Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9 September 2026

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

Public Confidence in the Police

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for public confidence in the police.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I start by noting that the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), cannot be with us today because she is attending the funeral of PC Matthew Blades, who so tragically died in Cleveland in the collision that we are all sadly familiar with. I pay tribute to the two officers who died in the line of duty, to all the Cleveland officers who continue to serve in spite of what has happened, and to the whole community who have rallied round both families and the officers they now, more than ever, appreciate and want to show that appreciation. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for attending the debate in the Policing Minister’s place.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for paying tribute to our incredibly brave police officers in Cleveland, who have had an extraordinarily difficult couple of weeks but have dealt with the situation with extreme professionalism. One of their challenges is that since 2010 Cleveland has 220 fewer officers—it is at the bottom of the table for police cuts—so it is extraordinary how the force has approached the situation with such professionalism, bravery and courage despite that situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the funding formula needs to be urgently reviewed so that we are not penalising areas of high deprivation?

[Jonathan Hinder]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The police funding formula is long overdue for reform, and that incident can accelerate our move towards that. Middlesbrough is a high-crime area and a very deprived area, and that needs to be reflected in the formula. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to push forward reform there and across the country.

I secured this debate on public confidence in the police because, over the last decade and a half, public confidence in the police has been heading in the wrong direction. Whether we look at crime surveys, victim satisfaction surveys or polling trackers from companies such as YouGov, the trend has been downward, which is worrying. If a significant proportion of the public were no longer to see the police as legitimate, we would be headed down a very dark path.

I do not want to spend my whole speech lamenting the then governing Conservative party’s handling of policing—cutting 20,000 officers and then hurriedly returning officer numbers to the same level when they realised what a serious error they had made; constantly shifting their stance on stop and search, tightening and then loosening it; the full circle performed on police recruitment routes; and so on—but the recent history is critical to understanding the position that policing finds itself in today. I know what a disastrous impact it had on neighbourhood policing because I was there, serving as a police constable, sergeant and inspector during those years.

Just at the time that policing was being—let us say—deprioritised by the Government, policing demand changed significantly. High-harm offences committed behind closed doors, as opposed to in the street, were reported in much higher numbers, thanks to changing societal attitudes, improved police culture and high-profile historical cases increasing awareness. Domestic abuse reports to the police doubled in 10 years, reports of sexual offences rocketed, and child abuse became much more commonly reported.

It is good that people now feel able to report those offences and that the police are taking them seriously, but it was a perfect storm. Just at the time when policing was losing not just thousands of officers but thousands of experienced officers, a huge wave of high-harm demand emerged while policing was—and in some cases still is—equipped with data systems from the 1970s. It is absolutely right that investigating high-harm offences is now core policing business, but we must acknowledge that the huge change to policing demand has reduced police visibility on the streets, which is a key determinant of public confidence.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I recognise the hon. Member’s police service; I myself served for 12 years in Lothian and Borders police. One of the challenges we now have is that there is a continual churn in police roles, which means that communities do not know their police officers and their police officers do not know them. Does the hon. Member agree that, culturally, that is something the police service needs to tackle?

[Jonathan Hinder]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member, and it is something I impress on my local officers. There is nothing more annoying as an MP, but also as a resident, to find that our local inspector or borough commander has changed for the third time in a year. It is so frustrating, and that is something that policing can control, so I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Police funding is not my focus today, but I will leave colleagues with one thought about it. Given that the police are now receiving so many reports of high-harm crime, which is complex and time-consuming to investigate compared with what they did 20 years ago, how could they possibly still be as visible in communities as they used to be, and as focused on street crime, without a significant increase in funding?

What else can the Government do to improve the public’s confidence in policing? Put simply, they can provide political leadership which sets very clear priorities that match those of the public and give our officers the backing they need to deliver on them. Policing is not just about crime, and it never has been, no matter what some people might tell us about a so-called golden age in the past. It is about policing protests, finding missing people, intervening to stop mentally ill people harming themselves. There always needs to be clear prioritisation from the Government and police leaders. If everything is a priority, nothing is.

But it is true that the policing mission has become increasingly blurred, and we have seen the police repeatedly overstep into cases where they should not be. When the public view those cases alongside a lack of police visibility in their area, or instances where basic investigations are not done for offences like theft, they lose confidence that policing has its priorities right.

It is right that the Government have scrapped non-crime hate incidents; now we need a new Public Order Act. This legislation, which underpins free speech and its limits in this country, is 40 years old this year. It is not fit for this online, more polarised era. While I do not absolve police leaders of their responsibilities to apply the law sensibly, politicians should be providing clear direction. We need to clarify what is legitimate debate and what is simply someone being unpleasant. What is actual crime that we want the police to intervene in? The Government commissioned a review of public order legislation, which I understand was submitted to the Home Office in May this year, but it has not been published, as far as I am aware. I would be grateful if the Government, either today or shortly afterwards, could update Members on when we should expect that, as a new settlement on the issue is badly needed.

A series of high-profile, horrific misconduct scandals in recent years have shaken public confidence, not least because they could have been stopped much earlier. The existing misconduct system is too slow to weed out those who should not be police officers or, indeed, never should have been, yet the system is often over-zealous when it comes to much lower-level allegations of misconduct, ruining the lives of officers who in many cases are fundamentally good and have sought to do the right thing. That is a terrible combination, so I was pleased that over the summer the Government announced an end-to-end review of police misconduct processes. Again, that is much needed, and I sincerely hope the review reports quickly, so that tangible improvements can be made quickly on the back of it to strike a much better balance.

The system should prioritise getting the really bad officers out without delay, support officers who have made honest mistakes, and not incentivise a grievance culture that makes officers feel like they are treading on eggshells whenever they open their mouths. If we get this right, we can kick out those officers who are not fit to wear the uniform. Meanwhile, we will have fewer brilliant officers making the active choice to leave because they do not feel supported to do what is an extraordinary job. This is critical to improving the culture and performance of police forces, and therefore to improving public confidence.

To sum up, the Government must provide strong political leadership if we want to rebuild public confidence in policing, and that means policing being relentlessly focused on doing the basics well. Do not look for a silver bullet to improve public confidence, because there isn’t one. An extra engagement team, more attendance at community events, a new force slogan on the side of the patrol cars focusing on recruits’ identity more than on their policing ability—these activities at the margins will not improve public confidence, no matter how well meaning. Let us be clear about what is a priority and what is not, and then back our officers to do the basics well, day in, day out. That is how we can improve public confidence in policing.

09:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Alec, for calling me to speak. I also thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for his introduction. The debates he brings to the House, and to Westminster Hall in particular, are usually on policing matters. He and I resonate in our comments, support and the thrust of where we are from. Interventions from others have also indicated that. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her 12 years of service, which is appreciated by all. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady made a positive and constructive mark in her 12 years.

I want to start by paying tribute to the wonderful work of local policing in my Strangford constituency and across Northern Ireland by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I commend Superintendent Johnston McDowell, who is responsible for policing the area I represent, along with his dedicated team in Ards and North Down. I also commend Chief Superintendent Haslett, who covers the Newry and Down side of the constituency. They work tirelessly, day in, day out, with incredibly limited resources, to keep our communities safe. We sleep easy in our beds because of the commitment of police officers across the borough.

The PSNI has been active in responding to rural crime, which is an issue. Alongside the Ulster Farmers’ Union, of which I am a member, they mark trailers, tractors and machinery. Sometimes, stolen machinery, cattle and other livestock are moved to the Republic of Ireland. Dear knows where they end up; it could be over here or even further afield.

The PSNI is stretched to the limit, yet its commitment to public duty never wavers. I have seen the policing of events, such as the 12 July parades, at which the police are vigilant yet certainly in high spirits. We thank them for the balanced way they police those parades. I have seen difficult situations where cool heads were needed, and they did not fail to meet expectations.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that confidence in policing is often undermined by the public’s use of finite clips on social media, which do not take account of what happened immediately before whatever incident is broadcast? Senior police officers and Government Ministers need to respond quickly in respect of the entire environment around the clip. We all remember the attacks in Manchester where, initially, videos seemed to show police officers overreacting, but a few weeks later the reality of what actually happened came to light. More account needs to be taken of the environment in which clips that undermine confidence are used.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for highlighting that matter. A two, three or five-second clip sometimes gives an impression of what is happening, but a wee bit more discretion and sight of what happened beforehand would be useful.

Commitment alone cannot fill the gaps left by a lack of funding. I welcome the Minister to her place and thank her for coming. I know she is not the Minister responsible, but I wonder whether she or the Minister for Policing and Crime has spoken to the PSNI or met the Minister responsible for policing and justice in Northern Ireland, Naomi Long, to ascertain the problems there. Superintendent Johnston McDowell and his team want to be more proactive, and I always think we should focus on preventive work, and more community policing.

I am old enough to remember when—the hon. Member for North East Fife referred to this—everybody knew every officer in the area where they lived. Different times mean different pressures and different needs, but I have always supported community policing in all my years as an elected representative, throughout my time on the council and in the Northern Ireland Assembly before coming here. We should, for example, encourage police officers—this is something I want to do and have tried to push—to be more involved in visiting schools. That is a chance to interact and engage with young people, to build lasting relationships and to foster trust from an early age. If those relationships can be built, the confidence and trust can be built upon.

In Northern Ireland, the PSNI is considering introducing police cadets, which I am very supportive of and which I asked the PSNI to look at. I have spoken about it to the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, who has responsibility for policing, because I think there is an opportunity for us in Northern Ireland to build on police cadets in the way that we perhaps did in the past but have lost over the last number of years. The PSNI is keen to pursue this in a pilot scheme, and I have suggested that that scheme should be in my constituency of Strangford and perhaps the neighbouring constituency of North Down. The police cadets could be an organisation that gives young people the opportunity of a job that they might be interested in and that is also about building social engagement and interacting with people.

Grassroots community policing is how we stop crime before it starts and how we build relationships in communities, but the police urgently need the funding and resources to make that happen. Without the cash, these vital community links simply cannot be sustained. I am sorry to say that, although crime is falling marginally across the rest of the Province, Ards and North Down, parts of which are in my constituency, is one of the few areas where crime has increased.

In particular, there has been a problem with antisocial behaviour. I know that the police are trying to address it in conjunction with the chambers of trade and with shopkeepers in the high street. Local shopkeepers in Newtownards and families in Downpatrick are dealing with rising antisocial behaviour, yet the thin green line is stretched thinner than ever.

With, for instance, CCTV in the centre of town and in the shops, we can ascertain what is happening and catch those involved in antisocial behaviour and theft, which is rising for shopkeepers in the constituency that I represent. At the end of the day, if someone comes into a shop and they have a knife or otherwise threaten the person behind the counter, nobody needs to be a hero in this world. The wise thing to do is to stand back and let the CCTV and the police handle the issue when it comes to following it up and trying to catch those involved.

However, we must be honest about why general public confidence is being undermined. There is a growing and deeply concerning perception about police resources. I will say this to the Minister: although policing is a devolved matter for us back home, I want to make some comments, if I may, about the focus of the police, which means they sometimes do what is unnecessary. I will give an example. When a person makes a comment on social media that is not threatening or whatever, and the next thing they know the police are at their door to ask them why they did that and what their intentions are, while real crime on the streets is not being followed up, that causes a growing and deeply concerning perception that police resources are being misdirected towards policing offence rather than preventing actual crime.

We live in a nation built on Christian heritage and values, yet we see—I say this with great respect—street preachers simply declaring the word of God being arrested on our streets. Why? Because somebody objected. Yet real crime—burglaries, car thefts, muggings and other attacks—seems to be set aside while a squad of officers descend on someone preaching the gospel to arrest him or her on the streets. That causes, I have to say, immense distress to the public. People look on in utter astonishment when someone sharing the gospel is handcuffed and hauled away while at the same time no one is available, it seems, to investigate the muggings, car thefts and house burglaries.

I will give another example. When a grandmother’s home is broken into and she is told, “A police officer can’t attend for a few days, but they will be there,” yet there is a street preacher down the road who just happens to be preaching the gospel and a squad of officers arrive and arrest that person for causing offence, public confidence does not just falter—it shatters. The public want to see the police focusing on thugs, thieves and burglars, not on policing speech or theological debate, which seems illogical and unnecessary.

