pollard]

I had noted the hon. Gentleman’s question and was coming to it in a moment, but as he has invited me to, I will deal with it now.

Since the general election, we have signed 1,100 major defence contracts as a Government, and 84% of those have gone to British companies. Where we do buy from international companies, we do so either because the technology is solely available from international supply or because it provides a military advantage in terms of timescale, price point or interoperability function with existing technologies. That is a necessity. I want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK firms, and that includes international firms that are based in the United Kingdom, creating jobs and growth opportunities.

[Adam Dance]

I thank the Minister for that comment, because that is so important. As he knows, Leonardo, which is based in Yeovil in the south-west, is the only end-to-end helicopter factory left in the UK. Surely, that is definitely a win-win. I hope that when the Minister said he would not let the decision time-out, a positive decision will be coming.

[Luke Pollard]

I would be surprised if the hon. Member was advocating for another position on that point.

At the risk of getting another intervention from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), I will finish the point on procurement. In the defence industrial strategy, which is a good read if he has not been through it, we have set out the ambition that was mentioned in the SDR of improving our procurement times. That means large, complex programmes that take five or six years on average going to two years; two-year programmes going to one year; and one-year programmes going down to a few months to six months. That is a big change in terms of how we procure, and it is a fundamental part of the decisions that will be coming out of the defence investment plan.

Rather than looking at the procurements that started under the previous Government—and as the House will know, the new medium helicopter began in February 2024—we continued. That is because, once a procurement policy has started, it is best practice to continue it with the rules of the road that were in place at the point where the procurement began; otherwise, it can be opened up to legal challenge and so on. To address the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned about pressing ahead, we pressed ahead with that procurement because it had begun and it was in train. That was the right thing to do, because the sense from industry and from the MOD was that restarting it carried greater risk than bringing it to a conclusion. The framing, setting, financing, financial arrangements and specifications were all set by the previous Government in relation to the new medium helicopter.

Finally, I will deal with the intervention from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), before returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil. The challenge about whether we will always need crewed helicopters is a live one. If we look more broadly at our transition from crewed systems to autonomous systems, the SDR sets out very clearly that, at this period in time, the Government will invest in a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems with a greater drive to autonomy, which not only increases lethality and mass, but provides jobs and growth opportunities. We know our adversaries are investing in similar technologies, so the question about the crewed, uncrewed and autonomous mix is a live one.

That brings me nicely to the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned around Proteus, which is a brilliant example of how investment in new technologies can deliver more change. It is a good project, which was funded by the Ministry of Defence through our work with UK Defence Innovation and was delivered by Leonardo. It is a sign of our strong partnership with Leonardo that we collaborated on the Proteus project, which experiments with a future rotary wing uncrewed air system. I have spoken to Leonardo about not naming helicopters after our ships. I would also like to get to a point where we stop naming things after bad guys in science-fiction movies, such as Skynet from “The Terminator” films, which is the name for our satellite communications systems, or giving things existing names.

However, the technology is outstanding. That is an area that provides huge growth opportunities for British industry, including, potentially, for Leonardo, subject to the usual competitive tendering processes around Proteus in the future. It is a good example of how an autonomous full-size helicopter can be demonstrated, but the mix that we are looking for in the strategic defence review is a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems as we move in that direction. The investment that Leonardo has made in uncrewed and autonomous systems is to be welcomed.

[Adam Dance]

I am worried that if we do not get the new medium-lift, and if we should want Leonardo to be a bidder for Proteus, its job force might not be there—the company has that concern—so Proteus may not come. I am glad the Minister has said that he wants a mixture of both; that sounds promising.

[Luke Pollard]

The strategic defence review sets out very clearly the mix that we are looking for, partly because the technology is not currently available. In many cases, there is not an off-the-shelf product that we can simply buy from UK, or largely international, firms. It is something that requires the innovation that we are looking for.

The work we are continuing to do with Leonardo recognises the opportunities for growth in the defence sector, the importance of sovereign capability, and the importance of different military capabilities within our overall force picture. Given the defence knowledge present in the debate, the hon. Member for Yeovil will appreciate that there are different and changing priorities, and that we are learning lessons from Ukraine in terms of what capabilities we need.

Some of the programmes that we inherited from the Conservatives, who are not represented in this debate, were unsuitable for modern conflict, and unfunded. A key part of the defence investment plan is ensuring that every programme that is in our programme of record is sustainable, funded and can exist in reality, not just on PowerPoint. That is a big difference to the previous Government’s approach. As we move to warfighting readiness, which is my No. 1 mission as a Minister, I need to ensure that the equipment that we are purchasing and supporting can provide the deterrent ability that we need to deter aggression, but also has the ability to defeat it if required. That is why we are preferencing battlefield-ready technologies and those that give an increase in lethality.

I appreciate the passion that the hon. Member for Yeovil has for his hometown, and the importance of the contract. I will commit to continuing to have conversations with him and MPs from the wider region, and we have frequent discussions with our colleagues from Leonardo.

[Edward Morello]

I am aware of the time and it sounds like the Minister is wrapping up, but I did not want to be the only Member in the debate who had not been complimented on their tie.

[Luke Pollard]

I am afraid I did not bring my long-vision glasses, so I cannot spot everyone’s tie.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

It is very nice.

[Luke Pollard]

It is a very nice tie.

[Adam Dance]

Will the Minister give way one more time?

[Luke Pollard]

As long as it is not about ties.

[Adam Dance]

The Minister made the point about funding; is a lot of this tied up with the money for the contract not being there from the Treasury?

[Luke Pollard]

Unlike in previous Governments, our Treasury colleagues are aligned to our defence mission. We are working more closely with our Treasury colleagues than I have ever seen before. The close co-operation that we have, on the preparation of the SDR, the DIS, and the work that we are doing with Treasury colleagues on the DIP, is a good example of how the MOD with a different approach can find a close friend in the Treasury, which will ultimately help support the growing defence budget that the Chancellor and Prime Minister have announced for the Ministry of Defence.

There is £5 billion extra in our budget this year, and there is not a single person who has ever served in our armed forces before with a decade of rising defence spending ahead of them. What we spend that money on—and, importantly, how we spend it—is the debate around the defence investment plan. I welcome that debate, because there needs to be more discussion about how we can not over-spec, as the hon. Member for West Dorset suggested, and then change the specs during procurement. That is something that we have embraced fully, learning the lessons from the last Government, where that was not the case.

I have committed, earlier in the debate and previously, to not letting the decision on the medium helicopter time-out. We will continue our conversations with Leonardo, and I am happy continuing conversations with the hon. Member for Yeovil in a constructive manner to ensure that the points he raised on behalf of his constituents can be taken on board as part of the broader defence investment plan work.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Woodland Creation

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

14:30

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of woodland creation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on woodland creation, which my hon. Friend the Minister just described as the most wholesome debate we are going to have this week. I secured it because I really benefited from the beautiful blue and green spaces that I grew up alongside, and it is important to provide opportunities to benefit from accessible, beautiful blue and green spaces to everyone across the country.

Green and blue spaces are not just a luxury but essential infrastructure for our climate, nature and people’s everyday lives. Trees and woodlands cool our towns and cities, reduce flood risk and revive biodiversity. They support both medical and physical wellbeing, strengthen social connections and give people access to nature close to home. We have many missions as a Government, but I think providing good blue and green spaces, including through the creation of new woodlands, is one way we can help to support them all.

When green and blue spaces are planned well, they demonstrate that growth and environmental responsibility are not opposing forces but natural partners. I believe my home city is living proof of that. It is a new town created by the Harold Wilson Government of the 1960s, and from its very beginning the city was designed around green and blue corridors, with parks, woodlands and waterways woven into the fabric of daily life. That founding principle continues to shape the city today. Modern development sits alongside ancient landscapes, historic waterways and diverse habitats for wildlife. As a result, Milton Keynes now benefits from over 6,000 acres of parklands, rivers, lakes and woodlands, supported by more than 22 million trees—my fantastic city has 80 times more trees than the number of residents.

Over time, the city has protected and enhanced its natural assets. Ancient woodlands remain accessible and cherished, while parks and waterways connect neighbourhoods. Nature is not pushed to the margins but placed at the heart of the city. Many places are now trying to retrofit that approach, but Milton Keynes understood it from the start.

I have previously spoken to the Minister about the wetland arc project, led by the Parks Trust in Milton Keynes, with support from a National Lottery Heritage Fund grant. Once completed, this uninterrupted blue and green corridor will significantly enhance one of our city’s greatest assets. It supports wildlife, provides vital flood mitigation and carbon capture, and gives residents access to nature on their doorsteps. As the impacts of climate change become far more visible in our communities, the importance of wetlands and woodland creation cannot be overstated.

According to the 2025 global wetland outlook, around 22% of the world’s wetlands have been lost since the 1970s, placing immense pressure on biodiversity and increasing flood risk. The wetland arc will stretch across the north of Milton Keynes, covering 355 hectares, which is around 500 football pitches of parkland. What excites me most about the project is the understanding of wetlands as multifunctional spaces: they are not only habitats for wildlife but places that protect communities from flooding, support active travel and connect local people.

Under the stewardship of the Parks Trust, another great invention of the Milton Keynes Development Corporation, the wetland arc has the potential to become a distinctive and accessible landscape for the whole city, strengthening biodiversity while remaining open to everybody. We must not only create new woodlands for today, but think about stewardship into the future. I was reminded of the power of the Parks Trust’s local stewardship just last month, when I joined the trust to plant trees in Stanton Low Park. Among them was a “tree of hope”, a sapling grown from the Sycamore Gap tree. Only 49 of them were gifted across the UK, and I am proud that one now stands in my constituency.

Elsewhere in my constituency, Linford wood offers another powerful example of how woodland can be protected and enjoyed within a city. This 97-acre ancient woodland, with its network of footpaths and carved timber sculptures inspired by woodland wildlife, is deeply loved by local residents across the city. It shows that ancient woods are not just a relic of the past, but living spaces that continue to enrich modern communities. What makes places like Linford wood so valuable is not only their ecological importance, but their role in people’s day-to-day lives. Families walk in the wood at weekends and runners use it for shaded paths. It is part of the route I am using to train for this year’s London marathon —the Minister is welcome to sponsor me, to support my local hospice.

Woodlands are not just abstract environmental assets but part of the rhythm of community life. I hope that, throughout the debate, we talk just not just about the woodlands in rural parts of the country, important as they are, but the ones that exist in and support urban contexts.

We might feel instinctively that spending time among trees lifts our mood and clears our mind, but the evidence increasingly backs that up. Aviva’s latest “Picture of Health” research, published in September 2025, highlights a growing shift across Britain towards embracing nature as an essential part of maintaining wellbeing. In a survey of 2,000 UK adults, 65% said they actively seek out nature to support their mental health or manage stress, 80% said nature boosts their happiness, and 74% reported a reduction in stress and anxiety after spending time outdoors. The research also found that regularly spending time in nature is linked to higher energy levels, improved concentration and better sleep. After the week some of us have had, I think we would appreciate all those things.

The findings underline an important truth: access to nature is not just a luxury or a lifestyle choice, but a fundamental part of supporting the nation’s health and wellbeing. If more people are turning to green spaces to support their wellbeing, it becomes all the more vital that we protect, create and sustain the natural environments they rely on. Woodlands in particular offer accessible, restorative spaces close to where people live. Investing in their creation and long-term stewardship is therefore not only an environmental priority, but a social one, ensuring that the physical and mental health benefits of nature are accessible to everyone and not just a fortunate few.

Woodland creation must sit at the heart of our national approach to environmental recovery. After 14 years of Conservative drift, England was left with a serious deficit in woodland creation and forest resilience, with tree planting falling to a 20-year low before Labour took office. The Government are turning that around, and planting rates are now at their highest level in more than two decades. More than 7,000 hectares were planted last year, with 10.4 million trees planted in 2024—a 46% increase on the previous year. We are back on track to reach 16.5% of woodland cover by 2050, meeting the Environment Act 2021 target. Backed by £1 billion of investment over this Parliament, it is the largest tree-planting and forestry programme that England has ever seen. The investment supports not only planting but long-term stewardship, skills and apprenticeships, nursery capacity and access to nature.

The announcement of a new national forest across the Oxford-Cambridge arc, where my constituency sits, is fantastic news. I hope the Minister will consider that with reference to the forest of Marston Vale, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). That would be a fantastic position and is obviously close to Milton Keynes.

Milton Keynes shows what is possible and what has worked. I think I owe such a good start in life to the fact that my city provided so many things for me, up to and including fantastic access to green spaces and nature. I want to ensure that everybody right across the country has that same access. If we are serious about leaving a better environment for future generations, we must continue to invest in woodland creation, tree planting and new forests so that the benefits seen in Milton Keynes today can be enjoyed across the country for decades to come.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

If Back Benchers could keep their speeches to five minutes, that would be most helpful.

14:39

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall for consideration.

I declare an interest as a landowner and farmer: I own land down at Greyabbey and Kircubbin in the Ards peninsula. I have told this story in the House before, but it is important that I declare it. I planted out an area of my farm; it could have been used for cattle, but we felt it was important to plant trees, because the hedgerows are disappearing and the habitat is not what it once was. We planted some 3,500 trees, with the help of my son, under the Woodland Trust scheme, and that will be beneficial in the years to come. Had the scheme not been in place, it would never have crossed my mind to diversify in that way. If a scheme was available again to pay the costs of the saplings, for instance, I believe landowners would take the time to plant out their land. Such buy-in among local landowners can be only a good thing.

