Westminster Hall

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 21 April 2026

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this morning’s debate. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, alongside Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson; as the chair for the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment; and as the parent of a wheelchair user.

Through the APPG’s work, we have heard directly from stakeholders and service users about the unacceptable delays that wheelchair users face in accessing suitable equipment, often with reduced health outcomes as a result. Too often we also hear that service users are confined to using completely inappropriate wheelchairs as that is, frankly, their only option. The issues I will discuss today in patients accessing disability equipment are also all too evident to me as chair of the APPG for access to disability equipment. I pay tribute to the Wheelchair Alliance and Whizz Kidz for their dedication in their advocacy for wheelchair users across the UK and for their support in preparing for today’s debate. I am grateful to have secured the debate and, as Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have lived and breathed the issues that so many wheelchair users face in accessing wheelchair provision.

The wheelchair quality framework, published in April 2025, outlines that wheelchairs provide

“a significant gateway to independence, wellbeing and quality of life for thousands of adults and children. They play a substantial role in facilitating social inclusion and improving life chances through work, education and activities that many people who do not need wheelchairs take for granted.”

While I welcome the framework for introducing some minimum standards and expectations, in my experience—and I will come to that later—it is the case that the user deals with the contractor, not the integrated care board. The ICB appears to have little or no idea, quite often, what the actual experience for users is when dealing with the contractor.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. I know this is a subject on which he has much knowledge, experience and passion. ShopMobility, a group of volunteers who provide mobility aids at the shopping centre to get people out and about in the town centre, have recently reported to me that many of their customers are coming to them waiting for wheelchair provision from the contractor, sometimes for more than six months. I have also had young people with cerebral palsy and other conditions unable to get basic repairs to their existing equipment. Does he agree with me that these are simply unacceptable levels of services for what is vital equipment, not optional extras? Is that not exactly why, as he says, we need an independent review body to scrutinise the poor performance of the contractors and commissioners?

[Daniel Francis]

Absolutely; I completely agree. I will refer later to the position that we now know of, how ombudsman complaints have risen exponentially in recent years, and to the experience of many people, including that of my own daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, in the kind of delays that my hon. Friend has outlined.

In the 2024-25 financial year, there were 630,000 wheelchair users registered in England, with 70,600 of them under 18 according to NHS data. However, that figure does not include those who have purchased their wheelchairs privately, or those unable to obtain the right equipment through the NHS. In 2018-19, the Wheelchair Alliance estimated there were a total of 780,000 users. That was an estimate due to lack of robust evidence to back those assumptions. There is no set location on NHS health records to identify whether someone is a wheelchair user. With many users purchasing their wheelchairs privately, or being provided a wheelchair through a charity, NHS data does not provide an accurate picture and we remain in the dark about the true number of wheelchair users in England. Unfortunately across the country we are seeing countless examples of wheelchair users being systematically failed by their service providers, and I am sure we will continue to hear horror stories throughout this debate. Wheelchair users face long waiting times, poor fitting and unsuitable equipment, and complex and fragmented access pathways, with reports of a postcode lottery in accessing wheelchair provision.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Alongside the postcode lottery my hon. Friend outlines, the impact on young people accessing education has huge implications. Not being able to view that data also impacts our understanding of why children might not be attending school. Does he agree that that is why data is so important for under-18s?

[Daniel Francis]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Last year I helped launch a report commissioned by Whizz Kidz about children who are wheelchair users accessing education, which highlights the issues my hon. Friend has brought to our attention.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has received a significant increase in complaints about wheelchair services, from four in 2018 to 76 in 2025, mainly about long delays in receiving equipment and poor communication. I would like to highlight the Wheelchair Alliance’s 2022 report, “An economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England”, which I will refer to throughout the debate. The report highlighted three areas of concern: wheelchair services in England do not consistently work for service users; NHS-provided wheelchair services should be subjected to more rigorous and mandated regulation; and the true scale of demand is not known.

Despite that report being published three and a half years ago, the findings are still relevant. Wheelchair users’ experiences have, if anything, deteriorated further. The report concluded that wheelchair users may be exploited due to a lack of clear regulation, independent review body or information about who to approach regarding repairs, complaints or suggestions for service improvements.

I am grateful to the Chamber engagement team for its support in preparing for today’s debate and for sharing the experiences of the 653 people who contributed to its survey on disability equipment. One respondent said:

“My husband has a basic wheelchair that is the wrong size and broken. It causes pain and pressure sores. He can’t self-propel more than 50 metres in it, making any kind of independence impossible. He is exhausted and in severe pain all the time.”

Another said:

“I had to put off starting university for a year because I couldn’t access a wheelchair in time. I spent a year at home unable to go out and see friends or access education or to even just go to the shop on my own.”

Wheelchair users already face everyday accessibility issues, from transport to housing and work. Having an unsuitable wheelchair adds not just an extra complication but often a debilitating and painful experience, and needs to be resolved. The current system is not working. Wheelchair providers need to work in cohesion rather than compete for contracts and undercut other providers.

National leadership and accountability of the service is necessary to ensure that service providers are held to account. Funding reform is needed to give wheelchair users the right piece of equipment, rather than the cheapest. The better, more appropriate yet expensive piece of equipment can often be the cheapest later down the line, with savings in health care and users better able to contribute economically. I will refer to that later in my personal experience.

Better and more conclusive data is needed. We are still not sure exactly how many adult and child wheelchair users there are in this country. We cannot, therefore, accurately access the current need or where gaps lie. To improve services, we need wheelchair users to be involved from the start in co-production, service design and commissioning. To get the service right and address the individual needs of wheelchair users, we need to hear directly from them. Ultimately, a national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is required to ensure that the service provided is of a good standard. As a result, wheelchair users will receive better quality care and outcomes.

I have five asks from recommendations to put to the Minister. First, it is clear that national leadership and accountability are needed. Service providers need to be held to account, as we have heard and will surely hear more during the debate. There are far too many examples of the service failing wheelchair users, leading to poor health outcomes. The Wheelchair Alliance’s 2022 report, “An economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England”, highlighted that NHS-provided wheelchair services should be subject to more rigorous and mandated regulation. Addressing the current inconsistent and fragmented service will improve outcomes for users, as forms of provision are held to account effectively.

The report suggests that mandatory regulation of wheelchair services could, for instance, be the responsibility of the Care Quality Commission, to address the gaps in accountability, guarantee a minimum standard of quality and, therefore, reduce the current postcode lottery in support. That could also cover private sector providers and additional regulations for private retailers, to give wheelchair users greater confidence and more oversight of the services they receive. Across the country, 45% of wheelchair services are not run directly by NHS trusts and are often commissioned to private companies. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the Department has considered appointing a national lead or regulator to oversee the provision of wheelchair services to hold providers to account and ensure that wheelchair users in England are no longer at the mercy of a postcode lottery determining the quality of the service that they receive.

The second issue is budget. Increasing baseline funding in line with current needs and inflation would not only be beneficial for wheelchair users but would likely result in future long-term savings for the NHS. The Wheelchair Alliance’s 23 December report, “The Value of a Wheelchair”, showed that a £22 million per year increase in equipment spending to the average level among ICBs that currently report average levels of per patient spending would represent an estimated 14% increase in the current total annual NHS spending on wheelchair services. That would make a meaningful difference to the total equipment budgets in half of ICBs—and a big difference to wheelchair users. The research shows that this could reap £60 million—along with £315 million in wider societal and economic benefits—in NHS savings.

Budget should also be flexible and innovative, including in individual personalised wheelchair budgets, where users have found gaps in the funding, including not covering additional costs such as shipping or repair and maintenance, resulting in a need for users to self-fund for elements of care. The 2023 report outlines that some users felt the availability of support and funding was inflexible and not always optimally allocated. Whizz Kidz’ research has found that 22% of wheelchair users were offered a wheelchair budget as an option. Many more individuals had to fundraise and source charity support to allow them to get the right wheelchair. Reports from Frontier Economics show that, on average, the NHS spends £125 per wheelchair user per year, covering all types of equipment, staff, service, insurance and maintenance. Establishing an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision would help show where the gaps lie in the current funding and provide more efficient budget management, and where this can be improved. Could the Minister therefore outline whether steps have been taken to review current funding and whether consideration has been made of the benefits of introducing baseline funding in line with other complex and individual needs of wheelchair users?

The third recommendation was about data and transparency. To further improve wheelchair services, data collection needs to be vastly improved. As I have touched on, we do not know the number of wheelchair users in the country and while there is the national wheelchair data collection quarterly publication, it is essential that the available data also includes outsourced providers to ensure that they have a full picture of service provision across the UK. An independent national review body with oversight of all wheelchair services, including the NHS as well as private providers, would help to provide a greater understanding of the current provision, along with more accurate data to help identify gaps—whether in funding or in a postcode lottery of service users having different experiences based on where they live.

Wheelchair users and patients should also have a role. Their feedback and suggestions would illustrate the reality of the current provision and the impact that it is having on their lives. Currently, there are limited avenues for users to provide feedback on the quality of service received, resulting in reduced mechanisms for providers of care and ICBs to identify gaps in the service provided. The Wheelchair Alliance has found communication issues across multiple aspects of wheelchair provision, with users not being provided with an explanation for delays and a lack of communication between providers of care, resulting in users undergoing multiple unnecessary assessments. Giving users the opportunity to report those experiences to one body with national oversight would allow for greater improvements sector wide. Without an accurate national dataset and consistent reporting, unmet need and poor performance are not being addressed and continue to remain prevalent. Will the Minister therefore commit to improving the current collection of data on wheelchair users and their experience in accessing wheelchair provision and services?

The fourth ask regards procurement and value. Currently, many wheelchair users find that they are not given the most suitable wheelchair and are instead given the most cost-effective option. For example, in evidence provided to the APPG for wheelchair users by Charlie Fairhurst—and I declare an interest in that he is my daughter’s consultant at the Evelina—in his role as a consultant for 20 years and as the national lead for children’s neuroscience for the past eight, he outlined that in his experience, poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores and increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector. Hip dislocation rates—which is a big issue for people, particularly children, with cerebral palsy—are increasing in both adult and child wheelchair users due to the wrong equipment being provided. My own daughter had to have her hip broken as a result and may need to have that done again because of those posture issues. Charlie described clearly to our APPG the issues for wheelchair users if they do not have the right equipment: they have to continue having the same operations to put their posture right again.

Another issue users encounter is the wheelchair they require not being suitable for their housing. One respondent to the survey said that the

“wheelchair I was offered weighed nearly 20kg and stopped me from moving around my very small home. Due to the size and weight of the chair, I spent almost four months not leaving the house.”

The NHS would experience cost savings as a result of improved provision, including providing patients with suitable wheelchairs from the beginning. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on those issues.

The fifth recommendation relates to children. Currently, children aged three to five often miss out on receiving an appropriate wheelchair. The strict eligibility and issuing criteria that the NHS uses mean that young children are often deemed ineligible, despite their need not necessarily being any less than that of an adult or young person.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the issue of children getting access to wheelchairs, does he agree that sometimes the provision itself is fine, but parents subsequently establish that the wheelchair is not suitable and there can be difficulties in getting the best and most appropriate wheelchair for the child as they develop and age?

[Daniel Francis]

I absolutely agree. The hon. Member will hear my own personal horror story on that very matter in a moment. It is a big issue. Children grow, and the delays often mean that when the wheelchair finally arrives, the child is a very different size from when they were measured for it.

Instead of a wheelchair, younger children are offered a standard buggy, which often does not meet their clinical or social needs. It also impacts their social integration at a crucial age and limits their independence and participation at home, in school and at playtime. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister considered extending NHS wheelchair provision to children aged three to five so that they can get the right equipment.

The situation does not necessarily get any better for older children. In 2024, the national wheelchair data collection outlined that 80.9% of children under 18 received their wheelchair within the 18-week timescale, meaning that nearly one in five children are waiting over 18 weeks to receive their wheelchair. That figure unfortunately increases for children with more complex needs. In 2023-24, 29% of children assessed as having a specialist need waited over 18 weeks, and the figures for October to December 2025 showed that 1,563 children waited more than 18 weeks after a referral to NHS wheelchair services. A further 1,685 children were assessed with no equipment provided. That is despite the NHS England model service specification requiring services to have developed improvement plans by 2019 to ensure that all children who require a wheelchair receive one within 18 weeks.

My family and I have direct experience of that with our contractor in the London borough of Bexley. Back in October 2021, when my daughter—who, as I said, has quadriplegic cerebral palsy—was eight years old, it was agreed that she required a new wheelchair. The appointment to measure her for it was held three months later in January 2022, and the wheelchair arrived six months later in July 2022—nine months after the referral. Despite recommendations on the postural support that she required given that she has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, a standard wheelchair had been ordered, which then had to be repaired or have adjustments made to it on five occasions in the next four months. Despite those adaptations, it was still not fit for purpose.

After my wife and I got the ICB involved—how many parents out there know what the ICB is and how to get it involved?—a new fit-for-purpose wheelchair was ordered in January 2023. It arrived in April 2023, but no one advised us that it had arrived. I really believe our contractor rations appointments to manage its workload. When we chased the position in June 2023, we were advised that the wheelchair had been in stock for two months. An appointment was made in July 2023. Twenty-one months after the initial referral, my daughter received a wheelchair that was fit for her needs. That meant that the contractor had missed its 18-week deadline twice in an 18-month period in one patient’s case.

Importantly, as I have said, children grow and delays like that cause more work, given that the child will clearly be taller than they were when the referral was made. At such a crucial time in a child’s life, their mobility and independence matter. It is critical that children are given the necessary equipment to engage with their peers and participate in school. Having an independent national review body would help to give children and their families a voice and more ownership over their care and, in doing so, drive down waiting lists and improve patient outcomes. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues, and the Minister’s comments on the points I have made.

09:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. A special thanks to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for the opportunity to support him in this debate on a subject of which he has personal knowledge, and for his opening speech. If I recall right, we had a 30-minute debate on the issue some time ago, and now we have a more substantive debate on this important subject, which gives us the opportunity to highlight the need for improvements for many of our constituents. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I will give our perspective to support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and those who will speak after me. It is nice to see the Minister in his place; he is becoming a bit of a regular in Westminster Hall.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Not as regular as you!

[Jim Shannon]

He is trying to catch up. I look forward to his response and that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). I tapped him on the shoulder and said, “Luke, you’re back again!” It is a real pleasure.

When Members use phrases such as “postcode lottery”, it brings a smile to my face, but not in a humorous way; due to our legislation, my constituents do not have the ability to participate in the postcode lottery and benefit for their street, and yet when it comes to provision for disabled people, we seem to be right in the heart of that painful reality. Whether someone is in Newtownards or Newcastle, their ability to live an independent life should not depend on which trust’s boundaries they live within. I concur with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that the current situation is not acceptable, and the changes we seek from the Minister must be transformative.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Recently, I was listening to the radio and heard the story of Phil Eaglesham, a former Royal Marine who served in Afghanistan and, as a result, needed a wheelchair. He founded a company, Conquering Horizons, which designs all-terrain wheelchairs for indoor and outdoor use. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get beyond the basic needs and look towards the real-life needs of those who need wheelchairs? Does he agree that it would be beneficial for the Minister to meet Phil, hear his story, and hear how he is transforming the lives of those who need wheelchairs?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she underlines the point. I was going to give the example of a young fella from Newtownards. He lives in Dundonald, but he is more seen in Newtownards. He has severe, complex mobility needs, but he is the brightest wee boy you ever met in all your life, and he always encourages and lifts me when I meet him. He is a Chelsea supporter, so he needs some help at the minute, because they are not doing too good. I am a Leicester City supporter, and we are not doing too good either, so we have something in common.

There was just no way in the world that the NHS could give him the wheelchair that he needed for his special needs—similarly to the example that my hon. Friend mentioned in respect of those who have served in the forces. The only way that wee boy could obtain the wheelchair that he needed was through fundraising. Dessie Coffey in Newtownards has been fantastic. He raises money for all charities, but he did so especially for this wee boy. Over a period of time, we raised about £6,000 to help him with his wheelchair, and today that wee boy has some independence.

I wrote to one of the Manchester United stars—my mind just went blank and I cannot remember who it was, but he no longer plays for them—and he sent me a signed autograph, so I gave it to the wee boy and he sold it for £100. Again, if it was not for individual fundraisers, he just would not have had the money. I very much believe that we need an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, and I support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford in his call for one.

Some might ask why we need another body in an already complex system. The answer is quite simple: because the current system is failing the very people it was built to serve. Northern Ireland has the longest health waiting lists in the United Kingdom. People are waiting years for orthopaedic surgery, and while they wait, their mobility needs change, often without the system keeping pace. Just last year, we saw the collapse of NRS Healthcare, which was the main provider of repairs for our regional service. The Business Services Organisation stepped in to steady the ship, but that moment of crisis exposed the fundamental truth that out wheelchair services are fragile.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The NRS case is so important. I am keen to understand how the Government are ensuring the ongoing provision and servicing of wheelchairs, given that NRS has gone bust. I have been contacted by constituents who worked at high levels in NRS, and who are concerned that those contracts will not be followed up. Is the hon. Member concerned about that, too?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly am. The shadow Minister always speaks with great knowledge on such matters, and I look forward to his speech. Hopefully, the Minister will respond positively to his point. Although waiting lists do not fall under the Minister’s responsibility, the fact is that they are of such length all over the country that mobility is declining, and support is needed more than ever.

One of the greatest merits of having an independent review body would be the death of the data desert. Currently, we do not have a full, transparent picture of the true demand for wheelchairs in the United Kingdom. An independent body would mandate high-quality, comparable data, forcing the Department of Health to confront the true scale of the backlog. The issue of data comes up during almost every debate we have on health. How can we know how to respond if we do not have the data and information? Perhaps the Minister could tell us how we can quantify the demand through data, which clearly needs to be collected.

We also need accountability that has teeth. Currently, when things go wrong, users are often left to navigate a complaints maze with their trust. An independent body would act as an impartial watchdog, ensuring that the wheelchair equality framework is not just a document on a shelf in Belfast or elsewhere, but a standard to which every service user can hold their trust. I gave the example of the wee boy—his name is Reuben Walls—and how fundraising got him what he wanted, but we need a system to help those who cannot fundraise and do not have the finances.

Every day that a child waits for a wheelchair or an adult sits in an ill-fitting seat that causes pressure sores, the cost to the health and social care system grows. Research shows that the right wheelchair can deliver a societal return worth triple its cost. Having an independent body would ensure that we treat wheelchair provision not as an optional extra, but as a vital investment in our economy and health. We need a national body that listens to the Wheelchair Collective, champions the user voice and ensures that the promise of

“the right chair, at the right time, right now”

is kept for every citizen in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I look to the Minister and the Government to ensure and provide that, and I think all of us here today wish to see the same thing.

09:58

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate, and on his excellent speech, which drew on his lived experience.

I contribute to this debate on behalf of the many constituents in Scarborough and Whitby who have been profoundly failed by NHS-contracted wheelchair services. One such constituent is a woman in her early 80s, who became reliant on an electric wheelchair to leave the house following a traumatic road accident. Her family and friends reached out to me after failing to be told when a wheelchair might be provided and not being offered any interim support. At that point, all the necessary adaptations to accommodate the wheelchair had already been made to the outside of her home. AJM Healthcare, which is contracted by NHS wheelchair services, was contacted for an urgent update but was completely unable to provide a specific timeframe for the progress of her application.

Two years ago, AJM Healthcare was investigated by the parliamentary ombudsman following a surge in complaints. As we have heard, those involved people not receiving new wheelchairs or the correct parts, delays to receiving equipment and poor communication. Two years on, sadly, it seems that nothing has changed. Other constituents have also come up against significant delays to wheelchair repairs, leading them to become prisoners in their own homes. One resident requested my help after being housebound for three months while waiting for the supplier simply to send on the correct replacement parts. Another constituent endured three months of delays over a routine maintenance issue, only to discover after countless unanswered calls that the repairs company had gone into liquidation.

It is clear that the current system is not working. Wheelchair providers are failing to meet even the most basic standards, leaving people isolated, housebound and ignored. What is worse, they are getting away with it. Despite repeated complaints and investigations, failing providers are still contracted and continue to offer an appalling service to people such as my constituents. My constituents deserve better. Waiting months for a wheelchair or essential repairs is unacceptable, and it is high time that wheelchair service providers were held to account by an independent national regulator. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan finally to put an end to this catalogue of failure.

10:01

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for all the work he has done not only to secure this debate, but to champion wheelchair users in his constituency and all of ours. We are lucky to have him on the green Benches.

