House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
This Government remain fully committed to the zero emission vehicle transition and the ZEV mandate. In 2025, the UK had the largest electric vehicle market share of any major European economy, thanks to the certainty provided by clear Government policy and the £7.5 billion that we are investing by 2035 to support industry and drivers. The Government will review the mechanisms through which we will achieve the 2030 and 2035 phase-out dates, as planned, in the coming year.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Even the UK gigafactory commission, chaired by a former Labour Secretary of State, says that the ZEV mandate is disincentivising investment in UK motor manufacturing. We all know that U-turns are a sign of open-mindedness and strength. Can we please have another?
Heidi Alexander
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman talks about U-turns. I am sure that I should not be doing this, but I reviewed his tweets from none other than the 2019 general election, in which he was very excited about decarbonisation schemes, electric vehicle infrastructure and clean energy. Perhaps his constituents will be surprised by his flip-flopping on this issue. This Government remain committed to the ZEV transition, and it is precisely the certainty of this Government’s policy that means we will meet the transition targets. Yet again, he is showing that his party cannot be trusted with the economy and the environment.
Mr Speaker
Let me just say to the Secretary of State that if you are struggling to sleep, read a few more tweets.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. I declare an interest as chair of the electric vehicle all-party parliamentary group.
The entire UK charge point industry is united in supporting the Government’s passenger car ZEV mandate to send a signal to motorists that this Government will not follow the lead of the climate change-denying luddites in the Opposition. Does the Secretary of State agree that the ZEV mandate is proving to be a fundamental, market-shaping policy that is driving investment, expanding choice and delivering cheaper motoring?
Heidi Alexander
I do agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has expert knowledge of the charge point industry. The clarity that the ZEV mandate provides has triggered over £6 billion-worth of private sector investment in charging infrastructure, and it is one of the reasons why we have a brand-new gigafactory being built in Somerset and huge investment by Nissan in its Sunderland plant.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Last year, 9.7% of vehicles sold in the UK were Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles—a near doubling of the market share that they had the year before, which stood at 4.9%. What assessment has the Secretary of State’s Department made of the threat that this may pose to national security and to our industrial resilience, and does she share my concerns?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government take our national security duties very seriously. We are taking significant steps to support the UK car manufacturing sector, and we are also supporting consumers to make the transition to EVs, with over 44 models now available for the electric car grant that we announced last year, but we will continue to ensure that all the security issues to which he refers are front and centre of our minds.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the British buses APPG.
The previous Government’s failure to provide any certainty on the ZEV mandate was not good for British industry or the environment, and I welcome this Government’s progress. We must acknowledge that the ZEV mandate must retain a degree of flexibility, as the Secretary of State described, to enable the transition of our domestic bus manufacturing sector. Prior to the imminent publication of the 10-year bus plan, can the Minister outline what further measures the Government are considering to support the transition of our domestic bus manufacturers?
Heidi Alexander
I know that my hon. Friend takes an active interest in this issue, given the importance of bus manufacturing to his constituents in Falkirk. We are backing Britain’s bus manufacturers with long-term certainty through the 10-year zero emission bus pipeline and the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel. We have also legislated through the Bus Services Act 2025 to set a date after which no new non-zero emission buses can be used, and we will set that date in due course.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The latest Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders data reveals that EVs are losing market share. The president of Hyundai’s European arm has been quoted in The Telegraph as arguing that the ZEV mandate no longer makes sense and needs to be rethought. Without change, he said, the policy could cause manufacturers to become loss-making and prompt some to stop selling both internal combustion engine and electric cars in the United Kingdom. When will the Government understand that people just do not want EVs, and no amount of taxpayer-funded bribes to try to make them do so are going to work?
Heidi Alexander
I am afraid that is just not true. Compared with 2024, EV sales increased by nearly a quarter in 2025, and nine in 10 drivers who switch would recommend an EV thanks to ease of use and a quieter, smoother driving experience. All the evidence suggests that once people get an electric vehicle, they never look back.
Greg Smith
Ministers do not want to listen to Hyundai, so let us try Stellantis. It has announced €22.2 billion of charges as it scales back its electric vehicle production, and its CEO has stated:
“What we are announcing…is an important strategic reset of our business model...to put our customer preferences back at the centre of what we do”.
We are all sent here to represent our constituents, so why will the Government not listen to consumers, set the car market free and adopt the Conservative plan to scrap the ZEV mandate?
Heidi Alexander
To drive investment in car manufacturing, this Government must provide some certainty about the direction of travel, and there is no doubt that the future is zero emission. We are working with the industry to deliver a successful transition, which is why we made the adjustments—the new flexibilities —that I announced last April. It is also why, in conjunction with the devolved Governments, we have announced that a review of the ZEV mandate will start later this year.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Speaker, and most importantly, I wish you a very happy start to the super league season.
Northern Powerhouse Rail will be the biggest transformation in travel in the north of England in a generation. Under NPR, officials will assess options to improve Bradford to Manchester connectivity, including consideration of the Calder Valley line. I know my hon. Friend has been a great advocate for electrification, and the Rail Minister will be keen to work with him on this issue.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Plans for a disabled access lift at Todmorden station were first announced in 2019, yet six years later we are still waiting, with no lifts, no date and no accountability. When I knocked on doors at the weekend, a disabled constituent said she can get in a lift to travel only in one direction, because the promised upgrade has not come. I urge the Secretary of State to intervene, and to help me and local councillors finally to get this project delivered, so that stations in Calder Valley work for all my constituents.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his focus on accessibility, and I would be glad to engage with him further on this matter. The project to which he refers was originally remitted to Northern Trains for delivery, but the contractor was stood down from works in August 2024 due to unsafe behaviours. Network Rail has taken over delivery of the project, the funding remains available, and it is currently undertaking survey works and option selection to provide an accessible route to and between platforms. I look forward to engaging with him further on this important issue.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
My Department is working across Government and with partners, including the British Transport police and the transport industry, to ensure that everyone both feels safe and is safe when travelling. Our mainline railway is among the safest in Europe, and our recently published road safety strategy sets out our vision for a safer future for all. The Government’s freedom from violence and abuse action plan features nine transport commitments to help ensure that everyone has the confidence to travel in safety and comfort.
Andrew Rosindell
The Secretary of State is only too well aware of the dither, delay and ineptitude of the Mayor of London and Transport for London over the Gallows Corner A127-A12 junction. It should have been completed last year, but the works will apparently be going on not only until the spring of this year, but even longer. The situation is affecting people right across Havering, Essex and east London, and it is creating chaos and disruption for my constituents and those of many other hon. Members. Will she please take control and sort this matter out as fast as possible, so that it does not do any more damage to our local economy.
Heidi Alexander
I do understand the importance of that junction to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and he has previously asked me about the scheme. It is a Transport for London scheme. I would point out that the previous Government—which, before switching to a different party on the Opposition Benches, he was a part of—provided very limited funding to progress the Gallows Corner scheme, and it is only this Labour Government who have provided substantive funding to allow construction to go ahead.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
At the last minute, with spades set to go in the ground this summer and the design works within the financial envelope, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council is axing the money to improve safety and accessibility at Pokesdown railway station. I am left wondering what it is about Pokesdown, Boscombe, Southbourne and Bournemouth generally that means the Lib Dems constantly take money and opportunity away from us. I grew up caring for disabled parents, so making that station accessible means a lot to me. This decision also undermines safety and the growth sectors on which Bournemouth depends. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government will not look kindly on councils, such as BCP, that withdraw funding from key infrastructure that could unlock growth?
Heidi Alexander
I was as disappointed and, frankly, as angered as my hon. Friend when I learned of the council’s decision to withdraw funding from the Pokesdown station improvements scheme. I understand that a meeting is due to take place in the coming weeks, between the managing director of South Western Railway and the council, in an attempt to get the council to rethink its position on the scheme, which would have significant benefits for the travelling public in the way my hon. Friend has outlined.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s top priority is to reduce car practical driving test waiting times while upholding road safety standards. In November 2025, the Government announced that we will change the booking system so that only learner drivers will be able to book and manage tests, with learner drivers limited to two changes to their test. We are also introducing geographical restrictions. In addition, we are utilising military driving examiners. As of December 2025, there were 1,542 full-time equivalent driving examiners in post—the highest number since 2021.
Tracy Gilbert
A number of my constituents have been in touch to share their experience of being unable to book test appointments. These delays have an impact on training, education and employment opportunities. Will my hon. Friend outline what specific steps her Department is taking to reduce the backlog for test appointments at test centres in Scotland?
Lilian Greenwood
Like my hon. Friend, I understand the importance of learners being able to access driving tests, particularly when a driving licence is essential for accessing jobs and training. The upcoming booking system changes, continued recruitment and extra tests through overtime schemes will benefit learners across the whole of Great Britain, including those in Scotland.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is not the fundamental problem that the DVSA is a state-controlled monolith without any competition? Would it not be a good idea to privatise the DVSA and enable young people to access driving tests a lot more quickly?
Lilian Greenwood
This Government are working hard where the previous Government failed. We are working closely with the DVSA to ensure that it is able to provide the tests that are needed. Things are starting to turn around—we had record numbers of tests in December —but I acknowledge that there is much to do. We are getting on and doing it.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I appreciate the measures that the Minister has outlined, because this is a really important issue. Many of my constituents have written to me about unacceptable waiting times and mark-ups on driving test slots. One constituent depends on their licence to complete their qualifications and get a job, but cannot secure a test without paying 10 times the standard rate. What is the Minister doing to ensure that those who are continuing to charge rip-off rates for driving tests are being held accountable?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is completely unacceptable that some unscrupulous people are exploiting learner drivers. That is precisely why we are changing the booking system to block those people from using it and taking action against driving instructors who misuse their access to the system.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the measures she has outlined. In Edinburgh West this is a significant problem, and it seems to be a problem across the city. Young people, some of them graduates, cannot access driving tests, and then they cannot get jobs because they do not have a driving licence. They are facing long wait times and then sit repeated tests, which has an economic impact on them. Will the Department consider how it can support people who are facing economic impacts because of long wait times?
Lilian Greenwood
We do appreciate the impact that being unable to access a practical driving test has on young people. That is precisely why we are taking the further measures that I have described, and we are starting to see signs of improvement. Between June and December last year, the DVSA conducted 1,158,458 car practical driving tests. That is an increase of over 102,000 compared to the same period in 2024. I appreciate that people are impatient for improvement. We are working hard, and we are determined to deliver that improvement.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
When these Ministers came to power, they promised that they would act to reduce the waiting time for a driving test, and not just by a little bit; they said they would get it down to seven weeks. A year later, the waiting time is now 21.9 weeks. In fact, it has gone up by three weeks since they came into power. That is not really a sign of competence, is it?
Lilian Greenwood
I have to say, the shadow Minister has some brass neck in criticising our Government on this issue. The National Audit Office, in its December report into driving test waiting times, was very clear:
“DFT had limited involvement in helping DVSA tackle driving test waiting times up to mid-2024. Prior to 2024, DFT largely left DVSA to try and resolve the issue”.
The hon. Gentleman does not have a leg to stand on.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
This Government know that many people across the country are struggling with the cost of living. That is why we are taking historic steps to improve affordability for rail passengers, including freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, saving commuters up to £300 per year, and delivering another Great British rail sale in January, with over 1 million discounted tickets sold.
Sarah Green
A parent has been in touch with me about the rising cost of rail travel for her daughter. Despite holding a railcard, the cost of her weekly travel to college increased overnight from £27.80 to over £40. She is worried that this will affect her daughter’s ability to attend college, as she may no longer be able to travel at peak times. Can the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that increases in rail fares do not restrict access to education, and would he, for example, support the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Railways Bill, which would ensure that fare increases do not exceed inflation?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that our railways need to serve as a catalyst for young people to access the educational opportunities they need. I have already explained that we are freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, which we hope will have a benefit for constituents across the area that she represents. Ultimately, the only way that we can get fares down in the long term is to have a railway with a single guiding mind and a single point of accountability, and that is through Great British Railways.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, I had a very productive meeting with representatives of Greater Anglia about my campaigns to improve connectivity at Roydon station and improve safety at Harlow Mill station. Does the Minister agree that the move to Great British Railways and renationalisation will mean a better-connected rail service that is safer and will bring prices down for commuters?
Keir Mather
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who continues to be a determined advocate for his constituents in Harlow. GBR will allow us to rationalise the way the railway is run, think about it holistically and make sure that passenger services are run in the interests both of the passengers who use them and of the British taxpayer.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Government claim to be simplifying rail fares, but we are beginning to see what they mean by that. London North Eastern Railway is scrapping off-peak and super-off-peak tickets, doubling the price of some journeys; it says that that is in the name of simplification. c2c has cut a 40% off-peak discount, straight after nationalisation. Elsewhere, analysis by The Daily Telegraph has revealed that rail passengers are now spending 40% more on some journeys than before the general election. Does the Minister accept that removing the cheapest fares in pursuit of a political slogan is not always in the best interests of the travelling public?
Keir Mather
Better late than never, Mr Speaker. The shadow Minister is becoming exercised about rail fares now, but fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2014 under his Government, and there was an £850 million strike cost to the taxpayer. For the first time in 30 years, we are freezing rail fares so that passengers can have money back in their pocket and continue to use the railway. If the shadow Minister wants to bring down costs for passengers in the long term, the only way is to get behind our move to create Great British Railways.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents. I thank her for her efforts to push the project forward; the energy coast train line has great potential to boost the local economy. Cumberland council is rightly leading the development of proposals, and my Department will continue to work with it, and to facilitate engagement across Government.
Michelle Scrogham
People in Barrow-in-Furness have had to put up with an increasingly unreliable rail service, which is having a huge impact on lives and businesses locally. From our work together so far on the energy coast rail upgrade, the Minister is aware that we have cross-Government support, and that the technical case for the project is well advanced. Does he agree that the meeting that we have been working towards, bringing Ministers and Departments together with Cumbrian MPs, will be an important milestone as we progress this work?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend continues to be a determined champion both for the project and for the economic benefits that it could bring to her constituents. I agree that a meeting with the Rail Minister is the right way to progress the matter; I give her an assurance that that meeting will happen in short order.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Good, well-run rail services support economic growth. We are investing more than £10 billion over four years to improve the railway, as well as progressing work on major schemes such as HS2, East West Rail and the trans-Pennine route upgrade. Our reforms to establish Great British Railways will drive economic growth, improve services for passengers and reduce the cost of the railway. By providing more frequent and reliable services, Northern Powerhouse Rail will turn cities, including Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and York, and their surrounding areas into a single high-productivity growth corridor.
Grahame Morris
My east Durham constituency has long suffered from poor rail connectivity, which limits access to job, education and training opportunities, yet published evidence from the Rail Delivery Group and Oxford Economics shows that increasing rail frequency and capacity can boost productivity and attract investment. I welcome the Government’s commitment to an integrated national transport strategy and to driving regional growth, but will Ministers please do all they can to encourage Northern to improve the frequency of rail services in my east Durham constituency?
Heidi Alexander
The timetable change on the east coast main line in December last year has meant extra seats and extra services for many parts of the north-east. The new timetable, plus additional fast services on the Durham coastline, has provided faster journeys to more customers across the north, too. I know that the Rail Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how his constituents can benefit most from these changes.
Rachel Hopkins
Exciting infrastructure projects are under way in Luton South and South Bedfordshire and in the wider region, including the expansion of Luton airport, Universal Studios and the new town at Tempsford. These projects will provide thousands of construction jobs and apprenticeship opportunities for our young people. As we mark National Apprenticeship Week and accelerate support for young people in accessing high-quality jobs, what work is the Department doing to ensure that our transport network is interconnected and can support that economic growth, particularly for young people who cannot drive?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a great champion for young people in her constituency. I was pleased to sit down with her just last week to discuss the opportunities that this Labour Government are providing for people across Luton South and South Bedfordshire. We are determined to open up opportunities for young people through our investment in transport. Just this week, we laid before Parliament legislation to reduce the age at which someone can train to become a train driver from 20 to 18, meaning that young people do not have to wait around for years after finishing school and college before they can embark on a career on the railways.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State probably knows what I am going to ask. The single best thing we could do to promote economic growth in North East Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire, and particularly in Grimsby, which is one of the largest towns in England without a through-train to London, is to get our through-train to London from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, via Market Rasen and Lincoln. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have campaigned relentlessly for this. We went to see Lord Hendy, who gave us a very good interview, didn’t he?
Sir Edward Leigh
We were very encouraged. There is nothing party political about this; it is all about economic growth in an area that really needs it. I beg the Secretary of State; she just has to lift her finger and get our train. We have had a test run; it can happen now. Will she please do it?
Heidi Alexander
I wondered what the Father of the House was going to ask me. I remember him asking me a couple of months ago to name a train after Margaret Thatcher. I gave him a pretty definitive response to that. On the subject of the station in his constituency and the through-service from it, I will be sure to speak to the Rail Minister for an update on his latest conversations with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I will be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with an update.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bath’s hospitality sector depends heavily on weekend services, but Sunday services on Great Western Railway continue to be extremely unreliable, with long delays, packed trains and cancellations. The previous Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), rightly said that we should not have to rely on staff volunteering for shifts to run basic Sunday timetables, but that is exactly what is happening. What concrete steps has the Department taken towards overhauling staff contracts, so that Sunday services are guaranteed and support Bath’s local economy?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady is, of course, right that when people are stood on a platform on a Sunday, the train should turn up as reliably as it does on a Monday morning. The truth of the matter is that there is a raft of different practices across train operating companies. We have a plan to ensure that drivers and train crew are available. We will continue to work on that, specifically on the Great Western route.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the Committee published, as well as the report on the Railways Bill, a report called “Rail investment pipelines: ending boom and bust”, which includes discussion of the rolling stock that we need to run our trains. We found a pattern of boom and bust in investment decisions. No strategy means fluctuating orders, and that threatens small and medium-sized enterprise viability in the UK supply chain. When will the Government publish the promised long-term rolling stock investment strategy?
Heidi Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and her Committee for its work on the important report that it published this week. We all want to see an end to the boom and bust in our rail supply chain, which damages capacity and skills retention and does not provide value for money. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Department plans to publish its rolling stock and infrastructure strategy this summer. That will set out how Great British Railways will help smooth demand and generate a steady pipeline of work for the supply chain.
Mr Speaker
I call Mark Pritchard. I was going to call Rebecca Smith, but she is not standing.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am always the reserve; it is the story of my life. I was always on the reserve bench, but I am delighted to be called.
On a serious point, Great British Railways and the Office of Rail and Road will potentially have a conflict of interest when deciding on open access agreements, such as the application of the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway company. That will likely bring about £2.2 million of growth into Shropshire’s economy, and full, direct rail services to London every single day. Could the Secretary of State reassure all my businesses and constituents in the Wrekin that there is no conflict of interest between Great British Railways and the Office of Rail and Road when deciding these applications?
Heidi Alexander
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the proposals for reform in the Railways Bill. In future, open access decisions will be taken by Great British Railways, and applicants will have a right of appeal to the ORR. There is no conflict of interest. I can also assure him that in the past I have been as supportive, from the Department for Transport, as Network Rail has been of the open access application from Wrexham, Shropshire and the west midlands, and I will maintain my support for the proposals going forward.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Only the Labour party has a serious, sustainable plan to provide better bus services across the country, with affordable fares and lifeline services where people need them most, including in rural areas. The Government’s £3 bus fare cap is helping passengers save money on everyday journeys, which is why we have extended it until March next year. Alongside that, we have announced £3 billion in multi-year bus funding allocations, to give local authorities the flexibility to set fares below £3 where they choose to.
Rebecca Smith
Young people in my constituency, many of whom have to travel long distances from rural areas, are concerned about the cost of bus fares, especially since the increase from the Conservative £2 bus fare cap to a £3 bus fare cap under Labour. In fact, many are supportive of the Transport Committee’s recommendation that bus travel should be free until the age of 22, to enable easy access to education and work. What response does the Minister have for those young people?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member is right to raise concerns about the affordability of bus fares. Unfortunately, the previous Government talked about maintaining the cap, but allocated absolutely no funding to doing so. That is why we have introduced the £3 cap, but we are also supporting local transport authorities with bus funding, and enabling them to make decisions about how they want to use the funding, including to provide lower fares for young people.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On the doorstep, at my constituency meeting last November, and when I am out and about in Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Oughtibridge and Wharncliffe Side, time and again my constituents tell me about the urgent need to bring back the SL1 tram-train bus link, after it was cut under the Tory Government. This route must be the cornerstone of the fantastic work that our South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard is doing to bring our buses back under public control. Will the Minister work with me, South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority and Sheffield city council to reinstate and improve a tram link bus, like the SL1, as soon as possible, and to identify funding for delivering a pilot project as soon as possible?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to advocate on behalf of her constituents living in South Yorkshire. It is almost as if the Conservatives have forgotten that they oversaw 300 million miles of bus route cuts. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be happy to meet her to discuss further the plans that she is working on with the South Yorkshire Mayor.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
This Government understand the vital importance of our roads to people up and down the country each and every day, and we are backing our groundbreaking ambition with record investment. Last month, we published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, setting out our plans to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads by 65% over the next decade. We are investing £24 billion over the next four years in improving the condition of England’s roads and delivering safer and more reliable journeys.
Jacob Collier
In a recent incident at Uttoxeter’s McDonald’s roundabout, a car lost control and ploughed into the restaurant seating area. It is a miracle that no one was injured or killed. That is a collision hotspot, and the incident presents further evidence that the A50 needs to be urgently upgraded. I hope that there will be good news in RIS3—the third road investment strategy. What steps is the Minister taking to make roundabouts and roads like the A50 safer?
Lilian Greenwood
I am sorry to hear about that incident. I share my hon. Friend’s relief that no one was injured. As he knows, improvements to junctions across the A50 corridor in Staffordshire are being considered as part of the pipeline of potential future major enhancements to the strategic road network. He is undoubtedly the A50’s greatest champion, and he will not have long to wait for news, as we will say more when RIS3 is published next month.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Essex man and woman love their cars, but the A13 and the A217 in south Essex are at 99% capacity during the morning and evening peaks—they are maxed out. The proposed lower Thames crossing would help, and although Labour now says that the crossing will be 90% privately funded, it will not say by whom. For the fourth time of asking in this Chamber, which companies, banks or other financial institutions will now pay for the lower Thames crossing? Many people in Essex are beginning to believe that Labour will never, ever build it.
Lilian Greenwood
That is just not true. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined to provide the road infrastructure that the public want. That is why we are providing public funding to start that project. We will say more in the coming weeks and months.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Over 130,000 motor vehicles are now stolen every year in the UK; there has been a 75% increase in England and Wales in a decade. Much of that theft happens through the exploitation of weaknesses in remote key fobs. Does the Minister agree that this crime trend is a major risk for users of motorised vehicles on our roads, and what steps will her Department and its agencies take to improve vehicle and fob design standards and regulation, as well as driver awareness, to prevent such crimes?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member raises an important question. Of course, our Department works closely with our colleagues in the Home Office to tackle crime of that sort. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be happy to write to him about those regulations.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
In rural communities, good public transport options can make the difference to being able to access work, education and opportunities. The Bus Services Act 2025 gives local leaders real control, so that they can plan routes and timetables that work for villages and more remote areas, not just commercially viable corridors. From this year, smaller towns and rural areas will receive £2.3 billion through the local transport grant. That will give councils the certainty and flexibility to invest in better rural buses, safer roads and improved local links as they plan for the future.
Aphra Brandreth
In my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency, villages like Little Budworth have no bus services at all, and are miles from any public transport. Even where a school bus exists, families tell me that if a child misses that single service, there is simply no alternative. In villages like Milton Green, families are forced to rely on infrequent and unreliable rural buses to get children as young as 11 to school—buses that often simply do not turn up. Parents have asked me a simple question: why can they not pay for spare seats on dedicated school buses that are already running? Will the Minister work with me and local councils to deliver a more flexible, common-sense approach for rural families?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful question. As I have already acknowledged, under the previous Government, millions of bus miles were lost, particularly in rural areas. However, the Bus Services Act puts power back with local leaders, and enables franchising and enhanced partnerships of municipal operators to improve services. I am sure that the Minister for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be happy to talk to her about her proposals.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Norfolk county council received one of the largest shares of money for bus services in the country, and I am very pleased that we have been able to open new rural bus routes in my constituency, but we still do not have a proper link with train services. What more can the Government do to get buses and trains working together, so that we have a truly integrated transport system?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. There is no doubt that we need to ensure that transport systems work better together. I am sure he will be very interested in our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy, and he does not have too long to wait.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Proper investment in maintaining our roads saves drivers shelling out hundreds of pounds for pothole-related repairs and makes journeys safer and smoother for millions of people every day. That is why we are investing a record £7.3 billion over the next four years to help councils maintain roads, and it is why we have introduced a transparency system to ensure that local people can see that their councils spend this money effectively.
Clive Jones
The funding given to local authorities is woefully inadequate to maintain the roads, let alone improve them. While Department for Transport funding remains well below historical levels in real terms, local authorities such as Wokingham have also had their funding dramatically cut by the Government. How do the Government expect local authorities like Wokingham to deliver on the objectives of the new road safety strategy?
Heidi Alexander
It is sadly a fact that we have seen a decade of under-investment in our road network. This Government are putting record money into local councils —£1.6 billion this year, which is £500 million more than the year before—and we will be doubling the amount of money spent on local road maintenance over the course of this Parliament. The hon. Member raises an important point about the importance of road surface and highways maintenance to road safety, and that is why we are putting our money where our mouth is.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Despite an additional £6.7 million being provided to Reform-led Warwickshire county council, the condition of roads across North Warwickshire remains an absolute disgrace. Potholes are the No. 1 concern for many drivers in my constituency. Our high streets, rural roads and main roads are littered with potholes. Does the Minister agree that Warwickshire county council must do more with this funding and take urgent action to fix our roads before many more women are left alone, waiting for recovery on rural roads late at night?
Heidi Alexander
I see that Reform Members care so much about the state of our roads that they cannot even be bothered to turn up to Transport questions.
Mr Speaker
Just to put the record straight before I get a load of emails, Andrew Rosindell, who is a Reform Member, was here and did ask a question.
Heidi Alexander
Forgive me, Mr Speaker—they change so much at the moment that I have lost track.
The facts speak for themselves when it comes to Reform. Of the 13 local authorities that were rated red last month for their action on fixing local roads, three were Reform-led councils. That is a quarter of all councils that are run by Reform failing to get the basics right. By contrast, Labour councils came out top.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Rail performance is improving following a decade of decline. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus to recover performance to acceptable levels. Those include timetable resilience, staffing and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events.
Brian Mathew
I thank the Minister for his answer. Network Rail’s Wiltshire strategic study identifies a clear strategic and economic case for upgrading the railway through Melksham, with a new passing loop unlocking capacity for an hourly passenger service, increased freight movements and improved network resilience when other lines are closed. The study also highlights how the proposed gateway station would deliver economic growth for Devizes and boost connectivity for towns and villages along the Kennet valley. Does the Minister—
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us has to sit down, and it is not going to be me. The question is too long. I have all your colleagues to get in—they are going to be upset. I am sure the Minister has a good idea of what the question was.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his important question. I am aware of both the Bath and Wiltshire metro scheme and the Devizes gateway project. While there are currently no specific plans to deliver on those aspirations, we would encourage both him and local stakeholders, including local authorities, Great Western Rail and Network Rail to continue to work together to develop those plans, including sourcing funding opportunities. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will play his part as they do so.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are overjoyed that this Government are investing in the midlands rail hub project, but they are eager for more. Will the departmental team look again at the south Staffordshire line, which would reconnect Lichfield to Burton via Alrewas, and the potential merits of a station to serve the National Memorial Arboretum?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend continues to robustly defend the interests of his constituents to have the rail services that they deserve. If he writes to me with the detail of those proposals, I will ensure that the Rail Minister gives him a fulsome response.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Department launched the review of the airports national policy statement in October 2025, and selected a single scheme to inform that review in November. We are reviewing the ANPS swiftly but thoroughly, and we intend to consult on any revisions by the summer.
Munira Wilson
The Environmental Audit Committee recently found
“that the Government is proceeding without the necessary evidence base to sufficiently underpin its economic arguments for airport expansion.”
Now senior figures in the airline industry are warning about serious economic consequences of the unaffordable, eye-watering costs that will be passed on to their passengers. Will the Minister now admit that the maths for Heathrow expansion simply does not add up, and that the project is about saving the Chancellor’s economic credibility when her other policies are undermining growth?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady asks about the case for Heathrow expansion and collecting the data in reference to that. The ANPS review will do exactly that, reflecting changes in legislation, policy and analysis since the current ANPS was designated in 2018. It will ensure that any proposed scheme for expansion at Heathrow will be consistent with air quality obligations and will contribute to economic growth across the entirety of the United Kingdom.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
This Government are ushering in a new era for our railways, with landmark legislation to set up Great British Railways making good progress in this place. Eight train operators are now run by the public for the public, with West Midlands Railway and London Northwestern Railway services nationalised at the end of January. I am pleased to say that performance is improving. Today, rail services lost due to cancellations and strikes have more than halved compared with the heights of industrial action under the Conservatives.
Finally, last month we made a vital commitment to improving rail connectivity across the north of England. After years of being stuck in the mud under previous Governments, we will deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, investing up to £45 billion to create a turn-up-and-go railway from Liverpool to York, with NPR services continuing on to Newcastle and Hull. No longer will the north have to endure second-rate services. Instead, we will build a railway that the whole of Britain can rely on and be proud of.
Kirsteen Sullivan
The airspace modernisation strategy will rationalise flightpaths last redrawn in the 1950s to cut emissions and noise. However, the community in the historical village of Blackness, in my constituency, are concerned that the opposite will happen with the plans for Edinburgh airport airspace, and that their tranquil village will bear the brunt of the disruption. Will the Minister meet my constituents to discuss their concerns at the earliest opportunity?
Heidi Alexander
I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns, as I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue for many people. Airspace modernisation will provide huge benefits for air passengers, businesses and the UK economy, and the move to more efficient flight paths will be done in such a way as to ensure that any impacts on local communities are properly managed.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Passengers want safe and reliable journeys, and those who work on our public transport system deserve to be safe at work, especially when they do the right thing in difficult circumstances. However, bus driver Mark Hehir, who was praised by the police for stopping a thief, was sacked. I have met Mark and the lady he saved from a robbery, but has the Secretary of State or anyone from the Department met him? Indeed, has anybody from the Department made representations on his behalf?
More broadly, passengers deserve to feel safe on our railways. What are the most recent British Transport police figures?
Heidi Alexander
I am aware of that case from media reports. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a matter for the employer, Metroline. I understand that the case was taken to an employment tribunal where the employer’s decision was upheld. I am not aware of the full details and I will not be drawn further on the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about British Transport police numbers. The number of officers is in the region of 2,800.
Mr Holden
Nobody from the Department for Transport has reached out to a heroic bus driver, and the Secretary of State is clearly not really paying attention to officer numbers either, because they are down by 112. Ironically, that is the same number of unpaid tickets racked up by fare dodger Charles Brohiri, stealing £48,000 from passengers and taxpayers. He did not even receive a custodial sentence. I ask the Secretary of State again whether her Department has made any representations about the leniency of that sentence, or whether she is comfortable with a two-tier justice system in which bus drivers who defend their passengers lose their jobs and fare dodgers walk free.
Heidi Alexander
Can I gently suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he listens to the answers that I give? He claims that I am not across the details of the BTP numbers, but I can tell him that there has been a slight decrease from 2,910 to 2,852 full-time equivalents in the last year. I can also tell him that BTP has recently been given a 15% increase to its budget, worth £63 million over the three-year settlement. That will see over 200 more police officers recruited, including for a dedicated capability to tackle violence and intimidation against women and girls.
The right hon. Gentleman will know—or should know—that sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary in this country. It is right that the operator took legal action in the case that he mentions, as persistent and prolific fare dodging not only undermines revenues for the railway, but is unfair for other passengers.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
We published the motor insurance taskforce report in December, highlighting the actions being taken to tackle claims costs and, ultimately, to help reduce motorists’ premiums. We are also consulting on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, which may help to reduce premiums if the number of collisions involving young and novice drivers falls.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Government have big ambitions for active travel, but their targets in the third cycling and walking investment strategy are neither bold nor measurable. Over 40 organisations, including some Labour mayoral authorities, have called for a target of 50% of short urban journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030, as well as planning for a national active travel network. What does the Secretary of State say in response?
Lilian Greenwood
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we consulted on the third cycling and walking investment strategy. That consultation closed in December and we are carefully considering all the representations that have been made. We will publish the final strategy in the spring.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Heidi Alexander
I am pleased that the expansion of Lumo services from Cumbernauld to London will soon benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents. The Department’s position on open access is clear: there will be a place for it in the reformed rail sector where it adds value. Great British Railways will oversee a rail network that delivers better services for passengers, and we know that there is a role for open access in supporting that aim.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
That is precisely why we have established an accountability and transparency framework for local authorities, under which they need to report to us the amount of proactive resurfacing they are doing, which can obviously represent better value for money for the taxpayer. I know that people want to see contractors getting it right first time, and the Government are determined to work with local authorities to make sure that is the case.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not need advice from the Opposition Benches that somebody is reading. Members should not just pick on one side—it is happening on both sides of the House. I do not like reading, but I expect the House to be tolerant on both sides. I am sure Opposition Members will also shout when they see someone on their own side doing it—not!
Heidi Alexander
I recognise that for local people, road closures can be one of the most disruptive aspects of major projects. I know that HS2 works very closely with highways authorities to minimise the impacts. Doing the essential work on the A38 in a single 11-day closure will avoid around six months of repeated full-weekend closures.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
I appreciate that certain roads and certain parts of the country face different challenges due to their geology. I will certainly raise the hon. Member’s point with the Roads Minister, and we will come back to him.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Network Rail has rightly apologised for its failure to deliver a functional Sunderland station following refurbishment. We now have the bare basics in place, and plans for improvement. Will the Secretary of State join me in asking Northern Rail to get on with delivering those improvements, and will she arrange a meeting for me with the Rail Minister to discuss that?
Heidi Alexander
I am happy to arrange that meeting. Like my hon. Friend, I want Sunderland station to be at the heart of a vibrant community, and I pay tribute to him for his campaigning on the issue. I do expect Northern to work closely with him, businesses and the local community to further improve the station, and I look forward to that meeting taking place with the Rail Minister to discuss what more we can do.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Member may wish to tell his residents about the Government’s determination to tackle these issues. For example, we have doubled the fines that local authorities can charge utility companies when works overrun. I recognise how disruptive these works are for local communities, and it is an issue that the Government take very seriously.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The last Government cut bus services in my community by half, so I am glad that this Government are putting more money into my local community, but we do need more bus services, particularly in rural areas. Will the Minister set out how we are going to improve local bus services, particularly with franchising, in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We are working closely with local authorities interested in franchising to identify models that work and to offer them tailored support. We are funding bus franchising pilots that will test the viability of up to five different models and investigate how they can be used to deliver improved bus services for passengers, particularly in more rural locations.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are already on this issue across the wider south-east. We are expanding the pay-as-you-go system with tap-in, tap-out technology, and further stations are due to come online. I am happy to talk about a further tranche beyond that, but we need to crack on with the ones that are already in the pipeline.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I will keep it short and sweet, Mr Speaker. Weymouth train station does not have a working toilet, which means that wheelchair users, passengers with heavy luggage and parents with a pram are left having to go 20 minutes to get to the nearest toilet. Will the Secretary of State work constructively with South Western Railway to finally get a working toilet at Weymouth train station?
Heidi Alexander
I understand that the public toilets in Weymouth station have been closed for several years, due to antisocial behaviour and vandalism. That is unacceptable, and I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department will raise it with South Western Railway.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. I have been in contact with the DVLA about this matter; it is putting new systems in place to ensure that it is doing everything that it can, as standard, to process these cases as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I have been keen to ensure that there is an escalation mechanism. I am pleased to hear that her constituents have got a quicker response after they have contacted her, but that should not have to be the case or the norm.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches know that effective bus services are key to economic growth. Unfortunately, when Staffordshire county council was run by the Conservatives, it sought to cut bus services in my county by 41%. One of those was a direct service from the train station to Staffordshire technology park. Does the Minister agree that investing in our bus services is key to growing our towns economically?
Lilian Greenwood
Yes—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are giving local authorities the powers and funding, and we expect local authorities to use them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a recent visit to St Richard’s Catholic college in my constituency, students told me that they face paying an astonishing extra £400 a year in bus fares. How can the Minister justify to those students and others in my constituency the cutting of our bus service funding by £2.5 million?
Lilian Greenwood
I do not know the detail of the position in the hon. Member’s constituency, but I will ensure that the Minister responsible for bus services writes to him in relation to that issue.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
This Government have already invested millions in the future of Cornish industries but they are held back by poor transport links. Our rail link is struggling, and our airport is fragile. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she is committed to transport improvement in Cornwall through Devon?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I am due to meet her and colleagues soon to discuss the resilience of the rail network, among other matters. I appreciate that a well-functioning, high-quality public transport system is absolutely essential to getting the economy firing on all cylinders.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the Northern Powerhouse Rail announcement and I am sure that it will not have evaded your attention, Mr Speaker, as it did not evade mine, that there was not a single penny for anywhere in the whole of Lancashire in that announcement. Can the Secretary of State update me on whether she has made any progress in identifying a funding pot or stream from which the south Fylde passing loop could be financed?
Heidi Alexander
Improving connections between the great cities of the north of England—making those connections into Liverpool and Manchester better—will have a knock-on impact on the whole region. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about the south Fylde line, in particular, I will come back to him.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The 29 bus route in Glasgow is being cut without consultation, and local people have signed my petition so that people in Mansewood and Hillpark are not left potentially cut off. Will the Minister join me in calling on the Scottish Government and Glasgow city council to do everything they can to protect that route?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Hard-working men and women in the coastguard, such as Bembridge resident Martin Groom, do vital work securing our borders, including, in some cases, intercepting small boats. The coastguard treats them as volunteers, but the Court of Appeal has disagreed and said that they are workers. Will the Government do the right thing and afford them all the rights, protections and fair payment that their worker status entails? The security of our nation relies on them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government are currently considering the judgment handed down in the Groom case and the next steps that we will take with His Majesty’s Coastguard. In the meantime, we are grateful for the contribution of volunteers across wider society. They are a crucial part of how this country comes together and delivers for the common good.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Last month, my Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley issued a press release stating that DFT data showed that it has the seventh best roads in England. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the data shows that it has an amber rating and does not say that it has the seventh best roads in England?
Heidi Alexander
I am very happy to clarify that that is a disingenuous claim, at best, from Conservative-controlled Bexley council. The Government did not publish a ranked list of authorities, but it is clear that, of the many councils that achieved a green rating overall, Bexley was not one—it was ranked amber.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister has referred to a local transport grant that is of course not available to the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, because it is not deemed to be a local transport authority. Attending medical appointments for my constituents from off-islands on a day like today would cost them £120 return. The Secretary of State has said that she is meeting fellow Members from Cornwall. Will she ensure that that meeting is on a cross-party basis, so that I can raise the serious transport problems on the Isles of Scilly?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is right to raise the transportation issues on the Isles of Scilly and in his constituency more widely—I would be very grateful if he wrote to the Secretary of State on that matter. I understand that the Rail Minister will be meeting the leader of the council of the Isles of Scilly to discuss further some of the issues that the hon. Member is campaigning on.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026, including on progress made, timescales for compliance and the Government’s approach to any material it proposes to withhold or delay.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.
My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas where we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.
In that statement, my right hon. Friend also set out how the Government are responding to the Humble Address motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can. As such, Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.
In line with the motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the Committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that process happens, and we will work with the Committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.
The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made clear that the
“process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for…parliament.”
That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.
In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously, and given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a written ministerial statement later today.
Mr Speaker
Now that you have brought me into it, I will just say that the Intelligence and Security Committee is private and independent, and therefore I would not like to see that it was blocked from information. It would not affect any police investigation, because that information would not go into the public arena. I just want the House to be aware of that.
I also thank the Minister for coming to the House. To me, on something as important as this a written ministerial statement is not good enough; I think it should have been brought to the House. All sides are interested in it, and it is right that this House should be informed, so I really am pleased. I am sorry that the Minister has got the short straw, but I thank him for being here.
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker— I could not have put it better myself.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way. For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote.
Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required?
I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so?
Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done?
Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld?
Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this.
Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week?
Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.
Chris Ward
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Let me try to rattle through those questions. First, and most importantly, we will comply fully. I made that clear in the House. The Government accept the principle and the content of the motion, and we will comply fully with it. A large amount of material—this touches on the scoping question—is potentially in play here, and it goes much broader than other Humble Addresses. That is not a criticism; it is just a factual observation about how long it will take to get through the material. The scoping has begun, and the Cabinet Office is working through that. I will update the House as soon as I can with more. We hope to publish the first tranche when the House comes back from recess. As I say, the scoping is being worked through. The conversations with the Metropolitan police have, as Mr Speaker pointed out, the primacy of this place at heart, but we also, as the House would expect, do not want to prejudice an ongoing police investigation. We are just working our way through that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Cabinet Secretary. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary—
Chris Ward
Thankfully, I am no longer an adviser. I am a Cabinet Office Minister, and it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary. Let me reassure the House that the Cabinet Office is working hard and diligently on this. That process is ongoing. Any speculation around the Cabinet Secretary does not affect the process.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Palantir, and I committed to write to him. I have spoken to officials about that, and I promise we will get that to him. There was an urgent question on this matter, which I think the Ministry of Defence responded to, and which provided an update, but I promise I will come back to him on that.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman touched on Lord Doyle. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address and outside the scope of the papers, so the urgent question does not touch on that.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Parliament is rightly focusing its attention on Peter Mandelson, but along with accusations of other heinous crimes, Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor passed extremely sensitive material on to Epstein and his accomplices during his time as trade envoy to Singapore, Vietnam, China and Hong Kong in 2010. Is it not time that, as well as Peter Mandelson, we call on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to answer to both the police and to Parliament?
Chris Ward
Everyone in this House has been sickened and dismayed by the revelations from all the Epstein papers that have come through and in relation to what my hon. Friend just said. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address, and it is a matter for the Palace to respond to.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The events of recent weeks have substantially diminished people’s faith in politics, when it was already at an all- time low. It has confirmed the worst of people’s suspicions about how everything works and punctured the optimism of those who believed in better. At the centre of all this are the victims, and their bravery is twofold: first, by retelling their trauma, and secondly, by taking on the world’s most powerful men and all those who aided and legitimised them.
The Humble Address passed by this place stands as a test of transparency and a test of parliamentary authority. People demand answers, and they deserve them swiftly. They will not stand for endless consultation, reviews and deliberation. Can the Government therefore confirm when they will bring forward legislation so that Peter Mandelson’s peerage can be revoked? What is their deadline for releasing the necessary files? Who in the Government will be held responsible if that deadline is not met?
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that victims should remain at the heart of this. In answer to his question on the legislation to strip Lord Mandelson of his peerage and on broader reform of the House of Lords process for removal, that will come forward as soon as possible. It will be in Government time, as I committed to last week, and we will bring that forward after the recess. It is obviously a Cabinet Office matter, so the Cabinet Office is accountable, but obviously the Prime Minister is accountable for this as well. As I say, we will comply fully with the motion, and we will publish material as soon as we can.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Just over a week or so ago, I expressed my horror at what had passed and was shocked that we could not remove a peerage from someone who had brought the other place into disrepute, so I am very pleased to see how swiftly the Government moved on bringing in legislation to do so. Does the Minister agree that full compliance with regard to providing transparency of records as soon as possible is vital to ensure that we rebuild trust in politics and politicians?
Chris Ward
Yes, I absolutely do. As I say, we will comply fully and as quickly as possible. I completely accept my hon. Friend’s point about the removal process for the other place, and it is inexplicable that that is still the case. The sooner we can update that, the better.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concern about the revelations relating to the connection between Mandelson and the Chinese motor manufacturer BYD, which now says that the United Kingdom is the largest destination for its electric vehicles? Is he preventing the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero from disclosing the conversations that he had when he visited China last year and signed agreements that remain secret as far as this House is concerned?
Chris Ward
There is no part of the revelations about Lord Mandelson that I am not dismayed and appalled at. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I am afraid I am not across the detail. That is one for the Secretary of State’s team to reply to.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
There continues to be significant public interest in the Government’s £240 million contract with Palantir Technologies. Could the Minister confirm whether any Government Ministers were present at the Palantir celebration party yesterday? If so, who? Can he commit to ensuring that all materials and records relating to this contract award decision are published?
Chris Ward
The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question is that I have no idea. On the second part of her question, and as I have promised the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) twice, we will give a full written reply about the Palantir contract, which concerns the Cabinet Office, as soon as possible.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Public confidence in this process is absolutely vital. Although the Intelligence and Security Committee is fiercely independent, is it not a matter of fact that it is dominated by Labour peers and Labour MPs, and that the Chair is appointed by a Labour Prime Minister? On a point of detail on the Cabinet Office involvement, how will this inquiry avoid a conflict of interests between the Cabinet Office employees who staff the ISC and the Cabinet Office itself? On the legal advice from the Cabinet Office, would that not conflict with the Cabinet’s legal advisers to the ISC? Is it not the case that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have its own budget to recruit its own independent legal advisers, separate from the Cabinet Office?
Chris Ward
As I said in the House last week in response to a question from the former Attorney General, full resourcing will be given to the ISC to do that. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about how we work that through between the two teams. That is being worked out with the ISC and the Cabinet Office at the moment, and I am confident that it can be resolved. He pointed to the political composition of the ISC. I think it is fair to say that no Members of this House would want to imply that the ISC is not impartial, responsible and entirely qualified to do this. It was important that the ISC was included in last week’s motion, and it is important to have that on the record.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Prime Minister has recognised that he must do more to strengthen standards in public life, including by enhancing vetting for political appointments and providing a broader review of the lobbying system. Would the Minister care to explain a bit more about how the Government are planning to address the lobbying of MPs and public officials?
Chris Ward
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set that out to the House on Monday, and we will come forward with further detail soon. This is an important part of restoring trust, and it cannot just be about reacting to the specifics of the Mandelson revelations. There needs to be much broader consideration of lobbying and the transparency of our politics. This should not be a political point, because it is about all Governments and all parties at different times, but our politics is at a low point of public trust at the moment, and we need to rebuild it.
Chris Ward
To be honest, if I was the hon. Member, I would not be shouting that—not after the last 14 years.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Obese-Jecty, I do not need to hear these side comments, which are now coming from you more often. You are now a Front Bencher, and more restraint is required. I expect so much better of you as an ex-military officer and a gallant Member.
Chris Ward
To conclude my answer, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out the specifics on Monday. We will come forward with further details, and we will tighten transparency regulations as well.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
First, I should say that, although I enormously respect the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I disagree with him about the independence of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is very much a Committee of Parliament, and it is independent as such.
The ISC is awaiting receipt of papers from the Government, and it has requested that those relating to the vetting and appointment of Lord Mandelson are prioritised for release to it. Can the Minister confirm that they will be prioritised, and can he give an early indication of the number of documents expected to be passed to the Committee, so it can determine its resource requirements for undertaking this task?
Chris Ward
As I say, scoping is under way. I cannot give a precise number at the moment, because there may be a large amount of information covering a long period of time. I am afraid that I cannot give a date, but the Cabinet Office is working closely with the ISC to deliver the information as quickly as possible, and to do so in the right order of priorities.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned strengthening the process for direct ministerial appointments. Could he say a little more about that and how quickly he believes those strengthened processes will be put in place?
Chris Ward
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set this out on Monday. We are looking at the enhanced security vetting that comes in when there is a direct appointment. The Prime Minister and his Chief Secretary have set out the plans to reform that, and—I may be corrected if I am wrong—if they have not already come in, they will be coming in very quickly. The reform will come in as soon as possible, so we can tighten this up.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Earlier this week, the Health Secretary released the WhatsApp messages and emails that he had exchanged with Lord Mandelson. Can the Minister update the House on what instruction has been given to Cabinet Ministers to follow—or not follow—the initiative by the Health Secretary?