I am ever mindful that back in Northern Ireland we have had a sustained IRA campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I have lived through physically, both as elected representatives and as citizens of Northern Ireland. The emphasis on paramilitary activity has decreased greatly, but there is still a constant threat from that small portion of militant republicans who seem to want to take us back to the bad old days. The police seem to have got the better of them at this stage and have been able to catch them before they do most things, but a bomb was found in south Armagh over the last weekend and we have also had attacks in Belfast and Lisburn where the IRA militant group seemed to be intent. The issue for us in Northern Ireland is that we still have a terrorist campaign that, while greatly reduced, still has the ability to bring chaos.

To conclude, we must give our local teams—that is Superintendent Johnston McDowell, Chief Superintendent Haslett and Chief Constable Jon Boutcher—the funding they need to embed themselves in our communities while also ensuring that policing priorities return to common-sense core law enforcement. We need to police crime, not offence. That message must come from this place and resonate throughout every policing district within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I believe that it must begin today.

09:52

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing the debate and on the way in which he approached the subject. I join him and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) in paying tribute to the police officers from the Cleveland force who lost their lives so tragically just recently.

I want to raise two or three points on the question of confidence in the police and the role of Government. Too often, the police get criticised for the failings of other agencies and I want to talk about that issue in the particular context of my constituency in Harrow. As other Members have already alluded to, I also think that we need to keep the funding—in the case of Harrow, that is for the Metropolitan police—under very close scrutiny. I also want to suggest that the Metropolitan police does not get recognition across the whole of the UK for its hugely important work in tackling national and international crime, and that perhaps more recognition of that is required in the funding formula. Lastly, I want to dwell on the issue of online crime and the hatred that gets stirred up online, which can make the job of the police much more difficult.

I am struck by the criticism that I have heard in my constituency about the police. So often when one gets into the issues that people are concerned about, they are actually the responsibility of other agencies locally and it is the police having to respond to the other agencies’ failure to take action that has led to the criticism of the police. In particular, in Harrow, we recently saw enforcement teams contracted out to an organisation called Kingdom. The responsibility for that contract was with Harrow council.

There was widespread criticism of the way some of the staff employed by Kingdom tried to levy fines on a number of young people in south Harrow, in my constituency. The council could have taken much tougher action against Kingdom. It could have used some of the funding from the contract to pay for additional police officers, instead of contracting the work out to people who are far less well trained than the police. Even at this late stage, I hope that Harrow council will use some of the funding it is spending on the Kingdom contract to fund additional police officers.

Local councils such as Harrow need to invest more in youth facilities that divert young people away from crime. Some of the CCTV projects in my constituency that Harrow council has turned down—in Wealdstone, south Harrow and central Harrow—should get funding. It is not clear to me that the council is investing in drug addiction services, tackling street homelessness or tackling poor performance by the owners of large blocks of flats to prevent antisocial behaviour. More Government scrutiny of the performance of local authorities in tackling antisocial behaviour at a local level would be timely, certainly in the case of Harrow council.

The Metropolitan police saw a £1 billion real-terms funding cut between 2010 and 2014. That led to a marked drop in policing in my constituency and across London more widely. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has done a huge amount to try to redirect funding from other parts of his budget to minimise the impact of that cut. I also welcome the fact that the Government have delivered on their manifesto commitment to boost police funding more generally, so that an extra 3,000 police officers can be recruited across the country. We are seeing the benefit in Harrow, where there has been an increase in police numbers, but we are certainly not back to the level of policing that we had when the last Labour Government left office in 2010. I seek assurance from the Minister that we will never again see the scale of real-terms cuts to the Metropolitan police that my constituents had to endure between 2010 and 2014.

One way we can further support the Metropolitan police is by allowing it to keep more of the proceeds from successful operations, such as recovering stolen funds hidden in bitcoin assets. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her elevation to the Front Bench, and urge her to go into battle with the Treasury to help the Metropolitan police use more of the funds it recovers for investment in local policing, police stations and so on.

We also need to do more about what goes on online, which feeds criminal activity in our constituencies. Will the Minister update the House on the effectiveness, as she sees it, of the Online Safety Act 2023, and on what other work crime agencies are doing with Ofcom to crack down on online hatred?

09:59

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for securing the debate. I was just going to intervene, but after hearing this important debate, I want to take part.

One big way that confidence in the police has been damaged in Yeovil constituency is under-investment. For years, we have had fewer officers and less funding. The result is a force that is not visible enough for my constituents, who then feel that the police cannot help them. That is a damaging place to be as a society. In Yeovil, we do not have the money or staff to run a custody suite, even though the police station is being revamped and is going to reopen. Officers are therefore away for hours after an arrest, and I found it so frustrating when I was out with the police on a ride-around that we spent as much time driving to the nearest custody suite, in Bridgwater, as we did in our community. That is just ridiculous. The result is that antisocial behaviour, drug misuse and shoplifting have got so bad that businesses are considering their futures. I have heard recently from a series of business owners—even of toy shops such as The Entertainer—who are at their wits’ end, and I have heard similar stories from residents. Whether at work or out and about, locals feel unsafe.

I recently held a drop-in event between 3 pm and 6 pm with the police in Chard in my constituency. When I got to the event, eight police officers were there and police vans were outside, but a police van was stolen right in front of our eyes—just outside the event. That was the first crime. Secondly, a guy came to speak to us who had just come from Snowdon Park in Chard, where his bike had been stolen. Thirdly, the hairdressing salon opposite, which had only opened the day before, had its windows smashed. Fourthly, a considerably drunk guy walked past and fell over right in front of our eyes. That all happened in the middle of the day on a Thursday when I was holding that event. I even asked the police, “Have you put this on?” because it was mind-blowing that this was happening in our communities.

I have been meeting regularly with the police and our fantastic police and crime commissioner. Ultimately, we need investment to expand officer numbers and build a custody suite in Yeovil. The cost of a lack of officers is huge. It is unsafe for communities, businesses are closing and people are leaving our area.

Our police community support officers do amazing work in south Somerset, but one issue for them is that they are not allowed handcuffs. Some forces do allow PCSOs to have them, but our force does not. The PCSOs sometimes tell me they do not feel safe. At other times they say, “We want to do the job well, and we could detain someone, but we physically cannot because we do not have the tools for the job.” That is one of the pressures on our local police force that I am trying to address. If the Minister would back me on that issue, it would be very helpful.

I hope the Minister will commit to meeting not just me but residents, the police force, the council and businesses in my constituency. The missing piece of the puzzle is Government, because it is ultimately down to them: we need more investment. I hope the Minister will meet me to discuss these issues.

10:02

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing the debate.

Something odd has happened recently that has turned the debate about crime and policing in this country on its head. The hard right have always presented themselves as the defenders of law and order, but a problem has arisen because people on the hard right, in Reform and parties such as Restore, have started to argue about two-tier policing. That is a daft suggestion—there is nothing of the sort—but such accusations are a real problem in this country, because all sorts of issues have arisen and trust in the police has diminished specifically as a result.

According to the Office for National Statistics, confidence in the police has decreased in the past decade, even if crimes against people and property have mostly decreased. Tackling that will require proper resourcing. The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe mentioned the 20,000 police yo-yo: there were 20,000 police fewer, and then the previous Government restored them. There is still a question about whether the Government have fulfilled, or are on track to fulfil, their pledges on police numbers.

[Jim Shannon]

At the same time as the number of officers remains the same, the population has increased dramatically. Surely the right way of doing this would be to ensure that if the population increases, the number of officers does too. Does the hon. Member agree that the 28,000 would not be enough, and that it should be more?

[Max Wilkinson]

I have an awful lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member says. We could get into a debate purely about police numbers—I know that the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe was not keen to—but we should focus on not just the numbers but the visibility of police officers. We need police counters in our local communities and police officers on our streets.

In contrast with Members who have suggested there is two-tier policing, I would like to place on record my party’s thanks and admiration for hard-working police officers and their public service—I believe there are at least two former officers here today. I would also like to thank the police team in Cheltenham, ably led by Inspector Steve Benbow and Superintendent James Glansfield, who I visited recently. This debate is not about parochial local issues, but it is important when we have experience of joining our police officers on the streets that we reflect that in this Chamber.

During my visit, I learned that police officers in Cheltenham work very hard in increasingly difficult circumstances. I joined Inspector Benbow and Superintendent Glansfield as part of Operation Shield, which followed a summer in which we suffered very visible antisocial behaviour and crime in our town centre, and I know that that has been reflected in towns and cities across the country. One of the most arresting things I learned was that even in Cheltenham, which most people think of as a well-heeled place, there are several, mostly independent, shops where large groups of teenagers are making the lives of the shop workers and owners a misery. We were shown a video captured on a mobile phone by a shop owner of what looked like dozens of teenagers. They apparently go into that shop several times a week, steal stuff and abuse staff. That is not acceptable.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

When we talk about confidence in policing, it is important that we acknowledge that we have a role to play in that as elected representatives. Youth antisocial behaviour has been a problem in my North East Fife constituency over the summer, in places such as Crail and Elie, but when I engaged with local officers, I found they had good intelligence and had dealt with the events pretty robustly afterwards. The fact of the matter is that the community were not aware of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a responsibility to tell the public about the work our local officers are doing?

[Max Wilkinson]

Absolutely. As it happens, I was invited along by my local police force because I was talking about crime and antisocial behaviour in the town centre. The more we talk about the issue and raise it in our constituencies, the more likely it is that the police will be able to get their messages out about extra resourcing and making tweaks to legislation that will help them do their jobs better. I will come later to some of those points, which were raised by the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe.

Another thing that is clear from Cheltenham town centre and across the country is the concerning and increasing aggressive and misogynistic behaviour targeted at women. I have been hugely disturbed to hear reports of women being catcalled and abused with increasingly frequency in my constituency, most notably early in the morning when they are commuting to or from work or the gym. Clearly, a visible policing presence disturbs those who might cause problems and, crucially, gives reassurance to women in our town and city centres.

Will the Minister provide an update on tackling the growing problems with violence against women and girls, much of which is encouraged by the online world? One in four women have experienced domestic abuse. Perhaps more shockingly, fewer than one in six victims of rape or attempted rape report the assault to the police. The reasons they cite include the belief that the police simply will not be able to help, or the concern that they will not be believed.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. In recent weeks, the APPG has met the Metropolitan police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. There is absolutely no doubt that historical failures in investigations have damaged the survivor cohort’s trust in the police and the criminal justice sector more widely. My hon. Friend is talking about violence against women and girls now, but does he agree that historical legacies also play a part?

[Max Wilkinson]

Absolutely. The more we learn about the al-Fayed case, the more shocking it becomes. I commend the work of the APPG, of which my hon. Friend is a leading member, alongside the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). It is uncovering what seems to be a bigger and bigger scandal every time we hear more about it. We need Harrods to be open and transparent, to start co-operating and perhaps to give more resource to aid the investigation.

The issue of violence against women and girls needs to be tackled now, with taskforces that work in partnership with frontline women’s services. That also requires a very visible presence to reassure women that their safety is a priority. To do that, it is clear that police resource must be more focused on the community, rather than just having officers behind desks—although we of course need desk resource too in these complex investigations. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a police counter in every community to increase visibility across the country. That will allow people to share information and intelligence with the police in a convenient and accessible location. Simply emailing a local police officer does not always bring the desired result for local residents who are trying to work out what is going on or share intelligence. We say that we need extra police counters, in contrast to the huge decline in police counters seen under the previous Government and the specific issues in Labour’s London.

On a more structural note, will the Minister provide an update on the Hogan-Howe review and the Government’s response to it? Can she also update us on whether police force boundaries are now due to match the boundaries of regional mayors? It is important that we hold to account the people responsible for policing. That is of particular interest to rural areas. In recent years we have seen rural crime become seriously organised and persistent, yet it is often overlooked. Rural crime networks can also be harder to detect and prosecute. Will the Minister commit to giving rural police forces the necessary resources to clamp down on organised crime operating in the countryside?

The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe mentioned public order and free speech, which is a really important point. Big Brother Watch revealed this weekend that more than 60,000 people have been arrested in the last five years for communication offences. There are some high-profile cases, such those of Lucy Connolly and others, who are held up by the hard right as martyrs of free speech, but they are nothing of the sort. They have rightly been prosecuted, even if some people have valid questions about the severity of the punishment.