Over the past six weeks, with my other son, we have been trying to plant out some hedges. In the last six weeks we have planted some 600 of them, as well as apple trees. There is nothing quite like an apple off a tree when you have grown it yourself. I think the apples are sweeter—maybe they are not, but I believe they are.

I want to highlight the case for my local council, Ards and North Down council. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I want to share some of the problems we are having back home, to give a Northern Ireland perspective. The council is making real efforts to make a difference in the creation of areas of biodiversity. I understand it is actively engaged in significant woodland creation and tree-planting initiatives, most notably through its STAND4TREES initiative, which aims to plant one tree for every resident by 2032. We have 160,000 residents in the council area, so it is quite an ambitious scheme. Guided by the trees and woodland strategy for 2021 to 2032, the programme focuses on enhancing biodiversity, increasing the native tree canopy and promoting community engagement in environmental stewardship.

A problem has occurred, and other Members might be able to demonstrate whether it is a one-off. When the council recently attempted to purchase land to facilitate tree planting, it was outbid at an astronomical rate. This is a real concern. It is not simply about the price of the trees and the manpower—or the womanpower, because we both participate. With the price of farmland hitting an all-time high, this could be a very costly venture. In Northern Ireland, an acre of land currently costs £15,202, which right away puts any ideas about tree planting at a disadvantage. It is the first time the overall average has exceeded £15,000.

Councils whose purse strings are already tight are trying to work out how they can be involved in planting at an affordable price. I should have welcomed the Minister; it is lovely to see her in her place. We are pleased to have her here and I know, because she loves this subject, that she will encourage us all with the answers to our questions. It would be a pleasure to hear from her about what can happen if councils want to plant, but are restricted by the price of land.

Leading by example is always a good thing, yet unless the Government come alongside our local authorities, it will be left to individuals to bite the bullet themselves and plant out the bottoms of their gardens on hilly land. For us to really make a substantial difference, we need greater help—for local authorities to purchase land and for landowners to get the trees to plant out. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—Northern Ireland’s equivalent of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—has the small woodland grant scheme for new native woodlands, and the forest expansion scheme for larger projects of three or more hectares, but the costs are not close to being met. It sounds terrible, but sometimes we do need help to enhance, encourage, coerce or, perhaps, persuade others to do that.

We all know that trees provide more than beautiful scenery. They provide the very air that fills our lungs, and we sometimes need to be reminded of that. They sustain an ecosystem that most of us do not even know about, never mind value. I know that I do, but I am not sure if everybody else does—not because they are any less smart than I am, but because of how important it is. The Government and the Minister know the value. We must do more to fund the future and to fund woodland creation in a greater way.

14:44

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Woodland creation is, at its heart, hopeful work. It is about climate action, nature recovery and public good. It is about taking long-term decisions for future generations. I also like that we know it is doable, because we have examples right across the country. At a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for woods and trees, I saw a fantastic slide that showed the national forest in the midlands going from 6% tree cover all the way to 23% or 24% tree cover. It was fantastic to see that visually displayed. That woodland is supporting animals, birds, walks, trails and 5,000 tourism-related jobs every year.

That is why I back the Labour Government’s ambition to create three new national forests, including one right in the centre of the growth corridor, in my part of the world and that of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). That is the kind of growth everybody can get behind—from seed to sapling to towering trees. We can already see the Labour Government’s first new national forest getting under way and taking shape. A friend who lives in that part of the world says that so many fences have been erected to protect the new trees it now resembles a prisoner of war camp. Those fences are really important, because protection in the early years matters for trees. Saplings are vulnerable. They need time, protection and sustained care.

The Minister and I recently discussed young tree survival in an Adjournment debate that I very much enjoyed, so I am back for more. That debate focused on urban trees, but I want to talk about woodland trees today. There are a lot of similarities, but also some differences. The similarity is, of course, that we need to get the right tree in the right place. They all need water, though less so in woodland environments than in urban environments because the soil naturally retains more moisture. In woodlands, weed control is particularly important, as is making sure that the saplings are planted well, healthy, British grown and disease free. The first three to five years are so important for establishment. We have to move beyond the “plant, plant, plant” mantra to “establish, establish, establish” because that is what really matters. Success is measured not by trees planted, but by trees thriving.

Thinking about the very early years of trees means thinking about having thriving domestic tree nurseries supplying the right trees, at the right time, in the right quantities. With our ambitions rising significantly, domestic supply needs to keep pace to avoid reliance on imports, which increase pest and disease risks and weaken resilience. Planting native species gives the greatest wildlife benefit. How will the Government better align tree supply with planting grants? Given that nurseries need to plan so many years in advance, how do we ensure long-term stability?

We also need a focus on skills and workforce. Growing trees is skilled and technical work and the nursery sector faces big skills shortages. This week is Apprenticeship Week. I have met lots of apprentices, but none planting trees. How do we make sure that we have a real pipeline of talent in forestry skills and horticultural training? Investment in people is investment in resilience.

As the Minister knows, I back the “Strong Roots” report’s recommendation for British-grown tree certification. The idea behind that is to grow market identity, transparency, investment and confidence—and pride, too. It is totally on brand for this Labour Government to establish “Great British Trees”. Will the Minister push that with her Cabinet colleagues as we seek to change the country and create landscapes that endure?

14:48

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is also a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer).

I congratulate another constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), on securing this important debate on woodland creation. As he knows, my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which he mentioned, is home to the community forest of Marston Vale, which is one of a handful created in the 1990s to help to establish and enhance woodlands. The forest has had a tremendously positive impact on the environment in Bedfordshire, with 16.9% tree coverage across the forest area, up from only 3.6% in 1991, and nearly 3 million trees, shrubs and hedgerows planted. That has transformed a Bedfordshire countryside scarred by our historic brickmaking industry into a beautiful place to spend time, yet Bedfordshire is still in a nature and biodiversity crisis.

Our countryside, particularly our ancient woodland, is under significant threat from development, due to both the increasing numbers of people roaming our area as a result of population growth, which brings its own challenges to local nature, and development proposals, including that at Keepers Place, with which the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North will be familiar as it straddles the boundary between our constituencies. That is just one development among the thousands of houses proposed to be built across the area of the forest of Marston Vale in coming decades.

Our ancient woodlands are at their best when surrounded by nature. The community forest has done fantastic work introducing reafforesting and sustainable woodland management practices across Mid Bedfordshire, but we cannot support our woodlands through reafforesting alone. That is why I hope that the Minister will set out, in her response, how this Government plan to ensure that our ancient and newly created woodlands alike will be protected over the short and long term. I endorse the Woodland Trust’s recommendation that the Government should ensure that our ancient woodlands are protected, including through designation as sites of special scientific interest. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

I conclude with a request to the Government on a topic about which hon. Members have already spoken. I welcome the Government’s ambition to create a new national forest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Mid Bedfordshire sits at the heart of that corridor, alongside the constituencies of the hon. Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard and for Milton Keynes North. Mid Bedfordshire has the forest of Marston Vale at its centre, and has the expertise to deliver a new national forest that can be enjoyed across the growth corridor. I have made a number of representations to Ministers already, and I believe that the new national forest should be built on the forest of Marston Vale by expanding southwards through my constituency. It would be of value to people right across the region, would provide a lasting benefit to the growth corridor and would help to support the continued restoration of one of Britain’s most nature-depleted landscapes.

14:52

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell.

The state of England’s woodland paints a clear picture of national decline. The elms are gone, the ash is dying and even the English oak is at risk from the existential threat of climate change. We have far less woodland cover than many of our European neighbours and what woodland we have is in poor condition: just 7% of it is in good health. Many of our oldest trees—living legends that have been part of our landscapes for generations and that can each be home to thousands of species—are still at risk. A lack of diversity in size and species, and a lack of open, sunlit glades for young trees to grow in, has left our ecosystems fragile and degraded. That does profound harm to the wildlife that our voters love. Iconic species such as hazel dormice and our beloved red squirrels are disappearing into the pages of the history books and the number of woodland birds has fallen by 37% over the past 50 years. It must be said that although the wealth generated from tearing down woodland for shipbuilding, agriculture and construction was tightly privatised by a small, wealthy few, the consequences of the nature crisis are and will be felt by all.

We are on track to miss nearly all our targets for nature recovery. We have already lost half our biodiversity and one in six species are teetering on the brink of extinction. Those are not abstract targets that we can shrug off but missed opportunities to save species whose haunting absence would impoverish the lives of every generation to come. Unchecked, such decline will have disastrous consequences. Nature is not only the essential foundation for our economy but a source of joy to millions of people, and an irreplaceable ingredient of our national identity and culture. The Joint Intelligence Committee has warned that nature decline creates “cascading risks” to our food security and national security. To be frank, wringing our hands about nature’s decline in these debates while signing up to an economic model that treats nature as something to exploit, or destroys if it is in the way, will no longer cut it. The depoliticised niceties and doublespeak have to go.

We need to have the honesty to call out leadership that treats nature as an obstacle to progress, rather than a measure of it. Every politician loves ancient woodland until it is home to one of the world’s rarest bat species and is threatened by the latest grandiose project dreamt up in Whitehall. At that point it immediately becomes a blocker and a convenient scapegoat for the insane cost overruns of our model of outsourced and subcontracted infrastructure delivery, which so often rips off the public purse. We would not destroy historic cathedrals or royal palaces in this way, but, only a few years ago, we proved once again that even one of the best-loved trees in the country—every bit a work of art in its own right—can be destroyed in the pursuit of higher GDP. If we fail to do better, the public will not forgive either this Government or our political class more widely.

There are two tasks ahead for reversing the national decline of our woodlands. First, we must take a bold approach to woodland creation—on which subject much has already been usefully said today. I pay tribute to the Woodland Trust for its leadership in driving the northern forest, which will reach across Hull into Liverpool and surge into our cities. That is how we grasp an opportunity not just to rescue ecosystems, but to enrich communities, foster happier, healthier lives and reconnect ordinary people with what is collectively our greatest national inheritance.

As the Labour Government rightly focuses on building an economy with secure, highly skilled and meaningful work for all, here is an enormous opportunity. Essential woodland management—coppicing, pollarding, thinning, restocking and the rest—will require a new generation of tree surgeons and forestry workers, potentially offering brilliant careers right across the country. However, even the Woodland Trust or my hon. Friend the Minister—talented though they are—cannot recreate ancient woodland, nor restore other irreplaceable habitats or species once they are lost to extinction. Therefore, as we pursue woodland creation, we must also defend the protections we already have. The Woodland Trust has long argued that loopholes in the national planning policy framework leave ancient woodland vulnerable to damage and deterioration from development.

We should be strengthening those protections alongside an ambitious programme of nature recovery. Instead, the nature sector has been left fighting endless battles with the Government simply to stop things getting worse. That is why I led more than 60 MPs and peers alongside major nature charities, including the Woodland Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wildlife Trusts, in opposing proposals to weaken the habitat regulations recommended in the nuclear regulatory review. We must be clear: if someone cares about our woodlands and woodland creation, they cannot advocate for repealing our most important nature protections. Planting trees while weakening the habitats regulations is like planting flowers at one end of a field, while a bulldozer rips it up at the other. We need a joined-up approach that protects what we have and restores what we have lost. That is why I am calling for red lines for nature. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting this campaign in the coming months.

14:57

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this worthwhile debate.

Scotland is home to some outstanding examples of both natural and created woodland. In my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North, which is a mix of urban and rural geography, we have the Boden Boo woodland hidden below the Erskine bridge, which spans the River Clyde. I also love to visit the Finlaystone estate with my daughter. It is a vast woodland area on the border of the neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), and it sells Christmas trees during the festive period.

Woodland creation brings so many benefits, and I want to bring them to hon. Members’ attention today. We have all recently seen the devastating impact of flooding. In some places, woodlands can help to naturally manage flooding. They help slow down water reaching watercourses and ease the pressure on catchments. Growing trees trap harmful carbon dioxide and at least temporarily reduce the impact of our emissions from fossil fuels. Woodlands can provide a habitat for thousands of native species, from insects to small mammals and birds. They are especially important for pollinators such as bumblebees and butterflies, providing a safe refuge all year round and supporting insects with a reliable food source thanks to a rich diversity of pollen and nectar-producing plants.

There are very few communities around the UK that could not benefit from more woodland, and I am glad to lend my voice in support of long-term, ambitious commitments to woodland creation. Woodland creation is not just an environmental issue; it is about climate delivery, economic resilience, rural jobs and national security. The UK currently imports over 80% of the timber it uses, leaving us exposed to global price volatility and supply shocks.

However, there is a problem with the planting of conifer trees. Since 2010, broadleaf woodland has increased, but conifer woodland has declined in England. Only around 12% of new woodland creation has been conifer—far below the minimum of 30% that is widely cited as necessary for net zero and timber security. That matters because only fast-growing conifers will lock up meaningful volumes of carbon by 2050, and softwood provides the bulk of the timber the UK uses. Home-grown timber is strategically important to national resilience and security. Global supply is tightening and future demand is projected to outstrip supply, increasing international competition for timber.

In my former profession in the property industry, decarbonising construction has been a key priority over the last decade or so. I believe the property industry has leant into the environmental challenges ahead of the curve and used innovation to find solutions. Timber can reduce embodied carbon in buildings by 20% to 60% while storing carbon in long-lived products. Yet only 9% of new homes in England are timber-framed, compared with over 90% in Scotland—a major missed opportunity.

