Westminster Hall

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 28 April 2026

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

Park Home Owners

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for park home owners.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I want to acknowledge the turnout, which is pretty impressive, given that we were voting so late last night. I hope it demonstrates to the Minister how passionate people are about this topic.

I am proud to represent six park home sites. In Rushcliffe, as in many constituencies represented here, mobile home sites can be found everywhere. They can be found on the edge of more urban areas, such as the Bassingfield Lane, Carlight Gardens and Greenacres sites near West Bridgford; in smaller village or town settings, such as Radcliffe Park in Radcliffe-on-Trent; and in idyllic rural settings, such as the Tollerton Park site near Tollerton village, or the Langar Woods site near Langar. As those who can count will realise, those are all six park home sites in my constituency.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Speaking of idyllic rural areas, there is none more so than my constituency of Henley and Thame. The average house price is more than half a million pounds, so park homes offer an affordable alternative, yet the 10% charge when people come to sell the homes makes it really difficult. Does the hon. Member agree that it is a good thing that the Government have launched a review, but that more detail is required on the timeline?

[James Naish]

Absolutely. I am sure that we will talk a lot about the 10% sales commission, but the hon. Member is right to raise it early on. I am pleased that the Minister leading on the reforms is here. I am sure that he will be listening closely to what Members have to say today.

Wherever they are located, mobile home sites are great places to live. They are radically different from the stereotypes of so-called trailer parks from the 1970s and ’80s. Among other things, they offer independence, security and supportive communities. Over the past 21 months, I have been fortunate to work with people from all six Rushcliffe sites on issues related to living in a mobile home. When I applied for this debate, I told the Backbench Business Committee that one thing I have tried to do as a Member of Parliament is to find a couple of policy areas in which small changes can make a big difference to a large number of people. I believe that park or mobile homes are one of those areas.

An estimated 160,000 people live in mobile homes in England alone. In effect, that is two whole constituencies of people, or the equivalent of the population of Northampton, Norwich or Reading. However, because of the geographical dispersion of mobile home sites around the country and the lack of critical mass—on average there are fewer than 100 residents per site—mobile home residents are talked about only sporadically. When they are talked about, warm words are rarely followed by action. I am determined that this Parliament will change that for good. To that end, I welcome the fact that in March this Government opened a call for evidence, which closes on Friday 29 May, on the 10% commission charge on park home sales. That is a significant step forward. I hope that today’s debate will ensure that the voices of park and mobile home residents are amplified and heard clearly by Ministers and civil servants as that work continues.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Park home owners across my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages have contacted me about the deeply unfair 10% commission charge. It is a levy that has not been changed in almost 45 years, and it falls hardest on the older residents, who make up about 80% of park home owners, so I was delighted to see the Government announce the long overdue review in March. Does my hon. Friend agree that after years of neglect by previous Governments, park home owners deserve real, meaningful reform that finally gives them the financial security that they need?

[James Naish]

Yes, and I will talk about that in a moment. There has been cross-party consensus on the need to make changes, but it will fall to this Government to make them. I am pleased that in advance of this debate, we saw that move from the Government, and I trust that there will be proper, meaningful change in due course.

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

I hear repeatedly from park home residents in my constituency that they do not understand what the 10% charge is actually paying for. They feel that they have very little leverage and are stuck in a system that they cannot challenge. Does the hon. Member agree that any review must go beyond another round of evidence gathering? This time, park home residents will expect real change.

[James Naish]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will talk later about the different reasons that have been given for the 10% commission, which demonstrate in and of themselves that nobody is sure what it is for. It is a hangover from a past era.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stonehill Woods Park in my constituency, a wonderful park homes community where I heard residents’ huge frustrations about the regulation of park homes, particularly the 10% sales commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should look carefully at all the evidence provided as part of the consultation, and at whether the 10% commission can be reduced or scrapped entirely?

[James Naish]

I trust that the Minister and his team will do exactly that. This is not just about the 10% sales commission; there are broader issues impacting park home residents. I will come on to those matters shortly.

Let me say two important things. First, mobile homes can be a very good housing option. They typically offer people a smaller, more manageable home in an attractive, close-knit community. The quality of mobile homes has improved considerably over recent years; the sites are often now home to a diverse mix of individuals and families, just like any other location.

Secondly, and critically, for most people park homes are not a second home or a luxury purchase; they are their only home. They therefore represent security, independence and a lifetime of savings, just like the bricks-and-mortar properties that most of us inhabit. That is precisely why protections for mobile home owners matter. We are talking about 160,000 ordinary people living ordinary lives in 100,000 increasingly ordinary properties, but they are underpinned by out-of-date legislation and perceptions. Rightly, the Government are looking at major commonhold, leasehold and fleecehold reforms to end the feudal leasehold system and the injustice of unfair maintenance costs, but as part of those wider changes, park and mobile home owners must not be forgotten. I hope that today’s debate will make sure that they are not.

On mobile homes, MPs from parties of all colours have talked over the years about mis-selling, poor maintenance, weak enforcement, opaque utility charges, disputes over pitch fees, sale blocking and the 10% commission charge when a home is sold. Most concerningly, MPs have often alluded to the imbalance of power between mobile home residents and site owners.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by residents of the Harden and Bingley Park on Goit Stock Lane in Harden. They feel trapped in their relationship with the site owner, which they have said does nothing. On the 10% commission, they want to give the whole of their estate to their family as an inheritance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that residents feed their views into the consultation, and that we make sure that the deal between park home owners and residents is fair and proportionate?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consultation is being run for a reason. I encourage anyone watching the debate or emailing their MPs about it to go further and engage with the consultation, because I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to review those responses.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this valuable debate. I have a good number of park home sites in my constituency. Not only do they suffer the 10% commission, poor maintenance levels and high service charges, but they have atrocious service on the utilities that they have to buy through the park home owner. Some years ago, one site collectively was charged £100,000 for a water leak, which was £1,000 a home. I got that refunded from South West Water. The same site recently had blocked drains over a weekend, so people could not flush their toilets, and their Calor gas system was deemed unfit for use, so they had no heating. Is that an acceptable way to run a site? Does the hon. Member agree that residents need better enforcement and support, and not just from the site owner?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, let me say that this is an exceptionally well-subscribed debate. The Front Benchers’ wind-ups will start at 10.30 am, so I ask that interventions be short and sharp.

[James Naish]

Thank you, Sir Alec. I will press on, but the hon. Member is absolutely right and has touched on some issues that I will talk about. I congratulate him on ensuring his residents got their money back.

Most concerning, and often alluded to by MPs, is the imbalance of power. A park home resident may own the home they live in, but they are not in control of the land beneath or around it, and they often have a very limited say in related decisions. When the same person or entity controls the site, the pitch, the rules, the maintenance, potentially the utilities, and the conditions under which the home is sold, it is understandable that residents feel exposed.

That can and must change. It needs only relatively minor adjustments to legislation. I trust that the Minister and his team will prioritise that in the next parliamentary Session, given the tangible difference that can be made to the lives of 160,000 people up and down the country.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Naish]

I will press on and see where we get to. I will not go into detail about many key issues facing park and mobile home owners—I am sure colleagues will touch on them, as they have already started to—but I want to mention, up front, some key items that are common across all sites.

The first is maintenance and site standards. Site residents frequently report poor upkeep, damaged roads, drainage issues and neglected communal areas, despite continuing to pay high fees directly to the site owners. One of my six park home sites has repeatedly raised issues about poor waste disposal, leading to rats on site, and intermittent issues with water and heating quality. Such issues raise fundamental questions about transparency and accountability in how residents’ money is used.

Secondly, there is the transparency of pitch fees and charges. While preparing for the debate, I was made aware of several threats of eviction for non-payment of pitch fees and charges, some of which have been legitimately contested by residents. More than once, the management of mobile home sites has been described as the wild west. It is clear that stronger protections are needed to prevent unscrupulous practices.

Thirdly, the word “enforcement” has already been mentioned. In one case, a constituent of mine was chased for six years by a management company to pay for drain clearance that was not her responsibility. Although rights exist, and local authorities have powers, many residents feel unsupported when issues arise. They may be passed between councils, tribunals and advice services. They may fear repercussions for complaining. That creates an enforcement gap between legal rights and the ability to exercise them, particularly for vulnerable residents.

Fourthly, transparency over utilities has been raised with me by constituents at one of my weekly surgeries. Where residents receive electricity, gas or water via the site owner, it can be difficult to understand billing, fairness and eligibility for support. Residents need clear, enforceable rights to transparent billing, fair pricing and clarity on the Government’s engagement with Ofgem’s work on resale pricing.

Finally, there is the 10% sales commission, which has been raised several times today. For residents, that is a direct loss of equity, often at the moment when they need their money most, potentially to move closer to family, move into more suitable accommodation or fund care costs. The charge is poorly understood, insufficiently transparent and increasingly disproportionate, as the value of park homes has risen. In 1983, a park home sold for £12,000 would have generated a commission of £1,200, about 14% of an average salary at the time. In 2026, a park home sold for £160,000 would generate a commission of £16,000, about 42% of the current average salary. The commission is still 10%, but the cash value has grown substantially.

I recognise that site owners argue that the commission forms part of their business model and helps to support investment in sites. However, there are already routes for that to be done transparently. For example, under the framework in the Mobile Homes Act 2013, improvements to a park can be reflected in pitch fee reviews, which involve a proper process and residents being consulted. What residents primarily object to is effectively being charged twice by site owners: once through pitch fees and other charges, and again through a 10% deduction from the value of their home when they sell.

The inequity is reflected in the ever-changing justifications for the commission. Depending on who people speak to, it has been linked to road maintenance costs, the offsetting of pitch fees, the maintenance of site viability and/or the modernisation of infrastructure. No wonder residents are sceptical about how and where the proceeds are spent.

This debate is ultimately about fairness. It is about whether residents can enjoy the home that they have bought on the terms on which they bought it. It is about whether people can understand their bills, challenge unfair charges and sell their homes freely. It is about whether the law is meaningful in practice, not just on paper, and whether a 10% commission charge introduced decades ago remains fair and proportionate today.

I hope that the Minister will respond to several points. First, will the Government consider stronger protections at the point of sale, so that buyers are clear about the legal status of a site and their ongoing obligations before they purchase? Secondly, will Ministers review whether local authorities have the resources, expertise and duties needed to consistently enforce site standards? Thirdly, will the Government work with Ofgem to ensure transparent and fair utility charging for residents who receive energy or other utilities through site owners? Finally, will the Minister confirm today that, following the call for evidence, the Government are prepared to consider real reform to the current commission arrangements?

Park or mobile home residents are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for basic fairness, transparency and security in the homes that they have bought. Many have worked hard their whole life, invested their savings and chosen park home living because they believed that it would suit them and offer peace of mind. Like all of us, they deserve a fair system that protects them when things go wrong. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions and the Minister’s response to Members across the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. As 17 Members have indicated a wish to speak, I will set an immediate three-minute limit.

09:47

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing such an important debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is here beside me, is unable to speak in the debate, but I want to put on the record how important park homes are in her constituency. It is important to raise that.

Let us say that a couple of relatively modest means want to move to a park home. They will probably look first at Shropshire, a beautiful county where we have 39 outstanding park home sites. I do not want to downplay the rest of Shropshire, but obviously they will choose South Shropshire, the most beautiful constituency in the country. They purchase a park home, but as we know, circumstances change: they can plan for the next five or 10 years, but something could happen in a matter of months that means they have to resell that park home. The current 10% commission on sales means that, if they have to move within the next six or 12 months, they will lose that 10%, which they will have to pay out of the sale price. In no other housing market in the UK would we expect—unless there is a significant rise or a crash during that time—to move because of personal circumstances and lose 10%.

I have spoken to park home owners in Hollins Park and Highley Park Homes who feel that that traps them into their park homes and that they are unable to get out. The information is available when they set out to purchase, but if their circumstances change, that causes an issue. This blatantly discriminates against park home owners compared with owners in the rest of the UK housing market.

People argue that commission is based on the value of the land as a form of stamp duty, but sellers do not pay stamp duty; buyers do. There is also a taper mechanism for stamp duty in the UK, which is not the case with commission. On top of that, park home owners pay pitch fees as well as site fees. I have met various site owners and know that some look after their park homes excellently, such as in Homelands Park in Chorley, but other sites have unsurfaced roads and huge problems. In 2002, a study reported that commission makes up only 17% of site owners’ income. I am aware that they need a viable business model, but it should not be the commission model that comes on the back of my park home owners.

This problem has been raised across the many sites in South Shropshire. Park home residents deserve a far better deal than they get. I want the Minister to look seriously at the position of park home owners in South Shropshire, to ensure that they get a fair deal and to get this commission scrapped, because it does not work. It is an outdated model and I would love to see it go.

09:51

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. Many of the issues he raised in his excellent speech affect a number of my constituents. My constituency is home to several park home sites, including Caddington Park on Skimpot lane, Hillcrest Park in Caddington, Brickhill Park in Pepperstock, Brookfield Park in Totternhoe, Whipsnade park homes, Woodside park homes and some others. I have had the opportunity to meet and correspond with many residents from those communities.

With about 80% of park home owners aged over 65, park homes can appear to be an attractive and affordable option for retirement. However, there are long-standing concerns about the regulation of the sector. I will touch on two issues that have repeatedly been raised with me: the 10% sales commission and rising pitch fees.

The 10% commission is one of the most contentious issues in the sector.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I will carry on, I am afraid. When residents sell their homes, they have to pay up to 10% of the sale price to the site owner. That can amount to tens of thousands of pounds, with little clarity about what the payment covers. One constituent recently told me that their home could sell for £280,000, resulting in a £28,000 payment to the site owner “for doing nothing,” in her words. The commission has real consequences for park home residents, effectively acting as a deduction from the owner’s wealth and limiting how much they can reinvest in a new home, use for care or rely on as financial security. Most park home owners are retirees who bought their homes outright using savings or proceeds from selling a traditional house, and they often rely on that capital later in life to fund care, to relocate or for other essential needs.

Alongside that commission, residents must also pay ongoing pitch fees for the land their homes sit on. Fees are typically reviewed annually, and often rise with inflation. That may sound reasonable, but those increases compound over time, especially for those on fixed incomes. Although pitch fees are intended to cover maintenance and site services, residents frequently express concerns about transparency and value for money. Another of my constituents living in a park home wrote to me last year and told me that her pitch fee was more than £200 per month. She stated that

“this should cover maintenance to the site, but in our case the owner does not do any maintenance, resulting in a roadway that is not fit for purpose.”

Overall, the current park home financial structure raises serious questions about fairness, transparency and long-term sustainability. I welcome the Minister’s action in recent months to launch a renewed call for evidence on the rationale for a commission payment on the sale of a park home, and to publish the responses from the previous research report. I look forward to receiving further updates on the Government’s plans to address this issue following the conclusion of the consultation on 29 May. I hope that that will bring long overdue reform for my constituents.

09:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing to the Chamber this vital debate on a matter that strikes at the very heart of many of my constituents, and indeed of many people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as it concerns retirement and peace of mind. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. As always, I have asks of him, and will come to those in my conclusion.

In Ballyhalbert and Cloughey in my constituency, we have two park home sites. I have had a long working relationship with them and the group association over the years. The residents in my neck of the woods are decent, hard-working people, many of them elderly, who put every penny they have into their homes, but who often find themselves caught in a gap between the legislation we have here in Westminster and what is delivered back home in Northern Ireland. We must be very clear: a home is a home, whether it is built of bricks and mortar or a high-quality residential mobile home on a licensed site.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that in many parts of Northern Ireland, but especially in my constituency, this is about striking a balance between those who own or rent their mobile homes and the site owners?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend sums up some of the issues. It is a question of getting that balance.

I am worried, as I often am, that our constituents in the Province are being left behind. We have seen the Mobile Homes Act bring protections to those in England and Wales by dealing with those rogue site owners who, frankly, are more concerned with profit than they are with people’s right to live in peace and contentment, but we in Northern Ireland are still waiting for the same robust approach. I know that the Minister is very responsive to the requests of us all. My ask of him is to engage with the Minister back home to ensure that what is happening here will happen for people in Northern Ireland as well.

I will not take the extra minute, Sir Alec, because I am conscious of other Members wanting to speak, but I will highlight three specific points that must be addressed. The first is the 10% commission fee. It is a hidden and heavy burden for an elderly person to face a 10% exit fee just to move into a care home or to be closer to family. We need parity across the United Kingdom in how those fees are regulated. That is my first request of the Minister.

My second request relates to energy costs. Many of my constituents are off-grid and rely on liquefied petroleum gas or supplied electricity. I thank the Government for the warm home discount, but it is often a struggle for those residents to access it. We need a system that is automatic, not one that requires a senior citizen to jump through digital hoops.

Thirdly, on site licensing and enforcement, we need to ensure that local councils in Northern Ireland have the teeth needed to deal with those few site owners who harass or bully residents. A fit and proper persons test must be as meaningful in Comber or Newtownards as it is in Cornwall.

I have highlighted the Northern Ireland question and the role that perhaps the Minister will kindly take on for us in relation to the Minister back home, Gordon Lyons. Will the Minister commit to a meeting or corresponding with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the legislative gaps are closed and that my constituents in Strangford can sleep easy knowing that their homes and rights are protected?

09:57

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to represent park home owners in my constituency, and to follow the passionate call for action from my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish). It is genuinely touching to see that we have a cross-party consensus between many in this House on the need for justice for our park home residents.

Problems relating to park homes have been a constant and worrying part of my casework since I was elected. I regularly speak to residents who are frustrated and angry that their security—the security of having a home—is at risk because of the power imbalance between park home owners and site owners. It is not an exaggeration to talk about park home justice.

I pay tribute to park home campaigners in my constituency. I asked them yesterday if I could put some of their names on record, because they are great tribunes there, but they did not feel that it would be appropriate or right for me to name them because of the relationship with their site owners. However, I would like to give a shout-out to two councillors in my patch, Shabina Qayyum and Samantha Hemraj, who have consistently fought on the side of park home owners for longer than I have and who brought me up to speed on these issues.

This debate speaks not just to individual cases of people falling through the gaps or a blip, but to a systemic failure in the law, regulation and enforcement of decent standards for park home residents. The reality is stark. Like other speakers, I highlight the predatory nature of the relationships. Many residents feel that site owners prey on relatives of homeowners who die by buying up their homes cheaply and selling them on at a huge profit. In one part of Peterborough, a home that was recently bought for £25,000 was sold a few weeks later, when the homeowner died before Christmas, for £85,000. That is in addition to the rank injustice of the 10% commission that site owners make on all their sales.

The bigger issue is that, in too many cases, the state is blind to residents’ frustrations and too weak to deal with the injustices they face. Too often, maintenance is poor, despite increasing charges and fees being passed on to park home residents, and local authority enforcement is often weak.