Chris Ward
The Prime Minister has made it very clear that there needs to be a managed process that the Cabinet and Ministers agree with. Such information will be published in the right fashion, and it is important that there is a proper process. We need to agree across the Cabinet and Ministers how that will happen, and that is what is going to happen.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Too often when women in particular raise concerns or sound the alarm about concerning behaviour, their concerns are dismissed or go unheard. Can the Minister set out what further actions this Government will take to ensure that victims and survivors of sexual abuse are heard by those in power?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a broader problem in our politics than the specific issue that Mandelson highlights. The Prime Minister made it clear on Monday and at the Dispatch Box yesterday that this needs to change and that he will drive through that cultural change. I would also point to the very wide-ranging and groundbreaking violence against women and girls strategy that this Government have published. Having worked with the Prime Minister as long as I have, I know he cares passionately about it and is determined to drive it through.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Can the Minister confirm that, in relation to the legislation for the removal of peers, Matthew Doyle will be on the first list to be removed, given that he should not have been appointed in the first place? Can he also confirm the position on disappearing or deleted WhatsApp messages, and whether they can technically be retrieved from the system to be given to the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Chris Ward
As I say, the Government are looking at legislation that addresses the broader question of how to remove people from the Lords; it will be broad legislation, rather than just for specific cases. The sooner it comes to the House and we can consider it, the better. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point in his second question—I am afraid I really do not know the answer. I imagine it is a question that a lot of people are considering; I will come back to him on it.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
There have been plenty of times when the standards of behaviour of holders of political office at all levels have fallen below what is acceptable. None of us has the moral high ground on this, as every party has had issues—some dealt with quietly and some in the court reports. While my question is to the Minister, I want us all to reflect on it. How do we work collectively to make this better to ensure that no woman and no victim is left unsupported? How do we collectively make a change?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly powerfully. It is one that we have lost somewhat in the discussion about technicalities around the process, but it is the central point that we should be trying to address. As I say, the Prime Minister has committed to driving through change and ensuring that this Government reflect that. We are bringing forward the groundbreaking, long-overdue violence against women and girls strategy, but there needs to be much broader cultural change as well.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that the Cabinet Secretary’s integrity should not be questioned and then immediately briefed out that he was going to be sacked, having given him the responsibility of overseeing the handing over of documents that could be detrimental to a Prime Minister so desperate to save his political life that he has already thrown his closest advisers—communications and chief of staff—under a bus. How can we know that there is no link between the very integrity the Prime Minister highlighted and the desire to remove the Cabinet Secretary from a role in which he might be at risk of removing this Prime Minister?
Chris Ward
As I said, I am not going to comment on the Cabinet Secretary—it is not appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to do so. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the process is under way in the Cabinet Office and that it is unaffected by other matters.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; I also thank the Minister for his responses, because this is an important issue that people in my constituency and across the country are obviously very interested in. Can he assure my constituents that this process will be fully transparent? I also wish to add my support to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke about the importance of people in power listening to the victims of these terrible crimes.
Chris Ward
Yes, absolutely; as I say, we will be fully transparent and comply fully with the motion, and we will do so as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend’s second point is the central point to which we need to return throughout this debate and going forward.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his assurances today that these reports and publications will come forward as soon as possible. As I am sure he can pick up from the tenor of the House, many of us are concerned about public confidence in this place—in us—being undermined. Every day that we do not have the reports, there is more speculation and more doubt is heaped on all of us and on the Government. The Government need to be stronger. Will the Minister commit to keeping us up to date regularly and to giving us a date, as soon as he can, for when the public can expect to see these papers published?
Chris Ward
Yes, I agree. As I have said, we expect to be able to start publishing this material as soon as possible after the recess. We will do that as quickly as we can. The hon. Lady’s broader point about public confidence is essential. It is why I tried to emphasise in the debate last week—as heated as it occasionally got—that we want to comply, and to get to the bottom of this. There is no one on the Government Benches who does not want to get to the bottom of the lies that Mandelson told and the problems that led to. It is about broader public confidence and trust. We need to demonstrate that this House is not reflected by the acts of Mandelson et al., and that this House is instead about doing public good and public service. The publication of the material is an important part of getting to that.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The motion passed by the House requires the Government to provide details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson. There are no national security or international relations issue in doing so. Will the Minister tell the House now how much money Mandelson got and what the Government are doing to get it back?
Chris Ward
I think the hon. Member is referring to severance pay. I think the Foreign Office is providing an update on that. I am afraid it is not a question that I can provide an answer to.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
In September last year, we had an emergency debate at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on the sacking of Peter Mandelson. I said at the time that the Government should be turning Lord Mandelson inside out, because someone had politically fatal compromising material on him during his whole time as ambassador. The Government simply said, “Well he’s been sacked.” Do the Government regret not carrying out that due diligence in September last year and instead waiting for more compromising information to drop?
Chris Ward
I think it is safe to say that there are a number of things that we regret around this issue. As I have said, the key point is that we will comply with the Humble Address fully, transparently and as quickly as possible.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Public confidence is so important, and the ministerial code requires that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, uphold the highest possible standards of propriety. Given that the evidence clearly shows what the Prime Minister knew, the appointment of Mandelson did not meet those standards. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister will refer himself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards?
Chris Ward
The Prime Minister has strengthened the powers of the independent adviser—and rightly so. The independent adviser now has a more central role in compliance with standards. But I am afraid that the question does not quite relate to what is in the Humble Address.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
As a former journalist, I know that the fourth estate do not always get things right, but they are not in the habit of making things up. What, then, are we to make of reports from Dan Hodges in the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday that the Prime Minister is making a last-ditch attempt to limit the amount of documentation that is released under our Humble Address? There is no smoke without fire, Mr Speaker.
Chris Ward
I really wouldn’t believe everything you read in the press. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: the Government are complying fully and transparently, and are working very hard to so do. Any reports to the contrary are just not right.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The issues surrounding Lord Mandelson and Lord Doyle and their proximity to paedophiles are now intertwined. On 2 January 2026, I tabled a written question, asking the Cabinet Office to publish the findings of the internal investigation that took place prior to the granting of the peerage for Lord Doyle. That investigation was carried out by former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, but also by his deputy Jill Cuthbertson, who is now interim chief of staff. An investigation is currently under way, but there has already been an investigation. Given that this issue has already been investigated, will the Government commit to publishing the findings of that investigation?
Chris Ward
The Prime Minister gave his answer on that yesterday, and No. 10 has provided further information on it, but that question does not relate to the Humble Address.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister is well regarded on both sides of the House, so I am hoping that he will give us a clear and honest answer to this question—I am sure he will do. In his long years working for the Prime Minister—as adviser, staffer and latterly as a Minister—did he voice any concerns in private post the vetting process on the appointment of Lord Mandelson?
Chris Ward
I was not involved in that matter at all, so the answer simply is no.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the WhatsApps, the Minister seemed to suggest that it was not an orderly process. First, is there to be any reprimand for the Health Secretary? Secondly, will the WhatsApps between all Ministers and Peter Mandelson be released, because the Humble Address referred specifically to electronic communications?
Chris Ward
I would never want to imply that it was not an orderly process, so let me correct myself there. The point that I was making is that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office—all of the above—have made it clear that Ministers need to abide by the process that we are carrying out. That will be done collectively. The scope is set out by the Humble Address, and the breadth is being identified—
Chris Ward
Electronic communications are covered within the Humble Address, so that will be looked at by the Cabinet Office, in terms of the breadth and scope.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister said that he and the Government want to comply fully, transparently and as quickly as possible with the Humble Address. I think we can all agree that is exactly what they should be doing, but when things will be released is a vital question. The documents should be released as quickly as possible, as he says, but so far we have had no information except that it will happen when the time is right, effectively. Is that because the Minister does not know, or because he does not want to say? If he does not know, can he give us an example or an expectation of the timescale? If he does not want to say, can he tell us why not?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to incredibly difficult questions. Procedure is very important in this place—indeed, it is why democracy still reigns. You, Mr Speaker, have epitomised the right way to do it; I think the House recognises the standards that you set for us and everyone in this House. The general public have a huge interest in the issue and have been led to expect that detail is forthcoming, so will the Minister ensure that the Government hold themselves to the highest standards and provide the detail to enable everyone, in and outside this House, to move forward while learning lessons and striving for true accountability at all levels?
Chris Ward
Yes, absolutely; that should be the guiding principle as we go through. The test at the end should be not only whether we have complied with the motion, which obviously we will, but whether it has helped to restore transparency and trust for the public.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker; I apologise for having missed the Minister’s opening remarks, but I did hear him endorse the integrity of the ISC. I entirely agree. It is important that I say from the Conservative Benches, just as my Committee colleague the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we have full confidence in the integrity of the Labour members of the ISC to do the job that the House has commissioned us to do.
May I put to the Minister a point about the problems that the Government now have? It seems to me that the potential problems for them in complying with the Humble Address are: first, the volume of material that it may cover and, secondly, what the Metropolitan police wish us to hold for the purposes of their investigation. On the first point, does he agree that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) put it to him—if the Government seek to moderate the terms of the Humble Address in any way to take account of the volume, they must come back to the House for its consent? On the material that may concern the Metropolitan police, does he agree that as it will not be made public if it is submitted to the ISC, there is no reason to slow down the referral of documents to my Committee simply because of concerns the police may have that if material is made public it may prejudice a future trial?
Chris Ward
I completely endorse the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the independence and integrity of the ISC. He identifies two very fair points. I say that not as a reason not to comply; it is just the reality of the complexity of what we are dealing with. The volume is larger than in other Humble Addresses—that is not a complaint, but a statement of fact. However, there is no attempt to narrow the scope and no attempt to narrow the motion. The process that the Cabinet Office is going through is to define the scope and harness what falls within it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the Metropolitan police is well made. The Met and the Government both recognise that, ultimately, Parliament retains the right to publish material, but obviously a responsible Government will wish to act in a way that does not prejudice an ongoing live case, which we would all like to see reach a conclusion. We are working through these matters; they are complicated, but he raises them in exactly the right fashion.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Licensing Hours Extensions Act 2026
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2026
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026.
Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the withholding of Pharmacy First payments to pharmacies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to take the traditional Department of Health and Social Care urgent question before recess—I would not miss it for the world.
Since coming into office, we have reversed the decade of cuts to community pharmacy with the biggest uplift for the sector in years and frozen prescription charges to help our constituents with the cost of living, and women can now get the morning-after pill free of charge across the country. Earlier this week, I spoke to the National Pharmacy Association’s winter reception to pay tribute to its members for their work and to assure them that I have their back, as does the Minister for Care.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) raises the important issue of payments made via Pharmacy First. As he knows, pharmacy contractors receive a monthly fixed payment if they meet certain requirements. We agreed to reduce the claim window, in conjunction with Community Pharmacy England, as part of our deal for 2025-26 to introduce a new Pharmacy First fixed first payment of £500. That has supported a broader range of pharmacies and has meant that more pharmacies have become eligible for payments. We are in discussions with Community Pharmacy England to consider where improvements to the claiming process can be made, address concerns raised by contractors and aim for a more consistent approach to remuneration. We will also consult with Community Pharmacy England shortly on the contractual framework for next year.
There are issues relating to contractors being suspended from providing Pharmacy First that are for separate consideration. When concerns are raised, NHS England can suspend individual contractors from providing the service pending a full investigation. There are a number of reasons why that might be necessary, but the measures are there, first and foremost, as the House will appreciate, to protect patient safety. I am a clinician, as is the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, and I am sure that he will agree that patient safety should be at the forefront of everything we do.
Finally, funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework has been increased to over £3 billion—the largest uplift of any part of the NHS in the last two years. As part of this year’s contractual framework, we have agreed to keep the current cost control mechanism linked to Pharmacy First that we inherited from the previous Government to ensure that the money is spent within that envelope. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that you did not summon the Minister? I granted an urgent question. Think about the language you choose, Dr Evans, and think that we have given you something.
Dr Evans
I of course withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for summoning the Minister on my behalf. It seems to have had the desired effect, because the outstanding parliamentary questions have, strangely enough, been answered this morning. I hope to get some clarity as this is really important.
The issue has been explained simply by the chair of the National Pharmacy Association:
“The work was done. Patients were treated. The NHS benefited. Yet payments are being withheld on a technicality.”
What makes that worse is that many pharmacies do not even realise that some of the money is missing. He goes on:
“Statements appear ‘successful’, yet Pharmacy First payments are absent. Contractors are only discovering the issue long after the window has closed, when it’s already too late.”
Will the Minister tell the House how many pharmacies the Government think are impacted? What is the total value of the outstanding payments? What steps are the Government taking to rectify this, and would they consider a late payment mechanism to help solve the issue?
There is a wider concern. Payments are administered by the NHS Business Services Authority. The chair of the NPA labelled the behaviour of NHSBSA “outrageous”. That already follows repeat concerns about NHSBSA’s performance, including multiple serious delays in NHS pension processing and several urgent questions on the Floor of the House. Does the Minister still retain confidence in NHSBSA? Given the ongoing concerns from multiple fields, will he commission a review of the operational performance of the entire NHSBSA?
Community pharmacies are already under intense pressure from this Government, with tax rises on employment and business rates and with increases in costs, and now they appear not to be being paid for work already done. I hope the Minister will act quickly to put this right.
Dr Ahmed
As the hon. Gentleman will know—or should know—the current remuneration method was agreed in conjunction with the sector. The adjustment was agreed with the sector’s representative body, Community Pharmacy England. Advance notice of the change was provided to those contractors by letter and in an article published by the NHS Business Services Authority in May 2025. In addition, Community Pharmacy England knows that, should this be a priority issue for it to negotiate in the next contract, we will take that on board and use it as an option.
There are of course always extenuating circumstances, such as IT not working. Officials have reassured me that, following discussions with Community Pharmacy England, we have introduced specific provisions in the drug tariff that will allow pharmacy contractors to receive payment for claims that were delayed due to IT issues outside of its control.
I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman wants to expand the remit of the urgent question across primary care—well, let me tell him. I know he had neck surgery recently; I did not realise they put a brass neck in him as well when they did it. He knows what kind of NHS decline and decay over which he and his Government presided over the past 15 years: primary care where people are left wandering around asking for GPs, and the Conservatives left GPs on the scrapheap, unemployed. This Government ensured, when they came into office, that—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, one of us is going to sit down, and it is not going to be me. Please can we have a little bit more calm? You have come in as the supporting Minister to the Secretary of State. I want you to set the example and not be the naughty one.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to learn the rules between us, Minister. Dr Luke Evans, I have granted you this urgent question. Quite rightly, I wanted your question to be heard by the Minister; I did not want any interruption. I expect you to listen to the answer without interruption.
Dr Ahmed
This Government take our responsibilities seriously in providing an effective 21st-century primary-care NHS, free at the point of care. That is why when we came into power we ensured that the pharmacy sector had the largest uplift of any part of the NHS in the past two years—£3.1 billion. To support primary care further, we ensured that GPs who could not find employment found it under this Labour Government. It is only this Government that can modernise the NHS, make it free at the point of care and ensure that it is a high-quality service going forward.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
My constituent Raj Matharu runs the brilliant Westchem pharmacy in West Wickham, is CEO of Community Pharmacy South East London, and last year was shortlisted for community pharmacist of the year. I have heard from residents across West Wickham how his pharmacy provides trusted and frictionless access to healthcare and advice across a range of issues. Pharmacy First can both provide a quicker, easier service for patients and relieve pressure on primary care. What support have the Government put in place for community pharmacies, especially in relation to funding?
Dr Ahmed
As I have stated, we have given pharmacies a record £3.1 billion settlement. We absolutely endorse the need for pharmacies to do more in our communities. We are enabling pharmacists up and down the country to expand their repertoire, and we are ensuring that Pharmacy First remuneration is a dynamic process, month on month, that reflects the activity that each pharmacy is doing.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Pharmacists play a crucial role in supporting the health service by reducing the pressure on overcrowded hospitals and GP surgeries. They also play a crucial role in local communities by providing access to treatment when appointments remain hard to come by elsewhere. But pressure on pharmacists is severe and has been getting worse, as shown by closures in my constituency and across the country. Those closures hit hardest in rural and coastal areas and in the most deprived areas, where they are most needed. This vital service needs to be supported and not undermined so that our constituents can rely on being able to access the medicines and treatment they need.
Has the Minister considered a new late payment mechanism to ensure that if contractors miss the deadline, they can still receive compensation for the work they have undertaken, especially in the interim as pharmacists adapt to the changes that have been introduced? What discussions has he had with NHSBSA to resolve the technical difficulties being experienced?
Dr Ahmed
I can assure the hon. Lady of our commitment to an effective primary care system up and down the country, in both rural and coastal communities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care, whose portfolio includes pharmacy, takes his responsibilities seriously and is exploring all avenues to ensure equity of access and funding, including through the Carr-Hill formula.
The hon. Lady asks what mitigations can be employed to ensure that payments are made in extraordinary circumstances. I can assure her that I have had those discussions with my officials this morning, and they reassured me that there will be a degree of flexibility, particularly in circumstances outwith the control of individual pharmacies.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the fact that this urgent question was granted, because pharmacies have been in touch with me about their concerns. I must put another thing on the Minister’s to-do list: independent prescribing. Evans Pharmacy in my constituency has been part of the independent prescribing pathfinder programme, and only 5% of patients seen by the prescribers subsequently require GP prescribing. However, no clear funding or arrangement will be in place after March this year. Will he provide Evans Pharmacy and similar prescribers with clarity about what will happen next?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Independent prescribers are a key and expanding part of our workforce, providing a sustainable primary care service. I am very happy for the Minister for Care to write to him with the exact funding plans for the next financial year.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
In the past year, I have spent time visiting pharmacies across my constituency, undertaken work experience at Riverside pharmacy in Rickmansworth, and communicated regularly with Community Pharmacy Hertfordshire. It is clear that our pharmacies are under unsustainable pressure from rising costs, especially following the Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions. Pharmacy First was a great Conservative initiative to reduce pressure on our GPs. Why are this Government hurting pharmacies and patients by delaying payments?
Dr Ahmed
Pharmacy First is indeed a great initiative. It is not the first in this country; it has been developed in other parts of the country. When we came into office, we worked with the sector and stakeholders, and agreements on remuneration and pricing were reached in conjunction with the sector. What is more, we are addressing the pricing structures and payment mechanisms that are not working and need improvement with a dynamism that was lacking under the previous Government.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Trio Pharmacy in Shepperton told me that there are two problems with Pharmacy First. The first is that pharmacies are simply not getting the referrals that they should from GPs. The second is that remuneration for their services does not take into account the amount of time needed for examination, diagnosis and prescription. The Nebel Pharmacy in Sunbury, near where I live, says that the work needs to be looked at as a vocation, because it simply makes no money. That is not sustainable, is it?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need to unblock the referral pathways. The neighbourhood health service is all about ensuring that the process between general practitioner and pharmacist feels seamless. On payments, we are cognisant of the fact that as demographics change, population needs in different parts of the country vary, so different payment mechanisms must apply. We are closely working with colleagues and stakeholders in the sector to ensure that we get that right.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Residents of West Byfleet are frustrated that a new pharmacy that wants to open in their area is not allowed to do so. Be it that unreasonable restriction, the increase in NICs or a lack of funding, this Government’s every action seems to undermine the pharmacy sector. Will the Minister explain why the Government are withholding funding from pharmacies that have signed up in good faith to Pharmacy First, and why they have not introduced a late-payment mechanism?
Dr Ahmed
I am reminded that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers always welcome funding for the NHS, but can never explain where the money should come from. I have already mentioned the record funding that we are putting into pharmacy. I have reiterated that there is ministerial engagement with the pharmacy sector—not just through the Minister with responsibility for pharmacy, but through me, as Minister with responsibility for health innovation. Our relationship with the pharmacy sector is in a good place, and we continue to develop it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Pharmacy First was undoubtedly game changing. When I visit pharmacies around my constituency, many of them are keen to expand Pharmacy First and to offer more lines. However, I can give an example similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) gave. The people at Wendover Pharmacy took me through their books, and on many of the services that they offer, they either barely make any money or make a loss. The Minister said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) that pricing was set with the sector, so clearly something is going wrong, because the experience of Wendover Pharmacy is quite different.
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is right that under the Pharmacy First programme, contractors receive a monthly fixed payment upon delivering a minimum number of consultations, as per the 2025-26 agreement. That can go up and down month to month, in a dynamic process, depending on how many patients are seen in pharmacies. I completely take his point that we are evolving our care system, and ensuring a move from hospital to community, but are not quite there yet; however, I think we are on the road. Through our neighbourhood health programme, we are solidifying the relationships between general practice, pharmacies, opticians and other allied health professionals in primary care.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Not only are community pharmacies in my constituency facing problems with Pharmacy First payments, but pharmacies like Abbotswood Pharmacy tell me that they are not seeing the referrals that GPs are supposedly making. Pharmacies can take pressure off the NHS. Does the Minister agree that this combination of referral failures and payment delays is forcing patients to wait longer for care, and what steps will he take to ensure that both referrals and payments are successfully made?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to unblock some of the referral pipelines between GPs and pharmacies. We are absolutely clear in our instructions to the system that pharmacies are an integral and growing component of primary care provision, and that premise underlies all our discussions with pharmacies and GPs.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Allied Pharmacies has taken over a couple of failing Jhoots Pharmacy branches in my area since Pharmacy First was introduced, which is very welcome. The chief executive said this week that the outlook for elderly people and those without a car in rural areas was stark. Between 2015 and 2025, community pharmacies have seen a real-terms funding cut of about 30%—that is £1 billion less in real terms—and rural Devon and Cornwall have seen a reduction of 90,000 hours of pharmacy time in two years. In that context, will the Minister ensure that full compensation is given to dispensing doctors in rural areas for the cost of medicines?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adumbrating how 14 years of Tory Government have led to significant decay in the provision of primary care services in some of our communities. He is right to mention dispensing doctors, who are a vital part of the mixture in hard-to-reach and coastal communities. I had many meetings with them prior to my appointment, and my colleague the Minister for Care will continue to meet them to ensure that they continue to be part of the mix of care provision in those communities.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Last year, I visited a pharmacy in Benson in my constituency, where Vik Patel described to me how the pharmacy’s being rural disadvantages it in the Pharmacy First scheme. His pharmacy never meets the threshold to qualify for payment, and that threshold has gone up over and over again, from five patients a month in April last year to 30 in March 2025, so the pharmacy is effectively delivering a service for free. Vik is a lovely chap, and he is happy to do that, but it is not a sustainable business model. What will the Minister do to help rural pharmacies like mine in Benson?
Dr Ahmed
I can reassure the hon. Member that my hon. Friend the Minister for Care is looking at funding and primary care provision in the round in coastal and poorer communities, and I would be delighted to take back his representations about Pharmacy First in rural settings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. I want to give a helpful suggestion from a Northern Ireland perspective. He will agree that a rural pharmacy will find it more difficult to meet the ever increasing threshold, and that the point of these payments is to take pressure off GPs, not to provide a back-door way of underpaying earned compensation. In Northern Ireland, we have a slightly different system that involves payment per consultation, which I ask the Minister to consider. Perhaps that would be more appropriate, and would give pharmacies, GPs and their patients what they are looking for.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 23 February will include:
Monday 23 February—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit (Removal Of Two Child Limit) Bill.
Tuesday 24 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced, followed by debate on a motion relating to the charter for Budget responsibility.
Wednesday 25 February—General debate on Ukraine.
Thursday 26 February—General debate on St David’s day and Welsh affairs, followed by general debate on Government support for bereaved children. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 27 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 March includes:
Monday 2 March—Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill.
Tuesday 3 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make her spring forecast statement, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 4 March—Estimates day (4th allotted day). At 7pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 5 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill, followed by general debate on contributions of Commonwealth troops in world war one, followed by debate on a motion on the future of palliative care. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 March—The House will not be sitting.
The House will no doubt be interested in recess dates going forward. Members may wish to know that subject to the progress of business, and further to the dates that have already been announced, the House will rise for the summer recess at the close of business on Thursday 16 July 2026 and return on Tuesday 1 September 2026. The House will rise for the conference recess at the close of business on Tuesday 15 September 2026 and return on Monday 12 October 2026. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Thursday 17 December 2026 and return on Monday 4 January 2027.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Tuesday 1 September clashes with my birthday, but we can discuss that later. I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Jesse Norman
On behalf of all Members, I thank the Leader of the House for giving us those recess dates, which will be widely welcomed.
Today is the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the greatest of all United States Presidents, so perhaps this is a fitting moment to talk a little bit about public service. I congratulate the Chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Rev. Mark Birch, on his new job at Westminster Abbey, and I welcome his successor, the Venerable Andrew Hillier. We thank them for their service.
I note that the International Olympic Committee has banned a Ukrainian athlete from wearing a helmet of remembrance for his fellow athletes who have been killed by Russia—talk about public service.
Otherwise, the news has once again been filled by a succession of the most appalling misjudgments by the Prime Minister. These include decisions by him to ignore both public evidence and private advice, and to appoint to the House of Lords not one but two men with continuing connections to convicted paedophiles. It has been confirmed today that the Prime Minister was aware that his nominee, Matthew Boyle, had campaigned for a man charged with distributing indecent images of children two months before the Prime Minister appointed him.
The fallout from the Mandelson scandal has so far included the departures of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and his head of communications, one after 18 months and the other after just a few weeks in post. We now have the leaked news that the Prime Minister’s personal choice of Cabinet Secretary is being forced to step down after barely a year in post. As they say at the BBC, deputy heads must roll.
Of course, no Government are free from scandal—goodness knows, I can say that from personal experience—and certainly not the previous ones, as the House will know well, but let there be no deflection or fudge on this matter. There has been nothing to compare with this catalogue of personal misjudgments by a Prime Minister for perhaps 60 years. Every sitting day, the chaplain leads the House in prayer for public service, that we as a House may
“never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices”.
Every Member of the House knows those words, but that is precisely what these people have failed to do.
I will end on a positive note with a truly uplifting story from this week. Some years ago, my constituents, Sam and Emily Stables, set up a brilliant charity called We are Farming Minds in Herefordshire. It is dedicated to supporting farmers struggling with poor mental health. Sam is a sheep farmer himself, and he knows only too well from personal experience how immensely difficult, stressful and lonely life can be on a farm—still more, given all the recent troubles that farmers have had to endure, including outbreaks of tuberculosis and other diseases, a dysfunctional farm payments system, increasingly burdensome regulations, and of course, most recently, the farm tax.
On average, a farmer commits suicide every week in this country. On Monday, however, Sam embarked on a walk of hope from Ross-on-Wye to London in support of Yellow Wellies’ Mind Your Head Week and of greater public awareness of mental health in the farming community. By my calculations, he is coming through the Chilterns right about now, heading for High Wycombe. With luck, I will find him this afternoon on the trail around Beaconsfield. That is what real public service looks like. Let us all take this opportunity to send our deep thanks to Sam and Emily, and to their volunteers and supporters, for their extraordinary work.
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the two children stabbed in the horrific attack at Kingsbury high school in Brent. My heart—and I am sure the hearts of the whole House —goes out to those affected by this tragedy. I also send my condolences to those affected by the horrific attack in Tumbler Ridge in Canada. Again, the thoughts of the whole House will be with the people there as they mourn their family, friends and loved ones. We wish all those injured a speedy recovery.
I join the shadow Leader of the House in welcoming the Venerable Andrew Hillier, who has been appointed as the new Speaker’s chaplain. I, too, thank the outgoing chaplain, the Rev. Mark Birch, for the support that he provided to everyone across the community, whether they were people of faith or not.
I also want to mark National Apprenticeship Week. Apprenticeships give young people real experience, real prospects and a real route into good careers. The Government are committed to delivering 50,000 more apprenticeships for young people, backed by the growth and skills levy.
As it is National Apprenticeship Week, it is appropriate to draw Members’ attention to the ambitions set out in the report on “Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster”, which was published last week, to support 1,000 apprenticeships and traineeships in addition to the thousands of full-time roles required to deliver the works. If they have not already done so, I encourage Members, whatever their view on the way forward for Parliament, to attend briefings by the R&R client team and to read the report in full.
Finally, before I turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, I wish all Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, an enjoyable recess. I hope that Members get some time to spend with their family and their constituents. They should also remember that it is pancake day, and I wish them well in that regard.
I very much join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating Sam Stables and wishing him well. He is a keen farming campaigner. Knowing the shadow Leader of the House’s constituency, Sam will have needed his wellies, whatever their colour, given the amount of water that has fallen in the area. I understand that donations have come in from far and wide, including from the Prince of Wales. Let me say, in supporting Sam, that the Government are stepping up and playing our part. We are supporting farmers’ access to specialist mental health services by funding the farmer welfare grant and, more widely, doing all we can to invest in sustainable farming. I wish Sam all the very best indeed.
Let me turn to the shadow Leader of the House’s remarks on what has happened in the last couple of weeks—and let me do so without any deflection or fudge, as he said. First, Matthew Doyle has had the Labour Whip withdrawn. The Labour party has started an investigation, and it is right that that is allowed to take place. I will not enter into speculation about the Cabinet Secretary, but we read what we read.
On the wider issue of standards in public life, I agree absolutely with the shadow Leader of the House that there can be no prevarication on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Monday setting out the action that we are taking. Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser and set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We are also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently, and changing the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. But we understand that we need to go further, and we are working with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that we reach the highest possible standards in public life.
Let me leave the House with this remark, because it has been a difficult time for us all, not least for the Prime Minister himself. I regard the Prime Minister as a man of integrity and a man of public service. When someone stands up and says that they got it wrong and regret what has happened, we should take that at face value and redouble our efforts to ensure that, going forward, standards in public life are even higher.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
This week is Heart Unions Week, hence the badge on my lapel instead of the Wolves badge that I normally wear. Last Saturday, I was with the Wolverhampton, Bilston and District Trades Union Council handing out information about joining a trade union to passers-by in Wolverhampton city centre. Will the Leader of the House please join me in celebrating the vital work that our unions do in improving the lives of working people across the country, and the work that they did with the Government for us to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation through the landmark Employment Rights Act 2025? Does he agree that one of the best decisions our constituents can make is to join a trade union, for dignity and security in the workplace?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the vital role that trade unions play in improving lives of people across the country. The Government have worked very closely with trade unions and with businesses to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation through the landmark Employment Rights Act. The Act is a key pillar of the Government’s plan to make work pay, which will grow the economy, boost wages and reduce insecure work, and improve people’s lives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Over the last few weeks, there has been a national debate raging that, so far, this place has been pretty silent on. It is on the matter of student loans. I know what some on the Government Benches may be thinking, but I am not prepared to duck difficult subjects.
Let us face it: the student loans system has changed beyond recognition since its introduction, and that is one of the key complaints of graduates. Maintenance grants have been scrapped in favour of loans, which means that the poorest students now arrive at university with the largest debt. Interest rates, tied to inflation, have soared in recent years; following the period of high inflation, people have been saddled permanently with much larger debts than they expected. Thresholds have been repeatedly frozen, including by this Labour Government at the last Budget, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates will add around £3,000 on average to people’s debt pile.
All that means that the agreement that students struck has been repeatedly, and unilaterally, changed by the lender after the agreement. I do not believe that would be tolerable in any other walk of life. When the Chancellor was challenged on this last week, she said that the system is “fair and reasonable”. I do not agree, and I think many graduates do not agree, so will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on the changes that have been made to the student loans repayment system?
Sir Alan Campbell
The UK is home to some of the world’s most respected universities, and we all benefit from the opportunities, knowledge and growth that they create. It is important that we pay attention to access to universities to ensure that people who want to go can go, but it is also important that we put the sector on a secure financial footing. That is why the Government are making tough but fair decisions to find the balance between value for money for taxpayers and students and graduates. We know that the cost of living is important for everyone. We are seeking to support graduates by protecting lower earners by lifting the threshold this year, but we appreciate the concern, not least because it is probably being expressed through our inboxes as I speak. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to attend the Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday 25 February, in which he may want to make his points more fully.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am increasingly concerned about the quality of social care provision in Norfolk. We have had three care homes by three different providers in the last month alone all rated as inadequate by the Care Quality Commission. Having read the inspection reports, I know that they contain some harrowing details. Can we have a debate in Government time on the quality of social care provision?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue of such importance, and I am genuinely sorry to hear about the cases that he raises. We are committed to building a national care service based on a high quality of care and greater choice and control. I will ensure that Ministers have heard his concern. If he wants to seek a meeting with Ministers to brief them more fully on what is happening in his part of the world, I will arrange that meeting.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for mentioning the stabbing at Kingsbury high school. The good news is that the two children who were stabbed are in a stable condition, and the suspect has now been charged with multiple charges, including attempted murder. The police investigation is clearly ongoing, and we cannot comment on it any further.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for stepping into the breach at very short notice when the previous debate that the Backbench Business Committee had allocated for Thursday 26 February was withdrawn.
As the Leader of the House has mentioned, estimates day debates are coming up on 4 March. We are open for business for applications by a week tomorrow; we will then decide which debates will be allocated time.
When we return, the business in Westminster Hall will be as follows. On 24 February, there will be a debate on Government support for healthcare systems in Gaza. On Thursday 26 February, there will be a debate on Eating Disorder Awareness Week 2026, followed by a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools. On 3 March, there will be a debate on strengthening community cohesion. On 5 March, there will be a debate on the importance of local museums, followed by a debate on World Book Day.
When we return on 23 February, it will be the third anniversary of the hunger strike by Vahid Beheshti outside the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He has had terrible privations as a result of this hunger strike, and no Foreign Office Minister in either the previous Government or the current Government has even had the courtesy to visit him. Given the circumstances in Iran, with more than 30,000 civilians being murdered by the tyrannical regime, Vahid has been calling for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for the last three years. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to at least meet Vahid so that he can convey his reasons for carrying out this hunger strike?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his update and for the excellent work of the Backbench Business Committee. It is good news that the young people affected in his constituency are on the road to recovery. Of course, it is right that the police get on with their investigation. I hope that the law takes its course and that people are held to account.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, I am aware that it is the third anniversary. He knows that we have already sanctioned over 550 organisations and individuals, including designations against the IRGC. The Foreign Secretary has said that there will be full and further sanctions, where required. We keep this matter under review. I also take into account what he has said about his constituent. All I can say is that I will draw that to the attention of Ministers. I hope they will have heard what he has said; it is a decision for them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The disgraceful scandals of recent days have left what little remains of faith in our democracy hanging by a thread. One of the lessons has to be that, while inherited privilege is no basis for a second Chamber, neither is self-interested patronage by political leaders. Does the Leader of the House agree that we must end the rotten system of peerages being granted to individuals, despite sickening behaviour, simply because they are rich and powerful, or to give jobs to the boys? Will he convey to his Cabinet colleagues the urgent need for legislation to reform the House of Lords from top to bottom, sweeping away these abuses and ridding us of all these politically partisan appointees?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have already taken action on some aspects of reform of the Lords. He is not really talking about the Lords and their work per se; it is about the people who enter that place. The Prime Minister has confirmed that we will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages, for example, can be removed from disgraced peers. We are looking at what other further action can be taken to improve standards in public life.
The Government are committed to wider reform of the House of Lords, but as I have said before, when we have tried this previously, there has been no consensus. There are many other priorities that the Government need to get on with. While not forgetting about Lords reform, we have to ensure that the Government do all the other things that they need to do, not least in the next Session facing us.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Scottish Government’s Fire and Rescue Service has been reviewing the future of Hawick fire station. Like thousands of local residents, I have signed the petition calling for it to be retained as a 24/7 service, but it has been announced that the decision will be delayed for six months. Does the Leader of the House agree that delaying the decision until after the Scottish Parliament election looks politically motivated, and that local residents should know what the SNP plans for their fire station before they vote?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that important matter to the House. I know from experience, as I am sure others do, just how important fire services and coverage are for our constituents. As he points out, it is a devolved matter and, as I have said before, this Government have provided the Scottish Government with the biggest funding settlement since devolution began, which they should be taking into account. I hope that those responsible in the Scottish Government have heard the hon. Gentleman’s contribution today because, first and foremost, they should be listening to residents.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Roker park is loved by our community, and there is loads going on there—from bowls and model boating to a miniature railway. Recently, I met some of the volunteers who keep the park so vibrant, along with Councillor David Newey, who has attracted investment for the restoration of the bandstand and the installation of new play equipment before the summer. Will the Leader of the House pop down the coast from his constituency and join me for a coffee at Ruhe in the park? Will he also consider a debate on the contribution made across the country by groups such as the Friends of Roker Park?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is a very tempting offer. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the fantastic work being done by volunteers and Councillor David Newey at Roker park. Their work is vital, and he has played a fantastic role in revitalising his community—he is a great example of a good councillor. As I have said before, volunteers are the golden thread that runs through our communities and holds them together. I praise volunteers and councillors for the work they do, and I also praise my hon. Friend for the work he does in his constituency, because he is a great advocate for them.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the Leader of the House will be aware that all those who serve on the Treasury Bench are Ministers of the Crown. For that reason, from time immemorial, the Government have been described as HM Government—His Majesty’s Government—yet we now learn that that has changed, and that this Administration have decided to drop “HM Government” and replace it with “UK Government”. I do not know whether that is to pander to foreigners who do not understand our constitution or—more likely—to the doubt-fuelled, guilt-ridden bourgeois liberals who fill too much of our establishment. I believe that our traditions matter, because they underpin our shared sense of belonging, and I think the House as a whole probably agrees. This change has been made without consultation, without reference to the House and without discussion, so will the Leader of the House ensure that at the very least there is a statement, and better still a debate, on why this change was made under the radar?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in many regards, tradition does matter, but so does accuracy. For clarity, communications teams are advised to use “UK Government” rather than departmental names and logos for announcements, but that does not affect the use of the term “His Majesty’s Government”, which continues on all relevant official communications and records, as it should. The “UK Government” term has long been used in public-facing communications.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The £20 million that the Government are investing in Ellesmere Port is so welcome, but it is undermined by news such as that yesterday, that Halifax is closing its branch in our town centre. One of the justifications Halifax uses is that its customers are now using the app; well, I am a customer of Halifax and I use the app, but the reason I am a customer of Halifax is that it has a presence in our town centre. This is just another example of the smoke and mirrors banks are using to justify wholesale branch closures, regardless of the care and attention they should be paying to those who are not able to bank electronically, so can we have a debate about what more we can do to make sure banks serve the communities they are supposed to serve?
Sir Alan Campbell
This issue often arises, and I understand the concern of residents. I, too, use a bank app, but other people do not; those people look for a presence on the high street, not just from the perspective of convenient banking but because of the importance of our high streets. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek a debate on this matter, perhaps in Westminster Hall, and I am sure he will find others who want to join him.
For their part, the Government have set a target of 350 banking hubs. Most of those hubs have already been rolled out, but that is not the extent of our ambition—we want to go further. I know from the one in my constituency, in Whitley Bay, that those hubs are very popular.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
With World Book Day coming up on Thursday 5 March, I have launched a short story competition for primary school pupils across Chester South and Eddisbury, encouraging them to go all-in and use their imagination through reading and creative writing. At a time when children are spending more and more time on phones and screens, fostering a love of books, storytelling and creativity is more important than ever, so will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging children across Chester South and Eddisbury to take part in that competition and in encouraging everyone to get involved in celebrating World Book Day?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Lady in celebrating World Book Day, and commend her for the approach she is taking in her constituency. It is vital that children get access to books, which is why we are promoting libraries, particularly in schools. The hon. Lady will also be aware that we are launching a consultation on social media, and I am sure that the amount of time children spend on social media on their phones rather than with a good book in their hands is one of the factors that will be taken into consideration.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I think we can all agree that small businesses are the heart of our communities and the backbone of our economy, which is why I do a shout-out to a small business in Luton North every single Saturday. It is also why I am launching my small business forum next week, to bring together small businesses such as Steve Hilliard Hairdressing, Bright Light CVs and Oakley Studios. Will the Leader of the House therefore set time aside to discuss the issues my small business community raises with me at that forum, to ensure we support this amazing group of entrepreneurs?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important matter, because small businesses are the beating heart of the economy. We are committed to supporting them and our high streets. That is why we have launched our small business plan. I commend her for the approach she is taking, not least in highlighting the excellent businesses in her constituency. If she sought a debate in Westminster Hall, perhaps, I am sure that others would join her to celebrate businesses in their own constituencies.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Retired civil servants in my constituency and across the UK are being offered interest-free loans after serious delays to pension payments following the transfer of their pension scheme administration to Capita in December 2025. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on the administration of the civil service pension scheme, including the impact of the McCloud judgment and the current backlog?
Sir Alan Campbell
These delays are unacceptable and the Government have made that clear. These people have given public service, and it is a matter of urgency to resolve this situation for them. Before Capita took on the administration of the scheme, Cabinet Office Ministers and officials were assured that a clear transition plan would be in place ahead of going live. There have been a number of challenges. The Cabinet Office is working hard to resolve the situation. There is an expert recovery team to work with Capita, but I will ensure that Ministers have heard the hon. Lady’s comments today. If appropriate, they will provide an update on the situation.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Gurdwara Baba Vadbhag Singh Ji and the BVS charity in my constituency have been serving their community in Exhall with compassion for years. Their Christmas hampers provide food and essentials to families who may be struggling at Christmas, and their Father’s Day event draws hundreds of people from around the local area to their family celebrations with free food and fairground rides. I am incredibly grateful for the warm hospitality they have extended to our community, so will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the wonderful contribution of the Sikh community to North Warwickshire and Bedworth and to our country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the Sikh community. The Christmas hamper programme represents a bright example of their valuable contribution to our communities. She is right to raise that example today, and I am sure she will go on looking for further opportunities to do so.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
In response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), the Leader of the House seemed to suggest that the Government are not undergoing a rebrand from “His Majesty’s Government” to “UK Government”. However, in response to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Paymaster General clearly stated:
“A strategic decision has been made to adopt ‘UK Government’ as the primary identity for all public-facing communications.”
This is a clear slight on the monarch, so can I ask once again for a debate on the Floor of the House about the Government’s decision to downgrade the King?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I just said, or whether he had already written the question before I got up to do so. We can fence with words, rebrands and whatever, but it has always been the case that “His Majesty’s Government”, or “Her Majesty’s Government” as was, is used on official documents. It is always the case that there is an outward-looking version, and I have explained why. If the situation were as the hon. Gentleman describes, we would all be right to get upset about it, but it simply is not.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
May I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his remarks about Kingsbury school, which for 27 years was in my constituency before it passed over to that of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)?
I want to raise with the Leader of the House schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021, which has still not been implemented. It introduced a mandatory due diligence obligation for businesses to ensure that they do not use illegally produced forest risk commodities. We are now five years on from the passing of that Act, and that provision has not been introduced. My right hon. Friend has made good suggestions that I hold a debate or that I ask the Minister written questions, and I have done both those things. Can we please have a debate in Government time about why this provision not yet been enacted?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry that my hon. Friend is frustrated, not least if the advice I have given him might not have come to anything. I apologise. However, because this is from my perspective a reasonably technical thing, I will arrange for a meeting with Ministers at which he can vent his frustration directly.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The chemical industry sector is particularly important to the local economy in my northern Lincolnshire constituency, the wider Humber region and, as the Leader of the House will appreciate, in the north-east. The Chemical Industries Association recently produced a report showing that in the last quarter of 2025, jobs had reduced by 38%. That is clearly worrying. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the future of the chemical industries sector?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will go further than that, and offer the hon. Gentleman the chance to speak to the relevant Minister directly about this matter. I always share concerns where there are job losses as industries come under pressure and face new challenges. If he seeks a meeting, I will ensure he gets one.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
On Saturday evening, I joined more than 500 members of the local community at Paisley town hall for a spectacular evening of Gaelic music, song and celebration as we celebrated 10 years of Fèis Phàislig. The Fèis provides a fun and welcoming space for young people across our area to learn and share Scotland’s Gaelic cultural traditions. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the director, Grant McFarlane, and the board of volunteers for their commitment to our cultural traditions and wish a very happy 10th birthday to Fèis Phàislig?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Grant McFarlane and everyone else involved in Fèis Phàislig—if I pronounced that correctly.
Sir Alan Campbell
That is easy for you to say, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said before, volunteers are the golden thread that runs through our communities and we celebrate them and great Gaelic traditions.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
When the Government announced the local authority bus grant allocations, the use of the money was subject to conditions, particularly around social need, and the criteria were “to follow”. In the absence of those, the West of England combined authority has extended contracts only until July, leaving my Thornbury and Yate constituents fearing what will happen then. Can the Leader of the House ask his Department for Transport colleagues to publish the criteria as soon as possible, or to come to the House to explain the delay?
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Over the past week, I have been contacted by many constituents in Western Harbour in my constituency who have been left in limbo by the lack of cladding redemption programmes in Scotland. Across England, redemption programmes have completed on more than 1,935 buildings. In Scotland, only two have started. Does the Leader of the House agree that my constituents are being failed by Scottish National party inaction? Will he make arrangements for a written statement on the funding and joint Government work that has been undertaken in this area?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue on behalf of her constituents. It cuts across borders, even though it is a devolved matter. As she has pointed out, we have made great progress and invested £5.1 billion to remove unsafe cladding. We have given the Scottish Government a record funding settlement, and I agree that they should make best use of it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Heritage buildings are much loved by many members of the community. They underpin our identity. Indeed, many of them are places of worship, including the fantastic St John’s church in Bromsgrove, the spire of which has just had a £500,000 renovation. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Friends of St John’s, particularly Jo Slade, who was a driving force behind the project? Will the Leader of the House press his colleagues in government, particularly in the Treasury, to ensure that the Government always do everything they can to maximise support for these important and much-loved buildings?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Friends of St John’s in his constituency, who do a fantastic job, as do similar groups in many of our constituencies. I thank him for how he phrased the second part of his question, because he is right: the Government want to support heritage, culture and places of religious worship, but he will know that economic times and Government finances are tight. I will draw what he says to the attention of the Treasury.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
Rising employer contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme are mounting significant pressures on post-1992 universities and driving some to cut costs to deliver the same teaching. I have been contacted by staff at Northumbria University who are concerned about the proposed changes to their pay and pension provision. Will the Leader of the House relay my concerns to the Minister for Skills and urge her to update Parliament on what substantive steps the Government will take to address this issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour raises an important matter, and I will certainly ensure that her concerns are shared with the relevant Minister. Should she wish to have a meeting with the Minister, I will be happy to facilitate that. Because we share this issue as constituency neighbours, I would also be happy to come with her.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), I know that the Leader of the House will fully appreciate that he is a member of His Majesty’s Government. In 2022, guidance issued under the last Conservative Administration established “UK Government” as an official corporate identity and a commonplace Government term, but he will know that any Government, including the current one, serve at His Majesty’s pleasure. The Prime Minister does not serve a corporate construct; he serves the Crown—the embodiment of our nation and her people. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the need to reinstate an understanding of, and deference to, our constitutional heritage, which is His Majesty’s Government and the King in Parliament?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not think there is a need for such a debate, because I am still—I am hesitating here—a member of His Majesty’s Government, as Ministers are members of His Majesty’s Government. That does not mean that, for outward-looking communication purposes, “UK Government” is not an appropriate term. I genuinely do not understand why this is such a difficult concept, but I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman’s comments in mind.