Timber is so important to jobs and growth—a priority of this Labour Government. Expanding productive forestry and domestic processing supports skilled rural employment, strengthens UK supply chains and keeps value in the United Kingdom. Nature and timber are not in conflict. This issue is too often framed as biodiversity versus timber, but the evidence is clear: this is not a binary choice. If we are serious about net zero, we must be serious about woodland creation. That means planting productive conifers as well as native trees. Without home-grown timber, the climate maths, the housing challenge and our economic resilience and national security simply do not add up.

15:02

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this debate. He set out perfectly the value of woodlands to both nature and people, and his city is clearly a living example of that.

I appreciate that hon. Members might wonder why, as the Member of Parliament for Cannock Chase—a constituency famed and named for its forest—I might want to speak in a debate on creating new woodlands, but my answer is this: “You can’t have too much of a good thing”. Woodland creation is central to building a greener, fairer Britain, and the Government have set ambitious targets, aiming to increase woodland cover in England to 16.5% by 2050. Our current woodland cover remains significantly lower than many of our European neighbours at 13.5%, compared with an EU average of around 38%.

In Britain, describing somewhere as “leafy” usually is shorthand for “wealthy”, which says a lot about how access to nature reflects inequality on multiple levels. The Woodland Trust’s tree equity score clearly demonstrates that the many benefits provided by trees are disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier communities. Even in my constituency, that disparity is evident. Chadsmoor is one of the most deprived areas of Cannock Chase and is also among the most nature deprived. By contrast, more affluent areas like New Penkridge Road in Cannock benefit from significant tree cover despite being less than two miles away. That contrast shows that the communities that stand to gain the most from access to green space are too often those with the least access to it.

Planting trees is often the easy part, but explaining to residents why an unmanaged woodland has suddenly appeared at the end of their road is considerably harder. In Hednesford, an urban woodland was established on Bradbury Lane with positive intentions, but insufficient maintenance generated understandable complaints from residents—an important reminder that successful woodland creation requires sustained stewardship and community involvement.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to funding not just planting, but long-term management and skills development. However, on the flip side, I have heard concerns about newly planted trees on housing and commercial developments not being properly cared for and subsequently dying, or even not being planted in the first place. Although the national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning decisions should require aftercare, councils need to ensure that those conditions are attached and enforced.

Alongside expanding woodland cover, it is equally important that we improve the quality and resilience of the woodland that we already have. In December, I visited Birches Valley in my constituency, where I met the Forestry Commission’s agroforestry woodland officer to discuss the restoration of ancient woodland. Plantations on ancient woodland sites—often referred to as PAWS—account for around 17% of the nation’s forests. Forestry England has set an important ambition to restore those sites to resilient native woodland, but achieving that will require a doubling of the rate of restoration.

The work is ecologically vital. Moving woodland from predominantly non-native canopy cover towards native broadleaf species strengthens biodiversity, increases resilience to pests and diseases, and helps to ensure that our woodlands are better able to adapt to climate change. The Climate Change Committee has recommended that two-thirds of new woodland should be broadleaf and one-third conifer, to maximise climate and biodiversity benefits while reducing the risks associated with monoculture planting. However, foresters have highlighted concerns such as the impact of pests such as deer and grey squirrels, and the long-term financial sustainability of restoration. I therefore welcome the Government’s funding for Forestry England’s PAWS restoration programme.

As we expand woodland creation, we must also carefully balance environmental ambitions with the needs of our farming communities. Agroforestry—integrating trees into productive agricultural land—presents significant opportunities, including improved soil health, enhanced biodiversity and increased flood resilience. Here, the Government’s approach recognises the vital role that farmers and rural communities play in environmental recovery. Many farmers are already boosting natural flood management by increasing woodland cover, as well as natural water storage areas.

Concerns have been raised, though, particularly in upland areas, about productive farmland being taken out of use or tenant farmers being displaced in pursuit of woodland creation targets. It is vital that environmental policy retains the confidence and support of our farming sector, particularly the 50% of farmers who are tenants. Schemes such as the sustainable farming incentive present an opportunity to strike that balance by encouraging tree planting on less productive land or areas already identified for nature recovery, or intercropping with arable crops, allowing us to increase woodland cover without undermining food production or rural livelihoods.

In closing, I note that woodland creation and ancient woodland restoration are not competing priorities. They are complementary pillars of a broader strategy to restore nature, improve community wellbeing, strengthen climate resilience and protect our natural heritage. Not only that, but in representing Cannock Chase, I am contractually obliged to be enthusiastic about trees at all times. Thankfully, trees are one of the few policy areas where we can improve air quality, biodiversity, public health and community pride simultaneously, which in policymaking terms is about as close as we can get to a unanimous win.

15:08

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this important debate.

Many people move to Cornwall precisely because of our natural beauty and our woodland areas. For us Cornish, those areas represent a vital aspect of Cornish wellbeing and our identity. Many of our woodland areas are globally significant, and include Cornish native mountain ash and Cornish elm, and our high Cornish hedges are home to entire ecosystems. But on the evening of 8 January this year, residents across Cornwall received alerts on their mobile phones of a red weather warning. Winds reached up to 111 mph in some locations, blasting roofs from buildings, bringing down telephone lines and ripping huge trees from their roots to the ground.

Tens of thousands of trees were toppled in west Cornwall alone, as the storm blew in from the Atlantic. Some of them had stood for 90 years, surviving the second world war and even the great storm of 1987. The first to suffer some of the most severe damage were on the Isles of Scilly, including the island of Tresco, which I know well, where trees—huge, ancient trees—were brought down in the world-famous, tropical Abbey Garden. St Michael’s Mount lost around 80% of the trees on its northern slopes, with many more so badly damaged that they will now have to be felled. Considerable damage extended across my constituency, into and around Mawnan Smith, Trebah garden and Glendurgan.

While our communities and those charged with protecting our unique woodland areas have shown remarkable resilience, Storm Goretti has brought into sharp focus the urgent need for future-proofing and for increased support for planting, maintenance and long-term woodland recovery after what are likely to be ever more frequent storms. Though organisations such as Forest for Cornwall have established thousands of trees across the duchy in recent years, we need a comprehensive woodland creation strategy—and the funding to support it—for mitigation, resilience and long-term woodland protection. It must recognise the vulnerability of Cornwall’s position on this island and our unique landscape, and ensure that our woodland areas are restored, nurtured and protected for generations to come.

15:11

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate.

Like many Members, I am a lover of woodlands, both ancient and new. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said earlier, “You can’t have too much of a good thing”, and the creation of new woodlands—and the Government’s ambition to do so—should be celebrated. Just adjacent to my constituency, we have a 400-acre site that mixes ancient woodland with relatively new parkland. The old favourites of oak, ash and thorn are around the place, and I have spent many hours walking in those woodlands, greeting ancient oak trees as old friends. I am a self-confessed tree-hugger—I literally will hug a tree—and there is something to be said for the calmness that this brings; the understanding that we are feeling sometimes centuries of life coursing beneath our fingers. I strongly support the transfer of that from one generation to the next.

Our woodlands are a key feature in the protection and preservation of wildlife. They support creatures big and small, and knowing and naming those creatures is a pure joy for anyone who is, like myself, a keen amateur naturalist. I remember hearing a nightingale in our local woodlands, which was the real highlight of a walk. Sadly, as Members will be aware, that is a vanishingly rare thing to hear and see. Supporting the creation of woodlands will ensure that we keep these native creatures for generations to come.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady refers to some of the vanishing bird life in her area. In my constituency there are a number of farmers and substantial landowners who have taken an initiative to bring back the yellowhammer, which is also very scarce in many parts of the United Kingdom. Projects in Ballywalter, Lord Dunleath’s in Rosemount, in Greyabbey from the Montgomerys and in Tubber from the Gilmores mean that for our neighbours not too far away and ourselves in a much smaller way, the yellowhammers are back. If we make the effort, bird life will return.

[Jen Craft]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is key to recognise the role that farmers can play in rewilding and embracing biodiversity. In Thurrock, there are farmers who are doing excellent work in rewilding some of their land to make sure that species can thrive and continue to grow. It is not only on farmland but an RSPB nature reserve near me has seen, thanks to investment and focus on regrowing blackthorn, the brown hairstreak butterfly make a remarkable comeback. Apparently it was a record-breaking count for them at the weekend. Creatures such as butterflies and invertebrates do not always get the praise that they deserve in this place, but they are key to the survival of nature—and of ourselves. Initiatives such as those are vitally important, and we must continue to support them.

The creation of woodlands is to be welcomed. I would like to highlight a couple of the threats to new and juvenile woodlands. One of the biggest is not from humans or climate change but from invasive species, such as roe deer. I know the Minister is keen on rewilding and reintroduction of species, having been a vocal advocate for the reintroduction of beavers. That is an important way to lean in to giving nature a helping hand in our natural recovery.

It has been suggested that the reintroduction of the lynx—an apex predator—is one way to keep down numbers of roe bucks and prevent overgrazing. It would keep them on the move in what is known as an ecology of fear, which hon. Members might feel familiar with in this place. It means that herds keep on the move and it prevents overgrazing, allowing vegetation and tree saplings to take root and grow. I wonder whether the Minister might consider that—leaning into nature and giving a helping hand to encourage recovery in a natural way by returning some of our lost species.

It is vital that while we look to grow new woodlands, we protect our ancient woodlands. Old species such as oak, ash and thorn are under threat, and it is vital to protect them where possible. In my constituency, the planned lower Thames crossing will unfortunately see the loss of an ancient woodland known as the Wilderness. Although the decision about that road has been made, I urge the Minister to work with her Government colleagues to ensure that there is no net loss to biodiversity through the scheme, and that mitigation and compensation for lost or damaged habitats are fully taken into account.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), I do not take such a pessimistic view on prospects for nature versus investment; I believe that the two can and must co-exist. Unless we encourage development and growth, mitigation of our ancient woodlands and the species that thrive there, we will see continued loss through climate change. I welcome our commitment to growing new woodlands and the benefit of being among trees.

“I think that I shall never see

A poem lovely as a tree.”

That line has never seemed so apt. Many more people deserve to enjoy forest bathing, enjoying the cool, calm reflective benefits that nature can bring.

15:17

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing this timely debate and his thoughtful and heartfelt opening speech.

Who does not love trees? They enhance our lives so much. In the past 18 months, morning walks in the woodlands below my house have helped to keep me sane-ish. On a London day, I can take a walk among the urban trees along the South Bank—not quite the Cotswolds, but it will do. Never has woodland creation seemed more important. As our climate changes and nature declines, trees are not a luxury—they are part of the solution. Done well, woodland creation enhances biodiversity, captures carbon, improves flood resilience and supports local economies.

Yet, we are not where we need to be. Although canopy cover has increased slightly, we consistently miss national planting targets. The overall quality of our woodland remains generally poor and, according to the Woodland Trust, is in decline. In England, just 13% of the land area is covered by trees, compared with an EU average of 38%. Only about 7% of native woods are in good condition. Meanwhile, in a heartbreaking statistic, nearly 70% of our ancient woodland has been lost or damaged.

We have a stated ambition to reach 19% cover by 2050 but that is looking increasingly challenging on current trends. If new woodlands are to thrive in the changing climate we must focus not just on quantity but on quality. As has been pointed out, planting alone does not necessarily create woodland. Saplings need careful aftercare, long-term management and protection. That means not just boasting about how many trees we have planted, but how many trees actually survive. Along the A14 in Cambridgeshire, around 860,000 trees were planted, yet 70% died soon after completion. It was admitted that they were probably the wrong species, in the wrong place and planted in the wrong season—other than that, it went really well.

As the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) said, the correct metric is not trees planted, but trees thriving. Also, saplings planted in one place are not an adequate replacement for mature trees in another place. Nature works to its own rhythms and it does best when we work with it, not at odds with it. Strategic woodland creation should also prioritise areas with low canopy cover so that the benefits of trees, such as cooler streets, cleaner air, flood protection and improved wellbeing, are shared more fairly. Access to nature should not be a postcode lottery, particularly as hotter summers make urban trees ever more essential. Anybody who has been out door-knocking on a hot summer’s day on a new estate, longing for the shade of a tree, will know exactly what I mean.

In my South Cotswolds constituency, housing targets are placing intense pressure on a district where 80% of the land is protected landscape and much of the rest is floodplain. People care deeply about the woodlands and green spaces that shape our identity. New developments must show that we can meet housing need while also expanding tree cover and strengthening biodiversity. Long-term stewardship and environmental sustainability must be embedded from the outset; without that commitment, we risk repeating past mistakes.

I am pleased to report there are encouraging examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has championed the Somerset tree strategy, a 10-year plan to protect and expand treescapes in areas where canopy cover in some neighbourhoods is below 10%. Increasing canopy cover reduces storm water run-off, prevents flooding and creates vital habitats. In the South Cotswolds, I am proud to say that many of our farmers understand that. Trees slow the flow of water, shelter livestock and protect the integrity of soil. They are an important part of a working landscape. I welcome the development of the Western forest, alongside the various other forests that have been mentioned today. It is the first new national forest in 30 years and will stretch across Bristol, Somerset and into parts of my constituency in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

Community stewardship is also important. In my constituency, groups such as Fruitful Malmesbury are leading what I like to call tree roots efforts, rather than grassroots efforts, planting and nurturing local orchards and woodlands. When communities feel ownership, the survival rates of trees rise, and so does social value and community spirit.

On the economic benefits, orchards provide habitats for pollinators and wildlife while sustaining livelihoods. The south-west cider industry partners with more than 300 farmers, manages more than 15,000 acres and produces around 670 million litres of cider each year—truly a benefit for nature and humanity. A new orchard may take seven years to break even, but it can yield environmental and economic returns for many decades. That is sustainable land use—patient investment for long-term gain.