As we talk about the provision of wheelchairs across the country, I want to share the story of one of my constituents. Dozens of constituents have written to me, but I want to draw this story out because it is a particularly jarring case of how the system is failing people. My constituent Lisa has a severe condition that affects her nerves. She cannot stand, feed herself or use the bathroom unaided, and she has a tracheotomy to help her breathe. In July 2024 she was referred to AJM, the company contracted to the NHS in Staffordshire at that point to provide wheelchairs. It took almost a year, and Lisa’s family contacting me for help, to even get her measured for an appointment by AJM. She was then told that it would be at least another year before she got the wheelchair that she needs. Without that, she can leave her house only for hospital appointments, because the chair that she had was impacting her breathing and putting her life at risk.

AJM did finally provide a better wheelchair in January 2025. It took 18 months—not 18 weeks, but 18 months—and Lisa still did not get the wheelchair she needed. She got a better wheelchair—a less bad wheelchair—but it still did not meet her needs. We are unsure of the timeline for when she will get the wheelchair that she needs to be able to live her life.

Lisa’s is not an isolated case. It does not surprise me that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who we have just heard from, has also had problems with AJM. We know that it is a national issue and that AJM is failing the people of Staffordshire. Indeed, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will raise a similar point shortly.

Since 2023, complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about that firm have shot up. To refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it is very clear from looking at that data that there are systemic, nationwide failings. The ombudsman asked AJM to investigate but, from what we are hearing today and have heard previously in this place, sufficient action has not been taken across the country.

In Staffordshire, the local NHS commissioners issued AJM with a performance notice last August and have now retendered the contract, but until October the contract remains with AJM and, unless massive changes are made, it will continue to fail my constituents and those around the country. AJM has clearly lost the trust of people in our area. The long waits have had a really serious impact not just on the physical health of wheelchair users, but on their mental health and dignity, and on their friends, their families and the community that support them. We can never look at one person in isolation—it takes a family to raise a child and it takes a community for us all to be part of, and these effects have really serious impacts on entire communities as well as on wheelchair users themselves.

This is really not good enough. Staffordshire ICB has finally stood up and made the decision to retender the contract and award it elsewhere. However, my major concern is that this contract was not working, it was clear that it was not working and none of the interventions made it work. That is a real problem. It appears that, if everything works fine, everything works fine—but if things start to go wrong, what is the mechanism to fix them? How do we make sure that things are fixed?

The suggestion that there should be a national body to oversee wheelchair provision is one that would give my constituents and indeed all our constituents confidence that somebody will examine this issue, and that failings will not continue to be brushed under the carpet and ignored. They simply cannot be ignored. Wheelchairs are far too important to far too many people, and I place on the record my absolute support for the proposal.

10:05

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this very important parliamentary debate.

NHS wheelchair services across England and Wales face serious challenges, affecting hundreds of thousands of disabled people and demanding urgent attention. Access to an NHS wheelchair begins with a referral and assessment by a GP, physiotherapist or social worker. Eligibility is based on clinical need and a wheelchair must be required for at least six months.

Yet problems arise even at that first stage. Many first-time or inexperienced wheelchair users are expected to know exactly what they need, despite having little or no prior experience. They are often presented with a very limited choice of NHS-approved models, frequently without receiving the guidance necessary to make an informed decision.

I want to highlight the experience of Jonathan, a 22-year-old constituent of mine from Bassetlaw. At 18, Jonathan attended his first wheelchair assessment, having never used a wheelchair before. After only a very brief trial, he was asked to choose between two models, with no meaningful discussion about how his needs might evolve. He selected a chair that felt slightly easier to manoeuvre on the day. That single decision had long-term consequences. The wheelchair proved far too heavy for him to manage independently. Everyday tasks such as getting into a car required multiple steps and the help of others. In bad weather, he watched friends and family struggle to lift his wheelchair, an experience that he has described as being both frustrating and deeply uncomfortable. What should have supported his independence instead reinforced reliance on others.

Once that decision about a wheelchair had been made, Jonathan was effectively locked into it. Like many wheelchair users, he could not access a reassessment because his condition, although progressive, did not meet the narrow eligibility criteria for a reassessment. That experience reflects a wider, indeed systemic, problem. Without proper guidance or trial periods, people can make choices that they later regret but may have to live with for years.

Such issues are made worse by long waiting times. Although NHS targets aim for 92% of users to receive a wheelchair within 18 months of referral, the reality is far less favourable. For many people, the delays they experience are far longer—and they are not minor inconveniences: they can lead to secondary health complications, avoidable hospital admissions and barriers to education, employment and participation. Those consequences are entirely preventable. Even once a wheelchair has been delivered, further challenges arise. Jonathan’s wheelchair repeatedly developed faults, from deflating tyres to loose bolts, which at times made it unusable.

Repairs, which should be straightforward, became another obstacle. When engineers did attend to carry out a repair, they sometimes arrived with incorrect parts or relied on Jonathan himself to diagnose the problem. That is an unreasonable expectation to make of any wheelchair user.

When a wheelchair fails, users are not simply inconvenienced; they are immobilised. There is also a significant inconsistency across integrated care boards. Eligibility criteria and equipment provision vary widely, creating a postcode lottery where access depends on location, not need.

There are clear and achievable solutions. First, inexperienced users should receive structured guidance and meaningful trial periods. Secondly, waiting times must be reduced through expanded capacity and better processes. Thirdly, the repair system must be reformed, with stronger accountability and reliability. Finally, eligibility and reassessment criteria must be standardised nationally, so that people with progressive conditions are not left for years with unsuitable equipment.

Sadly, Jonathan’s experience is not unique. Many wheelchair users simply endure these failures quietly, but quiet endurance should not be mistaken for a system that works. With better guidance, timely access, reliable repairs and fair reassessment, we can build a service that supports independence, dignity and opportunity. I believe we have the commitment to do so; what is required now is the will. I end by thanking Jonathan, who helped me with this speech in great detail.

10:11

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate, and on his excellent work across the board on wheelchair services through the APPG that he leads.

As vice-chair of the APPG for wheelchair users, this debate is incredibly close to my heart. The reason I became part of the APPG is that so many of my constituents were contacting me in desperate need of a new wheelchair or vital wheelchair repairs. One young lad, Noah, had long outgrown his moulded wheelchair to the point that it was becoming unsafe and causing him harm. When he went into hospital for spinal surgery, despite being well enough to be discharged, he could not leave for weeks because he did not have a safe wheelchair to go home with.

Disabled people, including children, with life-limiting conditions have been left waiting for up to two years to receive a new wheelchair. In the young life of a child such as Noah, that is unacceptable. They are left in pain in unsuitable chairs, and some of my constituents are unable to leave the house altogether because their chair has broken down. The long waits have affected my constituents’ physical and mental health, and have placed great strain on their carers.

Preston, the 19-year-old son of my constituent, Kelly Williams, was left with a collapsing wheelchair for six months before vital repairs were made, and it was a further four months before his wheelchair was eventually replaced. Preston lives with a progressive brain disease. He cannot walk or bear weight, and for almost an entire year he was forced to sit in an uncomfortable chair that was not fit for purpose. That is completely unacceptable.

When many of my constituents contacted AJM, the previous provider, there was a complete lack of communication and an all-round failure to consider their needs. I will name one more constituent among the many: an ex-Paralympic medallist, Ian Marsden, runs the risk of being bedridden because, if his broken wheelchair is not fixed, he is stuck. Having raised the issue with the ICB, I was pleased to see that it issued a performance notice against the provider in August last year, but the fact that enforcement action had to be taken raises serious concerns about contract oversight, risk escalation and safeguarding of disabled service users. The service went out to retender; a new provider has been appointed and is due to start, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) outlined. The contract was awarded on 24 February 2026.

I trust that lessons are learned, but a new contract means that wheelchair users in Stoke-on-Trent South will once again have to get used to a new system and possibly a service in a new location. I strongly encourage the ICB to be diligent in monitoring and reviewing the performance of the new contractor. Playing the blame game with previous providers, as AJM did, will not wash this time.

At this point, I will slightly veer off track to express the significant concerns regarding the changes to car mobility schemes, which were raised by my constituent Ryan. With those changes in mind, it is even more vital that we get wheelchair services right. Given the history and legacy of these issues, I strongly support an independent review body to oversee wheelchair provision and ensure that wheelchair users receive an outstanding service. The time is now, and I ask the Minister to act and fix this situation—it is bad in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, but it is a national issue.

10:15

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate and setting out so clearly and in such detail why this matters.

Access to a wheelchair is essential for many disabled people’s quality of life. It enables independence, supports physical health and allows people to participate in daily activities, work and their community. This debate is about whether the current system is capable of delivering that access consistently, fairly and effectively, or whether there is merit in establishing an independent national review body to help achieve that goal.

As we have heard this morning, when access to a wheelchair is delayed or when equipment is unsuitable the consequences are serious. People can become housebound or bedbound and their health can deteriorate, leading to preventable complications, and in some cases avoidable hospital admissions.

Across England, wheelchair services remain inconsistent. Too often, access depends on where someone lives. Long waiting times are widely reported, with some individuals waiting months and, as we have heard, in some cases over a year for appropriate equipment. For something so fundamental to mobility and dignity, that level of delay is unjustifiable.

The impact extends beyond the individual who needs the wheelchair. Family carers provide vital support to their loved ones. Without a suitable wheelchair, carers may need to help with lifting and movement, increasing the risk of physical injury to themselves. There are also clear effects on mental health and wellbeing, both for carers and for the user of the wheelchair, and those are linked to the loss of independence and reduced privacy resulting from unsuitable equipment.

These issues point to broader structural challenges. The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should be able to live independently and with dignity; yet the current state of wheelchair provision reflects wider pressures within the health and social care system—pressures that contribute to inconsistency, delays and gaps in accountability.

There have been efforts to improve services, including the NHS’s wheelchair quality framework, which sets out important principles and standards. However, it is reasonable to question whether guidance alone is enough to drive meaningful change, particularly in a system facing financial strain and ongoing reorganisation. Frameworks can outline expectations, but they do not ensure delivery.

Wheelchair services are frequently delivered by private contractors on behalf of the NHS. In some cases performance has fallen short, as we have heard this morning, with long waiting times, poor communication and limited flexibility for patients. Where oversight is weak or fragmented it becomes harder to ensure the consistent high-quality provision that people deserve. This is where the question at the heart of today’s debate becomes especially relevant. There is a strong case for a more co-ordinated national approach that ensures clear accountability, consistent standards and better use of data to monitor performance and outcomes.

An independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision could offer solutions. It could provide clear accountability at a national level, helping to ensure that responsibility for performance does not become diffused across multiple organisations. It could support more consistent data collection, addressing current gaps in understanding around demand, waiting times and user experience. It could also strengthen the oversight of providers, including private contractors, ensuring that poor performance is identified and addressed more effectively. Importantly, it could help to ensure that best practice is shared and implemented more uniformly across the country, reducing the postcode lottery that currently affects so many people.

Establishing a new body is not a solution in itself. The body’s effectiveness would depend on its powers, its independence and how it integrates with existing structures. However, given the persistent challenges in wheelchair provision, it is entirely reasonable to assess whether such an approach could deliver improvements that existing mechanisms have struggled to achieve.

The issue is closely connected to wider policy challenges affecting disabled people, which extend beyond the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Care. For example, the Access for All scheme of the Department for Transport will make railway stations more accessible but I know from my Mid Sussex constituency that the promise of step-free access at Wivelsfield station, made under the last Conservative Government, was not funded and the upgrade has been cut by this Labour Government. The Access to Work scheme of the Department for Work and Pensions can help people with physical and mental disabilities get or stay in work but, as I previously set out to the Minister in this Chamber back in March, the wheelchair that one of my constituents needs has been delayed by years due to the DWP’s bureaucracy and “computer says no” attitude. All such schemes should work together to enable disabled people to live fulfilling lives. By extension, where the schemes are working properly, timely access to support would reduce pressure on other parts of the NHS, as we know is desperately needed. At present, provision is too variable and too slow.

In considering the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body, the key question is not whether change is needed, because it clearly is, but how best to deliver it. A national body could provide the focus, oversight and accountability that are currently lacking. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I urge the Government to look into the arguments voiced in this debate and assess whether an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is the best way to achieve the improvements that are so clearly needed. Those improvements are achievable but require sustained attention at a national level. For the many people whose independence depends on something as fundamental as a wheelchair, that change cannot come soon enough.

10:22

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). He is becoming a regular in these Westminster Hall debates, rivalled only by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It seems that there is a competition to be the one who makes the most representations.

On a serious note, last month in the debate on disability equipment provision the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford spoke passionately and movingly about his personal experiences. We should treasure so much, in this House, people bringing their experience to try to make things better for their constituents, their family and the nation. The hon. Member deserves a lot of credit and I thank him for securing this debate. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users for its work to ensure that wheelchair users are heard, and I thank the Wheelchair Alliance and others who continue to hold this House, Ministers and the Opposition to account on these issues.

There is little disagreement in the debate about the nature of the problem. The Government themselves acknowledged last month, in the debate on disability equipment provision, that too many wheelchair users wait too long for the equipment they need, with knock-on consequences for their independence, health and ability to participate fully in daily life. That admission is welcome, but recognition alone is not enough. The question before us is how responsibility, accountability and improvement are to be delivered in practice. On that point, the picture is far less clear. Ministers have been explicit that they do not intend to publish a national strategy for wheelchair services. At the same time, the Government are embarking on a major restructure of the NHS in England. Understandably, that combination raises concerns about where national oversight will sit in the future, how consistency will be ensured and who will ultimately be accountable when services fall short.

During last month’s debate on disability equipment, the Minister acknowledged the uncertainty created by the changes, noting that seemingly small gaps in practice or responsibility can have disproportionate impacts on the quality of life of disabled people. That is precisely why clarity matters. As the NHS is reshaped, wheelchair users and their families need to know who is responsible for setting expectations nationally, who is responsible for commissioning locally and who steps in when the system is not working. Without that clarity, there is real risk that the responsibility becomes fragmented and that unacceptable variation goes unchecked. Ministers often rightly point to the role of integrated care boards in commissioning wheelchair services for their local populations, but ICBs are being asked to do a great deal at once—to meet 18-week standards for community services, adopt the best practices set out in the wheelchair quality framework, and now to do so while operating with up to 50% reductions in headcounts and constrained budgets. So it is fair to ask whether those competing pressures risk pushing wheelchair provision further down the list of priorities rather than elevating it to where it should be. Going forward, who will be responsible for overseeing the wheelchair quality framework itself, and how are the Government assessing whether that is genuinely improving outcomes on the ground rather than simply setting aspirations?

There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), previously undertook to look at the reuse and return of disability equipment, which could have real benefits for patients and for public value. Many will be keen to hear what progress has been made on that work and whether it will form part of a more coherent approach in provision.

Finally, I raise the issue of innovation. In my constituency of Hinckley and Bosworth, local businesses have shown how responsive, user-focused solutions can make a real, tangible difference. I mentioned Mounts and More as a primary example last time. As the national structure evolves, innovation like that must be supported rather than stifled.

As the Minister responds this morning, wheelchair users and their families are listening carefully. They will want assurances that, amid the structural change, accountability will not be diluted, responsibility will not pass around the system, and there will be clear leadership to ensure faster, fairer access to the equipment that is so fundamental to independent living. I have three questions to the Minister on that basis.

First, as NHS England is abolished through an NHS service modernisation Bill, can the Minister set out clearly which body will hold national responsibility for wheelchair service standards and oversight, and how Ministers will be held accountable when or should services for wheelchair users fail across different parts of the country? Secondly, who will be responsible going forward for overseeing and enforcing the wheelchair quality framework? What assessment have the Government made to date as to whether that is making a difference, and how we can have improvements?

Thirdly—I touched on this in my intervention—many wheelchair users will have had provision from NRS Healthcare. Given the size and scale of the impact of NRS collapsing, there is real concern about servicing their contracts and making sure their wheelchairs are maintained. What have the Government done and what do they have to say on that topic?

10:27

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate and also on challenging us, born of his lived experience, to make the lives of disabled people better and better lived across our country. We are grateful for his presence in this House and this place, every single day. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to champion this interest more generally in his capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.

In recent months wheelchair services have received considerable attention, both within Parliament and more widely. As has been highlighted, last month I participated in a debate on the provision of disability equipment, brought forward by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan). I have been struck by the compelling testimonies shared during those discussions and the ones today, highlighting the profound impact that timely access to appropriate disability equipment can have on people’s lives.

This is a matter clearly deserving of much more attention. Since the previous debate on this topic, I have written to the national quality board to request that disabled people and the equipment they use are considered as part of the board’s ongoing work to improve quality and reduce inequality across health and care services. I am pleased to update that the board has confirmed it will take this forward.

This Government remain steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that disabled people can access the services and support they need. Through our reforms to health and social care, we are dedicated to delivering meaningful change that will make that vision a reality. Integrated care boards, as has been highlighted, are responsible for commissioning local wheelchair services. Responsibility for providing disability equipment lies with local authorities or the NHS, depending on the person’s needs.

For adults and children with long-term complex needs, services are typically provided by NHS wheelchair services. There is a range of NHS wheelchair providers across England, as we have heard. I acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) raises about NRS. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care and I will be having discussions about that, and it would be appropriate to write the hon. Member an urgent letter to update him, as I know that he is genuinely concerned about the topic. ICBs are expected to monitor service provision and effectively manage contracts with their commissioned providers.

Although the latest data from NHS England shows a reduction in wheelchair waiting times for adults, I recognise that far too many people of all ages, as we have heard today, experience unacceptable delays for appropriate equipment. The covid pandemic had a significant impact on wheelchair services, from which we are still suffering in terms of supply chain disruption. That has meant that waiting times for both adults and children have fluctuated unnecessarily—well, unacceptably—as services have worked to recover. Those with more complex needs can also experience delays due to the lead-in time for supply of more bespoke equipment.

I understand that there have been complaints about the quality of services commissioned by some ICBs. Some of these are being dealt with on an individual basis by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, following escalation by individual patients. As part of its oversight of ICBs, NHS England is also gathering intelligence through regional teams to understand fully the issues being raised.

It is important that local commissioners have the discretion to decide how best to meet the needs of their local population, and we are giving systems control and flexibility over how that is done. None the less, the Government are taking action to support local systems in delivering effective wheelchair services. Although there are no plans at the moment to establish a national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, the medium-term planning framework, published in October, requires that from this year all ICBs and community health services should actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. The framework also states that in 2026-27, ICBs are required to

“increase community health service capacity”—

including wheelchair services—

“to meet growth in demand, expected to be approximately 3% nationally per year”.

[Dr Evans]

Can the Minister just clarify who he sees as responsible for the framework?

[Dr Ahmed]

Ultimately, ICBs are responsible for delivering the framework. The Government are held accountable in the manner being seen today, and I have no doubt that in the new structures that we propose there will be further accountability, because in many ways the middleman will be removed and we will have more direct oversight as to what is going on with wheelchair services and other services up and down the country.

I take the hon. Member’s point on data as well. I am the Minister responsible for data, health innovation and innovation in general, and I think this moment of restructuring, whether in relation to wheelchair services or other parts of the system, is a moment for us to really get into the 21st century with our capabilities for monitoring data for operational and capacity planning. I am very happy to share with him some of my thoughts about that over a cup of tea later, if he is interested.

The community health services situation report will be used to monitor ICB performance against waiting time targets in 2026-27. Those targets will guide systems to reduce the longest waits. In addition, the 10-year plan makes a commitment to reviewing the complaints regulations, and NHSE and the Department of Health and Social Care are developing plans to achieve that.

NHS England has developed policy, guidance and legislation to support ICBs to reduce delays and unacceptable regional variation in the quality and provision of wheelchair services. In April 2025 NHS England published the wheelchair quality framework, in collaboration with the wheelchair advisory group, which I understand includes the Wheelchair Alliance and Whizz Kidz, both of which were recognised by hon. Members in the debate today.

That framework is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that offers improved access, outcomes and experiences. The framework sets out quality standards relevant to all suppliers and aligns with the Care Quality Commission assessment framework that applies to providers, local authorities and integrated care systems. Those quality standards should be used to develop local service specifications and to benchmark current commissioning and provision.

Other measures taken by NHS England include the establishment of a national dataset on wheelchair waiting times to increase transparency and to enable targeted action if improvement is required, and the introduction of the legal right to a personal wheelchair budget in 2019. Personal wheelchair budgets provide a clear framework for ICBs to commission personalised wheelchair services that are outcomes-focused and integrated with other aspects of care.