While we are here, let me commend the hon. Gentleman for following his new leader’s advice on not working from home. It is a shame that many of his colleagues do not do the same—we rarely see them—but he is an assiduous attender of these sessions, and I thank him for that. I would have described him as a flag-bearer for Reform, but I know how excited he gets about flags.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Whip on duty has confirmed that the Leader of the House is still the Leader of the House.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
South Staffordshire Water is forcing water meters on homes in my constituency, stating that it is “necessary for sustainability”, but residents were never properly informed, with some only discovering the meters after they were installed. My constituents and I find this unacceptable. Can we have a statement on the communication standards that utility companies must meet when imposing such programmes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, because residents should be informed in advance when changes are made to their homes. Should she seek a meeting with the relevant Minister to make her case more fully, I will ensure that she gets one.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House for his help? I have recently learned that the £10 million day case unit in Hinckley is potentially in jeopardy and might get cancelled. This follows a series of delays by the NHS and the local council and, unbelievably, a last-minute plea by the Lib Dem borough council leader to look again at the project, which led to further delays. The planning application did go through, but costs have gone up. Inevitably, the use of the unit has now changed, and it is in real peril. I have already written to the Health Secretary about this issue as a matter of urgency. May I ask the Leader of the House’s office to chase that up as well, so that this gets looked at and, hopefully, we can keep the unit going?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. I have described him before as an assiduous campaigner for his constituency— I hope that my describing him in that way does not do him too much damage. I understand that he has written to the Health Secretary about this, and I will make sure that he gets an urgent response.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Last week, the east window of Carlisle cathedral was voted the nation’s favourite stained glass window. May I invite the Leader of the House to join me in congratulating John de Salkeld, who in 1359 donated 40 shillings
“to make a window anew in the chancel”
of Carlisle cathedral; Ivo de Raughton, whose work this funded; and Hardman & Co. of Birmingham, which was commissioned in the 18th century to refill the lower panes to create the window we see today? Will the Leader of the House also join me in thanking the Association of English Cathedrals for organising this wonderful competition?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who worked to create the east window of Carlisle cathedral, which I understand is not just one of the earliest stained glass windows, but one of the few surviving from that period. Their contribution genuinely made history, and it is important that we remember them. I also join her in thanking the Association of English Cathedrals for its vital work. As she rightly points out, places of worship provide vital services to our local communities.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The town of Huntingdon in my constituency has a rich cultural and historical heritage and is the birthplace of Oliver Cromwell—one of my predecessors in this House. It is the former home of the diarist Samuel Pepys, it is the first place in the UK where chocolate ice cream appeared on these shores, and it is also the birthplace of the sandwich—something very close to my heart. Because of this cultural heritage, we are putting the town forward to be the town of culture in 2028. I thank Paul Sweeney and the business improvement district team in Huntingdon for their hard work in putting forward a bid, not only to celebrate our cultural heritage but to build a legacy going forward. Will the Leader of the House join me in championing Huntingdon as the very best opportunity for Huntingdonshire to cement a town of culture for 2028?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me say first that I am a huge admirer of Oliver Cromwell—[Laughter.] I am, actually. The list of achievements for the hon. Gentleman’s area is considerable, including the fact that it is the birthplace of Oliver Cromwell. The hon. Gentleman invites me down the path of town of culture, which might go down well in his area, but I can assure the House that it will go down terribly badly in North Shields, because I am assured that we intend to mount our own bid. Seriously, though, I wish every town well and commend the Government for bringing forward this initiative. I wish everyone well, because it can help to transform towns, which are the backbone of this country.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Two years ago, Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses in my constituency, which makes the famous Blacksticks Blue, suffered a devastating fire that destroyed all its storage facilities. The community rallied around the company, with local businesses and farms helping to erect temporary buildings and provide interim logistics. Following some truly brave leadership, Gill, Matthew and Daniel Hall, and their family, have celebrated the completion of their brand-new extended building, which was opened by King Charles himself this week. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all at Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses on their determination and resolve, and will he consider having a debate on how critical the communities around us are in times of resilience and great need?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a true champion in her tireless efforts to support the local community and to praise them for coming together in support of Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses, which makes great cheese. Following such devastating events, we realise the true need for resilience in our local communities. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a debate on how we can promote not just resilience but a true sense of community across our country.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
As an Oliver Cromwell enthusiast, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the purpose and function of the other place? I am sure that he will have studied very closely the wording of early-day motion 2709, which addresses the role of the House of Lords.
[That this House believes that the use of filibuster tactics in the House of Lords to frustrate the majority will of the democratically elected House of Commons is unacceptable, including where the elected Commons has given its majority support to a Private Members’ Bill; further believes that the case for the outright abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement would be strengthened if such tactics were used; acknowledges that, although the House of Lords often provides a helpful role through scrutinising and suggesting constructive revisions to bills, it should not have the power to block them, nor to use its procedures to the same effect; and calls on the Government to take legislative steps to ensure that Private Members' Bills backed by a majority in the elected House can never be defeated by undemocratic means in the House of Lords.]
The Leader of the House will be aware that some Members of the other place have abused the privilege and procedures of that House in order to frustrate and block a private Member’s Bill that has the strong support of this House, thereby advancing the case for their abolition and replacement. Will he ensure that the House of Lords is there purely to scrutinise and revise legislation, and not to block and frustrate this House, which is the primary and democratic Chamber?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said from this Dispatch Box before, the House of Lords needs to be very much aware and should respect the fact that this House has not just once, but twice supported the assisted dying Bill: on Second Reading and Third Reading. The other place should certainly bear that in mind. I do not happen to be of the view that the Lords’ scrutiny is not important, but the way they go about it is important. If there is a warning behind what the hon. Gentleman says, it might be “be careful what you wish for”; if the Lords go down the route described by the hon. Gentleman, they may open up a wider debate about that House that they would need to take seriously. I commend him and others for continuing to raise these matters. As I have said, the Bill in question is not a Government Bill, but if it comes back, I will find time to see how can progress it. This is a timely warning to their lordships that they need to get on with it.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Craigmillar is a brilliant area, but it is blighted by fly-tipping. One site just off the high street beside Craigmillar library, owned by Keyworkers Living Ltd, lies waste to litter and abandoned cars, and is a fly-tipping hotspot. In England, the Labour Government are cracking down on fly-tipping, but the SNP Scottish Government have cut the budget for Edinburgh city council so much that it is the lowest funded per head local authority in Scotland. Can we have a debate in Government time about how we can tackle fly-tipping in Craigmillar and get the Scottish Government to fund our council properly?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities. We are giving councils powers to crush the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers and bringing in new prison sentences of up to five years for those who transport waste illegally. The Scottish Government have been given the biggest funding settlement since devolution, and I suggest they take more seriously the matter raised by my hon. Friend.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Enzo Romano is a talented young footballer who has already played for the Welsh youth team. He could have chosen Italy or Spain, but he has chosen Wales first. Despite his birth certificate proving that he was born in Cardiff, his British citizenship application has been refused for a second time. Without it, he cannot further his football career and play in the world cup. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate to ensure the Home Office cannot unfairly hold back talent like Enzo—and others, I am sure, across the UK? He just wants to play football for the country he was born in and obviously loves.
Sir Alan Campbell
I genuinely wish the young man well. Before we get to a debate, should the hon. Lady raise with me the details of this case, I will take it up with the appropriate Department and see if we can get some progress.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
In September last year, I hosted survivors and victims of the so-called gossip website Tattle Life, and we heard the absolutely harrowing testimonies of those who have been targeted by sustained and escalating online harassment, stalking and abuse by its users, with many people driven to feel suicidal. There has been extensive coverage of this issue by the broadcast media, including “Good Morning Britain” and ITV’s “Lorraine”.
I raise this matter because, on Sunday, 16-year-old Prin Dickson died by suicide after facing escalating and intensifying harassment on this dangerous website. Many colleagues and I have called on Ofcom to listen to our concerns and to take down the website. On Monday, we wrote to Ofcom again, but four days on from Prin’s suicide, this website is still live, and users are now discussing her suicide and abusing her bereaved mum. Can the Leader of the House ensure that there is an urgent intervention by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that Ofcom uses all its powers to take down the site and prevent any further tragedy? Can he also ensure that time is provided to debate the Online Safety Act 2023 and failures to safeguard women and children online?
Sir Alan Campbell
What my hon. Friend describes is entirely unacceptable. Although I think the Department that deals with Ofcom will have heard her concerns, I will draw her question to its attention because this appears to be a matter of urgency. On the wider issue of children’s safety, the Government are announcing a consultation on social media, and I hope she will raise some of her concerns through that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to raise of a matter of freedom of religion or belief in Turkey. The European Court of Human Rights has recently decided to jointly communicate 20 cases concerning the expulsion of foreign Christian missionaries and religious workers from Turkey. The cases raise significant questions about due process and the protection of freedom of religion or belief under the European convention on human rights. Will the Leader of the House—as he always does, and I thank him for it—ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what discussions the Government have had with their counterparts in Turkey and the Council of Europe about the protection of religious minorities, and what steps have been taken to uphold freedom of religion or belief across Council of Europe member states?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government maintain a regular dialogue with Turkey, which is a key NATO ally and strategic partner. The UK calls on Turkey, as a founding member of the Council of Europe, to uphold the rights of all religious groups as enshrined in the Turkish constitution. I will draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and he may wish to raise these matters directly in Foreign Office questions shortly after we return from the recess.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I recently attended an event at Oakwood primary school in my constituency, where pupils took part in workshops facilitated by the Children’s Parliament and Save the Children, exploring the impact of poverty. I was so moved that day by the children who recognised that too many of their peers are growing up in hardship and concerned about basic needs such as food and housing. Would the Leader of the House join me in commending the pupils of Oakwood school for their thoughtful contributions, and reaffirm this Government’s commitment to tackling poverty?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in commending the pupils, and indeed the staff, of Oakwood primary school for their thoughtful contributions. The Government are committed to tackling child poverty, which is why we are scrapping the two-child limit and expanding free school meals and breakfast clubs, and we will do even more. The empathy of these students is truly commendable, and I thank them for everything they are doing.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been supporting a local leaseholder who lives in a bungalow in Cramlington because Shenstone, the management company, has recently charged her £525 for a property extension. Hon. Members might think that that was nothing unusual—except that the extension was built 30 years ago, before she even lived in the property. That has been pointed out to Shenstone, but it is still insisting that my elderly resident pay up. Can the Leader of the House assure me that this Government will continue at pace with the changes to address these outrageous practices, and does he agree that these sorts of behaviour by companies like Shenstone are exactly why we need to tackle the leasehold crisis?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree, and I am sorry to hear of that case. Our draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will end the feudal leasehold system, and we are committed to strengthening protections for leaseholders. The measures we have brought forward are not the final steps that we intend to take on the regulation of managing agents; we will set out further details in due course.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Colchester community champion Peter Dutch is campaigning to install bleed kits in schools to help tackle the scourge of knife crime. This week’s terrible incident at Kingsbury school underlines the absolute importance of that. Will the Leader of the House support my call for a debate about installing bleed kits in schools as part of our mission to keep our young people safe?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the House such an important topic, and Peter Dutch for his campaigning. As she points out, first aid does indeed save lives, and I will make sure that the Education Secretary has heard her contribution. Should my hon. Friend seek a debate, perhaps in Westminster Hall, I am sure her concerns would be echoed by all Members.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Local journalism is the lifeblood of our democracy, but the defamation laws in this country make it difficult for investigative media outfits—like The Londoner, The Manchester Mill and their parent company Mill Media—to speak truth to power. The Government’s own anti-corruption strategy recognises this threat to free speech, and has outlined a priority commitment of comprehensively tackling all strategic lawsuits against public participation, but it sets 2029 as the target date for action. Will the Leader of the House support my calls for a statement from the Ministry of Justice outlining what steps it is taking now to address SLAPPs?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I understand the frustration in his voice, not least because he has raised relevant cases in this area before, as have other Members. The Government recognise the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs on individuals and we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response from the Secretary of State for Justice.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have several constituents, including victims of violence against women and girls, who have been waiting a year or more for Devon and Cornwall police to respond to their complaints. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a meeting for me and the Policing Minister to discuss the capacity of Devon and Cornwall police to respond to complaints, and will he allow a debate in Government time on the handling of police complaints?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Delays in responding to complaints are frustrating for the public and for MPs, who want to be able to help their constituents. As we set out in our police reform White Paper, we will work with the Independent Office for Police Conduct to improve the police complaints and misconduct system. I will facilitate a meeting with the Policing Minister, as my hon. Friend requests.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, my constituents Gillian Greenwell and Craig Turpie from Bathgate’s Turpie & Co visited Parliament and watched business questions from the Gallery. They were visiting London for the Guild of Property Professionals awards, where they won silver in the overall UK award and gold in the Scotland award. As estate agents, they described this place as a period property located in a well-connected, up-and-coming community with views of iconic landmarks. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the team at Turpie & Co, commend them for their contribution to the local economy and wish them well for the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone at Turpie & Co on their success at the Guild of Property Professionals awards, and I thank them for joining us for business questions last week. I hope they enjoyed their visit to Parliament—which, given the R&R report that I mentioned earlier, could perhaps also be described as a fixer-upper.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
In a challenging geopolitical world, would the Leader of the House agree that Scotland both contributes to and benefits from the security of the United Kingdom as a whole?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; Scotland is fundamental to the security of the United Kingdom. We are developing the defence growth deal for Scotland, which will drive innovation and deliver support to businesses, boost local employment and ensure long-term sustainable growth. Our commitment to that and to the role that Scotland plays is absolute.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Schools in some of the most geographically isolated and economically deprived communities, including in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, have found it difficult to secure tour bookings under the new parliamentary booking system, which also affects their ability to access the associated travel subsidy, which is essential for schools from remote coastal areas. Will the Leader of the House commit to looking at how these tours are organised to ensure that pupils from geographically remote areas are not inadvertently excluded from visiting Parliament?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter—one that is dear to my heart, too, given the relative distance from this place to my north-east constituency. It is important to ensure that students living in rural areas, and indeed in any area, do not miss out on the opportunity to visit this Parliament and understand our democratic processes. I will ensure that the House authorities are aware of my hon. Friend’s question, but I can also tell him that the Administration Committee, and indeed the Commission, have asked for information about these matters to ensure that there is, as far as possible, no obstacle to young people visiting this place.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Next week will mark the first anniversary of the passing of Graham Murray, who tragically lost his life aged just 34 following a road traffic accident. Graham was a stalwart of Beckenham rugby club in my constituency, collecting nearly 150 caps, two titles and a promotion. He was also a beloved friend and family man, and I know that this first anniversary will be a difficult time for many of those close to him, especially his wife Aisling, and their children, Tadhg and Croia, as well as everyone at Beckenham rugby club. At their next home game, Beckenham will remember Graham with a minute’s applause, and some of his close friends will travel to Cork to be with his family. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending condolences to Graham’s family and all those who knew him, and in commending Beckenham rugby club for bringing people together, and for the vital role it plays in our Beckenham community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in sending our sincere thoughts to Graham Murray’s family and loved ones. It is truly devastating to lose a loved one due to a road traffic accident. The Government are working hard, through our road safety strategy, to try to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads. I pay tribute and send our best wishes and thanks to Beckenham rugby club for the part it is playing in this situation and the fantastic role it plays in its local community.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
This coming Monday, I will be honoured to join my long-standing friend Tom Jones, who also happens to be my eldest constituent, for his 108th birthday celebration. Tom joined the Labour party under the leadership of Sir Clement Attlee, and has supported our party under every subsequent leader. This year, he will complete 92 continuous years of service with Unite the Union. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Tom a very happy 108th birthday, and thank him for his lifetime of service to our community in the London borough of Bexley?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing Tom Jones the happiest of birthdays. I am sure that he has lived an incredible life, and we wish him well. He was a trade unionist and supporting our party before many Members of this House were born —in fact, before I was born; it is a rare occasion when I can say that. It is really saying something. We genuinely wish him all the very best and a very happy birthday.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, I was honoured to attend the annual apprenticeships awards held by Rochdale’s Hopwood Hall college, which highlight all our brilliant local businesses and talent. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating 19-year-old Lily Chandler, who was named apprentice of the year 2026, and 24-year-old Kieran Riseborough, who won the social mobility award? Both are engineering apprentices and are a great credit to our town and borough.
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Lily and Kieran on their well-deserved awards. It is National Apprenticeship Week, but these hard-earned skills are not just for this week—they are for life. That is why we have backed our guarantee that all 18 to 21-year-olds will have access to training, apprenticeships or help finding work with a record £3 billion apprenticeship budget. I wish Lily and Kieran all the very best for their working life going forward.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I recently hosted a drop-in advice surgery with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for people living with dementia and their carers. I was struck by the vital role played by local dementia support groups, such as Dementia Heroes in the west end of Glasgow. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on recognising the importance of these community-led organisations?
Sir Alan Campbell
Volunteer and community-led organisations are at the heart of our local communities, and the work that they do brings so much support to those in need. I join my hon. Friend in thanking organisations such as Dementia Heroes in his constituency. Every week, we hear from Members about the work of volunteers across our country, so if he sought a debate on the subject, I am sure that it would be popular.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The post office in Uxbridge provides vital services to my constituents. It gives access to banking services, to Government forms for applying for passports or driving licences, and to general postal services. That is why residents were horrified to hear that the post office will close at the end of May, with no replacement in sight, and that when the council approved the redevelopment of the building, it made no provision for a new post office, and placed no conditions on the developer to find a new site for a post office in the town centre. Does the Leader of the House agree that this simply is not good enough, and will he make time for a debate in this place about the vital role of community postal services?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It sounds like a very frustrating time for his constituents. He is right about the importance of post offices to town centres, and that is why this Government set minimum access criteria. I understand that an alternative location in Uxbridge is being actively explored, but he may wish to raise this matter at oral questions to the Department for Business and Trade at the beginning of next month and ask the Minister for an update.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I wrote to the Department for Transport in December 2024, warning that the closure of Kirk Hill bridge by Network Rail for 10 months would have a devastating impact on nearby businesses. Fifteen months later, Dolly’s, a local café, has closed for good. The owner Gemma told me that she needed £10,000 of support to get by over that 10-month period. That would have been 0.15% of the total cost of the project. We have lost a popular local business, and three people have lost their job. Does the Leader of the House agree that more can and should be done to recognise the unique impact of road closures on rural businesses, and will he advocate on my behalf to the Department on this issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents, and I am genuinely sorry to hear of the case that he raises. He understands that road closures can greatly impact local communities and businesses, particularly in rural areas. I know that he has raised this matter with the Department for Transport, and I will ensure that he gets a response.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
On Tuesday, I joined civic leaders in Leeds, and Leeds United football club, in celebrating the £650 million expansion of Elland Road stadium. It will bring enormous benefits to my part of Leeds, including jobs and opportunities. It will also ensure that those of us who have been on the season ticket waiting list for years can finally buy a ticket. Much more importantly, parallel to that project is the West Yorkshire mass transit project, which has the potential to amplify and extend those benefits to all the people of Leeds. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate in Government time on ensuring that the Leeds, Bradford and West Yorkshire tram, including stations in my constituency and others, is delivered ahead of schedule and on budget, so that all the people of Leeds can benefit from this investment?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend points out, sport is an important part of the economy for our local communities, and that is why there is a commitment to such investment. This Government are committed to improving transport in the north. The Transport Secretary is working closely with the West Yorkshire Mayor to ensure that we deliver a mass-transport system. Should my hon. Friend seek a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, I am sure that colleagues from his region would join him in doing so. If he seeks a meeting with a Minister, I will facilitate that.
Social Rented Housing Sector
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Florence Eshalomi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement.
This week, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee published our fourth report, on the condition of homes in the social rented sector. This report is the first of a series of outputs from our broader inquiry on the condition of homes. We have also been looking at the condition of homes in temporary accommodation and in the private rented sector, and we hope to publish reports on that in due course. In this first report, we focused on social housing.
Over the last 25 years, there has been substantial progress on improving the condition of social homes. In 2001, the last Labour Government introduced the decent homes programme to address the large backlog of disrepair that had built up for council homes. They set the target of bringing all social homes up to a decent standard by 2010. To achieve this, registered providers were given nine years to bring their homes to a minimum standard. That target was ultimately missed, but the programme was not without its successes. Over 1 million homes were improved by works carried out through the programme. By April 2009, the percentage of homes failing to meet minimum standards of decency had fallen to 14.5%, down from just under 40% at the start of the decade. That was a significant improvement.
Progress in bringing social homes up to a minimum standard has continued under successive Governments, albeit at a slower pace. However, as our report states, progress has now stalled, with very little improvement being seen since the pandemic. The latest findings from the English housing survey estimated that around 430,000 social homes still fail to meet the basic standard of decency.
Overcrowding continues to rise. Our report highlights that high energy prices mean that tenants struggle to heat their homes sufficiently in the winter. Cold homes and overcrowding can exacerbate hazards such as damp. Two thirds of social homes are at the highest risk of overheating during the summer months. Those are really concerning trends.
The Government have been clear that they want to deliver transformational and lasting change to the quality and safety of social homes over the next decade. They have made good progress. Following recent announcements, registered providers have more certainty about the standards that they will be expected to meet, and the increased resources available to enable them to do so.
Many Members will remember the tragic case of Awaab Ishak, who died aged two from a severe respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in his parent’s home. During his short life, Awaab had recurring cold symptoms and respiratory tract infections, and he had to visit the GP surgery more often than most children. Awaab’s parents reported the mould to their housing association in 2017, before Awaab was born. The coroner’s report states that
“no action was taken to address the mould before Awaab died”
in December 2020, at which point the mould was present in every single room.
During our inquiry, we heard from a mother whose 18-month-old baby started getting chest infections because of the black mould behind her bed. The mould had spread everywhere, but complaining got her nowhere. Awaab’s law is now being rolled out across social housing. It enables tenants to take legal action against their social landlord if they fail to remove hazards in a timely way. On balance, we thought that the Government’s decision to introduce Awaab’s law in phases, starting with the most dangerous flats, was right. However, tenants and housing providers would benefit from a clearer timeline of when the next phases of Awaab’s law will apply. Our report calls for the Government to set that out. For many residents, taking legal action against their landlord is not a decision they want to take. We will be keeping a close eye on the effectiveness of Awaab’s law to ensure that it delivers meaningful protection to tenants, especially the most vulnerable tenants.
By 2030, social landlords will need to make sure that their homes comply with new minimum energy efficiency standards. That is a positive step, though the pace of retrofits will need to accelerate if the sector is to upgrade the remaining homes by 2030. Under the official definition of fuel poverty, a household is not considered to be fuel poor if their home has an energy performance certificate rating at band C or above. However, those living in the homes that comply with the new minimum energy efficiency standard may still struggle to heat their home sufficiently if their energy prices are too high. Our report calls on the Government to amend the definition of fuel poverty in their forthcoming fuel strategy to reflect this. Otherwise, the Committee is concerned that the new energy efficiency standards, while necessary, will provide false assurances that tenants are protected from the multiple risks that arise from living in a cold home.
We welcome the Government’s new decent homes standard. Today’s standard was last updated in 2006, and it is in desperate need of reform. Shockingly, almost 430,000 homes still fail to meet the basic standard, 25 years after it was introduced.
The Government plan to bring the new decent homes standard into force by 2035. A lot of work needs to take place over the next nine years. The Building Research Establishment has estimated that about 45% of social homes will need to be brought up to the new standard. Although the last Labour Government’s decent homes programme was successful, many homes failed to meet the decent homes standard. The Government’s new decent homes standard will improve the quality and safety of homes, but we do not want to find that by 2035 a large proportion of homes have still not been upgraded.
Until 2035 is already too long for many tenants to wait. They must not be told to wait longer. That is why we are recommending that the Government introduce interim targets stipulating the percentage of social homes that should be upgraded to the revised decent homes standard in each year before the standard comes into force in 2035. That will help to reassure and demonstrate to the public that progress is being made. We are also asking the Government to introduce a process to review and if necessary update the decent homes standard periodically, at least every 10 years.
As I say, the Government have made good progress, which is welcome. The sector now has clarity, which it needs to meet the standards. Changes to the rent settlement will help registered providers to improve the quality of their homes. However, we are concerned that those steps alone will not be sufficient to deliver the improvements that the Government want. Our view is that there is a strong case for the Government to establish a new, modern decent homes programme to support social landlords to raise standards.
Even with the investment from the Government and the changes to the rent settlement, we are concerned that the sector will not have sufficient resources to meet the new standards. There is a real risk that the cost of new regulation will lead landlords to sell their homes instead of adapting them. Although we welcome the Government’s plans to make a transformational and lasting change to the quality of social homes, they do not address the long-term, systemic drivers of poor conditions, especially the need to replace ageing stock. We hope that the Government’s long-term housing strategy will be an opportunity to fill the gap, and we urge them to publish the strategy as soon as possible.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The quality of social housing is a huge issue across my Woking constituency, and residents and constituents contact me about it daily, so I was pleased to help draft the cross-party report. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for her leadership on the issue. What response has she had from the Government since the publication of the report, particularly to our request for a new and modern decent homes programme?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my fellow Committee member for his work to ensure consensus on this important cross-party issue, which many of us see in our inboxes. We hope for a full, detailed response, so we will allow the Government to come back to us, but I hope that they will recognise that this is a really important issue. If we want to ensure a lasting legacy for Awaab, it is important that the Government enact our recommendations and ensure funding for them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
As the chair of the recently formed all-party parliamentary group for council and social housing, I welcome the report’s conclusion about the importance of boosting the supply of social housing to meet the huge demand for new, high-quality, genuinely affordable homes and to replace older, lower-standard homes that are long past their lifespan. It is a daunting task, but we know that it can be done: the great reforming post-war Labour Government built more than 800,000 council houses between 1946 and 1951. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need bold policies now to match the scale of that achievement?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend, like many of us, is a proud advocate for ensuring that this Government honour their commitment to build new social homes. It is important that we look at the range of avenues available to house builders, councils and developers, and that the Government continue to fund them. My hon. Friend may be aware of the affordable homes programme prospectus, which opened just this month. The Government are asking councils, developers and housing associations to come forward with bids; we very much hope that a number of those bids will be for new, high-quality, family-sized social homes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair and the Committee for their report; I declare an interest as the chair of the healthy homes and buildings all-party parliamentary group. Finding a way forward is critical. As a Northern Ireland MP, I see this issue every week. Given the importance of the recommendations and details that the hon. Lady and her Committee have set out, I ask that they be shared with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the major social housing provider in Northern Ireland, and with the housing associations. This is significant, and they need to know about it.
Florence Eshalomi
I always thank the hon. Member for his wonderful, timely interventions on many issues across the House. Conditions in homes have an impact on all constituency MPs across the UK: it is a big issue that we see weekly in our inboxes and our advice surgeries, so it is important that we share best practice and learning from other regions in the UK.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her excellent report. Does she agree that housing associations sometimes try to get the heat taken off them by employing managing agents? When constituents approach them for repairs and so on, they are often sent back from one to the other. I have had particular incidents at the Darcus Howe apartments on Brixton Hill, where Notting Hill Genesis, which is the housing association, and Crabtree keep shirking the responsibility for providing some vital changes. For example, people could not get heating between November and January, the coldest months. Does my hon. Friend think that more should be done? Perhaps we should be better able to hold people criminally liable for the situations in which they put our constituents.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my constituency neighbour for highlighting just one of the many examples that Members across the Chamber will have seen in their inboxes. We need to recognise how some housing associations that receive Government grants to build homes are treating their tenants. It is important to direct residents to the Regulator of Social Housing and other avenues. I hope that the management issue will come up in the forthcoming commonhold and leasehold legislation.
Point of Order
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wrote to the Chancellor on behalf of a constituent on 10 December last year; I followed that up on 6 January and 20 January, but on each occasion I received no substantive reply. It was only when I tabled a written question that Ministers finally informed me that my correspondence had been passed to HM Revenue and Customs. They told me three weeks ago that they would reply by 11 February, yet they have not done so, nor have they written to me.
It has been more than two months since I first raised the matter with the Chancellor. I have no answer for my constituent. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what further avenues there are to ensure that this Government treat Members of this House properly?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. It is important that Members receive timely answers from the Government to such correspondence. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench are listening. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noticed not only the hon. Member’s concerns but those of other Members about slow correspondence, and no doubt they will pass on his remarks. He may also wish to consult the Table Office about other steps that he can take if he so chooses.
Bill Presented
Representation of the People Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Steve Reed, supported by the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, Secretary Liz Kendall, Secretary Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Samantha Dixon, Chris Ward and Josh Simons, presented a Bill to make provision extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds; to make provision about the registration of voters; to make provision about the administration and conduct of elections, referendums and recall petitions; to make provision about election agents’ addresses; to make provision about political expenditure and political donations; to make provision about information to be included in electronic campaigning material; to make provision about offences and civil sanctions in connection with elections, referendums and recall petitions and with donations and expenditure for political purposes; to make provision about the disclosure of information by the Electoral Commission; to make provision about the disqualification of offenders for holding elective offices, and their sentencing, where offences are aggravated by hostility towards persons involved in elections, referendums or recall petitions or holders of such offices; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 23 February, and to be printed (Bill 384) with explanatory notes (Bill 384-EN).
Backbench Business
LGBT+ History Month
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for approving this debate. I am pleased that it has become a regular fixture of the calendar in the world’s gayest Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), who made the application with me and whose relentless work for LGBTQ+ rights inspires me every day, not least her victory at the Council of Europe, where her report on banning conversion practices passed with a resounding majority. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that they will publish a draft Bill to that end, and I hope the Minister will use today as an opportunity to set out more details and timelines.
I appreciate the irony of one of the younger LGBTQ+ MPs opening a debate about LGBTQ+ history. Luckily, I respect my elders, so if any of my colleagues who lived through that history would like to intervene, correct me if I am getting it wrong and reveal how old they are, they will be more than welcome—although I am confident that even the most senior among them will not be able to recall ancient Greece, which I will mention later.
I do think, however, that it is appropriate for someone like me to open the debate, because in so many ways I am a product of LGBTQ history. The life I lead today —that I am able to be an openly queer MP, that I was taught in school about LGBTQ+ people, that I can marry my girlfriend if we so choose, that discrimination against me is banned—is because of the struggle of generation upon generation of LGBTQ+ people, from the Gay Liberation Front to those who overturned section 28, from Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners to those who set up Switchboard, and from anti-AIDS activists to the gay MPs upon whose shoulders we stand. They include Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Member of this House, who fought tirelessly for gender equality and sex workers’ rights, and Chris Smith, who came out in 1984 at a rally against gay employees being banned from his local council. Thanks to the last Labour Government responding to the LGBTQ+ rights movement, the age of consent was equalised, section 28 was repealed, civil partnerships were granted, same-sex couples can adopt, trans people can have their gender legally recognised and the Equality Act 2010 was passed.
I feel immensely grateful to those who came before me that I did not experience many of the horrors that they did. I wish that those who are no longer with us could see us now: the record numbers who are comfortable and safe identifying as their true selves and who live better and more equal lives because of everything that they fought for.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful and passionate speech. She is such a fantastic advocate for the LGBT+ community, and she has highlighted the many people who have passed on. As she will know, I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, which still have a disgraceful stigma attached to them. Does she agree that, with the science and innovation theme of this year’s LGBTQ+ History Month, we should celebrate science and innovation across the HIV and AIDS sector along with this Government’s fight to ensure we are one of the first countries to end new HIV transmissions by 2030?
Nadia Whittome
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and I congratulate her on all her work on this since we were elected together in 2019. She is absolutely right and I commend the Government for their work in this area.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that many in our community continue to suffer, both here and around the world. I am proud to be the co-chair of the APPG on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) rights. The situation for our siblings internationally varies immensely from place to place. In 65 countries—that is a third of all states—LGBTQ+ people are still criminalised because of who they are and who they love. While we see progress in some places, in others new discriminatory laws and policies continue to be introduced.
Unfortunately, the UK is one of the places where the state of LGBTQ+ rights has been getting worse instead of better. In preparation for today, I rewatched the speech made in 2023 by, if I may, lesbian icon and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). I was struck by her reflection that she would scarcely have believed the progress that has been made in the three decades since she was first elected in 1992. I am devastated that I cannot say the same for my time here. During the past six years that I have been an MP, progress has not only stalled but things have gone backwards.
Last year, the UK dropped six places to 22nd in ILGA-Europe’s ranking of LGBTQ+ rights in European countries. In 2015, we were No. 1. The only other countries that suffered a similarly dramatic drop last year were Hungary, whose far-right Government banned Pride marches, and Georgia, which is implementing Russian-style anti-LGBTQ laws. ILGA-Europe has been explicit that the Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission are the cause of our regression, as trans people in this country can no longer fully obtain legal gender recognition. Many now live in fear of being terrorised out of public life, whether through discrimination, abuse and violence from those who have been emboldened to become the gender police, or through endless legal threats forcing more and more spaces to exclude them.
We have to ask: what is the endgame here? What do people opposed to trans inclusion want trans people to do—live segregated lives that violate their privacy and dignity, and be forced back into the closet and somehow to stop existing? What about intersex people? What are they meant to do when their biological sex has always been more complicated than simply male or female? That is why I think that this month also acts as an important corrective to the lie that anti-trans activists often tell that sex is binary and that until recently gender identity was straightforward—man have penis, woman have vagina, trans people do not exist. Tell that to Roberta Cowell, the first known British trans woman to undergo gender-affirming surgery and have her birth certificate changed in 1951, or to Charley Wilson, a trans man and ship’s painter from the Victorian era, or to Eleanor Rykener, who was a trans, 14th-century embroiderer, barmaid and sex worker. Tell that, too, to intersex people who have been documented in texts from as far back as ancient Greek, Roman and Indian times, to the two-spirit people of indigenous north Americans or to the hijra in south Asia.
As countless biologists, psychologists and societies across the world will attest, both gender identity and sex have always been complex, diverse and not simply defined by the genitalia that those opposed to trans rights, along with the media, are so obsessed with discussing. It is also not the case that more trans people have just appeared out of nowhere in recent years. Trans people have always existed, trans people will always exist and we should be proud that more people finally feel able to live as their true selves, rather than hide in shame and fear with dire consequences for their mental health.
We should celebrate that, alongside the record numbers of people identifying as gay, lesbian and bisexual. Instead, a vocal minority hopes that if we make trans people’s lives as difficult as possible, if they are hounded and abused, maybe we can get back to a mythical time when they could pretend that trans people did not exist, when gay people were not in their face and when women knew their place. Let me be clear, the roll-back of rights is all linked, and efforts to narrow the definition of womanhood, police people’s gender expression and tie women to our biology are a patriarchal and homophobic wet dream. We are already seeing how the Supreme Court ruling and interim EHRC guidance are leading to women—cis as well as trans—being challenged and harassed in toilets and other single-sex spaces. Gender-critical activists have some brass neck claiming that they are advancing our rights through their actions.
I appreciate the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, and that the Supreme Court had the unenviable job of attempting to interpret the will of Parliament when making its ruling. I also appreciate that this Government therefore had no hand in the decision—but they are far from powerless. The interim guidance from the EHRC went far beyond even the Supreme Court’s ruling; we must ensure that the statutory guidance does not do the same. I hope the Minister can provide an update on where they are on that and confirm that the guidance will enable organisations to be inclusive of trans people instead of mandating their exclusion.
Parliament could legislate to make clear our intention in the Equality Act. I do not believe for a second that that landmark piece of equality legislation passed by the last Labour Government, after the Gender Recognition Act 2004, intended the blanket exclusion of trans people. If the law needs to be clarified, Parliament should make that clarification. We should not be triangulating on issues of human rights. We should not allow trans people to be thrown under the bus in an attempt to appease a tiny, well-funded, radicalised minority who are not representative of women or the rest of the LGBTQ+ community. All of us in the House have a duty to all our LGBTQ+ constituents, including trans people.
Trans people are the frequent topic of debate in this House, yet they have no ability to contribute to it. We must amplify their voices, experiences and concerns, and they are demanding that we oppose their exclusion. As a queer woman, I feel a particular debt to the trans community, because they fought for the rights that I enjoy today. They were on the Pride marches, they were at the die-ins, they lobbied their MPs, and I benefited from it. What kind of person would I be to pull up the ladder when the LGBTQ+ community has always been and will always be one, in struggle and in joy? There is no LGB without the T. We rise together and we fall together, and we must not let our trans siblings’ rights be taken.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) not only for taking the initiative on this debate, but for making a fantastic opening speech and saying so much about our trans community that is so important. I will come back to that in a moment.
In this LGBT+ History Month debate, it is important not only to acknowledge how far we have come on LGBT+ rights, but to renew our determination to protect the progress we have made and to do more both here and abroad to enable LGBT+ people to enjoy the same opportunities that non-LGBT+ people enjoy.
I will not repeat much of the excellent speech that my hon. Friend has just made and will keep my remarks fairly brief. I welcome the fact that through amending the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government are moving ahead with making LGBT+ and disability hate crime into aggravated offences, bringing them in line with racial and religious hate crime. But changes in the law need to be supported by cultural change. Unfortunately, too often we hear of denigration, taunting and bullying of LGBT+ people, sometimes through ignorance but also, I am sorry to say, through open prejudice, even among those who we would hope knew better in our public services.
Research by the TUC into harassment, bullying and prejudice of LGBT+ people in the workplace revealed that over half of respondents, rising to 80% of trans respondents, have been subject to one of those. There should be no rolling back of equality, diversity and inclusion programmes, whether that is LGBT+ inclusive relationship education for young people in schools or in a public or private sector workplace. I am pleased that our Employment Rights Act 2025 gives formal recognition to trade union equality officers and has strengthened employer duties against harassment. That will certainly help, but we should be under no illusion that there is not still much to do. I know a lot of work has been done on the conversion practices Bill, and I appreciate that the Minister is absolutely committed to bringing it forward and ensuring that it is fully trans inclusive, but time is ticking on, and I would be grateful if she could tell us when she is likely to publish a draft Bill.
Turning to the trans community, I have met many trans people and their families this year, as I expect the Minister has, who have been deeply upset since the Supreme Court ruling last April—not just by the ruling itself, but by the way in which the ruling has been seized on by some, interpreted far more widely than the context of the Equality Act 2010 and used as a weapon against trans people. We must find a way to enable trans people to live their lives peacefully and with dignity without having to come out repeatedly in all sorts of circumstances. I ask the Minister to ensure that, however we get to the final guidance on the practical implementation of the ruling, it really does respect the rights of trans people to privacy and to living their lives in their acquired gender, and that it also offers protection to all those organisations that find themselves under attack for being trans-inclusive. We need to see guidelines that focus on inclusion and not exclusion.
Turning to the international scene, we all appreciate that there are significant financial pressures at this time, but I would like to make a specific plea to ministerial colleagues to protect the support given to LGBT rights programmes through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s foreign aid budget. In the great scheme of things, it is not a huge amount of money, but it is nevertheless extremely important for several reasons—first and foremost, because it is not just a minority rights issue. Sadly, we see attacks on LGBT+ rights around the world used as a weapon to undermine our democracies, sowing division and dividing societies, and such attacks are often as a precursor to attacks on wider minority rights and to greater authoritarianism.
I will not repeat all the comments I made in Monday’s debate about the interference of Russia in our democracy and politics, but research by the Kaleidoscope Trust and its international partners, alongside UK Government and Equal Rights Coalition statements, has shown that hostile states, such as Russia, systematically promote anti-gender and anti-LGBTI+ narratives, which are used to polarise electorates, mobilise nationalist and populist movements, and even undermine trust in institutions, such as NATO, the EU and the UN. That is a threat to us, but it is an even greater threat in countries where democracy is more fragile.
Secondly, the UK still commands respect abroad, and strong support from the UK for programmes supporting LGBT rights sends a clear signal to other donor countries of the importance of this aid. Conversely, the cutting of UK aid for LGBT rights programmes may influence other donors negatively. Thirdly, any retreat from supporting LGBT rights is likely to embolden those who weaponise them and to exacerbate existing difficulties.
I am pleased to hear that the UK will host the IDAHOT—International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia—meeting in 2027. I ask the Minister if we could use that meeting both to improve our position in the rankings and to support LGBT rights internationally.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
It is a huge honour to co-lead this debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). We share many things, not least our proud queer identities and a deep commitment to equality, so I am pleased to have worked together to mark LGBT+ History Month.
After years of progress, it feels to many of us as though we are going backwards on many of the rights that LGBTQ+ people have fought hard for and gained. Rights that were hard won are now being treated as optional. Protections that people fought for—often at great personal cost—are being chipped away, one argument, one dog whistle, one headline at a time. For our trans siblings in particular, this feels like a dark and dangerous time. That is why LGBT+ History Month matters. Our history shows us the patterns—progress, backlash, progress again—and now we face another backlash. That backlash is never without harm; it comes at significant human cost.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)—on securing this debate and on the work she has done at the Council of Europe to secure the passing of that report on the trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban. That was a monumental achievement. Is she, like me, concerned about the rise of the far right across Europe and in the UK, and the threat that it poses to our constituents of LGBTQ+ backgrounds?
Kate Osborne
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the far right and others.
While we celebrate the trailblazers—the organisers, artists and campaigners; the nurses and carers who held hands in hospital wards when families would not visit; the friends who became family; the people who marched when it was dangerous; and the people who stood up when they were told to sit down—we also learn from their courage. We also remember that our history includes Pride marches and community groups, as well as trade union solidarity and working-class organising. One of the strongest lessons in our LGBT+ history is this: when working people stand together, we win change that reaches far beyond the workplace.
I declare an interest: I am a proud member of Unite the union. I take this opportunity to mention that, as well as LGBT History Month, this is Heart Unions Week. Trade unions are always at the heart of the fight for equality. They push employers to have policies on discrimination at work, and decades ago they brought about trans-inclusive policies. At a time when division is being weaponised, that lesson of solidarity is more important than ever.
In my beautiful Jarrow and Gateshead East constituency, I am proud of the work done by Out North East, particularly Drew Dalton and Peter Darrant, and their fantastic community work with youth groups and older LGBT people. Just last week, they opened new, bigger premises for the One Centre, the first LGBT media and business centre in the UK—and it is in my constituency. The location is a brand new LGBTQ+ inclusive space, and its facilities are incredible. When I visited, I was honoured and moved to realise that I was featured on the icons wall, alongside Bowie, and that there was a room named after me and another after the wonderful Lord Cashman from the other place. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I am proud to have led the debate at the Council of Europe, and I am pleased to say that my report on banning conversion practices passed with support from across the political spectrum and across Europe. The report contains a framework for legislation that each of the 46 countries is expected to adopt in its own Parliament. Our Government should now adopt that framework, because conversion practices do not just happen in theory; they happen to real people, in real life. They happen under the guise of “therapy”, “guidance”, “deliverance” or “counselling”. Their message is always the same: “You are broken. You are wrong. And you need to be fixed.” Well, I am here to say that I am a lesbian, and nothing about me needs to be fixed, thank you.
I am afraid that, instead of learning from the stigma and prejudice of the past, here we are marginalising, discriminating, preventing vital lifesaving healthcare and support, and excluding trans and non-binary people from sport, spaces and society. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that future MPs, Ministers and possibly Prime Ministers will stand where we are right now to dish out the kind of apologies, compensation and retribution for the wrongs of yesterday that we see happening all too often today. Why do we not save ourselves, and, most importantly, the trans community, by stepping up for them right now, instead of capitulating to a small band of very loud and well-funded bigots? Let us not make today’s discrimination tomorrow’s inquiry, public apology and compensation scheme—that is exactly where we are heading.
Let me finish with a celebration of our history. We are here today in the gayest Parliament in the world—12% of this Chamber is LGBT—and I am delighted to be serving queer joy in Parliament for all Members to hear. To the homophobes who are still just about clinging on to their prejudices, I say: I have some queer joy for you, too. It is 2026; we are still here, we have always been here, we are out and proud, and there are more of us than ever before, so just get over it already.
I am here to reaffirm my commitment to fighting for equality. As the new chair of the APPG on fertility, I will continue to fight for IVF for all. As the chair of the APPG on women’s football, I was pleased to be at the launch of the Premier League’s new “With Pride” campaign. It is great to see the rainbow flag flying across every football ground in the premier league. Football is a great unifier, and the north-east is renowned for being a hotbed of football. Perhaps that is why I loved it so much when I moved there back in 1989, and why I have never left. Football transcends borders and brings together people from diverse backgrounds. It is for everyone, so my message to the Football Association is this: let the dolls play football!
I thank the Minister for her support, for the many productive conversations that we have had, and for her work to introduce a ban on conversion practices and make LGBT hate crime an aggravated offence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a real honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). I reiterate my congratulations on her fine work on the report on banning conversion therapy in Europe. That is greatly needed, and I hope that the Government will soon follow suit.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who are both brilliant members of the Women and Equalities Committee, for their speeches. I note that other members of the Committee are here, too. My hon. Friends called out queer icons, but let me say that they are my icons. Not only do they serve the LGBT community, but they serve our movement—thank you.
Today, we are learning about history and how to learn the lessons of the past, so I am deeply disappointed that there are not more Opposition Members here. I am not surprised that Reform Members are not here—they are unwilling to learn, come together or bring people together—but I am surprised that there are no Green, Lib Dem or SNP Members. I have to say, I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who was sitting next to the shadow Minister, has left his place. He did not listen with respect to the brilliant opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East. Instead, he rolled his eyes. I feel that, although we try to bring everybody together—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member possibly remembers and knows that when we refer to other Members of the House, we let them know in advance. Has she had time to do that?
Sarah Owen
I shall be doing so. I had expected the hon. Member to stay and perhaps learn from the subsequent speeches. Perhaps he could come back and learn a bit more.
In every year that I have spoken in this debate, it seems that the LGBTQ+ community has had a tougher year than the one before. That is sadly as true today as it was last year. The mainstream has moved dangerously further right, to focus not on what brings people together but on what tears people apart. That is not leadership. The politics of the right is one of fear—it is cowardly. True strength is shown in the ability to learn, understand and lead people to a better future. Progress is not inevitable; we will have to fight for it. I say to the LGBTQ+ community: “You are not alone in that fight.”
I would understand why many people feel alone right now, however. Between March 2024 and March 2025, more than 18,000 hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation alone, and there were more than 3,000 trans-related hate crimes. Although 2024 saw a slight dip in reported hate crimes, there has still been a 44% increase over the past five years, and horrifyingly, there has been an 88% increase in hate crimes against trans people in that time.
Those horrifying statistics make it clear that some elements of the public are taking their lead from the current political discourse. Reform’s candidate in Gorton and Denton wants tax cuts for people who have children, which is deeply offensive to not only people like me, who have struggled to have a child, but to many LGBTQ+ people as well. We know that Reform ultimately does not want LGBT people to have children. Reform’s leader has gone on record with his belief that children are better off brought up in heterosexual households, rather than just with parents who love them. They are not hiding how they feel; they are saying it with their full chest, and they are reaping the benefits of a culture war where everyone is a casualty apart from them—a culture war that none of us sees an end to without serious leadership.
We know that when they are done with trans people, they will go after the LGB part of the community, and I wonder how long it will be before Reform and some elements of the Conservative party call for an end to same-sex couples being allowed to adopt. What was unthinkable years ago is not just being muttered quietly under their breath any more; it is now a full-throated attack under the cynical guise of “safety”—all a smoke- screen for the abuse and real danger that women and children face.
I wish I could say that this toxicity only exists in the right-wing parties, but sadly not. I cannot express how disappointed I was when my own party took the decision to exclude trans women members from our women’s conference. It has led me to my decision, which is, sadly, not to attend women’s conference for the first time in a very long time. It used to be one of my favourite parts of the conference season—a place for inclusivity and sensible discussion; I have even chaired some of the debates, which are so memorable in my mind—but if all women cannot go, neither will I. I have attended every party conference and many trade union conferences for nearly 20 years—yes, I am that old—and my safety was never put at risk from trans women, trans men or the LGBTQ+ community, but it was by cis men with power. These men are unaccountable to anyone—something that many are slowly cottoning on to in this place and others.
Accountability is incredibly important—it matters—so where is it? Where is it for the people who consistently trade off one person’s rights for another’s, only to serve their own agenda? Does the Minister believe the Equality and Human Rights Commission is up to the challenge of this ever more toxic environment? Is it resourced properly? I hope it is, because we need a defender of all our rights. Otherwise, as we watch America tear itself apart, I fear we are just one sneeze away from catching the disease of state-sanctioned hatred that sees leaders openly attack gay people, disabled people and ethnic minority people. We can do so much better than that.
There are many questions for the Minister, but I want to pose one that has already been raised: when will we see the ban on conversion therapy? As many young trans people wait for the puberty blocker trials to go ahead, what support is being given to them and their families in this time of uncertainty? I know our Labour Government are so much better than what we are seeing overseas right now, and I know the British public are so much better than to want what they are seeing overseas right now, but I also know that we can do better. Our country is not just tolerant but at its best when we celebrate difference, learn from one another and come together to celebrate the brilliant country we are. That is the country I want back.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who gave an incredibly powerful speech. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for her incredibly powerful opening remarks and for securing this debate. She is a proud, queer British south Asian who is a role model to so many, and that representation really does matter. I also want to say how proud I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) is at the Dispatch Box. We were friends long before we were elected to this place, and to see her here, responding to the debate, is quite a moment.
Happy LGBT+ History Month, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am here as a proud friend and ally. Stratford and Bow has a very proud history of queer resistance. It was home to the Tower Hamlets Lesbian and Gay Campaign Group when Thatcher’s Government introduced section 28. When they tried to silence and erase an entire community, the campaign group fought back with defiance, holding meetings at Bromley public hall to spread awareness and solidarity. While libraries across the country stopped stocking queer literature, Tower Hamlets defied this ban, even producing a gay and lesbian book list for their libraries. The campaign group also published Out East community magazine, spreading word far and wide. In Stratford, East London Gay Community was a thriving social group. It operated a telephone hotline every Tuesday night, taking up to 15,000 calls a year at its peak, offering help and support for gay people in east London and beyond for decades. Instead of shame, it offered solidarity, acceptance and care.