We still import nearly 80% of the timber that we use. We could expand and actively manage domestic woodland, thereby supporting skilled jobs and making our supply chains more resilient. As construction increasingly moves away from high-carbon materials, we need renewable home-grown timber that stores carbon in our buildings and is backed procurement policies that support British growers.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to binding targets to halt nature’s decline and double nature by 2050, expanding protected areas, restoring habitats and increasing woodland cover. We support planting at least 60 million trees a year, alongside the aftercare already mentioned to ensure that they flourish. Will the Minister comment on the urgency with which the Government are acting, or failing to act? Continued subsidies for biomass power, including at Drax, rely on primary forests and undermine our environmental credibility.

[Jen Craft]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning biomass power, as I have a specific issue in my constituency, where the fuel that is used to power a biomass generator has unfortunately generated a significant amount of dust, causing a heavy amount of air pollution in the local area. It is a form of green energy, but it unfortunately has a local impact on the air quality that residents in Tilbury can expect. Does the hon. Lady support me in saying that the Government should look again at how much we rely on this kind of energy generation?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and we are launching an inquiry into the importance of air quality, which needs to be addressed when we take a holistic view of how energy, humans and nature can thrive alongside one another.

COP30 offered an opportunity to demonstrate leadership on deforestation. The Liberal Democrats urge support for the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, which is designed to provide permanent funding for conservation by rewarding countries for protecting forests. It was a golden opportunity to turn ambition into action, but, sadly, the Government chose not to commit public investment at that point. I hope that they will in the future.

The saying goes that the best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago, but the second best time is today. I know that the Minister has a genuine love for nature, as do I. Some people might think of me as more of an oceans person, given my past story, but these days I find that I am more and more drawn to hills and trees. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we all have a responsibility, both locally and globally, to protect and restore the forests on which we depend for so much. If we get woodland creation right, we do more than just plant trees. We invest in climate resilience, thriving wildlife, strong rural economies and healthier communities for generations to come.

15:27

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate and clearly setting out the key benefits for us all of our woodlands, in both rural and urban areas. We have had a good debate, and all of the many contributions were about the strength of support for our vital woodlands.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke of his own experience planting trees—he is clearly a man of many talents. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted the importance of young trees and the need for trees to thrive. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) is a fantastic local champion, and put forward strong arguments for expanding the forest of Marston Vale. We heard about the opportunities for tree planting and the areas for greater focus to protect and grow our woodlands. I am grateful to all hon. Members who shared the special and vital woodland areas in their constituencies.

There has been welcome cross-party consensus about the benefits that woodlands bring to communities and our environment. As the Member of Parliament for Chester South and Eddisbury, I see those benefits at first hand: I have the privilege of having Delamere forest in my constituency. It is 927 hectares of woodland—the largest woodland area in the county of Cheshire—and a wonderful example of one of our most diverse natural ecosystems and habitats.

Beyond removing and storing carbon, woodlands such as Delamere provide a home for thousands of species of mammals, birds, invertebrates, plants and fungi. Oak trees alone can support more than 2,300 species, and 326 are entirely dependent on oak for their survival. Delamere forest also supports our local economy through its appeal to visitors and tourists, and is home to a wide range of species, including beavers, which have been reintroduced into a nature reserve on the edge of the forest—demonstrating the vital role woodland plays for nature, climate and local communities alike.

The previous Government recognised the importance of woodland, publishing their England trees action plan, which set out a blueprint for how to protect, enhance and restore nature. The nature for climate fund was backed by £750 million to support peat restoration and woodland creation and management. The current Government have committed to establishing three new national forests in England, planting millions of trees and creating new woodland. What we need to see now is their delivery.

It is estimated that the global demand for wood products will treble by 2050, while supply is set to drop in the next 20 to 30 years, increasing pressure on supply chains. As hon. Members pointed out, the UK imports 80% of its timber, making it the second largest net importer, with only China importing more. The Forestry Commission is clear that that situation must be improved. With that in mind, what action is the Minister taking to increase the percentage of productive species, as requested by the Forestry Commission and Natural England, to protect rural employment and reduce import reliance?

Wood can also act as a substitute for more carbon-intensive materials, such as concrete and steel, making timber equally vital for decarbonising the construction industry, which contributes 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. How does the Minister envisage timber helping to reduce emissions when the UK is so reliant on importing it? Does she agree that bolstering domestic supply should be a priority, bringing benefits for the environment and our economy?

The Government tell us that they are pursuing an economic growth agenda, although I have to say we have seen little evidence of that ambition coming to fruition—in fact, quite the opposite. One reason for that is the Government’s persistent tendency to fall back on bureaucracy and red tape—or, in this case, green tape—which stifles ambition and actively disincentivises woodland creation. In the light of that, what assessment has the Minister made of enabling planting on lower-value uplands? Has she given any consideration to revising planning policies to enable such planting, or to reviewing the weighting given to archaeology when determining or refusing forestry consents?

With the benefits that forestry brings, such as timber, habitat and amenity, landowners should be incentivised to plant and grow trees, and advantageous tax benefits are a key method of encouraging forestry. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will look to incentives for tree planting as part of the future SFI scheme, when it reopens, as the previous Conservative Government did? His Majesty’s official Opposition are clear: the family farm tax and the family business tax should be scrapped in their entirety. The Government’s partial U-turn does not go far enough, so what assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of withdrawing the family farm and business taxes on tree planting?

Finally, some have shared their concerns that the voluntary woodland carbon code does not provide businesses with a sufficient financial incentive to plant more trees. Including trees in the emissions trading scheme can see the price of an individual credit rise by up to 67%. I understand that that has the potential to remove and store up to 19 million tonnes of carbon emissions from our atmosphere. As I understand it, the Government have acknowledged that they hope to include nature-based carbon removals, which I hope will include woodland creation, by 2028. I ask the Minister to prioritise that work to avoid any delays.

It is in all our interests to create a more resilient, productive and nature-rich landscape, and securing a diverse range of forests and woodlands will help to achieve that aim. Woodlands and forests have always been part of our country’s landscape. They have inspired writers and composers, supported our economy, and been playgrounds for our children and places where we can all connect with nature. They are part of the fabric of our community and the fabric of our country, and with that in mind I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government are alive to the threats facing woodlands.

15:34

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and what a lovely debate we have had. It has not been the best part of my week—that was releasing a mother beaver and her three kids on the National Trust’s Holnicote estate in Somerset yesterday—but it has been the second best. We have had a lovely debate, with constructive and thoughtful contributions from many colleagues.

Where are we having this debate? In Westminster Hall, which is home to northern Europe’s largest medieval timber roof, built in the 1390s from 650 tonnes of English oak. It was saved from the blitz fires by former Cabinet Minister Walter Elliot, who directed the firefighters to allow the Chamber to burn but, whatever they did, to save that roof. What an amazing piece of foresight that was, and what a piece of foresight it was for Winston Churchill to demand that oaks be chopped down across England ready for the reconstruction of the main Chamber we sit and debate in. And how wonderful it is, for those of us who have had the privilege, to stand at the Dispatch Box, which was a gift from the people of New Zealand. People knew that we needed timber after world war two, and the Commonwealth—the empire, as it was then—stepped forward and stepped up.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate. How lovely it was to hear him talk about the “tree of hope” coming out of the Sycamore Gap tree. Last year, I visited Northumberland to see where the Sycamore Gap tree stood and to hear about the national park’s plans to honour and memorialise it. The power that trees have to speak to us across the centuries and across generations cannot be overstated.

It was lovely to hear about the wetland arc in Milton Keynes. I know Bedfordshire well because I taught at Cranfield School of Management for seven happy years. I also did quite a lot of canvassing in a variety of by-elections in Mid Bedfordshire and found some places that I had not known about.

The trees and woodlands of England and the United Kingdom are more than just part of the landscape; they are part of our national identity. They filter our air, they cool the cities and they shelter our wildlife. We talked about leafiness and how it was associated with wealth, but when we walk in a city and see a glorious display of cherry blossom, we almost have public art in the street. That display of luxuriance and beauty is there just because it is there; it is not performing any function apart from providing a visual display. It is absolutely glorious to see some of the urban planting going in across our cities, and when I cycle around places, as I often do, I am always thinking, “When they designed this place, what were they thinking about for the future?” It really makes you think about how councils think about their constituents.

Trees are part of our shared national culture. They stand as symbols of endurance, wisdom and renewal. In Japan, forest bathing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) talked about, is prescribed by doctors to prevent anxiety, lower stress and help heal depression. I heard about that on a visit to Wakehurst—I recommend a visit—which has done experiments on different tree scents. The Japanese cypress gives off an odour and oils that are a mood enhancer, lifting the mood and clearing the mind, as my hon. Friend said. I think I will steal that idea for the future.

Growing up in Coventry, I played every weekend in the War Memorial Park, the city’s great act of remembrance for those we lost in world war one. Every tree has a plaque beneath it remembering the people who died—a living memorial to the lost.

As forestry Minister, I regularly see the majesty and benefit of woodlands up close. I met the social enterprise Forests With Impact, launched at His Majesty’s prison Haverigg in Cumbria, which upskills prisoners to grow trees for onward planting. One of the comments from the Ministry of Justice about the prisoners who grow the seeds is that they want to know where the seeds are going. As they imagine their lives on the outside, they want to know where they can visit and say, “I grew that seed,” or, “That might have been a seed that I handled,”. I pay tribute to the last Government for some of the work done in prisons on that intimate connection between environmental justice, social justice and the criminal justice system.

I have stood beneath the spruce and pine of Kielder forest with the people who manage it, and I have heard about Forestry England, which is the largest provider of parkrun in the country, with 220,000 people a week running through our national forests. I was of course passionately against the coalition Government’s attempts to try to sell off England’s national forests—that was 16 years ago, but some of us have very long memories.

The Government’s plan for change sets out how we are going to build a stronger, fairer, greener Britain, and I gently say to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth)—I am not sure whether she is standing in or she has had a promotion, but if it is a promotion, then many congratulations.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I am standing in.

[Mary Creagh]

She is standing in—very good. However, I gently say to her that while trees have a key role to play, we have done six interest rate cuts, and inflation is set to come in on target, so the economic plan certainly seems to be going much better than it was in the days of Liz Truss.

Let us talk about woodlands. They stitch our habitats back together, and they provide corridors for our birds, bats and beetles. All Government-funded woodlands must be designed and planted to the UK forestry standard. That world-leading technical standard for sustainable forest creation and management ensures a diverse mix of species, which will not only benefit wildlife but make woodland more resilient to climate change and the ever-changing risks from pests and diseases.

[Jim Shannon]

There is no doubt that every one of us, including the Minister, is keen to encourage the planting of more woodlands but, by its very nature, having more woodlands, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned, means pests increasing in numbers, and that includes deer and grey squirrels. As someone who has never shot a deer or a grey squirrel, although I have shot many other things, including birds, I ask the Government to consider working in tandem with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and individuals who are insured to ensure that deer numbers—we do want to see deer—are kept at a level where they do not become a pest and that grey squirrels are, to be honest about it, eradicated, so that red squirrels can survive.

[Mary Creagh]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that subject, which I was coming on to. Native wild deer are an important component of our landscape, and they play a role in healthy forest ecosystems. However, excessive browsing, foraging and trampling by deer put pressure on woodland ground flora, damage trees, and inhibit the natural regeneration of existing woodland and, crucially, the growth of new trees through natural colonisation. Trees will get on and do it themselves if we just leave them, but they cannot do it if they are constantly being yanked up by deer or grey squirrel populations.

We have to manage the impact of deer and grey squirrel populations, and it is our intention to outline plans to do that. We published our squirrel strategy last week, and the deer plan is imminent. We provide grants for capital items such as fencing and for the management of deer by lethal control. That is done through countryside stewardship grant funding where the land manager has been advised by a Forestry Commission deer officer that such action is needed.

We are funding projects relating to reducing deer impacts, and I am particularly concerned about the muntjac deer and the Chinese water deer, which are a particular feature of the east of England. They are alien, invasive species, so there are risks about hybridisation with our own native deer. One of the two—I cannot remember which one, but I think it is the muntjac—can breed three times a year, so it is constant breeding. Covid has had a very bad impact on deer management. We do not really have research on deer numbers, but anecdotally they are high, so we need to take action. I am particularly anxious about the east of England, and the steps needed there.

I want to say something about the British quality wild venison standard. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may not have shot a deer, but I have certainly eaten quite a lot of venison. That wild, organic meat is really healthy and plays a part in creating that ecosystem. Some charities, such as the Country Food Trust, are doing really good work in that area.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned the potential introduction of the lynx as an apex predator, but active deer management is already under way in my constituency through culling. Do the Government have a preference on culling versus introducing an apex predator, or a combination of the two? What thought are the Government giving to deer management?

[Mary Creagh]

We have given some consideration to the question of introducing the lynx. At the moment, they are classed as a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, and all dangerous wild animals have to be kept in a fenced enclosure. A massive fenced enclosure would be needed for a lynx. At the moment, the policy in the legislation makes it challenging. We need to balance that and work with stakeholders. Like beavers, they are animals that need a range, a habitat and the ability to roam around and breed. The question is: what happens when they breed and produce offspring? One pair of lynxes could end up being eight or 16. What is the management plan going forward? There are certainly some policy wrinkles in that—I will come back to deer, but that would need to be in very large forests with a lot of room to roam.