[Dr Gardner]

I acknowledge the personal wheelchair budget, but constituents have raised with me that it does not fit the cost of wheelchairs nowadays. It does not quite match, so they sometimes have to use their own funds to get the wheelchair they need, which is not good enough.

[Dr Ahmed]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is partly a reflection of the underfunding of aspects of the NHS over the past decade and a half. As she well knows, our party supports the NHS, and we have funded it with £26 billion of additional funding. That will clearly take time to filter through to the services that require the most.

The Government are also driving forward improvements for disabled people through our wider reforms to health and social care. The recently published neighbourhood health framework aims to improve health and care outcomes, and reduce inequalities through more convenient, personalised and joined-up care. It includes a focus on improving the diagnosis and treatment of people with long-term conditions, so that they feel more in control of their care.

In July 2025, the Government announced that we will develop a new plan for disability, setting out a clear vision to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. We are making more than £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26, to support the sector and make the improvements that we all crave. We have also established the better care fund, a framework for ICBs and local authorities to make joint plans and pool budgets to deliver better, joined-up holistic care.

This financial year, ICBs and local authorities plan to spend £440 million on assistive technology and equipment such as wheelchairs. We also continue to invest in support for home adaptations to enable independent living, with £723 million confirmed for the disabled facilities grant this year. The disabled facilities grant budget across 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years, representing an 11% increase that exceeds inflation. The independent commission into adult social care, chaired by Baroness Louise Casey, is building consensus on the medium and long-term reforms required to create a social care system that is fit for the future, with the phase 1 report due this year.

I recognise the profound impact that delays in wheelchair provision are having on the quality of life of hon. Members’ constituents, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for highlighting that today. He had a number of asks of me, to which I hope I have responded. I am cognisant of the work he has done and the personal attention he gives to these matters, and I offer him a meeting with Department officials in my office to go through them in greater detail. My officials will be in touch to arrange that.

I hope that the work, reforms and modernisation I have set out address the questions he has raised. I assure hon. Members that we take this issue extremely seriously, and remain committed to improving the lives of disabled people up and down our country.

10:38

[Daniel Francis]

I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It was a great honour, though deeply disturbing, to hear of people’s lived experience as wheelchair users. To be brief, we heard good examples from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) of mobility providers, and from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) of the growing needs of users. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) about access to school. I urge all hon. Members to look at the Whizz Kidz report on that issue.

There was an interesting comment from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on all-terrain wheelchairs, which is something we looked at in a recent event across the road. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is always here for these debates. It is good to hear about the position in Northern Ireland and, in particular, about veterans’ use of wheelchairs, which also featured at that event.

We heard about AJM Healthcare from my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I accept that it is the largest provider in the market—it was the provider I was referring to in my comments—but clearly there have been issues with delays across the country. I will come back to those, and to individual ICBs’ awareness of what was going on.

I was really sorry to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) about the suitability and parts issues experienced by her constituent. I know those issues at first hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South talked about discharge delays. I would say that they are sad but, quite frankly, they are just disgraceful. I welcome the pressure to improve standards from the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who also rightly brought up the point about NRS. I have met with officials from the Department of Health and Social Care in recent months on that and the overall framework for where the responsibility lies.

To my good friend the Minister, I will say that I will continue this pressure, as will other hon. Members. I accept that what happened during covid was very difficult. I was attending wheelchair appointments during that period and it was difficult—of course, delays were caused—but we have ended up in a position where there are far more ombudsman complaints now than before covid. I will not prejudge matters, but I think the ombudsman may have something to say about this later this year. Lots of wheelchair users have ended up having to go to the ombudsman because it is a complex system. That goes back to the framework and what I said earlier. How many people out there know what their ICB is and how to go to their ICB?

The wheelchair contract where I live is about to be tendered across three London boroughs: Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich. At the moment, those three boroughs have individual providers. It looks like they will have one provider going forward. When the consultation meetings were held around the new framework and the new contract, the provider, AJM Healthcare, was asked to advertise them. Did it tell any of the users? No, it did not, because if it had, they would have come to the meetings and told their horror stories.

I found out by accident because I am the Member of Parliament, and guess what? I was the only person who attended the meeting because none of the users had been informed that it was happening. That is my concern about ICBs monitoring those contracts and being able to say what is happening. It appeared to me in that meeting that, from my experience as a parent and from talking to other parents, I knew more about the problems in the system than the people commissioning the contract within my ICB. That is why we need continued monitoring and some kind of framework.

I absolutely welcome the Minister’s comments. There has been movement, but I will continue the pressure, along with other Members, in the months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision.

10:42

Sitting suspended.

Sex Trafficking: Scotland

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

10:19

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of sex trafficking in Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am proud to support a Labour Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. However, I am always going to push for more action to be taken to end the commercial sexual exploitation that takes place every day on our streets and online.

I have raised the need for the Government and police to shut down websites that are advertising prostitution before. Why? Because there has long existed extensive evidence that online mega brothels are facilitating industrial-scale sex trafficking and sexual exploitation across the UK. Websites advertising prostitution, more accurately referred to as pimping websites, are commercial platforms dedicated solely or partly to advertising individuals for prostitution. In 2017, an inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation exposed the crucial role they play in the business model of sex trafficking to meet men’s demands for prostitution.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I wonder if my hon. Friend shares my frustration that the Scottish Government voted down Ash Regan’s unbuyable Bill, which would have outlawed paying for sex and decriminalised victims of sexual exploitation in Scotland, despite the Scottish Government saying that they supported the Bill’s principle.

[Tracy Gilbert]

I pay tribute to Ash Regan for her work and for bringing forward the unbuyable Bill. Women are not to be bought and paid for, and buying sex is not consent. The Scottish Government’s reasons for voting down the Bill were poor, and in their debate in the Scottish Parliament in February, the Minister said they had

“instructed officials to start work immediately on the establishment of a commission so that options are available for the responsible minister in the next Government.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 3 February 2026; c. 55.]

I urge that that work be undertaken as soon as the election has taken place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. This is never an easy subject to talk about, but she always illustrates things well. We have to talk about these important issues and find a way forward. Does she agree that the shocking reports into sex trafficking would break even the hardest of hearts, including mine and many of ours? Does she agree that we must give local authorities throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the ability and, importantly, the resources to break these rings and prosecute the perpetrators, while supporting the victims, whose futures unfortunately look incredibly bleak?

[Tracy Gilbert]

I wholly agree. In my Edinburgh North and Leith constituency, our local councils want to tackle some of these issues, which is very hard to do without funds. They also want to support and provide services for women who are trying to exit prostitution. I wholeheartedly agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Since the 2017 inquiry, past and present members of the APPG, along with organisations such as UK Feminista, have consistently and repeatedly called for these platforms to be closed down. Yet, time and again over the years, the response from the Government, the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has been the same: pimping websites, which they have referred to as “adult service websites”, are legal and we should continue to allow them to operate.

The Government and police have even engaged in public partnerships with these massive prostitution businesses. Freedom of information requests conducted as part of research by Kat Banyard at the University of Durham revealed that Vivastreet has been delivering training sessions to police officers. The same pimping website enjoyed what they billed as “quarterly catch-ups” with Home Office officials. The FOIs show that the Home Office gave pimping website regulators regular access to Government officials and privileged opportunities to input into policy.

To give an idea of the closeness of the relationship, after Vivastreet gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in 2023 as part of the Committee’s inquiry into human trafficking, a Home Office official reached out to it by email to say,

“the Committee did not give you an easy time – which hopefully didn’t come as too much of a surprise to you, but nonetheless it’s never a nice feeling – so I do hope that you were ok afterwards.”

I strongly support the Home Affairs Committee findings that collaboration between the Home Office, the National Crime Agency and pimping websites was

“inexplicable, particularly given the total absence of evidence that it has led to a reduction in the scale of trafficking facilitated by these websites”.

Since the inquiry, I am pleased that that collaboration with Government seems to have stopped. I am firmly of the view that Government and the police should not be collaborating with pimping websites. We should be banning those websites and using the full force of the law against them—that is the only way to keep women and girls safe.

Scotland’s law on human trafficking is different from the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I will explain how pimping websites including Vivastreet and AdultWork constitute human trafficking operations under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act (Scotland) 2015.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that while websites advertising prostitution such as Vivastreet and AdultWork constitute human trafficking operations in and of themselves in Scotland, the National Crime Agency should also be investigating these sites for facilitating organised crime in England and Wales? These websites allow single individuals to pay for multiple prostitution adverts—a practice that a KC told the Home Affairs Committee is evidence of controlling prostitution for gain, which is a criminal offence.

[Tracy Gilbert]

I wholeheartedly agree. A recent report found that commercial sexual exploitation is so linked with organised crime that it could not be further underground. All of that is linked to violence against women and girls, and our Government are working hard to challenge and solve that over the coming years.

We should be in no doubt as to the gravity of the implications: pimping websites are the largest human trafficking operation in modern UK history. Police Scotland should launch an immediate criminal investigation into the individuals running pimping websites in Scotland for human trafficking—an offence that carries a maximum life sentence. Under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act, an exploiter must fulfil three key criteria for their activities to constitute human trafficking. First, they have to “take a relevant action”. Secondly, they have to take that action

“with a view to another person being exploited.”

Thirdly, they must intend

“to exploit the other person”

or

“know or ought to know the person is likely to be exploited.”

The individuals operating and profiting from pimping websites tick every box. I will consider each criterion in turn.

First, taking a “relevant action.” The relevant actions in the Act include

“the transportation or transfer of another person”

or “the arrangement or facilitation” of it. Pimping websites openly and explicitly facilitate the transportation or transfer of individuals for prostitution. The operators of these platforms publish prostitution adverts in a standardised format, which includes specifying whether the individual being advertised will do outcalls. Vivastreet helpfully clarifies on its website in a blog targeted at individuals being prostituted that

“An outcall is where you go to the client’s location”.

In a separate blog aimed at sex buyers, it says:

“If it’s an outcall, they will also have to factor in travel and finding the meeting space.”

Vivastreet also advise those advertising on its website:

“Don’t forget to set your incall and outcall - as well as overnight fees.”

AdultWork, meanwhile, provides a function on its website explicitly facilitating what it calls “escort tours”. Sex buyers were advised to use that page to locate members offering escort services “on tour”:

“Specify your preferences and location below to see who will be visiting your area.”

Prostitution adverts published by Vivastreet and AdultWork specify whether the individual advertiser will travel to the sex buyer. Crucially, website visitors are also able to filter adverts according to whether those individuals will provide outcalls—that is, travel for prostitution—using a sorting function designed and provided by the website. That is crystal-clear facilitation of

“transportation or transfer of another person”

for prostitution. Facilitating the transportation of individuals for prostitution is built into the architecture of AdultWork and Vivastreet.

The second element of the human trafficking offence in Scotland is that the relevant action is taken

“with a view to another person being exploited”.

The crucial issue is of course what constitutes exploitation. Under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act, exploitation includes exercising

“control, direction or influence over prostitution by the person in a way which shows that the other person is aiding, abetting or compelling the prostitution.”

Pimping websites openly and explicitly aid prostitution. In 2023, a representative of Vivastreet told the Home Affairs Committee that most of its profits came from sex-trade adverts. The standardised prostitute adverts that pimping websites publish contain a long list of sex acts, with the advertiser having to indicate which acts the person advertising will perform. The adverts also feature sexualised or sexually explicit images of the person advertised, prices and a contact phone number. AdultWork and Vivastreet have not even attempted to hide the fact that they aid prostitution, presumably because—at least until now—they have assumed that they do not need to.

As far back as 2017, a judge sentencing a sex-trafficking gang that advertised victims on Vivastreet observed:

“No one, including those who make a profit from Vivastreet, could have been left in any doubt prostitution services were being offered.”

The adverts on pimping websites are not incidental to the prostitution that takes place. After sex buyers view the ads, they call the phone numbers contained in them and make arrangements for the women to travel. The adverts are indispensable to the resulting prostitution, and they are how buyers and advertisers connect and communicate.

I turn finally to the third criterion: for an activity to constitute human trafficking in Scotland, the pimping website must intend

“to exploit the other person”.

That is, they must intend to aid prostitution or know, or ought to know, that the person is likely to be exploited

“during or after the relevant action”.

As is abundantly clear from the activities that I have described, Vivastreet and AdultWork are not unwitting or accidental hosts of hundreds of thousands of prostitute adverts every day. Their knowledge and intent to aid prostitution are immediately obvious to anyone who visits their sites. Every prostitution advert is displayed in an identical format, because the website operators designed it that way, complete with a predetermined list of sex acts. The operators have intentionally designed the website to enable visitors to filter prostitution adverts according to whether the advertised individuals will do outcalls—that is, travel for the purpose of prostitution.

AdultWork, for example, provides a function that enables sex buyers to contact advertisers directly through the website’s internal messaging function. The website states:

“AdultWork.com has booking forms for escort meetings that use the prices you’ve set”.

Again, that is crystal-clear intent to aid prostitution. Pimping websites operating in Scotland constitute human trafficking operations in and of themselves. That is even before we have considered the industrial-scale trafficking by third parties advertising their victims on those platforms. It is a national scandal that the individuals operating AdultWork and Vivastreet have been allowed to operate for years with total impunity, and yet they have also been presented by Government and the National Crime Agency as partners in tackling sex trafficking.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Does my hon. Friend share my alarm at the findings of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into human trafficking in 2023, which found that the partnership working between the National Crime Agency, the Home Office and websites advertising prostitution was

“inexplicable, particularly given the total absence of evidence that it has led to a reduction in the scale of trafficking facilitated by these websites—and the flagrant facilitation of trafficking enabled by, for instance, single individuals being allowed to advertise multiple women for prostitution.”

This is abhorrent, and I want to know what my hon. Friend thinks.

[Tracy Gilbert]

I agree. While the reports have been very interesting, I fail to understand why that collaboration was ever allowed to take place. It would seem from all the evidence that collaborating with those pimping websites has not saved one woman from domestic abuse or the violence they have faced. So I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

As the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh North and Leith—a constituency in which AdultWork and Vivastreet aid prostitution—I have a duty to speak out. Today alone, there are 123 women being advertised for prostitution in Edinburgh on Vivastreet, and 132 women on AdultWork. Across Scotland, the total numbers are 776 and 816—that is in a single day.

I have reported this crime today to the chief constable of Police Scotland. As I have outlined here and detailed in writing, there is substantial evidence in the public domain that individuals operating pimping websites are perpetrating human trafficking in Scotland on an unprecedented scale, and that that has been the case since the introduction of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. I am also aware that the charitable organisation UK Feminista has contacted Police Scotland on this matter. I believe that the seriousness and scale of these activities warrants an immediate criminal investigation.

Finally, my ask to Ministers in Westminster is this: shut down pimping websites now. They are directly perpetrating human trafficking in Scotland and across the UK and are facilitating industrial-scale sex trafficking. If the law as it stands allows them to operate in England and Wales, we should change it. These websites are crime scenes. Shut them down now, hold their operators accountable and, most importantly, let their victims finally access justice.

11:17

[Government Assistant Whip (Gregor Poynton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for securing this debate. The depth of her knowledge and the passion with which she spoke was obvious to all of us and has been obvious since the first day that she arrived in this place. I know that she will continue to advocate and campaign on these really important issues. I am deeply grateful to everyone who continues to advocate and campaign for action to tackle sexual exploitation, for better support for victims and survivors to recover, and for perpetrators to be brought to justice.

Before I respond to some specific points, it is worth outlining some key facts about this area. First, sexual exploitation can take different forms, which often overlap. For too long, women and vulnerable people have been trapped within sexual exploitation under the guise of prostitution. The daily abuse they suffer is truly horrific, and that people are profiting from this exploitation is sickening. Any individual who wants to leave prostitution or has been sexually exploited must be given opportunities to find routes out and recover.

To tackle a problem, we must first understand its prevalence. The nature of prostitution makes it difficult to accurately estimate the numbers in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales. In 2019, the Home Office published research by the University of Bristol, which found that it is not possible to produce a single estimate for the numbers of people engaged in prostitution in England and Wales. However, it assessed a number of existing estimates made over the preceding 25 years, which ranged from 35,882 to 104,964 people in prostitution—a truly terrible number.

We know that potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation make up a large proportion of referrals to the national referral mechanism—the framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery to appropriate support. The most recent statistics show that in 2025 across the UK, sexual exploitation accounted for 3,607, or 15% of all referrals. Of those who were sexually exploited, the majority—80%—were female. In Scotland in 2025, there were 144 referrals to the national referral mechanism where sexual exploitation was reported as at least one exploitation type, compared with 135 in 2024.

Of course, prostitution and human trafficking offences are complex and multifaceted crimes often linked to other offending, and people are often victims of multiple abuses. The legislation regarding prostitution and human trafficking is largely devolved in Scotland. That is why the UK Government work closely with counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as with law enforcement partners across the UK. The UK Government are aware that, in March, the Scottish Government established an independent commission to explore how to safely and effectively criminalise the purchase of sex. We will follow the progress of that commission closely as we undertake our own review of prostitution laws in Wales in England—a commitment in our violence against women and girls strategy that remains firm and steadfast.

We must go further to prevent sexual exploitation by supporting law enforcement to identify and prosecute offenders and disrupt sexual exploitation facilitated by online platforms. To address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and covered my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, under the previous Government, officials met organisations that provide adult service websites. However, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, under this Government, officials and Ministers have not met with those online service providers.

My hon. Friend covered adult service websites in great depth. As Members are aware, the online space is a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and our response must reflect that. We must also acknowledge that individuals selling sex have increasingly turned to technology to try to manage their safety, as the University of Bristol found in its research on prostitution in England and Wales. It is important that we try to understand the unintended consequences for the safety of those in prostitution of removing an option that helps them to manage their safety. However, online platforms must be responsible and held accountable for the content on their websites, including platforms taking proactive steps to prevent their sites from being used by criminals.

We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out priority offences including sexual exploitation and human trafficking. Online platforms now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services. As of 17 March 2025, online platforms need to take safety measures to protect users from illegal content, such as those set out in Ofcom’s code of practice, or face significant penalties. Ofcom has already started to investigate adult sexual websites for matters such as non-compliance with the Online Safety Act’s risk assessment duties or not adopting highly effective age assurance measures. In addition, our law enforcement partners are working closely with Ofcom specifically on the issue of adult services websites to help ensure that the right measures are being put in place to identify and remove illegal content and safeguard people from sexual exploitation.

Furthermore, in 2025 the Home Office provided £450,000 to the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for prostitution in England and Wales to pilot a national intelligence hub using information from adult services websites. During the pilot phase, the hub identified serial and serious offenders previously unknown or partially known to the police, leading to four arrests, safeguarding actions and other risk mitigations.

The UK Government are further supporting law enforcement to tackle the drivers of online trafficking for sexual exploitation through operational activity aimed at tackling modern slavery threats and targeting prolific offenders. The UK Government will continue to keep policies to tackle online enablers of sexual exploitation under review. We want to ensure that online companies fulfil their duties to eradicate exploitation from their sites, and we will take further action to achieve that if necessary.

I turn to the broader picture of disrupting trafficking for sexual exploitation, which was covered in my hon. Friend’s speech. Tackling the trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is important because it is a truly horrific crime. We are determined to safeguard victims and bring the ruthless perpetrators of this crime to justice. Although policing is devolved in Scotland, this means we must ensure that police across the UK are relentlessly pursuing those perpetrators who pose the greatest risk to women and girls, and other vulnerable people, and that we are using all the tools at our disposal to protect victims and get dangerous perpetrators off the streets.

We have been working closely with law enforcement to ensure that they have the necessary tools and training to tackle exploitation. For example, the Home Office-funded modern slavery and organised immigration crime programme, delivered by the National Police Chiefs’ Council leads, has developed a new framework for investigating modern slavery, including a suite of products to guide forces in identifying and tackling sexual exploitation. This provides a nationally consistent investigative framework that will help to sustain progress and support forces in delivering a strong, evidence-based response to modern slavery. It will further equip officers with practical tools for navigating modern slavery crimes and fill critical gaps in frontline knowledge to drive performance and support greater accountability.

We know that human trafficking often crosses borders and takes many forms, including sexual exploitation. That is why we are also working closely with international partners to disrupt those networks. We have agreed bilateral frameworks with key partner countries to strengthen co-operation, prevent exploitation and support victims. For example, the Home Office has agreed joint action plans with Romania and Vietnam, committing us to closer law enforcement co-operation, the disruption of trafficking networks and improved support for victims, including some returning to their own countries.