[Samantha Niblett]

A constituent of mine, Marion Webster, is a keen supporter of the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. Like my hon. Friend’s constituents, she feels that it is incredibly unjust that, if she wants to sell her home, she has to give 10% away. That almost puts fleecehold and leasehold to shame by comparison. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to take action on the back of this debate, which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing?

[Andrew Pakes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe described some elements of this sector as management by the wild west. Residents have used stronger words to me to describe the people who run some of these sites. That is why we need justice.

Local authorities are often too reluctant or slow to intervene when problems arise, including complaints about site licence breaches, poor maintenance or sale blocking, or concerns about whether a site owner is a fit and proper person to manage the site. Resolving those problems can take years, and there are ample opportunities for site owners to duck and delay the process. I welcome the consultation on the 10% commission, and I look forward to updates on that; however, is the Minister assured that local authorities have the right mix of powers and resources to lead on this work? Do we need a national approach and better standards?

Before I finish, I want to speak about utilities, which many Members have mentioned. Like others, I have raised with the Minister for Energy issues such as the energy discount. That is an important measure that the Government introduced to help homeowners and bill payers with the cost of living, but for many park home owners in my constituency, the bill is paid directly by the site owner, and the lack of transparency, agency and power means that, yet again, something that should be good news for homeowners is tainted by the power imbalance between site owners and homeowners.

10:02

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

I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. There are clearly many issues facing park home residents across the country, and I want to touch briefly on two of them.

The first is the challenge around planning and sales problems. At Devon Oaks Park, a site in my constituency, it seems that the owner has effectively mis-sold properties on varying lengths of tenancy. When it is found that he has breached the planning conditions, it is the residents who are impacted, not the park owner. Dartmoor national park is rightly seeking to enforce those conditions, but many residents will be made homeless if that issue cannot be resolved.

I would be interested to know what the Minister has in mind, particularly for the review being done on the commission. Could that review look at planning and tenancy length? Ultimately, people choose to live in park homes permanently, but they can end up on a site with a time limit, or one where some properties are on a time limit and some not. It is incredibly difficult to know what they are buying into.

The main challenge that I want to address, which has already been touched on, is the fuel costs for residents, particularly those who use LPG. I recently surveyed residents of Devon Oak Park and Bittaford Wood on whether the issue was impacting them, so that I could seek to do something about it. Everyone using LPG who responded had seen an increase in their costs. Most were paying up to a quarter more, and some were paying as much as half again. That equates to a bill increase of more than £100, and some are paying as much as £150 more. My view is that every constituent whose household relies on LPG should receive support equivalent to that going to households using oil. I appreciate that the Minister is in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, rather than the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but I hope he will hear those pleas.

It is not difficult to understand why my constituents are seeking support. As we have heard, these households are off grid not by choice, but by circumstance. LPG prices, unlike mains gas prices, are unregulated and uncapped, and users are exposed to market volatility with no safety net. One constituent told me that they are

“finding it very hard to make ends meet.”

Another told me that

“being pensioners does not give us much for essentials”.

One constituent simply said: “Help, please.” I plead with the Minister to hear that and to commit to make that plea on behalf of park home owners to his colleagues in other Departments.

10:04

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this timely debate. My constituency is known for its coastal beauty, and as such it is a hotspot for park homes. Of UK mobile home owners, 80% are aged 65 and above, and they buy their homes in pursuit of a quiet, secure retirement. Unfortunately, many end up enduring a living nightmare, due to the widespread intimidation and mis-selling by some site owners.

My constituent Dennis is one such retiree. He was mis-sold a holiday home on a holiday park under the false pretence that it was a residential home. He was persuaded to make the purchase by signage that suggested that the caravan could be used as his sole residence and inhabited all year round. After moving in, Dennis discovered that he was legally required to have a permanent home elsewhere, which is the rule for holiday parks.

After the summer was over, Dennis faced, in his words, a

“relentless campaign of harassment, intimidation and verbal abuse”.

He was frequently approached by members of staff and warned that his home would be removed from the site if he did not vacate it. My constituent was threatened with physical violence. Eventually, when that intimidation became too much, Dennis sold his home back to the site at a 60% loss. The site sold it four days later for a substantial profit. Dennis told me earlier this year that, having lost tens of thousands of pounds in savings and with legal representation having cost more than £4,000, he felt that his retirement was ruined. That story is repeated again and again, up and down the country.

The Holiday Park Action Group represents more 84,000 holiday park home owners across the country. As its founder Carole Keeble told me, Dennis is one of thousands of victims whose lives have been severely impacted by an unregulated industry. Sites often have a mixed licence that permits them to sell both residential and holiday homes, and they are sometimes deliberately unclear about which type they are selling. Buyers are often not properly informed of their contractual rights and obligations and are then forced to resell at a loss. Victims are led to think that they are at fault for having bought the home, not realising that they were intentionally misled. According to the Holiday Park Action Group, that has led to mental health problems and, tragically, to suicides.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister respond to this debate by telling us how his Department plans to work with the Department for Business and Trade to establish robust protections and to regulate this industry, where people such as my constituent Dennis are being exploited?

10:08

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.

There are six park home estates in my constituency. They provide vital accommodation and a strong sense of community among residents who take pride in their homes and their estates. This debate raises a fundamental issue of fairness. Many of my park home residents are retirees, often on fixed incomes. Many downsize into park homes precisely to release equity, reduce costs and secure greater financial stability. When they come to sell their home, the requirement to hand over 10% of the sale price to the site owner causes real distress.

[Chris Coghlan]

Park home owners in my constituency tell me that site owners have pressured them into selling, in order to get that 10% commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is wrong and that the 10% commission should be abolished?

[Clive Jones]

I agree 100%. It is not a small administrative fee: it can amount to tens of thousands of pounds. That charge exists outside the protections that most homeowners take for granted. In the mainstream housing market, sellers are protected by competition and choice. Estate agent fees are negotiated. Services must be delivered to justify the costs and, if someone does not like the terms, they can walk away. Park home residents do not have that freedom.

We would not accept this in any other part of the housing system—we would not accept a mandatory 10% charge simply for the right to sell our own homes. People delay moving closer to their families and put off downsizing further. Even when their health declines, some remain in homes that no longer meet their needs simply because they cannot afford to lose such a large portion of their asset. No group of homeowners should face a system that strips away rights and imposes disproportionate financial penalties.

It is time to bring fairness back into the system. That is why I support the PHOJC’s calls for the 10% charge to be ended without delay or replaced with a fairer system that does not penalise residents. Changes should also be made to ensure that park home residents have the same protection and fair treatment as all other homeowners, bringing park home living in line with normal consumer and housing rights.

10:10

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing the voice of park home owners to Parliament. For many people, choosing a park home is not just a housing decision; it is about investing in the next chapter of their lives. It is a choice for peace and a slower, gentler pace of life. People sell their brick-and-mortar homes and invest their life savings. They are not chasing luxury; they are seeking a bit of security.

Sir Alec, you will know that in York and North Yorkshire we have some of the best park homes in the country. When people go to Mill Garth Park or Mount Pleasant Park in my constituency, they see immediately that these are beautiful parks, set among nature, with close-knit communities—but for too many, what was meant to be a peaceful retirement has slowly, heartbreakingly turned into something else entirely. For some residents, their park home has become a financial prison.

Residents who believed they were buying certainty now lie awake worrying about pitch fees they cannot control. That is why I warmly welcome the Government’s plan to move annual pitch fee increases away from retail price index and towards consumer price index. However, there is one issue that still casts a very long shadow over the lives of park home residents: the 10% commission charge on resale.

One of my constituents simply wants to sell up to move closer to their son. Time is precious in life and, for however many years they have left, they just want more time together as a family; but when she and her husband sell up, 10% of the proceeds will go not towards the move or towards their future, but to the site owner. There is no other form of home ownership in the country that requires sellers to hand over 10% of their home’s value to another person. If I were at the Financial Conduct Authority, investigating a similar pricing structure in the financial services industry, I would be saying loud and clear, “Mis-selling, mis-selling, mis-selling.” It absolutely stinks.

I am genuinely pleased that the Government have launched a formal review of that 10% commission. After all, this is not just about regulations, commissions or fees; it is about dignity, security and ensuring that a home someone chose for peace does not become a source of fear. Retirees should be able to enjoy the life they have earned, without having to fight just to hold on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Sir Christopher, I will set an immediate two-minute limit.

10:13

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I have been involved with the park homes issue for the best part of 30 years; I have 2,000 people in my constituency living in park homes, and I am much concerned by the abuses so many of them have suffered—not just in my constituency, but across the country.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who referred to my private Member’s Bill, the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023, which changed the pitch fee maximum from RPI to CPI. I was privileged to be able to take that Bill through all its stages in one day; it is an example of how private Member’s Bills can be used to help park home residents.

My former colleague Peter Aldous did exactly the same thing, introducing the fit and proper person legislation through the Mobile Homes Act 2013. That Bill was effectively drafted in what is now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and was given priority by the then Minister, Grant Shapps, who said, “I can’t get parliamentary time from the Government, but I’m going to promote this among Back Benchers.” I ask the Minister here today to do something similar regarding the lack of action on complex ownership. That issue was raised in 2017 and the Government promised to take action on it, but nothing has happened.

The Minister kindly came along and addressed the all-party parliamentary group on park homes in February last year. Since then, he has honoured his commitment to do something about the 10% commission issue. However, at the moment there is complete radio silence on dealing with the abuses that exist, some of which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and others. Action must be taken to protect park home owners from rogue operators, of whom there are far too many.

10:15

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). Demographically, Lancaster and Wyre has a very similar number of park homes to his constituency, and I have discussed them with him on a number of occasions, which shows the cross-party consensus that what is going on in this industry is nothing short of a scandal.

Colleagues may have seen my constituency in the “Panorama” documentary on park homes in 2024, in which Wyre country park featured. I pay tribute to the two brave park residents who spoke out and were interviewed, but that did not come consequence-free. We have talked a lot about bullying and intimidation, and sadly, in August 2025, both their park homes burned down on the same day, in broad daylight, 90 minutes apart from each other. The cause was never found—I will leave that hanging, and I pay tribute to them.

There are a great many park home sites that are well run, and probably a lot of park home owners are listening to this and thinking, “Actually, I live somewhere that is pretty good.” But unfortunately, the rogue operators are now giving the entire industry a bad name, which is why we need to take action.

I agree entirely with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) at the beginning of the debate and I congratulate him on securing it. In the limited time that I have, I will take the opportunity to put on record my concerns about one particular site in my constituency, called Havenlyn residential park.

I have been approached by dozens of residents and park home owners on that site. The issues of bullying, intimidation and rules being changed without any consultation are alarming. In the past couple of days, I have heard from one of them that the terms and conditions of park residents have now been changed, so that if someone is selling a park home on that site, they cannot sell it to anyone younger than them. Ultimately, that will force many into an impossible situation, because, given the nature of park homes, older people live on these sites and there are issues when they are looking to sell—they might be towards the end of their life, or perhaps the previous owner had died and left it as an inheritance to their children, which, as I have heard, just ends up becoming a burden.

In the remaining seconds that I have left, I will ask the Minister these questions. Can he do any more to empower local authorities, which are meant to be regulating and enforcing regulations? Do they need stronger statutory duties or more resources, because at the moment Wyre council does not seem able to protect residents in my constituency?

10:17

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I will make three brief points. The first is on fit and proper persons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) indicated, the legislation is on the statute book. Peter Aldous did a super job to get it there, but it now needs to be properly implemented. The problems we have heard about this morning tend to be generated by cowboy owners, who are not fit and proper people and should never, ever have been allowed to acquire park homes in the first place.

Secondly, on licensing, it is absolutely clear that local authorities often lack the expertise to enforce the legislation that is already on the statute book. We must have licensing officers who understand the terms and conditions of the licences granted for the operation of these parks, and who know how to enforce them. Many of the problems that I have experienced in my constituency arise from a lack of enforcement, when cowboy operators could and should be brought to book.

Thirdly, I will make myself the most unpopular person in the room—

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Never!

[Sir Roger Gale]

I will be in a minority of one. If we are to address the 10% commission issue, and we must, we have to understand that it is part of the business model. Park home owners have the opportunity to read the lease they take out; they know what they are buying and what they are signing, and the commission is a significant part of the model. If it is going to be revised, and I accept that there is a strong case for revision, we have to take account of the fact that those costs will fall elsewhere.

10:14

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this debate. For residents of park homes in my constituency, this is not a technical issue; it is about power, protection and whether anyone steps in when things go wrong. Park homes are meant to offer security and affordability, particularly for older people. For many, park homes represent their life savings and their final move, but too often, they instead experience anxiety about charges they do not understand, standards that quietly slip and enforcement that never seems to arrive.

Let me give some examples. Pitch fees are a major source of the pressure they face. Residents face increases imposed with little explanation, often linked to CPI, entirely at the site owner’s discretion. Getting basic receipts can be a struggle, and many residents do not challenge these increases because they are afraid—they are afraid of retaliation, afraid of being labelled difficult and afraid that services will quietly deteriorate if they speak up.

Then there is maintenance. Members have already mentioned some examples of local authorities failing to enforce. Such examples are why I have written to East Herts district council, which is the licensing authority for a park home in my constituency, to set out my residents’ concerns. I expect the district council to act promptly, and my participation in this debate should underline that expectation clearly.

Finally, I turn to the 10% sales commission, which we have heard so much about today. However, we have not really heard why it is set at that arbitrary level. On behalf of park home residents in my constituency, I ask the Minister to consider seriously either removing it or reducing it to a far lower level.

At its heart, this debate is about fairness. Park home residents are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for honesty about what they are buying, transparency about what they are paying for, proper maintenance of the places they live and councils that enforce the rules. I ask the Minister to consider all that very carefully.

10:21

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and for setting the scene so clearly about the many issues faced by people living in park homes. Time is short, so I will speak only about the 10% commission.

Back in 2022, I presented a petition to the House calling for annual pitch fee increases for park homes to be linked to consumer price inflation rather than retail price inflation. The petition was signed by 165 residents of Ashwood Park in Wincham, with the support of the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), and I was pleased that the previous Government enacted that change. It was a simple but meaningful adjustment, as the change to the 10% commission would be.

We know that 160,000 people live in park homes. Many of them are retired, and they moved there for affordability, security and a sense of community, but that is not what they are getting. The commission was lowered in 1983 from 15% to 10%, so let me ask the Minister the following questions, because it could be changed again. Who is the call for evidence open to? Are all park home residents able to make a submission? What is the timeline for a decision once the call for evidence has been closed? What assurances can the Minister provide that the decision on reforming the commission charge will be made in a timely way? And is this matter a top priority for the Minister and his Department?

10:23

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. In my constituency, there are a number of park home sites, including in Rainworth, Calverton and Ollerton, and those sites often provide an affordable and accessible housing option for people later in life. Park homes in my constituency are situated close to local amenities, making them particularly suitable for vulnerable and older residents. However, the uncertainty that many park home owners face over their utility bills is a significant concern.

In many cases, park home residents in my constituency purchase electricity, gas or water through the site owner rather than directly from a utility supplier. Although that arrangement can simplify billing by reducing the number of payments that residents need to manage, it can also make it difficult to understand how charges are calculated or to confirm whether bills accurately reflect individual household usage. It may sometimes be possible to request further information, but residents can be reluctant to do so in fear of retaliation or of a breakdown in relationships with site owners. No one should feel intimidated or isolated in their own home. I am concerned that the lack of transparency and risk of retaliation may disproportionately affect older and more vulnerable constituents. That is particularly worrying given the current uncertainty around electricity and gas prices.

For far too long, park home residents have been treated as an afterthought: paying more, getting less and having little power to challenge it. The 10% sales charge, high utility costs and poor services are a pattern of unfairness. I urge the Minister to introduce real reform, restore balances and give my constituents the dignity and protection that they need and deserve.

10:25

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I, too, have been contacted by many of my constituents, throughout my six and a half years as the MP for South West Hertfordshire, with a wide range of complaints and concerns about park homes, particularly from residents of Long Pightle Park, Highview and Newlands Park. This debate is the result of excellent work by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign, which is of course supported by several hon. Members in attendance at this debate. This issue is cross-party and cross-country, so I applaud all those hon. Members for their excellent efforts. I also make reference to Councillor Vicky Edwards and Councillor Ian Campbell in my constituency, who helped me with this speech.

Park homes offer an affordable option for many people across the UK to relocate, often in retirement, and enjoy the beauty of our natural landscapes. That is something that I can definitely attest to in South West Hertfordshire. But park homes also leave residents vulnerable to many issues, including exploitative site operators, and the majority of park home owners are retirees or older people. As has been noted, the longest-running campaign, the PHOJC, is against the 10% commission that residents are still expected to pay to site owners during the purchase of their park home. That is especially damaging to elderly residents, who do not have excess capital and for whom the commission is a significant part of their retirement fund. It is important that the Government continue the existing inquiry—a continuation of the work of the previous Government—into the impact that a change in the maximum commission legislation would have on residents and on the industry as a whole. I know that my constituents will continue to support the work being done on that campaign.

I still receive many complaints from park home owners in my constituency, mostly regarding poorly maintained landscapes, drainage facilities and fire hydrants, and regarding rubbish and debris being inappropriately stored and disposed of. Some of the figures bandied around for the works being done are three times the market value; they are excessive. I encourage the Government to continue the excellent work, to listen to the results of the consultation, and to implement the proposed measures as quickly as possible.

10:27

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. I am sure he will be much thanked by my residents in Gainsborough Park, Fir Hill, Glenleigh, Roseveare, Buckler Village, and the Old Rectory Mews, for raising the issues that they raise with me—the 10% commission being prime among them. That commission is not simply a financial burden, although on a modest park home it can result, as we have heard, in tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of fees at the very moment when a resident is most vulnerable. It also reinforces the structural imbalance of power that we have heard so much about today.

I want to add another issue into the mix: council tax. A tax that we know is regressive at the best of times, it has caused a lot of confusion and distress for residents in my constituency who have faced incorrect council tax bandings on their homes and, separately, site owners being charged council tax on empty pitches, which creates knock-on pressures for other residents. The council tax system, as currently designed, simply does not map well on to the park homes tenant model. That is creating real hardship and confusion for my constituents and deserves attention alongside the commission question.

I say to Ministers that the case for reform is already well established. Residents now need action. I am very glad that the call for evidence has been renewed. I encourage all my residents to submit. We must recognise that park homes are a valued part of our housing stock. The people who live in them deserve the same protections, recourse and security that we would consider a baseline anywhere else in the housing market.

10:29

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate. We have discussed these issues multiple times on the all-party parliamentary group on park homes, of which he is also a member.

Park home residents are often the forgotten home owners in our housing system. In this place we rightly discuss leaseholders, renters and first-time buyers, but we almost never talk about the 160,000 people who own park homes in England, four in five of whom are over 65. The quiet injustice that they have faced for many years is overwhelming. These people are overwhelmingly older residents, and most of the time are on fixed incomes. They choose this way of life, in park homes, because it is settled, affordable and within reach, when so much of the rest of the housing market is not. They pay their site fees and maintenance charges, and keep their homes in good order, often for decades.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the issues with the agreements— eight months or 12 months—when people buy their homes. One reason for those issues is that when people buy their park homes, they are often told, “Don’t worry about conveyancing or solicitors. You don’t need that. It’s not important.” They would never have been told that if they bought another property, but that is okay when it comes to park homes. That is where quite a lot of the issues, including those faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, come from.