Despite that, the facts seem clear: too many people are arrested not for committing crimes but for making tasteless online jokes, offering controversial opinions on social media or non-violent protest. It is a result of legislative failure that the police are not able to do their job properly on these issues. That undermines trust in the police and the work of officers, whose job it is to keep us safe, not to intervene in online arguments that would not trouble us if they happened in verbal form in the Dog and Duck. That is a threat to faith in policing, and to the very fabric of our liberal democracy. It gives space for people such as Reform’s James Orr to make bizarre comparisons between free speech in the UK and Russia and to peddle daft conspiracy theories, undermining British democracy in the process. We must all stand up against that in this place. In the light of the Big Brother Watch report, can the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to work with police and crime commissioners and chief constables to clarify the legal position, give officers greater clarity in their frontline work and protect British free speech rights?

Earlier I mentioned the issue with the right, who were previously the big defenders of policing and order. They have traditionally told us that they stand up for those ideas, but the corrosive narrative of two-tier policing has crept into that side of politics. Where they once backed the police, they now use that daft “two-tier” phrase and tell us the police are part of the problem. That places the police alongside those who would do us harm; it is a dangerous narrative, and one that we at the moderate centre of politics must address.

Support must be given to and extended for those working in the police, who put their lives and wellbeing on the line every day. Mind has reported that 91% of police officers report mental ill health. That is a shocking statistic, and it undermines the work they are able to do. Let us ensure that, as part of efforts to boost trust in policing, we are able to support police officers too. Improving their working conditions and the support available is vital to ensuring that we have the police force we need, staffed by brilliant police officers, and that they are able to fulfil their vital role to keep us safe.

10:15

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Alec, for chairing the debate so very well. I welcome the Minister her to her place. I know that she is standing in for the Policing Minister today, but I congratulate on her elevation none the less.

I commend the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for his service and for securing this important debate. I am aware that he is exceptionally active on this subject, both as a friend of the police who argues for the importance of supporting our officers—rightly—and as a constructive critic, which I am sure is less appreciated among certain forces.

The title of the debate is instructive. Debates centred around the police can all too often focus on their actions. That is undoubtedly something that we must consider, but we must also consider the actions of Government. The policies we debate and vote on in this place can directly impact how the public feel about the police. I am afraid that can cause support to be undermined in some cases, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) so eloquently outlined.

Achieving the combination of effective and just operations, in the interests of the country, is one of the critical foundations of policing. As the second of the nine principles of policing sets out, we must

“recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.”

When that principle is not properly thought about, public confidence is inevitably lost and the quality of our policing is diminished. There is a reciprocal relationship between the police and the public. That is necessary, but we need to appreciate that the best way to achieve success is by having effective forces preventing crime and delivering justice for the victims of crime.

In this Labour Government’s two years, many issues have challenged public confidence in policing. I will be cautious about delving into some of the details given the ongoing investigations into the conduct of forces, but incidents such as the Henry Nowak murder, the decisions pertaining to the banning of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, and the inappropriate use of non-crime hate incidents, have all raised concerns. Only recently, the families of the victims of Valdo Calocane’s attacks in Nottingham said that the police did not tell them that a man who had taken an interest in them had a history of violence when he attempted to visit, leading to an IOPC complaint.

Furthermore, the heinous death of Sarah Everard exposed the very worst of the Metropolitan police, and rightly made it clear that changes were required. In July, a report on the force by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services pointed to progress but still noted the substantial work needed to improve vetting, professional standards and anti-corruption arrangements.

The list of incidents fails to fully scratch the surface of the extent of complaints and problems experienced among forces. However, we know only too well how local and national failures can undermine them. If we combine that with the feeling many have that the crimes they experience are not followed up on, it is little surprise that trust is being eroded across many parts of our society. We must work to improve that trust by improving our police forces.

Although the last few years have demonstrated stability in the IOPC public perceptions survey, and more people feel positively rather than negatively towards the police by a rate of two to one, a rate of 49% in 2024-25 should still be a cause for concern. The country needs much higher levels of confidence in the police. Worryingly, the positive percentage falls further when individuals are asked about their local force, and further still when they are asked about the Metropolitan police. That is unsurprising given the decline demonstrated in the public attitude survey produced by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Those numbers are less surprising when we consider that just 8.5% of crimes were solved in the year to March 2026, leaving an extraordinary 92% of reported crimes unresolved and many people wondering what to do when they face criminal activity. That problem is compounded by crime increasing 10% and antisocial behaviour 15% in the past year alone.

To combat this, the police obviously need to get better at solving crime. They are using new technologies such as facial recognition, which I know a little about, having spent time with my own Bedfordshire police, who have been trialling and using that technology effectively. Its benefits were showcased recently at the Notting Hill carnival. However, that is not enough; we need more officers. Members have mentioned the hokey-cokey of police numbers. The Conservative party has set out a funded plan to deploy 10,000 extra police officers, to introduce hotspot patrolling of 2,000 crime hotspot areas to prevent an estimated 35,000 crimes and deter antisocial behaviour, public drug consumption, shoplifting and knife crime, and to triple stop and search to take knives and drugs off the streets.

Those are clear targets to hold any future Conservative Government to account, which is a different approach to this Government’s abstract promises on neighbourhood policing. From my conversations with police officers and the police and crime commissioner in my constituency, it is yet to be determined how we will effectively monitor the promises on neighbourhood policing. Will the Minister provide clarity on how can we hold the Government to account on their commitments to neighbourhood policing?

Furthermore, we must be tougher on dealing with crime. That requires more policing, but also stronger enforcement throughout the justice system. Nothing quite illustrates this Labour Government’s failure to achieve that than their rushed and ill-conceived early-release schemes. Those policies have inevitably placed enormous strain on police forces across the country, burdening officers with poor decisions made here in Whitehall. In August, His Majesty’s chief inspector of probation said that he was ultimately

“not fully confident that the probation system will be able to cope with this massive work and there’s a risk that things will go wrong”.

Although I appreciate that there have since been a number of iterations of the policy, his statement seems as true now as it did then. Quite simply, these policies are a Government failure that will put all our constituents at risk.

I appreciate that improving forces is not a simple task. Improvement will always be accompanied by challenges as well as successes, but with the right attitudes in leadership and the right resources directed effectively, we can enhance confidence in our police forces. Where the Government make sensible improvements to issues that improve accountability, such as vetting, they will always have the support of the Opposition. The tragic deaths of officers Matthew Blades and Tom Clough demonstrate the sacrifice of our officers and the danger that they place themselves in. I echo the comments of hon. Members from across the Chamber in commending them for their service.

Subsequent events have demonstrated why our police officers are so important, and why the shadow Home Secretary was right to say in the main Chamber last week that

“only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 103.]

It is that culture of zero tolerance among politicians and police leaders that will improve public confidence in the police.

10:23

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), on his recent promotion, and look forward to working with him in the weeks, months and years ahead. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for securing the debate, and to all who have spoken.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe said at the outset, I am not the Policing Minister. The Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), needs to be elsewhere at this difficult time. It is very much my aim to prove a capable stand-in, but I hope Members will forgive me for any gaps in policy knowledge. Although I cannot match the Minister for Policing and Crime in that regard, I can certainly acknowledge the unique and critical role played by the police in the life of our country.

Thousands of men and women go to work day in, day out with a single aim: to keep us, their fellow citizens, safe. Theirs is public service of the very highest form, and it can be performed only by those who possess exceptional courage and are willing to face risks that the rest of us could barely imagine. We had a terrible illustration of that recently in Cleveland, as we have heard, when two officers lost their lives in an awful crash on the A66.

My thoughts remain with the families, colleagues and friends of PC Blades and PC Clough, who served with courage and commitment to the last. Their service and sacrifice remind us that policing is not merely a profession; it is, as the Home Secretary said in the House last week, a calling. Those who answer it deserve our support, respect and gratitude. To perform their duties effectively, the police require our confidence and our trust. That brings me to the focus of the debate, in which the range of themes and topics covered speaks to the breadth of the subject matter. There are so many different aspects of policing for which public confidence is a live issue. Let me deal with the issues that Members have highlighted.

Speak to any frontline officer and they will say that our current policing system is no longer fit for purpose. The current policing model is neither national nor local enough to respond to the public’s concerns about theft and antisocial behaviour. This Government are determined to change that, which is why, in the police reform White Paper, we have set out the most significant changes to policing in nearly 200 years, to create a system that is better equipped to tackle modern threats while remaining responsive to local communities.

Our reforms will rebuild public confidence by delivering a new model for policing with a clear focus on cutting and preventing crime, strengthening local policing, raising standards and ensuring that national and specialist police services can be accessed by all communities. A new national police service will strengthen our ability to tackle serious and organised crime threats to national security. The national police service will give policing the tools, technology and capability needed to tackle crime wherever it occurs.

[Adam Dance]

Thank you for being here today. Will you commit to asking the Policing Minister to meet my local police force and me to discuss the custody unit, which is a huge issue in my constituency? The decision was made well before my time, but it is affecting the community throughout south Somerset.

[Jo White]

Thank you for your question. You made that request in your earlier contribution—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I regret to interrupt the Minister, but Members should not use the word “you” to refer to each other. They should speak through the Chair, who is here to adjudicate, so that the debate does not become too fractious.

[Jo White]

Thank you for correcting me, Sir Alec. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) asked earlier about meeting the Policing Minister, and I am happy to pass that request on to her.

We will introduce stronger national standards through the national police service, ensuring that the service the public receives is more consistent. To respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), the reform programme will enable a new funding formula that will include policing areas such as Cleveland.

In 2010, the number of officers in full-time employment was 143,734. During the period of austerity under the previous Government, officer numbers dropped by over 20,000 to a low of 122,405 in 2018. From 2019, the previous Government funded forces to hastily increase officer numbers, but that has led to officers being hired—and, in some cases, put in desk jobs—to meet arbitrary headcounts. The rush to recruit also led to a situation in which over 35% of officers had less than five years’ experience, placing a further strain on forces.

The Government are focused on what the police are doing, not just on officer numbers. That is why we have scrapped the officer maintenance grant and focused on rebuilding neighbourhood policing, with over 3,800 more police and PCSOs now where the public want to see them—out in neighbourhoods, proactively preventing crime and dealing with antisocial behaviour.

[Blake Stephenson]

I met with my force in Bedfordshire over the summer and spent a couple of days with the neighbourhood policing teams. One of the challenges they have is that their officers often get dragged off neighbourhood policing to deal with more complicated policing operations because there is a higher risk and they need to prioritise their work. What assurance can the Minister give my constituents, and all Members’ constituents, that under the neighbourhood policing guarantee, the new neighbourhood policing officers will not be hired and then re-tasked with other work in their police forces?

[Jo White]

The commitment is to deliver 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament, which will give us the capacity to ensure that they can be focused on the role they are employed to do.

Since the election, the Government have increased funding to forces by close to £2 billion. This year funding to police forces has increased to its highest cash level of up to £18.5 billion—a 4.5% cash increase compared with the previous year. That means that all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), since March 2025 the Met has grown by 607 neighbourhood officers. We recognise the unique challenges faced by the Met. In 2026-27 the Met will receive up to £4 billion in funding, which is an increase of £175 million.

In addition, we are supporting policing to deliver £354 million of efficiency savings by the end of this Parliament through the police efficiency and collaboration programme, but we cannot stop there. The police funding system we inherited was complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design. Many PCCs, MPs and policing partners have complained that the police funding formula is out of date and not fit for purpose. Changes to police governance, force mergers and the creation of the national police service require a new way of allocating funding between forces aligned with those new structures.

[Max Wilkinson]

I asked a specific question about the alignment of boundaries. In my constituency of Cheltenham, we are served by Gloucestershire police. We are apparently due to get a regional mayor with Herefordshire and Worcestershire. We are served by the health board for Bristol and the west, but policing apparently is being sent eastwards. Given the Government’s devolution agenda and the need for transparency and accountability in public services, that causes a real issue. There are rumours that the Government are changing course and trying to align boundaries. Is that the case—yes or no?