I will wrap up by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for securing the debate and all those who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). For too long, women and vulnerable people have been trapped within sexual exploitation under the guise of prostitution. This Government will not stand for it. These are complex and challenging issues, but we must be unrelenting in seeking to address them. The most vulnerable in our society demand this of us.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

14:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I am glad to be introducing this incredibly important debate, which I have personally secured. It is particularly timely because, right now, Brontë country—a delicate mosaic of precious peatland and an historic heritage landscape, straddling Haworth and Stanbury in the Worth valley in my constituency across to Hebden Bridge in the Calder valley—is under threat like never before. There is a proposal for a huge wind farm development, and I will spend my time in this debate stating exactly why we should oppose the disastrous scheme.

Before I begin, I put on record my thanks to the various local campaign groups that have been working tirelessly to oppose the Calderdale wind farm and get the proposals scrapped. There are too many to mention, but I particularly thank Lydia and Nick MacKinnon and Jenny Shepherd.

Today happens to be the 110-year anniversary of the birth of Charlotte Brontë, author of several books and poems, most notably Jane Eyre. The works of Charlotte and her sisters, Emily and Anne, are world famous, as is the iconic moorland that inspired many of their stories. If approved, the Calderdale wind farm would see up to 34 200-metre-high wind turbines erected across Brontë country.

This moorland is not just a site of famous literary heritage; it is also the site of irreplaceable protected peatland. I have been firmly against these proposals ever since they were first brought forward in 2023, and I have been inundated with correspondence from my constituents and local campaign groups who agree that this scheme will be hugely detrimental to our heritage landscape and our precious protected peatland.

Before today’s debate, I wrote to the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for Shipley (Anna Dixon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), inviting them to speak in today’s debate, so that we could work on a cross-party basis to strongly oppose these development proposals. Like me, I am sure that they have been inundated with correspondence from constituents concerned about these proposals, so it is disappointing not to see all of them here today.

Before I outline in more detail my concerns about the Calderdale wind farm proposals, I want to be very clear that I am not against wind farm developments or renewable energy schemes. However, I am absolutely against wind farms being developed where they will have a huge impact on the environment, ecology, wildlife, heritage, flooding risk and the very carbon sequestration ability of our peat, which will be hugely negatively impacted.

It is with peat—and its carbon storage ability being severely impacted—that I will start. The peat in the south Pennine moors is generally considered to be around 9,000 years old; the mosaic of blanket bogs began forming thousands of years ago from sphagnum moss. For centuries, the peat has been absorbing the carbon emissions from the mills of our industrial past, our transport and our everyday modern life.

Peat is delicate and grows just a millimetre a year if we are lucky, and only when subject to a limited range of favourable environmental and climate conditions. The proposals of the Calderdale wind farm could cover approximately 2,300 hectares of protected peatland above Hebden Bridge and Haworth, and the impacts of disturbing such precious peatland will have disastrous consequences on the local area and beyond.

Peatland is a natural store of carbon, capturing and storing 26 times as much carbon as our forests in the UK. Almost all our UK peatlands have at least some blanket bog, with UK uplands containing around 15% of the blanket bog in the world. The Walshaw moor alone is made up of approximately 16,000 acres of it. Healthy peatlands will absorb and store carbon, and build carbon into the peat. However, if peatlands are damaged, which is unavoidable with huge infrastructure projects such as wind farms, it can release carbon back into the atmosphere, dramatically increasing carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of infrastructure required for the Calderdale wind farm is huge. It includes the foundations associated with each turbine, the complex road network that needs to be built across the peat so that each turbine can be fixed in place, the expansive base areas next to each turbine, the vast cabling routes that need to be buried underneath the peat, the man-made drainage cut-outs that need to be installed, the sub-stations, the weather monitoring and the fencing—I could go on. All of that will have a deeply damaging impact on our protected peatland.

As with any major infrastructure project, access routes will need to be created to the turbine sites, and those service roads will cut across blanket bog and seriously impact landscape hydrology. Long-established estate roads in uplands tend to avoid peatland because of the maintenance challenges, but wind farm roads simply cannot do that; they are constrained by the requirements of the turbine layout and the moorland topography. That is not just a short-term problem; once constructed, a wind farm road becomes a permanent feature of the landscape. Peat subsidence will continue indefinitely because of the need for our roads to be kept constantly dry and because of compression from the weight of roadway material. A very real example of that is the A5, which was built across peatland on the Welsh border nearly 300 years ago but continues to subside today.

I know that the developers and those supporting the Calderdale wind farm proposals like to say that the benefits of producing renewable energy outweigh the carbon loss caused by the development, but the justifications they have offered have been extremely poor. In fact, Professor Richard Lindsay, a world-leading expert on peatland ecosystems, who I spoke to just last week, has described those making this argument as

“clinging to the carbon calculator as a drowning man clings to a life belt”.

By that, he means that the system of measuring carbon storage impact is not fit for purpose. It simply does not consider all the influencing factors, or indeed the cumulative impact of onshore wind farm developments, the vast majority of which are north of the border in Scotland and in Wales.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and rightly highlighting the concerns about these developments. In my constituency in the Borders, we have wind farms, battery storage proposals and solar farms. As my hon. Friend said, developers talk at length about the supposed environmental benefits, but that is no more than greenwashing, because the wider negative impact these developments will have on the local environment where these developments are taking place is far greater than any benefit that might come from the developments proceeding.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes an excellent point: the developers have failed to ascertain that the positives of the project outweigh its negative impacts, including the impact on the ability of the peatland to sequester and store carbon. That is before even considering all the negative impacts on highways, the impacts of the infrastructure that has to be developed and the impact on local communities. The renewable energy scheme will be incredibly detrimental; the peatland will hold more carbon. That is why I am firmly opposed to the development.

Another huge risk with the development of wind farms on sites of protected peatland such as Walshaw moor is the impact on both water quality and flooding. Peatland is 95% to 98% water—it has the same percentage of solid content as a jellyfish. Disturbing it through the construction of wind turbines on Walshaw moor will increase flood risk and damage water quality in Calder Valley towns and surrounding communities. Studies have shown that putting any kind of hard infrastructure on peatland has a direct negative impact on how peat interacts with itself; it prevents peat bogs from absorbing rainwater, which ultimately increases flood risk downstream and increases the likelihood of serious slipping incidents.

Peatland also plays a key role in regulating water quality. Around 72% of the UK’s reservoirs are fed from peat, and over 28 million people consume water from peaty catchments. Degradation and disturbance of peat is often accompanied by increases in dissolved and particulate organic carbon loads, which increases the treatment costs required to make water drinkable.

Another additional environmental risk associated with the Calderdale wind farm proposal is the risk to local wildlife. Walshaw moor is home to a number of protected bird species, including the lapwing, golden plover, merlin, short-eared owl and the curlew—today, in fact, is World Curlew Day. Those species use Walshaw moor as breeding grounds, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have warned that disturbing such populations with the installation of wind turbines will significantly damage overall numbers of the birds.

I return to the specifics of the Calderdale wind farm’s impact on local heritage and culture. Rebecca Yorke and her team at the Brontë Society, who look after the Brontë parsonage in Haworth in my constituency, do incredible work. Understandably, our much-loved Brontë Society is firmly against the proposed wind farm development across our heritage landscape, which encompasses Top Withens, believed to be the inspiration for the setting of “Wuthering Heights”. That landscape, I might add, has a live application worked up right now for UNESCO world heritage status, along with listed status for Top Withens. All that has widespread community support.

Our literary landscape offering to the world, which inspired the Brontës’ imaginations in their renowned novels and poetry, is under threat. If this wind farm proposal goes ahead, that landscape will be blighted forever. We know that because, even after the decommissioning stage of the wind farm, none of the infrastructure is proposed to be removed, apart from the turbines themselves. The road infrastructure, all that cabling and those deep foundations that sit beneath the turbines are not proposed to be removed once the wind farm comes to the end of its life, blighting our heritage landscape and the peat forever.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that with nuclear power stations, for example, decommissioning costs are built into the cost-benefit analysis of any such projects, and yet that is not the case when wind farms are built in environmentally sensitive areas?

[Robbie Moore]

The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right, because the decommissioning costs are not necessarily built into what the impact will be on our environment, our protected peat or our wildlife. I know that because the developers themselves say that once the site finishes its usage, parts of the development will not be removed—such as the piles, the infrastructure for the road, the foundations—but simply remain in situ.

Worse than that, however, should an additional wind farm come down the line, it will use the infrastructure that is already in place, but is likely to have to be expanded. A further real live concern is because when the application came before us, the initial proposal was for 65 wind turbines, although that has been reduced to 35 wind turbines now. That creates the real worry of it potentially being only phase 1 of a much bigger wind farm coming down the line. Therefore, once the precedent is set of an application being approved by the Government —it will be the Secretary of State who determines it—stage 2 will therefore come down the line. That deeply worries me.

I am grateful that, last week, I had the opportunity to speak with peat experts, Dr Andreas Heinemeyer, Professor Richard Lindsay, Dr Emma Hinchcliffe and Jessica Fìor-Berry, all of whom pointed to the complete lack of research and evidence about the impact of wind farm development on protected peatland. I therefore ask the Labour Government why the Minister is in favour of pushing through development on protected peatland such as Walshaw moor despite the hugely damaging impacts I have outlined in this speech.

The proposals for the Calderdale wind farm demonstrate a glaringly obvious hypocrisy that this Government show when it comes to protecting our protected, precious peatland. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to expanding nature-rich habitats such as peatlands. The Minister for Nature herself has repeatedly called our peatlands “this country’s Amazon rainforest”, so why do the Labour Government continue to support completely destroying them—when other options are available—given the scale of this development?

The development is being considered a nationally significant infrastructure project, so it will be the Secretary of State who determines the application. I ask the Minister, however, why have this Government permitted the developer to undertake its statutory consultation right now, during a period when the two local councils, Bradford council and Calderdale council, are in the middle of all-out local elections and cannot comment because of purdah? Will the Minister seek to extend the statutory consultation period, as I have requested of the Secretary of State? I ask all watching this debate who agree that this development will be catastrophic to participate in the consultation, which is open right now.

For the reasons I have set out, I am clear that this wind farm development must not be approved. My fellow Worth Valley Conservative councillors do not want it, my constituents do not want it, world-leading peat experts do not want it and I suspect the Nature Minister does not want it either, so why is the Minister enabling this proposal to continue under this Labour Government? What I am less clear on is the positions of my neighbouring Members of Parliament: the hon. Members for Halifax, for Shipley, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley. I urge them to join me in opposing this disastrous scheme.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

As the Member for Shipley and a neighbouring constituent, I want to make those listening aware that we have attended the debate and will shortly be giving our views on the proposals, as the hon. Member invited us to do, for which I thank him.

[Robbie Moore]

Perfect intervention there, but we have had an intervention from only one of the five neighbouring Labour Members of Parliament I invited to this debate, of which only two turned up. I wrote to all those Members of Parliament—crikey, it must have been about seven months ago—inviting them to join me in a cross-party consensus so that we could join forces in opposing this scheme. Despite the hon. Member for Shipley’s intervention, I am yet to hear that she is opposed to this scheme. I invite her, and the hon. Members for Halifax, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley, to join me in opposing this scheme.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. May I confirm that the hon. Member has informed the Members he mentioned that he was going to mention them in this debate?

[Robbie Moore]

Sir Alec, not only did I inform them today to remind them to come to this debate, I wrote to them last week inviting them to come to this debate and I wrote to them maybe six months ago asking them to join me. They are well aware that this debate is taking place. It is very disappointing that they did not turn up to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents.

Renewable energy could be an essential part of our future, but not like this—not here, and not at the cost of everything the Brontë country represents. This scheme must be stopped.

14:47

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the invitation to join him in Westminster Hall today. It is always a pleasure for me to talk about the fantastic peatlands and moors in my wonderful constituency.

As we have heard, peatlands occupy about 12% of the UK land area, including many areas in my constituency: Baildon moor, Harden moor and parts of Rombalds moor. We have some wonderful upland landscapes. I recently walked up to Top Withens, which has been mentioned and has a precious place as the inspiration for “Wuthering Heights”. I took some American guests, who were very inspired by the cultural heritage in the Bradford district, which we all so enjoyed celebrating in 2025 when Bradford hosted the city of culture. I was excited to hear the first curlew of spring, one of the pleasures of walking in the upland moors, and see the lapwings doing their amazingly flamboyant mating dance.

As the hon. Member has rightly highlighted, peatlands are crucial in our fight against climate change. They store a whopping 3.2 billion tonnes of CO₂. They also reduce flood risk—something that particularly impacted constituents during the Boxing day floods over a decade ago—and support biodiversity. The Labour Government are acting to stop the decline in nature depletion.

However, as we have heard, both here in the UK and around the world our peatlands have been degraded and, according to the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, are now estimated to be a net source of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Stopping their degradation must be a really big priority. That is why I welcome steps that Bradford council has taken to scale up peatland restoration on the district’s moorlands. In 2023, some £200,000 of additional funding was committed to rewet areas of the moorland. If someone goes to walk there, they can see blocked drainage ditches and things called leaky dams, which slow the flow of water.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. She is absolutely right that the Government are committed to helping with the rewilding and restoration of our peatland. It is probably worth noting that that is done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was a DEFRA Minister for years, so it is somewhat of a surprise that he is a new convert to the environment.

[Anna Dixon]

These investments are critical, and it is pleasing that the Labour Government are taking nature actions so seriously. In addition to those I mentioned, there is also the planting of sphagnum moss—which is quite tricky to pronounce.

Bradford has recently published its climate action plan 2025-28, which outlines its comprehensive approach to working towards a low-carbon future. I also welcome steps taken by the Government at a national level with the environmental improvement plan, which was published just a few months ago. It says that we will—

“Restore approximately 280,000ha of peatland in England by 2050”.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member seems to be dancing around the edges. This debate is on the matter of

“windfarm development on protected peatland”

but she has not mentioned anything to do with wind farms yet. I am keen to understand whether she is for or against the Calderdale wind farm.

[Anna Dixon]

I am just coming to that part of my speech. I will first turn to wind farms, and then I will come specifically to my views on the Calderdale wind farm, which lies largely outside of my constituency.

As well as restoring peatlands, which I have dwelled on in the first part of my speech, another key aspect of the comprehensive climate plan is ensuring that we invest in renewable energy. I am proud that this Government have pledged to make the UK a clean energy superpower, and as part of that have set up Great British Energy to produce cheaper and cleaner power for our country.

I will briefly make a political point, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also did, to remind him that his party ended a lot of the support for solar power and blocked the expansion of onshore wind. In its dying days, it seemed to attempt to create some sort of green wedge between the parties, and broke what had been a long-held consensus among at least the main political parties that we needed to tackle climate change. What I have heard from him—I will give my position shortly—is that he is opposed to the development, but he has pledged his support for clean energy, which seems at odds with some Members of his party.

I shall now discuss Calderdale wind farm. I would not say it was the most overwhelming issue in my postbag, but 22 constituents have contacted me about the proposals. They rightly believe that protected peatland should be protected. I agree with them, and I think that the Labour Government, and I hope the Minister, will give the same assurance. I believe that is why there has been a recent announcement that large infrastructure must also be covered by a biodiversity net gain. I hope the Minister will explain how that would apply to this particular project, if it were to go ahead, and how we would ensure that the peat was protected.

I urge the Government to listen to the arguments made in this debate. There could clearly be major negative impacts on our precious peatlands in this area of Yorkshire, and I ask that the Government look carefully and reconsider the proposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley that it would be beneficial to extend the statutory period of consultation to allow all significant organisations that wish to feed into it to have their say. I support—as I know the Labour Government do—the protection of our special peatlands. We must tackle climate crisis, but at a local level we must balance our need to drive forward clean energy with the detrimental potential impact.

[John Lamont]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Anna Dixon]

I will give way briefly; I was about to finish.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful. As I said earlier in my short comments, in my constituency I am inundated with wind farms, solar farms, battery storage and data centres. I now formally object to each of them. Previously, in my life as an MSP and an MP, I did not formally object to such applications, but the situation has gone so far and the environment has been damaged so much that I now do so. Will the hon. Lady formally object, on the council’s website, to Calderdale wind farm?

[Anna Dixon]

I am a fairly new MP, having come in in 2024. I think that the general advice given to MPs, as to the hon. Member previously, is not to get involved in formal objections. That is the approach that I have generally taken, but I have expressed views on other planning decisions in the local area, including on some of the battery energy storage facilities. I have had significant concerns about their proximity to residential areas, not least in relation to the facility in Cullingworth. I have expressed those concerns to the Minister. The proposed location of Calderdale wind farm obviously lies outside of my constituency. I have given an impression of the number of constituents who have contacted me. I will encourage them to lodge their formal consultation responses. I reserve my right to consider whether I make a formal objection to that specific proposal.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not intend to put a time limit on, but hon. Members can see who is standing to request to speak. I ask them to be mindful that I will call the first Front-Bench contribution at 3.28 pm.

14:27

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this vital debate. I share many of his concerns. Mid-Wales faces a wave of wind farm proposals on a scale that would transform the landscapes that make mid-Wales so incredibly special. From Gilwern hill near Llandrindod Wells to Nant Mithil in the Radnor forest, Banc y Celyn, Garreg Fawr and Aberedw, our communities are being asked to absorb huge energy developments across some of the most unspoilt and environmentally sensitive parts of Wales.

Clearly we need clean energy. We need renewable energy and there are huge possibilities across Wales. Sir Alec, I know that you are a keen engineer and that you will be interested in the opportunities to develop tidal energy in Wales, and the bountiful opportunities to develop our offshore wind capabilities. However, destroying one of our most important natural climate defences in the process of developing onshore wind is reckless and irresponsible. That is the contradiction at the heart of wind farm development on peatland. Peatlands are not wasteland. They are among our most valuable ecosystems. They store carbon, regulate water and support biodiversity. When damaged they can release the very emissions that we are supposed to be preventing.

We already have evidence that such warnings are being brushed aside in Wales. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales—the Welsh countryside charity —uncovered internal Welsh Government documents that show there is serious ecological damage at existing wind farm sites. Peat soils are being excavated, dumped and

“left to oxidise, erode and degrade.”

Officials warned that further damage would occur, and that further public money would be needed to put that right. Despite all that, the Welsh Labour Government still approve projects such as the Garn Fach development in the north of Powys, on vital peatland that serves the catchment area of the River Severn—an area that we know is already vulnerable to causing severe flooding downstream. That decision sent a deeply worrying message: that promises to protect peatland can be overridden when it becomes politically convenient to do so.

When we look at the sites now proposed, the stakes become even clearer. Take Gilwern hill. Its open moorland is crossed by ancient drovers’ routes. It is home to species such as the curlew, the skylark and the red kite, and it is rich in archaeology. One of the specialities of Powys is the reintroduction and preservation of endangered birds. We have bronze age cairns and iron age hillforts that face not only turbines but access tracks, as previously mentioned, up to 100 metres wide cutting across the landscape.

At Nant Mithil, we have more than 4,500 acres of the Radnor forest, where the Welsh dragon supposedly lives—[Laughter.] Take my word for it; it is too dangerous. That landscape includes a special area of conservation linked to the River Wye, sites of special scientific interest and a network of public rights of way used by walkers and local communities. Around 80% of the site lies outside the Welsh Government’s own designated areas for wind development and yet they are threatening to allow Bute Energy to destroy it.

It is at sites such as Banc y Celyn and Garreg Fawr that the myth of low ecological value land is most clearly exposed. Those are not degraded or expendable landscapes; they are some of the last remaining habitats of their kind. Those ecosystems survive precisely because they have not been intensively managed. They have avoided the fertilisers and pesticides that have wiped out similar habitats across much of Europe. They support fragile and irreplaceable biodiversity, from waxcaps to breeding populations of curlew, skylark, cuckoo and raptor, as well as protected mammals such as the brown hare.

That is the crucial point: those habitats cannot simply be recreated somewhere else. They exist because of centuries of minimal human intervention. Once they are developed, they are lost for ever. In a global context, Wales is one of the last refuges for these species. We are told these are exceptional cases but when one exception follows another, people are right to ask whether any peatland or any sensitive habitat in Wales is truly safe. That matters not just for wildlife and landscapes but for the credibility of Welsh climate policy. How can Ministers talk about biodiversity targets while approving developments that official briefings warn could negate years of restoration work?

Wales needs a renewables strategy that commands public consent, protects irreplaceable habitats and recognises that not every hectare of land is suitable for industrial development. Otherwise, the Welsh Government risk undermining the very environmental goals they claim to champion. As I am sure we all agree, once those landscapes are gone, they are not coming back.

15:02

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I wish hon. Members a happy World Curlew Day--tan, small, slender, often up to its knees in muck and at the risk of extinction in West Yorkshire--I also congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing the debate.