To go back to Kew Gardens, I had the pleasure of spending an hour with Kevin Martin, who is the head of tree collections at Kew. He has been going over to Kazakhstan in central Asia to collect tree seeds and do research on the seeds of the future and what our changing landscape will mean as we have hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters. I also went out with somebody to look at trees, and we looked at this amazing lime tree with all its heavy nectar. He said to me, “For bees, that is like having a meadow in the sky.” Our city trees and the lime trees that grow along the embankment might be a bit of a nightmare from an allergy and pollen point of view, but for the bees of our capital city, and all our great cities, they are meadows in the sky.

[Alison Taylor]

Does the Minister have any comment on the lack of conifers being planted and the need to have them alongside broadleaf trees?

[Mary Creagh]

We need woodland creation of all types. In 2024, the proportion of conifers being planted went up to 12% of tree planting, from 9% the previous year. We need productive woodlands as part of that. Non-native forests can provide biodiversity benefits and vital seed crops for mammals, red squirrels and birds. We are working towards increasing the rate of conifer planting because, as colleagues have said, its importance to timber in our construction industry cannot be overstated. We aim to publish a new trees action plan in 2026, which will set out how our Government’s £1 billion investment into tree planting and the forestry sector in this Parliament will be used to achieve the new 2030 interim tree cover target and improve the resilience of our trees.

[Jen Craft]

The Minister will not have failed to notice the spectacular redwoods at Wakehurst on her visit there. Will she support Forestry England’s measures to make sure that one in five new trees planted are novel species such as the redwood and the cedar, which are predicted to cope much better with changing climate?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The redwoods and the cedars are glorious, iconic species that can thrive in incredibly hot weather. They also give us year-round colour, because they do not drop their leaves, so less resource is needed to manage the leaf fall. Forestry England has published a list of 30 priority tree species selected for their ability to withstand extreme weather and resist pests and diseases. Of course, we have to think now about what will be able to survive 30 or 70 years into the future.

We have heard about how great trees are in towns and cities. They can reduce urban heat by between 2°C and 8°C, making a huge difference during hot weather. Those are not soft benefits; they are real public goods with real public value. Last year, tree planting in England reached its highest level in over 20 years with 7,000 hectares, or 10,000 football pitches, of new canopy. As we have heard, though, our tree cover is well below average, and we are the second largest net importer of timber in the world. Our environmental improvement plan, published in December, set a new interim tree canopy and woodland cover target that requires a net increase of 43,000 hectares from the 2022 baseline under the previous Government.

As I said, we announced the creation of the first new national forest, the western forest, stretching from the Cotswolds to the Mendips—that is really important for flood protection; I was in Somerset yesterday, looking at the fields under water—and spearheaded by the forest of Avon. Some 20 million trees will be planted across the west of England over the next 25 years. Last November, we announced the creation of two more national forests. The second one will be in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.

The expression of interest process for community partners closed on 30 January. I am sure that the forest of Marston Vale will have applied, as will others. I shall remain completely neutral, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North encouraged that application. We will launch a third new national forest competition, for the midlands or the north of England, by July 2026, so hon. Members should watch out for that. We will see millions of trees bringing peace, shade and joy to people around the country.

As we have heard, Milton Keynes has a long history of integrating trees into its living space. We must demonstrate how natural infrastructure can work alongside national infrastructure. It is very disappointing to hear about the A14 and the trees that have died. The tree-planting season is from November to February, and there is plenty of water around at the moment; we should not be planting them in the summertime.

Integrating trees into agriculture through agroforestry allows farmers to reap the many benefits that they provide, while maintaining and in some cases improving agricultural output. Our England woodland creation offer is tailored to encourage woodland creation where it is best suited, exemplifying the concept of public money for public good.

I will say a final couple of things. First, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, asked a specific question about APR and tree planting. I will write to her on that, because I would not want in any way to mislead the House. We do have the woodland creation planning grant, which makes thousands of pounds available to fund the groundwork before the first sapling goes in—the right trees in the right place.

Last month, we published the grey squirrel policy statement, saying how we will reduce the grey squirrel’s impact on red squirrels, as well as on our trees and woodland. I will just say that, for many of us, a cheeky grey squirrel—or five—is the only bit of nature we see in our garden, so I am not sure that they will be eradicated from towns and cities, but we need to ensure that we protect and create secure areas for our red squirrels to thrive.

We know that forestry supports rural economies, creates green jobs, supplies sustainable material and is important for tourism. We updated the “Timber in construction roadmap” last year, and we committed to planting, harvesting and using more sustainable timber at home. The Department for Education has a really good system for timber-framed buildings. I visited a timber frame production facility called Innovare—just outside Coventry—which told me how quickly it can get in and build these schools and extensions, which is particularly important for children with special educational needs who are very upset by things changing every day. Putting a frame up and then building from the inside out is a really good way to deal with that problem.

As a Government, we are supporting the Forestry Commission and University of Cumbria-led three-year paid forestry apprenticeship programme, with 21 apprentices graduating from this degree-level forestry apprenticeship just last November. Our investment in degree-level apprenticeships and training will boost rural employment.

Last year, Forest Research, which is part of the Forestry Commission, mapped England’s trees outside woodland by satellite and laser and made the results freely available for the first time. That showed that trees outside our woodlands make up 30% of the nation’s tree cover. I invite people to have a look, to log on and see what trees they have, and to check our satellite mapping; we always need citizen science feedback on all that.

Last year, I was honoured to open Forestry England’s newly upgraded seed processing unit in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, in Delamere forest. The building is timber made and will be net zero carbon in operation. It has been named in honour of a long-serving member of Forestry England’s seed supply team, the late Vernon Stockton. It is the largest in the UK, and it will process cones, fruit and berries from across Great Britain, carefully selected for their genetic potential, each year producing four tonnes of top-quality seed. The forests of the future are being made in the Delamere forest tree seed processing centre.

However, we must not neglect public safety. Four months ago, following a Westminster Hall debate in the wake of the tragic death of Chris Hall, I wrote to local councils reminding them of their statutory public safety obligations and highlighted the guidance available to them on how to manage trees safely.

To conclude, I commend the work of the Parks Trust in Milton Keynes, and it is great to see a Labour Government, like the one that created that great city, and the Parks Trust carrying on with the great vision of trees, woodlands, parks and gardens close to where people live. At the end of last year, the Secretary of State visited the Parks Trust and heard more about its wetland arc project, which is bringing together local volunteers for community tree planting, increasing nature and climate resilience.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North said, we face a nature crisis, but we are not out of solutions yet. Trees are one of our fastest, strongest and most dependable tools. I am pressing the Climate Change Committee and the emissions trading scheme, which is independent of Government, to include the woodland and peatland carbon codes as part of their future emissions trading scheme; they will make a decision on that at some point this year.

Tomorrow’s towns and cities must be richer in woodland, smarter in their use of wood and contain woods that are resilient, well designed and well connected. We will plant for the long term, knowing that what we plant today leaves a legacy for tomorrow. I thank everyone who came to this debate, everyone who loves trees and everyone who is out there right now, in the pouring rain, digging and planting these little sticks that will turn into something magical and powerful, creating a greener, fairer Britain.

15:57

[Chris Curtis]

I thank everyone who has contributed, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Thurrock (Jen Craft), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), as well as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson).

People like me often talk about the importance of building new homes and infrastructure in this country, and no one in Government should apologise for housing targets in places anywhere across the country—but I do not think, nor will I ever believe, that that is in conflict with improving nature. My city is proof of that. Derek Walker, the chief architect of Milton Keynes, said that for the city to be a success, it needed to be

“a forest city that would be greener than the surrounding countryside”.

He achieved that.

The reason I am so supportive of the Government’s nature strategy is that it would allow that sort of thing to happen again as it supports outcome over process. I would like to see the Department go further in ensuring that, when we enhance nature in this country, we focus on outcome and not on process, so that, for example, when we are building a railway line across this country and there is a £120 million to spend, it is spent on ensuring that we can enhance and protect forests, and not on a pointless bat tunnel that does absolutely nothing to enhance nature.

When we think about an energy strategy for the future, as was recommended by the nuclear regulatory taskforce, we acknowledge that building nuclear power stations is one of the best ways of enhancing nature in this country because it means that, within a very small geography, we can produce a great deal of energy. Anybody who cares about protecting nature should support the Department in implementing those measures in full.

I conclude by returning to the topic of trees and woodlands. They say that planting a tree is the greatest act of altruism. The time spent digging and planting is a small act, but it will shape the Earth for future generations. Consider the people who planted the 22 million trees in Milton Keynes; Fred Roach, the guy who led the development corporation, died a few years before I was born, but the city he built, the trees he planted and the green spaces he created were enjoyed by my family, especially me and my brother as we were growing up.

This Government need to show that same altruistic attitude, planting trees and forests so that this country can remain a green and pleasant land for centuries to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of woodland creation.

Rural GPs: Funding

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered GP funding in rural areas.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this important topic. Statistics show that, as of 2024, 17% of England’s population, equating to 9.6 million people, live in rural areas. For these communities, accessing healthcare can be challenging. The challenges are well known: rural GP practices serve elderly and often isolated populations, and are tasked with delivering complex care in large and often sparse geographical areas. The demands have long been accounted for in our funding formula for GPs, the Carr-Hill formula. The model was introduced in 2004 and was designed to ensure that GP funding reflected variations in workload and local population characteristics, including a measure of rurality.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Sherston in South Cotswolds is in imminent danger of losing its surgery. There is an enormous local strength of feeling, with 2,850 out of 3,000 patients signing a petition. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, people who need doctors’ surgeries by definition tend to be elderly, ill or parents with small children, so does she agree that the NHS should prioritise the provision of GP surgeries for small rural communities such as Sherston?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Lady raises a very relevant point, and I agree wholeheartedly. People in lots of areas in my constituency cannot get to a GP and are bereft of a GP surgery.

Until now, we have had a measure of rurality, but this Government have instructed the National Institute for Health and Care Research to review the funding model and examine how working-class areas could benefit under a new model based on deprivation rather than workload.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this subject to Westminster Hall. I am always glad to come along and support her, because she leads great and very pertinent debates. I am a resident of a rural area, and the pressure that my local GPs are under has to be seen to be believed: only three practices cover the whole Ards peninsula, which has a growing population. Does the right hon. Lady agree that funding must be available to give surgeries the potential to have physio rooms, nutrition advice and perhaps even pharmacies that provide first-stop medical advice? The cost of such facilities needs to be met by Government, because there will be savings in the long term.

[Esther McVey]

It is always good to have my hon. Friend—and I do call him my hon. Friend—intervene on me. He makes very good points. It is also important that a local GP chooses, and can see what their local constituents require and what is best for their health outcomes.

The move to a new model based on deprivation rather than workload is, at best, an act of ignorance that fails to acknowledge the significant challenges of running GP practices in rural areas; at worst, it represents yet another example of Labour’s assault on rural life. Measuring pressures on GPs solely through the lens of deprivation would ignore the complex, distinct demands faced by rural practices. Rural communities have older populations. In 2019, the House of Lords Rural Economy Select Committee found that the average age in rural areas was almost six years higher than in urban areas, and a quarter of the rural population were over the age of 65.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Dr Richard West MBE and Dr Daniel James, general practitioners in Woolpit in my Suffolk constituency, have been awarded the Royal College of General Practitioners East Anglia Faculty GP prize this year in recognition of sustained contribution to rural mental health and community-focused general practice. Does she agree with me that we must do all we can to look after the mental health of the rural population, particularly isolated farm workers?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member raises a very good point indeed. I congratulate his constituents. The pressure that I know the farming community is under and the impact that the family farm tax has had on the mental health of the rural community and farmers has been significant.

Life expectancy is longer in rural areas, placing greater demands on GP practices. Statistics published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggest that people born in mainly rural areas in 2018 to 2020 were expected to live two and a half years longer than people born in urban areas. Older populations place greater demands on GP surgeries, presenting with complex healthcare needs and higher levels of chronic illness and frailty. The Rural Services Network analysis shows that GP-registered patients over the age of 75 account for 11% of rural GP patients, compared with just 7.5% in urban settings.

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

My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a wonderful speech. Is she going to come on to the pressures of house building? There is huge pressure for new homes, and many of our rural areas already struggle with insufficient infrastructure. I am working with our GP in Handbridge, where their site is now too small and not fit for purpose given the larger population that the practice now has. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as pressure for more homes is put on constituencies like ours in Cheshire, it is vital that existing residents have access to GPs that are in suitable premises, fit for the numbers and the older population that often use them?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that point. She is absolutely right that the number of new homes that are going to be built in rural areas, putting more pressure on GP surgeries, is significant. Without new GP practices, I am not sure where our residents will go when they need a doctor and need to see somebody about their health.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In a similar vein to the previous intervention, one in five GP buildings predate the NHS itself, which is a quite staggering fact, and over a third of GPs say their premises are no longer fit for purpose. In places such as West Dorset, outdated buildings struggle to deal with the current population, let alone the projected future growth as a result of house building, and fewer than a third of practices that applied for capital funding last year were granted funds. Does the right hon. Member agree that GP estate funding must also be expanded to help rural areas deal with the increased population?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with the hon. Member. I will come on to my surgeries that are indeed in Victorian buildings—spread across four—and need to be brought together and modernised. That is in Knutsford in my constituency. I know that there will be many other places like that across the country. The hon. Member raises a valid and pertinent point.

We know that GP services in rural communities are spread across a large geographical area, and many elderly residents in Tatton live alone. Although such independence is cherished, travelling long distances to access healthcare is more difficult. Public transport is often limited or non-existent. Community transport schemes exist in Tatton, but they cannot always accommodate short-notice or urgent medical needs. Often, elderly residents do not drive, so they are left reliant on costly taxis or GP staff taking the time to travel to a patient’s home. That places additional pressures on already stretched services. In Lostock Gralam, despite a population of about 2,800 people, there is no GP practice. That forces patients to make a lengthy journey to Northwich, and without a direct bus service many are left to rely on taxis to make their appointment.