When people come to sell their park home, the law steps in and takes 10% of the sale price—not the gain or profit, but the price. That is handed straight over to the site owner. That is not for services rendered at the point of sale, for an obligation that has been discharged, or for anything that we as Members can quantify and put our fingers on—or that the industry itself can explain—but just because they are selling their park home. For most park home owners, selling is not a choice, but a last resort: they are downsizing and moving closer to relatives, or, in quite a lot of cases, they are going to pay for care costs that age has made unavoidable.

At the precise moment when every single penny matters most, the system reaches into their pockets and takes a 10% slice. On a £300,000 park home, that is £30,000, but many park homes in my Maidenhead constituency go for upwards of £500,000, £550,000 or £600,000. That is a massive amount of money. It could pay for a lot of years of social care, but it is being taken out of the system—being paid for now by our local authorities—because of that 10%. That can determine whether someone dies in dignity or experiences difficulty at a time that should be secure.

I have at various times called the 10% commission unfair and illogical, and I stand by that. It singles out one group of home owners for a deduction. No leaseholder, freeholder or shared owner would ever tolerate that.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about sales commission charges. Given that we had a consultation into park home sales commission charges in 2022, which concluded that there was no good justification for them, does he agree that what we now need from the Government is not another a consultation, but a fixed timeline so that we can understand when real action will be taken on behalf of our constituents in park homes?

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Park home residents have had consultation after consultation over many years. Site owners will respond to the current Government consultation, because they have lawyers to back them up and support them in putting in their thoughts, but the park home owners I have spoken to worry that there is no point in submitting responses to yet another consultation when, as they see it, nothing is going to happen. I worry that far fewer park home owners will respond to this consultation, and we will therefore end up with a one-sided consultation.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. As he knows, there are many park homes across Bracknell Forest, which we both represent. I understand the scepticism that some have expressed about the call for evidence, but as he has identified, the Government need to put forward something that can stand up to those with very expensive lawyers behind them. Will he therefore take this opportunity to urge everyone who lives in a park home, whether in Bracknell Forest or elsewhere across the country, to contribute to that call for evidence, so that the evidence base can be as robust as it needs to be and we can abolish the 10% charge?

[Mr Reynolds]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that point. It is incredibly important that everybody responds to the consultation, so we must encourage more people to do so.

The financial cost of the 10% commission is only part of the story. We have heard time and again about unscrupulous site owners who have used intimidation to drive residents off their pitches. There are fewer bad actors who own sites than there were a number of years ago, but some still know that if they intimidate residents and force a sale, they will get a 10% commission. We see that time and again. In my constituency, one owner bought a site for £200,000. They then intimidated countless park home residents, who sold their properties, and made that £200,000 back within less than 12 months. That is the business model of unscrupulous site owners. We need to think about where the 10% commission came from. It has not always been 10%: it was 15% a number of years ago, so it is an arbitrary number.

I pay tribute to Sonia McColl OBE and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. Over decades, she and the campaign have done what many in this place only wish we had been able to do. They secured two legislative changes: ending sale blocking, and shifting pitch fees from RPI to CPI, which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) spoke about. Sonia and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign have driven lots of the work that is happening here. Another petition is going to Downing Street later today. I was lucky to be able to present one to Downing Street last year, and I know that many of us are willing to submit them in future.

We need to be honest about what we are going to do. There is a consultation on the table, but lots of residents have been consulted before. I ask the Minister for a clear timeline for when we will see action, when we will have a conclusion with published responses, and when the 160,000 residents will get the fair deal that has been promised for so long but postponed for much longer.

10:36

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is a pleasure to see so many Members in this debate. It is always ominous to have my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), sitting next to me in a debate—I do not know whether that is an expectation of great things or a sign that there will be a meeting without coffee. Might I say that he made a very, very good speech? I hope the Minister takes it on board.

In all seriousness, I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate on Government support for park home owners. He introduced the issue in a humorous way, but also in a very serious, constructive way. I understand that he has a busy day, as he is also introducing a ten-minute rule Bill, which is a testament to the way he represents his Rushcliffe constituents. I suspect he will also have a very busy evening.

The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up this issue, as about 159,000 people live in mobile or park homes across 1,800 sites. We all recognise that park homes present themselves as an attractive choice for some people, and are therefore an important part of the national housing market.

Colleagues across the House have made excellent speeches, but I would like to mention a few from Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said that everybody would automatically pick a park home site in South Shropshire, but I politely disagree. Given that we have the beautiful Solent on the south coast, I suspect that many people would choose one of the many park home sites in my Hamble Valley constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) rightly mentioned fuel costs, which came up throughout the debate. I will come to that in a minute, and I hope the Minister will expand on that. She spoke about planning enforcement and raised a specific case, and it important that we get that right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the lack of expertise in local planning authorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has done a huge amount of work in this space. In the last Parliament, I was delighted to co-sign his Bill, and I was pleased that the previous Government backed it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke about the huge problems that many park home owners face. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire mentioned the sporadic nature of maintenance on sites across the country.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is absolutely right to bring this important topic to light. Park homes are an often overlooked part of our housing sector that provide a comfortable living space and a community-oriented way of life. They are particularly valued by our older members of society, who have worked hard and deserve suitable protections and support. I think all of us here can agree that home ownership brings with it not just a sense of accomplishment, but an expectation of security and peace of mind, yet for many park home residents that expectation is not always met, particularly when their home sits on a site run by an unscrupulous operator. We have a duty to ensure that someone who has invested their life savings in a home does not find themselves facing unpredictable costs or unclear rights.

I am proud that the last Government recognised that more had to be done to protect park home owners’ rights and to support residents’ awareness of both their rights and the responsibilities. After a thorough review of the mobile or park homes legislation, the previous Government—this was mentioned on both sides of the Chamber—brought forward legislation to make it a legal requirement for a site owner or manager to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to manage a mobile home site. Too often, park home residents have been asked to pay significant sums, only to find that site maintenance falls short of what they have every right to expect. That is not just disappointing; it is fundamentally unfair. If operators are to charge those fees, they must also meet their clear responsibility to keep sites safe, well maintained and fit for purpose.

As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch promoted the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023. That delivered important economic relief for park home residents. Changing the basis for pitch fee increases from the retail prices index to the generally lower consumer prices index ensures that annual rises are more proportionate and fairer. That change had long been called for by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign.

Many Members across the Chamber raised the issue of the 10% commission on the sale of a park home. The last Government began the important process of researching the potential impact of a change to the maximum commission paid on such a sale. I am watching with interest this Government’s efforts to look in greater detail at commission payments and I hope that the Minister will look at that with great scrutiny—I know that he will, given the way he conducts himself. We look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with.

A burden that park home owners face—this genuinely is not a political point, as my party looked into the issue when we were in government, and it was apparent that there was no straightforward fix—is that they are often among the hardest hit when it comes to energy costs. That is largely because many do not have the freedom to choose their own energy supplier, leaving them more exposed to higher prices and less competitive markets. I note that towards the end of last year, Ofgem reignited efforts to look into this issue through a call for evidence on the rules around the resale of gas and electricity and the maximum resale price arrangements. The issue was last reviewed in 2001, so I look forward to looking into the findings when they are published.

We must recognise that energy costs for park home residents are not shaped only by resale arrangements. Unlike households on the mains gas and electricity network, which benefit from the energy price cap, many park homes rely on heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat their homes and water, so I welcome the Government’s commitment of £53 million to support households reliant on heating oil, in particular low-income families, who are most affected. It is right that support is targeted where need is greatest. I note that in England, that funding will be delivered through local authorities via the crisis and resilience fund, which came into effect on 1 April. However, I remain concerned that there is still no clear confirmation as to whether park home residents will be eligible for that support. Given the specific vulnerabilities that they face in relation to energy supply and pricing, I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point directly in his response this morning.

We have seen how difficult it can be to ensure that people off grid actually receive and benefit from funding support. That was a lesson learned in 2022, when similar measures to support similar groups were brought in after the shocks from the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hope that the Minister will commit to monitoring the efficiency of funding distribution.

Members here today, particularly the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, outlined several issues that park home owners face and the importance of them receiving the appropriate Government support. Supporting park home owners is about providing more protections and security for the residents who live in these communities, and supporting the wider housing market. It requires cross-party support—something that as a shadow Housing Minister I commit to providing when the Government come forward with their proposals. The Minister gave me a wry smile, but it is now on the record that if the Government come forward with sensible proposals to tackle this issue, then on a cross-party basis we will look at that seriously. It does require cross-party support, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan to provide continued and accelerated support, so that park home owners across the country, including in my constituency of Hamble Valley, get the services they deserve for the money they have saved.

10:45

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. I thank all other hon. Members who have participated, and like many of them I welcome the strong cross-party nature and tone of the debate. I have valued the opportunity to hear the individual stories hon. Members have shared, including some really egregious examples of harassment and intimidation, such as the case of Dennis, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume).

One challenge in considering law and policy in respect of park homes is the huge variation in arrangements across the approximately 1,832 sites in England. The more real case studies that can be brought to the Government’s attention, the greater rigour we can bring to policy development.

Despite representing less than 1% of housing stock, the park home sector is an important part of the housing market. Mobiles homes, as has been mentioned, provide housing for around 160,000 people, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, park home sites are often advertised on the basis that they offer a luxurious, secure and supportive lifestyle, particularly for older people. In many cases, that is true, and it is important that several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), mentioned that there are some great park home sites. Unfortunately, as the debate has powerfully reinforced, the experience of many park home owners is far removed from that idyllic vision.

I am unlikely to be able to cover all the points raised in this wide-ranging debate in the time available, but let me ensure that I at least cover the two main issues raised: site licensing and enforcement, and the commission payment. On licensing and enforcement, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 provides the foundational legislative underpinning for the site licensing regime operated by local authorities. The primary purpose of that regime is to ensure that sites are set up in the right places, which is why site owners are required to obtain planning permission to operate land as a caravan site. Unless a given site is exempt from having one, it will require a licence after planning permission has been granted, with relevant conditions attached by the local authority. The requirement for a licence is designed to ensure that sites and the amenities on them are properly maintained and kept safe for residents and other users.

The wide-ranging Mobile Homes Act 2013, introduced changes to the procedures and penalties for enforcement of site licence conditions on residential parks. The new site licensing system, subsequently brought into force in 2014, gave local authorities substantial enforcement powers, including the ability to issue compliance notices and the discretion to refuse to grant or transfer applications. It also provided local authorities with powers to charge annual fees, to provide the resources they need to carry out their functions.

Since 2021, there have been additional requirements for all site owners to be assessed by the local authority and placed on a local register of fit and proper persons. I commend Peter Aldous, a very valued former Member of this House, for the private Member’s Bill he took forward on that issue. A person can be included on the register, with or without conditions, for up to five years, and local authorities can charge fees to cover their functions in respect of the fit and proper person test. Taken together, those measures provide a robust range of powers for local authorities to draw on, and the Government expect them to be used effectively to ensure that sites are well managed by competent persons.

At this point, I want to acknowledge the commendable work done by individual local authorities over the years, as well as the notable successes some have had in ensuring that sites are well maintained and in successfully prosecuting non-compliant site owners. However, my Department is aware that some local authorities do not apply or enforce existing legislation as effectively as they could and should. There are a variety of reasons for that, including cost and, on occasion, lack of expertise, but in some cases local authorities might simply decide not to take appropriate enforcement action. I therefore encourage residents who have concerns about health and safety on their site to raise them initially with the local authority if the site owner fails to address the problem. They can then consider escalating the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if their local authority does not deal effectively with their complaint.

Turning to the commission payment, the 10% commission fee charged on the sale of park homes has been the subject of intense debate over many years, as we all know. Park home residents see it as an unfair and unjustified charge that has a negative impact on their finances and mobility. Site operators argue that the commission is a vital part of their income and that a substantial reduction in the commission rate would reduce total income without reducing expenditure, thus threatening the financial viability of parks. That important point was raised by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale); there are many elements of this complex problem.

I fully understand hon. Members’ desire to secure change in this matter, and I assure those present that I share their impatience. Unfortunately—this is where I have to take issue slightly with the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan)—research undertaken by the previous Government was not conclusive on either the purpose of the commission or the impact of its removal or reduction. The final report, published in 2022, recommended further work to clarify the rationale of the commission so that the Government can make informed policy choices. In 2023, the then Government sought feedback from stakeholder representative bodies on the report’s recommendations. The feedback reinforced the view that there was no clarity or consensus in the sector on the rationale for the commission.

We are not consulting for consultation’s sake. There is a reason the Government published a call for evidence on 5 March this year concerning the rationale for the commission payment. Through that call for evidence, we are seeking to understand the following: the reasons for charging a commission before it became a statutory requirement in 1975, and whether those reasons have changed; what goods and services are paid for by the commission; how the commission rate is calculated to be a percentage of the future sale price of a park home; how the commission payment relates to other charges in the sector; and how receiving commission in the future enables site owners to meet their obligations effectively and efficiently.

To date, we have had 400 responses from park home residents. I encourage residents and site owners across the country to engage with that call for evidence before it closes on 29 May. I encourage all hon. Members here to tell their constituents about it so that we can get the maximum amount of evidence submitted. Then we can properly consider what, if any, changes are needed to the payment of a commission, what the options are and how they would impact on the sector.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Many park home residents in Maidenhead have told me that complete swathes of the consultation are not relevant to residents but are to site owners. Can the Minister clarify which questions he expects residents to be able to respond to, because many feel that those questions are just not relevant to them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to hear that feedback. We will take into account any feedback that park home residents wish to submit—even in general terms and outside the strict questions they have responded to—when we are making policy decisions. I emphasise once again that I want the widest possible response from across the country that grapples with the complexity and the particular arrangements in place on specific sites so that we can make informed choices.

I want to come on to the timeline, because several hon. Members have pressed me on it. Following an assessment of the responses received, we will publish a summary of them in the summer. I intend to outline our final position at the very latest by the end of this year. To respond to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), it is one of many priorities—but a very real priority—for the Government to bring the clarity that both park home residents and site owners require and have been calling for now for some years. I will strain every sinew to ensure that that happens as early as possible, but I give the commitment that we will have clarity on the position by the end of the year.

Hon. Members raised a series of other matters, including written agreements, contractual rights, conveyancing, the adequacy of existing redress mechanisms in respect of pitch fees, overcharging in relation to utilities, and harassment by site owners. I assure them that the Government either have taken action or are exploring action in a number of those areas. That might take a range of forms, such as raising awareness about the protections and enforcement mechanisms that already exist or providing further guidance. We are taking some very real steps, not least in respect of utilities, which I want to speak to briefly.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

When the Minister kindly came to the APPG on park homes, he heard from Nat Slade, the environmental health officer for Arun district council, about the issues he faces and the need for urgent action on complex ownership structures, which was first promised in 2017. Where is that on the Minister’s agenda?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address that point before sitting down, but I want to briefly touch on utilities. As resellers of electricity or gas, site owners must comply with the maximum resale price provisions, which prevent them from reselling energy at a higher price than they paid. There are other protections in place for residents, including the right to ask for documentary evidence to support any demands for charges. Where a resident has been overcharged, they can recover those amounts through a small claims court and may also receive interest on the excess charge.

However, it is evident that the rules and how to enforce them are not always well understood in the sector. To further empower residents, I have tasked my officials with working with the relevant Departments to raise awareness and, if necessary, to make additional guidance available. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), noted, we are also taking steps to ensure that residents are protected by the rules already in place. In October, Ofgem issued a call for input to assess whether current arrangements under the maximum resale price provisions remain fit for purpose, ensure fair pricing and protect customers.

Before I conclude, I will take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch. Despite the legislation that has been introduced over the decades, which was designed to address widespread malpractice and poor standards in the industry, we know that problems remain. We recognise that more needs to be done to further strengthen protections for park home owners, to improve park home site management and to support local authorities to bear down on unprofessional site owners. To that end, we do keep existing legislation under review. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to discuss complex ownership structures, in particular, and what they do in terms of the management of sites. However, I want to make it clear to hon. Members that legislation is effective only if it is used and enforced effectively. The Government want to see more robust enforcement by local authorities against unprofessional site owners and will continue to work with site licensing officers to raise awareness of their responsibilities and to share good practice.

Responsible site owners have a role to play in building stronger relationships with residents and local authorities to tackle the unfair competition from unprofessional site owners. We also want residents to better understand their rights and to feel empowered and confident enough to enforce them, without fear of site owners or local authorities. We will continue to engage with national residents associations and encourage residents to contact LEASE, the Government-funded Leasehold Advisory Service, for advice about their rights.

There are no quick fixes when it comes to improving the lives of park home residents, but I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members across the House as we seek to do so. Because such a wide range of issues has been raised, I commit from the Dispatch Box to write to all colleagues—perhaps in a “Dear colleagues” letter—setting out precisely what the Government are doing on all the issues I have not had time to cover.

10:57

[James Naish]

I thank hon. Members for joining the debate. We have covered the whole country—from the south coast all the way up to parts of northern England and to Northern Ireland, which of course has slightly different legislative foundations—and I am really pleased there has been such strong representation. I thank the Minister for outlining the timeline on the commitment towards the end of the year, and for providing clarity to park home owners.

Three things have come up repeatedly: the security that park homes provide, the need for greater transparency and ultimately the word that has been repeated by so many Members, which is “fairness”. With the Minister’s support, I hope we can make progress over this Parliament to ensure that park and mobile home owners have that fairness. I look forward to seeing the moves the Government make over the coming months.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,  

That this House has considered Government support for park home owners.

UK-India Technology Security Initiative

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK-India Technology Security Initiative.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I recently visited India, alongside colleagues from across the House, as part of our inquiry into the UK’s trade with India. It was a fascinating visit, where we discussed critical trade policy such as the UK-India technology security initiative with Indian officials and officials from His Majesty’s Government.

I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for cyber innovation and of the digital inclusion APPG. I care deeply about how our people and communities are empowered by technological advances and not left behind.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important that no one is left behind. Does he agree that the devolved regions are sometimes left behind? We must remember that we have a world-class cyber ecosystem at Queen’s University Belfast, with thriving tech start-ups across Northern Ireland. Will he join me in asking the Minister what steps have been taken to ensure that the £7 million joint research programme on future telecoms and the new connectivity and innovation centre are directly accessible to firms in Strangford and across Northern Ireland, as well as the UK mainland?