This debate, much like my constituency, comes under the shadow of plans to build England’s largest wind farm on protected peatland on Walshaw moor. I believe it is a uniquely beautiful landscape, resplendent with curlews, lapwings and other moorland birds. As a fell runner, I love that environment, which is one of the most special places on earth. From Top Withens to the open moorland, I am proud to have one of the most beautiful constituencies.

Its beauty and the curlews, however, are not in and of themselves a reason to block the development of any renewable energy project. I subscribe to the view that we face a climate and nature emergency. Climate change is real and man-made. Our energy use makes it vital to ramp up the building of green energy infrastructure for the future as quickly as possible. For that reason, there would have to be clear and compelling evidence for me to question the development of a wind farm or any other renewable energy project.

We must follow the science, however. The more we learn about peat and its role in absorbing carbon, the clearer it is that building on peat will do more harm than good. Peatland covers just 3% of the world’s land surface but stores around 30% of its soil carbon. Disturbing peat by building wind farms risks releasing that stored carbon, likely cancelling the carbon saved through wind farms, particularly bearing in mind that these wind turbines have just a 25-year lifespan.

Research by the University of Aberdeen, referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, suggests that developers should avoid building wind farms on peatland altogether. In response, the Scottish Government have tightened their policy in that area. In England, those considerations are not applied consistently, but that needs to be reformed and brought into line.

As I have said in multiple representations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the fundamental problem that we face is, unsurprisingly, one of joined-up Government. Too frequently under the last Government, the environment and climate change were treated as an afterthought and not as central to the business of Government.

Just last month, the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the lack of joined-up thinking between DEFRA and DESNZ, and the proposal that we are discussing is a clear example. On the one hand, DEFRA has committed £85 million to restoring and managing peatlands, preserving our environment and offsetting our carbon emissions. On the other hand, if DESNZ signs off projects like this, it will damage those peatlands without the same scrutiny as other developments, so we have to take a step back and assess whether it is truly the right course of action. Our Government’s revised national planning policy framework argues against developments that involve peat extraction, but that is contradicted if we continue to develop these projects. Although it is not okay for someone to dig up a bit of peat to put on their garden, it is okay to displace 8,000 cubic metres of peat to build a wind turbine.

Calderdale energy park represents a risk to a moor where in places the peat is more than 2 metres deep, according to Natural England’s peat map. As a fell runner, I can attest to that, because I have fallen into some of those peat bogs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, put it starkly:

“Our peatlands are this country’s Amazon Rainforest and in desperate need of restoration and protection”.

She is absolutely right—more so, in fact, because peatland stores 30 times more carbon per hectare than the rainforest. Let us be clear: we would join in the international opprobrium if the Brazilian Government were to fell trees in the Amazon to install solar panels in the hope of securing carbon credits. We should apply the same seriousness to the protection of one of our most carbon-rich landscapes.

[Robbie Moore]

I know that on 30 March the hon. Member wrote to the Secretary of State asking for clarity on the guidance associated with the national policy statement for renewable energy infrastructure, EN-3, and its relationship with peatlands. I hear him speak about the importance of protecting peat, but I am less certain about what his position is on the Calderdale wind farm. Is he for or against the development of the Calderdale wind farm in his constituency?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I think my position is fairly clear from what I am saying, but my point—this is the very clear thing—is not about a development in Calderdale, but about the principle of trying to tackle climate change and looking at that in the round with regard to developments on peat and whether any developments on peat make sense. I am more interested in the broad principle. I was never going to look for an outcome and find evidence to support it. I followed the evidence where it led me, and it led me to the concerns that I have expressed to Ministers fairly constantly, to the point where I have made clear my view that building on protected peat is counterproductive to our climate change aims.

In all seriousness, I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate, because many Members across the House appreciate the need for a green energy revolution and agree that we have to move at speed to respond to the scale of the climate crisis. I recognise the urgency to meet net zero, but we have to get it right. We have to accept that green energy that comes at the cost of our environment is not in fact green, and we must be clear that projects that will dig up peat are wrong, even if that is for homes or wind turbines. I urge Ministers to make clear our position on this and how we are looking at that, so we can come to a position that does not undermine what we are trying to do overall in our climate aims.

15:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his clear passion on this matter and for reaching out to all the political parties to try to engage them and bring them together in the way he always does through his politics in this place. I do hope he is successful in that; perhaps we have yet to find out whether that will be the case.

I rise to speak on a matter that touches the very heart of the Northern Irish landscape. From the Sperrins to the Fermanagh lakelands, our peatlands are not just scenic backdrops but our greatest natural asset in the fight for good environmental space and to be good stewards of our land. We are given the task to look after what we have today; we are indeed the custodians for those who come after. What we do will have an impact on our children, grandchildren and generations to come.

Peat removal has taken place over many years. At the turn of the 19th century in Northern Ireland, peat was the heat source for many cottages and houses, but in the last 60 years, there has been a change and a different focus. I adhere to and support what the hon. Member puts forward in relation to wind farm development on protected peatland. In Northern Ireland, we are currently working towards an ambitious goal of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2030. We understand that this is a mammoth task, one that the Northern Ireland Assembly recently debated. Regardless of where the target is set, we need renewable energy and a sensible way forward.

There is a balance. We have to restore and hold on to the peatland—that is important. I refer Members to early-day motion 3168 on World Curlew Day tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff); if they look at the wording of it, they will see the importance of retaining that habitat. The peatlands are a breeding location for curlew, lapwing and snipe, critically important for their survival into the future. Wind farms, by their very nature, have the potential to kill many of the birds that fly. That happens to birds of prey, curlew and others when they are high in the sky—I am ever mindful that wind farms are tall.

I know my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will refer to Glenwherry grouse moor in his constituency; it is a shooting moor, but it is also a peatland moor. I am very keen and interested in shooting; I know the gamekeeper there and the project that has been going on over Glenwherry for years. There were once no grouse there, and a magnificent project, in partnership with the landowner, gamekeeper and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, has ensured that Glenwherry is now a workable and harvestable grouse moor. That has happened because they have retained the peatlands and made the habitat suitable for all the bird life that is there—not just the grouse, but the curlew, lapwing, snipe and others.

We must recognise, however, that 86% of our peatlands are currently degraded. When we build turbines on these sites we risk further damaging our soil carbon pool, which accounts for 53% of all carbon stored in Northern Ireland’s soil. We support what the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is trying to achieve, because we understand the importance of ensuring that these things do not happen. We cannot afford to save the planet by destroying the very ecosystems that naturally sequester its carbon.

Under the Northern Ireland peatland strategy to 2040, we have committed to restoring all semi-natural peatlands to functioning ecosystems, and that needs to be replicated throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member referred to the importance of ecosystems in his introduction, and I reiterate that and support it. We must find a balanced path that prioritises degraded industrial peat sites for energy development, rather than un-degraded, healthy blanket bogs, and that integrates restoration funding into wind farm projects. That will ensure that developers do not just build but actively help re-wet and recover the surrounding land.

When we talk about the peatlands, we talk about their importance: they are historically and environmentally important, and we must do our best to ensure that developers do not have the upper hand when it comes to stretching out and taking over what we have responsibility for. Let us ensure that our wind farms are built in the right places, for the right reasons and with the utmost respect for the carbon vaults beneath our feat in the peatlands. We take a stand for those peatlands today.

15:14

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who secured this debate, is probably surprised to have more response from Northern Ireland MPs than from those representing the constituencies surrounding his own, and he may wonder why that is the case. However, this problem is not specific to one area; it extends right across the United Kingdom. This problem will also only increase, exacerbating an issue that the Government have already accepted, that 80% of our peatlands have been either degraded or badly damaged, the impact of which has been outlined by other speakers.

The window of my house’s study looks on to the upper parts of the Antrim plateau, and it is almost like looking at an army of triffids marching across and destroying the peatlands. I have stood on the site of the most recent wind farm to be built close to my home, and the trenches created by the removal of peat would reach above a person’s shoulder, so there had obviously been a huge displacement of material.

I believe this problem will only increase because the Government, in their pursuit of net zero, have now proposed another 27 onshore wind farms across the United Kingdom, and they are giving incentives. Despite our being told that the price of wind power is going down, it actually went up in the last auction. Of course, wind farms are most suited to a certain type of upland, and it is very attractive to put them there. There is good wind, and the land itself is probably not all that valuable to farmers because it has quite a low agricultural value. Therefore, there is an economic incentive for farmers to allow, encourage and accept the locating of multiple wind turbines on such land. This problem has been caused, first, by Government policy, and secondly, by the kind of areas we are talking about and their suitability for these kinds of developments.

We have already heard about the value of peatlands, especially in upland areas. We have heard about the impact on drainage, wildlife, river systems and—this will be more important to others than to me—the release and storage of carbon dioxide. I take a different view from many others on the causes of climate change. It happens, but for multiple reasons, so we cannot identify only one cause.

The irony is that those who believe that the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is important are the very people who now encourage activities that release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. As has been pointed out, we cannot have wind farms on peatland areas without causing significant disruption through the digging of holes to put in huge amounts of concrete—the making of which also generates a lot of CO₂—the putting in of roads and the disruption to drainage. There is even the fact that the power must be taken through electricity cables that run across landscapes. All those things unavoidably lead to the release of CO₂, which is the very thing we are told that net zero policy is essential to prevent.

[Robbie Moore]

The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Another key challenge in building the turbines is the infrastructure, because a huge amount of aggregate to facilitate the piling of the foundations and road infrastructure must be brought in from elsewhere, which could be a long distance away. That is exactly the challenge we are finding at the Calderdale wind farm, where aggregate will have to be brought from miles away—nowhere near the actual proposal. Does the right hon. Member agree that this demonstrates why it is so ludicrous to have wind farm developments on protected peatland in areas that are not suitable?

[Sammy Wilson]

These are all issues that should be taken up during the planning process, and I am not sure that happens. When I have objected to wind farm applications in Northern Ireland, the answer has been, “This is a way of producing clean energy.” I do not even accept that argument. It is not clean, in the way in which the landscape has to be disrupted. Most of the steel for wind turbines is produced outside the country, from sources that produce it in less clean ways than we do. Anyone who has taken any interest in the matter will be appalled at the environmental and human degradation caused by extracting the rare earth metals required for these wind turbines.

We are currently spending huge amounts of money on a huge new electricity infrastructure because, instead of bringing power from one station, we are bringing it from stations spread all over the countryside, hence the investment in the infrastructure, which individuals are paying for through their monthly bills. I have heard the defence today that this is the cost of getting clean energy. We have to ask ourselves, “Is it even clean energy?” Is it any more environmentally friendly than some of our other methods? If we look at the carbon intensity of each machine used to produce the energy, an individual turbine is more carbon-intensive than a generator in a power station. All those factors are not taken into consideration.

To the Minister, and to those who support the whole policy of net zero and what must be done to achieve it, I say let us at least be honest with ourselves. Do these projects achieve what we want to achieve? If they do not, whether in our constituencies or somebody else’s, there should not be any hesitation in saying that they prevent us from achieving the goal that we want to achieve.

Maybe the Minister can enlighten us. When applying to build a road, all kinds of environmental assessments, et cetera, have to be done. Since these developments are designed to reduce carbon emissions, a proper carbon calculation should be done when a planning application is made. If that had been done, I suspect that many of these projects would not have been given permission, as their carbon output would have been greater than is acceptable. If we are to stop this, we must pay attention to the carbon output and ensure that planning permissions are predicated on a proper assessment.

15:24

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate.

Peatlands such as the Avalon marshes and the Somerset levels and moors are globally rare ecosystems. They make up less than 3% of Earth’s surface, yet they hold 30% of the world’s soil carbon. They have been described as the UK’s Amazon rainforest. They constitute 12% of our land area and play a critical role in mitigating climate change, supporting biodiversity and regulating water flow. They also support important habitats of rare fauna and flora, such as sphagnum mosses, roundleaf sundew, cottongrass and invertebrates such as the large marsh grasshopper, micro-plume moths and various damselflies and dragonflies. The peatlands of the Somerset levels and moors host breeding waders such as snipes and curlews, plus bitterns, adders and the recently reintroduced beavers. Somerset’s county emblem is a dragon rampant on a yellow background, so my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) can keep his Welsh dragon, which I understand inhabits the Radnor forest.

Given that the UK faces a nature crisis, with one in six species threatened with extinction from Britain, it is vital that adequate steps are taken to protect and restore such rare habitats. Yet successive Governments have kicked the can down the road and failed to take the necessary action, with the Office for Environmental Protection rebuking the previous Conservative Government for falling far short of the action needed to improve the environment. Part of creating the healthy natural environment that lies at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach requires continued renewable and clean energy investment, such as wind farms. While we strongly believe that renewables are key to the energy production of a low-carbon future, priority habitats such as peatlands must be preserved and protected.

Worryingly, in the UK and around the world, peatlands are a net source of greenhouse emissions due to how they have been managed over the years. Over 80% of the UK’s peatlands have been damaged by past or present management. The Somerset levels consist of marine clay levels along the coast and inland peat-based moors. The peat dries out when peatlands are damaged, and when exposed to the elements, instead of storing and locking in carbon, it is emitted back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Restoring peatlands to health is absolutely vital so that they can continue to sequester carbon effectively. Once restored to a healthy and stable state where they can function naturally, peatlands will start to absorb carbon as they build up more peat, as well as providing an important natural flood defence.

I have long stated my concerns about the management of peatlands, and the development of wind farms on peatland risks further degrading these valuable habitats—negating any reduction in carbon emissions that would be produced by those wind farms. While previous research suggested that emissions could be reduced if strictly managed, more recent findings have found that wind farms on peatlands will not reduce carbon emissions, even with careful management.

Researchers have recommended that future policy should avoid constructing wind farms on undegraded peat. Environmental scientists from Nottingham Trent University have also warned of the need to better understand the impact of wind farms on peatlands, with evidence showing increased negative impacts on peatland hydrology, biodiversity, carbon storage and ground-level climatic conditions, and further cautioning that the carbon savings generated through wind energy may be negated by the emissions from the peatlands on which they are constructed.

I thank the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for its recent inquiry on this exact issue. It highlighted the inconsistencies and weaknesses in a Government policy that, on the one hand, recognises the importance of peatlands, yet on the other refuses to take action to manage the increasing infrastructure demands on them. Current Government guidance states that onshore wind farm sites in England may be proposed on peatland. However, any application should rule out other locations before siting developments on peatland.

I want to be clear that investment in renewable energy is a must. It will make homes healthy and cheap to heat, and it will support green jobs and economic growth. Another consideration is whether the development of wind turbines on peatland undermines the green energy transition, and whether the carbon lost from degraded peat outweighs estimated savings from renewables. There is planning guidance and a carbon calculator to address the issue in Scotland, but why not in England? The Government have also stated that they will publish an equivalent to NatureScot’s guidance on peatland habitat management for England, but we need to know when that will be.

That leads me to a broader concern regarding the Government’s approach to protecting our peatlands. In December, DEFRA published an updated environmental improvement plan, which included a commitment to restore approximately 280,000 hectares of peatland in England by 2050. However, recent analysis indicates that we may be significantly off track to meet those targets, and the Climate Change Committee has called for the UK Government to prioritise ramping up peatland restoration. Currently, the Government plan to spend £85 million by 2030 on peatland restoration. Although that funding is welcome, we must question why we still allow peat extraction to continue.

Hon. and right hon. Members may be aware of my Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill, which would finally implement the horticultural peat ban that was first promised by Government in 2022. This Government recently committed to end the sale of peat in England, but they have yet to take concrete steps to achieve that ambition. I urge Ministers to do their bit to ensure that such a ban is included in the forthcoming King’s Speech.

Somerset is one of only two counties in England where peat extraction still takes place, with a few extraction licences still in place until 2042. Despite the immense potential of peatlands as carbon sinks, shockingly, extraction and degraded peatlands contribute to 10% of all carbon emissions in Somerset. Beyond the climate benefits, healthy peatlands store and slow water flows, reducing flood risk and creating a rich mosaic of habitat that helps prevent wildfires. There have been yet more devastating floods this winter in areas such as Mudford, Langport, Thorney and Drayton in my constituency, so it is important that we utilise the unique ability of peatlands as natural flood defences. We know that the construction of wind farms on peatlands disrupts their hydrology, which can lead to peatland drying out and vicious cycles of erosion, potentially aggravating flooding in the settlements below.

Peatland extraction for horticulture poses exactly the same risks. For several years, horticultural businesses have been working towards a peat-free future, with Somerset-based businesses such as Durston Garden Products, based just outside Street, and RocketGro supporting a ban and producing peat-free compost. They took the previous Government at their word when they committed to ban the sale of peat, believing that it was the right thing to do for their businesses and for the environment.

We need a joined-up approach to peatland protection and restoration, which recognises that both extraction and the placement of unsuitable infrastructure on peatland undermine our net zero objectives. We must instead focus on win-win solutions through strategic and spatial planning that can deliver for society and nature. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to invest in renewable power, so that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030. We believe that with carefully planned development, we can achieve those goals while avoiding significant harm to nature and actively furthering its recovery. Rather than stripping local authorities of local decision making, we would give them a key role to cut emissions in their own area, including more powers and funding.

It is time for the Government to end the uncertainty, to act now and to demonstrate real leadership by implementing a well thought-out policy for peatland protection and restoration.

15:29

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate. Since this Labour Government came to power, they have been recklessly zealous in their commitment to net zero targets over all else, not least their willingness to trash our countryside for wind turbines, ground-mounted solar and more, when far less land-intensive energy solutions such as small modular reactors would deliver our energy needs in a much more sympathetic way to our landscape, food security and natural environment.

On the one hand, the Government promise to restore our natural environment, while on the other, they open England’s protected peatlands to industrial wind farm development such as Calderdale, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. I wish him luck, and I support him, in his fight against that monstrosity as he sets out to protect his constituents and iconic Brontë country.

The consequence is that habitats storing more than 3 billion tonnes of carbon, formed over centuries and millennia, are now exposed to excavation, road building and the foundations of turbines. What do people get in return? They get not a ban, not a firm line, but guidance from the Government that says that deep peat should be “avoided”—a word that is not a prohibition, merely a suggestion. That will create irreparable damage to irreplaceable habitats, and it has been reduced to a footnote in a planning document.

In January 2026, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero published guidance permitting wind farm development on peatland. The national planning policy framework states that development on irreplaceable habitats, which includes a quarter of England’s peatland, should be refused, yet the Government have chosen just guidance over prohibition. It is shocking but unsurprising of this Labour Government—we find contradictions in their policymaking at every corner. Crucially, the new guidance on construction practices for wind farms on peatland has not even been published yet—the bulldozers may arrive before the policy framework lands.

That failure extends beyond one habitat. Peatlands supply more than a quarter of the UK’s drinking water and provide fertile agricultural land and habitats for rare wildlife. The Government’s secondary legislation, which came into effect in December 2025, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, handing planning consent back to the corridors of Whitehall, rather than local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said, that bypasses the consent of local people and empowers the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of their concerns. Given that Labour controls the levers of national Government, energy policy and planning guidance simultaneously, that should give us pause for thought: what are they trying to achieve?

The Government hold a statutory responsibility to protect irreplaceable habitats, which makes it even more important that they demonstrate visible leadership on this issue, rather than convenient ambiguity. Instead, Energy Ministers tell us that existing protections are sufficient, yet those existing protections have not prevented the guidance from being issued. The Government cannot have it both ways. Over recent years, costs imposed on rural communities by energy infrastructure decisions have grown significantly. With the expansion of the NSIP regime, increases in centrally directed planning consent and innovations in bypassing local democratic oversight, the least that those communities could expect is that their most precious landscapes would be protected.

In addition, when the science itself warns against development on peatland, the Government should be able to point to a clear policy to reflect that. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has been unambiguous, stating that “modelling…suggests” that

“emissions from the windfarm development on undamaged peatlands…will not”—

I repeat, “will not”—

“be offset by…the green energy generated.”

That is not a fringe position, but the conclusion of the body dedicated to this very question.

As ever, I would like to be charitable, but it is hardly surprising that the Government have been slow to draw a firm line when their approach to net zero treats all means as justified by the end.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the shadow Minister clarify his own party’s position? Does it remain committed to net zero, and does it acknowledge there will be a lot of nature damage if we do not make the transition swiftly to generating clean and renewable energy by 2030?