These stories are not just history; they are a legacy that has profoundly shaped our communities in east London and throughout London. We are still home to queer celebration and resistance, whether it is being the home of UK Black Pride at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park; Forest Gayte Pride, who defied hatred when people defaced our local flags; Out To Swim, who meet at the aquatics centre to support local LGBT+ people participating in sports; or amazing initiatives like Positive East and Newham LGBT Seniors, who meet at Stratford library. Everyone is welcome in Stratford and Bow, and we celebrate our history and heritage.
But as we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and look back on how far we have come, we cannot risk forgetting the lessons of that history. Those lessons are rarely convenient, and the risks of backsliding are ever present, as we have heard today. As I mentioned briefly, we have had our own issues in Forest Gate. We sadly saw hatred come to our community when our rainbow crossing—our Pride flag—was shamefully defaced multiple times. It reminded us that we cannot assume or take for granted the progress that we have made. This awful act was a hate crime and an attack on our local queer community, and it was not just the LGBT+ community in Forest Gate but everyone—all our neighbours—who were affronted that it had happened. We now have rainbow wraps adorning our street lamps. When we unveiled them, the community stood together to share a defiant message: hate will not win here. LGBT identities will never be erased, and certainly not on my watch as their MP.
As I said, we cannot risk complacency. Progress is hard fought and hard won. In the months since the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, hundreds of my constituents have written to me to share their experiences, their fears and the deep impact that the interim guidance issued by the EHRC is having on their daily lives. The lack of clarity also has an impact on organisations across the country and on trans people, who increasingly find themselves excluded from this discussion. Just as we demand that women’s voices are heard and respected, so too must we listen to trans women’s voices, who find themselves subject to mockery and abuse as those on the far right stoke culture wars. These are real people and real lives.
Last year I wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities to make the views of my constituents clear: we must ensure that the Supreme Court ruling does not leave anyone facing yet more barriers to living a full, happy and dignified life, free of discrimination and harassment. I shared stories from my constituents. One, who transitioned over 25 years ago, told me that the place where they have worked for 13 years now has segregated toilets. They are terrified that they will now have to disclose their trans identity to their colleagues, infringing their right to privacy and risking their safety and inclusion at work.
This is not an abstract discussion; it is about the real lives of real people living in every one of our communities. They deserve dignity and freedom to live as they have been living, in many cases for decades, without issue. That is why we must see the new EHRC guidance come forward as soon as possible. We cannot risk backsliding by allowing this judgment to license discrimination or undermine the norms of trans inclusion. It cannot signal a move away from LGBT liberation after decades of progress. We often hear that Pride is a protest, but Pride is also a movement rooted in resistance, in defying silence and in refusing shame. We have come so far, but it bears repeating that the lessons of history are clear: progress was hard won and it must be defended.
This LGBT+ History Month is not just about struggle; it is about joy and the celebration of queer identity, and I am here as a proud ally to celebrate this. It is what the Tower Hamlets Gay and Lesbian Campaign Group and the East London Gay Collective stood for, and it is a legacy that we must all carry forward—in particular at this moment for our trans friends and neighbours. As we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and look back on how far we have come, let us remember that progress is never inevitable. It demands resolve and allyship, including from each and every one of us in this place.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for her introduction to the debate.
According to data compiled by the House of Commons Library, over 10% of the population of my Glasgow North constituency identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual—one of the highest proportions in the country—and over 1% identify as transgender, which is also well above the national average. The data illustrate a wider story of a growing number of people feeling confident to live their lives openly as their true selves. At the same time, there are those who feel unable to do so, and those who feel that they can only be open about themselves in some circumstances but not in others.
The recent history of LGBT+ rights has seen a growing confidence shaping and being shaped by legislative change and by cultural-societal change: cultural-societal change influencing legislative change; and, in turn, legislative change influencing cultural-societal change. Progress has been made in recent decades, but for many that progress now feels less secure than ever.
LGBT+ History Month gives us an opportunity to reflect on this history: a history of prejudice and of progress; a history of shame and of pride; a history marked by hatred and by love. Too many personal histories have never fully been told, too many talents never fully celebrated, and too many denied the opportunities to live their lives fully. There are also those who, despite challenges and barriers, hatred and discrimination, have lived their lives as fully as they could, enhancing the lives of many and still remembered today.
Constituencies like mine, in large cities, have so often been a magnet for LGBT+ people, who see the big city as perhaps more liberal or more anonymous: the smalltown boy phenomenon, put into anthemic form by Bronski Beat in the ’80s. For many, big cities like Glasgow have been a lifeline and have become their space, but for too many others, the dazzle of the bright lights hid dark places.
The draw of the big city has been around for many decades. In 1933, two working-class Scots, Robert Colquhoun and Robert MacBryde, often referred to as “the Two Roberts”, arrived at the Glasgow School of Art from Ayrshire. They went on to become renowned artists and shared a lifelong romantic relationship at a time when gay relationships were illegal. There are histories of LGBT+ artists, writers and musicians, but there are histories too—not recorded and not told—of LGBT+ shop assistants, delivery drivers and joiners. These histories need to be written and told.
As we recall and retell LGBT+ history this month, we celebrate progress but also recognise the difficult times. I was a teenager and became an adult in the 1980s, when the world was faced with what is now referred to as the AIDS crisis. At the time, I recall the newspaper headlines referring to “the gay plague”. I still remember clearly reading a news story about how schools were cancelling swimming lessons at a local authority swimming pool because gay men had been swimming there. I also remember a story about a café owner who reassured his customers by telling them not to worry, as he had smashed and got rid of the crockery and cutlery used by a gay customer and deep cleaned the café. There was a clear popular narrative that gay equals illness equals death. Even by 1996, when the film “Beautiful Thing” was released, it was still possible to shock by having a mainstream film with gay characters who end the film alive, well and happy.
LGBT+ History Month is an opportunity to recall history, to celebrate and to pay respects. It is also an opportunity in this place to reflect on how legislative change has not just been the result of cultural-societal change, but also how legislative change can be a tool to drive cultural-societal change. It is an opportunity for us in this place to reflect on that and to acknowledge the importance of the leadership that can be taken through legislative change. Ultimately, it is a call for us to act.
History moves on. It is our job to make the next legislative change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the progress that is being made to bring forward comprehensive and inclusive legislation to ban conversion practices outright. We need to bring forward that legislation, quite rightly, in response to calls for it, but also because it is our duty in this place not just to respond but also to lead progressively. It is for us to take action and to legislate to reflect the changes in society, but it also our duty to use the powers that we have to change society for the better. In this LGBT+ History Month, let us remember the history that has brought us to where we are, but also remember our responsibility to help shape the history that is still to be written.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing the debate and for their powerful remarks. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for his powerful speech calling for the change that we need. He reminded us of the horrors of the 1980s and the way that the LGBT community was represented at that time. I remember that really clearly, and I think it will take us a long time to recover from the horror put into young people at the time and the damage done over decades.
I am here as a proud friend and ally to the LGBT community, and to talk about what LGBT+ History Month means for my constituency and my constituents. The purpose of the month is to celebrate, reflect, learn, and plan what we need to do to secure rights going into the future. I am grateful to hon. Members for talking about struggle and about joy. I want to talk about the joy that I know takes place in my community and my constituency every day, and some of the struggles that we face.
I am so proud to represent a constituency with such historic ties to the LGBT community. It is home to London Pride, G-A-Y, the City of Quebec—the oldest LGBT venue, we think; I invite any historians in the Chamber to challenge me on that—and She Soho, and has been home to historic figures including Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing and Vita Sackville-West. I have had the joy of representing and talking to my constituents in the Westminster LGBT+ Forum, and I want to give a shout-out to that forum for the kindness that I have experienced—I have worked with Professor Pippa Catterall, its chair—as well as to Pride in the Square Mile. I also want to celebrate the Bishopsgate Institute and its incredible archive of LGBT history. If anyone has time over recess, I strongly recommend a visit; everyone here would be welcomed. We are incredibly proud, too, to host 56 Dean Street, an inspiring sexual health service based in Soho that has a pioneering approach to securing excellent sexual health services.
It has been truly inspiring to hear about the progress that has been made over the years; support for gay marriage has gone up from 54% in 2010 to 78% in 2023. We have also heard this afternoon of incredible stories of sacrifice. It is less than 30 years since the horrendous attack at the Admiral Duncan pub. Many of us will remember that week and what it felt like to live in a city where people could be attacked—where people could be murdered—for who they were. I pay tribute to the National Hate Crime Awareness Week team, who are friends of people who lost their lives in the Admiral Duncan attack, to the Rev. Simon Buckley and to Councillor Patrick Lilley—the Westminster LGBT champion and lead member for Soho—for the work that they do at the annual remembrance event for the victims of the Admiral Duncan attack. I do not think there has ever been singing in the Chamber, but I cannot articulate how powerful it is to listen to the Pink Singers sing “I Wanna Dance with Somebody” at that annual remembrance service. All Members are welcome to join me there to show respect and celebrate the joy, but also to remember the terrible struggles that people have lived through.
Six months ago, a homophobic group marched through the very centre of Soho, attacking people for who they are and chanting hate. That is still very live for us.
We are also now facing an attack on trans rights. My constituents, like those of many other Members here, have contacted me in deep pain about what they are experiencing in the horrific culture war that we are living through—that many of us are fighting to get through. We cannot allow the current level of attack on trans people to continue, and we cannot allow the interim guidance to stop people living their life as who they are.
We in this Chamber are united in wanting to rally towards a position where people can live freely as who they are. We all deserve dignity in struggle. We all deserve dignity in love. We all deserve dignity in joy.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I am so proud and pleased to be taking part in this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). She may be young, but she is a fearless, knowledgeable and compassionate champion of our movement. I also pay tribute to all my other wonderful colleagues, both those from my community and the proud allies, who have spoken in this debate. I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who shared stories that vividly brought back to me what it was like living through the 1980s. I thank him for that.
LGBT history in this country is shaped by courage, service, resilience and, far too often, injustice. The history of discrimination against LGBT people runs through our armed forces, our healthcare system, our laws, the way that our courts treated lesbian mums, and our communities. It is a history that reminds us that progress is not inevitable and that if equality is not defended, the progress we have fought for can be destroyed far too easily.
I attended my first Pride in 1986, not long after the great work of Mark Ashton and Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners. It was a celebration of how far we had come and a protest that we still faced injustice. I never could have predicted that section 28 would be introduced just two years later. That year, I attended Pride alongside angry and distraught friends.
Section 28 was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbian, gay and bisexual people. In just two years, the progress that I had seen as a student had been ripped away from us. That is a reminder that equality is an ongoing battle. Today, I see the same people who supported section 28 trying to row back on rights for trans people. That is why LGBT+ History Month matters, because it reminds us that progress cannot be taken for granted.
This LGBT+ History Month, I want to remember all the LGBT soldiers and veterans who have served the United Kingdom. Even when the armed forces rejected them, they proudly served our country. Many had their careers ended, their ranks stripped and their sacrifices and service erased simply because of who they were and who they loved. That treatment was a moral stain on our nation.
As a Labour MP, I am proud that it was a Labour Government who lifted the ban on LGBT people serving in the military. We can never undo the harm that was done to veterans, but we can take responsibility for it. That is why it is important to implement the recommendations of the Etherton review so that LGBT veterans get compensation, have their ranks restored and have their records corrected. Only by implementing those recommendations will we restore dignity, pride and historical truth.
It was truly an honour to see the King unveil the memorial to LGBT military personnel at the National Memorial Arboretum, which is not far from my constituency. I spent a wonderful day on Boxing day with my partner, Dawn, visiting and thinking at that memorial.
Turning to the present, in the coming weeks, the amendment to hate crime laws, which I called for in the House last year, will be brought forward in the House of Lords. I worked with my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), and over 100 other MPs, to equalise the law on hate crime. It will make all hate crimes aggravated offences so that disabled and LGBT people receive the same support as victims of other hate crimes and have the same time to report those distressing, vile, degrading and often violent crimes. That will mean that their experiences are treated with the same severity as those of people suffering hate crimes because of their race or religion. That was a manifesto promise from the Labour party, and I am proud to be part of a Government who are delivering on that promise and who turn up on these Benches when these issues are debated and LGBT history is celebrated.
LGBT+ History Month is not just about the past; it is about highlighting how discrimination persists today. Homophobia and transphobia still destroy lives. I was pleased to welcome the Premier League With Pride launch this week, which uses the power of sport to promote inclusion and respect. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, we may see premier league players coming out as gay and being supported.
LGBT people have long faced barriers to healthcare, from the stigma faced by gay men during the AIDS crisis to lesbians being denied help with painful periods and reproductive health problems and trans people trying to navigate a system that often meets them with suspicion instead of care. History teaches us that inaction is not neutral; it only allows harm to continue. That is why I welcome the steps that this Labour Government are taking to improve LGBT people’s access to healthcare. The HIV action plan is groundbreaking and will support the goal of ending new transmissions by 2030. I applaud the excellent work done by the Terrence Higgins Trust. Thousands of people will benefit from improved HIV testing and treatment. That is the change that a Labour Government can make.
I have one final point to make: we must be bolder when it comes to standing up for the rights of trans people. Culture wars have polluted online social media platforms with vitriolic hatred towards trans people, who make up less than 1% of the population. When I speak with them, I hear the same story: all they want is access to the healthcare that they need and to live their life without fear of discrimination. The parents of trans children who come to see me in my surgery want the same thing. At the same time, we see a minority, who claim to represent the views of women, calling for trans people to have their rights eroded.
I believe that we can stand side by side. I know that most people want to live and let live. Now more than ever, the LGBT community and our wonderful allies must continue to stand against all homophobia and transphobia. We must learn from our history, so that we never allow our progress to be taken from us. We are proud of our history, we are proud of who we are, we are proud of who we love, and we are never going underground.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I start by congratulating my faves, my formidable hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), on securing this vital debate and on their brilliant speeches. I know that this debate means a lot to members of the LGBT+ community in my constituency and across the UK.
I am pleased to hear the reflections on and recognition of the incredible achievements of LGBT+ people throughout history, and about the remarkable fight for equality and an end to discrimination. Sadly, we all know that that fight is not yet over and there is still a substantial way to go before LGBT+ people are free to live and love without prejudice.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East on her victory at the Council of Europe in passing the report on banning conversion therapy, because one step to end discrimination that the previous Government—and, so far, this Government—have failed to take is the introduction of a complete trans-inclusive ban on LGBT+ conversion therapy, a vile practice better described as a form of torture of LGBT+ people. We said:
“So-called conversion therapy is abuse—there is no other word for it—so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.”
I was pleased to take those words in our 2024 manifesto to the electorate, and I was proud to hear the promise reiterated in the King’s Speech, yet almost two years on, we are still awaiting the draft conversion practices Bill.
For every day that the legislation is delayed, LGBT+ people are subjected to medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious and cultural and other abusive interventions that seek to change, “cure” or suppress their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. A person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is not something that needs to be cured, nor should it be suppressed. There is nothing wrong with being lesbian, gay, bi, trans or queer, or identifying in any other way that comes under the LGBT+ umbrella. It seems like we are taking steps back on equality when we have to state that in 2026, but it is necessary because conversion practices have not been banned in their entirety, and those undertaking them seek to say otherwise. They seek to tell LGBT+ people that their identity is wrong when that is simply untrue.
It is not uncommon for individuals to question or explore their sexual orientation or gender identity and seek guidance and support from their friends, family or even religious leaders, but it has always irked me when people attempt to use faith in these arguments, especially when I think of Jesus’s final commandment: quite simply, to love one another. I have never understood how you can love someone while at the same time discriminating against them.
Conversion therapy is not supportive, not affirming and not therapeutic. It is a one-directional practice that seeks to force LGBT+ people to change their sexual orientation or gender identity through pseudoscientific counselling sessions, threats, corrective rape, being prayed over as a form of “healing”, and even exorcisms. These practices do nothing to make a person straight or cisgender; in fact, all they do is cause immense psychological and physical harm. For every day that the legislation is delayed, these vile conversion practices continue, and LGBT+ people are at risk of having them offered to them or forced on them.
The previous Government promised to bring in a ban, but they delayed and U-turned and, ultimately, failed to introduce one. I am sure it is not a spoiler to say that I am sure the Government will deliver on their manifesto commitment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate, particularly because I know that she has long campaigned on these issues, but the urgent question that I would like her to answer is: when?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that was opened with such excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne).
It is also an honour to speak having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), whose mention of “Beautiful Thing” got me thinking about the different ways that queer culture has been depicted in our culture. He reminded me of a social media post a few weeks ago by the TV critic Scott Bryan, who said that over his lifetime, LGBT+ and queer storylines have gone from
“being a rarity or…too controversial”
decades ago, to being in soaps, where they were often depicted as a moral outrage,
“to being occasionally mentioned but never explored (aka the gay best friend)”.
In other words, LBGT+ characters were presented but their storylines were never developed. Later, there would be some exploration, but typically there would be a tragic ending and the character would die. Later still, a gay or LGBT+ character might be explored, but only after the watershed, and really only to be embraced by an LGBT+ audience. In more recent years, we have seen the creation of queer shows, which may be targeted at younger people to tell them that everything is going to be okay, or, as we saw with “Heated Rivalry”, something altogether different—I think I will leave my description at that.
In thinking about that, I realised that what we are talking about are largely lesbian and gay TV shows, not trans TV shows. In turn, that made me realise that, although Pride is primarily of, by and for the people who dance under the same rainbow, it is also about liberation for everyone from prejudice. Really, we can only open our eyes to a safe and more compassionate society if we listen to trans people and protect them.
I want to reflect what some of my constituents who are trans have said to me. They have told me that they believe that too often their identities, their rights and the care that they receive are separated completely from what they need, and politicians do not listen to what they have to say. We do not realise that, although we talk in debates about the difficulties that trans people face, the predominant narrative is not universally true. It is not the case that all trans people are constantly suffering, depressed or impoverished. Susannah, who lives in my constituency, said:
“I am a very happy person leading an ordinary, productive and caring life. I am loved by my family, loved by friends. Trans people are doctors, accountants, crafts people, nurses, teachers, pilots, shopkeepers, carers… we are good and decent people spread across the country, leading productive lives.”
When we tell stories like my constituent’s, we are telling stories about real people and real families, and we are talking about the harms and the opportunities that society chooses to prevent or permit. In telling these stories, I also want to pay tribute to the parents of trans children; when society at large seems to have it out for their kid, that often takes a toll on them. They have fierce, unwavering love, but often that is ignored and their concerns go disregarded. I want them to know that I am listening to their views, just as I am listening to the views of their trans children.
That is particularly important because, although we do not choose our sexual orientation or gender identity, being openly gay or trans very much is a choice. I could no more be straight than a trans person could make themselves cisgender. The alternative is to stay in the closet and feel shame wash over you—a shame that can lead to anxiety, depression and sometimes even suicide. Being gay or trans is about choosing yourself—that is the choice. When our opponents try to make the cost of choosing yourself too severe to bear, when they try to make transgender people cisgender by denying them care or surgery, when they say that they seek to spare young people from medical care or surgery, they are effectively implying, although they do not say it, that people can be cured of being transgender—that all it takes to convert them is the denial of gender-affirming medical care or surgery.
That is important to dwell on given that Parliament will—very soon, I think—be considering a ban on conversion practices. We can ban the practices, but we have to realise that the rhetoric itself can be used to attempt to convert. Opponents do not care at all about the danger involved in forcing a transgender person to be cisgender, and they do not care that it will not work. Just as they would not see that forcing a gay person to be straight is dangerous and will not work, so they do not realise it about transgender people.
I choose to support trans young people in making their own decisions about transition, from early and more reversible options such as changing a name or pronouns, or starting puberty blockers, to less reversible options such as surgery, which usually come later. I choose to support trans youth in deciding their own identity and future, because it is wrong to force them to identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.
In fact, all of us here would choose to support anyone and everyone, in deciding their identity, to choose themselves, whatever that means and whatever it may be. When politicians in this place, on issues affecting trans people, divide us with rhetoric that inflames, unconcerned by whether the things they say can be backed up by evidence, they are pursuing a politics based on scapegoating, not science. Those who say that this move can be contained to trans people should know this: trans people can never be sidelined or sacrificed, because every human is entitled to dignity and respect. That comes through in the words of my constituent Antonia, who says:
“As a trans woman all I want is to receive the same health care, freedom and be able to live my life the same as everyone else. We work, pay bills, go shopping, watch TV and have friends. We’re not a cult or a freak show.”
In the words of Mich,
“The phobia whipped-up towards the trans and gender non-conforming is so disproportionate to the small numbers of us and how unthreatening we are — we’re just trying to live our lives”.
On its own terms, the argument falls apart. When trans people are attacked, it is not just harmful to trans people; it is about attacking trans people today, potentially with a view to attacking other minorities tomorrow. History warns us what happens when the way is paved and the bar is lowered for all minorities to be attacked. Too many of us who are not trans or gay simply are not free in our society and our country to choose themselves in their everyday life, and that is a problem.
We must all support trans young people. When we do not, it continues a problem that we have in our society of ignoring young people full stop. Whether it is about sexual orientation, gender or something else entirely, younger people go unlistened to. When that happens, it has a hugely negative impact on them. We should all choose to support trans and gay young people, but we should especially choose to support children and young people.
If we listened to many young trans people and enabled them to choose, we would listen to what they have to say about puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are reversible, but puberty is not. Puberty blockers can stop the harms of an unwanted, irreversible puberty, as children watch their bodies change in ways that might be difficult or impossible to undo later. That is why it matters that young people do not miss the window in which blockers can prevent the irreversible physical changes of puberty while simultaneously extending the diagnostic period. In other words, blockers are a way to buy time and enable young people to have the choice and freedoms to explore their identity without the added stress of pubertal changes. With blockers, children report feeling less anxious and more comfortable with themselves. Liberated from the constant dread of puberty, they can bring their focus back to the things that matter in childhood and everyday life—learning, socialising and simply being kids. We know that pubertal suppression can help the mental health of trans children.
I said that we need to think about the science; at least eight recent studies have linked pubertal suppression to improved mental health, including a UK study that found improvements in overall psychological functioning. Those who oppose or query what I say should look at Rosalia Costa’s piece in the Journal of Sexual Medicine from 2015. Similarly, a study by a Harvard medical school research group found that adolescents who received puberty blockers had lower odds of experiencing suicidal ideation later in life compared with those who desired blockers but were unable to access them. There was an article by Jack Turban in Pediatrics in 2020 that is comprehensive on that point.
This goes to the point that we need all policy decisions to be led by the clinical evidence, but we also need to be clear-minded about what that means. In clinical medicine, it can never be known for sure what an outcome will be for patients. Medicine is always a field of probabilities, not certainties, and that will be true of puberty blockers. It is because they are so hotly politicised that we have to be careful to hold puberty blockers to the same standards as all other medication; we cannot allow the debate to fixate only on the risks and unknowns from medications that are emotionally charged and heavily politicised in our country. We need to do that, because gender dysphoria is real. It can show up in serious ways, including eating disorder symptoms and other mental health struggles. When we allow younger people and children to experience those harms, we are doing them and our society a disservice.
I hope that all politicians in this place will be led by the science and by compassion. I hope that with this Labour Government, we will see not just the conversion practices ban come forward in the time before the next King’s Speech, but, over the course of the first term of this Labour Government, a movement towards a trans persons’ civil rights Act.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank my indefatigable hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for leading this debate so well.
Let me start by celebrating how far we have come. I was 14 when Labour came to power in 1997, and I already knew that I was gay. From 1997 onwards, I recognised that politics had a direct impact on my life. The John Major Government had already lowered but not equalised the age of consent in 1994, but it took a Labour Government to lift the ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual people serving in the military in 2000; to equalise the age of consent in 2001; to repeal section 28 in 2003; to pass the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004; to equalise adoption rights for same-sex couples in 2005; and to pass the Equality Act 2010.
The 1997 election saw out gay politicians elected for the first time, including my predecessor as the MP for Exeter, Sir Ben Bradshaw, who was the second elected, by around an hour, after the former Member for Enfield Southgate. He faced the most appalling homophobic campaign in Exeter, but the people of Exeter saw through that and soundly elected him to be their MP. A corner was truly turned for our community in British society.
Although all the legislative changes come from this place, we must always remember that it is activists, campaigners and ordinary people—LGBTQ people and their families, friends and allies—who have always had to make the case for equal rights from the outside in. As with many other communities, it is my job in this place to listen and act to ensure that we continue on the path of equality.
In Exeter and across the south-west, that community network still thrives. The Intercom Trust is a south-west LGBT+ charity that last year served more than 4,000 service users from Exeter, Plymouth and Truro offices, providing a free phone helpline, one-to-one support and advocacy, a domestic abuse and sexual violence support service, hate crime support, school groups, counselling and much more.
The first Exeter Pride event was held only in 2008, during LGBT History Month. The founders, Alan Quick and Michael Hall, hosted the event at the central library—another very good case for why libraries are so important in our communities—featuring art displays, games for children, panel discussions and stalls. Alan still plays a vital role in the life of our city, not only by publishing newspapers, but as a trustee of Inclusive Exeter. Indeed, I saw him just last Sunday, at our fantastic Hongkonger community celebration of the lunar new year.
However, we know that while progress has been rapid in the UK, it is not all one way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) referenced, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are up by 44% in the last five years. If we add trans people, the statistics are worse—an 88% rise in hate crimes. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has stated that he did not support equal marriage at the time; he declared it a “wrong” thing to have done and to have been brought in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has informed the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that he was going to mention him.
Steve Race
I absolutely did, Madam Deputy Speaker; I sent the hon. Gentleman an email before this debate.
In the wake of the Supreme Court judgment and a relentless campaign waged against trans people in some quarters, with funding from outside this country flooding in to stoke division, it has never been more important for people like me in positions like mine to say: I see trans people, and I recognise your contribution in all areas of our society. Trans people have always existed and will continue to exist, and I will do everything that I can to stand with you to ensure that you can live your lives as equal citizens in our country.
That is why I am proud to be a Labour MP. While the political consensus fragments in some quarters, in this place and beyond, in the pursuit of headlines and knee-jerk politics, I know that this Government continue to stand on the side of equality and fairness. We will soon see draft legislation on a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, thanks to the work of the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) has ensured that we will legislate to make crimes motivated by prejudice against people because they are LGBT, because they have a disability or because of their gender identity, an aggravated hate crime.
We are improving the experience of LGBT+ personnel and veterans in the armed forces and delivering financial recognition to LGBT veterans as per the Etherton review. We are tackling HIV transmissions to meet our target of no new HIV transmissions by 2030. We are improving access to healthcare and providing nearly £500,000-worth of specialist funding for LGBT+-focused domestic violence services. We will continue to reject the politics of division and hate, and we will build on Labour’s long history of fighting for equality.
However, we must look at the international situation. I thank the Elton John AIDS Foundation and Kaleidoscope for their work and support in this area. Since 1983, 84 countries have decriminalised consensual same-sex relations, and 65 have recognised marriage equality. Countries across Asia have legalised same-sex marriage, including Taiwan in 2019, Nepal in 2023 and Thailand in 2025, and same-sex relations have been decriminalised in Africa by Botswana in 2019, Mauritius in 2023 and Namibia in 2024. New Zealand became the first country to recognise non-binary gender markers on passports, and India, Pakistan and Bangladesh recognise hijra, or third-gender individuals. Globally, we have also seen positive trends in adoption rights and legal gender recognition. In 2016, after sustained campaigning by activists worldwide, the UN voted to create a mandate for the independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, which was a landmark moment in international human rights protection.
However, 65 nations, which is nearly a third, still classify LGBTQ+ people as criminals, and homosexuality is punishable by death in 12 countries. In the last two years alone, several countries have passed harsh new laws targeting LGBT+ people. In 2024, Georgia banned gender transitions, legal gender recognition, Pride events and LGBTQ+ symbols. For the first time, Mali criminalised homosexuality with a punishment of up to seven years in prison in 2024. In the United States, over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ Bills were introduced, aiming to restrict trans rights and LGBTQ+ education.
Burkina Faso’s Government passed a law in September 2025 banning homosexuality, with those found guilty facing two to five years in prison, according to the state broadcaster. The draft law was unanimously passed by 71 unelected members of the country’s transitional Government, who have been in place since the military seized power. In late 2025, Ghana parliamentarians reintroduced a Bill to criminalise identifying as LGBTQ, with penalties of up to three years in prison. Funding or forming an LGBTQ-related group would be punished by up to five years in prison.
I recently met LGBT activists from Hong Kong and Botswana who talked to me about the repression that communities in those places still face, as well as the support they receive from Kaleidoscope and the funding for programmes that comes from the FCDO’s official development assistance, which are vital to some communities around the world. LGBT rights are not just a nice to have; they are fundamental to human rights, and they are fundamental to healthy societies too.
For the first time since UNAIDS began reporting on punitive laws a decade ago, the number of countries criminalising same-sex sexual activity and gender expression has increased. An analysis of data from 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa found that HIV prevalence among men who are gay, bisexual or have sex with other men in countries that criminalise same-sex relations is five times higher than in non-criminalised settings.
I am proud that the UK is leaning in yet again and supporting the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria with a new £850 million pledge. However, as Elton John and David Furnish pointed out in a recent independent op-ed:
“the force which enabled Aids to become a global catastrophe was not immunological; it was fear and apathy.”
Stigma, homophobia and transphobia play as big a role in health epidemics as the virus and the healthcare system itself. That is why Pride still matters, and that is why LGBT History Month still matters.
While we have achieved so much in the UK, we still need to fight to retain our rights here, because around the world homophobia and inequality still exist, hurting individuals and communities. The UK has a vital role to play, partly because of the historical context of colonialism, in supporting the progress towards a more equal world, and I am proud to say that I believe we will continue to do so.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I start by thanking the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this really important debate, and for their amazing contributions—the hon. Member for Nottingham East gave a particularly passionate and powerful opening speech.
I also thank some of the other Members who have contributed to the debate. I will not speak about all of them, but I want to single out the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) as she spoke incredibly passionately. While I was listening to the debate, I could see her empathy and compassion for this subject, and I want to thank her for that. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) spoke about lived experience and history, but he also reminded us that history is not done yet. We still have a long way to go, and we are creating it every single day.
Several Members have pointed out that progress is not permanent, and what we have seen in recent years completely underlines how important it is that we carry on fighting and never take anything for granted. I also thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for reminding us of something that should be obvious: we cannot change people. People are who they are, and to pretend otherwise is harmful and cruel, and we must fight against it.
As equality and inclusion are being undermined both at home and abroad, it becomes ever more important to reflect on and celebrate the historic achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, and LGBT+ History Month gives us the chance to do exactly that. As Members have noted with great pride, British history features a remarkable diversity of gender and sexuality. The theme of this year’s LGBT+ History Month, science and innovation, encourages us to celebrate the many contributions of LGBTQ+ people in shaping the modern world—from the infamous computer scientist Alan Turing, who literally changed technology forever, to John Maynard Keynes’ enormous contribution to economic thought.
We also recognise those closer to home, such as Barbara Burford, who is recognised this LGBT+ History Month for innovation in public service and healthcare leadership. As a medical research, writer and equality champion, her work helped shaped the NHS’s approach to diversity and inclusion, showing that genuine innovation also emerges through systems, policies and organisational culture. LGBT+ History Month also reminds us of the historical harms inflicted on the community through the medicalisation and pathologisation of their identities.
I also want to take the opportunity to highlight that this month coincides with Football v Homophobia Month, originally established by the Justin Campaign to tackle anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in football, in memory of the UK’s first out professional footballer, Justin Fashanu. The month remembers and celebrates those who have been trailblazers in the beautiful game, while encouraging fans and clubs to share the “Football for Everyone” message and reaffirm their commitment to create safe and welcoming spaces in which LGBTQ+ people can flourish. It is only in the past 30 years, owing to the tireless advocacy of LGBTQ+ individuals and campaign groups, that we have come to recognise and correct these injustices. It is by acknowledging this history that we can build ethical medical practice and inclusive institutions for the future.
I am proud to say that my party, the Liberal Democrats, has a long legacy of leading the fight for LGBTQ+ equality. It was the Liberal Democrats, for instance, that led the repeal of section 28, introduced by the Conservatives in 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities in schools, and had been stifling LGBTQ+ representation for 15 years. The Liberal Democrats were also instrumental in securing the legislation of same-sex marriage during the coalition Government. We designed the Alan Turing law, as part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which granted posthumous pardons to more than 49,000 men convicted of gross decency.
It is the Liberal Democrats that continue to push, agreed cross-party, for an immediate, full and inclusive ban on conversion therapy, covering both sexual orientation and gender identity without loopholes. We have always been a champion of LGBTQ+ equality, which is one of the many reasons why I am proud to be in this party. That was again brought home to me last year during the Essex Pride parade through the high street in my Chelmsford constituency. It was an honour, as I had done in previous years, to be at the front of the parade, carrying one of the rather large balloon sculptures that formed the words “Essex Pride”, and to be part of such a joyful celebration of human diversity and of the advances made towards LGBTQ+ inclusion.
However, despite past progress towards LGBTQ+ equality in Britain, the community still experiences discrimination and harassment on a daily basis, and there is evidence that it is getting worst. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East highlighted, with divisive extremist rhetoric on the rise, we are slipping backwards in this country. In 2025, the UK fell six places to 22nd on ILGA-Europe’s LGBTQ+ rights ranking. To put that in context, we were No. 1 in 2015. As was referenced by the hon. Member for Luton North, hate crimes have nearly doubled over the past five years. Research from Stonewall conducted by Opinium found that in 2025, less than half of LGBTQ+ people felt safe holding their partner’s hand in public. In the workplace, it is a similar story; research found that almost 40% of LGBTQ+ employees hide their identity at work. Meanwhile, around two thirds of trans people experience harassment and violence simply because they were identified as trans. That is appalling.
Indeed, it goes without saying that this past year has been a difficult time for the LGBTQ+ community, and an especially worrying and upsetting period for our trans and non-binary friends here in the UK, following last April’s Supreme Court ruling. Like many other Members, I have received heartbreaking stories from trans and non-binary constituents fearful of even being able to participate in public life. It is simply not acceptable that the rights of everyone, trans and non-binary included, do not appear to be deserving of the same respect and recognition. That is why Liberal Democrats have been clear that the leaked Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice was deeply flawed, and have since called for new, inclusive and workable guidance. That guidance should also be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, including debate and a vote.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. When we talk about issues of trans rights, it is so important to consider the very real trans people behind the statistics and arguments. Last year, I met my constituent Hannah, a trans woman, to discuss her experience of transitioning. She told me about the very real impact that the erosion of trans rights would have on her, including the indignity, shame and difficulty it would bring, yet too often, voices such as hers are shut out of our conversation in favour of those who can shout the loudest. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to find mechanisms for voices such as Hannah’s to be given the prominence they rightfully deserve in this conversation, so that all our trans constituents can continue to live dignified lives?
Marie Goldman
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for reminding us that this is about people. They are not statistics—they are people, whose everyday experiences and lives are being harmed by the decisions that are being made right now and by the awful, appalling, divisive rhetoric that is coming from some parts of the community, and some parts of the political community in particular. We must fight against it, and I thank the hon. Member very much for reminding us that this is about people and that their voices must be heard.
As we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and reflect on the historical achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, we must also look forward, challenge prejudice wherever it appears, and recognise our responsibility as Members of Parliament to continue to push for LGBTQ+ equality.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. With it being LGBT History Month, I particularly welcome this debate on this year’s important theme of science and innovation, which was highlighted by many Members this afternoon. Those sectors are absolutely vital to our economy and to the wellbeing of us all, from technology to business, our environment and—crucially—our healthcare. Today, we celebrate all LGBT people, past and present, who contribute so much. I too am a proud ally and friend, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), of course. [Interruption.] Well, he cannot sit in the Chamber all afternoon and not get a mention.
In that spirit, I welcome the positivity with which the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) opened the debate. She highlighted the international situation, which it has been crucial to raise this afternoon. The hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) talked about being an out and queer woman; it was lovely to hear her words once again. Funnily enough, just to let Members know, I saw Uncle Frank—the former East Grinstead mayor and long-serving Conservative councillor—last night.
Today’s debate has focused on science and innovation, so it is absolutely right that Alan Turing has been mentioned. He was a man who diligently served his country and who used his great mind to crack the Enigma code, along with many others, helping us to win the war. People say that his work and that of others in Bletchley shortened the second world war by years, saving many lives. He was a true war hero, and what was his reward? He was prosecuted simply for being gay, and very sadly went on to take his own life. His death shames our country’s history. Today, he is rightly celebrated on our £50 note—if anyone has seen one of those recently. In 2017, under the Conservatives, the Alan Turing law was passed, which pardoned men who were cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts. I am very proud that it was the Conservatives who acted and delivered that important change. Other highlights have also been raised this afternoon.
The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), rightly celebrated queer icons. She also made some comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst); I am keen, as is he, to put on the record that when he was in this Chamber, he realised that his diary needed him to be in Westminster Hall—that was his frustration. Compassion is not confined to any one party, nor should it be.
The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) talked about a full, happy and dignified life for all, which is exactly what we are celebrating this afternoon. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) rightly spoke about equality being an ongoing battle; she spoke powerfully, particularly about servicepeople, veterans and our armed forces community. We all have constituents who this matters particularly greatly to—those who have served and given so much. The work of Fighting With Pride is to be welcomed, as is that of the Royal British Legion.
Football has been mentioned today. I am sure that many of us will have been utterly shocked and disgusted to see that the German referee Pascal Kaiser was assaulted in his own home just a week after his public proposal to his boyfriend. The day before he was attacked, he received threats and his address was leaked. We have talked about the international situation; that attack is a terrible reminder of the threats, intimidation and acts of violence that people face, in sport and across society, for being who they are and celebrating who they love. That proposal was a joyous celebration—an act of love and real commitment—but it was shortly followed by homophobia and hatred from others. I am sure that everyone in the House would want to send our regards to Pascal Kaiser and his fiancé. Our thoughts are with them, and we wish them well for the future, with happiness in their marriage and their life together.
I am proud that it was the Conservative Government who brought in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. There is nothing more Conservative than bringing together families and people to make a solemn promise of love and commitment to each other. We want everyone to be true to themselves—to love who they love without the state getting in the way—and we made a significant positive impact on the rights and lives of gay men, lesbian women and bisexual people, so that they can make a public commitment in front of their friends and family, showing their love and commitment to each other. That is something that we on the Conservative Benches should be very proud of—indeed, it is something that we should all be very proud of.
It would be remiss of me to be at the Dispatch Box and not talk about Jed and Elliot’s marriage. It is 4 July this year—it is definitely happening.
Mims Davies
We’re all going, aren’t we?
One of the best things to happen to me over Christmas was to be at the celebration of Brad and Tom’s wedding.
Tom Hayes
The shadow Minister is talking about the introduction of same-sex marriage, and I want to emphasise that that was a moment of cross-party history. The Liberal Democrat Baroness Featherstone worked as part of the coalition Government with the Conservatives to introduce that legislation, which was carried overwhelmingly by Labour MPs. Does the shadow Minister recognise that as an example of cross-party consensus behind LGBT rights, which we should celebrate?
Mims Davies
I am delighted that it was the Conservative Prime Minister who I came into the House under who drove that legislation through. It truly was cross-party— I very much agree. Today is not about one-upmanship; it is about celebrating our party, our place and all the work we do where we can.
I had the joy of headlining and co-DJing the LGBT Conservatives’ closing party at party conference in 2025. It was the 50-year celebration. People described it as a cross between DJing and a Peloton class. The Terrence Higgins Trust reception is another staple of our party conference calendar. We hear at those events from members of our party—I am sure this has happened across many parties—who had to meet in secret. Those are now some of our most popular events at conference, and that shows deep pride in the change that we have all seen.
The first HIV testing was funded under a Conservative Government, and I am pleased to say that I got tested—as, I am sure, did many others—here in Parliament this week. It was quick and easy, and it was important to remind people that they can show their status, and get treatment and peace of mind for themselves and their loved ones. It rightly tackles the stigma that remains; the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) mentioned “the gay plague” and the previous stigma.
I encourage people to sign up to get a test online and have it delivered to their door, whether they are in my constituency, in Sussex or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Being rural or far away from a sexual health clinic should not hold people back from getting tested and staying safe. I welcome the updated HIV strategy, which builds on previous heavy lifting by the Conservatives. In 2014, we legalised self-testing kits for HIV, and they were rolled out in 2015. We then had the PrEP trial in 2017. This gives me the opportunity to point out that women, older people and ethnic minorities are all more likely to get diagnosed late, so they should look after themselves by taking the test.
I thank all the charities and campaigning groups, because we all want to say the same thing: love who you love and make sure that you take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. It is key that we get more ambitious with PrEP usage in order to get to the goal to which we are all committed: ending new HIV cases.
Finally—I have said this previously, especially to my constituents, but it is especially true as we head towards Valentine’s day—we all need to be clear that no matter what political party people support, where they live or who they love, they should never feel unsafe or worried about who they are. We will always work together to strive for dignity, inclusion and compassion.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the shadow Minister for talking passionately about the things that her party helped to introduce. Will her party support moves to make sure that hate crime against all LGBT people is treated as an aggravated offence when that measure comes forward in the other place?
Mims Davies
My understanding is that people are already charged and hate crime should be acted on, no matter who it happens to. I do not think we should see it in any other way. That brings me to my final comments, which I hope the hon. Lady will find helpful: this is no time to step back when it comes to supporting equality and it is no time for division.
The Minister for Equalities (Olivia Bailey)
I am proud to be able to contribute to this important annual tradition, and to do so as the Minister for LGBT+ equality. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for sponsoring the debate, and I applaud them both for their tireless work advocating for the LGBT+ community and for their powerful and important speeches this afternoon.
This has been a fantastic debate, packed with pride and heartwarming stories. In the words of the motto of the LGBT Foundation, which I visited earlier this week in Manchester and promised I would get on the record, it has been a debate full of “queer hope and joy”. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East talked about Out North East and the new ONE Centre in her constituency, which I am looking forward to visiting, just as I am looking forward to visiting the “Osborne room”.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) told wonderful stories about LGBT history and the wonderful LGBT spaces in their constituencies. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that I was asked the other day to reflect on my favourite queer space, and I sadly realised that as a firmly middle-aged lesbian with two children, my favourite queer space is now my living room.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) told some wonderful stories and remembered the King opening the armed forces memorial, which was a really powerful moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) gave us a powerful reminder of the difference that progress has made to his life and to the lives of his constituents.
Liam Conlon
I thank the Minister for celebrating and acknowledging the contributions that other Members have made. Graham and Vinny, from Kings Hall Road in Beckenham and Penge, hold a Pride street party every summer, and it gets bigger and bigger every year. Among the entertainment this year, they had the London Gay Men’s Chorus and several cardboard cut-outs of Kylie Minogue, and well over 1,000 people attended. As well as being a day of fun, I believe that it sends a really powerful and important message of tolerance and inclusion. Does the Minister agree?
Olivia Bailey
I absolutely do agree. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that with us, and I congratulate Graham and Vinny on all their work.
There has been a consistent theme in the contributions this afternoon: the stories that many Members have told of the fear, shame and anxiety being felt by many of their LGBT+ constituents, particularly their trans constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made a powerful speech on the cost of being yourself and the importance of listening to young trans people. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) made an important speech about the political weaponisation of our identities, with some people saying that families like mine are less stable. Such stories are painful to hear, and I want to say very clearly that I recognise the fear and anxiety that LGBT+ people are feeling at the moment. I feel it too, but this Government will always stand with LGBT+ people against the politics of division and hate, and we will protect and extend LGBT+ rights.
We heard a wide range of other contributions this afternoon. A number of colleagues mentioned the EHRC guidance and asked for an update on timings. The Government are considering this issue very carefully and will bring forward an update as soon as we are able to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, who has been a powerful campaigner, talked about the Government’s proud commitment to address the issue of hate crime; I am looking forward to the Government equalising the hate crime laws in the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) gave a powerful speech on the damage done by conversion practices. Let me be clear: they are a form of abuse, and this Government will ban them. On the timelines, I am working on the legislation with the urgency that every Member of this House expects of me, and will bring it forward as soon as possible.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), who took a very delicate and sensitive report on abusive conversion practices through the Council of Europe two weeks ago and managed to receive support from pretty much all Members from across the Chamber, with the exception of the hard right? She did it with such sensitivity and skill, and perhaps this is an opportunity to thank her for that.
Olivia Bailey
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that opportunity. I have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East on her important work on this vital topic, and I do so again on the record.
I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—I have been in trouble on my pronunciation of her constituency before—for her phenomenal work as my predecessor in this role. She rightly challenged me to make the most of the European IDAHOT conference that we will host next year, and I would like to take that challenge from her and say that we will absolutely commit to doing so. I will say some more about that in a moment.
On days like today I am reminded of the consequence of this place. As we have heard, it was hon. Members like us in this very Chamber who decriminalised homosexuality, scrapped section 28 and legalised equal marriage, but it was also here in this Chamber that those laws were first made. For me, that is an important reminder of the fragility of our progress and the importance of our role. In this place, we must never forget how important it is to make the case for our rights, and hon. Members have done that brilliantly today.
I am very proud to be a member of the gayest Parliament ever and to be a member of a Government who will advance LGBT+ rights. We have righted the historical wrongs committed against LGBT veterans, funded LGBT+ violence against women and girls services and pledged to end HIV transmissions by 2030. This morning, I visited the fantastic 56 Dean Street, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, to take an HIV test myself to mark National HIV Testing Week. I thank the staff at 56 Dean Street for their fantastic work, and I urge all hon. Members to encourage their constituents to go online and get a free HIV test this week.
While I am proud of the things we have done, I am most proud of the things that we will do, including fulfilling our manifesto commitment to equalise hate crime laws, bringing forward our trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and supporting LGBT+ rights on the world stage. We are funding global LGBT+ partnerships, and we will be proudly hosting the 2027 European IDAHOT forum, taking our place on the world stage in the fight for LGBT+ equality. I am looking forward to doing all this in partnership with those in our wonderful LGBT+ sector, whom I was delighted to invite to Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister the other week.
In LGBT History Month, we are encouraged to remember the iconic trailblazers who fought for our rights such as Mark Ashton, Maureen Colquhoun, Chris Smith, Roberta Cowell, the Tower Hamlets Lesbian and Gay Group and the others we have heard about today. I also think it is important that we remember the people who did not make it into the history books, because our history is one of everyday resistance and courage—people choosing to link hands in the street, people choosing to stand up for their community and people choosing pride over shame. I think it is important that we remember that everything we do in this place is built on that courage, and that courage is needed now more than ever.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister will no doubt want to pay tribute to the late Lord Etherton and the excellent work he did in his 2023 review, in which there were 49 recommendations. What progress are the Government making on those recommendations? I have received permission from the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) to mention that, because as the Minister will know, we are working on a cross-party basis to get a new review of the UK intelligence community, as the Etherton review did not look at the intelligence agencies. It may well have touched on defence intelligence, but not on other parts of the UK intelligence community. Could the Minister update us on the 49 recommendations, and will she join me, in a cross-party spirit, in hoping that the Government will somewhere have the space to look at the courageous men and women who served in our intelligence community between 1967 and 2000, and get justice for them?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I do pay tribute to Lord Etherton, and the Government are driving forward on all the recommendations of that review. I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Member to discuss the important points he makes and to work on a cross-party basis on this important issue.
As I was saying, that courage is needed now more than ever. Around the world, hostility and violence are rising and hard-won protections are being rolled back. For the first time in recent years, the number of jurisdictions that criminalise LGBT+ people has risen—from 62 to 65 in the past year alone. In this country, LGBT+ people are facing new and evolving challenges. I have spoken to LGBT+ organisations across the country about the rise of dangerous chemsex, online harassment, mental health concerns and overwhelmed support services. In our politics, we are contending with the rise of a populist right that thrives on the politics of division.
We will stand against the politics of division and hate, because our history teaches us that our stories are our own, claimed and retold by us, not just to remember but as a rallying call to never lose hope that love and pride will conquer fear and prejudice. We will honour the courage of those who have come before us and leave this place better for those who come after us. I will be very proud to work with all hon. Members to do just that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Nadia Whittome to quickly wind up.
Nadia Whittome
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had no idea I was expected to wind up.
Madam Deputy Speaker
There is no need to wind up, if the hon. Member does not want to.