For those communities, recruiting and retaining staff becomes more difficult and more expensive. The Rural Services Network reports that 59% of hard-to-recruit GP speciality training posts are located in rural areas. There is less access to specialists and consultants, which makes their services more expensive. Community services and provision are sparser in rural areas, too. Pharmacies, which help to relieve pressure on GPs in urban areas, are not as common in rural areas. When I secured this debate, I was contacted by the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, which provides an essential role in dispensing medicines to patients who live more than 1.6 kilometres from a pharmacy. It delivers to about 10 million patients across England, but is facing increasing challenges due to its reliance on manual delivery.

In addition, while urban pharmacies move ahead with digital efficiency, rural pharmacies often struggle to keep pace because broadband coverage is often unreliable, rendering remote consultations near impossible and service delivery more difficult. The benefits of digitisation in healthcare are well understood across this House, but they rely entirely on having the right infrastructure in place. Without connectivity, rural practices are simply unable to access or benefit from Government investment in that area. There are lots of people from rural areas here, and we know how unreliable our broadband infrastructure is.

In 2022, the all-party parliamentary group on rural health and care published an inquiry into healthcare in rural areas. It concluded:

“Rurality and its infrastructure must be redefined to allow a better understanding of how it impinges on health outcomes”.

No progress has been made on achieving that. Removing the rurality measure of GPs’ funding entirely would be a step backwards in understanding how settings impact GPs’ ability to provide healthcare.

There is little transparency about who exactly will be consulted in the funding model review. In a written answer to a parliamentary question, the Government confirmed that the review

“will draw on a range of evidence and advice from experts,”

such as the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and the British Medical Association general practitioners committee, but there is little information beyond that. There are GPs in Tatton who are keen to contribute but, as of yet, have not been able to.

[Peter Prinsley]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed, although I am keeping an eye on the time.

[Peter Prinsley]

There is obviously a problem with funding the recruitment of additional GP partners in rural surgeries. Does the hon. Member agree that we should think carefully about how the partnership model itself might be improved?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member raises another good question, and we can ask the Minister to look into that.

The logical conclusion of not having GPs from rural areas take part in this review is that the Government do not want to listen to them. They are intent on rewriting the formula without acknowledging the realities of delivering rural healthcare. A broadbrush measure such as deprivation cannot take into consideration the very close link between the ability to deliver healthcare and the rural or urban settings in which GPs exist. It comes as little surprise. Whether selling off our family farms or introducing a devolution agenda that pits rural against urban areas, time and again the Labour Government have shown that they are not willing to listen to rural areas, but are quick to sell out rural Britain at the first chance.

As is typical, Labour’s response to pressure is to level down some areas, which serves only to create additional pressures elsewhere, rather than acting to fix them. The pressure faced by rural healthcare will not disappear soon. The NHS long-term workforce plan, published under the previous Government in 2023, recognised that the increased demand from an ageing population is not uniform in the UK. It estimated that

“In 2037, a third of people aged over 85 will be living in rural communities”

compared with just a quarter now. The Government must act to address that trend.

I have been campaigning for a new medical centre in Knutsford, as was acknowledged before, where doctors desperately need more space and modernised facilities to meet patients’ needs. The current surgeries in Knutsford do not do that; they are all Victorian buildings and are not suitable. I have been pressing for that for a long time. I have met with the Minister—I thank her for that—and I would be grateful for an update on the progress of the practice in Knutsford.

GP practices deliver community care and their ability to deliver is reliant on the environment in which they serve the patients. We must have a funding formula that acknowledges the challenges of delivering healthcare in rural areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. Who is being consulted in the review, and will it include those with first-hand experience of delivering healthcare in rural settings, like my GPs in Tatton? What assurances can be provided that rurality will remain a factor in a new funding formula? Given the specific challenges they face, will the Department commit to publishing an assessment of the impact on rural communities ahead of any change to the funding formula?

16:16

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing the debate and raising a critical issue that I know is important to many hon. Members. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who is working hard on the issue.

This Government have made primary care a pillar of NHS reform, to make the left shift and put more healthcare into the community. In our 10-year plan, we specifically highlighted our commitment to people in rural and coastal areas, because they have been left behind. As the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) highlighted, the infrastructure is appalling in many places, and some of those areas have the worst deprivation in the country. Last week, I was pleased to visit Redruth in Cornwall and talk to a GP practice about the deprivation it faces and the work it is doing. We do understand that, which is why we highlighted it in our 10-year plan.

Over the last 18 months, we have taken a number of measures to increase funding, support our workforce and improve patient access, so that we can rebuild the front door to the NHS and create a neighbourhood health service. It is important to remember that when we came into office 18 months ago, we found GP services in an appalling state: underfunded, understaffed and in crisis. First, we inherited an absurd state of affairs where patients could not book appointments, while GPs could not find work. We took immediate action to put GPs to work so that patients could get the care they need. We promised to recruit 1,000 more GPs through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, and we recruited not 1,000 or 2,000, but 3,000. In the right hon. Lady’s ICB area of Cheshire and Merseyside, there were 102 more GPs on the frontline at the end of last year compared with when we took office.

Secondly, for the first time in more than a decade, we have agreed a GP contract, which means more than £1 billion extra for general practices, bringing total spend on the contract to £13.4 billion this financial year. That is the biggest cash increase in more than a decade. Thirdly, the previous Government left GP surgeries across the country with leaky pipes, falling roofs and buckets catching rainwater. We are investing £102 million to fix GP surgeries this year, and over the next four years, we are committed to investing another £426 million on GP estates and refurbishing neighbourhood health centres. On top of that, ICBs will have £195 million every year to support strategic primary care investments, with a focus on replacing crumbling infrastructure —an issue that many Members have raised today.

I am proud to say we can now see some green shoots of recovery in primary care. According to the Office for National Statistics, patient satisfaction has gone from 60% to 73% since this Government took office. A lot has been done, but we absolutely recognise that there is a lot more to do, especially as GPs become the cornerstone of our neighbourhood health services. Over the course of this Parliament, we will train thousands more GPs. We have already made an additional 250 training places available this year, taking the total to 4,250 places, with plans to expand that further.

Let me turn to the specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Tatton, starting with Knutsford—as she said, we met about that last year. On the medical centre, East Cheshire trust is working on the outline business case, which it needs to submit to the ICB. The ICB needs to be satisfied with the submission, which would progress to a full business case, which would take some time to secure the necessary planning permissions. It also needs to look at how the clinical services work for both the general practice and the trust, and how they will be delivered, while ensuring that it is value for taxpayers’ money and lines up with the overall development that we want to see towards neighbourhood health services.

As I have said to the right hon. Lady and many hon. Members, we expect ICBs to be collaborative and to keep their local MPs up to date and in the loop regarding plans for their constituencies. That is the situation at the moment: the trust is working on the outline business case with the medical centre, which is where that conversation needs to progress.

On the main subject of the debate and the Carr-Hill formula, I must confess that I have seen this over many years in my time working as a manager in the NHS. It is a difficult issue, and one we are taking seriously, particularly when it comes to wider access in rural areas. Rural and remote areas face specific pressures, whether that is recruitment challenges, longer travel times or population fluctuations for various reasons, including tourism in some places. That is why the previous Labour Government introduced the formula in 2004, but we believe the formula is no longer fit for purpose today.

A lot has happened in those 20 years and the research underpinning the formula was done in the 2000s, which means that so-called workload coefficients were estimated on the basis of data that may reflect clinical practice, such as patterns of home visits, from as far back as the early 1990s. Clinical practice and population health have changed markedly since that time. GP practices serving more deprived areas receive 9.8% less funding on average per needs-adjusted patient than those in less deprived communities. That is despite having greater health needs and significantly higher patient-to-GP ratios.

We are asking experts to help us to design a formula that reflects patient need more accurately, working on the principle that funding for core services should be distributed equitably between patients across the country. Deprivation is a factor, but not the only one. Let me be clear, this is not about taking GPs away from urban areas or robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is about ensuring that funding is fairly distributed.

The right hon. Lady rightly said that the review is being conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The review team has already engaged with partners at the Royal College of GPs, the general practice committee of the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation, among others. Although I cannot pre-empt the review, the point is to ensure that funding is targeted towards areas that need it most. That means considering a broad range of factors relevant to the delivery of primary care services, including difficulties delivering services in rural areas, as she and others have outlined. We expect the first phase of that to conclude in March.

We will then see whether there is a need for further work to technically develop and model any proposed changes to the formula. In response to the right hon. Lady’s question, we will of course look to understand the impact of any changes to the current formula on practices across the country ahead of implementation. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg, will update the House on the progress and outcomes of the review in the normal way.

Lastly, although many hon. Members will know this, it is worth highlighting that some 40% to 50% of GP practice funding is currently not determined by this formula. The income into GP practices is based on a number of other areas as well. We will obviously develop our neighbourhood health services in future, so we need to take notice of all those factors.

I want to comment on the point that the right hon. Lady raised about analogue and digital. That is a key part of our 10-year plan. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), said last week, wherever people live in our country, they deserve the same access to healthcare as everyone else. Wealth should not determine health, nor should a postcode.

I understand the point that the right hon. Lady and others have made—it has been made to me very often—about infrastructure and access, particularly digital. However, using digital based on geography offers huge potential to fight inequalities. For example, because of the online services for GPs that we launched in October, patients can now contact GPs through online services to request an appointment or raise a non-urgent query, which is in addition to telephone and in-person requests. That is tackling the 8 am scramble that we committed to addressing when we came into power, so that patients no longer have to wait by their phone to call GPs at a time of day when many go to work or get their kids ready for school.

The right hon. Lady correctly says that rural communities largely have older populations. We want to be digital by default—and many older people are very digital—but human where it matters. That means that people in rural areas and elsewhere will still be able to use the phone if they want to, and they will not be waiting nearly as long because the other phone lines are being freed up. We are seeing real progress in that area.

When we came into government, the front door of the NHS was hanging off its hinges. In these 18 short months, we are seeing the green shoots of recovery in general practice and recovery and reform in primary care. Our plan for change is creating a neighbourhood health service that puts GPs at its heart, so that the NHS is there for everyone, wherever they need it. We know that is not going to be easy and we want to work with it to develop that. I hope that today we have set out how we are trying to get there. Yes, there is more investment, but there is also fundamental reform, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg will be happy to keep in contact with Members as we progress this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

16:24

Sitting suspended.

Supported Exempt Accommodation: Birmingham

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:27

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare my interest as a landlord.

It is fair to say that most people up and down the country will not know much, if anything, about supported exempt accommodation, but in Birmingham it is something that almost everyone has become all too familiar with. In just eight years, the number of people housed in supported exempt accommodation in our city has tripled to more than 32,000 across 11,200 properties. My Birmingham Perry Barr constituency alone hosts 20% of the city’s total units. That means thousands of vulnerable individuals placed in a small number of neighbourhoods. This is not a marginal issue for us; it is shaping daily life.

With the city containing more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else, Brummies face a completely different reality on the ground from every other community in the country. Of most immediate concern to my constituents is the antisocial behaviour, criminal activity and fly-tipping that come with a high number of these properties in such close proximity.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that this debate must not be about stigmatising vulnerable people. Many of those housed in supported accommodation are there because they have experienced trauma, addiction, serious mental health issues, abuse, time in care or even time in custody. They deserve compassion, dignity and meaningful support.

But compassion must be matched with realism. Some of the individuals placed in ordinary residential streets have needs so acute that they require intensive, structured and often 24-hour care. When someone is in such crisis that they are unable to manage basic personal safety, hygiene, or addiction issues in public spaces, that person is not being supported adequately. They are not “bad neighbours”. They are people who require structured, possibly clinical support environments—not standard terraced housing or residential streets. The same applies to certain ex-offenders, particularly those leaving custody with complex behavioural, psychological or substance misuse issues. Reintegration is vital, but it is a delicate process that needs close management and the right resources.

The issues that are being caused in my constituency are a matter not of law and order, but of care. I have had reports of individuals experiencing severe mental health breakdowns defecating in public spaces. Residents have described open drug use on streets where parents are walking their children to school. There are cases of individuals injecting themselves in broad daylight, in full view of families. For many of my constituents, everywhere they look they see visible manifestations of profound vulnerability and unmet need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

With the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon, on supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand, and he knows where I am coming from. I congratulate him on bringing forward this critical issue for vulnerable people. He will know that every constituency, wherever it may be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has immense housing pressures, and it is often the most vulnerable—the very people he is referring to—who fall through the cracks. Does he agree that every local authority and housing authority—in Birmingham or, as it may be, in Northern Ireland—must have greater access to supported living for those who could thrive with a little help? We have a duty of care, as do the Government, to ensure that everything possible can be done to change the way things currently are.

[Ayoub Khan]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. Often this comes down to adequate resourcing. As I described, we have a situation in which individuals who need intensive support are not being provided that support. They are being placed in neighbourhoods, which in itself is very challenging; someone might have an addiction to alcohol and be placed in a community where there is very little infrastructural support. It is vital not only that there is suitable accommodation but, more fundamentally, that we have the right level of support in and around particular areas. When we have large saturation without the support, the problems faced by many of my constituents and people in Birmingham more broadly are inevitable.