[Jo White]

As I am standing in for the Policing Minister, I cannot immediately answer that question, but I am sure that the hon. Member will get an answer as quickly as possible.

We are committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure that force funding is fair and keeps the public safe. A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures.

Public confidence in policing depends on communities knowing what they can expect from the local police service and on seeing those expectations met. That is why the Government are introducing local policing guarantees, which will provide greater transparency and accountability on the policing services that matter most to the public.

The Government have committed to setting clear expectations on the issues that matter most to the public, including a target for forces to attend 90% of the most serious incidents within 15 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas, alongside measures to improve the speed with which 999 calls are answered. However, public confidence is about more than response times alone. It is also shaped by whether victims receive a good service and whether forces are effective at tackling crime.

HMICFRS’s recent “State of Policing” report urged forces to make urgent improvements in how they investigate crime and secure justice for victims. Forces must get the basics of investigation right. The Government are strengthening the way police performance is monitored and improved. Through the policing performance system, inspection findings are brought together with analysis against the police performance framework to provide a comprehensive picture. This enables earlier identification of concerns and targeted support in collaboration with the College of Policing, and intervention where required. A stronger focus on delivering better outcomes for victims and the public will play a key part in rebuilding and maintaining trust and confidence for victims of crime and communities.

[Jim Shannon]

I understand and respect that this is a devolved matter, but I asked a question on which I hope the Minister can give me the assurance that I seek. Northern Ireland is one part of the United Kingdom where terrorism is still active, although to a lesser extent. To police that correctly and effectively the PSNI needs resources. Will the Minister please have discussions with the relevant Minister to ensure that it has those resources? She has given an assurance on resources elsewhere in the United Kingdom; we in Northern Ireland need equal and effective resources, to ensure that the terrorism threat in Northern Ireland is dissipated and reduced.

[Jo White]

I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s request is passed to my colleague the Policing Minister when she returns.

All communities deserve to have trust and confidence in the police. That starts with ensuring that those who enter policing are vetted and assessed thoroughly and remain suitable to work in policing throughout their service. This year we delivered our manifesto commitment to introduce mandatory standards on vetting. As part of those standards, applicants who have a caution or conviction for relevant VAWG offences, including domestic abuse and sexual offences, are disqualified from entering policing. A presumption of withdrawal of vetting clearance applies for serving police officers in these circumstances.

The Home Office has provided HMICFRS with £100,000 for this financial year to expand the scope of its integrity inspections. These will now look at recruitment and selection processes alongside vetting in every force in England and Wales. We have also provided £425,000 to the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop an accredited regime on vetting. This will include the development of standardised training and stronger intervention in forces that are not complying with vetting standards.

The Home Office has to date provided approximately £3.5 million towards the NPCC’s continuous integrity screening programme. This is developing a system that will provide automated alerts from the police national database to forces in relation to anyone working in policing, enabling forces to take action earlier. Where police fall short of the standards expected of them, the public rightly expect that they will be held to account. The Independent Office for Police Conduct plays a crucial role in overseeing the police complaints system. It also investigates the most serious and sensitive matters, such as deaths and serious injuries and serious allegations of corruption involving the police. The Government announced plans to reform the governance of the IOPC to strengthen its accountability and resilience.

On 30 July the Home Secretary launched an independent end-to-end review of the police accountability system. It will be chaired by Dame Lynne Owens and Jason Beer KC, and will report in six months. It will establish whether the police accountability system is fit for purpose, whether it is transparent, and how we can minimise avoidable delays for victims, families and officers.

I agree that public confidence and trust in policing have been damaged by the social media clips referred to by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). Trust cannot be built through slogans or by drawing policing into wider debates. It is rebuilt when people see officers on their streets, know that crimes will be investigated, receive a proper service when they need help and have confidence that the highest standards are upheld. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) that we as MPs have a responsibility to develop and give respect to the police officers in our communities, and to signal the way in which we should work with the police in order to build community strength and cohesiveness in the constituencies we represent.

Trust in the police matters because policing in the UK is fundamentally based on consent. When people trust the police, they are more willing to report crime, share information, act as witnesses, comply with the law and work with officers to solve local problems. We recognise that trust and confidence are stronger in some communities than in others, and that confidence has declined over time. That is why the Government are focused on practical action: restoring neighbourhood policing, increasing transparency about police performance, strengthening accountability, modernising police force structures and ensuring that forces have the support they need to tackle the crimes and antisocial behaviour that matter most to local people.

The reforms are about having the right policing in the right place, so that people feel safer, see police where they live and know they will get the help they need when they need it. The programme is needed to improve effectiveness and restore public trust, creating a stronger, more co-ordinated national approach to the capabilities that underpin policing. The public do not want a police service that is distracted from its core mission; they want a police service that prevents crime, protects communities and serves victims. That is exactly what our reforms are designed to deliver.

Let me turn to the matter of people knowing who their local police officer is. Neighbourhood policing is essential to restoring public confidence in the police. Officers who know their communities are better placed to understand local concerns, respond to issues that matter to residents and provide visible reassurance when needed. Every community deserves to have visible, proactive and accessible neighbourhood police officers. Through the neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are strengthening the connection between police and their communities by committing to delivering 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament.

The Government recognise the profound and lasting impact that sexual violence can have on victims. We know that victims do not always receive the response or support they deserve, and that that has contributed to these crimes being under-reported. I am listening to the points raised by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). That is why we are committed to improving the police response to sexual violence to ensure that all victims are heard, taken seriously and treated with dignity.

To ensure consistency, we established the national centre for VAWG and public protection in April 2025. The centre provides co-ordinated national leadership in policing to tackle violence against women and girls. In addition, the centre is supporting all forces to implement the learnings of Operation Soteria, an academic-informed programme that has transformed the investigation of rape and sexual offences. As part of this, forces must maintain a commitment to continuous improvement—an acknowledgment that ongoing learning is essential to improving outcomes and experiences for victims. We want every force to have the right specialist capability to address sexual offences. That is why we have asked all forces in England and Wales to implement specialist rape and sexual offence teams by December 2027.

Hate crime is a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, which places clear legal duties on platforms to take proactive action against illegal hate content online. The Government also fund the national online hate crime hub, the national policing capability dedicated to online hate crime.

Let me say in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that police and justice are devolved to Northern Ireland, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s main budget is allocated by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government recognises that PSNI officer numbers are low, and I welcome the Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers in line with the 2020 New Decade, New Approach agreement.

In closing, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe for securing the debate, and I thank everyone who has contributed. We have covered a lot of ground, and yet the nature of the topic means that inevitably, there is much more that could be said. I know that the Policing Minister will take great interest in the discussion that we have had today, not least because the question of how we drive up confidence in policing is one that concerns us all and has an impact on the lives of everyone across this country. As I have set out, the Government are taking action across multiple fronts, and we will continue working closely with the police to ensure that they have everything they need to maintain public trust and deliver for the communities that depend on them.

10:45

[Jonathan Hinder]

I thank all Members who have spoken and intervened during the debate. So many important points have been made, and I think we have found quite a lot of agreement. I hope that we can push forward together, across the parties, because policing and crime is such an important issue for all our constituents across the country, yet it often receives far less attention in Parliament than many other issues. I am pleased to be able to make my small contribution to putting that right and am grateful to Members for joining me in that effort. I thank them all for attending.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for public confidence in the police.

10:44

Sitting suspended.

Bus Stops

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

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

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered standards for bus stops.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. This is my first time leading a Westminster Hall debate, and there was a degree of excitement in my office last week when the email arrived, alongside another email about a coach debate that I will lead in November. You wait ages for a Westminster Hall debate to turn up and then two come along at once.

Many people in the House know that I bang on about buses, because I think they are brilliant. There are 3.7 billion bus journeys made a year. As is often said, they are the most used form of public transport. I assume that means that bus stops are the most used places for people to hang around waiting for public transport. That is why I believe we should lavish some attention on them, not least because they are all around us. About 86% of people live within a 10-minute walk of a bus stop. The Bus Services Act 2025 gives the Secretary of State brand new powers to look at the location, design and construction of stopping places—bus stops.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the location of bus stops. I am so frustrated when I have taken the train to Cambridge, arrive at the station, see the bus, but have to walk 200 yards around the platform, come out of the station and walk 200 yards back to the bus stop, to find the bus has gone. Why are bus stops such a low priority?

[Alex Mayer]

My hon. Friend has a very snazzy station these days. Cambridge station has much improved over the period he has been the Member of Parliament. Having integrated transport matters. The Government’s strategy, Better Connected, talks to the fact that people use more than one form of public transport, so getting from the train to the bus matters greatly, which I will slightly address later.

The Bus Services Act and accompanying guidance tend to focus on accessibility, which is very important.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. It might be her first Westminster Hall debate but it will certainly not be her last—there is another on 2 November and more to come. I congratulate her on addressing the importance of improving the accessibility of bus stops. We need to ensure that older people continue to feel confident in using public transport, with adequate resources to encourage usage, because loneliness is increasingly recognised as a public health issue for older people. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done to ensure that older people remain independent and continue to access public transport, with the provision of suitable seating and without the barrier of having to stand for prolonged periods?

[Alex Mayer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I want to encourage as many people as possible to use our bus stops and buses. Seating is important because waiting in comfort makes it more likely that people will choose to use a bus. I am concerned about accessibility, but I also want to ask another question. I want to move beyond, “Can I use the bus stop?” to “Would I like to or choose to use the bus stop?”

I said in my maiden speech that bus stops were the window to the soul of buses—[Laughter.] I know: I am strange like that. But at least I keep to a theme. Each bus stop should give a promise of the journey ahead. I believe, therefore, that we should have national standards for bus stops. Whenever I suggest anything like national standards, Ministers tell me that local people are best placed to decide. I absolutely agree that Ministers should not be deciding whether one’s bus stop is here on the road or 25 yards further along, but national standards do reduce duplication. That is one of the issues that many local councils and transport authorities talk to me about.

Portsmouth is often mentioned as an example of a place with very good bus stops. They have 579 bus stops, and they decided to do a 72-point audit of them. They checked them all and decided that they were going to improve them in four different ways. Interestingly, their transport lead says that they would have welcomed national standards, because they spent a quarter of their time and budget on developing their own local standards. They would much rather have ploughed that into actually making bus stops better. So even they believe that we should have national standards.

I am not saying that one size fits all. It is obvious that a different kind of bus stop will be needed for a small rural area as opposed to a large hospital. Again, people have already done some of this work. Portsmouth has come up with six different varieties of bus stop. The Campaign for Better Transport has four. Norfolk county council has split its bus stops into bronze, silver, gold and platinum. A lot of that work has been done and could be implemented into some national standards.

What do I think should be in those standards? The very first thing is: “Can I find the bus?” That is the first question passengers ask. The modern bus stop really came into being in London in the 1820s. The first buses were in Manchester, but the first bus stops that we would understand were in London with a pole and a flag. Yet over a century later, it is sometimes still quite difficult to find the bus stop, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I recall, as a shadow Minister, visiting a major institution in the country and sending the management into panic when I asked them where the bus stop was to get back to the station. They had to go and ask the cleaner, and the cleaner told me, “You won’t find it because it’s not marked.” I said, “How does anyone know where the bus comes?” The cleaner said, “The people who use the bus know.” Is that not, I am afraid, an indication of the low priority given in some places to the bus as a mode of transport?

[Alex Mayer]

That is an anecdote that my hon. Friend tells often, and I absolutely agree with him. At completely the other end of the spectrum, I got the train to Stockport recently to make an onward journey to Manchester, for reasons I am sure most Members can understand. When I got to the train station at Stockport, I decided that I would get the bus to a campaign centre in Manchester. I went on a particularly circuitous route to get there, despite the fact that the bus station was actually rather near. That is because the signpost that I could have spotted said it was for Stockport Interchange, Viaduct Park. There was no mention of the word bus and no picture of a bus. As a visitor, I did not have the faintest idea that it meant bus, so I went on a long walk to find the buses. We need to make it simple for people, whether in a rural area or in a larger city.