Nadia Whittome
I just want to thank everyone so much for taking part in the debate. Everyone made incredibly powerful contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I hope that the Government—and, indeed, everyone—heed his words.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As I am sure Members will agree, that was the best wind-up ever.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month.
Rural Mobile Connectivity
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government and service providers to help improve mobile connectivity in rural areas.
I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to hold this vital debate and for granting us a second opportunity to do so, as the debate had to be postponed earlier this year because of overrunning Government business. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities.
As MP and resident of one of the most rural constituencies in England, I know from first-hand experience how frustrating it is to try to call the office or family members from a mobile phone. Whether at home, travelling around by car, out in the countryside or—more rarely, I have to say—travelling by train or bus, there is always a significant chance that we will not be able to make a phone call or connect to the internet.
This has a very real impact on my constituents’ lives. Stories of people being forced to sit in the loft or stand in the one spot in the garden with signal, regardless of the weather, would sometimes verge on comical if they were not so serious. For constituents waiting for their GP to call or for their disabled daughter to say they have made it to work okay, or for constituents in their 90s who have been left without power or heating, this situation is not funny at all. In the words of Terence, a disabled 80-year-old veteran:
“What is really annoying is that I am paying the same amount for my unreliable mobile service that someone in an area with good mobile signal pays.”
This week, I asked people to share their mobile signal experience with a single Facebook post. Within a day, 400 people had commented to share how awful it is in their area; whether they were in St Martins or Selattyn, in Welshampton or Woore, it was the same incredibly frustrating story. As one constituent said:
“Finding 4G is like striking gold.”
It is not just North Shropshire where reliable signal is such a rare commodity; it is the same in rural areas up and down the country. Elderly residents in sheltered accommodation are forced into digital isolation, out of contact with their families. Others have forked out for the privilege of playing provider bingo. As another constituent told me:
“Our adult daughter has a disability and learning issues, so having a good signal is imperative to us. Because of this, all three of us are on different networks (EE, O2 and Vodafone) so that we can ‘work the system’ and find the best signal available, at additional cost to us.”
That might have been acceptable 20 years ago, when mobile phones were a novel piece of technology and people could rely on letters and landlines, but in 2026, when landlines have been switched to digital and Royal Mail reaches the house once a week or even once a fortnight, it is simply not good enough. Mobile phones are an essential part of daily life, yet huge swathes of the country are being forced to cope with a substandard service. People have to put up with not just awful coverage but being gaslighted by companies telling them that their signal is just fine.
One of the biggest issues that comes up time and again, in my work as both MP for North Shropshire and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, is the mapping data provided by the industry to Ofcom, which is often false. In July, the River Severn Partnership advanced wireless innovation region, which is funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, conducted the UK’s largest independent survey of mobile coverage in partnership with Streetwave, supported by over 30 councils through the use of their bin lorry routes. The report confirmed a significant difference between Ofcom’s view of mobile network capability and the real-world experience endured by those of us in rural areas.
Ofcom stated that 1.45% of geographical areas were considered areas without “good” voice capability from at least one of the four network operators, while the River Severn Partnership showed that it was 15.33% of postcodes. That is a huge difference.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, a fellow Shropshire MP, for giving way. Part of my constituency used to be her constituency, and she will know that there are lots of small rural businesses that rely on connectivity, not just broadband but cellular connectivity and being able to take and make telephone calls. Will the hon. Lady join me in calling on the Minister—as I previously have done—to ensure that Ofcom requires greater transparency and integrity in the data that the mobile companies are providing to all our constituents and, more importantly, that Ofcom is more robust and takes action when it thinks that the data is not as accurate as it could be?
Helen Morgan
The right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, makes an extremely good point. The quality of the data is critical. One of the recommendations of the APPG is exactly that: to ensure that data is reliable and that Ofcom can challenge it where they know that it is inadequate.
There is a huge difference in which areas are considered to be without “good” voice capability. Ofcom disputes Streetwave’s findings because of the methodology that it used, but the experience of those of us who live in rural areas suggests that it is Ofcom that is wrong. It is no good telling people that their service is good when their own phone is telling them that it not. Unless Ofcom establishes clear requirements to define the quality of service that networks must deliver, how can we ensure real regulatory accountability?
Put simply, Ofcom and the Government must do more. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to improve coverage reporting in the statement of strategic priorities that it published yesterday, but at the moment we do not have the information that we need.
I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think people in rural areas are sick to death of being told to believe that they have never had it so good, discounting their own daily experience. Last year, Ofcom increased the accuracy of its mapping data by zoning in on smaller areas. However, if network operators do not have accurate data about the areas that need improvement —and we think that they do not—then investment is unlikely to be put into the areas of greatest need.
The shared rural network initiative, which has delivered, I have to say, no noticeable improvement in my area, involved the then four mobile network operators spending half a billion of their money to end partial notspots, based on the Ofcom data that has now been superseded and that we all suspect is a bit on the dodgy side.
EE—the same company as BT and Openreach—already had an extensive network of mobile masts, and it met its obligations in advance of the June 2024 deadline for the shared rural network, while other operators experienced delays. Some of the causes of delays are difficult to overcome. It is difficult to get planning permission for a new mast; there is a lack of planning resource in local authorities; there are logistical challenges to building masts in remote and rural areas; and there are issues over access to land.
Another part of the problem was that EE did not share access to its masts, because it failed to reach agreement with the other mobile network operators. That was a commercial negotiation into which I do not have insight, but the reality is that better coverage could have been achieved simply through effective equipment sharing. My Bill, the Access to Telecommunications Networks Bill, sought to fix the problem by requiring telecommunications companies to share their equipment; penalising them if they did not; and, in areas where they did not, requiring people to be enabled to roam between networks. We are all familiar with that issue if we have travelled in Europe.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It would be wrong to let this moment pass without reflecting on the fact that EE has its network of masts as a result of significant public investment, because it got the contract for the emergency services network. Does that not impose a duty on it to do more than merely commercial negotiation in relation to other companies?
Helen Morgan
My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the use of public money and how we develop infrastructure fit for the modern age as part of a public and private operation.
Rural roaming measures have been opposed by the industry, but they were recommended by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in its 2019 report. I am convinced that if the Government are serious about enabling economic growth in rural areas, they should explore that option. My constituent Rob Paul, a consultant with vast experience of rural telecoms projects, suggests that robustly enforced financial penalties are the only thing that operators will respond to. After years of being let down, I cannot disagree.
I turn to the digital switchover. Mobile phones have been cited as the default back-up option in a power cut once the copper landline network is switched off, as has now happened over most of the UK. That is hugely concerning for people in areas prone to extensive power cuts in winter storms. As we are rural, our power is not put back online as a priority. Back-up batteries for routers will last for a couple of hours—perhaps up to 12. People in remote parts of North Shropshire are sometimes left without power for several days. Someone who is at home on their own, in the dark and frightened, might want to call someone other than the emergency services in the event of a power cut. It is crucial that people can access their mobile phone and get a reliable signal when the power is down, whoever they are.
One 90-year-old constituent told me that she purchased a phone because she was concerned about the digital switchover and wanted to ensure that she could still make calls in the event of a power cut. The mobile connection in her village of Knockin is so bad that she was never once able to use the phone. When she asked EE to end the contract, it required £293 to release her.
It is not just about power cuts. Hundreds of people in Kinnerley and Ellesmere have been left without any service at all when their broadband cabinet has been taken out by other factors such as fire or car accidents. Peter, who lives near Whittington, has terminal lung disease. Last weekend, his internet went down for 12 hours, which also meant that his landline was down. There was no mobile signal at his home. If Peter had had an emergency, he would have had no one to turn to.
Improving rural phone signal would not just help vulnerable individuals. It would help local businesses, grow the economy and help our health and social care system. Smartphones are an essential part of daily modern life, whether that is for a GP patient who needs to book an appointment or request a repeat prescription or for a small business owner who needs to take payment from a customer. I have spoken to countless elderly people who struggle to access key services. I have heard from farmers, landscape gardeners, taxi drivers and dog groomers whose businesses all suffer because of signal problems. One livestock and arable farmer told me:
“I cannot express strongly enough how frustrating it is farming in the modern world. It is depressing the amount of time wasted walking around the yard trying to get a slight signal to answer the phone”.
Someone who gets injured may have no way of contacting the emergency services or seeking other help. Vast sums have to be spent on helping tractor GPS systems to navigate the inconsistent signal.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I represent a rural area like hers—mine is in Lincolnshire—and in some Wold villages it is appalling: there is no mobile connection. All the red telephone boxes are being closed, and it is a tremendous struggle to persuade BT to keep them open. I wonder whether we could do more work with councils such as West Lindsey on the voucher scheme and Project Gigabit to get to the last hard-to-reach areas. Through this debate, can we encourage the Government to put resources into helping district councils such as West Lindsey?
Helen Morgan
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will mention Project Gigabit and its shortcomings, but we could have a three-hour debate on the subject. I wholly agree that we cannot consider mobile coverage and broadband separately. They are two parts of the same thing: the areas with the worst broadband signal tend to have the worst mobile signal. It is a very difficult problem to resolve.
As I was saying, modern farming requires modern technology, but if the signal is inadequate it does not work. Being able to rely on broadband would also help those who work in an office, but just 50% of rural commercial buildings in North Shropshire have access to full fibre. The announcement of Project Gigabit gave us real hope, but after two years, the contract was handed back having connected just 3,500 of the planned 12,000 properties. The word I would use to describe Project Gigabit is “shambles”, as my adjectives of choice are unsuitable for the Chamber. We are still waiting for details of when the rest of the properties will be delivered, but meanwhile we continue to pay exorbitant prices for mediocre broadband because Openreach and other companies neglect to invest in our area. Across the House, Members are calling for a change in direction for rural digital infrastructure.
I am conscious of time so I will speed up slightly. Essentially, gaps in mobile and broadband coverage threaten to undermine national ambitions. My report from the APPG on digital communities highlights how co-ordinated action to address the challenges and unlock the full potential of the UK’s digital infrastructure is crucial for rural areas and for growth in the rest of the UK as well. Successive Governments have failed to grasp that. We can just look at the emergency services network, which should have been introduced in 2017. Nearly a decade on, we are still waiting for it to be properly rolled out.
The Government’s ambition is to have high-quality 5G in all populated areas by 2030, yet we rank 30th among 39 developed economies according to the Social Market Foundation. We know that we are lagging miles behind and we are still trying to make up the ground. In Shropshire, we would be grateful for consistent 4G. People who live in rural areas pay the same, or even higher, fees as people in towns in return for a second-rate service. We must be given the connections that we need to reliably access modern life.
Successive Governments have treated rural areas with disdain, telling us that everything is great when we can see for ourselves that it is not. It would bring far more money into the Treasury and unlock the huge potential of the rural economy if the Government finally saw sense. I hope that the Minister will address the abject failure of the shared rural network and Gigabit projects, and outline a sensible strategy for delivering rural infrastructure in future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
If Members can limit their remarks to around five minutes, we should be able to get everybody in.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this important debate. Mobile connectivity remains a real concern for many in rural communities, especially in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. It affects how people run their businesses, how they keep in touch with family and how they keep safe, as the hon. Lady said, particularly on isolated roads and farms.
I will begin by acknowledging the great progress that has already been made in this area. My experience of the shared rural network and its extended coverage to around 280,000 homes and businesses after £500 million of investment has been positive. I recognise the importance of that investment in the difference that it has made to Staffordshire.
My constituency is about 40% rural, with 60% of people living in towns, and there is such a marked difference in the experience of connectivity. The gap is still quite stark: nearly half of rural deprived areas are not classed as 5G hotspots, compared with just 2.7% of urban deprived communities. In rural areas, only 20% of mobile masts have 5G deployed, compared with 48% in urban areas. Those figures show that although coverage may look strong on national averages, rural communities are feeling the gap and feeling left behind.
The issue is raised with me and my team regularly. Residents in Mare, Whitmore and Acton have all contacted me about unreliable mobile access, which leads to dropped calls, weak indoor signal and stretches of road with no coverage at all. That is just part of their daily lives when living in rural areas.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Similarly, in my constituency, I surveyed residents in a number of villages such as Edingale, Clifton Campville and Harlaston to ask how bad the situation was. Some 49% said that their mobile connectivity was so bad that they could not work from home or even run their business. Does she agree that this really has to be a priority so that our villages are not left behind?
Leigh Ingham
I thank my hon. Friend. As fellow Staffordshire MPs, we experience broadly similar issues, and that echoes exactly what many people in my constituency have told me, particularly about working from home.
For farming businesses in particular, of which I have many in my constituency, the impact is even more clear. The National Farmers Union’s most recent survey found that only 22% of respondents report reliable mobile signal across their entire farm, and nearly one in 10 have no 4G or 5G access at all. At the same time, 98% said that mobile signal is important to their business. Here in this House, we regularly ask farmers to access schemes online, communicate digitally with our agencies and adopt new technology, yet many operate with poor or patchy connectivity. The gap between need and access is stark.
In the village of Church Eaton, residents endured years of very poor mobile coverage, at times unable to make 999 calls or receive NHS alerts, despite a mast having already been built under the shared rural network. The infrastructure was there, but it had not been switched on, which left the village in limbo and left residents—let’s be honest—really annoyed. Working closely with the determined residents—I pay tribute to them and the parish council that has campaigned on this for many years—I raised the issue in Parliament and VodafoneThree’s leadership got in contact directly to help get that site back into the company’s investment plan. I am pleased that following that joint effort and constructive engagement, the mast has been running since September, bringing reliable 4G coverage to the village for the first time, but it should not take an MP standing here for that to happen. The infrastructure was already there; the village was not waiting for it. The mast has meant stronger coverage not only for VodafoneThree customers in the village, but for customers of a wide variety of signal providers.
I want to place on the record my thanks again to the parish councils across my constituency that have worked on this issue for years. They regularly gather evidence, engage with providers and keep the issue alive. Their persistence is invaluable in making progress in this space, because as more and more public services move online, access to stable mobile and broadband connectivity become even more important.
Rural communities should not be left waiting while national averages improve on paper. We need faster delivery of the shared rural network to eliminate the total notspots, alongside support for a mix of technologies to reach hard-to-access areas. Most importantly, rural communities must have confidence that they are not an afterthought in any roll-out plans. People living in villages, on farms and down country lanes deserve the same reliable connectivity as anyone else, and closing that gap is essential for fairness and productivity, and also to increasing opportunity in rural Britain. We have some wonderful businesses and local farms that want to develop, but a lack of connectivity can hold them back. I would love to hear what steps the Minister is taking to advance mobile connectivity and involve rural communities moving forward.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the last 18 months, the Government have been sitting on the guidance relating to gender-questioning children in schools—a very controversial subject—which the Government keep saying is coming. It has become apparent in the last half an hour that they plan to publish this guidance at 4 pm today, just moments before the House goes into recess for a week. It is hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate attempt to avoid the scrutiny of this House on an important issue. What can we do to put this right?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he will be aware, it is up to the Government as to whether they want to make a statement, but I will ensure that Mr Speaker is aware.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. My speech about mobile connectivity in my constituency in the Scottish Borders will echo many of the remarks that the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) has just made—I suspect we will get a lot of consistency across the House.
In an age when digital access is a necessity, too many rural communities remain cut off, not only by geography, but by inadequate infrastructure and poor decisions by mobile phone providers. We often speak in this place of levelling up and ensuring that no part of our country is left behind. Yet for many of my constituents in the Scottish Borders, making a reliable phone call, sending a text or accessing mobile data is still a daily challenge. In some area residents must stand in a particular spot or drive up a hill just to get a signal. That is simply not acceptable in 2026.
Connectivity is about far more than convenience; it is about safety, economic resilience and tackling rural isolation. Farmers operating machinery, elderly residents living alone, small businesses processing payments and families keeping in touch all depend on reliable phone networks. When that signal fails, the consequences can be serious. Rural communities already face longer journeys to hospitals and benefit from fewer local services. Unreliable mobile coverage only deepens the divide between rural and urban Britain.
A point that has not yet been touched on is smart meter connectivity, which is a particular concern in my community. Households have been encouraged to adopt smart meters to improve efficiency and accuracy, yet in many rural areas, poor mobile coverage means that those meters cannot function properly. Constituents are left with devices that cannot transmit readings automatically, undermining confidence in both the technology and the wider energy transition. If rural households are asked to modernise, the supporting infrastructure must be fit for purpose.
I am also deeply concerned by the decision taken by many mobile phone providers to switch off their 2G and 3G network signals. While modernisation is undoubtedly necessary, those networks remain the only reliable options in many rural areas. Turning them off before robust 4G or 5G alternatives are fully in place risks leaving residents with worse service than before. That decision affects not only phones, but telecare devices, alarm systems, payment terminals and agricultural equipment. Vulnerable individuals who rely on telecare linked to legacy networks could face serious risks if signals are withdrawn prematurely.
I know from my own experience driving around my Scottish Borders constituency, and from speaking with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), that we are finding it increasingly difficult to do our work as MPs. In the past, we have had relatively good mobile phone signal, but because network providers have decided to drop the service, we have lost the ability to use our phones. When we raise that with the phone providers, they say that it is all fine. The hon. Member for North Shropshire made this point in relation to the Ofcom data. I believe that for Ofcom, EDGE signal, or E, is sufficient, but to make a phone call, access emails or use any other basic phone functions, the E signal is simply not sufficient.
Similarly, I do my weekly commute along the east coast main line from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to Kings Cross. In the past, I had a very good signal for the duration of the journey. Now, I get usable signal—not the signal that appears to satisfy Ofcom—only when I am in the centre of Newcastle station, the centre of York station or approaching London. Unless I can get LNER wi-fi, I cannot effectively use my phone anywhere else in between.
Telecoms companies have commercial interests, but they also have responsibilities. I urge the Government to engage closely with providers to ensure that no community is left without reliable service as networks evolve. The shared rural network is welcome, but delivery must be accelerated in the Scottish Borders, across Scotland and in all parts of rural Britain. Rural Britain does not seek special treatment—only fair treatment. Reliable connectivity is essential to economic growth, public services and community life. If we are to build a truly connected United Kingdom, rural connectivity must be a priority, not an afterthought.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Mobile coverage in my constituency is not good at the best of times. Although we are frequently told by the big four mobile network providers that they have 99% 4G coverage in the UK, including in my constituency, that does not ring true to anyone who, like me, is from Cornwall, and therefore knows what it is like to struggle regularly to get signal. Where there is 5G coverage, it is often from a single provider, and not one premises has 5G coverage from all four providers. Last year, Which? and Opensignal produced a mobile network quality map for the year, by using real-world data from people’s phones and assigning a score to each postcode. TR4, which covers places like Chacewater, Trispen and St Erme in my constituency, ranked the second worst for network quality, with a consistent 4G or 5G signal just 57% of the time. Sadly, that is not at all surprising.
As a rural part of the world, we have often struggled with connectivity. That has a particular impact on rural businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) pointed out, including farms, which still experience poor mobile and broadband service. Data from the NFU shows that just 33% of farming businesses have access to fibre, while only 22% report reliable mobile signal across their farm. Despite that, support schemes like the sustainable farming incentive and communication with the Rural Payments Agency are increasingly done online, so digital connectivity is more important to farmers than ever before.
Mobile coverage in my constituency failed spectacularly last month when Storm Goretti struck Cornwall, triggering a rare Met Office red warning, with gusts of about 100 mph. The storm caused widespread power outages and brought down over 1,000 trees, leaving many people completely cut off, with no internet and poor mobile phone signal. The new digital landlines that replaced the old copper networks did not work without power, and Ofcom’s rules require only one hour of battery back-up for vulnerable customers, which is completely inadequate. This meant that for days, and in some cases weeks, large parts of Cornwall were disconnected from the outside world, with no means of accessing information or getting assistance. For many, that was very frightening and showed how in some circumstances, mobile connectivity really could mean life or death.
The loss of telecommunications and poor signal made it harder for responders to identify and support vulnerable residents. Unlike the national grid, Openreach relied on people contacting their service provider to say they were offline, which was not sufficient in a context where many residents had no internet or phone signal. This was not helped by the fact that the providers generally displayed minimal customer service, and it was impossible to get through to human beings in many cases. There was then another layer of delay while the providers reported to Openreach, which had no map of the areas that were offline.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the role of Openreach in this scenario. I have said for some time that its role is equivalent to that of electricity distribution network operators. Although we all pay our bills to an electricity company, it is the distribution network that is responsible for getting our power back on, but Openreach delegates that to the individual service providers. Openreach needs to do more to look after the customers who are affected in these instances.
Jayne Kirkham
I agree. Although mobile providers are a category 2 responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 framework, they do not have the duties, responsibilities and powers that, say, National Grid or water companies do. There is a strong argument for changing that.
Furthermore, the storm exposed the fact that most mobile masts do not have back-up generators or meaningful battery reserves, making them highly vulnerable to power loss. That contrasts with the expectations placed on water and electricity companies, which operate under established resilience duties. Telecoms providers are arguably just as essential, and the civil contingencies framework should reflect that reality in practice, not just in statute. We need stronger requirements and powers for comms providers in emergency situations, and Ofcom needs the teeth to enforce them.
Storm Goretti demonstrated how dependent communities and responders now are on digital and mobile networks, and it showed the weakness and lack of resilience of those networks in rural places like Cornwall. As Private Eye pointed out, an Ofcom technical report from last year noted that roughly two thirds of the population would be able to make emergency calls in a power outage of under an hour. The number who would be able to do so by the six-hour mark was redacted and described as being “far fewer”.
As extreme weather becomes more frequent, it is crucial that rural areas are better connected. The deadline for nationwide 5G coverage has been pushed back to 2032, but communities like mine cannot wait, as these severe weather experiences become more and more frequent. The Minister has indicated that places like Cornwall could be pilot areas for emergency resilience measures, and I very much look forward to that work beginning as soon as possible.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. I agree with much of what she said in her speech, and much of what other hon. Members have said.
My hon. Friend’s constituency shares many similarities with mine: they are a comparable size, have a comparable population, contain much farmland and have scattering of medium-sized settlements. In my case, those settlements include the city of Ely, which is home to over 20,000 residents. According to Ofcom’s coverage map, the entire city is covered by all mobile network operators, with at least “good outdoor” coverage. Given such confidence, I invite Ofcom inspectors to Ely, where I will challenge them to catch even a single bar of mobile signal in the city centre. They will be sorely disappointed. Instead, the Government could look at data gathered by a number of different independent sources that reports remarkably poor mobile service in areas of my constituency that Ofcom claims are covered.
Alternatively, the Government could simply listen to local people. They would hear from local business owners in Ely market square who cannot get a signal for their card machines; residents, such as my constituent Alan, who has tried to install a smart energy meter in his home on four occasions, each unsuccessful because of insufficient mobile signal, which is not only irritating but means he cannot get the cheapest fuel options that are available only to people who have working smart meters; or the new restaurant in the middle of the city centre that cannot take orders because it cannot get internet or mobile signal.
Rather fittingly in a debate about mobile connectivity, the major failure in the Government’s approach thus far appears to be a total lack of communication and connection with the lived experiences of citizens on the ground. The Government claim that mobile coverage has reached 96% of the country, but thousands of my constituents in Ely and East Cambridgeshire—and, I am willing to bet, in almost every other rural constituency—would beg to differ.
Given the way that the Government are assessing coverage, serious doubts are raised over the sincerity of their connectivity goals overall, including the roll-out of the shared rural network. Although that is due to be complete by this time next year, the Government seem to have minimal capacity to direct investment and new infrastructure to reach their goals, relying instead, as we have heard, on the mobile network operators, who put commercial interests above the interests of our constituents.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
One of those commercial operators is O2. My constituent, Martin Ferdinando, contacted O2 over 40 times. He was offered a handset, a new 5G SIM, an escalation to the ombudsman and, in the end, a £125 goodwill payment. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that our constituents do not want such “goodwill” payments and that what they want is a functioning mobile system, which would be developed if we had a proper shared rural network?
Charlotte Cane
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our constituents do not want compensation or apologies: they want a mobile signal that they can rely on. How can they have confidence that their digital connectivity will improve if Ofcom does not engage with a reliable reporting system to direct investment in response to on-the-ground need? Conversely, there is bit of my constituency that allegedly has no connectivity, but every time I go there I have no problem getting a mobile signal, so ironically there are some places where the signal is better than Ofcom thinks.
In an era when public services are increasingly moving online, rural and digitally excluded populations risk becoming increasingly isolated. Good mobile connectivity must be considered a basic necessity and not an object for compromise. It is especially essential for accessing emergency services, defibrillators and on-call healthcare, a major concern for the many farmers in my constituency who experience lower-than-average health outcomes and work in more accident-prone environments, yet have very limited connectivity.
I think the Government would agree with me that we should move towards greater access to healthcare in the community, foster social connection and ensure safely policed neighbourhoods. However, key to each of those is guaranteeing the rights of all, including those in rural areas, to swift and ready access to mobile signal. More than that, it also means a reliable process of reporting and mapping the real-terms coverage and capacity of mobile networks.
Fundamentally, improving rural mobile connectivity must start with genuine two-way communication. Will the Minister now agree to overhaul Ofcom’s coverage maps so that they are tied to real-time data, and to revise the coverage goals of the shared rural network accordingly so that my constituents, and the many others we have heard about, can finally get an assurance that a reliable connection is on its way—and soon?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this delayed but important debate. My constituency includes the very rural area of north Cumbria, bordering Scotland and Northumberland. It is beautiful, remote and, in parts, devoid of mobile coverage.
The lack of mobile connectivity is a particular issue in winter months, as we have heard, when snow and wind block roads and bring down power lines. As has been said, the shutdown of the public switched telephone network means that a loss of power to landlines, coupled with a paucity of mobile coverage, now leaves many of my constituents not only without telephony, but without any means of letting their electricity distribution network know that they have no power at all.
It is a year since Ofcom published the findings of its consultation on mobile RAN—radio access network—power resilience. I will forgive Members if they have not read it as I have. Currently, the regulator suggests a minimum back-up duration of just four hours for mobile RAN sites—the masts—and a minimum duration of one hour for battery back-up units for fixed-line phones, as we have heard.
Last year, however, a power cut affecting the village of Kershopefoot, which sits on the border of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), lasted five days. I therefore think that a sensible and proportionate solution would be for Ofcom to require mobile networks to maintain a small fleet of electricity generators that could be used to power masts until the electricity grid can be repaired. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point and an assurance that he will press Ofcom to go further on the issue of RAN resilience.
I will turn to the factors that determine the ability of mobile network operators to improve and maintain coverage: network investment, planning policy and spectrum availability. The first factor is principally a matter for shareholders, but the Government clearly have a role in creating the right conditions for investment, safeguarding competition and removing the policy barriers to network expansion. That brings me to the second factor, which is planning policy. I strongly urge the Minister to engage constructively with Mobile UK on the reform of permitted development rights and the notice to quit regime, which can see mobile operators forced from sites before a new site can be built.
That leaves the third factor, which is spectrum—a subject in which I take an unusual interest, having witnessed at first hand the contrasting approaches, and their consequences, of the Blair and Cameron Governments. The UK’s 3G spectrum auction in 2000 was designed not only to inject competition into the mobile market by reserving a licence for a new entrant, but to create a level playing field by preventing the incumbent networks from using their existing spectrum for 3G services. The effect was to create a level playing field and a competitive market for 3G services, with the result that the UK became the first country in the world to deploy a commercial 3G network. Prices fell, innovation grew and new services were spawned.
As take-up grew, more spectrum had to become available for 3G and 4G services, but simply allowing the four networks that had legacy spectrum to reuse it for 3G services would not only give them a competitive advantage over the newer entrant, but distort competition between the incumbent networks that held different spectrum frequencies. Different frequencies mean different capabilities. In particular, lower frequency spectrum is essential for getting coverage in rural areas.
The then Labour Government’s solution was to direct the regulator to take back the legacy spectrum and reallocate it to maintain a level playing field and maximise competition. Unfortunately, the 2010 election intervened before the legislation to direct Ofcom could pass, and in January 2011 the Cameron Government allowed the incumbent networks to use their 2G spectrum, creating, in the words of the new entrant, a “competitive distortion”—one that I argue has driven the consolidation in the market over the last decade, weakened competitive pressure on the networks to expand their coverage, particularly in rural areas, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab for a market failure that was entirely avoidable. I urge the Minister, in matters of spectrum, to be more Blair and less Cameron, and ensure that this Government have a spectrum policy that supports a competitive mobile market that benefits every corner and field of our country.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to this important debate on an issue that affects so many of my constituents and matters so much to us all. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for opening it, and for resecuring it from the Backbench Business Committee.
I echo many of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). I felt like he was reading my speech, but I found it particularly interesting to reflect that my constituency is between 30 miles and 60 miles from Westminster. I think that sums up some of the challenges that we all face in this area. My constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages contains many very rural areas, as well as parts of Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill, and mobile connectivity is a major issue that people write to me about and raise with me in person in and around the constituency.
It is with great sadness that I tell the House just before Valentine’s day that, since the boundary changes, I have had to leave one of the longest relationships I have ever had—with Vodafone. It was failing and, yes, I walked out. I am afraid that connectivity, particularly where new housing has been built, has been dire. I have said to my family, friends and colleagues, “Don’t bother to call. You won’t get through.” I am a bit embarrassed to say this, but I recently semi-kidnapped one of VodafoneThree’s parliamentary affairs gentlemen—he knows who he is—to drive him around my constituency and show him where the actual signal simply does not match what the company has on its maps and what it sells people in its shops.
Throughout 2025, I met mobile providers and ran a constituency survey. I am grateful to all those who contributed. Around 90% said that they have been affected by a complete lack of service, and 132 reported that they rarely or never have a signal. The areas of my constituency that are most affected are the chronic notspots of Horsted Keynes, Fairwarp, Maresfield and the wider Ashdown Forest, Wivelsfield and Isfield. People in those areas said that they never have a signal, despite constant complaints to their providers, and that their visitors are surprised that there is
“no decent signal in 2025”.
I represent a rural Sussex constituency, but it has areas that are more urban, and people there report problems too. Constituents in East Grinstead say that the signal in the town centre is almost unusable, and miles away on the outskirts, such as down in the village of Ashurst Wood, there are near dead zones where—as the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), who is not in her place, described—going online is near impossible.
My parish councils have been doing much of the heavy lifting in representing the concerns of people across the constituency. People’s calls drop out, they are cut off in the event of a power cut, they are unable to do online banking, and their purchases fail because verification codes sometimes take days or do not come at all. For self-employed people, remote workers and people who are trying to run small or micro businesses—a large number of the businesses in my constituency—these are serious challenges. Seventy-seven local businesses said they regularly experience severe disruption. If we want growth to support jobs and get the economy going, this is a clear infrastructure need. It is an economic issue and a public safety issue; in the event of a power cut, people cannot rely on wi-fi calling. This is a serious issue, and it endangers lives. I also absolutely agree with the point about smart meter failings.
One of the most egregious issues that I have had happened during a recent office move. It took me one month to finally get a connection from the guys at BT Openreach. That is one month of my constituency office having no broadband! I would love for the Minister to meet me and many of us, because we are universally connected by the fact that we have no connectivity. This needs to be seen as an essential service, just like water—but do not get me started on that.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate for the second time.
In rural areas like my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, the challenges of infrastructure and connectivity differ substantially from those in urban settings. Decision makers too often hold outdated assumptions or misunderstandings about the differences between rurality and remote coastal areas like Cornwall. Policy reform is urgently needed; if we can fix it in Cornwall, we can fix it anywhere.
Substandard critical infrastructure that normally attracts little attention from policymakers becomes visible to them only when it fails. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said, that is precisely what happened on the evening of 8 January. Residents across Cornwall received red weather warnings, as winds of up to 111 mph blasted roofs from buildings, brought down telephone lines and ripped huge trees from the ground. Around 200 telegraph poles were brought down, hundreds of metres of cabling were destroyed by fallen trees, and entire areas became completely inaccessible. At the peak of the storm, more than 120,000 homes lost power.
The engineers and workers on the ground have been exceptional. I commend their commitment and professionalism, but the reality is that too many of my constituents still lack basic mobile connectivity. My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Ms Minns) and for Truro and Falmouth have commented on the requirement for back-up power for masts and on the failings of both Ofcom and Openreach. I was pleased to meet Minister Baroness Lloyd yesterday, along with Cornish colleagues, to raise those issues directly.
Alongside the immediate disruption, we face the ongoing problem of the system reverting to business as usual after the crisis. According to Cellnex, based on data from Ofcom, all six Cornish constituencies appear at the bottom of the UK mobile connectivity list. The mobile market review, which runs until 21 April, is a crucial opportunity to change that. We fundamentally need a higher standard of service quality and robust and transparent measurement so that improvements in mobile connectivity actually translate into benefits for customers.
Richard Foord
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the frustrations in Cornwall, which my constituents really can relate to. This issue is peninsula-wide, across Devon and Cornwall. Only 52% of mid and east Devon is covered by 5G, compared with 62% nationally. Does he recognise that this is about our remote south-west peninsula?
Perran Moon
Yes, I do, but there are other parts of the United Kingdom with this issue. It is not just in south-west England and Cornwall, but in areas further north, as we have heard. There is an opportunity to really focus on those areas so that they are not left behind in the digital transition.
Here is why this issue is so important. The Government are investing tens of millions of pounds in critical minerals and renewables in order to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger. That investment is designed to unlock private investment into those growth sectors, but investment will be directly hamstrung by the paucity of mobile communications. It is fair to say that in Cornwall, as well as other places, we are fed up with being left behind in the digital transition. When the Minister gets to his feet, will he please commit to taking this moment to work across Government to transform the weaknesses in Cornwall’s mobile communications into strength? That way, businesses can grow, and no one will ever again be left in the dark, with no way of communicating with the outside world.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this debate. Over the past 20 months or so since coming into this House, I think that rural connectivity has been the most constant issue in my inbox, which is really not surprising when we consider the fact that my constituency is 69% rural and still suffers from a large number of notspots.
A report issued by Vodafone in November 2023 found that nearly half of rural deprived areas are classed as 5G notspots, whereas the same can be said of only 2.7% of urban deprived areas. Ofcom’s “Connected Nations” report, published in November 2025, provided further evidence of rural areas lagging behind urban areas in both 5G and 4G access. Both those reports show how rural connectivity falls short of what urban areas receive.
Over the past few years, the shared rural network, which is funded through private investment and public money, has worked reasonably well in Caerfyrddin, with an additional number of masts being built in hard-to-reach areas. Like the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), I have had two masts built in my constituency on the shared rural network scheme, but neither has been switched on. The mast in Myddfai has power and is ready to go, but Vodafone is yet to turn on the network. In Llanwinio, the mast has been built—again, over a year ago—but there is still no power connected to it. Its electricity was due to be connected in January, but based on the timescale for building the Myddfai mast, we could be waiting another year before connectivity is switched on—it really is not good enough. Public purse funding has been poured into both mast projects, and there is nothing to show for it, at a time when digital connectivity is seriously needed.
Broadband access in the rural parts of my constituency is also not good enough. Rural businesses, including farms, now rely on connectivity for all transactions, including banking, tax and VAT returns, reports on the British Cattle Movement Service’s cattle tracing system and payments in our rural village shops. The results from the National Farmers Union’s rural digital survey are worrying. As has been mentioned, 21% of respondents have broadband speeds of less than 10 megabits per second, compared with the national average of less than 1%, and only 22% report having reliable mobile signal across their entire farms. It is just not good enough.
Rural homes and businesses must be able to contact emergency services as and when they need to. During Storm Darragh, which was far worse for us than any of the recent storms, the digitalisation of our tele- communication systems meant that the networks failed. Although batteries help, according to one of my constituents just last week, businesses are not eligible for those, as only domestic dwellings can have battery back-ups. People were left with no means of communication and unable to reach emergency services, which is unacceptable. We must ensure that when public money is spent on upgrading networks, they are switched on and actually work for the communities in which they are built.
Finally, Caerfyrddin includes some of the hardest-to-reach homes, with properties tucked deep into valleys or set in extremely remote locations. In those areas, it is much harder for traditional masts to provide reliable coverage, no matter how many are built. That is why it is essential that a satellite solution is available and affordable for all the households that will otherwise be left behind. Starlink currently charges around £75 per month for network coverage, which is not affordable for many of my constituents. I hope that in the next year or so competition will make that cheaper, and that other companies can provide that service. Whatever system communities and constituents use, it must work. It must be reliable and affordable, especially when public money has been used in good faith.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on being persistent and finally securing this very important debate.
Few phrases in modern Britain ring as hollow as “world-class connectivity”. Speaking plainly, rural mobile phone connectivity in this country is not merely patchy or inconsistent; in some places, it is so poor that the advertised service bears no resemblance to reality. There are areas in which actual service levels are hundreds of times worse than advertised—that is not a rounding error, or the result of momentary network congestion. It is a difference between promise and performance that is so vast that it would be comic if it were not so economically corrosive.
Take Worcestershire, for example. It is a rural county, with lots of villages, small towns and industrious small businesses. There are farms and villages where the coverage map glows reassuringly in bright corporate colours, but the lived reality is far too often just a single bar if you stand at the upstairs window, facing north and holding your phone aloft like some kind of digital divining rod. We have already heard about how the River Severn Partnership in Worcestershire was a beneficiary of this. Quite innovatively, local councils stuck gadgets on the bin lorries that went up and down every single road, particularly the rural roads, and realised what we probably all suspect: how terrible the service is. In parts of Worcestershire, the mobile phone signal is around 900 times worse than the mobile phone operators claim.
We could forgive the odd dropped call. After all, rural topography presents challenges—there are hills, and trees are inconveniently organic. What cannot be forgiven, though, is the persistent gulf between what is claimed and what is delivered. It is the same with broadband; we hear broadband providers advertise speeds of up to 80 megabits per second, but the reality of what many of my constituents experience is very different. Those advertised figures are in the realm of fiction. This is not just anecdotal grumbling from the shires; a survey by the National Farmers Union has painted a sobering picture, with 21% of respondents reporting broadband speeds under 10 megabits per second in 2026. This is at a time when a single video could devour bandwidth instantly. What my constituents want is the ability to consume data and make voice calls at the same time. I cannot stress enough how sick and tired I am of hearing from mobile phone companies that everyone is just consuming data. As the traditional telephone service is switched off, constituents—particularly those living in rural areas—are increasingly reliant on the ability to make voice calls.
The lived reality for a business in rural Worcestershire attempting to submit mandatory forms online to a regulator or placing an order, is that they must drive to the nearest town to do so. Businesses cannot reliably place orders or process card payments. As banks close in our towns and villages, people are shifting or being pushed towards more online digital services, so it is crucial that we have the mobile connectivity to back that up. If I may say so, there is also a little bit of cultural condescension at work. Rural Britain is far too frequently romanticised as a place of bucolic tranquillity; it is that, but it demands parity with urban Britain at the same time. What does that mean? It means that we want a reliable mobile phone signal, so that we can drive down the road on a short journey without it cutting out, and if we need to receive a call from a loved one, a relative or perhaps a GP, we can have certainty that that call will come through.
Coverage maps have been drawn with a particularly optimistic crayon, and the problem with advertised speeds being hundreds of times better than reality is not merely technical; it also erodes trust. Quite often, those conditions are laboratory conditions that do not bear any resemblance to reality, so I invite the mobile phone companies to come and do a very thorough inspection across Bromsgrove and the villages.
Mims Davies
I concur with every word that my hon. Friend is saying, particularly around the challenges in national parks, where connectivity can be more difficult. If I may, I will take him back to his point about callbacks from GPs or people working remotely, differently and flexibly. Missing that callback is a real problem for anyone, but it can be particularly serious for people in rural areas.
Bradley Thomas
My hon. Friend is spot on. Constituents, particularly older residents, have contacted me because they have missed out on crucial calls from GPs and other supporting services that they require. It is about the safety and wellbeing of our constituents as much as it is about connectivity and the economy.
In the limited time that I have, I have a few points that I implore the Government to focus on. First, transparency must improve. That means bolstering regulatory requirements for the mobile phone companies to advertise speeds that are realistic, not theoretical and based on laboratory conditions. Secondly, it is not just about population coverage, but geographic coverage, which must carry greater regulatory weight. Britain is not composed solely of cities. Land matters, and the people who steward it and rely on these mobile phone connections matter. That means that the Government should give serious consideration to rural roaming. Finally, infrastructure sharing should be pursued with seriousness to ensure that mobile phone coverage across the country, but particularly across Bromsgrove and the villages, is as robust as it can be.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. From Tilston to Tattenhall and from Acton to Audlem, poor mobile connectivity is all too common across Chester South and Eddisbury, but the House need not take my word for it. Earlier this year, I launched a mobile connectivity survey, and I take this opportunity to thank the 544 residents who took the time to complete it.
It is vital to get the real experiences of people living and working in Chester South and Eddisbury, because, as we have heard from other Members today, the level of coverage that Ofcom and the mobile network operators claim, all too often does not reflect reality. Ofcom gives statistics based on modelling, not on-the-ground evidence. It does not differentiate between 4G and 5G coverage and, crucially, it does not test network capacity.
In my mobile survey, I asked constituents on a scale of 1 to 10—where 1 is very poor and 10 is excellent—to rate different aspects of their mobile service. The average score for both the signal to make and receive calls, and the average reliability for calls was just 3 out of 10. The ability to stream or download larger files scored even lower, and many shared their experiences of poor levels of signal and data making it impossible to even download messages or emails.
I asked whether constituents could get a usable phone signal in the main areas of their home. Of the 544 respondents, almost 300 said they could not. It is worth pausing to reflect on that. More than half my constituents surveyed cannot get a usable mobile phone signal in their own home. That is simply unacceptable in 21st-century Britain, and the consequences are very real. We know that since the pandemic, more people are working from home, making reliable connectivity vital. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 10 million people in the UK are hybrid workers, with a further 5 million working exclusively from home. It is now a fundamental part of our modern economy. If the Government are serious about economic growth, addressing poor mobile connectivity, particularly in rural areas, must be part of that plan.
The impact is not only economic, but social. Digital isolation compounds physical isolation. Not being able to rely on a mobile connection to contact friends, family or support services can have serious negative impacts on mental health. There is also a safety dimension to this issue. As more services become digital by default, rural residents are increasingly disadvantaged, unable to reliably take calls from doctors, carers or other essential providers. Constituents have raised concerns about being unable to make calls in emergencies, particularly in more remote rural areas. That is not simply inconvenient; it is dangerous.
What my constituents need is meaningful action. I urge the Minister to consider the views of people across Chester South and Eddisbury who completed my mobile survey, and to share in the Government’s response what steps are currently being taken to work with providers, particularly in the rural context, to address the unacceptable gaps in coverage. We need reliable mobile connectivity for work, for school, to make doctor’s appointments and to connect with friends. I will continue to push the Government, so that all villages—including Audlem, Wybunbury, Wrenbury, Malpas, Tattenhall, Tilston, Farndon, Christleton and so many more—get the connection that they rightly expect and deserve.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this really important debate. One of the issues that appears most often in my constituency mailbag is digital connectivity, as it affects thousands of my constituents. It has become as essential to modern life as electricity or roads. The issue is absolutely fundamental to the future viability of rural communities, not just in my constituency but across the whole country.
I will share some examples from constituents who have been in touch with me recently—real people facing real problems in their daily lives. There is a woman living in Deanland Wood Park, a park home site in my constituency, who can only use her mobile phone when she is out and about. Let me be clear about what that means: in her own home—the place where she should feel most comfortable, secure and connected—her phone is essentially useless to her.
There are a couple living in the village of Berwick. One is with Tesco Mobile, and the other is with Vodafone. Neither of them can receive calls when they are at home. This is not merely an inconvenience; it has a huge impact on their work. He has had to completely change how he communicates with clients, and relies entirely on email and WhatsApp because he simply cannot depend on phone calls. What truly concerns me is that her father is in a care home, and he does not always get through when he calls. Hon. Members can imagine the stress it causes when an elderly man tries to reach his daughter and the technology simply fails both of them. Their phones work perfectly well when they leave Berwick; there is purely a problem of coverage in the village itself.
I recently heard from a couple who have moved to my constituency from rural Staffordshire. They were genuinely shocked to discover that they have no signal whatsoever in their new home in East Dean. They have moved from one rural area to another, and somehow our connectivity is even worse than what they left behind. At one of my advice surgeries, I spoke to a farmer from the same village who is dealing with the same problem, and this is where it becomes really serious. What happens if someone on his farm needs to call the emergency services? What if there is an accident, a medical emergency or a fire? Every second counts in those situations, and it is not just about emergencies. Try doing online banking or running a business without mobile connectivity. Try doing any of the things that we are all expected to do online these days, and which those of us in towns and cities can largely take for granted.
A gentleman in the village of Upper Dicker regularly has to drive to his son’s house just to use his phone, because the signal at home is so poor. Every time a website needs to text him a verification code—something that happens more and more these days—he is stuck. He cannot access his bank account or log into Government services. He cannot do any of the things that we are increasingly required to do online.
According to research published last year, the UK has the worst average 5G download speeds of all G7 countries. We are not slightly behind; we are dead last. When one looks at rural coverage specifically, the picture is even more concerning. Only 69% of rural areas in the UK are said to receive 4G coverage through the four major mobile network providers—not 5G but 4G, which is technology that is already years old, and we are at just 69%. So much of what we are told is 3G, 4G or 5G is actually mislabelled. The signal bars on phones can be deeply misleading. There might be full bars and the assumption is that everything is fine, but when trying to make a call or load a webpage, suddenly you realise that those bars do not mean what you thought they meant.
In rural areas, poor connectivity is fundamentally undermining the viability of our communities. It is not just annoying; it is existential. Young families cannot move to rural areas or stay there, because they cannot work from home. Businesses cannot operate effectively, and elderly residents cannot stay in touch with family or access online health services. Farmers cannot use modern agricultural technology, and students cannot do their homework. The digital divide is no longer just about cities versus countryside; it is about whether rural communities can survive and thrive in the 21st century.
The inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out is deeply concerning. It is simply wrong that people should be disadvantaged because of where they live. Someone’s postcode should not determine whether they can fully participate in a modern society. We must ensure that improving broadband and mobile connectivity starts with the hardest-to-reach areas first—not as an afterthought and not eventually, but first. I recently met Vodafone, which is responsible for the roll-out in our part of Sussex, to press that point.
The Government must also prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities, and here there is an economic argument. Investment in these areas will help unlock the vast potential of our rural communities. Research has demonstrated that ubiquitous 5G could add £159 billion to the UK economy by 2035. That means not just money for telecoms companies, but businesses in our rural communities operating more effectively.
I am asking on behalf of my constituents for the Government to live up to their promises to invest properly in rural connectivity and ensure that companies such as Openreach and Vodafone communicate clearly with residents and meet their commitments. The woman in Deanland Wood Park deserves to use her phone in her own home, the couple in Berwick deserve to do their jobs and stay in touch with their elderly parents without constant stress, the farmer in East Dean deserves to know that he can call for help if there is an emergency, and the gentleman in Upper Dicker deserves to log into his bank account without driving across my constituency. My constituents deserve better and rural constituencies across the country deserve better, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this debate on a subject she knows so much about and on which she is such a passionate campaigner.
Rural areas are too often the last in the queue when it comes to decent mobile internet connectivity. I certainly receive many emails—although not as many as I probably would if they were better connected—as well as calls and letters from constituents who tell me how woeful mobile connectivity is in parts of Frome and East Somerset. One elderly constituent told me how anxious she is that she or her husband will suffer a fall and have no way to contact the emergency services as their home has no mobile signal.
The Liberal Democrats believe that mobile coverage is a basic utility that is as essential these days as running water. People need mobile connectivity when they are travelling, working, running businesses or responding to emergencies. Yet for too long, Government targets have not been ambitious enough, and have been based on connecting households directly rather than on geographical coverage. The Government claim to have reached 95% of geographical broadband coverage, but residents in rural areas tell a very different story, and the problem lies in how coverage is measured.
A constituent wrote to me about persistent signal blackspots throughout the village of Rode. He told me he no longer expects to receive any mobile signal at his home. Ofcom’s mobile coverage checker suggests he should have a strong outdoor signal from every provider, but his experience proves otherwise. This is why we support a nationwide programme to install hyperfast fibre optic broadband across the UK, with a particular focus on connecting rural areas. Ofcom’s capability to understand coverage relies on measurements based on grids of 100 metres by 100 metres, which means that vast swathes of rural areas are underserved in areas such as Rode. More accurate techniques based on smaller grids would offer better coverage pictures to allow for targeted support.