[Dan Aldridge]

When I was on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we visited Queen’s and talked about its cyber-security prowess. The ecosystem in the UK is very much connected—something we are very proud of—so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

I am delighted to have secured this debate; in the spirit of interconnected communities, before going into the specifics of the UK-India TSI, I will talk about something a bit closer to home. This topic speaks to one of the reasons why Britain’s international relationships, our diplomacy and our international trade agreements matter not just at the Government level, but locally, on the streets of Weston-super-Mare and in towns, villages and cities across the UK.

My constituency might not be a place that people automatically associate with India, but our town is home to a small but thriving Indian community. Their contribution to local life is immeasurable, whether in our NHS, businesses, schools or civic institutions. The people who came to Weston from India and whose families have grown up here are woven into the fabric of what makes our town work.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

What a wonderful speech my hon. Friend is making about this important connection that our two countries can have! Similarly, I pay tribute to my constituency; it might not be associated with a huge Indian community, but it does have one, and they contribute a lot to the UK, and certainly to our medical professions and businesses locally.

[Dan Aldridge]

I thank my hon. Friend, who accompanied me to India. It was a phenomenally insightful visit.

The human connection is not incidental to this debate; it is the very foundation of it. I use this opportunity to give a special shout-out to people such as Akhilesh Madhav and his family, who chose Weston to work in our NHS, to care for our people and to raise their children. Akhilesh and his friends and colleagues do more than just work and live in Weston-super-Mare; they are tireless community builders and campaigners, setting up new organisations such as FYI-Weston, which hosts wonderful, inclusive events, bringing people together from across our community to connect, learn, make friends and often do business, linking our two great countries.

I also give a shout-out to Sanju Varghese, who along with his friends created the charitable Weston Association of Malayalees, a forum to help Malayalees from Kerala in India to engage with local communities through acts of service. The association is always out with local groups, litter picking and fundraising for local causes.

Our shared stories go back generations, with a complex history, but firmly focused on the future and a desire to create opportunity and prosperity. They are all examples of how the relationship between the United Kingdom and India is not, in essence, a relationship between two Governments, two economies or even two sets of interests; it is actually a relationship between people and communities. We share a history, a legal tradition, a language and deep cultural ties. It is a friendship with deep roots, which is now growing into something genuinely transformative.

[Sarah Edwards]

My hon. Friend is correct that we had a wonderful trip to India as part of the Business and Trade Committee’s work. One thing we looked at was the joint value of the free trade agreement that we have recently signed, which sends a powerful signal about the future and how our countries can benefit each other.

[Dan Aldridge]

Absolutely. Building on that point, many of us who made that visit think we need to address the problem that too much of British public life is working with an image of India that is frankly decades out of date. Many still think of India as a poor nation, a country that we assist, rather than as a strategic partner of great global significance.

Not only is that perception inaccurate, but to continue thinking like that is a strategic weakness for the UK. India has risen dramatically to the top five of the world’s biggest economies, from a position of 13th in the year 2000. Under Viksit Bharat, the developed India vision, the Indian Government are targeting GDP of between $30 trillion and $40 trillion by 2047. To put that in context, that would potentially make India the biggest economy in the world, at about eight or nine times the size of the current UK economy.

Those numbers alone should command attention, but what really struck me during last month’s visit to India was not the statistics, but the confidence, energy and sense of forward momentum. Whoever we spoke to, the message was the same: India knows where it is going, and it is moving fast. If we in all parts of the UK do not wake up to that reality, we will limit our part in that story and the ways it could deliver shared prosperity, innovation and opportunity for both our countries.

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

The hon. Member is making a very persuasive argument for building relationships between two democratic nations. Does he agree that consideration of human rights must also be at the forefront? There are violations in Kashmir, so does he agree that the Government should intervene and ensure that international law is upheld?

[Dan Aldridge]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. We must take those considerations really seriously, and they are absolutely part of a wide-ranging conversation that we have with all our trading partners. We should be aiming for the best out of our relationships; we do not want a low bar.

This issue is not simply about what the UK can gain, but about recognising that our futures are increasingly interconnected and that we have to build new ways to navigate that. Our Government understand the potential and the scale of the opportunity, but its value has to filter out to the rest of the economy, to towns such as mine where trade with India might feel very far away from the daily concerns of the majority. We need to change that and build those relationships to show how much we can all gain from each other. Whether in clean energy, technology, education or trade, there is a real opportunity to build a partnership that supports both our economies while creating good jobs, stronger industries and deeper ties between our people. The question for us is not whether India will succeed; it is whether we choose to engage with that success in a meaningful, long-term and mutually beneficial way.

It is against that backdrop that the UK-India TSI matters so much. It sets out a bold new framework for how our two countries can work together on the defining technologies of our generation. That is not a vague statement of intent; it is an ambitious partnership covering telecoms, 5G infrastructure, AI, critical minerals, semiconductors, quantum computing, advanced materials and health and biotechnology. It is co-ordinated at the highest levels by the national security advisers of both countries and it is already delivering.

A year on from the launch of the TSI, both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to expand into new frontier domains. Private sector partnerships are multiplying, research collaborations are under way and investment is flowing. It is an important framework and forum for dialogue and diplomacy in key areas such as critical minerals, which are crucial to our economic and national security. That is particularly important right now, as China increases its global dominance of critical mineral production and refining capability, giving it enormous leverage over the global supply of those minerals.

How we build and strengthen our supply chains in an increasingly complicated and unpredictable world must be at the top of the Government’s agenda. Last week in the Business and Trade Committee we heard plea after plea from industry for a focus on diplomacy and dialogue to get Britain’s strategy on critical minerals right. The UK Government published their critical minerals strategy in November last year, aiming to increase global production while building resilient domestic and global supply networks. That is a much needed start, but for it to deliver, we need dedicated and sustained diplomacy to support our relationships with trusted international partners such as India, with both the resource base and political will to build resilient supply chains alongside us.

[Sarah Edwards]

The point on critical minerals, which the Select Committee has been looking into, is really important. One piece of evidence we heard was on the slight concern about the size of the UK and our ability to do this alone, which meant that our emphasis would be on friendshoring and the throughput of material we would need to make this viable. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that we need these types of deals to make sure that we can, for example, recycle our lithium and that we have friends to do that with, so that we can support important initiatives such as this?

[Dan Aldridge]

I absolutely agree. One of the most exciting things about the UK-India partnership is the complementarity of our needs. To build on my hon. Friend’s point about that partnership on critical minerals, an example of our partnership is the UK-India critical minerals supply chain observatory—the first of its kind in the world. The second phase, which has been backed by nearly £2 million in funding, will deliver the world’s largest data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain.

Our two Governments are also establishing a UK-India critical minerals guild to transform financing standards and push innovation—as somebody who worked for a chartered institute, that excites me more than most. The geopolitical argument here is simple: in a world where we must do more to secure reliable access to critical minerals that power our economy, our defence and our energy transition, having a partner of India’s scale, with its own often complementary interests in diversifying global supply chains, is not just useful, but a strategic necessity.

Under the TSI, the first UK-India conference on AI opportunities was held in Bengaluru in February last year. Both Governments have agreed to establish a joint India-UK centre for AI to drive advancement in the use of AI in telecoms, including in telecoms cyber-security. I find it compelling that the TSI’s approach to AI emphasises governance as well as innovation. Given the scale of the challenge facing Parliaments around the world on this issue, having a trusted, democratic partner with whom we can develop shared frameworks, conduct joint research and exchange expertise on safety and bias testing is vital.

[Sarah Edwards]

One of the interesting things that we learned on the trip was that India’s approach is also about how it uses Government procurement. With careful consideration, that could be used to make sure that UK tech companies can grow and benefit from having a revenue stream and contract. There may be things we can learn from India in terms of how the country approaches that sensibly and safely, so that we can use it as a driving force for economic growth in the UK.

[Dan Aldridge]

As ever, I agree with my hon. Friend. Specifically on the point about how we build our domestic capacity, there is something very exciting about the new £500 million investment in sovereign AI. It would be great to hear how that investment might—I hope—be linked closely to this work.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, with plenty of thoughts for the Minister to reply to. We probably all agree that student exchange is important. The hon. Member showed his knowledge of Queen’s University Belfast, and I thank him for that, but student exchange also matters when it comes to technology and working together. Does he agree that, although we must always focus on immigration, we should perhaps look at and do more with the good points of student exchanges, which create opportunities for UK students as well as those from India?

[Dan Aldridge]

I absolutely agree. One of the things I took back to my constituency was about how I engage with schoolchildren and college students, but that point is much wider; we should be really ambitious in that cross-cultural dialogue. There is nothing but gains to be had, so far as I can see.

It came out loud and clear from our counterparts in India that cross-party political support for the UK and India’s partnership on AI and technology was critical in reassuring Indian officials and politicians that the UK was a safe and reliable partner. Politicians and officials in India were really impressed that the main two UK political parties could share a stage in India, and saw that as a real positive—a really good thing on the global stage.

On semiconductors, under the TSI the UK and India are pursuing a broad and ambitious partnership focused on research and development in chip design, compound semiconductors and advanced packaging. Both Governments have committed to sharing best practice on supply chain challenges and to facilitating trade and investment flows between semiconductor companies in both countries.

Then there is quantum: quantum computing, quantum sensing, quantum communications. For most people, those technologies remain firmly in the realm of science fiction, but not for long. The countries that invest in quantum research and development now will have decisive advantages in cryptography, defence and pharmaceuticals, and in areas that we cannot yet fully predict. It is important that elected Members champion these frontier technologies and make them real for people in our constituencies, because if we do not do it, who will? It will probably be a drama or a TikTok, and those are not necessarily the best places for them to get their information.

The TSI explicitly includes quantum as a priority area for collaboration. I find the idea of building partnerships between UK and Indian research centres and developing the next generation of technologies together really exciting. The UK has world-leading quantum research capabilities. India has the engineering talent and institutional ambition to match them, and it is a brilliant match.

These are the technologies of tomorrow, and our collaboration on these sectors provides huge opportunities for the UK, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises in our constituencies. The Indian Government and Indian businesses are actively looking for British partners, particularly SMEs, and the TSI is not just a framework for multinational corporations or Government-to-Government exchanges; it is designed to create partnerships at every level of the economy, including start-ups, research institutions, academic collaborators and supply chain partners. I am excited that next month I will be welcoming some start-up innovators from India to Parliament.

Our partnerships with small and medium-sized enterprises are the exception, not the rule, but it is our responsibility as local representatives to help change that—to open doors and to make the benefits of the UK-India partnership seen in our constituencies up and down the country. The only way we can make the most of the relationship is through sustained engagement, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about youth and student engagement. The only limit is our creativity. A lot of this is not about huge investment, but about creativity of thought.

[Sarah Edwards]

I thank my hon. Friend for his compelling point about the role of parliamentarians and how we can engage with our constituents and other organisations. I also pay tribute to the British high commission, which did a lot of work to make sure that our trip went well and is hugely important in engaging our businesses right across the country. I have a specific shout-out to Harjinder Kang, the trade commissioner, who has done some excellent work. Will my hon. Friend also pay tribute to the work that will continue?

[Dan Aldridge]

Absolutely. All the officials we worked with were fantastic.

The UK-India tech security initiative is the right framework at the right moment. It covers the technologies that will define this country and it brings together Government, industry and academia. It has the backing of both Prime Ministers and cross-party support. We must ensure that the ambition of the TSI is matched by delivery and that it is felt in towns across the country, including Tamworth, Weston-super-Mare and Worle, because the India of 2047 will be one of the world’s biggest economies—if not the biggest—and a technological superpower and confident global leader. It is being built right now, and the question for Britain and our constituents is a simple one: do we want to be part of that story? I believe we do, and we should run towards it.

11:18

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for so expertly introducing this debate on the UK-India technology security initiative.

Technology and my early upbringing in India have profoundly shaped my life, so it is a particular privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. When my family moved from Bihar to south Wales, we came with a simple aspiration: to take the opportunity to work hard, to contribute and to build a better future. Technology played a pretty key role in it. At school in Cardiff, catching up with a new education system, I depended on the local public library computer. Access to those dusty old public PCs was formative in transforming my education and changing the trajectory of my life. I reflect on that, because the UK-India tech security initiative is not just about geopolitical security. It is about scaling opportunity in communities right across the UK.

Indian investment has already created over 1,800 jobs across the UK. Following the Prime Minister’s visit to Mumbai in October, we have secured a further £1.3 billion in direct investment. Britain’s significant leadership on the world stage is clearly delivering concrete returns for our communities in every part of our country. The UK-India technology security initiative will go further still: it will create good, well-paid jobs in the UK, build our children’s skills for the future and drive investment in every part of our country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and other Members for their contributions to the debate. Their remarks have underlined how the UK-India relationship is not abstract or remote, but is lived every day in constituencies like theirs, through families, through businesses, through schools and through public services. That living bridge is the foundation on which our partnership rests.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is right to challenge the outdated perceptions of India today. India has the highest growth rate in the G20. It has been the second largest source of foreign direct investment in the UK for six years. It is also one of the world’s fastest-growing technology powers, underpinned by a thriving ecosystem of innovation, entrepreneurship and digital transformation.

It is no exaggeration to say that our future prosperity depends on our ability to drive innovation-led growth, to secure the supply chains and technologies on which our economy relies and to build a strong research base and skills future so that British people and businesses can thrive. The UK cannot deliver those objectives alone. The technologies that will define the coming decades are global by nature, and success depends on our trusted partnerships.

The Government agree with my hon. Friend that partnership with India is therefore a strategic necessity. Our bilateral relationship has gone from strength to strength, with technology and innovation firmly at its core. That progress was underscored during the recent visits in both directions by our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi when the UK-India vision for 2035 was agreed. Those visits also saw the signing of the landmark comprehensive economic and trade agreement with India. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth pointed out, it is our most economically significant bilateral trade deal since leaving the European Union. It is expected to increase bilateral trade, which is worth £47.4 billion a year, by £25.5 billion and to increase both Indian and UK GDP by nearly £5 billion a year in the long run.

The UK and India are natural tech partners, with major Indian tech companies like Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro already expanding in the UK, supporting jobs, productivity and innovation across our economy. Dozens of Indian firms and entrepreneurs are investing here in Britain, creating the jobs and growth of the future. Linkfields, an AI company based in Hyderabad, is investing £10 million in London, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mastek, whose representatives I met in India and which is located in Mumbai, is opening an office in Leeds and an AI centre in London, creating 200 skilled jobs including 75 apprenticeships. EdSupreme, which is using AI to help people with physiotherapy, is investing £10 million across England and Wales and creating 100 jobs.

That is why the UK-India technology security initiative exists. It is a landmark partnership, bringing into sharper focus collaboration in frontier technology across telecoms, critical minerals, semiconductors, AI, quantum, biotechnology, healthtech and advanced materials. It is clear that working closely with India allows us not only to open new opportunities for our businesses and make sure that our technologies rely on secure and trustworthy foundations, but to work with a partner that is increasingly setting the global agenda. That was evident this year during my visit to India for the AI summit, which underscored the global role that India is now playing in convening Governments, industry and academia across every part of the world.

Alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and an 18-strong delegation of cutting-edge UK businesses and 13 UK universities, we delivered on investment and talent commitments set in train during the Prime Minister’s earlier visit, with commitments secured from Indian companies such as Hexaware, Nagarro and CoRover to expand their UK footprint.

I also saw at first hand the breadth of commercial interest that the UK has in India. Our partnership is focused on driving that innovation across businesses in our countries. That was evident when I spent time at the British Council with the founder of ElevenLabs, a great British AI company, celebrating students and future founders shaping our two tech ecosystems. That is what the UK-India technology security initiative is designed to achieve.

We have already delivered several joint AI innovation projects together through the UK-India joint centre for AI, working on the development of AI innovations in priority areas such as healthcare, climate, energy, agriculture and finance. The joint centre will also play a cross-cutting role, enabling the safe adoption of AI across other TSI sectors, including telecoms and wider digital infrastructure.

Our co-operation extends to advanced connectivity. Working together to shape future communications networks will help to provide seamless coverage, even in the most remote areas of our countries, and underpin innovations in healthcare, smart city infrastructure and autonomous vehicles. We are delivering on this through the India-UK Connectivity and Innovation Centre, with an initial £24 million in joint funding. The centre will drive innovation in how AI is used in telecoms networks, in non-terrestrial networks such as satellite internet, and in telecoms cybersecurity. I will flag to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, that this will include opportunities for Belfast and for Northern Ireland—an ecosystem of which I have personally seen the strengths, particularly in cyber-security.

The technology security initiative is already delivering in biotechnology and health technology, sectors that matter both for our economic growth and for our resilience. In February, the UK biotech and pharma SME delegation visited Mumbai and Hyderabad to strengthen UK-India collaboration in biomanufacturing and pharmaceutical innovation.

We are also collaborating on innovative technologies in femtech, with a letter of intent between the National Institute for Health and Care Research and India’s Department of Biotechnology. By bringing together expertise from both our countries, this partnership has the potential not only to improve health outcomes for women, but to support economic growth by driving innovation, attracting investment and strengthening our life sciences sector.

The TSI will secure supply chains, as my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth highlighted. Through the UK-India critical minerals guild, we are strengthening joint capabilities in critical minerals; I will closely consider its collective feedback and its particular observations on the partnership on critical minerals. Backed by £1.5 million in funding, phase 2 will now extend the scope of our joint observatory, further developing digital data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain and establishing a new satellite campus at the Indian School of Mines in Dhanbad.

The TSI is a strategic investment in our future. We are committed to its delivery. Just last week, our National Security Adviser led bilateral discussions in Delhi on the India-UK Technology Security Initiative, agreeing that the next phase of the TSI must prioritise business engagement and growth.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare again for securing this debate and for highlighting something I feel personally, which is that notwithstanding our historic connections, what most ties the UK and India together is that we are two countries chasing the future. We are chasing a future built on the foundations of our people-to-people and business-to-business connections. I look forward to continuing this work as our partnership deepens, so that we can deliver further benefits for the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

International Parental Child Abduction

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

14:30

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of international parental child abduction.

It is a privilege to make my remarks under your very capable stewardship, Dr Murrison. I understand that these issues are very sensitive and of huge human significance, so I feel privileged to be able to bring the eyes and ears of the House to them. I salute the left-behind parents, some of whom have joined us in the Gallery this afternoon, for their indefatigability and courage. I know that they will take little comfort in such words, but I must say them anyway. I think it important to emphasise the need not to prejudice ongoing legal proceedings, but as representatives of our constituents we feel a natural and proper inclination to advocate for them.

According to Reunite International, more than 500 children are abducted from the UK by a parent every year. Among the families that attended the most recent roundtable on this subject in Parliament, there was upwards of half a century in lost years—that is to say, lost contact with their children. The testimonies I have heard, although individually unique, paint a troubling, consistent picture of deliberate misleading, ill-fated recovery attempts and financial costs running into the millions. Many have travelled to foreign jurisdictions, time after time, in the hope of recovering their children. The human toll on both sides is staggering.