Sometimes we make public transport too complicated. I am also reminded of a time when a transport officer was trying to explain this snazzy new concept of a transport hub to me. He went round and round in circles until eventually I said, “So it is a bus stop with a bicycle pump.” He reluctantly agreed, but he really did not want to call it a bus stop. We need to talk in a language that passengers understand, so national standards should absolutely start with the basics: a recognisable stop, name and clear signage.

We have found the bus stop, so what next? My second question is: “Does it smell?” It is really slightly broader than that: “Is it clean? Is it well lit?” As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, is there somewhere I can sit? The Campaign for Better Transport ran a survey called “Bus Stop Stories”, and a man called Paul was quoted as saying:

“The bus stop I use has a shelter, which is positive. However, the so-called seat is far too narrow for someone to actually sit down.”

If the bus stop is just a pole, how does it look—dilapidated or delightful? At the bigger bus stops, are there other things passengers can do? Can I charge my phone or get wi-fi? Some bus stops allow people to call for help; is there CCTV to make people feel safer?

I really welcome the requirement for all local transport authorities to use Transport Focus’s “Your Bus Journey” survey. That is absolutely a push in the right direction, and it will encourage some of the more recalcitrant authorities—perhaps authorities such as Central Bedfordshire council—to collect information on what local passengers actually think. The survey found that, overall, 81% of people were satisfied with their bus stop, but I think there might be a difference between actual passengers who use buses and would-be passengers.

I am really bothered about the would-be passengers, because we will have a growing and thriving network only if we get those people on board. The Campaign for Better Transport says that 23% of people are put off using the bus because of poorly maintained shelters, and that 47% of people say that a clean and comfortable shelter would make them use the bus more often.

My third question is: “Do I know when the bus is coming?” We could have an entire debate on things like real-time information, ghost buses and the like. A timetable really helps people to know whether the bus is coming, but currently only a third of bus stops have up-to-date timetable information, and only around 16% of stops have real-time information—the proportion is growing, which is good.

The research in this area is really rather fascinating. If someone standing at a bus stop with real-time information has been there for 10 minutes, then the bus arrives, and they are surveyed afterwards, they say they have been waiting for 11 minutes. If exactly the same thing happens—someone waits for 10 minutes—but there is no real-time information at the stop, and the passenger is asked how long they have been waiting, they will say they have been waiting for 21 minutes. Obviously, I want all passengers to think they have been there for about 25 seconds, and that it all passes in the blink of an eye because it is so fun waiting at the bus stop. But the key point is that nothing has changed in terms of the clock, only the passenger experience.

There have been positive developments on real-time information. The major bus operators are definitely sending out their pings as to where the bus is far more often than they used to. Non-passenger stops—rest stops or stops when drivers change over—have also been added to the bus open data service, or BODS, which is the national database. That makes it much easier for passengers to know when buses are actually coming.

Challenges remain, though. In some ways we are slightly going backwards: some of the older buses in rural and coastal areas were using 3G, but they are now using 2G because 3G is being turned off. There will always be on-the-day challenges around roadworks and congestion, with bus operators making decisions to try to get their buses back on the timetable; that information also needs to be fed through. Will the Minister please update us on what is happening with the proposed disruption tool that the Department has been working on for some time?

We have many examples of bus operators manually updating their records on the day because a bus is delayed, and then physically ringing up the local transport authority to tell them the same information, so that the authority can manually input it into their systems and it appears at the bus stop for passengers. Is any work going on, perhaps at the Bus Centre of Excellence, to overcome some of those issues, perhaps using AI? All those are issues we would like to see covered in a national standard.

Throughout the country, some places are doing bus stops really well, including the award-winning bus stop outside Asda in Dunstable, which has a green roof, is really wide and spacious, and has seats. There is also a fantastic bus stop in Norwich—I have read about it but not yet visited—that apparently has a swing in it, and which also won a prize. I look forward to visiting.

Given that the latest enhanced partnership manual has in effect recognised that best practice exists throughout the country—for example, on multi-operator ticketing—but that it does not necessarily happen without a bit of a carrot-and-stick approach, would the Minister consider including further national standards on bus stops in a future update of the manual?

Finally, there is the parallel issue of who owns the bus stop. Currently, it is a complete and utter mess—read council websites and weep. This is from West Sussex county council:

“The different elements that go to make up a bus stop are managed by one of 3 different organisations. Please ensure that you contact the correct one if you have a query or wish to report an issue”.

This is from Cambridgeshire county council:

“It should be noted that whilst bus shelters are located on the highway, they do not form part of the highway asset provided and managed by the County Council as the Highway Authority.”

Mayoral devolution could make this even worse.

Many unitary authorities are concerned about splitting up transport and highways powers. A strategic authority officer I spoke to yesterday told me that “Devolution by default” should include giving highways powers to the regional authority, not least to make sure that the revenue that some of the bus stops generate is not then diverted to something like adult social services. We brought track and train together; it is not beyond the wit of man to bring bus stop and bus together, too. The local transport authority clearly ought to have that responsibility.

We also need to make sure there are resources on an ongoing basis. I very much welcome the multi-year funding settlements, but it is not always linear. For example, snazzy new real-time information screens were introduced in Lancaster and then turned off because money was not available for their ongoing upkeep. They are back on again now, but this remains an issue. Some in the industry are concerned that, because we have so much investment right now, in five years’ time—when the contracts end, when the screens need renewing or the batteries start failing—not everything will be in place to allow us to fix any issues.

Fundamentally, we need national standards for our bus stops, because a really nice bus stop brings in more passengers and grows the network. They also give pride in place. They look different and they look good. I therefore urge the Minister to consider national standards for bus stops so that everyone can have a great British bus stop.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury has been given permission to speak by the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard and the Minister, but I will be calling the Minister to speak at 20 minutes past 11.

11:17

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on the securing the first of two stimulating Westminster Hall debates. On the really important topic of national standards, I want to discuss a new species of bus stop—the famous floating bus stop.

For the uninitiated, floating bus stops are small alighting platforms in between lines of traffic and cycle lanes. Members may already be able to guess the issue I am going to raise. In my constituency of Shrewsbury, we had a new floating bus stop installed outside our railway stations as part of our gyratory road system. Due to an error, the width of the pavement was less than the minimum 1.5 metre standard requirement.

There has been a 12-month campaign, with protest, public outcry and a petition. The council will now be removing the bus stop because we have had congestion chaos in the town centre and it has blocked access to our important railway station. What should have been a transport interchange—the important road between our bus station and our railway station—has in fact become congested by losing a line of traffic and having a floating bus stop that was too complicated and confusing for people to understand, all because we did not have a simple, single standard. In terms of lessons learned, we need to make sure that Shrewsbury’s story is fed into the ongoing assessment.

It exposes a wider issue. Floating bus stops improve cyclist safety, but they transfer the interaction from bus and cyclist to pedestrian and cyclist. For blind and partially sighted passengers, it is quite a serious concern. The Department for Transport’s guidance recognises the difficulty in detecting a passing cyclist, but the Royal National Institute of Blind People’s research found that 59% of users with sight loss had stopped using bus stops and 55% had changed routes to ensure they felt safe on the road.

The case for a single standard is strong, as long as we ensure accessibility, address geometry and are careful about the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists. I hope that, as the DFT looks at the guidance at the start of next year, it will bring forward the lessons learned from Shrewsbury. We need people to access not just our buses, but trains and, of course, our beautiful town centre.

11:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing her first Westminster Hall debate and for her sustained interest in the quality of bus stops and local transport provision.

Hon. Members will notice that I am, in fact, the roads Minister, not the local transport and Equalities Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). Not only does he have a very long job title, but he is required in the main Chamber for Women and Equalities questions—which is why I am substituting. I assure hon. Members that I will report back to him the excellent quality of the debate and the issues raised. As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone. Improving bus journeys is a key part of the Government’s growth mission, and we have made some important announcements on bus travel already. We are determined to deliver better services, grow passenger numbers and connect people with jobs, education, healthcare and opportunity.

The experience of using a bus does not begin when a passenger gets on board. It begins when they plan their journey, reach a stop and decide whether the service feels convenient, reliable and welcoming, as my hon. Friend graphically described in her opening comments. She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have discussed, whether there is information about services that is clear and current. Those features help to determine not only whether someone can use the bus, but whether they would make an active choice to do so.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the Bus Services Act 2025. The Act places passenger needs and local accountability at the heart of bus services, giving local leaders greater freedom and the tools to shape networks around the communities they serve. That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery. We have allocated almost £700 million a year through the local authority bus grant for the three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29.

In return for Department for Transport bus funding, authorities are expected to work closely with operators and local communities and to maintain an up-to-date bus service improvement plan. A bus service improvement plan is a public document that should set out an authority’s vision and practical plan for improving services and growing patronage. Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance. Bus funding can support capital improvements to stops, stations and real-time information, as well as services and fares.

My hon. Friend argued that local transport authorities should have clear responsibility for bus stops, rather than responsibility being fragmented across different tiers of local government. I understand the force of that point. The Government’s approach already places the local transport authority in the lead for planning and improving the bus network through its bus services improvement plan and, where relevant, the enhanced partnership.

Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who explained his frustrations about Cambridge station and bus interchange. I am not sure whether he was complaining that he had to walk 200 metres, or whether that was what caused the disconnect between the bus and rail services, but I hope to see improvement on that. It is a common complaint from many members of the public.

Enhanced partnerships are an important part of that framework for authorities that are not pursuing franchising. Most are performing well, but of course performance is not consistent everywhere. Following the Department’s review, we have published updated guidance and a practical manual, including minimum standards for enhanced partnerships to adopt by March of next year. We will continue to share good practice, and the Bus Centre of Excellence will provide targeted support where it is most needed.

I recognise the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard for a national bus stop standard, which echoes that of the Campaign for Better Transport. Greater consistency can give passengers confidence about what they can expect, but we have to acknowledge that there are about 330,000 bus stops in England, ranging from simple bus stop flags attached to a post to stops with shelters, seating, real-time information and other enhanced facilities. It is clear that the needs of a busy urban interchange will differ significantly from those of a lightly used rural stop. Careful consider would therefore need to be given before taking action to prescribe a uniform national standard—not least, to the potential burden on local authorities of the cost and practicality of doing so.

It is worth noting that the Local Government Association’s general approach is to avoid national standards that reduce the discretion of local authorities to take decisions about their own networks, although it supports the Government’s role in promoting and sharing best practice. The Government’s present approach is therefore to set a clear national framework and provide guidance while asking local transport authorities to establish and deliver standards suited to local circumstances through their bus service improvement plans. I think that strikes the correct balance, but we will continue to share good practice through our guidance. The Bus Centre of Excellence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance.

As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards. Real-time information is improving and digital information has transformed many journeys, but passengers must also be able to rely on accurate, understandable information at the stop. Our bus service improvement plan is clear that stops should display up-to-date information about the services calling there, and that authorities should set out what they will do to provide that good-quality information.

Of course, accessibility remains fundamental to the wider picture. A stop cannot be considered good-quality if disabled people cannot reach it, wait safely or board independently. The Bus Services Act 2025 introduced measures including bus network accessibility plans and powers for statutory guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. The Department is developing that further guidance with disabled people, local authorities and the wider sector.

On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) raised what is undoubtedly one of the hot topics of the bus stop world: floating bus stops. There is a great deal of concern and discussion nationally about their use. We have issued statutory guidance and asked authorities to pause new installations of the design, which requires passengers to alight directly on to a cycle track, while further research is undertaken. I hope that the local authority in my hon. Friend’s jurisdiction reports back on its experiences, because the more information we get from local authorities on this, the better. It is important that we look very closely at the everyday quality, information, maintenance and governance of all bus stops, and clearly, getting the balance right on floating bus stops is an important part of that work.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard for bringing this issue to the Chamber. We agree on the central point that bus stops are not a peripheral piece of street furniture; they are an essential part of the bus network and the passenger experience. Through the Bus Services Act, sustained funding, bus service improvement plans, stronger enhanced partnerships and clearer guidance, we are giving local leaders the tools and responsibility to make bus travel a more attractive choice, and I have no doubt that we will continue to discuss how we improve on that as the years move by.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Pharmacies: Government Funding

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

14:30

[Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government funding for local pharmacies.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am pleased to have secured this debate, and I thank colleagues from both sides of the House for joining me to discuss this vital pillar of our primary care network.