[Greg Smith]

The Conservative party has been very, very clear on that. We believe in decarbonisation, but we need to do it in a way that people can afford and that does not trash our country in the process, in the way that ground-mounted solar and these wind farms do. The points I am making in arguing that damaging untouched peatland ends up causing more environmental damage than the supposed benefits of the wind farms that those who argue for them want to put there should make every Member of the House pause. They should think whether, in getting to decarbonisation, we are not creating more problems than we are solving by simply taking the first technology off the shelf or going for the convenient bit of land that might be available to build this on. It is a totally false economy to go down the rabbit warren of saying, “It looks green, so we must do it,” rather than doing a whole-system analysis, from the manufacture of parts to the destruction of habitat, land and place across our country. That may actually reveal that the results are not as green as they look on the metaphorical packaging.

The guidance does little to help the communities living along these landscapes, the wildlife that depends on them, or indeed the climate if carbon storing habitats are destroyed in the name of carbon reduction. In contrast to that inaction, there is a straightforward solution: prohibit wind farm development on protected peatland across our country—full stop. Despite the Secretary of State holding responsibility for both energy and net zero, it is preposterous that no such ban has been enacted. It is either that the Government do not wish to constrain their ambitions or are displaying sheer negligence towards the natural environment they claim to champion.

The reality is that this is not an abstract problem. These are living landscapes that once destroyed cannot be recovered on any human timescale. We need the Government to bring forward a clear prohibition—not guidance, balance or nuance deployed as a smokescreen, but a complete ban. Without the will to protect these habitats absolutely, the peatlands will be lost, and with them 3 billion tonnes of stored carbon, a quarter of our drinking water supply and the quiet, irreplaceable richness of the United Kingdom’s upland landscape.

15:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, which I know is very important for his constituency, just as it is for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn)—I know that he has done a huge amount of work in engaging Ministers on this topic and I thank him for that. He is probably the person in the room who has the greatest intimate knowledge of the bottom of a peat bog. I also wish everybody a very happy World Curlew Day.

The Government’s ambition of clean power by 2030 is critical for moving all of us off our costly reliance on fossil fuels and for protecting consumer bills. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), rightly said that we need more investment in small, modular reactors. That is true, but we also need to invest in our cheapest form of energy, which is solar; our second cheapest, which is onshore wind; our third cheapest, which is offshore wind; and full scale nuclear and small modular reactors. We need to do all those things for our energy security, to bring bills down and, of course, to tackle climate change.

Recent events in the middle east have reinforced the importance of producing home-grown clean energy. Delivering our clean power mission will help to boost Britain’s energy independence, protect bill payers, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis. Onshore wind is a critical component to delivering those goals. Getting more low-cost renewables such as onshore wind on to the system reduces our exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets, protecting British families from the effects of future price shocks. This Government will continue to support onshore wind. We have removed the damaging de facto ban in England that has been in place for almost a decade and reintroduced the technology into the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.

[Robbie Moore]

The very point the Minister is making is the reason why the application for the Calderdale wind farm has come before us: because this Labour Government removed the onshore wind moratorium put in place by the last Conservative Administration. Given the concerns that I raised about the protected nature of that peatland and the impact on the precious peat, and all the concerns raised by Opposition Members, what is the Government’s position when there is an application that is on protected peat?

[Chris McDonald]

I hope the hon. Member will recognise that as I continue my remarks I will address many of the points that he made in his speech, including the point about peatland. From the contributions we have heard today, I would say there is strong agreement in this room on the need both to tackle climate change and to care for our special environments in the UK, including peatland. He will hear more on that from me shortly.

Removing the ban on onshore wind was a very early and important decision that the Government made. The onshore wind projects deliver a very low-cost form of energy and improve our energy security. The momentum is on our side. Last year, onshore wind power produced 12% of our total electricity. We recognise, of course, that poorly sited, poorly designed onshore wind farms have impacts on local communities in relation to wildlife, local heritage and residents’ sense of place. That is why our planning system has strong checks and balances to manage those impacts, including through requirements for extensive up-front surveys and statutory assessments on the impacts of the environment and important habitats. Those checks and balances extend, of course, to peatlands.

We know that peatlands are vital for biodiversity, for carbon and for water. Peatlands are sensitive habitats and are important for many species of flora and fauna. Because peat soils are rich in carbon, disturbances will have climate impacts. We therefore recognise that building infrastructure such as onshore wind on peatland can have detrimental impacts, and we appreciate that communities have valid concerns about that. An e-petition, to which the Government responded last year, called for a ban on building onshore wind farms on peatland in England, and we have heard those calls repeated in this debate. That is why we have protections in the planning system requiring careful consideration from developers and decision makers when onshore wind farm developments are proposed on peatlands.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) also asked a question about the protection of peatlands. Approximately half of England’s deep peat and a quarter of all England’s peat soils are afforded special protection through being classed as irreplaceable habitats, as we heard earlier. That affords additional protection in the planning process. The Government have published specific guidance for onshore wind and peat in the national policy statements, which are used to assess the impacts of nationally significant infrastructure projects.

We heard earlier about EN-3, the national policy statement for renewable energy, which makes clear that, although onshore wind is permitted on peatland, applicants should seek and rule out other locations first. EN-3 guides developers to avoid peatland where possible, particularly areas of deep peat. Where that is not possible, developers are required to mitigate or compensate for peatland impacts. We are now going further to give decision makers and developers more tools to assess and manage the impacts of onshore wind on peatland. We committed in EN-3 to publish additional guidance regarding wind farm construction on peatland in England, something the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) asked about in particular.

I can confirm that we are in ongoing discussions with the Scottish Government about developing a carbon calculator tool for England similar to the one currently used in Scotland, which could inform policy decisions around developments on peatlands. I hope that my words have clarified the Government’s position and addressed some of the concerns. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley might be disappointed that I have not directly referenced the project in his constituency, but hopefully he realises that, given the role of the Secretary of State, I have constrained my comments to speak more generally.

[Robbie Moore]

I recognise that, but I have written to the Secretary of State urging the Government to extend the consultation period that is in place right now—it ends on 10 June. Given that the developer put this consultation in place in the middle of local elections, the two key councils, Bradford and Calderdale, cannot comment formally until after those elections, and it is also likely that there will be a change in leadership in those councils. Will the Secretary of State, via the Minister, consider at least extending that statutory consultation so that more people can get engaged and we can have proper responses from the two key councils?

[Chris McDonald]

I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Member is right; he mentioned that and I meant to respond to it, but I had forgotten. It is important to note that there is no role for the Government in extending the consultation—that is a matter for the developer, but I am sure that any responsible developer would listen very carefully to the voice of the local community and Members of Parliament, so it is important that he has put that on the record.

Our clean power 2030 mission is our route to lower bills, greater energy security and resilience, economic growth and the revival of regions that have been left behind, including our industrial heartlands. However, we also know that it cannot and must not come at an unacceptable cost to our natural world and our communities, so we are taking a balanced approach. We do not believe that clean energy must come at the expense of our environment. That is why we are investing significantly in protecting and restoring nature, including peatlands, while providing the protections and flexibility we need through the planning system to manage impacts and enable deployment.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for securing this debate; I thank everyone who participated—and of course I thank you, Sir Alec, in the Chair.

15:52

[Robbie Moore]

The reason for calling this debate is that we are dealing with a real and live challenge, particularly in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. The debate has been very worthwhile, but I have major concerns. There was a moratorium in place under the previous Conservative Administration, which has been removed by this Labour Government, enabling these sorts of developments—wind farms on protected peatland—to take place. Yet all the Labour Government can offer is guidance, which simply refers to protected peat being looked at and referenced within any application. That is deeply worrying.

Secondly, the Minister referred to ongoing discussions on the carbon calculator with the Scottish Government. That is too late. An application is before us in West Yorkshire. Any ongoing carbon calculator discussions are too late, because the application is being considered right now.

My third point is that as far as I can see, my neighbouring Members of Parliament have not put forward a position on the Floor of the House on whether they will join me to campaign as strongly as we can against this application. Concerns have been raised, but there is no formal position. It is deeply worrying that some of the Labour Members of Parliament I wrote to—I gave plenty of notice—did not feel it was worth turning up to this debate. It is clear that this Government’s policy in pursuit of net zero makes absolutely net zero sense.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.

15:53

Sitting suspended.

Alternative Measures to GDP

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Before I call Dr Roz Savage to move the motion, I remind Members that, unless they have given notice to Dr Savage or the Minister, they are unable to make a speech; I have not had any indication that anybody has given such notice. They are, however, able to make an intervention.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of use of alternative measures to GDP within Government.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and an honour to introduce this debate on what I believe is a very important subject: alternative measures to GDP. Gross domestic product is still the predominant metric that we use to measure whether Governments are succeeding. I want to suggest today that it is not just an imperfect measure but the wrong one. Before we can agree on a better measure, it might first be helpful to ask what we are measuring for. That means asking a more fundamental question: “What is Government actually for?”

My thoughts on that are that Governments exist to do five things in particular that individuals, families and markets are not able to realistically do on their own. First, to keep people safe, from crime, from conflict and from harm. Secondly, to provide common rules and fairness, the laws, rights and frameworks that stop power being abused. Thirdly, to provide public goods: clean air, clean water, flood protection and infrastructure, the things that markets cannot easily deliver because they are not profitable. Fourthly, to support stability and reduce risk through things such as healthcare and social security, the safety net that helps people to cope with illness, unemployment and old age. Fifthly, and finally, to represent our collective choices about the future, things such as how we balance growth with nature, freedom with fairness, and short-term need with long-term resilience.

To sum up, Governments exist to do together what we cannot do alone. In a democracy, they must do so accountably, so we need an appropriate way of measuring their success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for a very commendable speech in setting out what we are trying to achieve. She rightly highlights that, while GDP measures the monetary value of goods and services, it fails to capture critical aspects of life, such as environmental sustainability, income distribution and health. However, it is also a well-established measurement. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must ensure that we do not see a new measure that allows failures to be hidden by new definitions?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree with, and will elaborate on, his points about what GDP fails to measure and how it must be complemented by other metrics.

So the crucial question is: if those five things are indeed what Governments are for, how well—or not—does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding?

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I commend her on her speech so far. Does she agree that the focus on GDP growth will continue to damage quality of life in rural areas by overlooking environmental damage, access to education, social inequality and worsening public health, and that, if the Government prioritised measures of those issues as much as they do GDP growth, we would see greater investment in overlooked rural areas such as Yeovil?

[Dr Savage]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s perspective that, in rural areas in particular, the aspects of our quality of life that are not measured in financial terms are very much overlooked by GDP. He makes an excellent point that, in fact, using GDP as the pre-eminent metric disproportionately impacts on rural ways of life.

As I was saying, if my assumptions about what Governments are for are correct, how well does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding? My answer to that would be: poorly, partially and, in some important respects—as already mentioned by others—not at all. I want to take each function in turn, looking at how GDP either misses or distorts it, or actively points in the wrong direction. First, on safety, GDP cannot measure whether people feel safe, whether crime is falling or whether justice is accessible. However, it counts the cost of building more prisons and policing more disorder, so a rise in violent crime, followed by the state’s response to it, actually adds to GDP. Secondly, on fairness, GDP is just an average; it tells us nothing about distribution. A country could have record growth, but the majority could be growing poorer while a handful are growing extraordinarily rich. It counts the billionaire’s yacht and the foodbank donation as contributions to national output alike.

Thirdly, public goods are where the distortion is most severe. GDP has no entry for clean rivers, unpolluted air, well-functioning flood defences or thriving natural ecosystems. Instead, it records the cost of remediation when things go wrong, never the value of prevention. In my South Cotswolds constituency, the Thames headwaters and the Cotswolds water meadows absolutely underpin food security, flood resilience and community health, but GDP is blind to all those things. Logging a forest, draining a wetland and concreting a floodplain all register as economic activity and contribute to GDP, while the loss of the natural ecosystems that made those landscapes valuable disappears without a trace.

Fourthly, on stability and risk, GDP counts healthcare spending, but it cannot tell us whether people are getting and feeling healthier. It counts anti-depressants and ambulance call-outs as contributions to output. By the logic of GDP, a pandemic is an economic opportunity. Fifthly, collective choices about the future are possibly where GDP fails most completely. It has no mechanism for accounting for the harm to future generations. By design, it rewards short-term thinking, and it is constitutionally incapable of answering the question, “What kind of a country do we want to be 50 years from now?”

The conclusion is inescapable: GDP was designed to measure the volume of economic activity, no matter what form that activity takes. Using it to assess whether a Government are fulfilling their five core functions is like using a thermometer to tell us whether a patient has recovered. The patient’s temperature may be perfectly normal, but their leg may have fallen off.

I have a couple of quotes worth remembering. Robert F. Kennedy put it with devastating precision in 1968. He said that GDP

“does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play…It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

Meanwhile, Simon Kuznets—the economist who actually invented GDP in response to the great depression of the 1930s—had already warned that it should not be used as a measure of national wellbeing, yet we have been ignoring his advice ever since.

Unfortunately, GDP is not just partial; it can be actively misleading, because it creates perverse incentives at the heart of Government. As the Wellbeing Economy Alliance observes, our current system has four interlinked flaws: it is unsustainable, unfair, unstable and creates unhappiness. Critically, neither the brake nor the accelerator works any more. Faster GDP growth will only worsen biodiversity loss and accelerate climate change. In a system where a fabulously wealthy former Prime Minister pays an effective tax rate of just 23%, it will almost certainly also worsen inequality. That is the trap that GDP has built for us. It is a metric that makes it structurally challenging to do the right thing, because doing the right thing does not always show up as growth.

Moves have already been made in Britain in this direction, and we already have the data, but we do not use it. I will give credit where credit is due. When he was Prime Minister, the former Member for Witney, Lord Cameron, launched the Office for National Statistics national wellbeing programme, and also quoted Robert Kennedy. Since 2011, the ONS has published a framework tracking national wellbeing across 60 measures and 10 topic areas, across personal wellbeing, health, relationships, environment, governance and more. In February of this year, the ONS launched a new set of seven headline measures to be updated quarterly, explicitly aligned with the UN high-level expert group’s recommendations.

We have the data and what it tells us is striking. Since the pandemic, self-reported health has been in sustained decline. Trust in Government rose briefly after the last general election before falling back to lower than pre-election levels. Those trends are invisible to GDP yet are essential to any honest assessment of how our country is doing. Sadly, those measures, no doubt laboriously collected, sit on the ONS website largely unread and almost entirely ignored by Government. I suggest that it is time to use them.

Elsewhere in the world, countries are moving ahead. They are building better measures, embedding them in law and using them to govern. Last week, I was at the Wellbeing Economy Forum, two days of serious exchange with policymakers, economists and practitioners from across the world. It was tremendously inspiring. Three things were unmistakeable: we have the intellectual case and the technical frameworks but the only thing missing in too many countries, including this one, is the political will.

I will cite three examples of countries showing what is possible. Iceland rebuilt after the economic collapse, not by chasing GDP recovery but asking its people what they wanted. It is now one of the wellbeing economy Governments, alongside Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, Finland and Canada, all of which have introduced wellbeing metrics to guide public policy and budgetary processes. In Wales—not so far away—the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 legally requires every public body to act in the long-term interests of the next seven generations. That was initiated by Jane Davidson, a woman I am proud to call my friend. While I was at the conference last week, I had a long conversation with Sophie Howe who was Wales’s first future generations commissioner, and is now an internationally respected voice. If it can be done in Cardiff, I see no reason why it cannot be done in Westminster.

Thirdly, in Sabah, Malaysia, my good friend Cynthia Ong began the Forever Sabah movement, with a single simple question: where will Sabah be in 50 years if it continues down its current development trajectory? That question should be the founding question of every Government; not how fast are we going, but where are we going and what will we leave behind?

I have requests of the Government that would make a significant difference to my constituents, to every person here in Westminster, to the country and to the generations not yet born. The first is to use the data we already have. I am delighted we have a Minister from the Treasury here. Maybe he could relay the request to ask the Treasury formally to integrate the ONS wellbeing dashboard into spending decisions, alongside GDP, not instead of it.

Secondly, to require natural capital accounting in all major infrastructure and land-use decisions, so that the destruction of a flood plain, a peatland or a water catchment carries a recorded cost on the national balance sheet, not just a planning objection. If we value it, we must measure it. Thirdly, to introduce a parliamentary committee for the future, as called for by a coalition of organisations, including the School of International Futures and the Policy Institute at King’s College London. The committee would consider the long-term wellbeing of those who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions. It should be not just a gesture but a committee with real teeth. Wales has shown that that is entirely achievable.

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

Would the hon. Lady add to her list a request that the Minister consider a formal target to cut inequality in this country? We will never grow our way to a good life for all our citizens while we have a fundamentally unjust society; we will only break the environmental boundaries we are already rapidly burning past.

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his very insightful intervention. In the doughnut economics model, we are in many ways in “overshoot”, while the basic needs of many in our society are not even being met. That is one of the major failings of GDP: it does not show how the benefits of growth and the wealth of the country are being distributed. I have been very impressed by the work of Kate Pickett, who spoke at the recent Lib Dem spring conference on this very subject. She spoke about her “spirit level” concept and argued that greater equality in a society works better for everybody, including the people at the top.

If we are honest with ourselves, we can now see the cost of ignoring the warnings of Simon Kuznets and Robert Kennedy. We can see that warning embodied in polluted rivers that once ran clean, in communities that feel left behind and in a politics that too often measures success in pound signs rather than human outcomes. We have the evidence, and we have the frameworks; we just need the willingness to change the definition of what we value, because what we measure shapes what we prioritise, what we prioritise shapes our decisions and our decisions shape the country that we will be in five years, 10 years and 50 years from now. Let us take an active choice to measure what matters: the wellbeing of our people, the health of our planet and the future we hand on to future generations. Let this Parliament be the one that finally aligns how we measure success with what success actually means.

16:17

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Alec. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this debate and on her speech. I am glad to be here for three reasons. More than most Ministers, I enjoy a chance to discuss statistics, so that is high on the list. The second reason is that I agree with lots of what the hon. Member said about the broad purpose of government and the need to reflect all that in how we govern. The third reason is that everybody likes a quote from Bobby Kennedy, and she has supplied one.

I will start with some of the areas of less agreement and then come to our agreement, so that we can end on a high. A good summary of my view is that there is a very large amount more to life than GDP, but that the lack of GDP growth in recent years has been a very big problem for ordinary working people. That was the big absence in the hon. Member’s speech: she did not wrestle with the fact that the lack of GDP growth over the past 15 years has been a huge problem for the British people that has had real effects on all our constituents, particularly those on the lowest incomes. Much of her speech could have been given in 2010; it did not engage with the real world as we have lived it for 15 years, and the catastrophic consequences of a lack of productivity growth feeding through to a lack of wage growth, feeding through into food bank use and the rest. Those are really important things that her speech did not do justice to.

All of that does not mean that I do not agree with lots of the points she raised, but I see those as being entirely consistent with the Government’s view that economic growth does matter, but not as an end in itself. It matters because it remains one of the most reliable ways to raise living standards and because, for example, wages in Swansea, where I am a representative, did not grow between 2009 and 2023. That is what a failure of Government looks like, and it is a failure of GDP growth, not because of too much focus on GDP growth.

GDP is also important because it is very highly correlated with—I am not saying it is a cause of them—other things that we do care about: health and wellbeing. The correlation between longevity and GDP over time and across countries is very strong indeed. We all, I think, care about longevity because we are hoping to go on for as long as is humanly possible—not in speeches but in life generally.

It is good news that the UK has seen some signs of progress in GDP. It had the highest GDP growth among European countries in the G7 last year. The hon. Member will have seen recent GDP statistics for the start of this year, which show more significant growth than people expected. But—this is where I am in complete agreement with her—there is much more not just to life but to government and statistics than GDP. We care about secure power, clean water, lower poverty and lower inequality, not just higher GDP. All those things are incredibly important and we should care about all of them; Government’s job is to focus on them.

Let us turn to GDP and some arguments that that the hon. Member made about it. I will explain why I do not quite agree, even though I agree with many of the big-picture arguments that she made. Her argument was that there has been too much focus on GDP recently and that has led to bad outcomes. Has there been too much focus on GDP? If so, it has not had any effect because there have been the lowest levels of GDP growth that we have seen in a very long time. GDP per capita fell in the last Parliament—so there was apparently a huge focus on it but it fell. Growth in GDP per capita over the 10 years prior to that Parliament was incredibly sluggish. Was that because there was too much focus on it? No. That is why people oppose the building of houses: they do not care about younger generations or care enough about GDP; they just care about themselves, in some cases, and that is not acceptable any more.

Why, if we cared just about GDP, would successive Governments, disgracefully including the Liberal Democrats after 2010, have slashed public investment levels? Such public investment boosts GDP in the long run. That would be the target. It is a good thing for our society. It would make our country cleaner and help with clean water and the energy crisis, yet public investment levels were slashed. People were not motivated by GDP; they were motivated by easy politics. That is what happened in that Government.