The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction provides the principal international framework governing these cases. Crucially, it mandates the expeditious handling of abduction proceedings, yet according to testimonies that I have received, months often elapse before the first substantive hearing, in a clear breach of the convention. Such delays risk the factual entrenchment of the abducted child in the new jurisdiction, entirely undermining the notional remedy of return. The convention exists precisely to prevent that outcome, but far too often it does not.

Several structural concerns recur across the cases that have been brought to me. The first is about the undermining of established jurisdictional findings. In one instance, the High Court here had already determined the child’s habitual residence to be in England. The Polish first instance court was aligned, ordering return. However, the appellate outcome reversed that position, despite there being no dispute as to the original wrongful removal and no clear finding that the article 13 threshold had clearly been met at the first instance. That raises a concern about consistency in applying Hague principles at an appellate level and about the degree to which appellate courts revisit or expand factual assessments beyond convention limits.

The second concern is about the creeping expansion of article 13(b) welfare arguments as a basis for refusing return. These provisions were always intended to be narrow exceptions, not an open door for wide-ranging allegations. Where such arguments are routinely entertained without proper substantiation, there is a considerable possibility that summary return proceedings will be converted into de facto welfare determinations, which is not what the convention intended.

The third concern is about the insufficient use of protective measures. In the case I mentioned, the UK had jurisdiction and capacity to implement protective measures upon return, with an active High Court framework available. These mechanisms should be taken seriously and fully operationalised. Failure to do so risks theoretical concerns hardening into grounds for non-return. The post-decision consequences of such outcomes are stark: the child remains outside the jurisdiction of the habitual residence, there is no effective restoration of the pre-removal status quo and contact arrangements remain limited and unresolved. That illustrates how delay, combined with appellate intervention, can effectively neutralise the convention remedy entirely.

I am, of course, conscious that not every parent who crosses a border with a child is a wrongful abductor in the conventional sense. There are genuine cases—we must be clear-eyed about this—in which a parent flees with a child from real, documented domestic abuse, and the law must be sensitive to that reality. Article 13(b) exists precisely for such circumstances. Where the threshold is genuinely met, it should of course be engaged.

The concern is not about the protection itself, but about its expansion and, at times, its misapplication. The difficulty is that the very features that make these cases so emotionally charged also render them susceptible to the weaponisation of abuse allegations as a litigation strategy. It is therefore incumbent on courts and authorities to apply rigorous scrutiny to such claims, neither dismissing them reflexively nor accepting them uncritically, so that the protection is reserved for those who genuinely need it rather than becoming the means by which the convention’s core remedy is routinely frustrated.

The Child Abduction Act 1984 does not provide for the occurrence of a criminal offence when a parent has consent to take a child out of the country but then fails to return them. That legal loophole became known as the Nicolaou problem, following a 2012 judicial review process. The Law Commission’s 2014 report identified this legal blind spot and recommended a change in the law. I am pleased to say that the Crime and Policing Bill, which completed its passage through Parliament late last night, will finally close that loophole. All abductions from the UK will now be criminal.

Based purely on the volume of human stories, Poland appears to be at the sharp end of these affairs. I must set out the record plainly as it stands. The European Commission launched infringement proceedings against Warsaw, and the European Court of Justice concluded that steps taken by the Poles to disrupt and ignore UK convention orders were in contravention of EU law. A financial penalty was imposed for such intransigence. I would very much welcome the Minister’s reflection on the status of the British Government’s support for the European Commission’s proceedings in relation to Poland’s infringements in this area.

The European Court of Human Rights found that although initial steps were timely, subsequent enforcement actions were marred by delays, ineffective procedures and a lack of co-ordination. Moreover, the court determined that authorities repeatedly relied on flawed or misleading information and failed to adjust their strategy when previous steps had failed. The failures were primarily attributable to the authorities, and not solely the abductors’ actions. It therefore held that there had been a violation of article 8 of the convention.

The bottom line is this: abductions to Poland often endure because of the incompetence, deliberate or otherwise, of the authorities. At the very least, the conduct of the Polish authorities has been marked by wilful negligence, if not a sinister concerted effort to frustrate enforcement orders. That speaks to practices that have seemingly been institutionalised. On listening to some of these stories, it is hard to shake a distinct impression of conspiracy—that the abducting parent is in co-ordination with the authorities, aided and abetted to evade enforcement.

Britain and Poland have a close bond. I think of the brave Polish pilots who fought with distinction, with British wings, in our country’s finest hour. In recent decades, many of Poland’s sons and daughters have made their home on these shores. They say that friends should be able to talk candidly, openly and earnestly with each other, even when it comes to uncomfortable discussions—in fact, especially when it comes to tricky home truths.

The Government line is that these issues are raised at every opportunity with Polish counterparts. I appreciate that this is a delicate diplomatic dance, but Poland’s famous intransigence on the issue has hardly been subtle. Beyond the diplomatic niceties, I would like to know what the response is when the question is put pointedly to Polish officials. When sincere representations are made at the highest level, they should not be met with prevarication.

There is much angst about how the current default position is to enforce the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders without any scrutiny at all. In practice, that can result in maintenance being enforced against a left-behind parent, even in cases in which there has been an abduction and an existing Hague return order. REMO case hearings are typically held abroad, without the involvement of the other parent and with no opportunity for defence. Amounts are often arbitrarily assigned, with no consideration given to affordability. To the best of my knowledge, REMO enforcement has been successfully challenged on only one occasion, and even then only on a technicality. For left-behind parents, it adds insult to profound injury that they are expected to fund the illegal abduction of their own children and are often forced to spend thousands of pounds pursuing appeals in UK courts against REMO enforcement.

This mechanism is problematic, for clear reasons. Hague convention return orders are effectively disregarded in financial enforcement proceedings. Left-behind parents may be required to pay backdated and ongoing maintenance. Worse still, the system risks inadvertently incentivising abduction, because it can have the perverse result of delivering a financial reward to the abducting parent. Surely any case in which there is a Hague convention return order should not qualify for maintenance payments of this kind. That should be enshrined in law here. I ask the Minister to help us understand what measures the Government can take to ensure the adequate protection of abduction victims against being penalised in this way when foreign courts reward abductors with high maintenance orders in unreasonable circumstances.

There is also understandable concern that Britain’s position outside the European Union may be influencing how such cases are handled in EU jurisdictions. There is a prevailing sense that the UK has been left out in the cold and perhaps even punished, and that other states have used the Brexit farrago as a smokescreen allowing them to turn a blind eye. Although the precise impact is unclear, it is a mood worth acknowledging as part of the broader context. Will the Minister reflect on that point?

I am told that the European Commission has a team actively working on these cases. Is there an argument for a dedicated taskforce within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? I absolutely understand the pressures under which our foreign service finds itself in these times of geopolitical turmoil, but I would welcome the Minister’s view on that point.

Much has been said recently about the fragility of international law. It is for countries with shared values that believe in the primacy of the rule of law and international treaties to make the case for it by practising it. I remind Warsaw that Poland was a signatory to the Hague convention too.

As I bring my remarks to an end, I ask the Minister to outline what support children and families who have been victims of abductions can access. Will he furnish us with the statistics on repatriation, specifically from Poland? If he does not have the figures to hand, will he commit to providing that information to me in writing?

I also ask, perhaps naively, whether sufficient consideration is given to the child’s perspective in these often highly fraught cases. The child’s voice is a good place to start and to return to throughout. Our role is not to litigate constituents’ cases in the Chamber, but to push the Government to ensure that our counterparts honour the decisions of our courts, call on them to fulfil their obligations under international law, and oversee the safe and timely return of abducted children back to the country whence they were taken. I implore the Government to bring to bear all the diplomatic power that we have on this matter, because British children, wherever they are sent or taken, deserve nothing less.

14:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for bringing this very difficult matter to the House. It is as heartbreaking as it is complex, and she illustrated that very well. The wrongful removal of a child from their home and family—international parental child abduction—is not always a mere legal dispute. It is a profound violation of a child’s security and a parent’s rights.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I wish him well: he always seems able to encapsulate our thoughts, whether we are here or in the Chamber. We will thank him for his answers today and look for some direction. It is always a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), in their place.

Over the years, there have been occasions, although not many, when I have been involved with families affected. I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and am now in my 16th year as an MP. For the Democratic Unionist party, the protection of the family unit and the safety of our children have always been paramount and always will be. That is reinforced by seeing our own children growing up, and even more at the grandchildren stage: I am very much there now with six grandchildren. We believe in a society where the rule of law is respected and where those who seek to circumvent our courts, whether by crossing the Irish sea or an international border, are held to account.

Everyone will know the film “The Equalizer”, with Denzel Washington. For anyone who has not seen it, it is definitely worth watching. I repeatedly watch it when it is on TV. It starts with a lady in New York whose daughter is missing after going on holiday with her dad, who had decided not to send her back. It is a film, of course, and not real life, but the character played by Denzel Washington was able to go on a train to convince the father to send his daughter back. Although the father had four burly bodyguards, Denzel Washington was able to dispatch all four of them with a sharp credit card. Sometimes we all wish we had a Denzel Washington in our corner—the man who can make things happen. Maybe I should not say this, but sometimes it is necessary to slip slightly aside of the rules to ensure a son or daughter can return home—and he did that.

We welcome the progress of the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently moving through this place. I thank the Minister for Policing and Crime for all the hard work and effort that went in to making that happen. I need not say any more about all the amendments from the House of Lords that came back. Last night, none came back, so that is now laid to bed.

Although it is a crime to take a child out of the country without consent, there is a gap in our law. It has always been a clear criminal offence to retain a child abroad after a permitted holiday or visit. The Bill would correct that injustice and ensure that wrongful retention is treated with the same seriousness as abduction. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead clearly illustrated that in her contribution setting the scene. It is a common-sense change that we wholeheartedly support.

Families have been torn apart. Without naming names, a mother’s son was taken on holiday by his dad. This lady from Northern Ireland was married to a man from Lebanon, and the young boy was able to go on holiday there. We all know that Lebanon has been a country in crisis for many years. It was almost impossible to find out where the father lived and where the child was, in a society that closes ranks. There is a mother back home in Northern Ireland whose heart is breaking. That is a difficult situation to deal with. The consulate was able to give some assistance, but it was a tragically difficult case.

Legislation alone is not enough. We must ensure that the 1980 Hague convention is not just a piece of paper, but a working reality. When a child from Northern Ireland is taken to a foreign jurisdiction, they should be returned promptly so that our local courts can decide what is in their best interests. We cannot have a situation in which foreign jurisdictions become a safe haven for those who defy Northern Ireland’s judicial orders. Although I call on the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department of Justice to ensure that our central authority for Northern Ireland is fully resourced, the issue is UK-wide—it clearly falls on the shoulders of the Minister who is here today—and I believe that we must see UK-wide protection.

Families in these crises do not have weeks or months to wait. Every day in which a child is separated from their habitual home is a day of trauma. We all love our children and grandchildren. If someone’s child is away somewhere where they feel powerless, unable to do something, that must weigh heavily on their shoulders, both physically and emotionally. We need very swift and decisive action and seamless co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Home Office and international partners such as Interpol. We must continue to press for a justice system that is responsive, a border that is secure against such activity and a law that puts the best interests of the child at the heart of everything we do. I look forward very much to the contributions from the shadow Minister, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the Minister in particular.

I will conclude with this. Let us stand together to ensure that this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a place where every child is protected and where no parent ever has to face the agony of an empty bed because of a blatant disregard for our laws. Our laws have to be paramount, and they have to work for the people. Our duty today in this House is to ensure that our Government can provide that for them.

14:52

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue of such importance to many families across the country and beyond.

Since being elected to this House, I have been approached by constituents whose situations have made it impossible for me to look away. I have met parents who have written to me asking for support so that our legal system will protect them and their children. Some parents have had their children moved by the other parent; others have fled violence. That includes two of my Hazel Grove constituents whom I will not name, because they are going through active legal cases. One of those parents fled Australia, and the other Poland, with their children because of domestic abuse and coercive control from their partners. In one case, the abuse was proven in court and it was so substantial that the other parent’s parents—the grandparents of the children—intervened. They felt that the children should be removed from that country for the safety of the children and this parent. Yet these families have found themselves caught in a legal framework that has not accounted for what they were living through and fleeing.

The 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction was built on a sound principle: that a child who had been wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence should be returned promptly. In the vast majority of cases, that is absolutely the right outcome, and the convention has served many thousands of families well over the decades. But the convention was drafted in 1980, and in the intervening 46 years our understanding of domestic abuse and many circumstances that had not been considered in the initial drafting of the legislation has changed enormously.

I am very grateful for the work of the Hague Mothers, who have helped me to understand some of the issues around these cases. They are campaigning to end injustices caused by the 1980 Hague convention on international child abduction, particularly for mothers fleeing domestic abuse. I am also very grateful to constituents who have been to see me—both the “abductor” and the other parent, whose children have been abducted. The convention was originally aimed primarily at abducting fathers and was designed to ensure the quick and safe return of the child. However, there has now been a shift, and about 75% of the parents who are brought before the courts are mothers, with at least 75% of cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. No two families are the same, and no two cases can be identical, but it cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to find a way through with the interests of the children at its heart.

The convention provides three defences against returning a child, one of which is that doing so would expose the child to “a grave risk” of

“physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

On paper, that sounds like an adequate safeguard. In practice, it has not always proven sufficient. If the abuse has been targeted not at the children, but at the other parent, that is where the legal wrangling can come.

It has long been argued—the evidence bears this out—that one of the convention’s most significant shortcomings is that it failed to anticipate that some so-called abductors could be domestic abuse victims fleeing their abusers. A parent—often but not always the mother—who escapes to this country to protect themselves and their children from violence should not find themselves faced with a legal mechanism that treats them as a wrongdoer. Yet that is precisely the situation too many find themselves in.

The challenges do not end there. When a child is taken to a non-convention country, which has not signed up to the Hague framework, the remedies available are even more limited. In those cases, it may be necessary to pursue legal proceedings in the country to which the child has been taken. For any parent, that prospect is daunting.

Under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, it is a criminal offence for a connected person to take a child out of the UK without the appropriate consent, but there is no equivalent offence when someone takes a child abroad with consent and refuses to return them. That was identified by the Law Commission in 2014 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead mentioned, it has taken until the Crime and Policing Bill to begin to address it. I welcome the legislation before Parliament to close the loophole, but the delay is worth noting because it has caused real harm to real families.

I also want to raise the situation in Scotland, because the law there operates differently and creates significant disparities in the support available. Due to differences in criminal law, many parents whose children are wrongfully removed from Scotland cannot access the same assistance from the police as those in England and Wales. Police Scotland’s powers to prevent abduction are more limited, and some individual cases demonstrate with painful clarity the human cost of that inconsistency.

I will turn briefly to the family court, because any discussion of international child abduction must acknowledge the domestic legal backdrop against which such cases are heard. A report published last year by the Public Accounts Committee made it plain that family court services were not operating as they should. Regional disparities are wide, waiting times are excessive, and too many children endure prolonged uncertainty when what they need is resolution.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for meaningful reform. We are heartened by the results of the child-focused courts pilot, which saw significantly faster resolution of cases, with the backlog in pilot areas more than halved. The child-centric approach of the courts focused on the best interests of the child, rather than on adversarial process. That is exactly what the family court should embody. We welcome the decision to expand those courts across England and Wales. We will continue to hold the Government to account to ensure that roll-out is effective and that the benefits of the pilot are reproduced nationally.

International abduction cases do not remain neatly within domestic borders; they require international co-operation, diplomatic engagement and, where the Hague convention does not apply, a willingness to pursue legal routes in foreign jurisdictions. The Government should ensure that resources, legal aid and consular support are in place to help families navigate those processes. Too many parents are left to do so without adequate assistance.

The Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for the Crime and Policing Bill’s provisions to close the “consent to retain” loophole to be passed into law without delay. We want a serious review of the disparities between Scotland and the rest of the UK, so that all children receive the same standard of protection. We want to see the expansion of child-focused courts delivered with the rigour and resources needed to realise their potential. We want to see the Government ensure that parents facing international abduction—in particular those fleeing domestic abuse—have access to proper legal support and are not left to navigate complex cross-border legal systems alone.

The law exists to protect children, and when a child is taken from a parent, or when a parent is forced to flee violence with a child in tow, our legal framework should be capable of reaching the right outcome. That means being honest about the limits of international conventions, updating domestic law where it has fallen behind, and ensuring that the family courts are fit for purpose.

14:59

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate, shining a light on the topic of international parental child abduction and providing an opportunity to highlight the devastating impact that it has on families. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever, for his very thoughtful contributions.

As we have heard, and as many hon. Members in this place know, cases of international parental child abduction are truly horrific and deeply distressing. The breakdown of relationships is often traumatic for all involved, especially for children, but when a parent has their child abducted and taken abroad, the consequences are profound. It is not only emotionally devastating, but financially draining for parents who are forced to fight, often for years, simply to secure contact with their child, let alone their safe return. Navigating courts, legal systems and bureaucratic processes across multiple jurisdictions is complex, it is costly and far too often it is unsuccessful.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead has set out how deeply concerning and troubling these cases can be, and has illustrated the scale and severity of the problem. I pay tribute to those in the Public Gallery, but I acknowledge that there are many more outside this place who are also be affected by this issue, and many hon. Members who are not in this Chamber, but who will have had similar items of casework in their constituency inboxes.

I am reminded of a case in my constituency. I had not long come to this place when someone from my constituency came to see me. Her child had been abducted. She, together with her family, the Foreign Office and particularly the ambassador in the country concerned, worked tirelessly over many months. In that case, they were successful and that child was safely returned to the UK, but I acknowledge that that is not the case for everyone. I also recognise that Ministers across successive Governments, alongside diplomats and officials, have worked and are working to raise such cases with the Governments concerned. I remember some of them from my time as a Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; they were often some of the most troubling cases that we could try to imagine.

Progress in securing outcomes and in reuniting children with their families in the UK is often unacceptably slow. Parents continue to fight tirelessly for their rights, yet their efforts are frequently obstructed, sometimes by the very authorities that should be upholding international law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has a constituency case that is known to the Minister and the FCDO, and she has asked me to raise it in this debate.

The case of Mr Tom Toolan highlights the challenges very starkly. Mr Toolan’s daughter, Rhian, was taken to Poland in 2018 by his former partner, despite a court order explicitly prohibiting her removal from the UK. Over the past eight years, he has been unable to secure her return. Rhian is now 12 years old. During that time, Mr Toolan has endured the anguish of missing his daughter grow up. He has missed birthdays, Christmases and countless irreplaceable moments. I am sure we would all agree that that is truly heartbreaking. At every stage he has faced frustration and delay. Despite the provisions of the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, despite sustained diplomatic engagement and despite even the issuing of a return order by the courts involved, Rhian has still not been returned home, and Mr Toolan’s ordeal continues. He has said:

“The Hague Convention was designed to ensure that children unlawfully abducted would be returned within six weeks. But we all know that this does not work—particularly when appeals and procedural delays are used to prevent the return of an abducted child.”