Community pharmacies are the frontline of healthcare in our constituencies. In Leicester East, they are not just commercial premises but places that serve the very heart of our community. It is estimated that 1.6 million people access pharmacy services in neighbourhoods every day, ranging from elderly residents accessing swift advice to busy families picking up emergency prescriptions and vulnerable constituents using the opportunity to receive healthcare close to home without needing a GP appointment.

Despite that, in Leicester East and across the country this crucial sector is reaching a tipping point. Independent economic analysis of community pharmacy finances for the NHS revealed that community pharmacy is facing a funding gap of around £2.5 billion. As a consequence, England lost roughly 1,000 pharmacies between 2016 and 2026, which is an 8% decline. In Leicester East, we have seen our local provision drop from 32 pharmacies down to 29, which is a net loss of 9% of our local community network.

Behind the numbers is a harsh reality for a vast number of people. We have to consider not only the impact of small business closures on our local high streets, but the everyday consequences for residents who rely on pharmacies for their care. A loss of three pharmacies may sound like a minor shift, but the real implication is deeply concerning. Fewer pharmacies means longer journeys for frail patients, longer queues at the counters that remain open and increased pressure on nearby GP surgeries that are forced to pick up the slack.

We have seen a 19.5% increase in online pharmacies since 2021, and although it is positive that medication and assessments can be accessed in that way, it must be a priority for the Government to protect in-person high street chemists. The closures are obviously not due to a lack of demand. People across my constituency recognise the importance of local pharmacies and use their services constantly. The reason for the closures lies in the structural financial strains that make running an independent pharmacy untenable.

My team and I have had several conversations with the owners and staff of pharmacies across Leicester East, and I recognise and thank them for all their hard work on the frontline of our healthcare provision. They have raised several alarming issues; I hope that, by outlining them today, we can collectively commit to positive and constructive changes to support these independent businesses.

The current reimbursement model for medicines is the first aspect of the system that fails independent providers. As it stands, pharmacies are expected to buy medicines up front. They can then wait anywhere from two to three months for the NHS to reimburse those costs. To make matters more severe, the NHS reimbursement calculation works on the assumption that pharmacies receive massive bulk-buy discounts from suppliers. Large national chains may possess the purchasing power to make that assumption work, but such bulk discounts simply do not exist for a small, independent community pharmacy in Leicester East. Small pharmacies routinely pay more to acquire necessary drugs than the NHS repays them.

Although concessionary pricing mechanisms exist to adjust for market spikes, the delay in the adjustments means that independent contractors are constantly left bridging the shortfall. That disparity forces wholesalers to look overseas for cheaper stock, creating supply chain bottlenecks and leaving local pharmacists to face the frustration of patients when vital medicines are backordered for weeks.

The Independent Pharmacies Association recently conducted research that shows that an average pharmacy dispensing 10,000 items a month still faces a shortfall of circa £56,000 compared with what is needed to keep in pace with inflation. Pharmacies cannot be expected to continue to foot this bill. The Government must do more to ensure that pharmacies are properly reimbursed, to prevent further pressure and demand on other areas of our NHS.

On top of the margin pressures, pharmacy owners in my constituency are caught in a constant struggle between rising operating costs and completely fixed incomes. Over recent years, overheads have increased right across the board. The recent decisions to raise employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage and to escalate business rate liabilities have significantly increased the financial burden on pharmacies up and down the country. Furthermore, unlike other small high street businesses, community pharmacies receive no business rates reliefs on their premises—a major oversight for essential healthcare providers operating right at the heart of our local economies.

When running costs go up for a normal high street business, such as a local shop, café or dry cleaners, it can adjust its prices to cover higher wage bills and energy costs. Independent communities pharmacies cannot do that. Their primary income is fixed directly by the Government tariff. When employment taxes increase or utility bills rise, independent business owners cannot pass those costs on. They must absorb the loss directly until their reserves run dry.

I welcome that our new Prime Minister has introduced business rates relief for the leisure and hospitality sector, but does the Minister agree that we must also introduce further assistance for the pharmacy sector? GP and dental premises benefit from the NHS reimbursement of business rates, while community pharmacies, which also provide vital frontline services, do not. Introducing a form of relief to end the disparity for local pharmacies would make a substantial difference.

In addition to the fixed margins, the current funding framework expects community pharmacies to deliver essential services at a financial loss. For example, home delivery services for housebound or vulnerable residents became vital during the pandemic, and remain a crucial lifeline for many elderly constituents across Leicester East, but local pharmacies receive no core NHS funding to run delivery vehicles or pay driver wages. They fund the operations entirely by themselves, committing their own profit to ensure that vulnerable patients receive their medication on time.

In addition, pharmacy owners have described how, although the Government support preventive clinical services, the rules and restrictions imposed are unnecessarily constraining. It is positive that vaccinations and immunisation are being moved into pharmacies, but the Independent Pharmacies Association suggests that shifting more flu vaccinations into pharmacies could free up around 4.5 million GP appointments each year. As we approach winter and flu season, the Government should seriously consider the benefits of reallocating services, and ensure that proper funding is in place to back up the increased expectations.

Blood pressure screening is another service that is being redirected to pharmacies. It is a simple, cost-effective way to catch cardiovascular issues early and prevent avoidable hospital admissions, yet under the current NHS caps reimbursement is limited to just one check per patient every five years.

No small business can survive indefinitely when its costs are rising, its prices are frozen by the Government and it is expected to deliver services for free. This financial pressure feeds directly into an acute workforce crisis. The pharmacy pressures survey published by Community Pharmacy England revealed stark results: 60% of pharmacy teams reported active staffing shortages, and 54% of owners said they were struggling to recruit permanent staff. Crucially, more than 80% reported longer patient wait times and more than half acknowledged that shortages were reducing their ability to offer direct advice.

We are also seeing a troubling rise in temporary closures, when a pharmacy must shut its doors for hours or days at a time simply because it cannot secure a qualified pharmacist. The freedom of information data collected by Healthwatch across various integrated care boards revealed that, in a single year, there were nearly 14,000 temporary closures across England, resulting in over 46,000 lost hours of care.

Without strategic planning for staffing, the long-term future of our community pharmacies remains deeply uncertain. The Company Chemists’ Association estimates that England could face a shortfall of 16,000 community pharmacists by 2036. While it is positive that thousands of pharmacists have been recruited into the GP practices via the additional roles reimbursement scheme, we must be careful not to strip our high street pharmacies of the very talent they need to remain open.

As the long-awaited NHS long-term workforce plan continues to undergo revisions, it is vital that the Government give sufficient priority to the baseline staffing needs of community pharmacy. We know that expanded training targets and the roll-out of independent prescribing qualification upon registration present a real opportunity to expand clinical care on our high streets. Similarly, recent regulatory challenges to allow pharmacy technicians to supply specified medicines and deliver services under the Pharmacy First scheme have the potential to free up valuable pharmacist time. But none of these reforms will succeed if the underlying pharmacy network is allowed to shrink due to unfunded operational mandates.

I want to be entirely fair to the Government and to Ministers and acknowledge that we have seen some positive movement in this policy area. Progress is being made, but we must ensure that the pace of our action matches the urgency of the situation before us. The community pharmacy contractual framework—CPCF—settlement for 2026-27 secured almost £3.7 billion for the sector, which is a £340 million increase on the previous year. That builds on the two-year agreement that saw funding rise in previous settlements. Pharmacy trade bodies have expressed concern, however, that the funding uplift will not be sufficient to support the introduction of independent prescribing. We must ensure that the new expectations placed on pharmacies to share services are matched by funding commitments.

We have also seen practical relief in the write-off of historic pandemic-era medicine margin debt, and in adjustments to the single activity fee. Furthermore, the roll-out of the Pharmacy First scheme has demonstrated the real appetite for community-level care. Across England, more than 10,900 pharmacies are participating, delivering millions of consultations for common conditions like earache, shingles and minor infections. That is a demonstration of real and effective triage that takes pressure off A&E departments and GP surgeries.

However, we must listen to what sector stakeholders are telling us. Community Pharmacy England welcomed the recent funding adjustments as a step away from real-term cuts, but was explicit that this was a “first step” towards stability and not the final destination. The National Pharmacy Association made the same point: structural underfunding means that current settlements will struggle to match the “true cost” of service delivery. The Health and Social Care Committee was blunt in its analysis, describing the current CPCF funding model as “not fit for purpose” and “overly complex”.

A major flaw in the scheme is that pharmacies only get paid for many clinical services if local GPs or hospitals actively refer patients to them. In practice, that leaves independent business owners completely dependent on someone else’s admin system, meaning many pharmacies are fully staffed and ready to treat people but receive zero referrals simply because a local surgery is not using the system properly.

The current policy framework is simply not delivering for our high streets, and we need an operational model fit for the next decade. If we want pharmacies to continue delivering on the frontline, expanding Pharmacy First, delivering preventive health checks and taking pressure off our local GP surgeries, we must fix the underlying economic model that keeps their doors open.

As a Conservative, I believe in supporting small business owners, encouraging enterprise and removing unnecessary administrative barriers. High street pharmacies are independent businesses delivering frontline public care efficiently, but when Government policy sets fixed tariffs while escalating business rates liabilities and employment taxes, it creates a system that actively undermines independent providers.

I ask the Minister to address four specific, practical areas today. The first is reimbursement reform. We must review the drug reimbursement formula and concessionary pricing mechanisms, so that payment calculations reflect the actual market acquisition prices paid by the independent pharmacies, rather than relying on assumed bulk discount rates that small independent businesses simply cannot access.

The second area is contractual and operational certainty. We need to update the CPCF to ensure that core funding is predictable, transparent and fair, rather than heavily dependent on variable, patchy referral targets managed by NHS bodies over which pharmacy owners have no control.

The third area is business overhead and rates relief. I urge the Minister to work with colleagues in the Treasury to address the cumulative tax and cost burden facing small health providers. That includes reviewing business rates liabilities and the impact of the employer national insurance contribution increases on independent high street providers.

The final area is workforce and capacity support. NHS workforce planning must balance the expansion of primary care roles with the baseline staffing requirements of high street community pharmacies. As policies such as independent prescribing expand, Ministers must ensure that independent pharmacies are provided with the direct resource and funding needed to put clinical roles into practice safely.

Community pharmacies are one of the most cost-effective, high-impact assets that our healthcare system possesses. They keep people well, they prevent avoidable emergency admissions, and they give local high streets across Leicester East and the country vital commercial and civic life. The current approach needs real correction to ensure that independent business owners and patients are properly supported. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I urge the Government to give our local pharmacies the financial certainty and stability that they desperately need and deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Six Members have indicated that they want to speak, so that means they have about seven minutes each. I would normally advise Members to bob if they want to speak in the debate, but two Members have indicated that they have challenging circumstances, so I will exempt them from that requirement on this occasion.

14:45

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. As Members might know, I am here today wearing two hats, both pharmacy-shaped, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy and as a community pharmacist for nearly 20 years. The brilliant, unrelenting work of my colleagues in pharmacy teams I saw throughout my career is the reason why this debate is so important. Pharmacists know what it is like to be the first port of call for an unwell patient, to deliver vaccinations to an entire community, and to work exhausting, long days.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) will be aware that measles outbreaks are increasing, not least because of a decline in measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations. The Government told the Health and Social Care Select Committee, on which I serve, that they need to do more with schools and GPs. We contend that they need to use pharmacies far more. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that as all families visit pharmacies, the Government should enable pharmacies to give MMR vaccinations and grip this properly, so we can crack the challenge of the measles outbreaks, which seem to be increasing in our country?

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Select Committee. I agree with him. Pharmacy is well placed to help offer additional vaccination services as well as help with a suite of other minor ailments with an expanded Pharmacy First.

I greatly welcome the uplift for 2026-27 in the pharmacy contract, but let us be honest about the scale of the problem: funding fell by £800 million in real terms between 2015-16 and 2025-26, even as prescription volumes rose by 20%. Last year’s funding settlement was a great amount, but that has been eaten up by a great amount of costs, and the Government’s independent analysis found a £2 billion annual funding gap. Nationally we have lost nearly 1,500 pharmacies since 2017—a 15% contraction of the network. In my own constituency of North Somerset, that story is written in bricks and mortar. We have six fewer pharmacies than in 2016.