The hon. Member gave the specific example that building prisons would boost GDP. Is that what actually happened? The last Governments, from 2010 onwards, did not build any prisons. They were not motivated by GDP; they were motivated by easy answers. That is why we have had to come into Government and deal with the prisons crisis that was left to us. What actually happened was the opposite of the argument that the hon. Member made.

It is sometimes argued that GDP and the other things that we care about are in tension. I totally agree. But remember: there is one area where they heavily overlap. GDP, in many ways, measures the effectiveness with which we turn resources into output. That is what we who are environmentalists should care about. We want things to become more productive. Fewer resources going in to produce the same output gets us higher GDP and a better environment. That is a really important point to hold on to. We have had a 17% fall in energy usage in the recent past. Some of that is because we have become more efficient at using that energy. That is absolutely the kind of productivity growth that we need; it helps GDP but it really helps the environment.

[Chris Hinchliff]

On the point about statistics and what GDP measures, I ask the Minister to take away the issue of imputed rent. A fairly strange part of GDP, it measures hypothetical rent on the value of existing houses, inflates the value of our GDP as a country, and could be part of what we are measuring when we say that we are trying to achieve GDP growth, though it is actually entirely theoretical.

[Torsten Bell]

A debate has come on to imputed rent; we can tell it is nearly 4.30 pm on a Tuesday. The hon. Member is tempting me—and I will engage with the question. What is the big picture that matters regarding the state of Britain when it comes to housing? I will come to why imputed rent is relevant to that and tells us something important.

Housing in Britain is too expensive—incredibly expensive —but most of the population of Britain do not face market housing costs because they are homeowners who bought a long time ago. The negative effect of those high housing costs is very severe for a subset of the population. If I am honest, I think that is why Liberal Democrats oppose house building left, right and centre: the consequences for younger generations of not having built, over the last 20 years, homes that they can live in, that keep their housing costs down and that let them and their children lead a decent life have been ignored because we did not care enough about—forget GDP—actual people and their families. That is what happened. Imputed rent tells us the effect of that, which is that those people who do not face market housing costs but do live in a property that they own, are receiving a stream of benefits from owning that property. By living in it, they are consuming that; that is all that is telling us. The important lesson from GDP and housing is, “Get on with building some houses because younger generations are getting stuffed over,” not, “We paid too much attention to GDP.” That would be the opposite of what it teaches us.

What is GDP a measure of? It is imperfect for lots of the reasons that have been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), but it does represent income flowing into people’s pockets, business revenues, and a tax base that funds our public services. Those things do matter. My hon. Friend is right that they are not the only things that matter—I totally agree with that—but they are real things. They are not abstractions, and we do need to care about them. If people do not care about those things, they do not mind that Britain has seen the lowest levels of business investment in the G7 year after year.

Turning to areas of agreement, I absolutely agree with lots of what the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said about the limitations. I also endorse her praise for the approach of the Welsh Labour Government in this area; lots of my friends have spent years developing that work. On its own, GDP does not capture everything that underpins either our economic strategy or what matters in people’s lives; that is absolutely correct. It does not, for example, tell us how growth is distributed or about wealth inequalities, physical and mental health, and environmental sustainability. As the hon. Member set out, those limits have been long recognised, but we need to keep pushing against them. In 2016, the Bean review set out some of the issues that she has raised about the need to consider broader measures of wealth distribution and natural capital. In response, the ONS has put more resources into some of those things. Some progress has been made over the last 10 years—obviously, we were not in government so I am not claiming credit for that.

The Dasgupta review further encouraged us to treat natural capital as an economic asset, as we absolutely should. Those principles have been accepted by the Government and they are being embedded in decision making. Hon. Members will have seen the supplementary guidance to the Green Book that puts in place the appraisal of environmental impacts alongside economic costs.

The truth is that it is easy to say that everyone just myopically focuses on GDP. I have set out that that is not the case because if they did, hopefully we would have seen a better job over the last 15 years. The truth is that across Government we consider a much wider range of economic indicators. Wellbeing is an important one; I have carried out research on wellbeing data and it does have something to bring to the party. But the strongest conclusion from wellbeing data is that people need a decent income and they need to be healthy. The Government do focus on those things because they should. Because we care about wellbeing, we are lifting the two-child limit. Because we care about health, we are investing in the health service to bring down waiting times. Our tax rises, which are opposed by all the Opposition parties, are delivering those things. We care about wellbeing because health is really important.

Even within economic indicators, what is the truth? We look at indicators not just on GDP, but on income, pay, employment, jobs, regional performance, and the environment. I encourage the Government to continue to do that. Ongoing improvements to the national accounts will also help better capture natural capital and the quality of public services, not to mention AI and the things that tend to get reported in the newspapers. Ministers look at all those things when they make policy. When I am looking at pensions policy, I am definitely into the weeds of health data and healthy life expectancy. I promise hon. Members that GDP is not dominating all those decisions.

To conclude, GDP remains central to how we understand the economy. It tells us something important, but partial. Both of those things are important to understand. It is not remotely a measure of everything that matters. It does not aim to do justice to non-market interactions, which is a technocratic phrase for the fact that it does not do justice to some of the most important things in our lives—not least, caring for each other. That is why this Government are so committed to both reversing the dreadful economic performance seen under the previous Government—performances that left wages flatlining—while also assessing success against a far wider range of measures. The goal is a Britain that is not just growing but thriving.

Question put and agreed to.

Hammersmith Bridge

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here for this debate. I also thank everyone who attended my recent action event at Hammersmith bridge to campaign for its reopening, and all the constituents—so many constituents—who emailed me in advance of the debate. I know that many will be watching right now.

This month marks seven years since Hammersmith bridge was closed—seven years of disruption, frustration and avoidable hardship for residents across west London. The anniversary on 10 April was not a milestone that anyone wanted to reach, but it is a stark reminder of how long communities have been waiting for decisive action and how urgently a fully funded plan is needed to restore this vital crossing. Seven years, 2,566 days, 366 weeks or 84 months—that is how long this situation has been allowed to continue, and those of us in Putney and Roehampton have felt every single one of those days.

It is a national disgrace that this issue is not being rectified, but I am genuinely pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am grateful for the many opportunities that we have had to meet since the election and for his engagement on the issue, so I am genuinely looking forward to what he has to say at the end of the debate and to continuing to work together towards replacing the bridge and rectifying this infrastructure failure. I am also grateful to be able to set out clearly the human, social, economic and environmental impacts of the bridge’s closure to ensure that the Minister is under no doubt about the effect that the closure is having.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her patience—the Bible refers to the patience of Job, which I think she has—and for her campaign. She will be aware that when routes such as Hammersmith bridge are closed, the pressure on surrounding infrastructure is greatly enhanced. That is similar to the pressure in my constituency in Ballynahinch, where there is no bypass and we have been waiting almost 30 years for one. Does she agree that the Government must follow through on promises to deliver such infrastructure projects and not simply wait for a time when we have more money? We will never have enough in the coffers, but the time comes for promises made to be prioritised. That is really the issue: people have waited far too long and they can wait no more.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his acknowledgment of the many years that I have been campaigning on this issue and that he has seen me raising it in the Chamber. I agree that there is no time to wait, because the longer we wait, the more the bill goes up, as well as the hardship continuing for us.

Built in 1887, Hammersmith bridge is one of the world’s oldest suspension bridges. It is a grade II listed structure made of wood and wrought iron; its suspension system rests on cast-iron pedestals. It is not just a piece of infrastructure, but part of Britain’s engineering heritage and a national landmark.

However, this is not just about history; it is about people. Hammersmith bridge has always been a lifeline, a critical connection across the Thames used by thousands of cars, people and cyclists—and six bus routes. For seven years, that connection has been broken. The bridge was closed in 2019 on public safety grounds after microfractures were identified in the now 138-year-old structure. It later reopened to pedestrians and cyclists, and in April 2025 the carriageway reopened to pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and e-scooter users, but not to any vehicles or those buses. That ongoing closure continues to have profound and far-reaching consequences for my constituents, especially in Roehampton, which is directly south of the bridge, and in Putney, which has the alternative bridge if people are going east.

The impact on daily life has been severe, sustained and deeply felt. Residents in Putney, Barnes, Richmond and Hammersmith have endured years of longer journeys, unreliable transport and constant congestion. I conducted a survey of residents and found that 90% of respondents described the closure as “extremely disruptive”. That comes as no surprise to anyone living locally. This is the issue that comes up all the time, at every event that I go to and almost every door I knock on.

Before the closure, around 22,000 vehicles crossed the bridge each day. Those journeys have not disappeared; they have simply been forced on to other routes, creating daily gridlock across neighbouring areas such as Putney. The latest snapshot data from the Department for Transport shows that, between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney bridge increased by 16%. Bus services were among the first and hardest hit. Six major routes, including the 209, were withdrawn, and have still not been reinstated. Others, such as the 533, have been diverted, leaving services overcrowded, delayed and unreliable.

Congestion in Putney has now become so severe that in January last year I called together the bus services, Transport for London, the council and the utility services to say, “Look, there’s a real problem here in Putney.” Transport for London officials replied, “Yes, there is. We look across the whole of London, and Putney is especially congested.” In their opinion, part of the reason for that is the closure of Hammersmith bridge.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

On that point, how does the hon. Lady feel about the funding that TfL offered for the reopening of the bridge? To my mind, as a former member of the London Assembly, it has not been sufficient over the last 10 years.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for that question; I will ask the Minister the same thing. Where is that funding? Has agreement been reached between the three bodies, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Department for Transport? That was the agreement, but where is the agreement now? I am not sure where it is or what funding is on the table, so I am hoping to hear from the Minister later.

The bus taskforce that I mentioned has had to meet monthly since then and is still meeting. It is really good and we are getting a lot done—we are making changes to try to get the traffic moving—but we still have the constant background of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, which in effect makes transport, particularly on the roads in my constituency and those surrounding, less resilient. When one thing happens, there is a knock-on effect that significantly clogs up the roads.

Seven years on, residents, commuters and businesses in Putney are still paying the price. For many residents in Putney and Roehampton, it is not a minor inconvenience or something we could have just got over in the last seven years; it is a fundamental barrier to daily life. The majority of households in the London borough of Wandsworth do not have a car. They rely on buses to get to work, school and medical appointments, as well as to see family. The loss of these connections has made everyday life significantly harder.

Behind the statistics are real people, real stories and real consequences. Ana is a constituent from west Putney who came along to my recent action event at the bridge. She has a 12-year-old son, Santiago, who has Down’s syndrome and complex needs. He attends a specialist school in Hammersmith on the other side of the bridge, which is the nearest school equipped to support him. Before the closure, their journey was straightforward and manageable. Since then, it has become an exhausting and unpredictable ordeal, often taking well over an hour each way.

On one occasion, Ana allowed two full hours to take Santiago from school in Hammersmith back to a medical appointment at St George’s hospital. The journey took nearly three hours and they missed the appointment entirely. Even when the hospital kindly rescheduled, the same journey the following week still took two and a half hours. It should take nowhere near that and certainly would not if the bridge were reopened to vehicles. That is not just an inconvenience; it is missed healthcare.

Furthermore, the closure has cut Santiago off from important social opportunities. He used to attend weekly football sessions for children with Down’s syndrome in Shepherd’s Bush, which supported his physical health, confidence and social development, but the journey became so long and exhausting that he would fall asleep in the car. Eventually, he had to stop attending altogether, missing out on three years of those vital physical activities. I have spoken about Ana’s experience at length because it highlights something we must not overlook: although the closure affects everyone, disabled children and their families are hardest hit. Public transport is not always a viable option, and the long diversions that currently exist place enormous strain on already complex routines.

I have heard countless more stories from constituents before and since I told them about this debate. Caroline, another resident, drives to visit her 92-year-old mother for dinner on Fridays. What used to be a 40-minute journey before the bridge closure now takes up to two hours. Paula told me that her heart sinks every time she gets into her car to visit her daughter and family in Hammersmith. With only one viable route left via Fulham Palace Road, what was once a straightforward journey now often takes twice as long with no certainty about the delays she will face. These are the quiet, cumulative losses—a loss of time with loved ones, missed moments and added stress—that rarely make the headlines, but define people’s daily lives.

I have also heard from residents whose cancer treatments have been disrupted, from separated parents struggling to maintain contact with their children, and from students cut off from study opportunities. Some of the words my constituents have used to describe the reality of living with the bridge’s continued closure are: “nightmare”, “miserable”, “unsafe”, “disastrous”, “absurd” and “national scandal”. That is the human cost of inaction on the bridge.

The consequences are not just limited to individuals; they extend across the local economy as well. More than 75% of local businesses report moderate or severe negative impacts as a result of the closure. Reduced footfall in shops, delayed deliveries and staff struggling to get to work have all taken their toll. Small businesses in Putney have been hit hard. Customers are deterred by the congestion. Journeys that should take minutes take far longer. Deliveries are delayed and more expensive. The closure has created a drag on economic activity across Putney, Barnes, Hammersmith and beyond. At a time when local high streets are already under pressure, it is an added burden they can ill afford.

There is also a clear environmental cost. Thousands of additional vehicles are now being diverted through already congested roads, especially Putney High Street, because we can only go along to the next bridge—we do not have all the options that there would otherwise be in a different area. This has led to increased air pollution, higher noise levels and more dangerous conditions for road users. Cyclists are put off cycling through Putney because of the higher congestion and heavier traffic, making it feel more unsafe. I really am worried about potential cyclists—the people we want to get out of their cars and on to the roads using more active travel—because many in Putney are put off. Bus journeys, as I have said, are further delayed as well. The overall effect is a transport network that is less efficient, less safe and less sustainable, and that is not good for our environment.

The situation has now become even more acute. On the other side of us, the closure of Albert bridge in February 2026, again due to structural issues, is expected to last up to a year, and we do not know how much longer. That has placed even greater strain on the remaining crossings and has intensified congestion across south-west London. Albert bridge carried 20,000 vehicles a day before the February closure. With two key bridges affected, residents are effectively being cut off from travelling north of the river in a reasonable and reliable way. Of course they can travel, but it is the extra time and the unreliability that people tell me about. For a global city like London, that is not sustainable.

Connectivity is not a luxury. It is essential for economic growth, access to services, and the functioning of daily life. Since being elected in 2019, I have consistently campaigned for the full reopening of Hammersmith bridge to vehicles, including buses. I have raised the issue 26 times in Parliament. I have secured debates and led action days and public meetings in Putney. I have worked closely with residents and with Wandsworth borough council, which is also fully engaged and supportive of the restoring of the bridge. I have also worked with campaigners, including the Putney Action Group and Putney Society. I have raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and pressed for leadership and urgency, and I have raised it with the Mayor of London.

Since April 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £54 million simply to make Hammersmith bridge safe. To put that into perspective, all London councils combined spent just £100 million between 2010 and 2021 on maintaining and repairing every road and river bridge across the capital, and even then much of that cost was ultimately picked up by Transport for London or central Government. The impact on Hammersmith and Fulham council’s budget is disproportionate. Thanks to the council’s action, Hammersmith bridge is no longer in danger of collapsing into the Thames, but it still costs the council around £2 million a year just to maintain its current restricted state. That money does not deliver a permanent solution; it merely postpones failure.

Hammersmith and Fulham council cannot afford to fund further repair works. Continuing to spend millions of pounds on temporary fixes is financially unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. The current approach is not viable and cannot continue. It is wholly unreasonable to expect Hammersmith and Fulham council to shoulder sole responsibility for a nationally significant, grade II listed heritage bridge. The unfair cost share must be addressed. In contrast to the Albert bridge, where funding is shared 75% by Transport for London and 25% by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, responsibility for Hammersmith bridge falls disproportionately on Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is expected to fund around 33% of the enormous cost.

Where are we now? Years of stalemate have produced an internationally embarrassing situation and daily frustration for residents, businesses and commuters. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am glad that the new Government and the Minister have taken a much more active role, as the previous Government were so dismissive. The Minister has brought together key stakeholders for the taskforce. A meeting was held at the Department for Transport in January 2025, which I attended along with the key bodies, including the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council, Richmond council, Wandsworth council, the deputy mayor for transport, Historic England and the Port of London Authority.

The taskforce considered six options, which I know really well because I get asked about them all the time on the doorstep; people want to know what the options were, what is happening and what will happen next.

Option zero, which is the one that is kind of on the table, is the Foster and Partners and COWI proposal to deliver a temporary double-deck crossing within the existing structure of Hammersmith bridge, allowing pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars to use the bridge while the full repair and restoration works are carried out around it using barges.

Option one was bridge closure with no access allowed; the structure would remain a beautiful monument, but no more than that. Option two was bridge repair and restoration sufficient to allow for active travel by pedestrians, cyclists and two single-decker buses. That would restore the bridge to how it was before the closure.

Option three was bridge repair and restoration sufficient for active travel only. Option four was a replacement bridge with a 44-tonne weight limit—to just get rid of the bridge and build a new one. I cannot tell Members how many Putney residents are in favour of that one. Option five was an offline replacement bridge—one somewhere else—with the existing structure remaining in place either around it or next to it.

I really appreciate that the Minister took a back-to-basics approach at the meeting to assess all the options and to see where we are now. In the meeting, option zero—the Foster and Partners and COWI one—remained on the table, and options one, four and five were ruled out on cost grounds. At that meeting, the Minister was also clear that leaving the bridge as it is “is not an option”. Officials were tasked with properly costing the restoration, and Historic England agreed in the meeting to look at revisiting its requirements, which is an important step that could help reduce the previously estimated £240 million cost.

I welcome the confirmation since then that funding may be available through the national structures fund and the Minister’s recent statement that Hammersmith bridge would be a strong candidate for investment from that fund. More broadly, the continuing impasse exposes a deeper structural problem. Now is the time to review the ownership and responsibility for all the bridges in London. These strategic assets should sit under a single authority with responsibility for maintenance, repairs and long-term investment. They should be taken out of the responsibility of local councils and put in the responsibility of one single body.

In conclusion, Minister, what concrete actions have been taken since the last taskforce meeting in January 2025? Is the Foster and Partners and COWI option still being assessed and considered? What is the current estimated cost—the updated figure—of fully restoring Hammersmith bridge? Have there been meetings, with decisions made, between Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport, and has a viable agreed plan been reached between those three bodies? Has an application been made under the structures fund? If not, when will it be made? Either way, when will a decision about the structures fund funding be made? When will the taskforce next meet—I hope it will be soon—and will a firm timetable be shared with it? Finally, has any assessment been made in consultation with the Mayor of London on transferring responsibility for all bridges to one London body?

Let me be clear: action must be taken now. Potential funding is not the same as secured funding, discussions are not the same as decisions and processes cannot become excuses for further delays. Residents have waited for seven long years—seven years of severed communities, gridlocked roads, lost bus routes and daily hardship. That is not acceptable for a major transport route in our capital city. It is not acceptable for families trying to get to school or hospital appointments. It is not acceptable for businesses trying to survive. It is not acceptable for the many residents who rely on public transport simply to live their daily lives. The social, economic and environmental costs are too high. The human impact is too great.

What is needed now is clear and urgent: a fully funded plan, a clear and credible timetable, and decisive action to begin—and then end—restoration without further delay. The bridge has stood since 1887; it has served generations of Londoners. Now is the time to restore it and to reconnect the communities who depend on it.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

I see two hon. Members who want to speak. I shall call the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm. I will not be setting a time limit, but I am sure Members will consider each other.

16:51

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Although I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate and on her excellent opening speech, I know she shares with me the sincere wish that, before the end of our parliamentary careers, we may one day be able to stop talking about Hammersmith bridge. I fully acknowledge the severe consequences that the closure of the bridge has had on the hon. Lady’s constituents in Putney, but, obviously, my constituents in Richmond Park, where the bridge lands on the southern bank, have also faced extreme disruption and reduced opportunities as a result of the closure.

It was seven years ago this month that Hammersmith bridge closed to traffic, and it has not reopened since. That means that for seven years buses have not been able to cross the bridge; emergency ambulance journeys from Barnes, in my constituency, to Charing Cross hospital, on the northern bank of the Thames, have taken significantly longer; and local businesses and families have suffered. Since 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £50 million just to maintain the bridge, while successive Governments have failed to act. That is disgraceful. The failure to repair Hammersmith bridge has become a matter of national embarrassment.

In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, said about the bridge:

“The next Conservative Government will not allow this just to remain closed.”

I imagine that that comment was made with the intention of supporting the Conservative candidate’s bid for re-election in my constituency of Richmond Park, but nothing then happened. The Conservatives had five years to take action, but the business case for fixing the bridge sat on their desks for years without being picked up, and they did not even bother to reconvene the taskforce during their last three years in office.