Having incurred legal costs exceeding £160,000, Mr Toolan deserves answers, and so do others in similar situations.

I will use this debate to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, what further steps are being taken to support efforts to bring Rhian home? More broadly, can the Minister outline the latest discussions he has had with international counterparts on improving the operation and effectiveness of the Hague convention? What assurances has he received and what concrete actions will follow? Will the Government establish stronger mechanisms to support the return of British children abducted overseas?

We know Mr Toolan’s is not an isolated case. The number of international parental child abduction cases has risen significantly in recent decades. Official figures show an increase from 272 cases in 2003-04 to 580 in 2012-13. Sadly, the true figure today may well exceed 1,000 annually—we do not necessarily know the full picture. Can the Minister provide an updated figure for the number of cases currently known to the Government? How many are being directly supported by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?

Previous Governments undertook awareness campaigns to deter parents from taking children abroad unlawfully. What further preventive measures are now being considered? In addition, what steps are being taken to strengthen the enforcement of court orders designed to prevent abduction, particularly through the use of border controls and travel restrictions?

Finally, can the Minister set out the Government’s approach to holding countries accountable where they fail to comply with the Hague convention? In particular, how are the Government working with both signatory and non-signatory states to ensure that international obligations are respected, while strengthening co-operation and preventing delays in the return process? This issue demands urgency, resolve and sustained international co-operation. For the families affected, time lost is time that can never be recovered.

15:07

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions of other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who have represented their constituents’ perspectives.

As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), rightly said, this is a deeply distressing topic, and I am conscious that I am addressing it in front of two colleagues who have been Foreign Office Ministers. I am sure that they share our thoughts for all families affected by international parental child abduction, particularly the children who are going through such upheaval and uncertainty. I will respond to the points made today while being careful not to comment on individual cases or disclose personal details; I hope that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), will understand why I do not wish to comment in detail on her case.

[Wendy Morton]

Perhaps, if it is in order, the Minister could provide a written update to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Falconer]

I would be happy to. Hon. Members are welcome to contact me directly to discuss specific cases further. For those watching in the Public Gallery or at home, I am the Minister for consular affairs, though, for the reasons that the shadow Minister set out, these cases will often be dealt with by the Minister responsible for that region—the Minister for Europe in the case of Poland, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific in the case of Australia.

The Government take the issue of international parental child abduction extremely seriously. We are proud to be a party to the 1980 Hague convention. We work with more than 80 countries to support the prompt return of children to their country of habitual residence. That is an important principle that has been supported across the House this afternoon.

Where parents raise persistent problems with how the convention is applied, we raise those concerns directly with foreign Governments and will continue to do so whenever appropriate. At the same time, decisions on return ultimately rest with courts, often in the country where the child is located. Those courts must consider where the child is habitually resident, the child’s best interests and the child’s own views. Decisions about a child’s long-term future should be taken by the court that determines the child’s habitual residence.

We have put in place clear measures to try to prevent international parental child abduction and have published guidance on the practical steps a parent can take when they think there is a risk. I will focus on what happens in England and Wales because, as Members have pointed out, the arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland operate under a different law; for the purposes of clarity and time, it is probably better to focus on England and Wales, but if any hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) or his colleagues, would like to write to me with questions on Northern Ireland or Scotland, I am very happy to take them up.

In England and Wales, concerned parents can get a specific issue or prohibited steps order to prevent a child from being taken out of the country. Our courts can order the Passport Office to withhold a British passport temporarily from a child at risk of abduction. The police can also issue a port alert if a parent is concerned that their child is likely to be taken abroad without their consent within the next 48 hours.

We continue to support our charity partner, Reunite International, which provides online prevention guides—not just for England and Wales, but for Scotland and Northern Ireland—to help parents understand and navigate the options of support available to them. When a child is abducted and taken abroad, our consulate staff provide compassionate support to the family. That can include practical guidance on travel, local systems and procedures and help making contact with the local authorities.

At the request of either parent, the Foreign Office can also formally express an interest in the case with the courts or authorities involved. We can also help families access specialist support, including through Reunite International, which should be able to provide expert advice. In relation to the 1980 Hague convention, the UK works closely with authorities seeking a return for parents. Our central authorities remain engaged throughout the process until the courts have reached a final decision.

It is important to be clear on roles. Decisions on enforcement rest with the authorities and courts of the country where the child is located. Our consular responsibilities mean that we cannot interfere in foreign legal systems, just as we would not accept foreign powers interfering in ours. We cannot compel enforcement, influence court outcomes or take part in any illegal efforts to return a child.

I have not seen the film that the hon. Member for Strangford describes, but I am not sure that I can use a credit card in the way he outlined to secure returns, however frustrating that may be. I recognise the deep frustration that many parents experience, especially when cases face long delays or return orders are not enforced. In those circumstances, the Government raise concerns with foreign partners at senior levels and press them to meet their obligations under the convention.

I turn to Poland, a country raised by a number of hon. Members. It is a close European partner. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke movingly about the shared history between our two countries—a history that includes my constituency of Lincoln, where many of those pilots set up as permanent residents. As she says, it is also one of the countries where we have the highest number of outstanding Hague return orders affecting British parents. We recognise the serious impact that Poland’s failure to enforce a number of return orders has had. That concern is reflected in rulings by the European Court of Human Rights and action by the European Commission.

That is why we raise international parental child abduction with the Polish authorities consistently and at senior levels. I can confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister raised it with Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Sikorski in January, the Foreign Secretary raised it with Polish counterparts in October and, earlier this month, the British ambassador in Warsaw, alongside eight other diplomatic missions, wrote to the Polish Minister of Justice to seek a meeting and press for progress on these cases. I can assure hon. Members that the UK continues to play a full role. Some of those eight countries are members of the EU, and some are not.

Our officials continue to engage regularly with Polish authorities on enforcement. In April 2025, the UK Ministry of Justice hosted a joint workshop, alongside my Department, for Polish and UK authorities. We shared UK best practice on enforcement and discussed closer co-operation. We will continue to work with Poland and other partners to improve enforcement and outcomes for children and families.

I recognise the sensitivity and delicacy of the issues raised in relation to violence against women and girls and the very sensitive questions around domestic abuse. We recognise concerns raised in some contexts about how the 1980 Hague convention operates in cases involving domestic abuse. That is why we have sought to take a leading international role, serving on the steering committee of two Hague conference forums examining how the conventions operate where domestic abuse is present. Both those forums took place in the past two years. This is an active and ongoing effort on our part.

At home, we are working closely with victims’ organisations, the devolved Governments and the senior family judiciary in England and Wales. I am grateful for the kind recognition by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove of the progress made recently in tightening the law in that area. We are also commissioning research into how the convention operates in domestic abuse cases so that future policy is grounded in evidence and focused on improving outcomes for children and survivors.

For countries that have not yet joined the 1980 convention, we actively encourage accession through both bilateral and multilateral engagement, while seeking solutions to existing cases in exactly the way the shadow Minister describes. Those efforts include the Malta process, which aims to improve co-operation in cross-border family law disputes involving children. We also work with Reunite International to support mediation as an alternative to court proceedings. Last month, in Lagos, our deputy high commissioner hosted a workshop with Nigerian partners focused on international parental child abduction and family mediation.

Members have reasonably asked me for figures. If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead will permit me, I might ask the Minister for Europe to write to her specifically on cases involving Poland, but the Foreign Office are aware of 177 cases in 2024 and 167 in 2025.

We recognise the profound distress caused by international parental child abduction and take these cases extremely seriously. We work with partners through the 1980 Hague convention, raise concerns about enforcement and non-compliance at the highest level and press for improvement where systems fall short. We recognise that decisions on return ultimately rest with the courts and the authorities in the country where the child is located, so we must work with our partners abroad to build up their capacity where we are concerned about it.

On a personal note, supporting British nationals overseas remains a core public service performed by my Department and it is a key priority for me personally. We remain committed to prevention, stronger international co-operation and supporting affected children and families throughout what I know is often a long and painful process. I join the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead in paying tribute to the family members in the Public Gallery.

15:18

[Rachel Gilmour]

I thank the Minister for his inclusive and thorough response to some of the concerns raised today. I will certainly be writing to him on behalf of my constituent who is sitting behind me. I also thank the obviously doting father and grandpapa, the omnipresent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for his contribution—quite an imaginative one it was, too—and, as ever, my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who put the right, honourable and proper Liberal Democrat policy at the heart of her contribution. It was a real privilege to listen to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who brings a great deal of experience and knowledge to the debate. As a new Member of Parliament, I have learned a lot from that. I thank her very much for her contribution.

Some Members might have heard a little noise going on behind me. The little noise is called Kit, and he is three months old. Kit is beautiful, articulate and vocal, but Kit too is a victim of child abduction, because Kit will never meet his half-brothers and sisters. What we have talked about in this debate can affect the oldest and the very youngest. That is why it is so important.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of international parental child abduction.

15:20

Sitting suspended.

Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

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

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for fire and rescue services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Our firefighters are heroes. They are the people who put their lives on the line to protect us all. While others run from danger, they run towards it. It is only right that we support them with the colleagues, equipment and funding that they need to do their jobs properly.

I will use the debate to highlight the ongoing and serious challenges facing fire and rescue services, including Cleveland Fire Brigade, which serves my community in Stockton, as well as Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Redcar and Cleveland. I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all the firefighters and support staff in fire brigades across the country, particularly those who work for the Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I have met many of them on shadow shifts and seen at first hand their incredible skill, determination, commitment and bravery.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Employees of Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service tell me that funding cuts have seen shift systems worsening; rope, water and animal rescue services being scaled back and watches usually running with around six firefighters instead of nine. Does the hon. Member agree that that is putting unexpected pressure on stretched rural fire and rescue teams and will cause a damaging workforce and equipment crisis, all of which may ultimately put people’s lives at risk?

[Matt Vickers]

A lot of fire services across the country are facing huge challenges. The debate will draw out some of the challenges that are unique to rural and coastal communities.

We want firefighters to be backed, for their safety and for the safety of the communities we serve. Our firefighters work tirelessly, day in, day out, to protect our community, and we all owe them our thanks. We should be incredibly proud of their work in challenging circumstances. Of course, it is right that efforts be made to ensure our public services are as efficient as possible, optimising outcomes and spending public money wisely.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that any reorganisation of services involve the engagement of firefighters, because they know the service and its needs best? Does he share my relief that Oxfordshire county council has backed away from what would have been a botched reorganisation that would have reduced support both for my constituents in Oxford city and across the county by not listening enough to what firefighters said was needed?

[Matt Vickers]

It is hugely important that firefighters and communities are involved in those discussions, so that we can get the structure that works best for the communities involved. Over recent years, Cleveland Fire Brigade has achieved that. It has made difficult decisions, streamlining operations, managing workforce numbers and finding efficiencies wherever possible, but there comes a point at which continued pressure risks undermining resilience.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. The FBU is calling for increased investment, saying that without it, cuts will kill. Does the hon. Member recognise that 14 years of austerity have led to more than 12,000 firefighter jobs being cut?

[Matt Vickers]

I am sure that the hon. Lady would also recognise that the situation is getting worse, not better. Across the country, despite the fact that we are paying record levels of tax, our fire services are under pressure. We might want to talk about the history of it, but I want to talk about what will happen in my community in the coming months, as the Government make hay with this horrendous settlement that could see the number of firefighters in my community reduced. That is why I am here today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just three weeks ago, there was a massive fire at Corries farm outside Newtownards. The response of fire service personnel was absolutely excellent, but the issue was access to water pressure, which there is always less of in rural communities. One solution is to have a water tanker in each district, but that means capital expenditure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a new look is needed at the response to fires in rural areas?

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Ensuring that we have the right capabilities and resources to respond in rural communities often requires technology and capital investment. It is important to put that into the mix as we see what the funding settlement will look like.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matt Vickers]

I will make a little progress.

The Government’s latest settlement takes things a step too far. Huge concerns have been raised about the impact on frontline services and on the safety of the public and our brave firefighters. Through the dedication of our firefighters and its sound leadership, Cleveland Fire Brigade has one of the fastest response times in the country to fires in the home, as well as one of the highest rates of home fire safety visits. It serves almost 580,000 people, from urban town centres to rural and coastal communities, as well as Teesside’s significant industrial assets.

Cleveland faces a series of unique challenges. It is a small force, less able to spread or absorb costs through economies of scale. It serves a disproportionately large and complex industrial landscape, covering petrochemical sites, heavy manufacturing and complex infrastructure. It serves an area with significant pockets of deprivation, which are linked to higher incident rates.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point in advocating for his area. Does he agree that sometimes cuts can inadvertently have a damaging effect on neighbouring areas? In my county of Berkshire, where there is an excellent fire service, cuts proposed in neighbouring Oxfordshire would have meant appliances in Reading having to travel up to 25 miles outside Reading to serve and cover for colleagues, leaving Reading exposed. Does he agree that that is not a great way to address these problems?

[Matt Vickers]

Cross-border support and mutual aid is vital. It is important to understand the profile of those areas and where those demands take us when we invest in our fire services as we should.

Deprivation is linked to higher incident rates, greater vulnerabilities and an increased need for community safety interventions. Cleveland has long been associated with higher levels of deliberate fires; at times it has earned the label of UK arson capital. That places a disproportionate demand on prevention work as well as frontline response. It is among the busiest non-metropolitan fire brigades in the country and is getting busier. That unique mix means that the financial settlement is uniquely harmful to the safety of firefighters and the public in our community. It stretches them to breaking point.

Steve Wright, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has said that our fire services face a real-terms cut that puts lives at risk. When someone calls 999, they are in the panic of an emergency. It could be a fire in their home or community, a traffic incident or someone drowning. They deserve nothing less than a quick, fully staffed and fully equipped response. This settlement puts that at risk.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. In Buckinghamshire, the Lib Dem-led fire authority has consulted on removing a third of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire engines and closing two fire stations in my constituency, Stokenchurch and Great Missenden. At a time when risk is increasing and we are seeing more fires, not least from battery storage, now is not the time to reduce frontline firefighting capability.

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. As the Fire Brigades Union puts it, these cuts are putting lives at risk. The inability to respond to the increasing number of fires and hazards has real consequences for real people out there in our communities.

Cleveland Fire Brigade is currently facing a significant deficit. Even if council taxpayers are hit with the highest possible increase in precept, Cleveland’s medium-term financial strategy shows a three-year deficit of £1.2 million.

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

Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service has a similar deficit of £1.5 million. I do not think this is about party politics, because a fire authority can only work with what it has got. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to work across parties to encourage the Government to properly fund all our fire services so that we can protect all our residents, regardless of who runs their local fire authority?

[Matt Vickers]

First, we have to see central Government funding in place to ensure that we can run safe and effective fire services. Secondly, within that funding envelope we have to ensure that local fire authorities spend the money wisely. In recent years, many of them have looked at those efficiencies, but we are now getting to the point at which we need to go further and the Government need to step up.

Like other businesses and organisations, our fire brigades have been hit by the national insurance increase and spiralling energy costs. We need to ensure that our firefighters receive a fair pay settlement. If the fire precept is not increased in the coming years, the funding gap in Cleveland could rise to nearly £4 million. The answer is not simply to increase council tax even further. In my part of the world, Stockton’s Labour council has already increased council tax by 54% since 2016. It is for this Labour Government to fund our fire services properly and to fix the apparently “fair” funding formula, which is damaging Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I am sure that the Minister will say that Cleveland’s core spending power has increased, but as the chief fire officer told me himself, it is nowhere near enough to meet the increasing cost pressures.

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

People in our area of Dorset and Wiltshire have been told that we face the potential closure of eight fire stations. At a time when, quite apart from anything else, we do not know what is happening on the international scene and people are talking of dark days ahead, does the hon. Member agree that cutting these essential services seems like total and utter madness?

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. More than ever, we are seeing fire services that are lean and efficient, having undergone all sorts of savings. We have now got to the point at which there is no fat and we are hitting the bone. We cannot go on like this without real consequences for public safety. These funding decisions have real consequences for Cleveland, including a likely reduction in frontline firefighters and cuts to the number of fire appliances. Demand on our firefighters is rising. It is not acceptable to ask them to do even more with even less.

It is not just our fire brigades that are under pressure. I have also heard from Cleveland Mountain Rescue, a hugely valued voluntary mountain rescue team that provides vital cover at fell races and mountain bike events. Are the Government thanking it for their incredible service and commitment? No, they are hitting it with Care Quality Commission registration and inspection regimes: more bureaucracy, more red tape and more costs. If the mountain rescue team is forced to reduce its services as a result, that will put yet more pressure on our local fire brigades. Has the Minister considered the consequences of these changes and the impact that they could have on fire services?

There is a broader point here: whether it is Cleveland Fire Brigade facing funding pressures or Cleveland Mountain Rescue facing new bureaucracy, the Government must support the people who protect the public, not make their job harder. By incident per head of population, Cleveland Fire Brigade is one of the busiest non-metropolitan fire services in the country. It attends six times as many deliberate fires as the national average. Last year alone, it saw a 25% increase in arson and deliberate fire incidents, which cause huge concern within our communities.

The Government’s “fair funding” approach is neither fair nor reflective of need. It systematically disadvantages places such as Stockton-on-Tees and the wider Cleveland area. It creates unacceptable risks for emergency response and public safety, because it fails to recognise local need. Factors such as individual risk, level of deprivation and geographic complexity must be given a proper weighting.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. May I thank Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service for its response to the fire at Newell House in Sherborne the other night? I am in awe of the bravery of its firefighters, who were on the scene within eight minutes.

The hon. Member talks about the particular issues that his local fire service faces. Dorset faces an increase in its population of nearly 50% during the summer months, as well as the issues caused by rurality and being a coastal community. Fundamentally, however, the issue in the funding model is that the Government’s assumptions on our population increases from council tax revenue are just wrong. The fire service has proven that they are wrong. If we do not have a fair funding formula, how on earth are we ever going to provide the services that local communities deserve?

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman has the pleasure of representing a beautiful part of the world. Sherborne is a beautiful patch that needs proper fire protection. He is right. We have talked about deprivation and the challenges that industrial sites pose, but knowing how many people live in an area and how many homes need to be protected by the fire service is pretty fundamental. We need to get that right.

The unfair funding settlement could mean fire engines arriving at emergencies without enough crew to respond effectively and save lives, or, worse still, engines not leaving stations at all because there are no firefighters to staff them. Last month, Stockton council passed a motion highlighting that the Government’s approach to public service funding has failed to deliver genuinely fair or needs-based funding for fire and rescue services, as well as for policing and local government. A letter has been sent by the council to outline those concerns and to set out the stark reality of the situation. However, we have yet to receive a response.

Will the Minister confirm whether she is in discussions with the Treasury about the challenges facing our fire services, and explain what action will be taken to properly fund Cleveland and Durham fire brigades? If the issue is not addressed, it will force difficult decisions on staffing, equipment and service delivery, and ultimately shift the burden of national funding failures on to local residents. The Government have increased taxes to record levels. The Chancellor’s first two Budgets have raised taxes by £36 billion and £26 billion, respectively, pushing the overall tax burden to a historic high, yet we have seen cuts to the number of police officers on our streets, and now potential cuts to our fire services.