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

Last Friday I visited a community pharmacy in Tiverton, and it was announced on Monday that an application for another pharmacy in my constituency had been turned down. Currently I have three pharmacies in Tiverton when I actually need four. Does the hon. Member agree that we really need to grasp this nettle and make sure we have enough pharmacies on our high streets?

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I share the hon. Member’s commitment to getting the right number of pharmacies for the population they serve. That is an important part of not just our high streets, but our communities. We must ensure we have pharmacy services available to people who need them, which reduces the pressure on the rest of the NHS system. The amazing pharmacies still working and dispensing in my constituency dispense over 109,000 prescriptions a month. They deliver thousands of Pharmacy First consultations and have saved as many as 7,370 GP appointments since January 2024.

I recently released my vision of what primary care should look like in 2040 and how we should integrate our system better. It has to be true integration, not just in words but in digital infrastructure. We need a primary care network that knows what happens in different parts of the provision, but also understands how that provision affects the rest of the NHS system. We need a true single patient record that extends beyond general practice and into pharmacy; that will make the funding decisions for the Department easier because we will be able to see the activity even better than we do today.

My message to the Minister is simple: pharmacies are not asking for charity. With some reports suggesting that only 14% of pharmacies are profitable, I am asking for money not to make the job of pharmacy easy, but to make it possible, because it should not be this hard. Pharmacists are asking to be paid properly for work they already do brilliantly. I urge the Government to set out a road map for a six-year funding settlement of £600 million in today’s terms, to invest in the workforce, to allow pharmacies to realise their ambition and finally to close the funding gap, before we lose any more of these vital neighbourhood services.

14:50

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It takes me back to the days when as a junior Minister I had to answer to you as chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who has spoken repeatedly with enormous authority on these matters. He deserves all our thanks for championing pharmacies.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing the debate and for her detailed compelling speech. I know she does a terrific job representing her constituents locally because my mum is from Leicester and my family are still there, so I get regular reports. I am here today because my mum was a pharmacist and I spent my childhood working in her pharmacy. I saw at first hand the incredible role that independent community pharmacies play in their local area. With flexible opening hours, their location and no need for an appointment, they can be an easy first port of call for families when they need help, care and advice.

I am struck that community pharmacists always want to go above and beyond for their patients. One of my first jobs for my mum was to ride around on my bike in the evenings delivering prescriptions to elderly patients who could not make it in or needed them urgently. That was a sign for me of the role that pharmacists play in their local areas. That is why, extraordinarily, about 80% of those over the age of 65 have visited their local pharmacy over the past three months, which speaks to the role they play.

I see that in my constituency. We have great national pharmacies as well as brilliant independent ones, such as Coopers in Great Ayton, the Village Pharmacy in Catterick, Stokesley pharmacy and Central Dales pharmacy in Hawes, providing vital healthcare in a sparsely populated rural area and reinforcing the lifeline that pharmacies provide. A benefit of knowing pharmacists for the majority of my life is that I have seen the transformation in the role they play. Originally, they just dispensed prescriptions for GPs. My dad was a GP, so I also saw that side of it. They have transformed to being the first port of call for primary healthcare and treatment for minor illnesses.

That evolution had various moments, which the hon. Member for North Somerset will also have experienced. Starting in about 2000, the introduction of hypertension and blood pressure services made a difference. Medicine use reviews were a big statement of trust in what pharmacists could do. The ability to dispense urgent repeat prescriptions made a huge difference to patients. More recently, there has been the introduction of oral contraception and smoking cessation services, as well as flu jabs, catalysed by covid and now accounting for about 30% of those dispensed, which is a huge increase.

That evolution over the past 25 years demonstrates the faith that successive Governments of all stripes have had in pharmacies. Patients and local communities place faith in their pharmacists because they trust them and value what they do; they know that they can provide healthcare in an accessible way. That is why, when in government, we introduced Pharmacy First, of which I am very proud. Pharmacists were enabled to provide medication for seven common conditions, including sinusitis, sore throats, ear infections and urinary tract infections. Obviously, that got off to a slower start than we would have liked, but it now has almost 100% take-up among pharmacies. When I last checked the stats, something like 7 million consultations had taken place and more than 5 million prescriptions had been supplied. High satisfaction in the service is growing by 30% to 40% year over year. It has continued the evolution of increasing trust in pharmacies and providing care closer to people in their communities.

I have three questions for the Minister about how to continue that journey and re-emphasise support for pharmacies. The first is about raising awareness and trust. In the last debate on pharmacies here, which I think the hon. Member for North Somerset secured, the Minister gave some stats about the high awareness of the Pharmacy First scheme. Anecdotally, that did not quite jibe with my personal experience. Is there something we can do collectively to raise awareness of Pharmacy First and, as was touched on, make sure that the healthcare system is on the same page, so that people get the same message from 111, their GP or the hospital about what is available at the pharmacy, and so they can trust their pharmacist to deliver that service?

Secondly, we should look at expanding Pharmacy First, which, in a welcome fashion, the Government have indicated they are minded to do. There are a couple of options for that: we could consider whether the existing restrictions for the seven services, which are limited in part by gender or age, can be expanded. We could also look across the border to Scotland to see what other conditions the service could be expanded to.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I agree that we need expanded services for our pharmacies, but does the right hon. Member agree that should come with adequate remuneration? At the moment, pharmacists are saying they are doing a lot more for a lot less.

[Rishi Sunak]

Of course. I am sure when the Minister looks at what services can be expanded, she will make sure they are funded properly and will look at where they will relieve strain elsewhere in the healthcare system. If we look at system costs, pharmacies can help save money. Some of the other conditions covered in Scotland include eye issues such as conjunctivitis, dermatological conditions such as acne, and chest infections.

Finally, the hon. Member for North Somerset touched on joined-up care. If we want a truly joined-up primary care service, we need single patient records. Examining whether pharmacies can be integrated into GP Connect is worth exploring.

I thank the Minister for being a champion for pharmacies inside the Government. Obviously, the issue is personal for me, but there is widespread support for pharmacies among colleagues and society. They deserve our gratitude and support, and I urge the Government to continue to back them.

14:57

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the APPG on pharmacy, my colleague on which, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), I am happy to follow.

For many residents in rural constituencies such as mine, local pharmacies are the first, and often only, point of contact with the NHS. Longer distances to travel, limited public transport and patchy digital connectivity mean that the trusted and timely in-person service that they provide for our communities is vital. However, access is thin on the ground.

Analysis by the National Pharmacy Association has described west Berkshire as England’s “pharmacy desert”, with the lowest number of pharmacies per head of any council area. To put that in context, the UK average is about one pharmacy to every 4,600 patients; in my constituency, it is one to every 7,200. Twelve pharmacies still open their doors to residents across Newbury and west Berkshire, and they do essential, extraordinary work. They dispense more than 111,000 prescriptions every month and deliver enough consultations through Pharmacy First to save more than 8,000 GP appointments, all while acting as a specialist and friendly front door to our NHS.

Like many here, I welcome the Government’s recent investment in the sector. We have heard the cash figures, but the 10.3% uplift for 2026-27 is the largest increase anywhere in primary care this year, and the move to expand prescribing rights is a vital step in the right direction. However, a positive uplift does not in isolation deliver the sustainable settlements that pharmacies desperately need. Pharmacies cannot plan their workforce or their services throughout the year when settlements are negotiated and have to be fought for year by year. Nationally, we have lost over 1,300 pharmacies since 2016, and this year’s uplift will not plug the underlying funding gap, which now stands at over £2 billion. It is no wonder that Community Pharmacy England accepted this year’s deal on the condition of further reform, stating clearly:

“Accepting this deal does not mean we think it is enough”.

With budgets stretched, that instability is compounded by broken medicine supply chains and a framework that leaves many pharmacies in the impossible position of dispensing medicines at a loss. On visits to Lambourn pharmacy and MedWell chemist in Newbury, staff told me that current funding would quickly be absorbed by rocketing drug prices, with some pharmacies paying 14 to 15 times more for prescription medicine than at the start of the year. In rural areas, where proximity to provision is already paramount, older residents in particular cannot afford to lose access to their prescription because their pharmacy down the road has been priced out of existence. Despite those challenges, pharmacies are doing incredible work, and I know how much residents across Newbury and West Berkshire value their expertise and care.

In September 2024, the Government commissioned the Lord Darzi report, which rightly acknowledged the huge potential of pharmacies within the NHS. Two years on, with a workforce eager to do all it can, that potential remains unfulfilled—not for a lack of experience and care, but because of a lack of investment from the centre. The 10-year health plan’s ambition to shift care from hospitals into communities is absolutely the right one, and pharmacies are the linchpin of that push. As their responsibilities continue to rise, so must the Government’s backing. Pharmacies have spent the last 10 years being squeezed to near breaking point; the next 10 and beyond must be different.

I therefore ask the Minister to launch a strategic review of medicine supply, including reforms needed to build domestic manufacturing capability, and to commit to an above-inflation multi-year funding settlement that allows pharmacies to continue to serve my constituents and millions of patients across the country for decades to come.

15:02

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing the debate, which is important and timely, especially considering that we had the remaining stages of the Health Bill this week.

Community pharmacies are a vital part of the NHS, especially in places like West Dorset, where they provide essential medicines, advice and care close to home. At a time when pharmacies are facing severe financial and workforce pressures, we must recognise their contribution and ensure that they receive the funding, support and protection they need. We are asking more and more of community pharmacies, while for too long we have expected them to absorb rising costs with inadequate funding.

In West Dorset, 18 community pharmacies serve a population of around 94,000 people. In a typical month, they dispense around 155,000 prescriptions. Since the introduction of Pharmacy First in January 2024, pharmacies in West Dorset have helped to avoid as many as 8,737 GP appointments. Those figures demonstrate the enormous contribution pharmacies make to our local NHS and why we cannot afford to lose them.

Today, people are more likely to live with multiple long-term conditions, require regular prescriptions and need advice and support close to home. For someone living in a rural village, a pharmacy is the most accessible point of contact with the NHS. That is why the funding model should properly recognise rurality and population age.

Nationally, community pharmacy funding in 2025-26 was around £800 million lower in real terms than in 2015-16, despite a 16% increase in the number of NHS prescription items dispensed over that period. Since 2017, there has been a net loss of 147 bricks-and-mortar pharmacies, which is 15% of the network. I welcome the Government’s recent 10.3% funding increase, worth £340 million, but their own independent economic analysis identified a funding gap of around £2 billion, so the increase does not close the gap. Some pharmacies in West Dorset have reported to me six-figure annual shortfalls.

Poor funding leads to fewer staff, and fewer staff leads to shorter opening hours, temporary closures and fewer services being offered. It means that fewer people receive their medicines and fewer patients are able to access care. In NHS Dorset, there were 207 full-time equivalent pharmacists in 2023 and 47 vacancies, which is a vacancy rate of 19%.

In places such as West Dorset, in rural Britain, recruiting a permanent pharmacist can be extremely difficult. Pharmacies have to pay more to attract pharmacists from elsewhere or bring in locums, who have to travel significant distances. Those costs do not exist to the same extent in densely populated urban areas. It is therefore wrong to design a funding system that treats every pharmacy as if it operates in the same circumstances.

The pharmacy access scheme provides some support for isolated pharmacies, but its funding pot is just £20 million, which is nowhere near sufficient to deal with the structural challenges facing rural pharmacy provision in England. We need a funding formula that properly recognises rurality, population age, workforce pressures and the cost of serving sparsely populated communities.

Funding is only one part of the problem. We also need stronger regulation and stronger powers to intervene when large corporate pharmacy operators fail. Jhoots operated 150 branches across England. In West Dorset, its pharmacies in Bridport and Lyme Regis were closed for months, disrupting prescription access for more than 12,000 people who rely on those services. The impact was felt throughout our community. It was felt by the patients who struggled to access their medicines and by other healthcare providers who had to deal with the consequences. It was felt devastatingly by pharmacy staff. Staff across multiple sites reported going months without pay, despite receiving payslips and seeing deductions for tax and pensions. Some were unable to pay their rent or household bills, and some relied on food banks and could not buy their children school uniform.