Rural businesses are crying out for better connectivity. A survey by the Countryside Alliance found that 85% of rural businesses cited their connectivity as poor but manageable, with 80% saying better-quality connectivity would be the single largest improvement to their business. In Midsomer Norton, a fairly sizeable market town in my constituency, Zen Rebel Studios has long struggled with poor mobile signal and inadequate broadband. Mobile reception inside its premises is extremely limited, and despite being only a few metres off the high street, it has been unable to secure an extension of the fibre network. As a result, only a handful of people using its café can currently use its wi-fi at any one time before the system crashes, which is simply not sustainable for a modern business.
This really matters for productivity. Rural areas are 18% less productive than the national average. Closing this gap would be worth up to £43 billion in England alone, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in areas too often blighted by underemployment. Some rural stakeholders have complained about a lack of transparency about where coverage improvements will be delivered. Ultimately, it is up to the mobile network operators to decide where to deploy coverage.
The Government and Ofcom do not have legal powers to force them to build masts in specific locations. However, when the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) served as Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, he convened a working group with MPs and mobile providers to explore how to accelerate mast installation and improve rural mobile coverage. Unfortunately, this has not yet been restarted under the current Minister, who I hope will consider reinstating it.
I want to conclude by raising something that has not yet come up, but which is a consequence of rural connectivity failure that goes beyond economics or inconvenience. I have a constituent who, after leaving a long-term coercively controlling relationship, experienced sustained cyber-intrusion by his former partner over several days. He reported it to the police and obtained a crime number, but his abuser retained sole control of the broadband account for the home in which he was living. As the coercive controller was the named bill payer, my constituent could not take over the account. His former partner explicitly refused to release it, even when requested to do so during separation proceedings.
Here is where the absence of mobile coverage becomes critical: there is zero mobile signal at my constituent’s property. In fact, that goes for the whole village. Broadband was therefore his only means of communication. His abuser controlled whether he could make a telephone call, access support services or even work. Through locked devices connected to the network, my constituent remained vulnerable to surveillance. A private security sweep, costing £5,000, discovered that his TV sound bar had been configured as a listening device. He had to live with his wi-fi turned off, activating it only when absolutely necessary, leaving him feeling desperately vulnerable and unable call for help during the moments it was on.
My constituent contacted his broadband provider four times and, while staff were compassionate and escalated the situation, there was no safeguarding protocol available to them and no mechanism to transfer control. His former partner continued controlling his internet access and which devices could connect. Currently, broadband is regulated as a consumer contract and not as essential infrastructure; while an energy supplier would have had to recognise domestic abuse and allow an account transfer, telecommunications providers face no such duty. When reviewing rural connectivity policy, will the Minister also consider requiring telecoms providers to have such safeguarding mechanisms, and will they ensure that where police evidence documents abuse, broadband control can be transferred to the person at risk?
I am sure that the Minister hears similar frustrations from his own constituents as we have heard today, and I hope he recognises how urgently these issues need addressing. If we are serious about protecting people, supporting rural communities and enabling economic growth, we must treat digital access as the essential service it has become.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions.
The previous Conservative Government understood the importance of UK-wide mobile and broadband coverage to the public and to our economy. That is why they put in place ambitious plans to ensure that people across the United Kingdom have access to this essential infrastructure, regardless of their location. The shared rural network, announced in 2020, secured significant investment of around £500 million from the largest mobile network operators. Under the SRN, private investment is complemented by Government funding for the construction of masts in the most underserved locations, with additional coverage provided by the emergency services network programme.
For 4G, the Conservative Government set a target of 95% geographic coverage from at least one mobile network operator by the end of 2025. By January 2025, 30 Government-funded mast upgrades went live, enhancing local connectivity without erecting new masts. According to Ofcom, as of July 2025, 96% of the UK landmass had 4G coverage from at least one operator, exceeding the previous Government’s target. I am proud of the Conservative Government’s record of delivery under the SRN and I welcome the fact that this Government maintain the coverage commitments made under the scheme.
Despite the progress made up to this point, there are still some acute challenges, as we have heard from Members today. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) talked about the reality of living in rural areas with poor coverage, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), and the impact it has, especially on farmers. He also made an important point about the switch from 2G and 3G to 4G and not rushing that process.
The hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) must let us know if Ofcom takes up her generous offer to come and visit. Knowing how beautiful Ely is, it would be mad not to do so.
I was very sad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) had split up with Vodafone.
Peter Fortune
It is sad, but with Valentine’s day just around the corner, perhaps there is the opportunity to reconnect. [Interruption.] It is my first time as a Front Bencher! It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), who is having similar issues with Vodafone. Can I suggest that she takes a leaf out of my hon. Friend’s book and kidnaps one of its Government relations people? Maybe she will get her way that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), as ever, was on the front foot serving her constituents with her mobile survey, highlighting the issue of digital isolation and the impact it can have on mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) talked about the impact on online banking and how, with the closure of front counters, we need that connectivity to keep these services alive. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who talked about the impact on real people. I was sad to hear that for my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove to take a text message, he has to run upstairs and hang out of a window to get reception. Now that I know that—
Bradley Thomas
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not have to do that, but I know many people who do.
Peter Fortune
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification; it will save me some time, as I was going to spend all weekend texting him.
We have heard about the real issues to do with mobile phone connectivity and how it is impacting people. Based on commercial mapping of 113 local council areas across the UK, EE offers acceptable coverage in only 69% of the UK. For Vodafone the figure is 61%, for O2 it is 50% and for Three it is 38%. The Minister who previously had responsibility for this area engaged with Ofcom on improving data collection standards to get a more accurate picture of 4G coverage. That resulted in Ofcom launching its online coverage checker in June 2025, incorporating some improvements.
The need to ensure that everyone has reliable mobile phone coverage is becoming ever more pressing, as public services are increasingly digitised. The last Government recognised the need to tackle non-commercial barriers to the roll-out of digital infrastructure by amending planning legislation. However, as planning is a devolved matter, standards are not consistent across the four nations, so what discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on this matter?
On 5G roll-out, the Conservative Government set a target of nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G for all populated areas of the UK by 2030. The development of this infrastructure has been market-led, and commercial investment has achieved 5G coverage from at least one operator over approximately 65% of the UK landmass.
In December, the Government launched their call for evidence on reforming planning rules to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure. The call for evidence is due to end on 26 February. Given the urgency of this matter, when does the Minister expect to be able to update the House on the outcome of the call for evidence and the Government’s proposals for planning reform?
Touching briefly on broadband, I welcome the publication of the draft statement of strategic priorities yesterday, and I know that businesses will appreciate the clarity that it has provided.
The continuation of the Conservatives’ commitment to competition is welcome, and it is important, as the telecoms market consolidates and the Competition and Markets Authority watches over the process, that competition is actively upheld to reduce consumer costs and continue improving services. There is clearly cross-party agreement that we need to do more to ensure that rural areas have improved connectivity, and I hope that the Minister will engage constructively with all Members who have contributed to the debate in order to achieve this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
First and foremost, can I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate on mobile connectivity in rural areas? I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions.
While I am here speaking in place of my noble Friend in the other place, the Minister for Digital Economy, I feel the pain described by many hon. Members personally, as I too represent a rural constituency. In that context, I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and the hon. Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for their representations on behalf of farmers and agricultural communities, whom I know face a particular challenge.
I also thank the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) and for Lewes (James MacCleary) for talking about not only maintaining bucolic beauty but parity and economic opportunity. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who raised a very concerning case about coercive control through the use of connectivity. I encourage her to write to the Department about that, as I would be keen to follow up on that particular issue. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) has features of rurality and remoteness, and has coastal communities, and from my constituency I personally understand those features too.
The all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, which the hon. Member for North Shropshire is a member of, along with the other Members, published in January a detailed report on this topic. It provided valuable insights and recommendations.
It is well understood across the House that access to high-quality, reliable and secure digital connectivity is essential to day-to-day life, with many services now requiring an online presence. It is important not only for consumers, but for the businesses in every sector of the UK economy that depend increasingly on fixed and mobile networks in some way. From taking card payments to managing businesses online, digital connectivity is central.
The focus of this debate is on mobile connectivity. The Government have an ambition for all populated areas, including rural communities, to have access to higher quality stand-alone 5G by 2030. Although stand-alone 5G is already available outside 83% of premises across the UK, I acknowledge that we need to go much further.
Operators are starting to align investment and delivery plans with the ambition that the Government have set out. VodafoneThree has committed to investing £11 billion in its 5G network over the 10-year period following completion of its merger; progress against that commitment will be monitored at regular intervals by Ofcom. BT and Virgin Media O2 have set out similarly significant investment plans into their networks, both aligning with the Government’s stand-alone 5G coverage ambition.
John Lamont
Does the Minister acknowledge that there are issues with the data that has been provided both by the telecoms companies and by Ofcom? We have all shared experiences across the Chamber today in which maps produced by Vodafone, EE or whoever appear to demonstrate good coverage in our constituencies, but the coverage on the ground is just not there. Is the Minister challenging the providers on their data?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I will come to that question, because I recognise the gap between the aggregate picture and the experience felt on the ground.
Let me return to aggregate investment. To ensure that investment delivers coverage improvements for communities right across the UK, including in rural areas, we continue working to identify and address barriers to deployment where it is practical to do so. I may not share the significant expertise and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) with matters of spectrum, but I certainly share her enthusiasm. When I was an undergraduate student, the global example of the last Labour Government on auction design and the 3G spectrum was very much a part of my curriculum. In that spirit, I hope to take her advice and continue the spirit of Labour, not that of the last Conservative Government or of the Liberal Democrats, who were complicit in the auction challenges of that Government.
The focus on investment includes implementing the remaining provisions of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government are considering where planning rules could be relaxed to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure.
The shadow Minister mentioned the call for evidence, which is due to close on 26 February. In the usual spirit, I can confirm to him that we will make a prompt statement to the House, but I am afraid I cannot give him a specific date on this occasion.
On the reporting of mobile coverage, Members across the House are totally right to highlight the issues with its accuracy in some cases. I feel very personally the depth of their frustration; although I cannot condone the semi-kidnapping experience described by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), she has my particular sympathies for her pre-Valentine’s break-up with Vodafone. Accurate coverage data is essential for consumers: it allows more informed decisions as to which operator provides the best level of service for life, work and travel.
Mims Davies
The way for someone to report poor signal in their area is to go to ofcom.org.uk, enter a postcode, select a provider and then provide coverage feedback—if they can get a signal. That is the irony for many of us who have to drive around rural areas trying to give feedback, hence Vodafone’s parliamentary affairs person very kindly allowing himself to be actively kidnapped to drive around and see the reality.
Kanishka Narayan
I confirm to the hon. Member that there is no sense of judgment on the Government Benches on the conduct of her cause.
The Government continue to work with Ofcom to improve the accuracy of reported mobile coverage, building on the launch of its Map Your Mobile tool in June last year. I am glad that hon. Members recognise that that is reflected in the draft statement of strategic priorities for telecoms, spectrum and post, which the Government laid before Parliament yesterday. It will remain a firm priority for the Government, and I will make sure to represent to my noble Friend the Minister for Digital Economy the concerns that have been raised today.
More accurate coverage data also allows us to understand coverage gaps. Addressing these gaps requires investment by the mobile network operators. The Government recognise that the investment climate has been difficult for the mobile sector over recent years. We are committed to working with industry to support its investment in our networks. That is why we are undertaking a mobile market review to understand the factors impacting the sector’s ability to invest, and I know that the recent digital communities APPG report calls for an independent review of the digital connectivity landscape. The mobile market review and the accompanying call for evidence, launched on Tuesday, will enable the Government to consider what we can do to support the sector too. Through the call for evidence, we are looking to gather views on the quality of mobile service and level of coverage required to harness the full benefits of stand-alone 5G, as well as where our ambitions on stand-alone 5G should go further still.
As Members will be aware, as part of our work with industry, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State chaired a roundtable yesterday with CEOs of major UK telecoms firms to discuss investment challenges, as well as agreeing to a telecoms consumer charter, which looks to strengthen transparency to empower consumers, as well as to improve support for those struggling to pay. On the provision of reliable 4G connectivity, I know it is essential to many. At the spending review in 2025, the Government committed to continuing to deliver 4G coverage in areas with little or no coverage. The shared rural network has helped to deliver 4G mobile coverage to 96% of the UK land mass from at least one operator and to 81% from all four. The publicly funded elements of the shared rural network will continue to deliver improved coverage up to January 2027, with over 100 masts already delivering new coverage across the UK.
Where there is no mobile coverage, we are starting to see some positive developments in the satellite direct-to-device market. To the point made by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, I also share her enthusiasm and hope for cost reductions as we have greater competition in that market. The UK is taking a pioneering step in enabling direct-to-device connectivity, moving ahead of European counterparts to unlock connectivity as well as growth across remote parts of the UK. Those developments have the potential to increase the resilience of our services and provide a back-up for crucial ones should territorial networks face disruption.
Having coverage alone is clearly not important enough by itself. As Members have raised very clearly, there needs to be confidence that mobile networks will be available in the most difficult of times and that they are secure against threats. Though the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 introduced a world-leading regime for the protection and security of such contexts, I know that there is more work to do. In particular, I appreciate the points made right across the House on the resilience of mobile services to power cuts. We welcome that Ofcom is completing a detailed regulatory review on that question. I will make sure that the points raised today are represented as part of Ofcom’s considerations, and in particular I will be sure to convey the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle around possible ways of ensuring duration of support as backstops. We will ensure that the guidance for public telecommunications providers reflects evolving technologies and emerging threats, taking into account input from industry and expert advice from the National Cyber Security Centre.
Before I finish, I will address specific points raised by Members. To the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield, I would be happy to make sure that the Minister for Digital Economy meets her as part of her recurring surgeries. To my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, I know that he is a strong cross-Government champion for Cornwall on all matters and I will continue to make sure that we play our part in supporting the strength of his advocacy. To the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, there are three Home Office masts in her patch and two are already activated as part of the shared rural network. I will be happy to engage with her through correspondence on her particular concerns about those masts, should she wish to raise that. To the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk who, with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, raised the point on 2G and 3G switch-off, though the expectation is that operators will provide broadly equivalent levels of coverage after switching off 2G, I have heard his concerns and will make sure that both the Minister and, as a consequence, the regulator are focused on the complete delivery of that aspiration.
Finally, I am conscious that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk also asked about smart meters, as did the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield. The Data Communications Company is obligated, under the conditions of its licence, to provide smart meter network coverage to at least 99.25% of premises across Great Britain. One solution for those who do not currently have smart meter wider area network coverage, which the DCC and Government have decided to focus on, involves harnessing customers’ broadband connections to also carry out smart metering communications. We are looking at how we can use modified smart meter communications hubs, as well as additional devices, to plug the gap. That is not to say that we will not continue to focus on how we can ensure mobile connectivity plays its part in that context as well.
I am sure you wish for me to come to a prompt conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. First and foremost, I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire, as I do all hon. Members for their contributions. I will continue, with them, to champion mobile connectivity across our rural communities.
Helen Morgan
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I am conscious that it is the final Thursday afternoon before a recess, so it shows just how important this matter is to our constituents that so many Members have come along and made good points. Bearing that in mind, I will be brief. I have done a lot of work on this issue over the last year because of the activities of the all-party group, and it is testament to the value of a Backbench Business debate that I have learned quite a lot this afternoon as well.
I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on deteriorating signal. In many areas, this problem is getting worse not better, and we need to focus on that. The issue is probably due to the quality and capacity of the signal, rather than the coverage. We are using coverage as a shorthand, but we need a high- quality, high-capacity signal in all those places, too.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) made some good points about spectrum and licensing. I fear that an opportunity has been missed given that 5G licences have already been issued without those quality parameters. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) mentioned the importance of satellite solutions in filling in some of those gaps, which might overcome some of the planning issues, so I hope the Minister will look at that too. I thank everyone once more.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government and service providers to help improve mobile connectivity in rural areas.
School Minibus Safety
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
It is good to see so many hon. and right hon. Members present to take part in this important debate on school minibus safety. No family should ever have to question whether their child will return home safely from a school activity. For my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, that unthinkable fear became a devastating reality. In November 1993, a minibus carrying 14 children was involved in a catastrophic crash on the M40 near Hagley. Twelve children and their teacher lost their lives, and among them was Liz and Steve’s beloved daughter, Claire.
I first met Liz and Steve while campaigning in my by-election in 2023. They bravely shared their story with me and invited me to support their ongoing campaign to make school minibuses safer, so that no child would ever be put at risk while travelling to or from school activities. Since then, I have stood with them in their tireless efforts to improve safety, not just for the children who travel in these vehicles, but for the teachers and staff who are asked to drive them. More than 30 years have now passed since that tragedy, and while important improvements have been made in areas such as seatbelt provision and vehicle construction standards, the underlying regulatory framework that allows teachers to drive minibuses without full professional training remains largely unchanged.
Children’s safety should not be up for debate. This is about reducing risks that we already know can be prevented. It is about asking whether the legal framework that governs the transport of pupils to and from school activities truly matches the weight of that responsibility. Every time a child steps on to a school minibus, parents place their trust in the system that stands behind it. That system must be strong, consistent and—above all—capable of keeping every child safe. At the moment, many of us believe that that system falls short.
The system that governs school minibuses is built around section 19 permits, introduced under the Transport Act 1985. These permits allow not-for-profit organisations, including schools, to run minibuses without holding a full public service vehicle operator’s licence. Under that system, drivers must meet certain basic licensing conditions, but they are not required to hold a full passenger carrying vehicle licence. Nor are they required by law to undertake accredited professional training.
The official guidance, which dates from 2013, states that drivers must be suitably trained and correctly licensed. It even recognises that driving a minibus requires additional skills, and is simply not the same as driving a large car. However, it is guidance, so it is advisory, and there are no checks by the Department for Education or Ofsted on its implementation or use. Schools are encouraged to consider specialist training, but they are not required to do so. At the moment, the guidance is not strong enough to guarantee children’s safety. That is why, alongside Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the NASUWT, I have been calling for stronger, clearer regulations to make sure that every child can travel safely, and that teachers and staff are properly trained and supported to carry out that responsibility.
It is also important to understand how and why the framework came about. Section 19 and 22 did not emerge from a careful review of child passenger safety. They were shaped largely by European market rules designed to regulate competition. In other words, the system that we rely on today was driven more by economic considerations than by the safety of schoolchildren. That historical origin has left us with a fragmented and confusing framework.
Private schools that are not charities are treated as commercial operators, and they must hold a full operator’s licence, meet strict financial and safety requirements, appoint a qualified transport manager, and employ fully licensed, professionally trained drivers with regulated hours. That comprehensive legal framework is designed to protect children and ensure accountability. By contrast, many state schools transport children daily under section 19 permits without the same safeguards. They operate largely on guidance rather than law, with no mandatory professional training or oversight. In practice, teachers may drive minibuses at the end of a full teaching day without the protections required of commercial drivers.
That raises simple but troubling questions. Why should a child’s safety depend on the type of school they attend? Why should children in private schools travel under a full safety regime, while children in state schools rely on discretion and good will? I criticise not independent schools, which are complying with the law, but the two-tier system that affords different levels of protection to children—that is unfair and unacceptable.
The inconsistency goes further. Across the UK, standards vary by nation. In Northern Ireland, for example, driving a school minibus without a full D1 licence can be a disciplinary offence. Children’s safety should not depend on postcode, school type or geography. Every child deserves the same standards, protections and assurance that those responsible for their transport are properly trained and accountable.
The Government recently stated before the Transport Committee that they do not wish to relax D1 licence requirements for community minibus drivers, citing road safety concerns. Around one in five candidates fails the D1 test, even after extensive training. That failure rate is a clear indication of the level of skill and competence required to operate such vehicles safely.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I am concerned that under the current system, someone could fail their test to drive a minibus in a professional setting and it would not stop them from driving one in a school setting, which does not require a D1 licence. Why is that licence not required to drive children to and from school activities? It fundamentally does not make sense. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Sarah Edwards
That is precisely my concern. It does not make sense at all given that failure means an inability to drive safely. We should surely apply the same standards or higher when children are involved.
Under the current school system, a teacher over the age of 21 who holds only a standard category B car licence and has just two years’ driving experience can legally drive a minibus carrying children, without holding a full passenger carrying vehicle licence and without undertaking any mandatory accredited training—so, too, can the individual who has failed their D1 driving test. This creates a stark and troubling inconsistency in the Government’s own stated aims.
In every other context, professional passenger transport is treated as high risk, with rigorous training, testing and regulation designed to protect passengers. Yet the law allows schoolchildren—the most vulnerable passengers, some might argue—to be transported under a system that relies on guidance rather than on statutory safeguards. We must ask ourselves: if the Government recognise the dangers and the skill required to drive a minibus in every other setting, why do they not apply the same standards to those entrusted with the lives of children? The safety of our school pupils should not be left to chance or good will.
Current guidance recognises the dangers of driver fatigue and advises against long journeys after a day of work, but those are only recommendations. In practice, teachers are often expected to drive minibuses at the end of long teaching days. They are responsible for driving larger, more complex vehicles while supervising pupils at the same time. In some cases, they are the only adult on board. That presents serious risks in the event of a breakdown, an emergency or a behavioural incident. This is not about blaming teachers—they are dedicated professionals—but the system places enormous responsibility on them without the professional safeguards that exist in other areas of passenger transport. It is no surprise that growing numbers of teachers are choosing not to drive minibuses, citing stress and concerns about personal liability.
There is also clear confusion and inconsistency in the system. Guidance on section 19 permits has been interpreted in different ways, and some local authorities and academy trusts apply their own requirements that differ from national guidance. That uncertainty does not make children safer. The NASUWT teaching union has described the current regime as “not fit for purpose”, and a 2024 survey found inconsistent compliance with legal requirements and guidance across many schools. In some cases, management is aware of the shortcomings. In others, problems arise because guidance is unclear and training is lacking. Vehicle faults and poor maintenance have been identified, leaving teachers unknowingly responsible for the vehicle’s roadworthiness. The same survey found that 24% of teachers felt pressured to drive a minibus despite feeling unqualified to do so. Although NASUWT guidance is available to teachers, the union ultimately advises staff not to drive minibuses at all, due to the legal, safety and personal liability risks involved.
Concerns have also been raised about the use of lightweight minibuses, which are basically converted vans fitted with seats. Many of these vehicles weigh less than 3.5 tonnes, which allows schools to bypass the training and licensing requirements that would otherwise apply to those who obtained their category B car licence after 1997. In effect, these vehicles have become a cheaper workaround for schools, but that cost saving comes with significant safety compromises: these lightweight minibuses often lack essential features such as side impact protection or full airbag coverage, leaving children and staff more vulnerable in the event of a collision. In practice, gross vehicle weight limits are not always routinely checked before journeys begin. Many teachers are unaware that once they take a vehicle on to the road, they are legally responsible for not only their driving but ensuring that the vehicle is roadworthy and compliant with regulations.
This combination of under-equipped vehicles, insufficient oversight and limited professional training creates a serious safety risk. Teachers can find themselves responsible for dozens of children in a vehicle that is not designed to carry them safely, with no back-up if something goes wrong. The risk is not theoretical; it is a real and present danger that must be addressed. We should not accept a system where cost, convenience or outdated loopholes determine the level of protection that children receive. Every child, in every school, should be transported in a vehicle that meets robust safety standards, driven by someone who is properly trained, and supported by a clear and enforceable legal framework.
The so-called short distance exemption further complicates matters. Section 19 permits assume that journeys will normally take place within a 10-mile radius, except in rural areas, but many schools, including church schools and large multi-academy trusts operating across several counties, regularly travel well beyond that distance for sports fixtures and other activities. When what is meant to be exceptional becomes routine, it is reasonable to ask whether the legal framework is still fit for purpose.
At the same time, parents are often unaware of the regulatory distinctions that underpin school transport. Traditional written consent forms once gave parents a clear understanding of arrangements. Increasing reliance on digital systems means that many parents simply assume that robust, uniform standards are already in place. How many parents have been informed prior to a trip and asked whether they were happy for their child to be driven in a minibus by a teacher or staff member who could not demonstrate the level of training required for professional minibus operators?
Everything that we have heard and considered today makes it clear that the current system is failing both children and staff. We are allowing a two-tier approach to safety, where the protection that a child receives depends on the type of school that they attend. That cannot continue.
Sarah Edwards
I met Ministers from the Department for Transport in May 2025 and from the Department for Education more recently, but the suggested changes are yet to be made. The issue was not mentioned in the Government’s road safety strategy. I have already raised that concern with the Minister, and I am raising it in the House today to provide the detail and substance behind those concerns for the official record.
The road safety strategy sets out excellent ambitions for the protection of road users and cites issues around appropriate licences, which I applaud. I know the Minister is rightly proud of the strategy as a piece of work. I raise the issue of the continued use of permits for school minibus driving precisely because it cuts across the sentiment of the strategy, and I am disappointed that terms like “community transport” or “school minibuses” do not appear in the document at present, despite these inconsistencies being known to Departments.
I ask the Minister to take action about the following suggestions that I will set out. All schools, whether state-funded or independent, must be held to the same safety standards, with best practice an absolute minimum. Section 19 permits for schools should be replaced with statutory regulations, moving from guidance-based advice to enforceable legal standards, and aligning all school minibus operations with road safety priorities rather than simply community exemptions.
The Department for Education should have a list of all associated minibuses that schools use and operate, regardless of whether they are a local authority or an academy trust school. This information should be jointly shared with the Department for Transport, because at present no such information exists, nor does the ability to extract minibus accident data from generic passenger vehicle data, meaning that minibuses are treated in the same way as buses or coaches in Government data. That makes further analysis of the issue difficult.
The professionalisation of school minibus driving must be mandated. All drivers should hold a passenger carrying vehicle licence or D1 qualification in order to operate a school minibus. Every school fleet should be overseen by a transport manager, and drivers must undergo checks on eyesight, health and driving records.
The use of lightweight minibuses must be phased out or banned. Children should travel in vehicles built to proper safety standards, not those chosen to save costs. A national inspection and enforcement regime must be introduced. DVSA inspections should cover all school transport, not just commercial operators, with vehicles and drivers tracked in a centralised, transparent system.
Legal grey areas must be clarified. Government guidance should remove ambiguity around terms such as “volunteer”, “hire or reward” and “non-commercial”, and the guidance must be court-tested and enforceable.
Teacher wellbeing and safety must be protected. Driving duties should not fall to teachers after a full working day. Minibus driving should be recognised as a specialised responsibility in schools, not an informal task. We also believe that transport safety should be included in Ofsted inspections, and the long-term impact of accidents on both pupils and staff, including mental health and trauma, must be taken seriously.
In closing, these are not abstract or minor reforms. They are essential steps to ensure that every child can travel safely to and from school activities, and that the adults entrusted with that responsibility are fully supported, trained and accountable. I think of Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the courage it has taken them to turn their personal tragedy into a tireless campaign for safer school transport. Their determination reminds us all why reform cannot wait, because sadly during the time that we have been campaigning together and meeting Ministers, other such tragedies have occurred.
I urge the Government to take steps to close the ambiguity and to further their aims for road safety for all who use them. Our children deserve nothing less than a system that guarantees their safety, values the teachers who transport them and removes the inequalities and risks that underpin the current framework. It is time for decisive action. I thank the Minister for coming here today and I commend this debate to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing a debate on this important subject. I pay tribute to her campaigning. I know that she has shown real determination in working with her constituents, education unions and others on this issue throughout her time in the House.
The minibus collision on the M40 in 1993 was a truly dreadful incident, and my heart goes out to all the parents and families, including Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, who suffered such an awful loss. We all want to do everything we can to ensure that such an incident never happens again.
Since the tragic crash, many improvements have been made to enhance the safe operation of minibuses, including mandatory seatbelts in minibuses and coaches; a ban on the crew bus where minibuses had two benches facing each other; and improvements to the driver licensing regime. Road safety statistics show an overall decrease in the number of incidents and serious collisions involving minibuses in the last 10 years, but I recognise that there is always more to do. I strongly believe that road safety, and the safety of students, school staff and teachers travelling in minibuses, are extremely important.
I will start by setting out what the Government currently do to support the safe use of permits. The permit system that is set out in the Transport Act 1985 recognises the value of not-for-profit organisations that provide services for community, social and charitable benefit. There are section 22 permits used for community bus services, and the more common section 19 permits. Those permits allow the holder to operate transport services that would otherwise require a full public service vehicle operator licence.
Users of section 19 permits will include schools, but also a wide range of charities and community transport operators that support trips every day across the country, such as dial-a-ride, social club trips or camping trips by youth groups. The permit system was designed because we recognise the value of those activities, and that small, non-profit-making organisations do not always have the capacity of larger, commercial ones.
Driving a minibus usually requires D1 entitlement on a licence, as my hon. Friend said, but a vehicle with a section 19 permit can also be driven by someone with two different types of entitlement. First, prior to 1997, car driving licences came with an automatic form of D1 entitlement. Secondly, there are more limited circumstances in which a minibus can be driven on a car—category B —driving licence. Those circumstances include being 21 or older, having held the licence for at least two years, driving on a voluntary basis where a minibus is being used for social purposes by a non-commercial body, and meeting vehicle weight restrictions.
Even though permits are not a full operator licence, holding them comes with important responsibilities and obligations. Operating and driving minibuses is never to be taken lightly. To support permit holders with their responsibilities, we publish guidance to promote and support the correct and safe use of vehicles operating under permits. That guidance sets out the permit rules and the responsibilities of permit holders, including schools, for ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. Those responsibilities include vehicle maintenance, for which the guidance sets out recommended arrangements.
The guidance also covers the need to ensure that drivers are correctly trained, have the correct driving licence and take adequate breaks. It notes, for example, that drivers should plan more rest breaks than are set out in the regulations if they do not drive for a living, and that drivers should be given clear, written instructions about their responsibilities covering all aspects of vehicle operation. The guidance further sets out that all drivers should be aware of the risk to passenger safety from driving when tired, and that it is not sensible to start a long trip after a full day’s work, whether that work involves driving or not. I might add that no driver—teacher or otherwise—should ever be put under pressure to drive a minibus.
In addition to the overarching sections 19 and 22 permit guidance, we have specific guidance for schools and local authorities on driving school minibuses. That was published jointly with the Department for Education, and it outlines driving licence entitlements, training, insurance and other legal requirements. It is of course important that all our guidance is as clear, direct and helpful as it can be to end users, and I am always open to hearing about ways in which anyone thinks it could be improved. I also acknowledge the work of the minibus driver awareness scheme—MiDAS—administered by the Community Transport Association and, I understand, used by many schools, in contributing to the improved safety of minibus drivers.
Notwithstanding everything that is currently done to support permit users, my hon. Friend raised important and well-expressed challenges, and they warrant further thought. I acknowledge, for example, her argument about different rules applying to different sorts of schools, and the importance of children being safe regardless of such distinctions. The section 19 permit framework has wide-ranging benefits, but it is right for us to keep challenging ourselves to ensure that the system is striking the correct balance between flexibility and safety. I know that my hon. Friend recently met the Minister for School Standards, and I can commit that Ministers in both Departments will meet to discuss the subject further. I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and I am sure that they will form the basis of part of that meeting.
The Government take road safety very seriously, as shown by the publication of our road safety strategy last month, which my hon. Friend recognised. The strategy sets out a clear and ambitious path to improve road safety in Great Britain, and its targets include a 70% reduction in the number of children under 16 killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 2035. As she will know, the strategy also includes measures around safe road users and safe vehicles, and proposes further action in relation to those who drive for work. We plan to develop and launch the national work-related road safety charter later this year, and I will raise with my officials the point that she raised in relation to schools.
I thank my hon. Friend again for her continued interest in, and advocacy on, this very important subject.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I wish all colleagues a peaceful and productive recess in their constituencies and, I hope, some time with their families as well. I look forward to spending time with my nephews, Ali and Aadam, who are superfans of Bad Bunny—they make me listen to his music non-stop, and they are looking forward to teaching me the dance moves next. I am not sure whether that is good or bad.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK-EU Agritrade: SPS Agreement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Mr Alistair Carmichael will speak on the publication of the fifth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HC 1661, “UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of it, and I will call Mr Alistair Carmichael to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each. I call Mr Alistair Carmichael, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Thank you, Ms Jardine. It is, as ever, an inestimable pleasure to serve under your stewardship in Westminster Hall. May I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for me to make a statement to mark the publication of our Committee’s fifth report of this Parliament, “UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work”?
The report is the third major output of our long-term inquiry into animal and plant health. As part of our inquiry, we have spent time in discussion with domestic stakeholders in farming and food production and with officials and parliamentarians in Brussels. It is clear from our time in Brussels that the Prime Minister’s reset in May 2025 has created a political environment in which the early conclusion of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union is a realistic objective.
Progressing towards an agreement at pace brings with it both opportunities and threats. The main threat we identify is that the process of dynamic alignment could result in us aligning with regulations that weaken the position of our food producers, as it might deny them access to products on which they currently rely. That threat is particularly acute in relation to plant protection products used by our arable farmers. This is a complex area where the needs of our farmers must be understood and protected. I do not doubt that in the negotiation of the agreement the Government will seek to do that. I am less convinced, however, that in practice they will have the depth of knowledge necessary to avoid the law of unintended consequences coming into play. That depth of knowledge exists and is readily accessible for the Government from British farmers and other businesses involved in the manufacture of plant protection products. Securing their fullest engagement is the best way to ensure that any agreement is workable and will not leave our food producers at a disadvantage.
On the subject of engagement, I observe in passing that, when in Brussels, the Committee benefited from high-level and good-quality engagement from officials in the Commission and Members of the European Parliament, as well as other relevant organisations. By contrast, our engagement with our own Government has been less straightforward. The Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations declined our invitation to appear before the Committee and has offered instead a private briefing for me as Chair. I am afraid that that offer, while appreciated, rather misses the point of how Select Committees work, and especially how the EFRA Committee works. I am not blind to the sensitivities of a live negotiation, but we are a Select Committee of the House of Commons charged with the scrutiny of the Government. For us not to scrutinise fully the Government’s conduct of these negotiations would be a dereliction of our duty, which I am not prepared to countenance.
Let me place on record that the Committee’s work on this most important of areas for our food producers is continuing and that we look to the Government for better engagement than we have had. If the sensitivities of the negotiation mean that Ministers are unwilling to appear in public—that is not an unreasonable position—other means must be found for the Committee to fulfil its duties. At the very least, I would hope to see a briefing of the whole Committee in private.
A central issue in these negotiations is dynamic regulatory alignment. Under such a model, the UK may be required to adjust domestic laws when the EU changes its own, particularly in areas such as animal welfare, pesticide regulation and precision breeding. We heard deep concerns from the agrifood sector that unqualified dynamic alignment risks placing additional burdens on UK farmers, while undercutting them with cheaper imports produced under weaker standards. Our report therefore recommends that the Government seek a Swiss-style carve-out for animal welfare rules, ensuring that the UK is not compelled to follow every regulatory change that could be to the detriment of higher UK standards in this area.
Similarly, the Government should seek an exemption from dynamic alignment for precision-bred products. Some of the UK is ahead of the EU in this area, with farmers in England already having been enabled to grow and market precision-bred seeds, plants, food and animal feed. Without an exemption, we risk losing the benefits of moving first. Mandatory alignment with future EU rules could undermine our progress and innovation and weaken the UK’s leadership in the sector.
On pesticides and maximum residue levels, we heard evidence that EU rules developed post Brexit may not reflect UK agronomic conditions. Imposing them without consideration of our climate, crops and production systems risks unnecessary burdens for growers, which at best may be impractical, but at worst may be impossible. We therefore recommend that any sanitary and phyto- sanitary agreement must guarantee that UK scientific evidence is fully considered in all risk-based decisions affecting our agriculture.
Our inquiry also highlighted that SPS alignment will not succeed without public understanding and trust. Dynamic alignment involves choices. We need a national conversation between Government and the public to set out the realities, opportunities and constraints of a potential SPS deal.
I turn now to Northern Ireland and the provision of veterinary medicines. Although veterinary medicines are not formally within the scope of the SPS agreement, they remain an unresolved and urgent issue under the Windsor framework. The continued uncertainty about the availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland poses real risks to animal health, farm businesses and trade. We therefore recommend that the Government pursue a veterinary medicines agreement with the EU, concurrently with the SPS discussions, and set out clear timelines and priorities for doing so.
For Parliament, these negotiations raise fundamental questions. If future EU regulatory changes may affect UK law, Parliament must have a clear and meaningful role in scrutinising the negotiations and any subsequent rule changes. We have recommended that the Government publish detailed plans for parliamentary scrutiny, including how EU legislation would be assessed before being considered for assimilation into UK law.
A workable SPS agreement will require careful, phased implementation. Border authorities, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, port health teams, laboratories and industry all made clear to us that significant regulatory change requires long lead-in times. Staff training, new systems and revised working practices cannot be introduced overnight. We therefore recommend a minimum 24-month implementation period for any major regulatory changes arising from an SPS agreement.
In this report, we have set out the opportunities of an SPS agreement, and they are significant. A well-designed agreement could ease trade, reduce costs and strengthen ties with our largest trading partner. But the risks are also significant. Poorly managed alignment could burden farmers, erode trust, undermine innovation and weaken the UK’s ability to act on its own scientific evidence.
Our recommendations are practical and proportionate. They are designed to ensure that any SPS agreement supports UK agriculture, strengthens biosecurity and commands public and parliamentary confidence. It is crucial that the Government enter these negotiations with absolute clarity and purpose and a determination to safeguard the interests of the UK’s agrifood sector. Farmers need certainty, fairness and a Government who recognise the weight of their responsibility. The stakes for our farmers, food system and national resilience are simply too high for anything less.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I very much welcome the report. In particular, I support the recommendation on an exemption from dynamic alignment for precision breeding. In my part of the country, we are proud to host the Norwich Research Park, the Quadram Institute and the John Innes Centre, which are at the forefront of scientific innovation. They are not only a British success story, but important for local jobs and the local economy. Does the Chair of the Select Committee believe that the Government recognise the value of precision breeding as a scientific advancement?
Mr Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I welcome him formally to the Committee and thank him for his contribution to its proceedings. We benefited from our time at the John Innes Centre, and it is not a subject of any controversy to say that the Committee was very impressed with the professionalism of all those who work there and their commitment to improving our commercial advantage in precision breeding and gene editing.
It is fair to say that the position on precision breeding in England is one that farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom look to with a degree of envy, and it would be a great shame if we lost the advantage that England has from being an early adopter. From speaking to people in the Commission, my impression is that they are keen to see the steps the UK has taken as encouragement for their member states to come towards our position, and that dynamic alignment will not necessarily be a one-way process. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point, and any SPS agreement that does not respect and enhance our advantage will miss a most important trick for our farmers.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I welcome the report and I reiterate the thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity. The right. hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report done by the Andersons Centre, on behalf of CropLife UK, which indicates that alignment could wipe out £810 million-worth of farm profits in year one alone and see production of wheat down by 16%, apples down by 7% and potatoes down by 6%, possibly costing 9,000 agricultural jobs. With that in mind, does he agree that it is paramount for the Minister responsible for EU negotiations to come before our Committee, either in public or in private, at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman knows my views on this; in fact, I have touched on them already. I think it is absolutely essential. It is to the benefit of everybody that those responsible for the negotiations have the fullest understanding of the views in Parliament, out there in the production sector—CropLife UK is a good example of that—and of farmers, who have day-to-day responsibility for these issues. A good SPS agreement that gets things right should not have too many unintended consequences. While a cliff-edge implementation would apparently result in the loss of £810 million, a lengthy implementation period would allow us the opportunity to smooth out any wrinkles that we might inadvertently have agreed to. We know from the trade and co-operation agreement that rushing can sometimes make things more difficult in the longer term.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The SPS is a really positive development and an opportunity for us. If the suggested timescales do come off, it will be impressively quick, but with such fast timescales come the risks mentioned in the report. Does the Chair agree that it is important to not only maintain our higher welfare standards but ensure that our UK farmers are not undercut by imports with lower welfare standards?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She was on the Committee when we heard from the Swiss representatives in Brussels, and they were successful over a rather longer negotiation period. I give credit to the Prime Minister for having created a political environment in which a negotiated agreement this year is not just possible but expected. I understand all the reasons why the Prime Minister would want to see the earliest possible implementation—there are imperatives coming from the political electoral cycle, shall we say—but at the end of the day it is more important that our farmers get what is necessary to allow them to take advantage of the agreement. If they cannot sell the products into market, we have missed the whole point of having an SPS agreement; it would be an agreement simply for the sake of it. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, in this agreement, as in any other trade deal we have, leaving ourselves open to the import of food produced to lower standards than we expect of our farmers would be absolute madness.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chair of the EFRA Committee for laying out the top lines from this excellent report, and I also commend the Committee for its work on the inquiry into animal and plant health. My right hon. Friend spoke about the Cabinet Office Minister not appearing before his Committee, but the Minister did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee in September, as part of our inquiry into the UK-EU reset, although that is of course not the place for detail on SPS arrangements. Any alignment with the EU on SPS policy needs to be phased in. Could my right hon. Friend expand on why the shift needs to be a transition, rather than an immediate removal of friction, given that the National Farmers Union has said it is critical that we avoid a cliff edge?
Mr Carmichael
On any objective analysis, it is very important that we get this right, and we can get it right by doing it slowly and carefully. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—the lobster capital of Europe—referenced the report from CropLife UK. The report seeks to quantify the financial cost of a cliff-edge implementation, and puts it as high as £810 million. CropLife UK is obviously not saying, “Don’t do this,” but simply, “If you do this with no proper implementation period, there will be financial cost attached to it.” At a time when the Government’s central mission is economic growth, and when that growth must be available to every community in the country —rural as well as urban—taking that sort of risk for the political imperative of timing seems an unacceptable way of managing such an important agreement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his clear message on veterinary medicines for Northern Ireland, and for his and the Committee’s encouragement to the Minister to ensure that the agreement is in place as soon as possible. We very much welcome alignment between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the report highlights that an SPS agreement could significantly reduce regulatory friction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by aligning standards, which could potentially remove physical checks and “Not for EU” labelling requirements. However, did the right hon. Member and his Committee consider the fact that the Government cannot exercise re-entrance to Europe by the back door? How can the Government ensure that seeking a tailor-made UK deal for all is their approach?
Mr Carmichael
If our ultimate destination were re-entry, whether by the back door or front door, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might struggle to find a common position. Let us be clear what we are dealing with. An SPS agreement is tightly drawn, and is about our food producers having frictionless access so that they can get their products to market in our single biggest market. That is why there is a real opportunity here.
To my mind, the veterinary medicines agreement, for example, goes beyond trade; it is a matter of animal welfare. Allowing questions of constitution to get in the way of providing the animal welfare products we need, in any part of the United Kingdom, would be unforgivable.
Healthy Relationships
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for healthy relationships.
It is a pleasure to be under your chairship, Ms Jardine. May I start by wishing you a happy Valentine’s day for Saturday?
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
That is probably the most famous line in British literature, but when it comes to British policy, the role of relationships seems too often to be an afterthought, yet they are the building block of a healthy society. I am the first to jump on our cultural obsession with relationships when there is a new “Bridgerton” season, but it is time that relationships became a political obsession, too.
Valentine’s day is a moment each year when the country reflects on love, partnership and the relationships that underpin our families, communities and society. With public interest high in the pressures facing modern couples and with a growing body of evidence that respect, trust and equality prevent relationship breakdown, this debate offers us a timely opportunity to consider the factors that enable healthy partnerships in Britain today.
Healthy relationships are fundamental to a number of key policy domains. Strong and stable partnerships are associated with improved mental wellbeing, reduced loneliness and better overall health outcomes, while relationship distress is linked to increased demand for NHS and social care services. In education and children’s services, the quality of parental relationships strongly influences children’s emotional development, attainment and long-term life chances. In the economy, relationship stability and equality affect workforce participation, financial security and the capacity of families to balance work and care. In efforts to tackle violence against women and girls, healthy norms, cultures and values are clearly fundamental.
Policy decisions across those and other areas have a significant impact on couples’ abilities to build and sustain equal, healthy relationships. Workplace policies, such as parental leave and access to flexible working, shape how families organise care and employment. Housing affordability and security influence relationship formation and stability. Mental health provision, early years support and the wider social safety net all play a role in reducing pressures that constrain partnerships, while legal and justice frameworks affect how society responds to abuse, coercive control and family breakdown.
The fact is that relationships today look entirely different from those just 20 years ago. Today, more than two thirds of families with dependent children have both parents in employment, meaning that the majority of households are dual income. With divorce well entrenched in our culture, one in four families with dependent children is a single-parent household. There are huge benefits to more people working, especially for women, and it is a good thing that people have access to divorce when relationships are not healthy, but we cannot just take the benefits of these improvements and not mitigate the impacts.
What happens to child development when both parents are working full time, or when a single parent has no capacity outside work and childcare? What happens to our ability to bond with each other as a couple in a romantic relationship? What happens to our capacity to engage in and contribute to our local communities? Those shifts in the roles of couples and households also have negative impacts on relationships. We could mitigate those impacts, but as yet we have struggled to do so. This Government are rightly focused on growth as the key way this country can get back to a time of prosperity, but most parents I know—bear in mind that parents make up a huge part of the working population—are exhausted, and if I know one thing as a parent of small children, it is that nothing good or productive comes of being exhausted. How can we expect great output and productivity from people in the workplace when the strain on couples is so high? We have to pay closer attention to how households are coping.
Relationship challenges impact not only what we produce in the workplace, but how we sustain our population. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has recently highlighted our falling birth rate and has rightly highlighted actions taken by this Government to try to change that, such as better funded childcare and measures on the cost of living and housing. Couples are operating under unprecedented strain to both parent or care and to work full time, yet we barely talk about the psychological toll. Then we are surprised that domestic violence rates increase, that mental health in both men and women is plummeting and adding to our welfare bill, that special educational needs and disabilities issues are skyrocketing and that couples are deciding that one child is enough. As a Government, we give couples screen time advice and encourage them to have more children, but we rarely ask, “What is life like for you right now, and what would make your life easier as a couple and as a parent in 2026?” Let us do that more.
When it comes to domestic violence, the Government have made huge strides in developing a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women and girls, but the fact remains that 3.8 million people experienced domestic abuse last year, and a quarter of all UK residents have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. The time when abuse starts in earnest is during pregnancy and the first 1,001 days of life. Some 30% of domestic abuse begins in pregnancy, rising to 40% in the first 1,001 days, precisely when infant brain development is the most sensitive to stress and trauma, but, terrifyingly, only 0.5% of maternity patients disclose abuse, so those numbers miss the majority of cases. Abuse during that period worsens maternal mental health, increases adverse birth outcomes and damages infants’ socio-emotional development. Those effects shift costs on to the NHS, social care, education and the justice system for years.
Relationships between parents and children can lead to stronger and more secure relationships and behaviour among those children as they grow up, but we know that currently only 55% of infants develop secure attachments, and that insecure attachment is a key driver of poor outcomes later in life. Research this month from the Centre for Mental Health and the Parent-Infant Foundation finds that expanding access to parent-infant relationship teams to support parents in the most deprived areas to bond with their babies could save the Government £1.2 billion annually.
The single most significant thing we could do in this Parliament to change all of this would be to introduce much better paternity leave—ideally at least six weeks at 90% of pay. Paternity leave in this country is truly embarrassing: two weeks is not enough. The UK’s offer of two weeks of unpaid statutory paternity leave is among the least generous in Europe, constraining fathers’ early involvement and entrenching relationship inequality. Modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that six weeks at 90% of pay could deliver £2.68 billion to the wider economy, primarily through increased maternal employment and more equal sharing of care. Some 59% of people agreed that bad paternity leave made it difficult to share childcare responsibilities equally, not just in the short term, but in the long term, with patterns proving harder to shift.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Women are 10% more likely to report that they do the majority of childcare. Some 66% of people surveyed want care to be more equal, and 74% of men want it to be more equal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can only achieve that greater equality by addressing the fact that two weeks is not enough, and that patterns are laid in from day one that hold women, babies and men back from enjoying family life?
Maya Ellis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; she is right that both men and women want this. Everyone in society is demanding this, and I really hope that the Government will listen and take action. An even more critical point is that it is not just men and women but children who will benefit from this. Ten to Men found that a loving paternal relationship was the single biggest factor in preventing a boy becoming a man who abuses his partner.