All the while, the estimated costs of repairing the bridge doubled. In 2022, after the bridge had to be wrapped in tin foil to prevent it from collapsing, I pleaded with the Conservative Government to release the funds for the bridge’s repairs. At that point, the repairs were estimated at £140 million. Now, estimates put the cost of repairs at £250 million. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, they could have saved the taxpayer more than £100 million.

The failure of the Conservatives to act has had real-life impacts: Hammersmith fire station still officially serves Barnes, despite it taking 25 minutes to attend a fire in Castelnau. Even the temporary bus routes put in place to connect Barnes and Hammersmith have been cut, and many women and students feel unsafe walking over the bridge in the dark on their return from work or school in the winter months. Barnes residents deserve better.

The last Conservative Government were characterised by lies, scandals and a complete disregard for the public; their contempt for the public was evident, whether they were partying while people could not visit sick relatives in hospital or crashing our economy. It is hardly surprising that breaking their promise to fix Hammersmith bridge was merely a footnote.

Labour has now had a chance to right this wrong, but I have been disappointed by the Government’s lack of engagement on this matter. Despite my cautious optimism following the reconvening of the taskforce in January 2025, there has been almost radio silence on plans to fix the bridge. That was until two months ago, when the Local Transport Minister remarked that Hammersmith bridge would be an excellent candidate for funding via the Government’s structures fund. The sceptic in me worries that that is lip service to residents prior to the local elections, but I am choosing to be hopeful. I believe that this Government are serious about fixing a problem that impacts my constituents in Barnes, East Sheen and Mortlake every day.

In the past year, I have written to the Department for Transport five times to request a meeting, and each time, my request has been refused. I say to the Minister today: I do not want to play politics with Hammersmith bridge. Reopening it to emergency vehicles and buses is what my residents want, and like everyone else in the room, I was elected to serve my constituents.

Local activists have joined me in protests and succeeded in keeping the repair of the bridge on the agenda. It is my duty as their MP to amplify their voices and to ensure that they remain up to date with the Government’s latest plans, but I cannot keep local residents informed about developments if the Department for Transport does not engage with me. Transparency is a key tenet of governance, and I am extremely disappointed that local residents have not been afforded it for over seven years. They need answers about the Government’s plans.

When will the Hammersmith bridge taskforce reconvene? What criteria are the Government using to assess candidates for the structures fund? Have funding agreements been reached among Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport? When will the Government announce whether funding will be provided for Hammersmith bridge via the structures fund? The list goes on, and so, for the sixth time, I request a meeting with the Minister to discuss the future of Hammersmith’s bridge.

16:56

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec, not least because you have allowed me the privilege of speaking although I was a couple of minutes late. I was chairing the Justice Committee, but I did not want to miss this debate. Fortunately, I can be reasonably brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and my friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have covered most of the bases on this issue; I will not repeat what they said.

I welcome the Minister to his place. I will say something complimentary about him in a moment, which will perhaps convince him to spend some money on the bridge. I will also take the unusual step of welcoming the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who knows as much about this as any of us, because he was the deputy leader and then leader of the opposition in Hammersmith and Fulham—we all know where the bodies are buried, even at the high water mark.

Hammersmith bridge is a unique structure. Before people start shouting “Albert bridge”, I will come on to why that is different in a moment. Hammersmith is a beautiful bridge across the Thames—I am prejudiced, but I would say it is the most beautiful—but it has unique challenges. Whether through bomb damage or the corrosion of the materials that make it up, the bridge has reached a state of catastrophic failure. At one stage, it had to be closed in its entirety, even to pedestrian and cycle traffic. That is fortunately not the case now, but I think it is accepted on all sides—people sometimes say, “Oh this could be done cheaply”, by which they mean for a few million pounds, but it cannot—that restoring Hammersmith bridge to its former tolerances would require the replacement of most of the elements of the bridge. It would effectively be a new bridge, albeit looking like the old one. That has particular, unique implications. It is right that this Minister and this Government have taken a far more proactive view than the previous Government—they could not take a less proactive view than the previous Government, who did not answer my letters for three years.

The taskforce has met since this Government came in, and it has defined the issues and pointed the way to next steps. In my view, there are three issues. One is: let us define clearly what the costs are. There is the clear preferred option, which is the Foster and COWI scheme; it is very expensive, but other schemes are less efficient and more expensive. What will the cost of that be and what are the opportunities for funding it? My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the application to the structures fund, and I welcome what the Minister said about that. I notice that the guidelines for grant funding were published last week, so I do not imagine that an application has gone in yet, though I am sure that one will go in quite shortly. It is still an extremely expensive project.

In addition to the costs and sources of funds, there is the thorny issue of traffic loading. I have seen many different figures for traffic displacement to other bridges, including Putney and Wandsworth bridges and Chiswick bridge, which is also in my constituency. There are serious concerns about that, but we must have sets of figures that we can all rely on—I hope the Minister will say that he now has those figures—because otherwise it is pointless if we are going to not agree on those matters. Those are the essential ingredients, from my point of view. The taskforce met last year.

To be full and frank, it is also right to acknowledge that there is a strong lobby against opening the bridge to motor traffic. I know that from my inbox. I have always said that the presumption should be that the bridge goes back to its previous tolerances, which requires a major reconstruction. This has gone on so long that we need certainty and an answer now.

The other thing—I am grateful to the hon. Members who spoke about this—is the acknowledgment of where Hammersmith council is in all this. I think it is right to say that the council has spent over £50 million on preventing the collapse of the bridge, restoring it to make it a walking and cycling bridge and continuing to maintain it. To put that into perspective, that is half the sum spent on repair and maintenance for all bridges over the Thames in the decade between 2010 and 2020.

That local authority, like most local authorities these days, is cash strapped. It prides itself on running a very tight ship, has the third lowest council tax in the country and provides extremely innovative—and, in some cases, unique—services, such as free social care and free breakfast clubs in all its schools. Those are the priorities that its electorate set out for it, and, I think, will again when it is re-elected in two weeks’ time. I did not believe it was feasible to add the £50 million in there. Hammersmith and Fulham council deserves a huge amount of credit for that, but the idea that it will make another substantive contribution towards the bridge is for the birds. The money is just not there. If we are saying that, we are saying the bridge will never reopen. We need a little bit of honesty here.

The comparison was made with Albert bridge. It is very unfortunate that another bridge needs repair. Yes, it is another Victorian suspension bridge with some, shall we say, challenging materials, such as its cast iron structure. But there the similarities end, even though, or partly because, Kensington and Chelsea council is only a minority shareholder, if I can put it that way, but more so because, although Albert bridge will take at least a year and cost £8.5 million on the current estimate—and I am sure that that will grow—Hammersmith council has already spent six times that just on the maintenance of Hammersmith bridge at its current standards.

Let us try to move this forward. I do not want to say anything more today other than that a conclusion has to be reached as a matter of urgency. Decisions have to be made. Not everyone will be happy with those decisions one way or the other, but so long as they are made based on a sound mathematical basis and classic surveys, the finances are there and we are not just wishing for money that does not exist, and we have a secure model for replacement of the bridge, we can go forward in that way. At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds: nothing is happening while everybody is putting forward their own version of reality or events. Whatever side of the coin they are on, my constituents want that to end.

17:04

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on consecutive days, Sir Alec. I commend the proposer, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for articulately outlining the long-running saga of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, and a saga it is: the closure of this bridge has outlasted a pandemic and accompanied our departure from the European Union. Hopefully, the Government will take action so that not many other national or global events are added to the list of things that this bridge has witnessed.

It was agreed under the previous Conservative Government that the £250 million cost of fixing the bridge would be split evenly between the Department for Transport, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham council. The current Labour Government have yet to find a way to honour that agreement or find another solution. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) articulately said, the ongoing cost to Hammersmith and Fulham council, with nearly £50 million already spent just to maintain the bridge, shows that the bill will continue to mount, absent a permanent solution. In our country, the failure to take long-term decisions to reach a conclusion often means that we spend a comparable amount of money maintaining an inadequate status quo in the meantime.

London is one of the most congested cities in Europe, and the bridges crossing the Thames are the central arteries for traffic of all kinds through the city. It should be unthinkable that a bridge is sitting underused with no clear action being taken. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and councillors in west London have consistently held the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue and will continue to do so. As well as the long campaign on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in relation to its impact on Richmond borough, the hon. Member for Putney is correct to highlight the impact of the closure of Hammersmith bridge on Putney, where long traffic jams on Lower Richmond Road, Putney Bridge Road and Putney High Street, combined with a sub-optimally designed junction at Putney bridge, hit residents on a daily basis.

Last weekend, while visiting the area, I learned of local Liberal Democrats campaigning hard for Wandsworth council to play a greater role, alongside the two most directly affected boroughs, to improve the current situation. I declare an interest as a former Wandsworth resident, and my recent visit showed how little had changed for public transport and active travel since I lived in that area. In addition to the closure of the bridge, that is why there is significant car traffic and a lot of congestion, including in areas well away from the two bridges that we have discussed. South-west London is being let down by the failure to get a grip of this issue, and that points to the struggle to be competent about infrastructure in many areas of the UK.

The costs to rectify Hammersmith bridge are small compared with those, for example, of the proposed lower Thames crossing, which this Labour Government have not hesitated to back. As has been said, the Hammersmith bridge issue speaks to a structural problem for London infrastructure, in that the relationship between Transport for London and councils is not always best placed to ensure that planning and decision making on significant infrastructure happens on an effective cross-borough or cross-city basis.

Not unusually, the previous Conservative Government failed to get a grip of this mess. In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, stated that the Conservative Government would “not allow this” bridge “to remain closed”. The Conservatives then sat on the business case for repairing the bridge for years. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, the repairs could have been completed by now for £100 million less than the current estimated price tag. We all hope that the Minister will commit to resolving the issue and give us hope that this Government will end the embarrassing inertia and decision-making paralysis.

A minimum key ask is that we increase the usefulness of the bridge by restoring it to enable cross-river bus services and emergency service vehicle access. Even if the bridge were to reopen to motor traffic, we need to go much further and think more boldly about the chronic congestion in London suburbs. One option is a massive road-building programme, such as that attempted in the ’60s and ’70s as part of the London ringways programme, which was dropped because it was deeply unpopular. The only alternative is to transform public transport, walking and cycling. TfL is showing some leadership on the former, with proposals for the west London orbital between Hounslow and Hendon, although that does not specifically help with the cross-river issue.

My earlier brief and amateurish study of maps shows that the density of river crossings in London is markedly different from that in Paris, with Paris having almost double the number of river crossings on a 20 km section to the west of the city comparable to London. If the Labour Government can find £10 billion for the lower Thames crossing—admittedly with some private financing, but they have already committed at least £3 billion to that—they should surely be able to find the price tag needed to do the right thing for communities in south-west London by fixing Hammersmith bridge. I hope that this Government can seize the opportunity to do the right thing.

17:09

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

For the second time this afternoon, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has suggested, it is a bit of a blast from the past for me, having previously served on Hammersmith and Fulham council both as deputy leader and then latterly as leader of the opposition. If only my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) or the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) were here, we could go some way to recreating the Hammersmith town hall council chamber in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Back in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on Hammersmith and Fulham council, the bridge had restricted access but was not yet fully closed; I think one bus at a time was allowed on at that point, which raised significant concerns. It is very disappointing that, across multiple Governments, we have not been able to resolve the challenges on Hammersmith bridge since then.

I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick was quick to boast about Hammersmith and Fulham having the third lowest council tax in the country—if only I knew how it got to that point! It could possibly have been the period between 2006 and 2014 when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, we cut council tax by 20%, taking Hammersmith and Fulham from mid-pack to third lowest in the country, rivalled only by Wandsworth and Westminster at that time. However, since then, Hammersmith and Fulham council has increased council tax on their residents by hundreds of pounds.

More gallingly, under Sadiq Khan, the amount claimed by the Mayor of London has increased by over 70%, and what do the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham get for all those increases? A bridge that cars and buses cannot cross. Under a Labour council, a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, the speed of action is slower than a cyclist with a punctured tyre. Ironically, that cyclist would be one of the few people who could actually make use of the bridge in its current state.

In January, the Minister stated in a written answer that the taskforce would meet soon. We now understand that it is waiting for submissions to the structures fund. The primary mechanism to bring all the stakeholders together and unblock the problem has not met for a year. Of course, as we have heard eloquently from the hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), this failure extends beyond Hammersmith and Fulham. It affects the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Hounslow, and it has displaced traffic to areas such as Ealing. Given the Labour party’s control over various forms of Government, it needs to give pause for thought as to what it is actually doing.

Of course, Hammersmith and Fulham council—there is no getting around this point—holds the statutory duty to maintain the highway, which makes it even more important that it demonstrates visible leadership and urgency in advancing a funded, deliverable plan for the strengthening phase and full reopening. However, that has not been forthcoming, and the 2026 business plan from TfL makes no mention of Hammersmith bridge.

Over the past decade, the costs imposed on motorists in our capital city have grown significantly, with those both inside and outside London facing costs because of decisions made by the Mayor of London: expansions of the ultra low emission zone, increases in the cash cow known as the congestion charge and innovations to find new methods of fining drivers. The least those motorists could expect is infrastructure that works. In addition, when they are unable to use their cars, they should be able to use public transport. However, the closure of the bridge has had a massive impact, curtailing many bus routes, notwithstanding the tube strikes we are enduring today.

I would like to be charitable, but I am afraid that it is hardly surprising that the Government have been so slow to act when their recent strategy for integrated transport has little to say about cars in urban areas beyond commenting that

“Promoting car and lift sharing should be used to manage congestion”,

and that those cars should be electric vehicles, which few people actually want to buy. That attitude does little to help people in Hammersmith and Fulham or those other London boroughs south of the river who need their vehicles in the capital.

In contrast to that inaction, Conservative councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham have put forward a temporary solution to the problem. The Secretary of State was the previous deputy Mayor of London for transport, and it is preposterous that a team led by someone with such a background has not convened people to get a plan in place. It must be either that Labour authorities do not want to fix it, or negligence.

This problem is not abstract; it is impacting people’s lives. The centre director of Castlenau community centre in Barnes recently told the Evening Standard that

“There are lots of people who need to go to Charing Cross Hospital, who are having to undergo stressful journeys and potentially risk not making their appointment in time”,

and earlier in the debate, we heard a similar example of people struggling to reach St George’s hospital. We need the Government to bring together those in their party who are responsible to put forward a plan. Sadly, I am afraid that, without the will of the local authority and Transport for London, the bridge will remain closed off for most people.

17:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who I have worked with extensively since taking up my post, for their contributions. I listened carefully to the remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Putney made about the future of Hammersmith bridge, which I appreciate is of particular interest to the constituents of all three Members that I mentioned, as well as the people in other constituencies across south and west London.

As my hon. Friend is aware, Hammersmith bridge is an historic, grade II listed suspension bridge. It opened in 1887, and was built on the foundations of an earlier bridge that opened in 1827. As has been said, the bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, with which the responsibility for maintaining and making decisions about the repair of the bridge ultimately lies. This unique wrought iron structure has served generations of Londoners for nearly 140 years, and although it is deeply unfortunate that it has been closed to motor vehicles since 2020, the safety of those using it is, of course, the utmost priority.

My Department has worked closely with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London to help to ensure the ongoing safety and stability of Hammersmith bridge. In March 2025, my Department provided the borough with £4.7 million for crucial repairs to Hammersmith bridge hangers. That funding has allowed the continued use of the historic structure by pedestrians and cyclists, and brought the total amount of Government funding for the bridge to £17 million to date. Furthermore, my Department has reconvened the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, which had been on hiatus for several years. That was instrumental in providing a forum in which interested stakeholders could discuss the next steps, go back to basics and look at all viable engineering solutions for the future of Hammersmith bridge.

Last year, my Department reached a spending review settlement with the Treasury, which provided the overall capital envelope for transport investment. As part of the settlement, we secured funding to create a structures fund. It was not about paying lip service for local elections, as suggested by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, but was established back in SR 25. It will inject urgently needed funds into repairing run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across the country, making everyday journeys safer, smoother and more dependable.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work in setting up the structures fund, which is also important for a bridge in my constituency. That bridge is also grade II listed, but is older than Hammersmith bridge and is the largest cast iron bridge in the country. The Minister will be awaiting an application to that fund from Staffordshire county council. In response to comments made by the Opposition spokesperson, the council, which is under Conservative control, did not approach me before the spending review, meaning that we are having to go through the structures fund. I look forward to seeing the Department’s reply to that hopefully successful application once it goes in.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have felt strangely popular all of a sudden, since last week’s announcement opening the fund to applications from councils across England, which can apply for funding to repair or replace key transport structures that are failing, and that they cannot afford to fix alone. That is part of a £1 billion package to enhance England’s road network. The fund will target England’s most critical road structures and give councillors direct access to funding for proper, lasting fixes that make journeys safer and communities proud of the infrastructure that they depend on. For too long councils have known which bridges and flyovers need fixing, but they have not had the funding to do it properly. The structures fund will put funds directly into the hands of councils to fix those structures for good. That will allow people to get safely to where they need to be on infrastructure of which they can be genuinely proud.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will be aware, my Department considers Hammersmith bridge a good candidate for investment from the structures fund. We intend to consider the viability of future funding for the next stage of works through that route. However, to ensure absolute fairness, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be subject to the same controls and eligibility criteria as other schemes funded through the structures fund. In addition, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be contingent on identifying a cost-effective engineering solution within a reasonable timescale. It is important that any chosen engineering solution must be affordable within the constraints of the structures fund. It is also an expectation of the Government that the local contribution toward the cost of any future repairs for Hammersmith bridge is provided. That is the case for all projects being assessed for funding through the structures fund. Although at present there are no plans to specify a minimum level of contribution, my Department intends to assess higher contributions and additional third-party contributions favourably. Some hon. Members mentioned a historical agreement to split the funding into a third, a third and a third. Obviously that was under a different Administration; I just know where we are today.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney continues to call for a further meeting of the taskforce. Indeed, I think we have had many exchanges on that question. Following the previous meeting of the forum, my officials continued their work with key stakeholders to progress viable engineering solutions for the next stage of the works on Hammersmith bridge. A final decision on those solutions will now be made via the structures fund. I assure my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—that when we are in a position to hold a further taskforce meeting, it will discuss issues of significance to the project and ensure that it remains a good use of stakeholders’ time. As such, I intend to convene a further meeting of the taskforce to discuss next steps once funding awards are made through the structures fund and agreed. My officials will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney to arrange the specifics of that meeting in due course.

I will remark briefly on the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). It is a shame that he chose to make his response to this issue an overtly party-political broadcast. All I would say is that nobody is buying what he is selling in this instance. People have seen the history. They remember the history. They remember the inaction of the previous Government. We have a structures fund that will help to restore structures across our country. We are taking action; we are not just leaving it there on the desk with inaction.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for her continued dedication to highlighting the issues of the closure of the bridge to motor vehicles, and the issues that causes to her constituents and others in the surrounding area. I assure her that my Department will provide appropriate support to LBHF for the Hammersmith bridge restoration project as it looks to progress the next stage of repairs through the structures fund.

11:58

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am obviously disappointed that he did not suddenly announce when the taskforce will be, when the funding will be given, when the funding will be reconsidered and when the restoration will happen. I live in hope. I am disappointed not to have an update on the viability of the different options discussed by the taskforce and to have no timetable ahead, but I have hope. I am really glad to hear about the spending review settlement with the Treasury. I congratulate him for achieving that. I understand that it is no mean feat to get that money out of the Treasury and to have that money in the structures fund, for which Hammersmith bridge is a good candidate. I am glad that there are not too many other hon. Members in this Chamber vying for the same pot of money. We are good to go with who we have in the room—that will be fine.

I am also heartened to hear that the structures fund opened last week. That is the starting pistol and I hope to follow up from this debate with a meeting with the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, the Department for Transport and Transport for London to learn when they will apply to that fund. I am also heartened to hear that the third-third-third funding structure is being reconsidered. It is not necessarily the structure on the table, but I hope that the one that will get this over the line is the one on the table in the end.

I will keep coming back. I am sure that the Minister understands that I will continue to lobby on behalf of my constituents not only about the opening of Hammersmith bridge, but about the District line, about the roads, for more active travel and for the ability of cyclists and pedestrians in Putney to enjoy our roads and get where they need to go on time. I look forward to continue to work with the Minister and other hon. Members. I thank hon. Members who contributed to this debate. We work together very much on this issue for the good of our constituents. I look forward to more answers in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.

17:25

Sitting adjourned.