[Jim Shannon]

I should have made this point earlier; I do not think it has been mentioned. Back home in Northern Ireland, we have an issue with gorse fires in the mountains. We had two massive fires just last weekend. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that with the summer and what we hope will be hot weather comes the threat of gorse fires and the loss of peatland and farmland? Should that not be motivating the Minister and the Government to respond positively?

[Matt Vickers]

Certainly there are the pressures of the summer and the consequences for rural communities. Fire authorities across the country are also having to make incredibly tough decisions about what they resource and the people they can employ. It is a pressure point that is moving at a hell of a pace and we need a quick response to the challenge.

I hope the Minister will be able to provide answers and reassurance on some of the points that people have raised. What are the Government planning to do to properly support Cleveland and Durham fire brigades and deal with their significant financial shortfalls? How will the Minister and the Government fix the fair funding formula to ensure that communities such as mine in Stockton and those across Teesside are treated fairly?

If we fail to fund our fire services properly, we put lives at risk. Firefighters in our communities have raised the alarm repeatedly and their concerns cannot be ignored. The service responsible for protecting us is being asked to do too much with too little. I urge the Minister to carefully consider the points that have been raised, and to work with colleagues to deliver a financial settlement that is fair, forward looking and reflective of the unique challenges faced by Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I urge her to listen to firefighters, fire chiefs and local residents in communities who are deeply concerned, to invest in our fire services and to keep us all safe.

16:18

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, particularly given your specific interest in this matter. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for securing this important debate, and for the consistent way in which he raises the issue in the House in his role as shadow Minister for crime, policing and fire. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position.

We all know about the role that fire and rescue services play in keeping people safe. Every day, firefighters and fire service staff protect lives, prevent harm and provide reassurance to communities. Alongside responding to fires, they attend road traffic collisions, floods, wildfires and other emergencies. They deliver vital prevention and protection activity, and increasingly support wider resilience efforts at a local and national level, as hon. Members have mentioned.

To carry out that work effectively, fire and rescue services rely on a mix of funding from central Government, council tax precept, retained business rates and specific grants. Getting that framework right is essential, particularly at a time when services face changing risks, increasing complexity and growing demands, beyond traditional fire incidents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) was right that 14 years of Conservative austerity have absolutely battered our fire and rescue services. Fourteen years of Conservative cuts to local authority and fire service budgets have left many areas operating on a shoestring: 20% of firefighter capacity was lost across the country during that period. Throughout the period, the Fire Brigades Union and its membership have worked tirelessly to protect the public and do more with less.

We are working hard to remedy that. That is why the 2026-27 local government finance settlement marks a significant change. After a decade of short-term settlements, it delivers the first multi-year funding settlement for local government in 10 years. It gives fire and rescue authorities the stability and certainty that they need to plan ahead, invest in their workforce and estates, and make sound, long-term decisions in the interests of public safety.

[Kim Johnson]

This morning, I met Anne Davies, whose husband Jeff became the first UK firefighter to have his death from cancer officially recorded as having been caused by the job. Does my hon. Friend agree that this investment in the fire and rescue service will provide the necessary equipment so that no more firefighters die as a result of industrial injuries?

[Samantha Dixon]

I would like to point out to my hon. Friend the speech that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made at the recent FBU conference, announcing welfare checks for fire and rescue service members. That significant move will protect the workforce for the future. That is really important, and is welcomed across the sector.

Importantly, since the provisional settlement, the Government have secured an additional £15 million for fire and rescue services. That ensures a minimum uplift of 3.8% in core spending power in 2026 for all stand-alone FRAs, with some services receiving increases of more than 7%.

[Vikki Slade]

Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service’s core spending power is going up over the three years only because of the increase in local taxpayers. The actual amount being provided is going down, not just in real terms but in actual cash terms. We simply do not have enough money to keep our fire stations open. Will the Minister commit to meet us again to look at reforming our funding formula for Dorset and Wiltshire?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I will come to how the Government are addressing the reform of the funding settlement for fire and rescue services shortly. It is an important point that all Members who have attended this afternoon need to understand for the context of our future fire and rescue services.

Cleveland Fire Authority, which serves Stockton West, will have access to £37.8 million in core spending power in 2026-27, which is an increase of 3.8%. That provides the authority with greater certainty about how it can best serve the communities of Stockton-on-Tees and the wider Cleveland area.

However, although the Government set the national funding framework, decisions about how resources are deployed locally must rightly remain with fire and rescue authorities and chief fire officers, who are best placed to understand local risk and demand through their community risk management plans, and to make operational decisions in consultation with the workforce and communities. That speaks to the wider point that Members have made about local decisions reflecting local needs.

[Greg Smith]

In Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, there was a consultation. The public overwhelmingly said no to cuts that that fire authority was pushing, and firefighters very clearly said, “No, this is crazy. Don’t do it.” How can the Government ensure that fire authorities, which are making local decisions, reflect the important views not just of the public, but of firefighters themselves?

[Samantha Dixon]

Fire authorities, by and large, are locally elected representatives; they are accountable to their communities, they should serve their local communities, and they need to respond to what they hear from consultations. That is an important point for Members from Dorset and Wiltshire; they need to respond to what their local communities are doing in the way that the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service has done in recent days.

[Matt Rodda]

Will the Minister give way?

[Samantha Dixon]

I am going to make some progress.

The Government are committed not only to providing stable funding, but to continuing to work with the fire sector to make sure that the funding system remains fair and responsive. Funding allocations for fire and rescue authorities are determined through a national funding formula, which assesses relative need using factors such as population and other cost-and-demand drivers.

The current fire funding formula was designed more than a decade ago. As part of the fair funding review and following a consultation, the Government updated the relative needs formula for fire and rescue, using the most up-to-date data available and changes in individual authority’s allocations so that they reflect updated data in the formula.

Looking ahead—this is really important in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)—we have committed to working with the fire sector on a comprehensive review of the formula ahead of the next spending review. As part of that engagement, every fire and rescue service in England has been invited to participate in sector engagement workshops, the first of which is taking place in Manchester today. It includes chief fire officers, heads of finances and relevant officers. It is an important opportunity to reform funding for the future.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am also a member of the FBU parliamentary group. I understand that consultations on the formula are going on, and we welcome them. Will the Minister ensure that trade union representatives are built into those regional consultations?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his point, because it brings me to the work of the ministerial advisory group—a group established following our manifesto commitment to work with the entire sector. The ministerial advisory group involves the National Fire Chiefs Council, the inspectorate, the Fire Standards Board, the National Joint Council, the Local Government Association and the Fire Brigades Union. They sit at the table looking at reforming the role of the firefighter, the funding for the fire sector, and the governance of and arrangements for the wider sector. I have asked that group to be bold in its decision making, because after the past 14 years, the sector cannot continue as it is. We need to support that work as fully as we can. Local fire authorities need to listen to their communities, work with their communities, and work with the Government to support their communities going forward.

Funding is only one part of the picture. There is exciting work ahead of us. There is a generational opportunity, and this Government are determined to seize it.

Question put and agreed to.

National Accident Prevention Strategy

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a national accident prevention strategy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Today, I want to draw the House’s attention to what can only be described as a silent and spiralling crisis in our country: the devastating human cost of preventable accidents. This is not a new issue, but it is getting worse and, crucially, it is still not given the level of sustained national attention that its scale demands. Too often, people think of accidents as tragic misfortune, but they are often ordinary moments: a fall at home, a collision on the road, an accident at work, a lapse in safety in a familiar environment.

Every Member here will recognise the pattern: we hear it in our advice surgeries, we receive the letters and we take the calls. We meet parents who have lost children, spouses who have lost partners and children who have lost a parent in circumstances that are sudden, awful and preventable. Towards the end of last year, following two road fatalities in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield in our community over the course of a week and the drowning of a teenager in Sutton park, I had the valuable experience of meeting a long-standing resident of Royal Sutton Coldfield, Becky Hickman, who is the chief executive officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and has championed accident prevention at the national level for over 20 years. Indeed, she is in the Public Gallery today.

One of those horrific accidents took place on Friday 22 August last year, when, tragically, 21-year-old Natasha Thorp was struck by a car on Brassington Avenue in my constituency and died shortly afterwards. I have had the privilege of getting to know her family a little and of joining Natasha’s father and other members of her family at the recent installation of a memorial bench in Sutton Park overlooking Blackroot pool. It is hard to describe the life-changing trauma they have suffered, but they are not alone.

RoSPA and I welcome the Department for Transport’s new road safety strategy, but it is a small part of a much bigger issue and strategy. Road traffic accidents are sadly not isolated events, and accidental deaths and injuries do not only happen on the roads. Tragedies can occur at home, at work and when out in open spaces.

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

One of the gaps that we consistently see is in water safety, where interventions are often reactive rather than preventive. Following the tragic death of a young boy in a reservoir local to me in Yorkshire, I have been working on Sam’s law and with organisations such as RoSPA, the Royal Life Saving Society, and the fire and rescue services to develop a clear, risk-based approach for water safety, including guidance on when and how lifesaving equipment should be provided. Does the right hon. Member agree that the national accident prevention strategy must bring together those kinds of organisations, which have the experience and knowledge to make sure that these sorts of incidents never happen again?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

As the hon. Member will see as I develop my speech, I very much agree with him.

In Birmingham, we have the seventh highest number of accidental deaths in England. Each year, more than 550 families in our city lose a loved one due to a preventable accident. That is more than one death every day. Across the west midlands, more than 2,000 people annually die due to accidents, the equivalent of wiping out a small village year after year. Nationally, there has been an 8% rise in accidental death rates and a 3% increase in hospital admissions in just one year. Over the past decade, accidental death rates have risen by more than 40%. That is not a blip, a statistical anomaly or a short-term fluctuation; it is a serious problem that has been brushed under the carpet for too long.

There is a wider national cost to this issue. Accidents place a significant and growing burden on the national health service. Every preventable injury that results in an emergency admission adds pressure to already stretched A&E departments, ambulance services and hospital wards. We are talking about millions of bed days every year linked to accident-related admissions. Accidents now are believed to cost us at least £6 billion annually in NHS medical care. The impact on NHS staff is also profound. Doctors, nurses, paramedics and support staff are dealing daily with injuries and emergencies that in many cases could have been prevented. That is not only a clinical challenge, but a human one, placing additional strain on a workforce who are already under great pressure.

The burden extends across the economy. When people are injured, they are often unable to work—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Families lose income; employers lose skilled workers; productivity falls. The country loses millions of working days each year due to accident-related absence. The combined cost to UK business is now estimated at about £6 billion every year.

Taken together, this represents a hidden but substantial cost to the country—to our health service, economy and public finances. The truth is that we can do better. Indeed, we have done better before. We know what works: safer homes, stronger product standards, effective public awareness campaigns, improved design of public spaces, better data collection, and co-ordinated action across Government and local agencies.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Twenty-eight-year-old Benedict Solly was killed on the A37, near Cerne Abbas, at a notorious accident hotspot. Local residents had been calling for interventions to make that junction safe, but part of the problem is that the decision on whether to make an intervention at the junction is based on historical data, which is only recording actual collisions—not near misses, accidents avoided or all those other things. Does the right hon. Member agree that we need a wider dataset in order to inform the interventions that we make to avoid fatal accidents occurring?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and he adds that particular tragedy to the tragedies that I have already mentioned. Of course he is right that, with modern technology racing ahead in so many ways, our data should be better and more effective at informing the decisions that are made. He made that point with great eloquence.

What is currently lacking is a clear, coherent and sustained national strategy to bring these efforts together. At present, responsibility for accident prevention is fragmented across multiple Departments: Health, Transport, Housing, Education and others. The result is a system in which responsibility is dispersed, co-ordination is inconsistent and prevention too often falls through institutional gaps. That is why I believe there is now a compelling case for a national accident prevention strategy. Such a strategy would have benefits across the whole of Government: safer roads for the Department for Transport, reduced pressure on the national health service for the Department of Health and Social Care, less spending on benefits for people unable to work because of accidents for the Department for Work and Pensions and higher productivity for the Treasury. A national accident prevention strategy must therefore be led by the Cabinet Office, which has the oversight necessary to set cross-Government priorities and to co-ordinate and align the activities of different Departments to achieve them.

Becky Hickman and RoSPA should be asked to produce a report for the Government on what such a strategy might look like. It should, in my view, be based on a few clear principles: first, ministerial leadership at the centre of Government, ensuring accountability and direction; secondly, a clear focus on prevention, rather than simply reacting after harm has occurred—the very point that the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) was making just a moment ago.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Rural communities face unique challenges when it comes to prevention and addressing accidents. We are more isolated, we have terrible signal, we have roads more likely to lead to crashes and agriculture is Britain’s most dangerous industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any national accident prevention strategies must focus on rurality and be matched by proper investment in public health funding, which areas such as Somerset have always lost out on?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

I think I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, except that I would not wish to make an exceptional case for the countryside. This issue affects all part of our country. As he will know, the royal town of Sutton Coldfield is an ancient town and is therefore not part of the countryside as such, although within the royal town of Sutton Coldfield we have the biggest municipal park in Europe, so we at least doff our caps to the issue of rurality.

I was listing the number of clear principles that I thought should inform a report of the type I have described. I had mentioned two; the third is indeed the better use of data, so that we understand where risks are emerging, where interventions are needed and whether policies are working. I suspect I will carry the two hon. Gentlemen who have intervened on me on that point: the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for West Dorset (Edward Morello). The fourth principle is a serious focus on those most at risk of accidental harm. The fifth and final principle is a sustained approach to public education and awareness, so that safety is embedded across the life course from childhood through to older age.

I want to return briefly to the human reality behind all this: a child walking to school, a friend cooking a meal at home, a parent swimming in the sea on holiday—ordinary stories with tragic endings. As Members of Parliament, we all know of searingly heartbreaking, awful occurrences such as poor Natasha’s death. We have the evidence and the tools, and we have the example of other countries such as Australia and Finland, where co-ordinated Government accident prevention strategies are already in place. What is missing in the UK is the sustained national leadership to bring those together.

We should not accept a situation in which tens of thousands of lives are lost each year to preventable accidents. We should not accept a system that is fragmented when lives depend on co-ordination. We should not accept avoidable suffering when the knowledge, tools and capacity to prevent it already exist. Ultimately, it is not just about policy, but about whether we are prepared to act on what we already know: that far too many lives are being lost unnecessarily, and that that does not have to be the case.

Those are all non-party political points. There is no party politics in this. I appeal to the good sense and experience of all Members of this House in the hope that together we can support the Government to drive that agenda forward with vigour.

16:43

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for allowing us the opportunity to speak on the topic. I congratulate him on a truly excellent speech.

I will give my perspective as the chair of the healthy homes and buildings all-party parliamentary group. This subject is of great interest to me: accidents in the home, on the roads, on the farm and on water—all those things together. As the right hon. Member highlighted, fatal accidents in the United Kingdom have risen at a rate of 8% in one year, and accidents now kill more than 23,000 people annually, which is more than the capacity of the London O2 arena. Of those people, nearly 800 die annually in accidental deaths in Northern Ireland.

I am going to give a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate. The number of accident fatalities in Northern Ireland is rising, with the region experiencing a rate of 39 deaths per 100,000, significantly higher than the UK average of 34 per 100,000. We in Northern Ireland are already on the back foot and behind on the targets, so we need to do better, hence I wanted to add my support and contribute to this debate. Almost 900,000 people, the equivalent of the entire population of Devon, are admitted to hospital as a result of accidents every year. People living in the most deprived areas are nearly twice as likely to be killed in an accident as those in the least deprived areas.

I want to highlight the issue of accidents on the farm, such as falling off a roof. I live on a farm, and we tend to do the work ourselves. That is the nature of the life. To be truthful, we might not adhere to some of the health and safety aspects—I may not have adhered to them, either—so accidents on the farm are regular things, whether they are machinery accidents or to do with slurry.

Over the past few years, I have heard of a number of people who have unfortunately succumbed to the fumes of the slurry tank. I remember my neighbour telling me last year, “Jim, I was out clearing the slurry tank and—it’s the funniest thing—I was there, and all of a sudden I was away.” It was the guy in a tractor about 10 feet away who pulled him away from it. We who live in the rural hinterland and the country are affected each day by farm issues—maybe just do not stand over slurry tanks.

I look to the Minister to highlight those issues. Back home, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs advertises regularly on TV about the dangers of the farm. Those dangers also include overhead lines: someone could be working with a Caterpillar or JCB and, all of a sudden, could hit an overhead line and be in a tragic accident. Working with animals is another example. We must always be wary of the cow that has a young calf or the bull that is in among the cows. Things can happen, so there is a real danger.

I have been in contact with RoSPA, which welcomed recent steps by the Government to improve regulation and standards in the housing sector—which I want to speak to—particularly the commitment to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry in full. I know the Government have been proactive in responding to the Grenfell inquiry and have come up with a lot of good, positive ways forward. RoSPA has also worked with leading housing providers to produce safer by design, a framework to reduce serious accidental injury in new build homes. It sets out practical measures to reduce the shocking current rate of 6,000 accidental fatalities in UK homes each and every year.

Accidents are not just an issue in the home. They affect people on the roads, at work and during leisure time. Accidents are now the leading cause of preventable deaths in people under 40, with 840,000 hospital admissions and 7 million A&E attendances being accident-related in 2022-23, costing the NHS £6 billion and 5.2 million bed days annually, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to. The economic costs are exceptional, including another estimated £6 billion down to lost working days and output. If we can improve the accident rate, we can improve the economy and improve people’s health, so it is a win-win in every way.

I join the right hon. Member in his call for a national accident prevention strategy. The Minister has been very active in Westminster Hall this last week—or 10 days, or even two weeks—and it is good to see her in her place again. We look forward to her answers to our requests. As the right hon. Member referred to, if we can model our national accident prevention strategy on those that have been implemented in Australia and Finland, we—including the Government and the Minister —can collectively tackle the crisis. I ask hon. Members and the Government to initiate and support steps for our constituents’ safety.

If we can address this issue at Government level, in a collective and collegiate way, we can address some of these concerns. Whether an accident is in the home, on the roads, in water or on the farm—wherever it might be—we need a national accident prevention strategy and we need it now.

16:49

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on securing this extremely important debate. Four weeks ago today, I was at the funeral of a young man who was killed in a road traffic collision in Sussex, just after Christmas. His mother is one of my constituents. Seeing how broken-hearted she was, and seeing the young man’s friends who were there at his funeral, really brought home to me how important it is that we take all the steps we can to mitigate these kinds of accidents wherever we can to avoid the future suffering of the families and friends of those who die in accidents.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for highlighting the importance of water safety. My constituency has one of the country’s major rivers—the River Thames—as a boundary, so water safety is a constant issue for the young people whom I represent. I will take the opportunity to highlight the particular risks around locks in the summer months. In my constituency, Teddington lock attracts a great deal of young people who find it appealing to jump off the lock and into the river, which is incredibly dangerous. A couple of years ago, there was a fatality in the river in Sunbury, which is not far from my constituency, so I highlight to young people, particularly those in my constituency, the enormous danger of playing around the locks.