The macro win of all of this is higher labour supply and reduced gender gaps, the fiscal win is higher tax receipts and lower benefit dependency, and the household win is healthier relationships and more resilient income. Imagine the benefits if a dad or a partner could build a bond and confidence with their baby, so that understanding is deepened between parents, bonds are built to strengthen the determination to care for the baby, and a society is developed where protecting your family bubble becomes the pride point.
I will be frank: I truly hope that this Labour Government and the most progressive and gender-balanced Parliament ever will catch us up by committing to six weeks of protected paternity leave at 90% of pay, paid for by Government, and do it soon. If we do not take the single biggest step we can closer to equality, I do not know what we are here for.
The fact that radicalised me more than any other, and that tells me that we are still early on in the journey to equal and healthy relationships, is that before 1991 it was still legal to rape your wife. Anyone who got married before 1991 did so knowing that fact. We are only 35 years into a world that expects men and women to be equal in a marriage, and we are only beginning to work out what that means for us as a society.
One of the biggest hills we have to climb is helping men and boys find newly empowered roles in equal relationships, in the same way that women and girls have been doing. Many colleagues in this place are doing important work on building role models and positive education for boys, and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy includes teacher training to spot the early signs of misogyny in boys. I truly welcome the plans for improved relationships education in schools that the Government are introducing this year, particularly plans to start this earlier in primary schools and to focus on how to develop healthy relationships. None the less, we must remain alive to how early we subconsciously introduce power disparities.
As part of preparing for this debate, our friends at the Dad Shift challenged us to remember couples we admire for their equality, because role models are critical. The couple I admire most is Tom and Barbara Good from “The Good Life”. Amazingly, I only discovered the 1970s show recently and was slightly taken aback by how good they are to each other, in a way that makes me feel we have in some ways regressed from these days.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. A relationship that I admire for its equality is that of local constituents Mick and Jane Yates. They have been together for 16 years. To watch him go from being a councillor with many political demands, while his wife was not a councillor, to his wife not only becoming a councillor but leading Bolsover district council—a strong and inspiring leader whom he supports to thrive in her role—is just the best. Jane says they do not always agree on things, political or not, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that, even when we disagree, we find ways in a healthy relationship to love and respect each other? That is what is at its core.
Maya Ellis
It is great to hear that Jane and Mick have such a positive relationship. One of the things that I really value is debate. The fact that in our new schools framework, we are introducing oracy—the ability to debate and discuss well—is really important. It has always been possible to have healthy relationships. We must create the right social and policy decisions to make them easier.
At this point, I want to give a quick shout-out to the incredible role models I see talking to women and men about building positive, healthy relationships—people like Neha Ruch, Libby Ward, Joeli Brearley, Ashley James, and so many others who are relentless in making sure we talk about what healthy relationships look like. I know there are similarly strong role models for men out there too, but we still have a long way to go.
Did you know, Ms Jardine, that there are only nine mentions of the term “mental load” in Hansard, yet as a mum on parenting Instagram I see it every other word? In my office we have four core aims, and one of them is to be useful, so I will end by leaving everyone with the most useful tool I have come across to tackle the mental load and promote equality in creating healthier relationships.
In Eve Rodsky’s book “Fair Play”, she says every task has three parts: conception, planning and action. To get something done, you first have to notice that it needs to be done. Then, you have to work out and plan how to do it. Then, you have to do it. It is great to see more couples starting to share actions around the home, but let us see more equal sharing of the noticing and planning too—and yes, that will probably involve realising how big the mental load actually is for some people.
Healthy relationships underpin healthy progress as a society, and whether we want to admit it or not, Government policy underpins healthy relationships. We are doing great things as a Government, with improved relationship education, a powerful VAWG strategy, more flexibility built into employment rights, a huge increase in best start family hubs investment and a strengthened court system, but we have to do more. Ninety per cent. of dads say they want to be more present in family life and have a more equal relationship, but our current paternity leave offer is one of the worst in the world. It blocks them right out of the gate. Stanford research published just this week found that couples who work one day a week from home would have around 0.5 more children on average, moving the current birth rate of 1.4 closer to the replacement rate, yet there are political voices saying that we should not work from home at all.
I hope we put healthy relationships more at the front and centre of all we do here. Our future depends on it. Again, I wish you a very happy Valentine’s day for Saturday, Ms Jardine.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak, they should bob. Informally, speeches should be kept to around five minutes.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing such an important debate.
As someone who, before I was elected, worked in the sector, delivering programmes with and to young people, I understand how key this issue is. When we talk about healthy relationships, we are really talking about the kind of country we want to be. Long before a child sits an exam, applies for a job or decides who they want to spend the rest of their lives with, they are learning how to treat other people and how they expect to be treated themselves. Healthy relationships are therefore the foundation of confidence, safety, educational success and mental wellbeing. If we can get this right early on, we can prevent harm later; if we neglect it, we end up paying the price in poor outcomes and avoidable crises.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this excellent debate. One organisation that does really interesting work in this space—which, I am ashamed to say, I did not know much about until last year—is Soroptimist International, which has developed fantastic “Loves me, Loves me not” bookmarks that it takes into schools and colleges. The bookmarks detail the component parts of a healthy relationship, as well as how to detect whether or not someone is in one. Does my hon. Friend agree that more initiatives like that would take us in exactly the direction we need to go in?
Leigh Ingham
I agree with my hon. Friend. Soroptimist does incredible work in my constituency on supporting healthy relationships, as well as work to support women in prisons, which I have worked with it on, so I completely agree.
Schools in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages are working really hard to get this right. I will speak to a couple of specific examples. At Tillington Manor primary school, healthy relationships are not an occasional lesson: they are woven through the culture of the school. Through a structured personal, social, health and economic education curriculum, children learn about friendship, family, communication, conflict resolution and how to recognise healthy and unhealthy behaviours.
The lessons are all age appropriate, and they build year on year. They are delivered through safe discussion, role play and reflection in a safe environment. But what really stands out to me is the whole-school approach. The school has dedicated spaces, such as the nook and the hive, where emotional support is provided for children and families, and the staff are trained in emotional literacy and wellbeing. As a result, the pupils are more confident in identifying healthy relationships and more likely to seek help from trusted adults. The school has found that, as a result of the programmes, repeated conflict has reduced over time. That is what prevention can look like in practice.
At secondary level, Sir Graham Balfour school teaches relationships and sex education from years 7 to 13 as a spiral curriculum. Students are learning about consent, safety, what healthy relationships look like and what toxic dynamics look like. The school also runs focused workshops on toxic relationships and masculinity for groups of pupils who might be struggling.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the debate around boys and young men. The discussion often becomes incredibly polarised, but the reality is that many boys and young men are navigating a confusing online landscape where extreme and harmful messages about masculinity are only a click away—and then not even a click away, because algorithms amplify extremist content, and it gets worse and worse.
We need to create spaces where boys can talk honestly about respect, emotions and what it means to be a man, because we know that if we do not, someone else will fill the vacuum. Teaching children about healthy relationships is not about blaming boys; it is about equipping them and helping them to build the skills to form respectful partnerships, handle rejection and understand that strong men do not prey on the weakest in society. The healthy relationship that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) spoke about was a wonderful example of that.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the pressures facing girls and young women. Schools in my constituency report increasing concerns about body image, self-esteem and unrealistic expectations, fuelled by social media. Girls are measuring themselves against edited, filtered versions of reality that are being presented as the norm on their phone screens.
When another school in my constituency strengthened its RSE curriculum, students began to come forward about inappropriate touching that had previously gone unreported. That was a significant step in creating the foundations of healthy relationships, and it makes it crystal clear why such lessons are so important.
Last week, I visited Burleyfields primary school, where four and five-year-olds told me how they keep their brains happy and healthy. They suggested—we all need to know this—baking, reading books, imaginative play and spending less time on our devices. Let us be honest: we could all do with a bit of that. Even at that age, the children knew what a healthy relationship and healthy activities could look like.
But schools cannot do it alone. Our Government have a real opportunity to build on the strong foundations that are already in place. Continued investment in high-quality PSHE and professional development will help to ensure consistency across the system, and strengthening early intervention mental health services would support children and families before things escalate.
I welcome the Government’s focus on attendance, behaviour and school improvement, which is helping to create conditions for healthier relationships in schools. With 140,000 fewer children persistently absent, and the new attendance and behaviour hubs spreading really good practice, we are seeing how structure and support can work effectively together.
In Stafford, our schools are already leading the way. They are demonstrating that when healthy relationships are embedded across the whole school, culture changes, behaviour improves and children feel safer. What steps is the Minister taking to advance the progress the Government have already made and build on the incredible work that is already being done in schools such as those in my constituency?
We all know that healthy relationships are not a luxury; they are a vital fabric underpinning our society. They define so many of the debates we have in this place, from academic attainment to mental health and public safety. If we want to create a generation that is resilient, respectful and ready to contribute, we must invest accordingly.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this debate. I know from the work we do together on the all-party parliamentary group on babies that she is a powerful advocate for babies in particular, and I am grateful for her input to the APPG for fatherhood, which I chair.
I want to use my time to zoom in on three issues that put stress and strain on relationships that are otherwise very healthy: parenthood, in particular the role of the father; caring for a child with SEND needs; and couples experiencing challenges with fertility.
First, on parenthood, there is no doubt that sleepless nights and the massive demand on time, energy and the emotional resilience that is required to raise a child leaves relationships on the back foot. All that is normal, of course, I am told, but the demands of modern life —the rising costs of living, the crippling costs of nursery and the need for couples to maintain two full-time jobs just to stay afloat—pile on the pressure and increase the scope for conflict. Couples can experience a loss of connection, becoming little more than roommates, and passing ships in the night.
One thing that would help is better parental leave and pay. The UK paternity offer is the lowest in Europe. Two weeks is not enough. The lack of leave paid at a liveable level leaves men and birthing partners less connected to their child and less able to make an equal contribution to parenting. That can drive resentment and disconnection in relationships, bake in traditional gender roles from the start, and leave children with lower-quality relationships with their fathers.
Research shows that fathers who take extended leave are more involved in their children’s lives long term, and that higher involvement improves cognitive and emotional outcomes for children. Higher paternal affection has been identified as the single biggest determinant from boyhood in preventing violence against women and girls. Paternity leave should increase to at least six weeks at 90% of earnings, and eligibility should be extended to self-employed parents.
I welcome the parental leave and pay review; however, I am concerned by the pace at which it is moving. Families have already struggled so long under the existing offer, and they do not have time to wait further for the Government’s extended deliberation. I have already pressed the Minister for Employment Rights, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), on the speed of the review, and will continue to do so.
On caring for a child with SEND needs, I am sure that other Members will be familiar with the SEND crisis in their constituencies. The Government are not providing upper-tier authorities with enough funding for SEND care. In Oxfordshire, there is a lack of specialist places in schools, and mainstream schools are struggling to cope. The funding attached to education, health and care plans does not cover the cost of SEND provision, including teaching support. Small schools in rural areas are least able to cover the cost from elsewhere in their budgets.
The whole system treats children as a burden to be managed and minimised. Parents must therefore fight with the system, often to tribunal, to get the support they need. Understandably, that places an immense burden on the parents’ relationship, which leads to higher rates of separation among parents with SEND children.
Finally, let me turn to the strain on relationships caused by fertility issues. Under the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West integrated care board, in vitro fertilisation treatment is restricted to women under 35, and only one cycle of treatment is provided. Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend that women under 40 should be offered at least three cycles. Given that the average age at which a woman will begin IVF is 35, the current offer in my area is unreflective of demographic and scientific evidence.
The ICB says that its decision is based on the unaffordability of providing IVF to patients over 35, but in what other area of health do we allow ICBs simply to ignore NICE guidelines because of affordability? The cost of going private places additional strain on relationships at a time when physical, mental and emotional burdens are high.
It is often cited that at least 50% of marriages end in divorce, but are we setting up couples to succeed when they start families? Starting a family and raising a child is not for everyone, but it is in everyone’s interest to support those who want to do so. We should not place all the burden on individual couples to maintain healthy relationships when so many structural barriers lie in their way.
Unhealthy relationships rarely exist in isolation. If we are serious about prevention, rather than simply picking up the pieces we must look honestly at the structural pressures and strains that families face, long before crisis ever surfaces. The relationships I really admire are those that endure through hardship by focusing on mutual support, empathy and understanding, but let us, in this place, give them a helping hand.
I have spoken about what can be done to help couples to stay together, but ending unhealthy relationships that have broken down is just as important. The state has a role here, too, where marriage, property and children are involved. I hope the Minister will consider improvements in the areas I have outlined.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for setting the scene incredibly well and allowing us all to participate in this debate. As a husband, father and grandfather, the motion urged me to take a moment to think: what is a healthy relationship? I posed this question to myself before I came here, and I have been thinking about it in relation to how we might contribute to the debate. It is a question we should all ask ourselves, so I thank the hon. Lady for giving us pause today. If we are honest, we can all work on healthy relationships to make them that bit better and more successful. From partners to children, friends and colleagues, finding a healthier balance is something we all can and must do.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well. We very much look forward to hearing her responses to our questions.
Many have referred to grandchildren, and my two grandchildren are staying with me at the minute. We live on a farm, and my son—along with his wife and the two children—is going to build a house on the farm. I always think about this when I come home after a hard week—and sometimes the weeks are incredibly difficult, with the pressures of life. Wee Freya is only five, and she always tells you that she loves you. Wee Ezra is only three, but he has that big smile. Both those things show just how important grandchildren are. These relationships are incredibly important for us all, and I so value the opportunity to have grandchildren who can lift you when you do not feel very much like being lifted. I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has her children, and they lift her, and others in this Chamber will know the importance of those things.
It is also clear that part of having healthy relationships is ensuring that our children and grandchildren understand what healthy is. To me, a healthy relationship is a respectful one, which I think is incredible. Am I perfect? I am far from perfect. I probably say things I should not say and do things I should not do—I regret it often—but I understand that respecting a loved one means watching our words and actions. If we respect them as we should, and as I do, we will be at pains to control our tempers or hurtful words.
I have three sons who are each married and have two children, and I know that my daughters-in-law and my sons are teaching their children that they are worth more than harsh words or actions, and that they are treasures worthy of a mutually respectful relationship. Where does that happen? It is done in the home, first of all, and we do it in our own lives, as we should, but it is also done in schools. Many schools in my area are always talking about how we build relationships. As a Christian, I should mention the importance of churches when it comes to a young man meeting a young woman, or vice versa. Churches give couples time to build their relationships and try to guide them in a way that they can understand and use in their lives. There is so much out there that we need to do.
We have incredible problems in Northern Ireland. There are probably problems across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the message does not seem to have landed well in Northern Ireland. We have struggled with unhealthy relationships and, notably, both genders are the perpetrators. Domestic abuse remains a critical issue in Northern Ireland, according for nearly 20% of all recorded crime. I know the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland—it is a devolved matter—but it is worth giving the figures to add to the debate.
While reported incidents have overall shown a slight decline recently, certain categories such as sexual offences have seen an increase. Police recorded almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents and almost 18,500 domestic abuse crimes in the 2024-25 financial year. Wow, that is incredible. That is scary. On average, the Police Service of Northern Ireland responds to domestic abuse incidents every 17 minutes. Females represent some 67% of victims, while males represent some 33%. That is the highest male proportion recorded to date. One in four women in Northern Ireland will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime.
There are a number of tragedies that must be recorded. There were eight domestic abuse motivated homicides recorded between 2024 and 2025, compared to six during the previous 12-month period. That is simply too many lives lost. That is too many children devastated, because there are those that are left behind, too. Sometimes we look at the person—the individual—but there are those that are left behind: the children, the mums and dads and all of the families who are mourning. It simply did not need to happen.
A further disturbing aspect of domestic abuse is the effect that it has on children. Over 23,000 referrals were made to support children affected by domestic abuse through school-based programmes in the past year in Northern Ireland. Boards of governors are now tabling Operation Encompass on each meeting agenda. Again, I underline the importance of schools to try and help in that area. That is a partnership between the PSNI and schools. If the police attend domestic incidents where a child is present, they notify the child’s school by the next morning so that immediate trauma-informed support can be provided. That wee child could be greatly disturbed by what they may have witnessed the night or day before. It is really important that these things are put in place.
My heart, and indeed, all our hearts ache for the children who are living with bad examples of healthy relationships. They may witness that every day. They have been conditioned to accept what is unacceptable. We all have a duty to ensure that schools have funding available to put on programmes and take time to provide a safe space and a listening ear. Again, that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I am keen to hear what her thoughts are, because that is the only way that we can help to break the generational acceptance of the unacceptable. That is something that each of us in this Chamber, both individually and collectively as a House, strives for. It is something that I believe we can and will change. I have no doubt whatever that those who are present, and many who were not able to be, are committed to that change. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who has done us all a massive favour by giving us the opportunity to come and make a contribution.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Before I move to the Front Benches, does anyone else wish to speak?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I think it is the first time I have spoken in a debate that you have chaired and it is wonderful to see you there.
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this important debate today. Before I get going, I just want to say what an honour it is to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We often joke in this place that he is at every debate, speaking on everything; today it is truly an honour to see the emotion and passion with which he spoke about being a grandfather. I sadly never got to know either of my grandfathers, and I would have been delighted to have had someone like the hon. Member for Strangford as my granddad. I thank him for that.
To be honest, when preparing for today, I thought, as the education team were asked to cover the debate, that we would largely be talking about relationships and sex education. I see that the Conservative Front Bench thought that too, and maybe even the Minister, so there we go.
I will go a little bit off script, because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was much broader in her speech, talking about family policy and how we support and champion families. I am the education, children and family spokesperson for the Lib Dems. That is very deliberate, because as a party we believe that we should look at children and families much more holistically and not just through the prism of education. We are very keen on championing family policy, not just as a party but cross-party.
As several hon. Members have pointed out today, healthy relationships are difficult to build when we are living in such challenging times. There is a cost of living crisis; there are parents who are working full-time jobs and sometimes juggling two or three jobs, while trying to put food on the table and looking after children, and all the pressures that brings.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) both talked about parental rights. I recognise the fiscal situation that this Government find themselves in, but we need to find the money to spend on parental rights and parental leave. All the evidence tells us that, in those early weeks and months after a baby is born, and in the early years, parental involvement at home can make a massive difference.
That is not making a judgment on those who want to go out to work—I say this as a working parent myself. I was very clear with my husband from the get-go—“I am not staying at home even part time, once I finish my maternity leave. I want to be back in the workplace.” He actually wanted to take the decision to go part time with our first child and was largely full time, apart from being a local councillor, with our son.
Munira Wilson
I will just get to the end of my point, and then am very happy to give way. The time at which my husband wanted to take more parental leave when our first child was born was towards the end of the coalition Government, before the new parental leave rights had come into place. He could not take any paid leave, although we were able to afford for him to do that. I will come on to what I think we should be doing on parental leave and paternity pay, but will give way first.
Sarah Smith
An important element that maybe has not come through so far in the debate is the class impact of the current policy situation. Currently, 90% of paternity leave claims are made by the top 50% of earners. It is very rare that low-income earners are able to even access the current system. Unfortunately, the challenge of the policies laid out under the coalition is that parental leave is only accessible to those who were better off to start with.
If we are going to get this right going forward, we have to design a policy framework and put forward legislation that puts those fathers and those families first. If we are not achieving parental leave for the families who are, if we are honest, those who are often dealing with the most complex situations, we are letting down the children that need us the most.
Munira Wilson
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. I am not suggesting that the parental leave policy was perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If it was perfect, we would have far more fathers taking more parental leave, but typically it is mothers who take most parental leave. It is far from perfect, but the Government have an opportunity now, with their parental leave and pay review, to consider the situation holistically.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame has already set out, we as a party would like to see all parents being able to share parental leave. There would be six weeks of “use it or lose it” parental leave each, so that fathers, as much as mothers, have an entitlement of six weeks. However, the rest of the 46 weeks—taking us up to 52 weeks—would be for a mother and father to share as they wish.
Again, recognising that that is challenging fiscally at the moment, frankly we have an ambition to try and double the rates of statutory maternity pay, which is also parental pay. That probably relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), because at the moment the rates of statutory pay are, frankly, less than the minimum wage and lots of parents just cannot afford to take time off, and feel driven back into the workplace, often before they are ready to return to it. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the Leader of the Opposition, who at one point said that maternity pay was “excessive”. I think that it is far from “excessive”; indeed, it is far too low and we have a long way to go to improve it.
While we are discussing the parental leave and pay review, we should not forget about kinship families. Lots of families are not conventional families. Many children cannot grow up with their parents, but other family members look after them. Kinship carers step up overnight to look after children, frequently giving up jobs and careers, and incurring costs that they do not necessarily have a statutory right to receive any support for. Also, they are not allowed to take leave; often, they are excluded from adoption leave as well as from parental leave. When we are discussing family policy and building healthy relationships, that is a real gap in the system that needs to be fixed.
I will move on to what I was originally going to say today, which is about trying to build good relationships. We cannot take for granted that children growing up today will necessarily have access to the right sources of knowledge. The rise of technology and social media has put our children at increased risk of encountering extreme and harmful content that distorts their understanding of how they should interact with each other, what romantic relationships look like, and—frankly—what sex looks like.
We know that women are 27 times more likely than men to be harassed online, and that a third of young women between the ages of 17 and 21 have received unwanted sexual images online. We know that the online world needs to be reined in, with tech companies and influencers alike profiteering by exploiting the insecurities that men and boys often have, through the use of addictive algorithms that often promote radicalising content and monetise misogynistic content.
It might have been the hon. Member for Ribble Valley who said that we should not stereotype our image of what men and boys are like at the moment. However, I think it is true that many men and boys feel increasingly lonely and isolated, and struggle with all sorts of issues, whether the cost of living or a lack of access to other positive activities. So, we need to look at men and boys as well as at women and girls, and to consider the different needs of each.
I said in a debate on relationship education last year that we need a culture change in all aspects of society. We must encourage the men in our lives—our brothers, fathers, friends, boyfriends, husbands and sons—to stand up against the toxic masculinity that we have seen, and to demonstrate to other men in their lives, particularly young men, what it means to be compassionate and kind in all relationships, and to realise that compassion is a strength and not a weakness.
Given the significant amount of online content that promotes violence against women and girls, which is particularly targeted at men and boys, we need to ensure that we protect our children and young people, not only because of the risk of harm to their mental and physical wellbeing but because of the impact on their social development and how they build relationships.
That is why we, as a party, have called very strongly for a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Different political parties have different proposals on how such a ban could be implemented, but I think it needs to go hand in hand with getting people off their devices and into other activities, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned. We cannot start restricting things for children and young people if we do not give them alternatives. I have seen that at youth facilities that are easy and cheap, or free, to access. When the young people at those facilities were asked, “What did you do before you came here?”, they said, “We would be on our screens, in our bedroom, on our phones.” We have to provide those third spaces for young people.
Leigh Ingham
During the years in which Staffordshire had a Conservative-led county council, which coincided with the Conservative Government, we suffered the third-worst youth service cuts in the country. One of the things most regularly brought up with me when I meet constituents is how few activities there are for young people.
Indeed, I spoke to the vicar of a church in Eccleshall who told me that he had made a map of the activities in Eccleshall for older people and those for younger people. He came up with 112 things for older people to do in that part of my constituency, but none for younger people. Does the hon. Member agree that, while we are considering healthy relationships—and youth workers are key to modelling this behaviour, because they give a safe space to talk—we must focus on equipping our local authorities, in my case a Reform-led local authority, to prioritise the needs of young people?
Munira Wilson
I could not agree more. Youth services are critical and youth workers are amazing, whether they are employed by local authorities, our churches or voluntary groups up and down the country. I am the parent of an 11-year-old who is at the age where, in the holidays, she absolutely does not want to go to holiday clubs. I am trying to persuade her to go to some of the youth venues in the area. We are lucky that we still have two or three of those facilities, but I recognise that in some areas of the country there is not very much. I welcome that the Government have made announcements in this area—the Culture Secretary has made some very positive announcements on this issue. I would like to see a longer-term strategy to support those announcements, particularly in relation to the workforce.
In the classroom, relationships and sex education is so important for tackling and preventing violence against women and girls. I see amazing examples in my constituency, where schools are working hard on this issue. I am proud that our local authority, Richmond council, is White Ribbon-accredited and does lots of work with schools and lots of awareness-raising work in the area.
However, age-appropriate relationships and sex education at school has a crucial role to play, alongside the role of parents and carers, in giving children the knowledge and information they need to keep them safe by teaching them about consent, healthy relationships and online risks such as pornography and sexting. That is essential for safeguarding. Yet, according to a report by Internet Matters, many children say that they have
“received no specific education in relation to sexual image sharing or only very superficial coverage”
in relationships and sex education lessons, and that they do not feel able to get the information they want in whole-class groups. Many children felt that they were not offered enough information when the issue was discussed and that, when information was delivered by teachers who were not subject specialists, those teachers
“often sped through the topic because they found it ‘awkward’”.
[Interruption.] Was that a cough to say that I need to wind up, Ms Jardine?
Munira Wilson
Okay. I was not sure whether you were struggling. I will bring my remarks to a close.
The Liberal Democrats believe that an age-appropriate RSE curriculum should be led by a qualified teacher, be delivered in a safe, non-judgmental setting, and include teaching about sexual consent, LGBT+ relationships and issues surrounding explicit images. All young people deserve access to high-quality education that empowers them to make safe and informed choices. That obviously also means proper funding, training and resources to deliver high-quality RSE. I have already set out some of the family policies we would like to see. If we want to achieve a society in which all can flourish and have happy, healthy relationships, we need to invest in our families and in our education system.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) on a refreshing, measured, fantastic speech. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I expected a slightly different topic, but it was pleasing to hear so much about the importance of strong families. Maybe we can do this debate again and I will write a slightly different speech. Between us all, we will cover various aspects that are relevant and important. I would also like hon. Members to know that I, too, am watching season 4 of “Bridgerton”—a classic Cinderella tale—which is very enjoyable.
Healthy relationships are underpinned by respect. In most cases, the way we would wish to be treated ourselves is probably a good place to start our relationships with others, but we continue to see high levels of violence against women and girls, as well as other kinds of abuse such as coercive control, with no real signs of reduction. That suggests something is going badly wrong, and the Government have rightly set challenging ambitions to address this huge societal problem.
We very much welcome the Government’s recently published VAWG strategy and their ambition to halve such violence, and we hope it will build on the work undertaken by the previous Government. The Conservatives elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, and we committed over £230 million to the tackling domestic abuse plan from 2022 to 2025. That included quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, and it complemented the £300 million investment in the 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of the goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse.
The previous Government also created two new offences: stalking and stalking involving fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. That made it easier for victims to hold stalkers to account. On top of that, we also outlawed upskirting to further protect women and girls, criminalised revenge porn and deepfakes, and introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and, accordingly, domestic abuse protection notices and orders. We are clear that robust action against offenders is vital in the fight against VAWG.
Although relationship education in schools can go only so far in addressing male violence against women and girls, it nevertheless plays an important role in educating young people on what positive and healthy relationships looks like, and the importance of putting in place clear boundaries. Those skills are vital in navigating relationships, recognising potential abuse, including coercive control, and knowing how and when to seek help when needed.
Relationship education was made compulsory in all primary and secondary schools in 2020. It has several core objectives: to foster pupil wellbeing, to develop resilience and character, and to ensure that pupils are happy, successful and productive members of society. In spite of that, shockingly, nearly three women every single week are killed by men, and many, many more are raped and abused.
The risks and harms arising from the online world are feeding this problem. Pornography is available online at the touch of a button on smartphones. Let me be clear: this is harmful stuff that depicts strangulation, rape, violence and degrading acts such as spitting on young women. Any young man seeing such misogynistic content day in, day out will inevitably view women and girls differently. They will be more likely to see them as an object to use and degrade. By comparison, the relatively trivial amount of time spent learning the opposite in a classroom cannot hope to offset that. The single best thing we can do to stem the tide is to introduce a ban on smartphones in schools for under-16s and increase the age limit for social media to 16. That will not address the whole issue, of course, but it will massively help. The Conservatives have backed it all the way, and I ask the Minister to do so too. The Government’s proposal to ban strangulation content is welcome and a positive step forward.
I am concerned that our strong desire to eradicate VAWG has led to boys and men being unnecessarily demonised. There is a difference between calling out abusive behaviour and labelling a whole set of masculine attributes as toxic. Masculinity is a wonderful thing—the yang to femininity’s yin—and it is certainly not toxic in the great majority of cases, particularly when it is not fuelled by online porn.
Our answer to a genuine question about the abuse of girls has been to tell a generation of boys, “You are the problem,” and then we are surprised when that approach, instead of nurturing healthy relationships, creates resentment and pushes more young men towards the very online subcultures that feed off grievance and rejection. Instead, we need to positively embrace what being a good man, a good partner and a good father look like. Fundamentally, boys need positive role models from which to learn and model their own relationships. That is why fathers and other male role models are so important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that.
When it comes to education on healthy relationships, we have seen an ever-growing load of subject matter covering issues from relationships to mental health. Good RSHE can be a protective factor when it is age-appropriate, factual and taught impartially, but it is also important to recognise that schools should not try to replace the education that should be the family’s role. There is a careful balance to be struck.
As well as confident, self-assured boys, we need confident, self-assured girls who are clear about their boundaries and what behaviours they are willing to accept and not accept. That means not telling them that selling their bodies is empowering, not expecting them always to be kind, and not telling them that the feelings of men are more important than their safety. On that point, I hope we might hear something today about the Government’s unresolved approach to gender-questioning guidance for schools and the release of the long-awaited code of practice on single-sex spaces following the recent Supreme Court ruling.
The Government cannot claim to support healthy relationships so long as they leave schools to navigate the issue without proper guidance. It is incumbent on this Government to reinforce rules that entitle our girls and women to privacy from males when they are getting changed—that is basic safeguarding.
We received the draft non-statutory guidance on gender-questioning children back in December 2023, but two years later, schools and parents are still waiting for it to be published. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see both the gender-questioning guidance and the revised code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
My final point is on the need to be honest about where the deeper formation of relationships happens. Schools matter and good teachers can be life-changing, but let us not lose sight of the fact that children spend most of their time outside the classroom. The attitudes that shape relationships are forged primarily at home, as well as online and in peer groups. If we want healthy relationships, we cannot pretend that a curriculum document can substitute for a loving and nurturing family structure. Families can come in all different shapes and sizes, but the important thing is that they are loving, nurturing and respectful. Children learn how to interact with others from their main caregivers. What are the Minister’s plans to support strong families, given that it is likely to be the most impactful way a Government can ensure healthier relationships?
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for opening this debate on the Government’s support for healthy relationships. It was great to hear hon. Members talking about what healthy relationships mean to them, and it is wonderful to see both Movember and Dad Shift in the Gallery today.
This debate could not come at a more welcome time. We have recently published our groundbreaking strategy for halving violence against women and girls in the next 10 years, backed by at least £1 billion of Government funding. We published updated relationships, sex and health education guidance last summer, which will be implemented in all schools from September, and we have committed £8 million to support schools to maximise the impact of curriculum changes. The importance of healthy relationships was written in our manifesto, and we are proud of the action this Labour Government are taking in this area.
The new curriculum reflects the importance of supporting young children to build the skills for healthy relationships from the start of primary. We should not pretend that relationships are easy, and the reason we are having this conversation is because we know they are not. We will support children to learn the difficult skills of setting and recognising healthy boundaries, balancing different people’s needs and preferences, managing conflict and communicating with kindness and respect.
In secondary school, we will move away from an exclusive focus on consent, which has led to a culture of “anything goes, so long as I’ve got a yes.” Young people must understand the importance of consent, but they must also understand that consent alone is not enough. We want to raise a generation of young people who value kindness, who pay attention, who notice power imbalances and who look out for vulnerability. This is fundamentally about how we approach our relationships. Are we out there trying to get what we want from other people, or are we here to be kind and take care of each other?
We will teach young people how to turn a critical lens on content that encourages harmful attitudes or prejudice in any form of media. In the online world of Andrew Tate’s AI deepfakes and hatred presented as brotherly advice, we will ensure that young people can identify misogyny and recognise how social media influencers capitalise on it to the detriment of men and women and boys and girls. We have to be absolutely clear that this does not mean stigmatising boys, or making boys feel that they are the enemy. Where society polarises, the job of schools is to help young people find their common ground. Where boys and young men feel lost or isolated, the job of schools is to ensure they have a safe space where they feel they belong. None of that is easy and we are not saying teachers hold all the answers, but they clearly need support. That is why we are investing £11 million in support for schools; £8 million to support the RSE curriculum and £3 million to provide targeted support for children who are displaying harmful behaviours. We believe that every child deserves the support needed to develop healthy relationships.
Hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to the importance of strong, loving families, and many have discussed the need for stronger paternity leave. The Government have launched a full review of the parental leave system. It is a chance to look at how the whole framework can better support working families and reflect the realities of modern work and childcare. Equitable childcare arrangements not only promote family stability, but help address the gender pay gap.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley rightly raised, what it means to grow up in a typical family has fundamentally changed; divorce rates have grown, more women are in the workforce, and households are much more likely to have two earners. Government policy must reflect and support families as they exist in modern working Britain. That is why, through our strategy for giving every child the best start in life, we have set out our first steps to expand and strengthen family services. It will make early education and childcare more accessible and affordable, and improve the quality of early education and childcare to make real change happen for families and children across the country.
We are already delivering support to working families. Eligible working parents of children aged nine months and older are now benefitting from 30 hours of funded childcare per week, which can save families up to £7,000 per eligible child every year. We are improving access by creating tens of thousands of places in new and expanded school-based nurseries. Schools have already reported that more than 5,000 places have been made available through the first phase of that programme. Backed by £45 million of funding, phase 2 will deliver at least 300 new or expanded school-based nurseries that will be ready to offer new childcare places in the 2026-27 academic year. There will be an increased focus on supporting families from disadvantaged areas to access early years provision.
Phase 3 will be led by local authorities, who have been invited to develop multi-year funding proposals. The Government continue to prioritise and protect investment in the early years. That is why we are investing more than £1 billion more in the early years entitlements year on year, and we will continue to go further. From next year, we will give additional funding to extend the early years pupil premium in the areas most in need, testing new approaches to maximise its impact and ensuring that children most at risk of falling behind receive high-quality, evidence-informed support. To make sure that the early years funding system is hardwired to benefit those children in parts of the country that have higher levels of additional need, we will review early years funding, including national funding formulas, and consult the sector on the changes by this summer.
As part of the child poverty strategy, we will work with the Department for Work and Pensions to make it easier for parents to use universal credit childcare and the funded hours together, helping them to access work. Those changes are made with modern families in mind. The 30 hours of childcare entitlement is designed to help families get on, not just get by. It is assessed on a per-person basis to ensure there is no incentive for the lower earner in the household to reduce their income to be eligible.
Not every child gets the chance to be born in a safe and stable family. Domestic violence can sometimes begin during pregnancy. Refuge has reported that
“1 in 3 pregnant women experience domestic abuse”
and between April 2024 and March 2025,
“14% of Refuge’s service users reported being pregnant.”
That is why NICE guidelines are clear that all women accessing maternity services should routinely be asked about domestic abuse, typically at their first antenatal booking appointment, so they can be referred to specialist services. As our strategy for halving violence against women and girls makes clear, tackling domestic abuse is a whole-society effort. When proximity to such violence begins in childhood, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley is correct that Best Start family hubs can be vital for identifying and tackling it. When parents are struggling to support their children, family hubs can give them new skills to help their children’s social, cognitive and emotional development. That is why we are building on this year’s £126 million funding boost for family hubs and the Start for Life programme. We will be rolling out our Best Start family hubs to every local authority from April.
Children also learn from their peers, and that is why we are actively considering the evidence on peer-to-peer and trusted adult relationships as we develop our pupil engagement framework. That framework will help all schools measure and improve the key factors that determine pupils’ engagement in education. That includes a sense of belonging, safety and inclusion, and relationships with teachers and fellow pupils.
Rich, healthy relationships thrive in a context of shared purpose and understanding. We all know that from our experiences of taking part in sport, putting on plays or even confronting and understanding differing points of view. That is why we are supporting schools and colleges to develop strong and strategic enrichment offers through our upcoming enrichment framework, which will encourage a sense of belonging and enable children and young people to form communities, explore their interests and develop their skills.
I was really touched to hear of the couples admired by Members across the House. Their contributions reminded me of my own parents, who worked so hard to raise me and my two siblings. They both worked long shifts, put food on the table and, around that table, made decisions together. They taught me the values I carry with me today. I grew up with the benefit of healthy relationships at home, at school and in my community. Every child deserves that chance, and has such capacity to enjoy positive, healthy relationships when given the opportunity. Through our childcare expansion, our strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, our work in schools, our review of parental leave and our plans to support and nurture boys, this Government are committed to helping everyone benefit.
Maya Ellis
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This has been an important opportunity for us to reflect on what healthy, equal relationships look like in Britain today, the pressures that couples face and how policy can better support them. I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed, and I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his beautiful tribute to his grandchildren. Children learn from what they see, and his grandchildren are clearly growing up in a loving family to reflect such love to him. I also acknowledge the spokespeople in the Chamber, the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). The topic of healthy relationships spans multiple Departments, and part of the challenge is ensuring that it does not fall between the gaps, for that reason.
Some days we carry the load, and some days we are carried. I am grateful for all the relationships in the Chamber, and all those at home, that carry me on a regular basis. On that note, I give final thanks to my husband, who I called just before the debate to tell him that the holiday I thought I had booked for Saturday in fact starts tomorrow, to which he just laughed and said, “I’ll start packing.” That is sharing the load, and that is what we all deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for healthy relationships.
Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Lola Young of Hornsey, who is a great champion for this policy area in the Houses of Parliament.
For centuries, the UK was known as a world leader in garment and textiles production, and we retain that global reputation based on quality and craftsmanship. Every region has its speciality, from Nottinghamshire shoes to Scottish tweed and Yorkshire wool—and from Savile Row to Brick Lane, our capital city has been synonymous with fashion throughout the decades. The sector indirectly supports 200,000 jobs in London. People come from all over the world to shop here and many come to study, with 55 UK universities offering fashion and textiles courses. Nothing says more about our place in global culture. In an increasingly uncertain world, our reputation and expertise are everything, and UK soft power opens many doors.
I am sure a lot of people are thinking: what qualifies an MP to talk about fashion? Well, many years ago—in 1985, to be precise—my sister, who is a wonderful seamstress, returned to Australia after a visit to the UK, and with her she brought her most prized Liberty fabric. She made it into a skirt for me, and that is what I am wearing today. Slow ethical fashion is timeless. Had I known in advance that the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), was going to respond to this debate, I would have encouraged him to wear his handmade tartan kilt, which we would have loved to have seen. I am sure we will be able to do that next time.
Last month, I sponsored a Backbench Business debate on food inflation and the cost of living. Some might think that onshoring fashion is a completely different topic, but both go to the heart of who I am as a Labour MP, what I came into politics to do and what kind of country we need to be. We need an inclusive economy that works for everyone, where work pays and where anyone, whether they are a young person starting out or a parent returning to work, has access to skilled jobs, training and a bright future for them and their family. In politics, everything we do should start with these most basic of values.
How do we put our values into action? We know that the rapid rise of fast fashion encouraged outsourcing and offshoring, but growing awareness of environmental and social issues in fashion has sparked a revival in the UK industry. Today, the Government have a chance to support slow ethical fashion and invest in home-grown talent and skills. Fashion and textiles manufacturing in Britain could be a key driver of economic growth. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. There is huge potential here for UK industry. Onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs and £1.2 billion in tax receipts. That is vital when we know that the UK services trade has exceeded expectations this quarter, but our goods trade still has some way to catch up. I ask the Minister to support the industry, encourage public procurement of local suppliers, provide support to small firms for capital expenditure and research development, and work with the industry to promote training and apprenticeships.
I was so pleased that in last November’s Budget, the Chancellor announced funding to make apprenticeship training for under-25s completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises. There was also an increase of the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds from April 2026 to over £10 an hour for the first time. We need to give young people the support and opportunities they deserve. The Budget also included new measures to stop overseas online firms from undercutting UK bricks-and-mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duty applies to parcels of any value, and I look forward to seeing the impact of those measures. But before I say more about how the Government can help, let me address the industry, and particularly those brands that are manufacturing offshore.
I know that Brexit has not helped the UK industry. It was a game changer, and many firms have had to reassess their whole business model—from the overnight delivery of buttons and zips to big impacts on the workforce, and many teachers in the world of fashion. There are costs to producing in the UK, but what about the benefits, including more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times that global competitors cannot match due to distance, and more transparency as customers know exactly where their clothes are made? “Made in the UK” is a point of pride for us all. Ethical manufacturing is an asset to a brand. Particularly with the Government’s new flagship Employment Rights Act 2025, businesses can assure their customers of world-leading workers’ rights and ethical employment standards. Every garment they produce can not only say “Made in the UK” but “Made in the UK under fair conditions”.
Contributing to the circular economy, there is a huge potential for recycling, used garment collection and regenerated fabric, which could set the UK apart as the global capital of truly sustainable fashion. By manufacturing in the UK, manufacturers are also a vital part of our towns and cities. Other Members in this debate will talk about the opportunity for the regions to create jobs directly and indirectly, where money earned stays in local communities and helps every family to thrive.
How can the Government help? First, procurement. As I have said, the Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. The Government’s industrial strategy talks about driving innovation and increasing access to talent. The national procurement policy statement emphasises
“taking into account priorities in local and regional economic growth plans”.
Public bodies can procure in a way that supports the economic needs of the communities they serve, rather than having pounds, shillings and pence as the sole consideration.
One example is uniforms. There are some best practice examples of school uniforms, but what about uniforms that are used in the prison service or even the military, which is one area where we know that there will be growth in public expenditure? Britain is a global leader in camouflage fabric production, yet the majority of military uniforms are manufactured overseas. The House of Commons Library has been very helpful: it has given me information on contract sizes and which firms are procured, but the supply chains are complex and a bit opaque. I am not sure whether the Minister has expertise in this area. If he does not, I am sure he can write to me later, or perhaps I can try with the Ministry of Defence again.
Ministerial questions have revealed that exact details of the quantities and location of where the armed forces’ dress and combat uniforms are produced are not held centrally. An inquiry from 2013—a long time ago, now—revealed that just 6% of UK military uniforms were made in the UK. We see quite a lot of flag waving in politics at the moment, but is not true patriotism about making sure that our young people have a secure future, with opportunities for skilled jobs?
How else can the Government assist? We could also look at how business practices affect small firms. It is impossible for clothing manufacturers to survive if they do not have certainty about production, deliveries and payments. That can be due to a lack of formal agreements with buyers, or any agreements simply not being honoured. That puts manufacturers’ cashflow in difficulties. Materials need to be bought; wages need to be paid. There can be an unfair transfer of risk from brand to manufacturer. Small enterprises can be mistreated by their more powerful business customers. That is why I support the creation of a fashion watchdog, to protect small garment manufacturers. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of that concept.
On a similar theme, we need to ensure that there is a level playing field for UK manufacturers on ethical working practices, sustainability, transparency and compliance. We know that the Competition and Markets Authority has published guidance for fashion businesses making green claims about their garments. We need to ensure that the online giants comply with all the regulations and are not undercutting UK enterprises with opaque information about how they source their products.
Let me turn to technology and education. I am pleased to welcome Professor Susan Postlethwaite from Manchester Metropolitan University, who may be with us today. Her report “Reshoring UK Garment Manufacturing with Automation” makes the case for agile, small-scale, reshored garment manufacturing systems and a newly trained, highly skilled workforce. The report focuses on technology and education, the potential for new robotic and automated systems in UK fashion manufacturing, and redesigning fashion education to embrace this technology. How can the Government help industry to rise to the challenge and create high-quality jobs across our communities? Most of all, let us kick off the discussion with the industry and the Government working together, so we can focus on what is important: making the UK the global home of sustainable fashion.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes fantastic points. The importance of sustainability and the environmental impact of offshored fashion extend into the whole life cycle of our clothes. One of the first meetings I had upon being elected was with Chris Carey’s Collections, a textile recycler in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge, which told me how the widescale proliferation of cheap, imported fast-fashion products with low-quality fabrics was leading to huge declines in its recycling rates and condemning more and more clothes to landfill. Does my hon. Friend agree that when evaluating the feasibility of onshoring, we should consider the whole life cycle of our clothes?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is so much going on in our constituencies but with relatively little support from local government or central Government. With a small amount of effort, we could help the sustainable fashion sector to really flourish. As I was saying, we need to focus on making the UK the home of sustainable fashion, delivering high-skilled jobs and creating a truly inclusive economy that works for everyone.
Finally, I have some questions for the Minister. Will the Government promote onshoring across the industry and promote the benefits of manufacturing in the UK? Will they turbocharge public procurement from local suppliers and increase awareness across the public sector? Procurement is no longer just about pounds, shillings and pence, but about best value for communities. What can the Government do to provide support to small firms on capital expenditure for research, development and technology? Will the Minister work with the industry to promote training and apprenticeships—I know that he is a great supporter of that already—and so help parents who want to return to the workforce, as well as youngsters? Will he assess the merits of the fashion watchdog? Finally, UK manufacturers need a level playing field. Are the regulations and guidance about sourcing and transparency up to scratch, or is it time for a review?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is wonderful to see you in this place, Ms Ghani. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) not just for securing this important debate but for her commitment in travelling all the way to Leicester, my home town. That shows how seriously she takes this matter.
I will focus my speech on my home town. Leicester is a city rooted in textile heritage, from Tudor hosiery knitters working in their homes to the industrial expansion of the 19th century. In fact, Leicester once proudly claimed to clothe the world. By 1936, it was recognised as the second richest city in Europe, and at its height had more than 1,500 factories employing tens of thousands of people.
As a young boy—this is not just nostalgia—I grew up in the shadows of those factories. I saw at first hand how they powered enterprise, created family wealth for people who had just come to this country, and fostered a culture of community entrepreneurship and philanthropy. The businesses did not just produce garments; they sponsored local events, supported charities, built places of worship and invested in the city. Manufacturing was woven into the social fabric of Leicester, shaping not just livelihoods but lives.
Today, across the county, the garment sector still supports approximately 11,000 jobs. Every component needed to make a complete garment is still available in the city. Leicester offers true end-to-end production— from design concept to finished product—with a speed, flexibility and technical capability that many overseas supply chains simply cannot match. Yet garment manufacturing now accounts for just £375 million of the UK textiles sector’s £25.6 billion; that is less than 2%. Meanwhile, tens of millions of our public procurement pounds are leaving our shores. We surely have to ask why.
The economic case for onshoring is really strong. The British Army clothing budget alone is worth nearly £80 million annually. In previous years—as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet mentioned, figures are available only from 2013—only a small fraction, 6%, was manufactured in Britain. That means that an overwhelming 94% was being manufactured abroad.
NHS uniform frameworks are worth £125 million over five years. During covid, the Department of Health and Social Care spent more than £13 billion on personal protective equipment, with billions-worth written off as unusable and millions more spent on storage. During the pandemic, we saw that UK factories could pivot rapidly to produce PPE and scrubs at scale. The capacity and skills exist; what is missing is a clear mandate.
Other nations understand this very clearly. In fact, in the United States, military uniforms must be made domestically, for national security reasons. I believe the UK should adopt a similar principle. Military uniforms and NHS clothing should be manufactured in Britain wherever possible. I am not promoting protectionism; it makes perfect economic and strategic sense.
The environmental case for onshoring is also extremely strong, because it reduces carbon miles naturally and allows tighter environmental oversight. Leicester innovators such as Nanofique and Shibori dye house, working alongside De Montfort University, are pioneering waste water treatment methods that demonstrate how environmental responsibility and industry can work hand in hand.
There is also a powerful social case. Garment manufacturing provides flexible employment. That is valuable for all, but particularly for women, enabling many to rejoin the workforce after having children, combating isolation and providing financial independence. I recently met trainees at Fashion Enter’s Leicester hub, alongside Jenny Holloway, and saw at first hand the appetite for skilled ethical production. Community organisations—they have joined me today—such as Wesley Hall and the Shama Women’s Centre offer sewing classes that serve as a pathway to work for many disadvantaged women. Leicester does not lack workforce readiness; it has that in abundance.
I appreciate that the industry in my city has faced negative headlines. We cannot shy away from that, and I agree wholeheartedly that any form of exploitative behaviour must be addressed and rooted out. The Operation Tacit review, launched after those serious allegations, found, yes, some cases of non-compliance, but it made it perfectly clear that the portrayal of an industry dominated by widespread modern slavery was overstated. Enforcement bodies found no evidence of prosecutable modern day slavery offences. The vast majority of Leicester factories are hard-working, skilled and ethical, and they certainly deserve recognition for that, not stigma.