That brings me nicely to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which was passed to resolve some of the issues that we are facing in Birmingham. It promised to introduce compulsory national minimum standards for exempt accommodation, including on referrals, care and support, and quality of housing. It promised to grant local councils the powers and resources needed to enforce such standards, and greater control over the licensing and planning permission given to providers. Since the Act received Royal Assent, however, it has been stuck in the consultation stage, with disagreements over how to implement it on the ground. While the Act shows no sign of taking effect, the expansion of exempt accommodation in Birmingham continues unabated.

The Government seem intent on painting the situation in Birmingham as simply a local matter that is nothing of their making, and the council’s call for powers to regulate the concentration of these properties as some kind of nimbyism, and yet the city’s importing vulnerable individuals from other local authorities against the council’s will is what caused the explosion in the first place.

While supported exempt accommodation plays an important role in housing vulnerable people, the concentration and volume of provision in Birmingham far exceeds local need. This is not something that the Government have not known about; in written evidence it submitted to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in 2022, Birmingham city council confirmed that only 42% of properties were needed to meet local need, with much of the remaining 58% being used to house people referred through local authorities or national bodies outside the Birmingham area. In all too many cases, people are being put in exempt accommodation in Birmingham simply because it is available, with no afterthought for the relative level of support that tenants can be provided or for the impact on the local area. Worst of all, Birmingham city council knows that is happening, but the Government still have not given it the licensing powers to stop it.

Inaction on the Government’s part has been glaring, but I am pleased that the same cannot be said of activists in my constituency. During my time as Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, I have been encouraged by the tireless efforts of local groups to raise the issue, including the HMO Action Group, the Handsworth Triangle Action Group, the Soho Road business improvement district and Handsworth Helping Hands. I must also thank Birmingham city council and West Midlands police for mobilising in the way they have to try to tackle the crisis.

A particular bright spot has been the council’s in-house SEA pilot, which we can safely say has punched well above its weight and made Birmingham better for it. With minimal Government funding, the pilot has recovered £8.8 million in overpaid housing benefit, while also completing 2,600 antisocial behaviour investigations. That is with only 21 people covering the entire Birmingham city area. We must think of what more can be done to reduce fraud and waste in Government spending by giving the council the means to expand that operation.

The SEA pilot and groups of committed activists have done an incredible job to improve care standards for vulnerable people in supported exempt accommodation, where such action is needed, but they simply cannot fill the gap that the Government have allowed to grow. To make matters worse, rather than supporting them, the Government are refusing to fund the SEA pilot—its funding runs out next month. As a result, the bankrupt Birmingham city council has been left in an impossible position. It must either scrounge the money together to fund the initiative itself, or lose what little grip it had left on the situation.

That point is worth repeating. After depriving the council of the powers to regulate the market for three years, the Government are now refusing to give it the means to provide even a band-aid solution to a problem that they are compounding. While assurances were given that the Government would respond to the consultation as soon as possible, we have been hearing that for a long time.

This is not just about some additional antisocial behaviour taking place on the streets; it is about the vulnerable individuals who are being let down by the system, and it is about the residents who have paid the price for Government inaction and seen the character of their streets tainted. Residents feel that their neighbourhoods have been lost and, worst of all, they feel as though no one in Whitehall cares enough to solve the problem.

This is not to say that there is no place for supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham, because it plays a pivotal role. When it works well, it changes lives. I have been to neighbourhood forums in my constituency and spoken to people who have turned their lives around because of the support they receive from their registered providers—people rebuilding their lives after serving prison sentences, suffering domestic abuse, leaving care, or combating debilitating addictions or mental health conditions. But without the efficient, effective and meaningful licensing scheme for supported housing that the council was promised three years ago, Birmingham is simply unable to cope. We are asking neighbourhoods to absorb extremely high numbers of people with complex needs, but we are not providing the council with the tools required to support those individuals or reassure residents, and inevitably it is only the vulnerable individuals and the residents around them who stand to lose.

The problem of over-concentration is exacerbated by the inefficient support infrastructure that comes with it. The SEA pilot shows that when Birmingham is given tools, it delivers, but the city has more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else in the country, and yet it does not have the corresponding level of funding, enforcement capacity, clinical provision or community-safety staffing required to manage the consequences.

If someone requires 24-hour wraparound care, addiction services, psychiatric input and structured supervision, they need a properly funded care facility, not a standard residential property with light-touch oversight. We must distinguish individuals who are stabilised and ready for supported community living from those in acute crisis who require secure, high-support environments before they can safely transition into neighbourhoods.

At present, that distinction is not being properly resourced and the result is unfair on everyone. It is unfair on residents who see behaviour that is deeply distressing and feel that their concerns are dismissed, it is unfair on vulnerable individuals who are placed in environments that do not meet the scale of their needs, and it is unfair on Birmingham city council, which is expected to manage the situation without adequate funding or authority.

The council’s supported exempt accommodation pilot has demonstrated what can be achieved when resources are provided, but pilots and short-term funding are not enough. What Birmingham needs is sustained funding for community safety, including more community safety officers and a greater neighbourhood policing presence in areas with a high concentration of supported housing. I would be incredibly appreciative if the Minister could make the necessary representations to his colleagues in the Home Office on that front.

The council needs the ability to manage concentration and set boundaries on the number of people from outside the city that it must house, because no neighbourhood should be asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of highly complex placements without the consultation, infrastructure and services to match it. When it comes to managing such complex matters, having an ineffective, watered-down licensing scheme is worse than having nothing altogether, because we end up with the same outcome at a higher cost to the taxpayer.

I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on what can be done to ensure that the 2023 Act is implemented in a way that reflects the impact that exempt accommodation can have on neighbourhoods and community harmony. I would also be grateful to hear what is being done to increase the speed with which the Act is implemented, and clarification on when the Government will respond in full to the most recent consultation.

Finally, the council needs the necessary powers to ensure that vulnerable individuals receive the best care possible. That means clarifying the extent of providers’ duty of care to their tenants, with tailored and specialist plans that not only provide personal support to the individual, but outline their obligations to ensure harmony with neighbours and the local community.

To conclude, I have a couple of final questions for the Minister. What financial support do the Government intend to provide to Birmingham city council in its efforts to contain the local crisis that the Government’s prolonged inactivity has exacerbated? The SEA pilot, in particular, is of great value to my constituents, and it would be a real shame if it disappeared. Will he agree to meet with me and local groups so that they can convey to him the true scale of the impact that the oversaturation of SEAs is having on their neighbourhoods and communities?

At the end of the day, this is about vulnerable people who need structured care, communities that need reassurance, and a local authority that cannot continue to carry a national burden without national support. Birmingham is not asking to step away from its responsibilities; it is asking for the means to fulfil them properly. It is my sincere hope that the Government will escalate their efforts to deliver exactly that.

16:44

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate.

Since I was elected in 2017, issues with supported exempt accommodation have been persistent in parts of my constituency. When supported housing works, it changes lives: it helps prison leavers turn a corner, helps people get off the streets, and helps those battling addiction or mental illness rebuild their lives. But in Birmingham the system is not just being abused; it is broken. Supported housing provision in Birmingham has tripled since 2018. Today, nearly 33,000 people live in 11,200 supported exempt properties, and the cost has risen to almost £400 million—about half the entire country’s exempt spending. The council is clear that that level far exceeds local need, yet the sector continues to expand at pace.

In September 2024, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on this topic. I was very pleased to hear the ambition of the newly elected Government to finally get a grip on the wild west sector, but unfortunately progress has been slow, and we are here again. Many people who enter supported accommodation do so because they have nowhere else to turn. Public funding is there to give them safety, stability and a pathway to independent living. When it works, it saves lives and money. As the National Housing Federation reports, quality providers save the public purse approximately £3.5 billion annually by alleviating pressures on the NHS, social care services and the criminal justice system. As I have seen time and again in my constituency, however, bad actors have been allowed to exploit the system and profit from the neglect of people who are suffering.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. She is making a very important point about rogue providers. The council needs to be given the necessary regulatory powers and all loopholes need to be closed if we are to make supported accommodation effective in neighbourhoods. Does she agree that it is not simply about the money? The rogue providers who exploit vulnerable people have to be acted on very quickly.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Yes, absolutely. We are here to talk about when we can expect the regulations, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

In 2021, I worked with the council, my local police inspectors and north Edgbaston residents to shut down Saif Lodge. That example makes the case for why regulation is needed. I carried out a spot check with the police and was appalled to find 25 residents with one support worker, and no staff on site at weekends. The conditions were filthy and cramped. Prostitution, drug use and other antisocial behaviour had become routine. It was the first case in the country of an exempt property being shut down, but it took more than a year, with the matter before the courts. That really makes the case for why regulation is so important. Saif Lodge was a symptom of our system.

I want to thank many campaigners, but in particular I thank Jane Haynes at Birmingham Live and Nick Hall, a constituent of mine who wrote an excellent piece in Central Bylines for which he spoke to many residents in north Edgbaston living in exempt accommodation. He told me that one 42-year-old man said that he feared for his health and doubted that he will reach 50. Another said:

“It is safer to live in a park than in the provider’s rooms.”

Since then, West Midlands police has publicly highlighted links between the exempt sector and organised crime gangs, money laundering, fraud and drug dealing. The impact on the community is real. One constituent, a veteran who served for 36 years, recently told me that he plans to sell his home and leave the area because the property next door had suddenly been converted into exempt accommodation without any consultation. He fears that the rogue providers have no care for those they support or the local areas they set up shop in.

We cannot continue like this. In the last Parliament, I campaigned for a new regulatory system for supported exempt accommodation that would introduce minimum standards of support, update housing benefit rules to define care and supervision requirements, and give councils the power to manage local provision and act swiftly against rogue operators, yet we are still waiting for the new regulations to be introduced under the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.

In July 2025, the previous Minister for Homelessness stated that they aimed to publish the Government’s full response to the consultation on these measures after the summer recess. In response to my written parliamentary question, the current Minister for Local Government and Homelessness said on 13 January this year that the response would be published “as soon as possible”. I hope the Minister responding to the debate will update us on when we can expect to see the Government’s response to the consultation so that we can get on with bringing in these crucial regulations.

I thank the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness for visiting my constituency to see for herself the diverse accommodation available. I also welcome the steps taken by the Government and Birmingham city council to date. Birmingham city council has set up a specialist team to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime, and to improve property standards. I am grateful to the Government for extending the supported housing improvement programme with an additional £1.5 million for Birmingham. Since the team was set up, over 9,000 of the most severe hazards, such as severe mould and fire risks, have been removed. It has issued 48 community protection orders against antisocial behaviour and £8.8 million has been saved by refusing unjustified housing benefit claims.

Birmingham city council also set up its own quality standard programme, but voluntary schemes cannot replace statutory oversight. So far, only 15% of providers have successfully achieved gold, silver or bronze accreditations. The council’s actions starkly evidence the need for regulation of the sector. The Minister will be aware that the SHIP funding ends in March 2026 and the council is bridging the gap with the homelessness prevention grant. Only clear regulation will give the council the tools it needs to manage local provision effectively.

I welcome the Government’s publication this week of the statutory guidance for local supported housing strategies. The local strategy will be an important step in mapping current and future provision. Proper processes will be formulated for referrals, and housing teams will work with colleagues in health and social care to deliver a much better co-ordinated system, but we must go further.

Local authorities are still saying that without new regulations to define minimum standards of support and empower councils to crack down on exploitative providers, vulnerable people and taxpayers will continue to be ripped off. The statutory guidance is an important first step, but it will not fix the problem that my constituents are facing today unless we move at pace to bring in these regulations.

None of that is intended to dismiss the many excellent providers that deliver high-quality support every day—many of them are doing a really good job; they play a crucial role and change lives—but the sector has also attracted landlords who see vulnerable people as a source of income rather than a responsibility. Without firm oversight, those operators undermine good practice, exploit residents and damage our communities.

Everyone agrees that people fleeing abuse, leaving prison or care, or battling mental health and addiction deserve somewhere safe that they are connected to and that truly helps them rebuild their lives. Our communities deserve to feel safe and taxpayers deserve to know that their money is protecting people, not enriching those who exploit them. The stories of fear, failure and sometimes outright abuse are heartbreaking. We cannot look away any longer.

16:52

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate. Shelter is a basic human need. It is a human right. The Liberal Democrats and I believe that everyone has the right to a safe, secure and adequate home.

This issue is close to my heart. When I served as the Mayor of Woking, I supported Woking’s local homeless shelter, the York Road Project, by raising money and awareness for it. I knew at the time that I was raising money for a good cause, but the covid pandemic hit as soon as we had finished raising that money, and it was invaluable in protecting vulnerable people at one of the most vulnerable times. That project is a high-quality provider of support.

Woking’s women’s refuge, Your Sanctuary, is a high-quality provider of exempt accommodation, but I know that residents of exempt accommodation elsewhere are being let down badly, whether in Birmingham or elsewhere in the country. Those residents have effectively been denied the support they need. Meanwhile, millions of pounds of public money is wasted—or, more accurately, transferred to the bank accounts of landlords and providers who are taking advantage of the destitute. We need to sort that problem out right now. The system of exempt accommodation was described in the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s October 2022 report as a “complete mess”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s supported housing review, published in 2024, estimated that there are over 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain, with 535,400 units located in England alone. The review estimated that by 2040 between almost 1 million and 1.3 million supported housing units will be needed, considering the current demand, predicted increase, demographic trends and unmet need. The situation is spiralling out of control, and the Government need to get a grip.

There are many good providers—I have talked about some in my constituency, and I hope that all Members have similar examples—but there are awful and appalling instances where the system allows the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes. It is apparent that there is a gold rush, with money mainly being transferred from the taxpayer through housing benefit. That is a sorry state of affairs.