I also pay tribute to the British Standards Institution and all its work, in what is its 125th year. It is also the 75th year of the consumer and public interest network and the BSI consumer forum, which ensure that consumer voices are heard in the development of standards so that they reflect real-world experience and mitigate accident risk.

The Liberal Democrats believe that investing in prevention through public health initiatives is the most effective way to enhance wellbeing and reduce the burden on NHS services, so we support the introduction of a national accident prevention strategy, as advocated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Accidents are a leading cause of preventable death and injury in the UK.

The Health and Safety Executive, the NHS and local authorities all have a role to play in accident prevention, but there is no single, overarching national strategy co-ordinating activity across settings such as roads, workplaces, homes and public spaces. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has also long advocated for a joined-up, national approach to home safety, particularly for children and older people. Despite that, no Government have been forthcoming with legislation that would bring together all those strategies in an effective framework.

The Liberal Democrats understand the benefit of a national strategy. Road safety strategies have previously driven significant reductions in deaths and serious injuries, with the UK historically being among the safer countries in terms of road casualties, but the Government are yet to introduce a successor strategy of equivalent ambition, so progress has stalled. We have consistently pressed the Government to adopt a road safety strategy, so we welcome their action, but we are disappointed that much of the strategy is simply made up of commitments to undertake consultation, kicking meaningful activity down the road.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for action to be taken much more quickly, as well as for investment in road safety infrastructure, better enforcement on speeding and law breaking, educational programmes and improved safety technology across the motor industry. We are also campaigning for the roll-out of active ageing programmes and falls assessments for anyone over the age of 75, to prevent falls, avoid unnecessary hospital admissions and promote healthy ageing. Ill health, which can be caused by accidents, is a key cause of workforce shortages. To tackle that problem, the Government should invest in our NHS and in social care so that people can get the healthcare they need and rejoin the workforce more quickly.

We have called on the Government to fix NHS backlogs, cut ambulance waiting times and raise the minimum wage for care workers by £2 an hour to help boost our social care system and get people out of hospital quicker. Social care is essential to enabling people to live safely and independently at home, but the Government are kicking the issue into the long grass, as their commission is not set to complete for another two years. We would complete it within a year and deliver the answers and investment needed to tackle the social care crisis.

Beyond the obvious physical and mental impact of accidents, they have a broader economic impact. Each year, accidents cost UK businesses £6 billion in lost working days and output. We want the national prevention strategy to set out clearer expectations for enforcement and employer compliance. The Health and Safety Executive oversees workplace safety regulation, but budget cuts have reduced its inspection capacity.

While the NHS continues to be under huge stress, the need to introduce a strategy to reduce preventable accidents is even more pressing. Accidents cost the NHS 5.2 million bed days, which amounts to almost £6 billion. Therefore, will the Minister tell us whether the Government will accelerate plans to conclude the social care commission before 2028? What action are they taking now, in advance of the conclusion, to support people through recovery and back into work? What steps are they taking to ensure that their road safety strategy works effectively and cohesively, alongside other Government strategies, to reduce the number of preventable accidents and injuries across the country?

16:55

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on securing the debate and on the thoughtful way in which he presented his opening remarks, highlighting the need for a national strategy to prevent accidents, not least through the lens of the horrific tragedies that he outlined in the royal town.

I am always pleased to see the Minister in her place, but this debate was tabled to discuss a national accident prevention strategy, which would need to extend well beyond the Minister’s portfolio and the Department for Transport. Roads and other transport methods represent only a portion of the challenges raised in the debate. For a Government whose principal ideology appears to be predicated on a misguided notion of due process, it seems that there has been an accident in today’s assignment.

The issue at hand requires a Minister whose responsibility it is to think about the broader impact and prevention of accidents, which I would argue is someone in the Cabinet Office or the Department for Work and Pensions, which holds significant responsibility in this area as the sponsoring Department for the Health and Safety Executive. I say none of that as a criticism of the Minister, for whom I have a high regard and respect; I do say it as a criticism of the Government, because I cannot understand why they have chosen to field the Department for Transport in this debate rather than a Department that cuts across the whole of Government.

This is an incredibly important issue. There is a risk of accident from the moment we wake up in the morning, when we travel to work or enjoy a leisure activity, and when we go about our daily business. Risk is in our journeys, and in every product we use and place we visit. The Government have a regulatory responsibility to mitigate those risks as much as possible—to prevent avoidable accidents, save lives and shield the taxpayer in the process. A national accident prevention strategy should be about creating not a burden or over-regulation, but the safety and confidence that people and businesses can live, operate and thrive in an environment with lower risk.

The cost of accidents to the NHS is estimated at around £6 billion a year. It is suggested by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that accidents are the leading cause of death in the under-40s. We have a duty to do what we can to get to grips with the significant causes of accidents, especially as they change with new developments in our way of life.

It is interesting to dive into the figures about prevalent accidents over time. Transport-related accidents are horrific, and of course the Government should want to do more to reduce those further, but they have already fallen by 17% over the past two decades. The number of falls, however, many of which will affect our elderly constituents, is up considerably by 90%, making up 46% of all accidents. I am interested to know how the Minister plans to address some of the major emerging causes of accidents, particularly by working across different Departments.

RoSPA’s November 2024 report makes several recommendations, but the clear theme is the need for a more holistic, joined-up approach to accident prevention. The Health and Safety Executive does a robust job of upholding safety standards in the workplace, but there is a need to ensure that the safety standard is consistent at work, at home and in the public realm. Future-proofing our safety standards will also play a key role in mitigating risk for the long term.

I would like to hear from the Minister what considerations the Government have made to accommodate the growing use of artificial intelligence and robotics in industry and business, both to mitigate accident risk and to utilise new technologies to reduce risks elsewhere. We have seen in our newspapers this week an example that is relevant to the Minister’s Department: a self-driving car drove straight through the police cordon around a crime scene in London. That emerging technology is clearly not foolproof, and has shown on the streets of our capital city this week that it is potentially dangerous, so how will the Government rise to the regulatory challenge?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield eloquently set out, this is a broad topic. It is clear from delving into the issue of accidents that the Government must take it seriously. Given that real strain and cost are being placed on our NHS and public services, and that some truly horrible accidents are happening around us each and every day, I would like to hear that the Government are taking this issue seriously and that work is being done across Government and not just within the Department for Transport. When it comes to delivering a broader accident prevention strategy, I hope that they will not take a narrow approach, but will listen to the recommendations of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and take the cross-departmental approach that is clearly necessary.

17:01

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for securing this debate. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government. I offer my condolences to all those affected by the incidents in his constituency that he mentioned, including Natasha’s family and friends. I pay tribute to him for raising awareness of this important issue.

As the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, it is not unreasonable to expect to be able to go about our everyday lives without the fear or risk of accidents. The impact on individuals and their families and friends can be devastating. I share his view that we should collectively act to address those risks.

As the Minister responsible for road safety, I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in the lead-up to the publication of the road safety strategy earlier this year. He has a track record of making the case for effective safety measures in his constituency and beyond. That is of course to his great credit.

I am particularly struck by the fact that we are here on International Workers’ Memorial Day. Too many people are killed or injured as a result of their work, and it is apt that we are discussing this issue on a day when we are remembering those killed in workplace incidents. We must recommit to fight for a safer future for the living.

As the right hon. Gentleman noted, accident prevention cuts across several areas and the responsibilities of many Departments. Within my ambit, it means road traffic collision prevention. More widely, accident prevention impacts home safety, safety in the workplace, product safety, building safety, safety in childcare, sickness prevention and much more.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about the incident that we have all heard about as constituency Members. The Government clearly recognise the importance of prevention, protecting lives, promoting good health and ensuring that public services are not called upon when they do not need to be. Several hon. Members have talked about the impact of accidents on our economy and the national health service. It is the first job of Government to keep the British people safe. I know that colleagues in all Departments are taking measures to ensure our approach to accident prevention is as strong as it can be.

With that in mind, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will allow me the opportunity to speak first about the work of my own Department. This country has some of the safest roads in the world, but years of complacency have allowed our road safety record to slip. Around four people die on our roads every single day—lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition and lives grieved by families left behind.

Language and terminology matter to victims of road traffic collisions. Since 2022, other than when required by specific legislation, the Department for Transport has used the term “collision” in relation to road traffic crashes, because the term “accident” can imply that events are unavoidable or without fault. We know that the vast majority of incidents on our roads are preventable.

Earlier this year, my Department published the new road safety strategy, because we believe that road traffic collisions are preventable. Our strategy sets out how we intend to deal with the root causes of collisions. We have set out our vision for safer roads for all, including ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65%—70% for children—by 2035. Rooted in innovation and underpinned by the safe system approach, our strategy recognises that although driver error is inevitable, deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not.

The strategy outlines concrete steps to better support road users, including consultations. Five consultations were published alongside the road safety strategy, on minimum learning periods, lower drink-drive limits and mandatory eyesight testing. I make no apology for consulting, because since we are publishing the first road safety strategy in a generation, we must take the time to get it right. It is right that we have set out in those consultations what we intend to do, but also that we listen very carefully to how best to make those changes. I want to see progress—I will be chairing a national road safety board to ensure the implementation of the strategy—and of course I want to see those numbers going down, as we have set ambitious targets for what we want to achieve over the next decade, but I do not think it was wrong to consult on them.

The strategy commits to harnessing technology, data and innovation to improve the safety of vehicles and infrastructure. It sets out a strengthened approach to enforcement, putting penalties under review and considering new powers to suspend licences. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly raised the potential of those new technologies, including AI, but he also highlighted the importance of getting that technology right, including automated vehicles. They have a huge potential, as we know that driver error is such an important contributory factor in many road traffic collisions. The ability to remove the potential for driver error with an automated vehicle is there, but we must make sure that the technology is as reliable as a careful and competent driver. That is why we have the piloting of the automated vehicles but with a safety driver in place at the moment.

What applies to road safety as much as any other area of accident prevention is the importance of collective effort. We rely on partnerships with local authorities, industry, emergency services, charities, stakeholders and communities. In transport, we recognise the importance of a just culture, recognising that humans do make mistakes, systems can fail, safety improves when people are honest, and learning means more than blame. In aviation, rail and maritime, we have the accident investigation branches. They are not there to apportion blame or liability. Their focus is investigating serious incidents to ensure that we can learn from them and prevent reoccurrence.

Accident prevention must be a call to action, not just a new policy or a set of regulations. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of “THINK!”, the Government’s flagship road safety campaign, which aims to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads in England and Wales. It seeks to change attitudes and behaviours among those at risk, and it is a good example of the importance of public awareness campaigning.

I pay tribute to all those individuals, organisations, campaigners and response teams who make such a difference to lives across the country, both by raising awareness of those most at risk of harm and by standing ready and responding night and day to help people in danger. I am thinking of our lifeboat responders, our mountain rescue teams and many others.

In housing safety—I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned this—the Government are taking various actions to improve safety and accident prevention. The decent homes standard is one of several new and updated measures to improve quality in the private rented sector. That includes Awaab’s law, which requires landlords to address issues of damp and mould within stricter timeframes—not accidents, but ill health caused by living in unsafe conditions. There are also new fines for landlords whose properties contain serious hazards.

Action is being taken on all 58 recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry report, and that is intended to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system in the wake of that tragedy. We will never forget those taken too soon, or the impact that will still be felt every day by their loved ones.

In December, the Government published the single construction regulator prospectus and consultation document, laying out plans for regulatory reform to integrate the regulation of buildings, products and professions. That followed the appointment of an expert panel to help guide the Building Safety Regulator-led review of the building regulations guidance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) both mentioned the dangers around rivers, canals, lakes and the sea. It takes a real collective effort by emergency services and volunteers to deliver search and rescue services, and the Government have made tangible progress in recent years to support voluntary organisations. In the recent Budget, a vehicle excise duty exemption was announced for mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. That reflects a clear recognition of the public value of search and rescue volunteers and the practical costs they bear in carrying out their work. They also do important work making people aware of those dangers as part of that prevention agenda.

I was saddened to read in the annual review of RoSPA, to which I will refer in a moment, that alcohol-related deaths have increased by 5% following a period of relative stability. Those include accidents caused by exposure or poisoning. All such deaths are a tragedy. The Government have committed to help people make healthier choices about alcohol, and we are working towards legal requirements for alcohol labels to display health warnings and consistent nutritional information.

To better support people experiencing harmful drinking and alcohol dependence, we published the first ever UK clinical guidelines on alcohol treatment to drive improvements in treatment provision. Our extensive programme of implementation support for the guidelines has been positively received by commissioners and providers, and we continue to work across Government to consider further measures to reduce the negative impact alcohol has on health inequalities, crime and the economy. The same could be said of some drug use, which is also a major cause of accidents and poisonings.

When it comes to health, it is worth speaking about falls. Falls accounted for almost half of all fatal accidents in the UK in 2023, and 59% of all accident-related hospital admissions in 2023-24, making them by far the largest single category of accidental harm. That is against a long-term backdrop of falls fatalities increasing by 81% between 2013 and 2022.

There is hope, however, and again it comes to technology. Emerging evidence from Government-funded independent evaluations indicates that falls technologies can reduce falls in care homes by between 37% and 49%, as well as reducing hospital admissions and freeing up staff time. In the next year, the Government will set new national standards for care technologies and produce trusted guidance so that people can confidently buy and use technology that supports them or the people they care for. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked some important questions about social care, and I will ensure that she receives a written response to those questions.

Let me move on to workplace safety. The Government’s Employment Rights Act 2025 is an important step towards delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Ensuring statutory sick pay from day one will reduce the risk of presenteeism, a key risk in operational environments when people are at work but unwell. Limits on non-disclosure agreements will enable learning from incidents instead of silencing them. Reducing zero-hours working will ensure greater predictability in work patterns, reducing fatigue, working alone or rushed work. The creation of the Fair Work Agency will provide better protection for whistleblowers, reinforcing a strong safety culture in our workplaces.

Making it easier for trade unions to organise ensures that more workplaces benefit from health and safety representatives and the vital work that they do. I pay tribute to trade unionists across the country who are health and safety representatives. I know at first hand the incredible work they do to keep workplaces safe.

[Lee Pitcher]

As the Minister mentioned, it is International Workers’ Memorial Day, and trade unions have been here today to make sure we raise awareness of it. This year’s theme is the psychosocial interventions required to support workers and mental health. Will she take the opportunity to remember those we have lost at work, to promote to employers the implementation of strong mental health interventions at work and to raise awareness to prevent lives being lost?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We think of all those who have lost their life at work; I think that about 120 people each year are killed in the course of their work. There is also a much more widespread problem of people suffering ill health, particularly relating to work-related stress and mental health. The best employers work really hard on those issues, often in consultation with their trade union health and safety reps.

The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It delivers a combination of proportionate enforcement, targeted regulatory work engagement and the development of standards and guidance. That includes public awareness activity to promote the safe use of ladders and power tools through guidance, surveillance work and campaigns.

The hon. Member for Strangford, who is no longer in his place, rightly spoke about the risks in agriculture. HSE works extensively with the Farm Safety Partnership to ensure that industry is aware of risks. We think about similar things in relation to construction and other high-risk environments.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Of course.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

With a huge sense of trepidation, as he was not here for the openings—or at least not until the very end of them.

[Joe Morris]

I apologise for my tardiness, Dr Murrison. I just want to pick up on the point about agriculture. As we are talking about national accident prevention, it is important to recognise that accidents in rural areas require a different level of promotion and public engagement. Will the Minister therefore join me in urging everyone involved in accident prevention to recognise the unique challenges that rural areas face and to take appropriate steps where possible, whether that is in road safety or in workplace safety?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In addressing all these things, we must think about who is most at risk and what the appropriate way is to intervene. A point was made earlier about how rural areas are particularly at risk. We know that those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds—the people in the poorest neighbourhoods—are most at risk of being involved in serious incidents. That is true for road safety, as it is for other things, but my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of rurality, because rural roads are among the most dangerous.

To address accidents in educational settings, the Department for Education has worked with the Food Standards Agency to develop a food safety advice webpage, including a section on choking prevention. The Department already works with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that safety alerts for products related to early years and childcare, including the five-step safety message for parents and carers, are communicated to the sector to minimise the risk of serious injury from toys.

Finally, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which sits within the Department for Business and Trade, and local authority trading standards has powers to tackle the supply of unsafe or non-compliant consumer products and remove them from the market. The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 introduced various measures to reduce the risk of fires, including the risk of e-bike and e-scooter battery fires. Secondary legislation will regulate battery design, compatibility and safety information for consumers. The office also works with a variety of stakeholders, including fire and rescue services, other regulators, consumer bodies and safety charities, to gather information about incidents that may be linked to product safety issues.

I pay tribute to all the charities in the sector, which do such vital work, and to the volunteers, without whom they would not function. I know that many campaigners across the country do valuable work to raise awareness of accident prevention and shine a light on areas where improvement is needed. Like the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, I note the work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to campaign for a reduction in accidents at home, on the road, at work and at leisure. I particularly note its recently published annual review, which followed its 2024 report calling for a national accident prevention strategy. It has powerfully highlighted the human and economic costs of accidents to individuals and to society.

We recognise that coherent action is an important factor in tackling issues that may have many dimensions and owners. I regret that I am not in a position today to commit the Government to a national strategy, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members can be reassured of two things. First, individual Departments take seriously their responsibilities for safety, security and accident prevention; I hope that the House will recognise my passion for road safety as just one example. Secondly, we will continue to work across Government to ensure that our approach to accident prevention is the right one. That includes a focus on prevention, such as rolling out a range of measures to tackle health inequalities and stop health problems at source. It also includes better use of data, such as the establishment of a data-led road safety investigation branch covering the whole of Great Britain, which will draw on data to carry out thematic investigations and make recommendations.

Once again, I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for securing this debate. I am grateful to you, for overseeing us this afternoon, Dr Murrison, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken.

17:21

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their speeches, which I think have very fully answered the comments that I tried to make in opening the debate. I also thank colleagues across the House for their contribution to this important subject.

I was pleased to hear the Minister say that she will chair the national road safety board. I very much hope that she will use that opportunity to help drive the more comprehensive approach to this matter that I set out in my opening remarks. In particular, I hope that she will ensure that it does not suffer from departmental turf exchanges. There is a real win to be achieved here by helping to drive this through the whole of Whitehall and produce a genuinely comprehensive strategy. I also hope that she will use RoSPA, which she spoke about warmly. I strongly concur with her remarks: it is a great organisation that can give the necessary perspective that we require, quite apart from being an example of the good sense and wisdom of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where it is based.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a national accident prevention strategy.

17:22

Sitting adjourned.