If we are serious about ethical supply chains, we must also be serious about ethical purchasing. That is why proposals for a garment trading adjudicator—a fashion watchdog modelled on the Groceries Code Adjudicator—deserve serious consideration. Research recently presented at a Fair Work and Supply Chains in the UK Garment Industry event showed the strain that purchasers are put under by brands: 100% of suppliers pay for audits, yet only 6% are guaranteed future orders. Lead times can drop at the drop of a hat, halving from 30 days to 14 days, and payment terms are lengthened without warning. Orders are cancelled or altered mid-production. In fact, 67% of manufacturers are reporting that brands refuse to cover the cost of any of these changes. That volatility destabilises factories and workers alike and is simply not fair or sustainable.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
Leicester Made, through its Leicester Textiles Renewal project, is already bringing together expertise to strengthen UK supply chains, celebrate regional skills and accelerate sustainable, tech-driven onshore production. Fashion Enter is leading calls for public procurement reform. These are not abstract campaigns, but practical and deliverable solutions.
We must also target packaging waste and introduce penalties for firms that produce large volumes to bring down unit costs, only for much of it to remain unsold 12 months later. Changing what waste means may force retailers and brands to stop volume of production, because the current carrots are simply not working. Let us incentivise our manufacturers by creating tax breaks for companies that are making clothing from waste and deadstock. The cost of dealing with fashion waste, especially from low-cost Chinese retailers such as Shein, is rising exponentially. Introducing an incentive for UK manufacturers to create garments from deadstock would help to tackle that issue and create a steady stream of business for UK companies.
We need to create a uniform national body to advocate for the sector, and a national director of manufacturers. That would help to join the dots to create competitive clusters. It is already happening at the Sheffield and Manchester city councils, which are developing local cluster productions and competitive local supply chains. We must also ensure awareness; we must fund a consumer awareness campaign. Multiple research projects show that people will pay more to support local communities and businesses. We should create a new “Made in the UK” trademark that only the businesses making clothes in the UK can use. Currently, “Made in the UK” does not mean that something is made in the UK; it can be made somewhere else and packaged here, and still count.
Onshoring increases our economic prosperity, reduces carbon footprint, strengthens labour standards, enhances national security and restores community pride. Leicester and other garment manufacturers do not need charity, they need fair enforcement, responsible sourcing and Government leadership in procurement. A modest increase, raising the share of UK-manufactured clothing sold domestically to just 10%, would be transformational. It would create thousands of skilled jobs, rebuild capacity and create enormous revenue for the Treasury. Leicester once clothed the world. With the right policy direction, it can clothe Britain again, ethically, sustainably and proudly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He and I support the same football team, although I am afraid that they are not doing that well at this moment in time—we hope for better things in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for setting the scene so well. She referred in her introduction to many places in the United Kingdom, and I am going to refer to Northern Ireland, where linen was one of our major industries—it is something that we are very proud of. I could never be called a fashion icon; I might be a dedicated follower of fashion, but that does not make me a fashion icon by any means. But I can certainly appreciate good craftmanship, which is part of the history and legacy of Northern Ireland, with its world-famous linen industry. The legacy of quality linen work continues to this day throughout Northern Ireland.
I am old enough to remember—it is probably no secret that I am the oldest person in this room—when my constituency of Strangford, particularly in Newtownards, had somewhere between 15 and 20 factories producing textiles, fashion, linen and threads. They are all away now—I think we have only one left. Indeed, it was not unusual for someone to leave a factory on a Friday night and start a new job in another factory on the Monday morning, such was the opportunity, but the world has changed—although I will refer to others in Northern Ireland that still do incredibly important work.
The fashion and textile industry in Northern Ireland has shifted from mass production and is now a specialised, high-end and innovative sector, focusing on luxury linen, technical textiles and advanced garment manufacturing. The remaining firms thrive through digital, sustainable and specialised technology. William Clark and Sons, for example, is leveraging its 300 years of expertise. Key players such as Ulster Carpets use robotics, while others support the niche market for luxury in apparel and homeware.
I should have said that I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, as always. Expectations are high, but I am sure we will not be disappointed with his answers to our requests. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), in her place. She is doing a double run today—she did the earlier debate and now she is doing this one, so well done.
The industry has transformed from high-volume production to design-driven, specialised manufacturing. Many of our specialised companies are renowned globally for their luxurious products. We remain incredibly proud of the industry in Northern Ireland, because it does all the things we hoped it would.
The industry has contracted, as I illustrated in Newtownards, the main town in my constituency, although there are examples of factories in many others, including Comber, Ballynahinch, Ballygowan and Killinchy—they are all away, although there does seem to be a focus in Mid Ulster. However, the sector remains a notable part of the local economy. It still accounts for 2,000 firms in Northern Ireland and employs over 10,000 people, with employment heavily centred on textile manufacture—over 40% of that workforce—clothing manufacture and washing and dry-cleaning services. That is an illustration of how the sector has adjusted to the modern age and, at the same time, been able to survive, albeit in a smaller way in terms of the number of factories.
From the Cooneen Group in County Tyrone to individual fashion houses, Northern Ireland continues to produce quality goods with a growing global reach. I am thankful to those who promote the best of British brands globally. I know that the Minister will be careful to ensure that every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is included in British brand promotion—I know that is his commitment —and I look forward to the industry going from strength to strength.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—there is nobody better to chair a debate on fashion, if I may say so. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for her excellent opening speech and all the wonderful points she made. I want to get slightly competitive for a moment: I admire her skirt, which her sister made, but I want to draw attention to the top that I am wearing, which I made myself—onshoring fashion in action.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
You’re taking other people’s jobs—typical Lib Dem!
Sarah Olney
The Minister’s sedentary intervention gives me a good opportunity to say that the hand knitting industry supports many jobs in many rural areas, right across the country, including Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, I have spoken to the people who own Knit With Me, the amazing knitting shop on Richmond Hill of which I am a regular customer, and they tell me how much harder it has become to send some of their amazing products abroad since Brexit. Of course, pure wool is an animal product, which falls under those regulations, so the customs requirements to send packages to the EU have become so much more challenging for them. I am therefore here just as much to stand up for the knitting industry—I am literally standing up in my hand knitted top—although that is not quite what the debate is about, so I beg your pardon, Ms Jardine.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the urgency to transform the way in which fashion operates. We must reduce pollution, curtail environmental damage and tackle unethical practices in the supply chain. The fast fashion industry has been linked to unethical labour practices and modern slavery, tarnishing the appeal of the garments people wear. We urgently need a more sustainable fashion industry. Increasing domestic production is an important aspect of that, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) so passionately set out when talking about his own constituency.
Onshoring is the process of bringing fashion and textile manufacturing back to the UK from overseas. It aims to shorten supply chains and rebuild domestic production capacity that has been lost through decades of offshoring. There are many benefits to onshoring production: it could create local jobs and support British manufacturers and suppliers. More domestic production would also strengthen the UK’s supply chain, reducing reliance on distant producers and the risk of global disruption. There are also benefits to brands seeking agile, flexible production—especially smaller and emerging labels that value local partners—not to mention the reduction of carbon emissions by minimising long-distance shipping. It also fits with growing consumer demand for climate-friendly products, while allowing better quality control and adherence to environmental and labour standards.
Currently, less than 3% of the clothing worn in the UK is made domestically, which shows the scale of the decline. However, the UK fashion and textiles sector retains a base of skilled mills, heritage factories and emerging micro-factories that could support scaled-up onshoring. As such, it has significant potential for domestic growth. UK labour, energy and running costs are, however, significantly higher than in many overseas locations, which makes price competition difficult, and small businesses may struggle with the high initial investment required to rebuild facilities.
Many of the challenges of growing the sector are compounded by a shortage of skilled workers such as sewing machinists. There is a risk of losing these kinds of specialist crafts if they are not actively rebuilt and supported. More broadly, access to training, and hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy at the beginning of the Parliament, and the commitment to an increase in skills and training.
We would introduce a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. We would introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions, as well as the introduction of joint liability for sub-contractors in the fashion and fabric industry.
The UK imports around £20 million-worth of clothing from countries around the world every year, and around 25% of that is estimated to come from China. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Chinese Government’s actions in Xinjiang constitute a genocide. The National Crime Agency decided not to launch an investigation into the importation of cotton products manufactured by forced labour in the Xinjiang province of China. The Court of Appeal found that to be unlawful, a decision that the Liberal Democrats welcome. All human beings should be treated with decency and have their human rights respected. With 19 billion units of clothing produced in China yearly, it is not unbelievable that much of that is produced by detainees in Xinjiang.
Shockat Adam
Does the hon. Lady agree that any company found to be utilising cotton produced through slave labour should not be allowed to list themselves on the stock market in this country?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to take much firmer action to ensure that no products traded in the supply chain in this country—or, as he says, stocks listed on the stock market—are produced through any kind of forced labour. The use of forced labour is an affront to human rights; but also, and more pragmatically, it does not create a level playing field for producers who are treating their workers fairly and using ethical processes in their production.
The Global Legal Action Network, which brought the case forward, says that there is abundant evidence that UK companies import cotton made with forced labour from China, and that 85% of Chinese cotton is grown in the Xinjiang region. Slavery is not an issue of the past. Today, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide. We call on the Government to reverse the Conservatives’ roll-backs of modern slavery protections, and introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions. We want to champion human rights and support survivors.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to issue a comprehensive China strategy that places human rights and effective, rules-based multilateralism at its centre. My colleagues and I will continue to stand up for people’s human rights in the UK and across the globe, including in China, where much of the UK’s fashion comes from. But in order to encourage onshoring, the UK Government must do more to help UK business. They must champion start-ups and the UK’s entrepreneurs, do more to help small and medium-sized enterprises with costs for things such as energy and people, and upskill our workforce to be able to do the jobs created.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made.
We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example.
Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women.
Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today.
We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity.
Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production.
If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it.
Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered.
Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses.
In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow.
A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses.
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
It is an enormous delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—I cannot imagine a greater delight this afternoon. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate, and for the passion with which she has approached the issue, not just today but over many months; indeed, it is one of the issues that she has talked about throughout her time as an MP. Burberry used to be based in my constituency, and then left, so I feel quite strongly about some of these issues, and I am delighted to stand in for my colleague in the Department this afternoon.
It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). Of course, we all know of Leicester’s strengths in the garments industry over many decades. In fact, many different parts of the garments industry, including parts of the shoe industry, have been based in areas across the midlands and have been intrinsic to its economic success over centuries. We know about some of the problems there have been with working standards and labour standards, and he made a strong argument for his constituency.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he is a dedicated follower of fashion. He was of course referring to the song by The Kinks from 1966, which he and I are old enough to remember. I remember one of the lines—it is a polite line; there are others that might not fit him so well—which goes:
“One week he’s in polka dots, the next week he’s in stripe”.
I think the hon. Member is pretty consistent in his attire: he is smart, elegant and to the point. He made a strong set of points on behalf of his constituents.
I agree with many points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I am particularly conscious of the issue of people in artisanal or small businesses in particular—sometimes those are hobby business, but sometimes they are more substantial—trying to send packages into Europe and finding it very difficult to do so. That is one reason for needing to get to fiction-less trade—I mean frictionless trade, not the fictional frictionless trade that was promised by some people in another political party when they were in government—and we are seeking to do that as much as we possibly can.
I am focused on how we can enable the whole value chain in the UK to discover ways of exporting into the European Union, which still represents around 45% of our export opportunities, and more widely around the world. We know that a UK business that is able to find a second market and to export is more likely to pay its staff better, be more resilient, grow faster and still be there in 10, 15 and 20 years’ time. For all those reasons, we want to do everything we can to enable more of that sector to export.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to responsible business conduct, which I will come on to a little later. I will also come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who has a slightly fanciful memory of what the previous Government was like, in my humble opinion—I think if we had a vote on that, we would win; it would be all versus one.
We all know that fashion is about as British as tea and crumpets. There are so many massive household names: Ted Baker, Paul Smith, Superdry, which I never knew was British, Barbour, ASOS, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, All Saints, Dunhill, admittedly owned by a Swiss company at the moment but nonetheless a very British brand, and Richard James—and I am just talking about the clothes I am wearing today. [Laughter.] I am not wearing all those, obviously.
It is similar with shoes. I used to be the youth officer for the diocese of Peterborough, living in Northampton. In Northamptonshire, as well as in neighbouring counties, shoe manufacturing has been so much a part of their history. Whether it is Dr Martens, Dune, Cheaney, though I never know how to say it, Tricker’s, Joseph Azagury, Yull, Church’s, Clarks, Grenson, Loake, John Lobb, Crockett and Jones, or Jeffery-West—these boots were made for walking, and that’s just what they are going to do. Whenever we go anywhere in the world, we see so many British shoe brands on every major high street, in airports and elsewhere, and we are immensely proud of that. Quite a lot of those, though not all, are made in the UK.
It is easy to talk about big brands, but part of this debate is precisely to say that there are lots of smaller brands making their way, and that we as a Government must do everything we can to help. One of my favourites, which I have referred to before in the House, is Howies. It was originally based in London and is now in Cardigan in Wales. It is ethically based, and produces a whole range, including sporting clothing and other things. Original Fibres, too, is a London brand; it is ethically sourced, and is trying to bring forward the best in British styling as well as manufacture.
There is Shrimps, Saint and Sofia, Talia Byre, Peachy Den, Black and Beech, and perhaps one for the hon. Member for Strangford, Sleazy Rider.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is saying no to that, but he does not know what it is like.
In Edinburgh, of course, there are lots of other brands; perhaps the most famous is Pringle. We have talked a little about knitwear brands such as Beira, Rowanjoy and Mackenzie. We really want those smaller brands to prosper, because so many of them know that part of their key selling point is that they are British and bring something special to the market. They have a particular eye and source their materials in an ethical way. It just gives us a buzz to wear some of their clothes. That is precisely the kind of industry that we want to support.
When I was shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, one of my best days was going down to see the Royal School of Needlework. Hon. Members may think of this as a rather posh thing that puts together items for royal coronations and things like that, but it is the only place in Europe where one can gain a qualification in needlework that is essential to some of the higher fashion brands in the UK. I thought I was going to meet lots of very posh people from Reigate or wherever it may be, but I was absolutely delighted when I walked in to find that the first two young women I met were both from the Rhondda. They wanted to go into the fashion industry, and they knew that by acquiring all the skills they could from the Royal School of Needlework, they were really going to flourish.
The sector is worth bazillions—that is an official term. The statistics people in the Department will probably want me to correct the record on that later. This sector is worth £62 billion to the UK economy, and it supports 1.3 million jobs and generates £23 billion in tax revenue every year. As the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, there are major manufacturing hubs in many parts of the land—for instance, in Leicester, as we have already heard, across the midlands and in the highlands. I have not yet mentioned Harris Tweed, from which I have a very splendid waistcoat, or Favourbrook—another great British brand.
We are not just talking about textiles for clothing; camouflage has been mentioned, and high tech and new developments in the sector are really important. Yesterday, I met representatives of Panaz Ltd from Burnley, which produces a series of fabrics, including antimicrobial and fire retardant textiles. It is very much at the cutting edge—that sounds wrong, because that is a metaphor from the textile industry—of innovation in the sector, and it sells across the world, which is brilliant.
There are of course connections between the sector and many others we excel in. That is why they are integral to our industrial strategy. One has only to watch 10 minutes of “Bridgerton” to know that fashion and textiles are a really important part of what we are selling to the whole world. One could say the same about Bond, though I would prefer it if he wore British tailoring, even though Bond is now owned by Amazon.
Incidentally, British tailoring is so big that the biggest supermarket in Spain is called El Corte Inglés, which means “The English Cut”. Founded in 1890, it got its name because tailors in Madrid knew that the best tailoring in the world was British and they wanted to sell on the basis of that. It was bought up in 1934 and became an enormous chain in Spain. That just shows our connection. One final connection I would like to make is with British jewellery. We have some of the best jewellers in the world, and often the connection between fashion and jewellery is a really important part of the things that we excel at.
Some specific points were made about procurement. I had not heard the point about uniforms before. It is a really good one, and I am going to chase it down. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet does not have to go and metaphorically beat up the Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. I will do that for her, and I will get all the details. It would be good if more of our British servicemen and women were dressed in British uniforms. I remember once being in Sarajevo and being introduced to the new Italian uniforms, which I think are done by Dolce & Gabbana. They had previously been Armani, but they thought they would upgrade to Dolce & Gabbana, or it may have been the other way round. I am not sure—I might have to correct the record again. My hon. Friend spoke about the Procurement Act 2023, which gives public bodies greater ability to prioritise ethical and local sourcing. One would think that that would apply to the whole of Government rather than just parts of the Government, so let us see whether we can make that happen.
My hon. Friend asked about Government investment. We have set aside £4.3 billion to support manufacturers over the next five years, and up to £2.8 billion of that is for research and development. Quite often, the creative industries such as fashion are hesitant about seeking research and development money, because they think that there is nothing new under the skies and that they therefore would not qualify for it, but one has only to watch “Kinky Boots” to know that research and development is just as essential in fashion as it is in any other sector.
We have revamped our support for businesses to make it more effective, including through the development of the business growth service. I urge any business to seek help and advice when they need it. We are very keen on enhancing our trade promotion work. The spring version of London Fashion Week is coming up; unfortunately, it is just for women. I would like us to get back to having a spring fashion week that has both male and female fashions, though the economics of that do not necessarily add up at the moment. We are very supportive of the autumn London Fashion Week.
Of all the big fashion weeks around the world, the UK goes for the edgier part of the market, as Members may already know. That is precisely where we should be, which is why it is so important that we provide financial support for what we call “newgen”, which has produced a suite of new designers in recent years, many of whom are now breaking into much bigger markets. Of course, we continue our support through the British Fashion Council.
We also produced a small business strategy last year, which is really important, not only because many fashion and textiles businesses suffer from late payments, which is something that we definitely need to work on far more effectively than we have in the past, but because of the lack of availability of cash, whether that is for significant investment or for export investment. On both of those issues, we have set aside additional financial support to make sure that that is available for small and medium-sized enterprises.
I come on to the issue of responsible business conduct. Several hon. Members referred to issues such as forced labour or sustainability, but we have not talked about palm oil or deforestation or the production of cotton in different parts of the world, and so on. Hon. Members will know that we have been engaged in a responsible business conduct review, which is nearing completion. I hope we will be able to announce our conclusions fairly soon.
My aim is not to load businesses with more regulation but to try to make sure that the regulation they are subject to is truly effective. One of my anxieties is that sometimes we just get businesses to produce reports; somebody is employed to produce lots of different reports, which get bunged in the annual report and nobody in the world reads them ever. I just do not think that is as effective as other measures that we might be able to introduce. We are trying to curtail the regulatory burden, while at the same time making regulation more effective.
Sarah Olney
Does the Minister agree that effective regulation is not about putting burdens on business, but about ensuring a level playing field, so that ethical businesses and those that have committed to the welfare of their employees and to sourcing good quality materials have a level playing field to sell their products and are not being undercut by people who do not observe those standards?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with that, but I would make another point. As we put together our trade strategy, we also have to consider whether there might be unfair subsidies in other parts of the world that make it impossible for British businesses to compete in the market. Dumping and other unfair trade practices around the world are part of the set of issues that I want to be able to take to the World Trade Organisation for proper consideration.
I end with a couple of thoughts. We have all loved the fast fashion industry, and shopping is a pastime for many. For many, the availability of cheap clothing is an absolutely essential part of being able to dress themselves. At a time of global crises and financial difficulties for many families, where parents might be worrying about being able to pay the next bill that comes through the door, making sure that the clothes they buy for their kids to go to school and so on are affordable is essential. I get all of that, but I do rejoice in my heart when I talk to younger generations, including my nieces, who are as much in love with preloved clothes as they are with stuff that they might buy new today—with discovering something that has been around for a very long time, and not just buying something and chucking it out two months later.
There is joy and an economic opportunity for all of us if we can manage to onshore more in a variety of different ways, such as enabling people to recycle their own clothes a bit more often, to recycle the clothes of others, and to invest in ethical brands who really do the business in this country. Of course, that means that we have to invest in skills so that there are people able to develop these things—I think the hon. Member for Richmond Park is offering to provide knitting classes for all of her constituents.
Incidentally, I should say I do love “The Great British Sewing Bee”. It is a great television programme. It shows lots of people that we can make our own clothes, and that ethical and sustainable products are an important part of making sure that we live in a world that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren, or our nieces and nephews.
Catherine West
I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for giving me this opportunity to promote sustainable fashion in the UK and to ask the Minister some questions.
I enjoyed hearing about the picture in Leicester, as well as my visit to Leicester. I also enjoyed hearing about the recycling operations in Beckenham and Penge, and about luxury linen production in Northern Ireland. We heard, of course, about the human rights considerations. The key point to make is that some of our really good retailers are complying with the Government’s guidelines, but others are not doing so, and I think that is what is meant by trying to level things a little bit, so that not all of the cost goes on to our really good retailers and in the shops things are a bit more seamless—[Laughter]—so to speak.
I also thank the Minister for exhibiting his usual flair—[Laughter.] He did so to talk about the importance of frictionless trade with the EU and to explain how he is straining every sinew to achieve that. The importance of research and development cash or funding was also discussed. I thank him for his offer to approach the MOD on military uniforms—hopefully, he will get his officials to do some digging for me on that issue—but there are prison uniforms and other places where it is necessary to wear uniforms. Of course the late payment strategy is so important for small business, as is cash availability for trade abroad by SMEs, which is another vital element of the trade strategy. We look forward to the responsible business review and hopefully we will be at the launch of it, whenever that is; we will come and applaud.
I also thank Fashion Roundtable, Fashion Enter and Baroness Young of Hornsey for all they do to promote the understanding of and up-to-date information about all that is happening in the UK on sustainable fashion, so that we can be really accurate in our debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office also updated the House this morning in response to an urgent question. Given the considerable interest this matter has generated, I wanted to provide an update on the process now under way through which the Government will comply.
Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is now under way to identify which documents fall in scope of the motion. We will publish a first set of documents as soon as possible after the House returns from recess.
The House will be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing investigation. As you would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release material that may undermine an ongoing police investigation, and as such we are working constructively with the police as they conduct their inquiries. I will update the House accordingly.
Senior officials have this week met with the Intelligence and Security Committee to discuss what the Committee requires in order to fulfil its role in relation to the Humble Address. We are working with the Committee to put in place processes for making available to them material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the Committee for its work and commit to full engagement with them to ensure these processes are timely and effective.
The Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously given the nature of the issues at stake and scope of material in place, and we will ensure that Parliament’s instruction is met with the urgency and transparency it deserves.
[HCWS1341]
Radio Review: Terms of Reference
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Radio continues to be a strong and highly valued medium. It contributes significant public value through its provision of trusted news and diverse entertainment, and underpins the wider media plurality landscape in the UK. However, listening habits are continuing to evolve as even more people access radio via digital and online platforms, whether at home or on the move.
It is therefore important to consider the impact of changes in listener behaviour and audio markets over the past five years and assess the future challenges the BBC and commercial radio are likely to face in the coming years in order to support continued investment in radio.
I am pleased to announce the scope of a new radio review, which will take place in 2026. DCMS will come together with key industry organisations to carry out this review, which will be completed by the end of 2026. The review’s terms of reference are to:
(a) Investigate future scenarios for the consumption of UK radio and audio content on all platforms into the 2030s, taking into account likely models of future listener behaviour, market trends, and technical developments.
(b) Consider the impact of these scenarios on current and future distribution strategies for the UK radio industry and on the future availability of UK radio services for listeners on all platforms.
(c) Make recommendations—based as far as possible on a cross-industry consensus—on the future distribution of radio services and provide advice to Government on ways of strengthening the long-term viability of UK radio until the early 2040s.
[HCWS1333]
Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Acquisition
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
My Department has today written to Penultimate Investments Holdings Ltd and the Daily Mail and General Trust, the current and proposed owners of the Telegraph Media Group Holdings, in relation to the proposed acquisition of TMGH by DMGT.
In my written statement to Parliament and by letters to the parties, all on 20 January 2026, I confirmed that I was minded to intervene in and refer the proposed acquisition to a phase 1 investigation under the Enterprise Act 2002. Having given the parties the opportunity to make representations to me regarding the concerns raised in my letters to them, and having considered those representations in detail, I have now reached my final decision.
I have today informed the parties of my decision to issue a public interest intervention notice in relation to the proposed acquisition of TMGH by DMGT.
My decision to issue a PIIN relates to concerns I have that public interest considerations—as set out in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002—may be relevant to the proposed acquisition of TMGH by DMGT, and that these warrant further investigation. The public interest considerations concerned are the need for a sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for news media and the need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises serving every different UK audience.
My decision to issue a PIIN triggers a requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority to report to me on jurisdictional and competition matters and for Ofcom to report to me on the media public interest considerations in section 58(2B) and 58(2C)(a) of the Enterprise Act 2002. I have asked both the CMA and Ofcom to report back to me by 10 June 2026.
My role as the Secretary of State in this process is quasi-judicial and procedures are in place to ensure that I act independently and follow a process that is fair, transparent and impartial.
DCMS will update Parliament after both reports from the regulators have been received and considered.
The PIIN can be found on gov.uk.
[HCWS1338]
Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel: Baby Victoria Marten
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
In July 2025, Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were found guilty of the gross negligence manslaughter of their daughter, baby Victoria. The court heard that the couple had gone to great lengths to evade authorities, living in unsafe and transient conditions in the weeks following the birth. Their actions resulted in the death of a vulnerable newborn whose life should have been protected and supported from her very first moments. The death of Victoria was a profound tragedy, and the Government’s thoughts remain with all those affected.
While justice has now been served, and Victoria’s parents are serving prison sentences, nothing can repair the loss of her life, and it is incumbent upon us to do everything in our power to ensure such tragedies are prevented wherever possible.
Across the country, child protection professionals dedicate themselves to safeguarding vulnerable children, often in circumstances that test even the most resilient among them. I have no doubt that they, like all of us, were deeply shaken by what happened to Victoria. Yet as a safeguarding system, and as a society, we must have the courage to confront uncomfortable truths and examine openly where failures occurred.
Today’s publication by the child safeguarding practice review panel into the case of baby Victoria identifies a series of significant and complex safeguarding concerns, including concealed pregnancy, persistent non-engagement with services and practitioners, domestic abuse, risks posed by serious offenders, and the challenges that arise when families move frequently between local areas. It also highlights the need for more proactive, relational and multi-agency safeguarding and child protection practice, with clear pathways for support for parents and strengthened approaches to safeguarding unborn children.
As I noted in my statement following the heartbreaking murder of Sara Sharif in November 2025, this is precisely why we must press on with the sustained and meaningful reforms needed to strengthen co-ordination between local safeguarding partners, all firmly anchored in clear and authoritative national guidance. I want to reassure the House that this Government regard the review’s conclusions with the utmost gravity and will inform our ongoing programme of reforms to children’s social care, supported by the £2.4 billion investment announced by the Government to improve early interventions, family help and outcomes for vulnerable babies, children and their families. We are also considering how forthcoming changes to statutory guidance, working together to safeguard children, can better reflect the needs of babies and unborn children.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, now progressing through Parliament, represents an important step in our work to build a system that protects every child, especially the most vulnerable. Its purpose is simple but profound: to make sure that no child slips from view, and that when concerns arise, agencies act together swiftly and with clear purpose. Schools and early years settings will have a strengthened role in local safeguarding arrangements, recognising the trust they hold and the unique insight they so often have into a child’s daily life. New multi-agency child protection teams will bring professionals together to focus squarely on cases where there is a risk of significant harm, improving the speed and quality of the response and ensuring that expertise sits right where it is most urgently needed.
Better information sharing, supported by a single unique identifier, will help prevent the gaps through which children can sometimes tragically fall. And by giving local authorities clearer duties in relation to children who are educated at home, alongside establishing a register of children not in school, we will support families while also ensuring that no child becomes invisible to the system. Crucially, we are embedding family led decision making, because when a child’s safety is at stake, families deserve to be heard and involved in shaping the support around them.
These reforms matter not in the abstract, but because of children like baby Victoria. Her short life, and the unimaginable circumstances in which it ended, remind us of the devastating consequences when agencies cannot reach a child in time, when help is not accepted, or when families evade the very services designed to protect them. Nothing can undo the heartbreak of her loss. But we can, and must, let her memory sharpen our determination to build a system that is more alert, more joined up, and more capable of acting decisively when a child is at risk.
Through the families first partnership programme, we are also transforming how support is offered on the ground. Family help will ensure that families receive the right assistance at the moment they need it, not only to improve outcomes, but to prevent problems escalating into crisis. And by involving wider family networks through family group decision making, we can reduce unnecessary court processes, prevent children from entering care where it is safe to do so, and provide families with the stability and support they need to thrive.
All of this is about honouring the lives of children like baby Victoria by learning from what went so tragically wrong. It is about ensuring that no child is ever beyond our line of sight, and that every child grows up safe, supported, and surrounded by adults who are equipped and empowered to protect them.
While the distressing details of what happened to baby Victoria will not fade easily from memory, we must try not to let her be remembered only through the lens of tragedy. She deserves to be known not just for the harm she suffered, but for the cherished life that should have been hers. It is the recognition of her brief but precious existence that must strengthen our determination to ensure every child is given the safety, security and chance of happiness that she was so tragically denied.
I will provide a fuller written response to the panel’s recommendations by the summer, setting out the Government position and the steps we have taken—and will take—to strengthen the safeguarding system for all babies and families.
[HCWS1331]
Keeping Children Safe in Education
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Keeping children safe could not be more important to this Government and this afternoon, they are launching a public consultation on proposed changes to their “Keeping children safe in education 2026” statutory guidance. All schools and colleges in England must have regard to this guidance when carrying out their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. It is the primary source of guidance and support for schools and colleges.
Schools and colleges play a critical role in keeping children safe and KCSIE sets out the legal duties that schools and colleges must comply with, together with good practice guidance on what schools and colleges should do to keep children safe. The guidance is extensive, covering what staff should know and do to safeguard children, the management of safeguarding in schools and colleges, safer recruitment, responding to allegations of abuse against staff, handling reports on child-on-child sexual harassment and sexual violence.
The purpose of this consultation is to gather views on proposed changes to KCSIE 2026. The consultation will run for 10 weeks, closing on 22 April 2026. The proposed changes include among other things, further advice for school and college staff on:
Grooming gangs and serious violence (including weapons)
Operation Encompass (the duty on police forces to contact schools the next day following incidents of domestic violence)
Misogyny
Information sharing between safeguarding agencies ahead of a pupil’s child protection file being transferred where children move school
Child sexual abuse/criminal exploitation
Advice on mobile phone use
The consultation also includes advice to schools and colleges in relation to children who are questioning their gender. We have proposed separate new sections on toilets, changing rooms and showers, boarding and residential accommodation and single-sex sports. These sections are informed by the public consultation on the draft non-statutory “Gender Questioning Children” guidance for schools and colleges. This advice reflects the importance for schools and colleges of making careful decisions about what is in the best interests of children, including children who are questioning their gender. It draws on the Cass review of gender identity services for children and young people to set out the key principles that we expect schools and colleges to follow, including taking a strong stand against bullying, safeguarding all children, involving parents in decision making and taking a cautious approach, particularly in relation to primary-aged children. The guidance is clear that supporting social transition should not include allowing children into facilities designated for the opposite sex.
The consultation document, containing full details of the proposals and inviting responses will be available via gov.uk. Copies of the consultation document and departmental advice will also be deposited in the Library of each House.
[HCWS1339]
Vincent Chan: Sentencing
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
In December, I gave a statement to the House on the Metropolitan police investigation into child sexual abuse in Camden. Today, Vincent Chan is due to appear for sentencing at Wood Green Crown court in relation to 56 offences, to which he has pleaded guilty.
His crimes are absolutely sickening, and our thoughts remain with the children and families affected as they continue to receive the support they need. We will continue to assess what more can be done to stop vile acts like these from happening again.
A local child safeguarding practice review is currently being conducted and that must take its course.
Children's safety is at the very heart of this Government’s plan for change. That is why we are taking action to strengthen child protection.
Last September, we strengthened requirements in the early years foundation stage for early years providers to follow robust safer recruitment practices, including appropriate pre-employment checks, ongoing suitability monitoring and clear whistleblowing procedures.
We are putting a renewed focus on strengthening safeguarding across early years with our new expert panel soon to start work on CCTV and digital devices guidance. The guidance will set out best practice, technical information and clear expectations. The expert advisory group will also consider whether CCTV ought to be mandatory in early years settings.
We are also introducing free, universal safeguarding training for staff working in early years settings in collaboration with the NSPCC. This will support staff to meet statutory safeguarding requirements and help embed a strong and open safeguarding culture across early years settings.
And we are working with Ofsted to introduce reporting on larger nursery chains, so that issues that span a group of providers can be addressed. We are funding Ofsted to inspect all new early years providers within 18 months of opening and move towards inspecting all providers at least once every four years. Ofsted will continue to keep all settings under review to ensure that visits take place when risk assessments deem them necessary.
Our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill marks the most significant reform to child protection in a generation. It will deliver stronger multi-agency child protection teams and better information sharing between police, education, health and social workers, so that no child falls through the cracks again.
And through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are making it mandatory for child sex abuse incidents to be reported and making it illegal to prevent someone reporting them, so that no child is left invisible when facing child sexual abuse.
In December, the Government put forward proposals for a new child protection authority to protect children from harms including sexual exploitation and abuse, domestic violence, trafficking, organised crime, and other complex risks.
The CPA will provide strategic oversight of child protection and safeguarding threats nationwide and was a key recommendation of Alexis Jay’s IICSA report on group-based child sexual exploitation.
Keeping children safe is one of the most important duties of any society. I want to thank our early years staff and wider children’s services workforce, who work hard, day in and day out, to give the children of this country the best start in life. This Government will work with them, and with the victims and families affected, to continue to strengthen child protection. We will root out abuse wherever it hides, and we will never stop working to rid our society of this evil.
[HCWS1332]
Warm Home Discount Cost Recovery Consultation: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to the December 2025 consultation on warm home discount cost recovery. The response confirms our intention that the costs of the warm home discount should be recovered from the unit rate for electricity and gas from 1 April 2026, subject to changes to the price cap methodology that Ofgem has consulted on separately.
Since its inception in 2011, the warm home discount has delivered over £4.53 billion in support across Great Britain, primarily benefiting those in or at risk of fuel poverty. It remains a key policy in the Government’s programme to tackle fuel poverty and reduce energy costs for low-income households, primarily through the provision of £150 energy bill rebates each winter, funded through a levy on domestic gas and electricity customers.
This Government recognise the pressure on the cost of living. Tackling fuel poverty and reducing energy bills remain priorities. At the Budget, the Government announced measures expected to take an average of £150 off household energy bills from April 2026. Moving warm home discount cost recovery to the unit rate complements these wider steps to improve fairness and affordability as it means that those who use less energy pay less towards the policy costs. We have also published the warm homes plan and the fuel poverty strategy for England, which together set a pathway to lift up to 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030.
Between 8 December 2025 and 6 January 2026, we received 778 responses from individuals, consumer and advocacy groups, energy suppliers and other stakeholders. Overall, there was strong support for moving cost recovery away from the standing charge and on to the unit rate on fairness grounds for low-use households.
Having considered the evidence, the Government have decided that unit rate recovery will proceed from April 2026. This approach links contributions more closely to actual consumption and is fairer for lower-use customers. We recognise concerns about households with unavoidably high energy needs, such as those using electric heating or medical equipment. When taken together with wider bill changes announced at the Budget, the net impact on typical consumers is expected to be a reduction in costs. For example, modelling suggests that a typical high-usage, electrically heated household might save £395 annually when the switch to unit rates is combined with the measures announced at the Budget.
To support accurate and fair delivery, we will update energy supplier reconciliation arrangements so that their obligations are settled against energy volumes supplied. We will also introduce an industry-wide feedback mechanism so that any aggregate under or over-recovery arising from differences between forecast and actual demand in one scheme year is corrected in the following year. As with this scheme year, we also intend to continue with earlier interim reconciliation for the next scheme year and will keep the arrangements under review, working with Ofgem and engaging industry as needed.
The consultation also sought views on placing a greater share of warm home discount recovery on gas to support wider rebalancing between gas and electricity. We are not proceeding with this at this stage because of concerns about potential distributional impacts on low-income, gas-reliant households, particularly in colder or less efficient homes.
Subject to Ofgem’s related price cap methodology changes and parliamentary approval, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will lay the Warm Home Discount (Reconciliation) Regulations 2026 later this year. We will work with Ofgem and energy suppliers to support a smooth transition from 1 April 2026.
[HCWS1336]
NHS Agenda for Change Workforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today, I am announcing that from April 2026, over 1.4 million NHS staff on Agenda for Change terms and conditions will receive a 3.3% pay rise.
The uplift is above the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast inflation of 2.2% for 2026-27, delivering a real terms pay rise for NHS staff.
It will be in pay packets from April for the first time in six years. We have listened to the workforce and understand the difficulties they face when pay awards are not delivered on time. That’s why this Government committed to speeding up the pay review process, remitting the pay review bodies months earlier than previous years, and submitting written evidence earlier too.
In making this award, I am accepting in full the recommendation from the NHS Pay Review Body for 2026-27. Their report recognises the vital contribution that NHS staff make to our country.
This award is above the Government’s affordability position set out in their evidence to the NHSPRB. As we are delivering the pay round much earlier this year, announcing now in February, the business planning process for the Department of Health and Social Care and its arm’s length bodies is under way. The existing challenging productivity and efficiency commitments required by ICBs and providers to deliver breakeven positions are the foundations of the Government’s ability to fund this within the existing settlement. This additional pressure above affordability will be managed by DHSC and ALBs (including NHSE central budgets) but none of the pay increases will be paid for by cutting frontline services.
As part of the overall AfC pay package for 2026-27, we will progress talks with trade unions and employers at pace, through the NHS Staff Council, to agree and implement funded improvements to the AfC pay structure. These talks will build upon discussions held to date exploring the feasibility of multi-year arrangements, and separate funding will be made available for these reforms as committed to in response to the 2025-26 PRB recommendation on pay structure reform. Once agreed, the reforms will deliver additional pay increases for some staff that will be effective from, and backdated to, 1 April 2026. Our priorities will be to improve pay for those on the lowest pay bands in support of the Government’s commitment to “make work pay” and to improve pay for graduates across all professions. This will recognise and build on the work of the staff council to identify its priorities.
We will continue to implement commitments to improve the support NHS staff receive and their experience at work, as well as improving nursing career progression, investing in job evaluation to ensure that all staff are paid fairly for the work they are asked to do, and supporting newly qualified staff. Improving the experience of work for all staff, ensuring the NHS is a great place to work, is fundamental to improving the patient experience: from reducing the backlog in elective care, to ensuring timely access to GP appointments.
The NHSPRB report will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk
[HCWS1340]
Foundation Strategic Authorities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Over the last year, this Government have made clear the scale of its ambition on English devolution. We introduced the transformational English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. We launched the devolution priority programme—one of the largest ever packages of mayoral devolution in England, worth close to £200 million per year over 30 years, split across six areas. And today I am pleased to announce another significant step forward in our devolution agenda: an invitation to all areas in England that do not have devolution, to bring forward with their neighbours an expression of interest for a foundation strategic authority. The Government welcome such expressions of interest over the coming weeks, and we will begin reviewing responses from 20 March.
This new wave of foundation strategic authorities will ensure that more areas than ever before are able to access the benefits of devolution. The Government remain firmly committed to mayoral devolution and is forging ahead with it, including through the devolution priority programme, but we have been clear that this model works best when built on firm foundations. This includes the strong unitary structures we are creating through local government reorganisation, but we also see foundation strategic authorities as a crucial way to build local capacity and partnerships as a stepping stone towards mayoral devolution in the future. In areas undergoing reorganisation and interested in establishing a foundation strategic authority, we are keen to work with local partners to agree how best to manage the two processes.
As set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, foundation strategic authorities will have devolved powers over transport and infrastructure, skills and employment support, housing and strategic planning, economic development and regeneration, environment and net zero, health, wellbeing and public service reform, and public safety. They will also receive devolved funding in areas such as local transport and skills, and the Government are currently consulting on giving foundation strategic authorities the power to raise an overnight visitor levy.
Separately, Minister Pennycook has also made an associated statement announcing the launch of a non-statutory consultation on the geographies for spatial development strategies. We strongly believe that strategic planning is most effective when done over devolution geographies. We will therefore work with local areas to ensure that geographies for foundation strategic authorities and spatial development strategies are aligned where possible. However, it will be for local areas to propose a devolution geography that can support strong partnership working across their local economy. The Government are committed to working with all areas to establish the right economic partnerships and to empower leaders across the country to deliver growth and prosperity for their communities.
[HCWS1335]
Sub-regional Strategic Planning
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government were clear in their manifesto that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale. That is why we committed to introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning.
In the English devolution White Paper, “Power and partnership: Foundations for growth”, published in December 2024, we reaffirmed our intention to reintroduce mandatory strategic planning through the production of sub-regional spatial development strategies (SDSs) across England.
The Planning and Infrastructure Act, which received Royal Assent in December 2025, contains provisions that place a duty on combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare an SDS for their area. The Bill also enables the Government to establish “strategic planning boards" to prepare SDSs on behalf of specified groupings of these authorities. These provisions will be brought into force this summer.
The rollout of SDSs will reintroduce a strategic tier to the planning system in England. SDSs are intended to be high-level spatial frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment. They will ensure that sub-regional areas can effectively plan to meet their housing needs; co-ordinate the provision of strategic infrastructure; grow their economies; and improve the environment and climate resilience. They will set the context for local plans which will have to be in “general conformity” with the SDS once it has been adopted.
We remain committed to ensuring universal coverage of up-to-date local plans as quickly as possible. The production of SDSs should not be used as a reason to delay the preparation of local plans.
Mayoral strategic authorities will prepare the SDS for their area. In areas without mayoral strategic authorities, the responsibility for producing SDSs will sit with non-mayoral foundation strategic authorities. Where these do not exist, responsibility will sit with upper tier county councils and unitary authorities who will, in most cases, be required to work together to produce SDSs.
We set out in the English devolution White Paper that we will generally expect these authorities to work together to produce SDSs over “sensible geographies” as defined within it. The Planning and Infrastructure Act sets out a formal mechanism to enable such groups of authorities to work together, namely a strategic planning board. These will operate in a similar way to joint planning committees that have been established to co-ordinate the preparation of joint local plans in some parts of England.
Today, we are launching a consultation on the geography for SDSs. The consultation identifies a number of groupings where we understand that there is a degree of broad agreement about the principle of working together, and in these areas we propose an SDS geography. In other areas where such agreement is tenuous or lacking entirely, we are inviting proposals to help inform final decisions.
Where areas are able to quickly confirm their support for a particular grouping, my officials will look to work with those authorities to agree the terms for a strategic planning board. These will then be subject to statutory consultation. To support SDS production, the Government have identified a funding package. We expect to make some initial payments in March and to confirm the full package in the summer.
Separately, Minister Fahnbulleh has also made a statement to the House, announcing the next step forward in the Government’s English devolution agenda: an invitation from the Secretary of State for all areas in England without an existing devolution agreement to come forward with their neighbours with an expression of interest for a new foundation strategic authority (FSA). In the vast majority of cases, we would expect the geographies for SDSs to align with foundation strategic authorities.
[HCWS1337]
Youth Knife Possession
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), and I have published new Government guidance on child knife-possession offences.
This guidance, applying to all police forces and youth justice services throughout England and Wales, sets a clear expectation that children who break the law by carrying a knife should receive a swift, robust and evidence-based response, including tailored support and high-quality interventions delivered by youth justice services.
Knife crime has destroyed far too many lives, and this Government have set an ambitious but essential target to halve knife crime over this decade. We are already making tangible progress.
Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime has fallen by 8%, meaning 4,229 fewer offences. Knife homicides are down by 27% and hospital admissions for stabbings have fallen by 11%. We have banned dangerous weapons such as ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and we have taken nearly 60,000 knives off our streets.
But for too long, children found in possession of knives have not faced swift and sufficiently robust consequences to prevent reoffending. Young knife carriers have been given empty warnings and, in some cases, simply have been required to write letters of apology to their victims. Our estimates suggest around 1,000 children who are currently caught in possession of a knife face no meaningful consequences or intervention. These are inadequate responses to child knife-possession offences, which do not result in a meaningful intervention to address the offending behaviour, or a penalty. We are changing this.
In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that every child caught in possession of a knife would be referred to a youth justice service and receive a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending. This marks an important milestone in the Government’s mission to halve knife crime within a decade and to make our streets safer.
The guidance brings about greater clarity and consistency to operational partners and will require a step change in the way that the criminal justice system responds when a child is found in possession of a knife. This guidance makes clear our expectation that the response to knife possession should always be swift, robust, evidence-based and thorough. Police will swiftly refer every knife possession case to youth justice services— multi-agency, local authority-based teams working with children at risk of offending—who will then design a targeted action plan for each child.
Specialised plans will address the root causes of the child’s offence, whether that’s exploitation by criminal gangs or childhood trauma. Targeted action could include mentoring schemes or support to remain in education, giving children the foundations they need to turn their back on crime and keep our streets safe. Repeat offending or refusal to engage with a mandatory plan will be met with robust action, including criminal charges.
The guidance will be accompanied by more comprehensive data collection, which will provide a clearer picture of which interventions are most effective at preventing reoffending. In addition, local scrutiny and independent inspections by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation will ensure the guidance is being implemented.
We thank all partners across policing and youth justice services for their expert support in developing this guidance. This is an important step in strengthening the police and youth justice response to children who carry knives.
The guidance will be made available on gov.uk.
A copy of the guidance will also be deposited in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1330]
Youth Justice System
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Today I have published a policy statement setting out the first stages of the Government plan to modernise and reform the youth justice system so that it is fit for the future.
The youth justice system in England and Wales has seen considerable success in recent decades, with significant reductions in first-time entrants, proven offences, and the number of children in custody. This reflects the dedication of our frontline professionals and volunteers who make up that system.
However, the children who come into contact with the system today often present with increasingly complex needs and face significant barriers to rehabilitation. To continue protecting the public and prevent further victims, the system must evolve.
Our statement sets out the Government first phase of reforms to modernise how youth justice services are funded, governed and supported. It focuses on strengthening early intervention, reducing unnecessary use of custody, ensuring accountable and supportive governance, and providing frontline services with greater confidence in their funding, in return for stronger outcomes.
This publication lays the groundwork for further reforms, which we will set out the Government vision for a reformed youth justice system.
We are proud to be introducing more dependable funding arrangements for youth justice services. From this financial year, multi-year funding settlements will give frontline services the certainty they need to plan ahead and manage their resources more effectively. We will provide £281 million over three years for the youth justice core grant, alongside extended, multi-year investment for the successful turnaround programme—a further £46 million over three years—enabling youth justice services to continue their vital work diverting vulnerable children away from crime.
In the light of the evolving youth justice landscape, the statement also outlines reforms to oversight structures. These include refocusing the youth justice board towards supporting the frontline in a continuous improvement role, while transferring responsibility for the development, funding and monitoring of youth justice policy to direct ministerial oversight in the Ministry of Justice.
This Government are committed to a youth justice system that embraces the latest technology and data. As part of our wider plan for this, we will establish an expert advisory council to support the responsible use of analytics and artificial intelligence to strengthen early intervention and improve outcomes.
Ensuring custody is used only as a last resort for children remains a central priority of this Government. Too many children are detained in custody on remand but then receive a community sentence, an experience which can be damaging to the child’s life outcomes and at high financial cost to local authorities. To reduce unnecessary custodial remands, we will change the way annual youth remand funding is distributed, supporting local authorities to take a regional approach to develop stronger community remand and bail support options. We will invest a further £5 million through regional remand partnerships to create community remand placements, with particular focus on specialist fostering.
In addition, I have established a new departmental board to drive improvements to standards in youth custody. This statement outlines some of the initial steps we are taking to improve safety, education, time out of room and staffing in the youth estate.
This statement lays the foundations for further reforms that will be announced in the spring. These proposals, taken together, will offer the most significant reforms to the youth justice system in a generation, supporting this Government’s clear missions to make our streets safer and to break down barriers to opportunity for the most vulnerable children.
The full policy statement will be laid before the House and it will also be made available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1334]