It has now been three years since the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was passed and received Royal Assent. Unsurprisingly, the wheels of Government have ground along at a snail’s pace. Three years have gone by, but the Act has still not been implemented due to difficulties in creating regulations. Last year, The Guardian reported:

“People are dying…and communities are being irreversibly damaged due to delays to a…law to clamp down on unregulated supported housing”.

Will the Government enable a situation in this Parliament in which we can create regulations, stem the flow of cash into what is essentially a black market, and halt those deaths?

Right now, as we debate in Westminster Hall, vulnerable people in our society—the homeless, survivors of domestic abuse, those with mental health issues and those released from prison—are subject to dangerous housing conditions with little or no support. There is a general consensus across the major political parties that the regulation contained in the Act is needed, so surely it should be implemented as soon as possible. The Government should stop dragging their feet.

The Act was meant to improve the situation when it was passed. It states that a panel should be set up and that after three years, the panel should come up with recommendations for changing planning law. That panel has not yet been convened. I have heard from constituents, local authorities and campaigners who are worried that it was forgotten about in the light of the general election. The extended timeline risks further escalation of these issues without immediate intervention.

On behalf of people affected by this issue, I urge the Minister to consider, first, convening the panel now to enable action on this issue and, secondly, accelerating the panel’s timeline for giving its recommendations. Given that there has already been a delay of over a year in setting up the panel, having it make recommendations three years after it is set up will mean that these ongoing issues will continue to affect people for too long. I urge the Minister to act.

16:58

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate.

Supported exempt accommodation plays a critical role across the country, but as we have heard, there are clear issues that need to be resolved. It provides housing to support those living independently, and crucially, it supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including care leavers, people with disabilities, those who have experienced homelessness or rough sleeping, those recovering from a drug or an alcohol addiction, individuals recently released from prison, and victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery. The nature of supported accommodation and the support that it provides mean that it is exempt from the usual caps on housing benefit. That exemption exists for a good reason. However, the sector is fragmented, regulated by multiple bodies and lacks a single, coherent regulatory framework.

For some time now, there have been serious concerns about inconsistency, poor standards, poor-quality provision in some areas and the long-term financial sustainability of the sector. More recently, the Government’s supported housing review, published in November 2024, showed that in 2023, there were 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain. More than a third of those—more than 215,000 units—were claimed through the housing benefit system. Critically, the review also highlighted a substantial shortfall. It estimated that nearly 400,000 additional supported housing units are needed right now to meet the unmet demand. Looking ahead, that figure rises dramatically, with up to 640,000 additional units required by 2040, particularly for older people.

Against that backdrop, it is deeply concerning that the sector itself has warned that it is in crisis. In April 2025, more than 170 organisations wrote to the Prime Minister to call for at least £1.6 billion a year in long-term funding for local authorities. Further warnings followed in July 2025, highlighting the risks of strengthening regulation without providing the funding to make it work. In August 2025, the Local Government Association echoed those concerns, calling for increased funding and new guidance to help councils prepare for the implementation of the new regulatory requirements.

All that sits in a wider housing context that should worry us all. The Government have set a target of delivering 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, yet their own figures show that housing supply in England fell to 208,600 net additional dwellings in the year 2024-25 —a 6% decrease on the previous year and the biggest fall in 12 years, outside the pandemic. Just over 190,600 new homes were built, which is fewer than in the final year of the previous Government and 16% below the peak of 2019-20.

Against that backdrop, let me turn to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. I welcome the fact that the Conservative Government supported the passage of the Act, which is the first to directly regulate the standard of support provided in supported accommodation in England. It received Royal Assent in June 2023, and has the potential to drive up standards, improve accountability and protect residents from poor-quality provision. However, legislation alone is not enough. The Government consulted on the implementation of the Act in the summer of 2025, and in January 2026 they said they would respond “as soon as possible”. Given the pressures facing the sector, a response cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will publish their response to the consultation and when the Act will be fully implemented?

Finally, let me put on the record the action taken by the previous Government in this area. Alongside the passage of the Act, they published a national statement of expectations for supported housing, setting out what good looks like and how local authorities should plan to meet the demand. They invested £5.4 million in enforcement pilots, including in Birmingham, and an independent evaluation showed that the pilots improved the quality of accommodation and support while preventing an estimated £6.2 million in illegitimate or unreasonable housing benefit payments. Further support was provided through updated guidance, good practice resources and £20 million from the supported housing improvement programme to help councils to drive up quality and value for money.

The challenge is clear. Regulation must be implemented properly, swiftly and with adequate funding. Supported housing is not a niche issue; it is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people and a cornerstone of our wider housing system. If we fail to get this right, the most vulnerable people will pay the price. That is why I urge the Government to act with urgency, with clarity and with the resources needed, so that the sector can thrive.

17:03

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate, and thank him for his clear and comprehensive account of the challenges of poorly managed, and in particular non-commissioned, exempt accommodation in his constituency.

I also thank other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), have championed this issue for, in some cases, many years. I remember the debates about it in the previous Parliament.

Members will have noticed that I am not the Minister responsible for supported housing. The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), is currently in the main Chamber updating the House on changes to local government finance. I will obviously do my best to respond to the various points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr and others, but I know that the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness will be happy to follow up with any Member in relation to specific issues of concern. I have no doubt that she will be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, his constituents, should that be appropriate, to discuss matters in more detail.

In general terms, let me reassure Members of two things. First, the Government take incredibly seriously the need to ensure that all individuals who benefit from supported housing live in safe and decent accommodation and get the support that they need to get back on their feet and improve their lives. As we have heard, in many cases these are very vulnerable individuals who need support if they are to get their lives back on track.

Secondly, we remain firmly committed to addressing exploitation and profiteering at the hands of rogue exempt accommodation operators. Understandably, that has been the focus of the debate. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) —and others noted, there are lots of high-quality providers out there. There is also, as the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking)—rightly argued, huge unmet need in this area. That is why, as Members will know, at the spending review the Government announced £39 billion for a new 10-year social and affordable homes programme. We want to see new supply of supported housing in England come through that new programme in greater numbers. Although we did not set any numerical targets or ringfence budgets for that programme, it has been designed with the flexibility necessary to ensure that those types of accommodation that require higher grant rates can come through the new programme in the appropriate numbers.

We are also providing wider support for the supported housing sector. We announced £159 million, through the local government finance settlement for 2026 to 2029, for support services in supported housing. We are working with targeted local areas and officials are confirming allocations with those areas in the coming days and weeks.

I recognise not only that Birmingham has significantly more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else in the country—the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr rightly said approximately 31,000 individuals are housed in around 11,000 units—but that it faces acute challenges in respect of unsafe and poor-quality supported housing. I think it was mentioned earlier, but the Local Government and Homelessness Minister recently met the leader of Birmingham council and Members representing a number of Birmingham constituencies to discuss the ongoing problems that Birmingham faces.

It is worth my saying a few general remarks about supported housing. It helps those who need extra support to live as independently as possible in the community, and that support can take many forms. Some individuals may need supported housing for a short time while they recover from a period of crisis; for others, supported housing is a home for life, helping them to live independently outside of institutional settings. The Government fully appreciate that there have been real issues in parts of the supported housing market. Over recent years, far too many residents have been placed in inappropriate accommodation or dangerous situations, with little to no support.

As we have heard today, the impact of unsafe, poor-quality supported housing on residents, their families and communities should not be understated. Increased antisocial behaviour resulting from poorly managed housing and knock-on impacts for wider services such as the NHS and the police are frequently brought to the Department’s attention. Communities in a number of areas across the country have been blighted by these problems, but we know, as I have said, that the issue is most prevalent in Birmingham. Let me be very clear: that state of affairs is intolerable. It cannot be allowed to continue, which is why the Government are taking action.

Action has been taken prior to and alongside the legislation that the previous Government supported and that we have been taking forward. The supported housing improvement programme has been in place in Birmingham since 2022, and before that the supported housing oversight pilots resulted in real improvements—I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr made that case in his speech. The multidisciplinary teams that have been established in the local authority, across housing enforcement, adult social care and housing benefit teams, have strengthened understanding and allowed targeted action to take place.

Although the programme will end in March, the lessons learned and the actions taken by Birmingham city council should now be firmly embedded. We are ending that funding as we work towards the implementation of the Act and, thereafter, local authorities will charge fees for the administration and enforcement of licensing in particular going forward. We have not cut off all funding with a view to having no replacement; there is work alongside our intentions to roll out the legislation.

Let me turn to that legislation, which has rightly been the focus of much of the debate. I remember it going through the House when I was the shadow Minister. We should commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his private Member’s Bill, which the previous Government supported, and on all his work on the wider homelessness agenda. That legislation was a response to long-standing concerns about the quality of non-exempt supported accommodation, its oversight and the value-for-money questions we have heard about today.

Despite there being many excellent supported housing providers, regulation in this area is absolutely needed. The Government are working to introduce the necessary measures to improve quality and oversight as soon as possible. I am happy to tell Members that we intend to implement the Act in stages over the coming months, and I will provide some more detail on the different elements of the Act that we intend to take forward, and the timescales. It should be said that local authorities can and should still use their existing enforcement powers to take action against poor-quality accommodation as we do so.

I am pleased to say that, this week, we have allocated £39 million in new burdens funding to local authorities, including Birmingham, to start work on their local supported housing strategies. Those strategies ask local authorities to assess their current supply of supported housing, and to estimate their unmet need and future demand. They must then set out how they will meet them. The first strategies are due to be completed by 31 March 2027, and statutory guidance to support this work was published earlier this week.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman challenged me on the advisory panel. I can assure him that it has not been forgotten about. We are moving forward with its establishment. The chair will be officially appointed imminently and the panel will be officially convened. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the panel will then advise the Government on the implementation of the Act as a whole and consider what further support the supported housing sector needs going forward. We are taking that part of the Act forward.

As has been mentioned a number of times, the Government have also consulted on our proposals for supporting housing licensing and new support standards. We did that last year, and I know that a response has been anticipated for some time. It will be published as soon as possible. I well understand the urgency that Members from across the House have expressed. We will publish the new national supported housing standards along with guidance, so that residents, providers and local authorities know the standard of support we expect.

We will consult on licensing regulations later this year, giving stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the regulations before they are debated in Parliament. This is really important, and it goes to the point about high-quality providers that several Members made. We need to ensure that we introduce the licensing scheme in a way that is both proportionate and effective, so that the expense of bearing down on the rogue providers and operators does not penalise high-quality providers. Local authorities will receive new burdens funding to establish their licensing schemes, and we will monitor the licensing schemes to ensure that they are having the intended effect.

The Government are committed to implementing the measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act and to giving local authorities the powers they need to tackle the problems evident in supported housing in Birmingham and across England. The progress that has already been made is worth noting, and we want that to continue. We want councils like Birmingham to make use of their existing powers. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston mentioned some of the progress made under SHIP in Birmingham. SHIP and the previous programme received a total of £6.5 million in funding, and that has rightly generated huge amounts of benefit: £8.8 million of housing benefit spend was prevented; the number of cases where support was deemed to be inadequate has dropped from 33%; and we are seeing the proportion of inspected properties that meet the decent homes standard rising from 44%. Progress has been made, but the regulatory framework that the Act introduces does need to be brought forward.

[Tahir Ali]

Given the delay in the Act coming into force, would the Minister consider issuing interim guidance so that local authorities can get on more swiftly with some of the changes that they have been asking for for a very, very long time?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We issued guidance earlier this week in respect of some of the provisions that are in the Act, but I will ensure that the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness has heard my hon. Friend’s call for more support and guidance in that area, alongside the implementation of other elements of the Act.

The Government and my hon. Friend the Minister are committed to working with all Members, local authorities and supported housing providers to make sure the measures have the intended effect. Aside from the note of party political debate injected into our discussions by the shadow Minister in regard to the wider housing supply, I think there is cross-party consensus about what needs to happen on this particular issue, and the need for the regulatory framework to be introduced so that we can get supported housing that is good quality, appropriate for the needs of the individuals and helps them to live as independently as possible.

17:14

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her efforts in this debate—not just her contribution today, but her work in Parliament previously. I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) for his interventions. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) is not here, but we have had lengthy conversations and it seems that she is equally concerned, as are the other parliamentarians who represent Birmingham, about the sheer saturation of exempt accommodation.

We all recognise the vulnerabilities of the individuals we all come across on a daily basis in our local shopping centres and hospitals, and the pressure on the West Midlands police when there are incidents. An enormous knock-on burden in Birmingham is being felt by local residents. Historically, many of the vulnerable individuals we now come across would not have been walking the streets. They would have been in care homes receiving the right level of care, but we do not see that now.

I thank the Lib Dem spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. As the Minister said, we are all essentially singing off the same hymn sheet. We all understand the importance of supported accommodation for those who can live with minimal support, integrate into society and contribute to local neighbourhoods. But unfortunately we are not getting that. Licensing and enabling the council to regulate the sector is so important. I hear the Minister, but I am afraid the phrase “as soon as possible” will not be well received by local residents who have to deal with the challenges on a daily basis.

I accept that consultation with providers—especially those that do amazing work to provide support for vulnerable individuals who live in local neighbourhoods—is an important part of the process, but if there is going to be a delay because of the consultation, I would like the Minister to reconsider the SEA grant that is given to Birmingham city council. If licensing kicks in, let us say towards the end of the year, or even next year—whenever that may happen—the fact is that we do not have the capacity to deal with the problems that communities currently face. Will the Minister take that point away? I can see that I have gone over my allotted time, Ms Lewell.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

17:17

Sitting adjourned.