I pay tribute to the amazing staff in Bridport and Lyme Regis for the resilience they showed during that time. The support shown to them by the local community was outstanding. They did not deserve to be treated that way by the pharmacy owners.

Our regulatory framework was largely developed when pharmacies were mainly independently owned businesses operating one or maybe two pharmacies, and it has not kept pace with the growth of large corporate operators controlling extensive networks. Local integrated care boards, local authorities and national bodies need powers to intervene quickly, protect patients and staff, secure medicines and ensure continuity of service.

When Jhoots’s services collapsed, I raised the issue through an urgent question in the House, and there was clear cross-party support for legislative action to ensure that that kind of crisis cannot happen again. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who campaigned tirelessly alongside me. His help and advice were invaluable during that period, so I am extremely grateful to him.

We need to strengthen the powers available to intervene when a provider fails to meet contractual patient safety or workforce obligations. We need mechanisms to allow alternative providers to step in quickly. We must hold the corporate bodies—not the pharmacies—accountable, and where necessary take away their rights to control an essential service. We need to protect pharmacy staff when a provider collapses. Protecting the workforce is inseparable from protecting patient safety.

I say politely to the Minister that when I met her predecessor, he asked for those powers so that he could step in during the Jhoots scandal. We tried to introduce them through amendments to the Health Bill, but they were not accepted. Will the Minister please meet me and other experts, such as the hon. Member for North Somerset, as her predecessor did? Let us get her the powers to prevent this from ever happening again.

15:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) for bringing this subject to our attention.

As the DUP’s health spokesperson, I am particularly concerned about the amount of support available to our local pharmacies. As an indication of that, I used the opportunity of the first statement today, on summer health and resilience—the Minister was there, not to answer the question, but to support the Secretary of State—to ask the Secretary of State what discussions she is having with her counterparts in the devolved Administrations, particularly in Northern Ireland, to assure a UK-wide co-ordinated approach to summer resilience.

I also asked what targeted support has been made available for community pharmacy networks, which so often act as the first line of defence when GP surgeries are stretched to capacity as we prepare for the cold and flu season. To be fair to the Secretary of State, she answered my question very well and assured me that discussions are ongoing with the Minister back home in Northern Ireland, and that reassured me. That example underlines the importance of community pharmacies to me, those in my Strangford constituency and every one of us here.

Just last year, the National Pharmacy Association said that it was left with no choice but to recommend that its 6,000 members take collective action for the first time in its history, citing significant new costs and inadequate funding. About 90% of the work carried out by the average community pharmacy is funded by the NHS. This time last year, the National Pharmacy Association issued the stark warning that up to 63% of pharmacies were likely to close in 2026. We are still in 2026, so that threat hangs over all our heads. In response to a survey, 94% of pharmacies stated that the latest funding settlement did not provide stability to their finances. Those figures demonstrate the effect of persistent financial uncertainty on the sector.

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

The hon. Member mentions the closure of pharmacies, but this is also about the ending of some services. It is sometimes the things that are noticed the least that matter the most once they are gone. For example, people with neurological or mental health conditions rely on Nomads to have the right tablets on the right day, and that really important service is sometimes provided by our pharmacists. Does the hon. Member agree that we do not want the wonderful services that pharmacies provide free of charge to be lost because of financial pressures? They matter too much for the lives of our residents.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to get a wee glass of water. His comments are incredibly important, and he is right to say that those services are almost impossible to bring back once they are lost.

Local pharmacies are under ever-increasing pressure. My particular concern is for small, independent pharmacies in rural constituencies such as my own. These businesses are facing rising costs, increasing workloads and the real risk of insolvency, and that is not to mention the personal toll on local pharmacy owners. The impact on those individuals and their health is sometimes forgotten.

[Shockat Adam]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point about how much stress is put on pharmacists and small business owners. In the last year, there was a 2.3% increase in items reimbursed by the NHS, a 17% increase in service volumes, a 3% increase in inflation, and increases in operating costs such as national insurance and business rates. That all adds to the pressure when pharmacists should be concentrating on providing a vital service to the community.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is a Leicester City supporter, as I am; we do not have to seek our sorrows at this moment in time, but that is by the way. More importantly, his comments underline the issues for local independent pharmacy owners.

As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said very clearly, at the heart of this issue are the patients—sometimes we need to remember that. Pharmacy closures are leaving many people, and particularly those in rural areas, with greater difficulty accessing their medication. Those concerns are felt deeply in Northern Ireland. The chief executive of Community Pharmacy Northern Ireland has warned officials that medicine shortages are having a greater impact on Northern Ireland because of systemic funding pressures, with pharmacies being forced to use their own money to bridge the gap in funding. That is the reality for these people, who have consciences, feel compassion and want to care for their patients and customers. The impact is clear, because almost 90% of pharmacies in Northern Ireland were unable to pay their wholesaler bill in January. Think about what that means for a second: that is real pressure. Further demonstrating the pressures is the number of pharmacies operating in Northern Ireland, which at 506 is the lowest ever recorded.

I know that the Minister is a compassionate lady who understands these issues incredibly well, and she will be aware that those figures raise serious concerns about the financial sustainability of our pharmacies and the security of the medicine supply throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Our pharmacies need certainty about their funding arrangements. They need to know well in advance what support will be available to them, so that they can plan effectively, manage costs and pay their bills, and not be forced to close.

I have often highlighted the fact that pharmacies’ ability to provide first-line defence in the fight against minor injuries is not used enough. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) outlined some of the things that pharmacies do; they are frontline defence. These things are perhaps not seen by everyone, but they are seen by the patients and customers who come in. Every person who gets advice on treatment for warts, headlice, thrush or another ailment from the pharmacy rather than the GP is helping to ensure that GPs are not overwhelmed, and that A&Es are not overwhelmed by people who cannot see their GPs. We perhaps do not always see that, but it is very important.

Pharmacies are a vital cog in the health service, and we must fund them to do the job that they are able to do, yet are prevented from doing. I look to the Minister for that funding and for assurance. The Minister always tries to give us the reassurance we need and to answer the questions that we pose. These are hard times financially, but pharmacies are important for everyone. They produce savings for GPs and the NHS. Let us support them.

15:19

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing such an important debate.

Supporting our pharmacies is one of my long-standing commitments; I have spoken about the issue many times in the Chamber. Pharmacies are at the heart of primary care, and I am grateful for the contribution they make to our community—dispensing medicines, delivering vaccinations, offering advice for minor conditions and providing clinical services that would otherwise need to be delivered elsewhere. Pharmacies are accessible and embedded in our high streets. For millions, they are the front door to the NHS.

I have had the pleasure of speaking to pharmacists from across my South West Hertfordshire constituency, visiting Abbey pharmacy in Abbots Langley, Boots in Kings Langley and Esom pharmacy in South Oxhey, and even undertaking work experience at Riverside pharmacy in Rickmansworth. As I have said in Parliament before, my discussions have made it clear that our pharmacies are under unsustainable pressure as a result of the Labour Government’s continued attack on retail businesses.

I welcome the commitment in the Government’s 10-year health plan to move more healthcare responsibilities from hospitals into our communities, but that is not feasible unless pharmacies receive the necessary financial support. It is important to note that community pharmacies have not been exempted from any of the Government’s harmful economic policies against retail businesses. Since the Government’s announcements at the autumn 2024 Budget, their employer national insurance contributions and national living wage have increased, and their rate of business rates relief has reduced. Pharmacies now face significantly higher operating costs.

[Mr Dillon]

Lambourn pharmacy, which I mentioned earlier, worked out that about 90% of its profit came from serving the NHS and only 10% came from shampoo and other things, so it wonders whether the Government could pro rata those NI and other costs, meaning that they are paid only on the 10%. Would the hon. Gentleman welcome that type of approach?

[Mr Mohindra]

I am very conscious that I have a former Chancellor and Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), sitting to my left; he might argue for keeping it simple. I would argue that a pharmacy’s primary business is healthcare related, and that either we support our healthcare system or we do not. Doing it piecemeal is not in the best interests of what some of my residents regard as the frontline of the NHS system.

In the past 12 months alone, more than 600 neighbourhood pharmacies have closed. That looks set to worsen, because business rates relief for retail businesses has been removed for this financial year—a significant shift from the 75% business rates relief afforded to retail businesses in 2024 under the previous Conservative Government. Although GP practices can have their business rates reimbursed by the NHS, and NHS dental practices can also qualify for reimbursement, community pharmacies receive no equivalent compensation, despite providing NHS services every day, as has been mentioned. How is this fair or reasonable at a time when the Government are shifting more responsibility to the sector?

I have also been in contact with Community Pharmacy Hertfordshire. Although the 2026-27 community pharmacy contract provides additional investment in community pharmacies, it still falls short of what is needed to put the framework on a sustainable financial footing. Research conducted by the Independent Pharmacies Association, which has done a brilliant campaign on this matter, shows that an average pharmacy dispensing 10,000 items a month still faces a shortfall of £56,000 against what would be needed to keep pace with inflation—a very stretched financial situation.

When I met with the previous Minister for Care, the right hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), earlier this year, I was disappointed that he could not outline clear steps as to how that situation could be alleviated. Without a sustainable, longer-term funding settlement, more pharmacies risk closing at the same time as the NHS is asking the sector to do more.

It is also disappointing that the Government have delayed Pharmacy First payments. Under the previous Conservative Government, the Pharmacy First initiative was introduced to allow community pharmacies to support patients with common conditions, reducing the pressure faced by our GPs. Now, many pharmacies I speak to have said they are struggling to deliver this service as a result of the Government’s withholding of funding. The impact of pharmacies in delivering primary care should not be underestimated. Shifting more flu vaccinations into pharmacies could free up around 4.5 million GP appointments each year.

In conclusion, pharmacies are accessible and already have the infrastructure and clinical expertise to provide more care closer to home. However, patients will benefit from an expanded role for community pharmacies if their pharmacy stays open. Currently, with unsustainable operating costs and limited Government funding, that has become increasingly difficult. Without the financial support to deliver these services, many pharmacies risk closing. If the Government want to shift care from hospitals into communities, the funding must follow.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Each Front Bencher has 10 minutes, or a little longer depending on the timing.

15:22

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I sincerely commend the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) for securing this important debate and setting it out in such clear terms. Community pharmacies are often overlooked as a source of care for those in need, but in constituencies such as mine in Mid Sussex they are vital.

Many of us know what the 8 am rush for a GP appointment can be like, so the fact that there is an alternative trusted high-street healthcare service where people can walk in, speak to a professional and receive advice and treatment is enormously valuable. It is also exactly the kind of shift towards preventive and community-based care that we need to see more of and not less.

Pharmacies take pressure off GP surgeries. They help people get advice earlier, manage conditions locally and, importantly, can keep people out of hospital, but community pharmacies are under immense pressure, as we have heard. Last year, I visited Kamsons pharmacy at the Vale primary care centre in Haywards Heath, where I met Julia from Community Pharmacy Surrey and Sussex, as well as Mark and the wider Kamsons team.

I was struck by just how much local pharmacists do beyond dispensing medicines. A little like the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) when he was much younger, Kamsons provides free home deliveries for prescriptions and help patients organise multiple proscriptions into pill organisers. For vulnerable and elderly residents, these services can literally be a lifeline. They enable people to remain independent and to continue living safely in their own homes, while having the support they need to manage their medication.

The team I met were enthusiastic and deeply committed to helping local people, but they also expressed real disappointment at the level of support currently available to community pharmacies. There is a strong feeling among local branches that the extraordinary contribution pharmacies made during the pandemic has been forgotten. They are struggling to balance the books, as a number of Members have explained.

Community pharmacy funding has fallen substantially in real terms over the past decade. The Government’s recent funding settlement is a welcome step in the right direction, with significant increases announced for ’24-25 and ’25-26 and continued support for services such as Pharmacy First, blood pressure checks and contraception, but we must be honest about the scale of the challenge. That additional funding came after years of financial pressure, while analysis has identified a funding gap of more than £2 billion across community pharmacies.

Rising energy, staffing and medicine costs are placing further strain on businesses that are already operating on tight margins, and patients increasingly experience another pressure directly: medicine shortages. Pharmacists tell me that they can spend hours every day simply trying to source medicines that they have been asked to dispense. That time could be spent with patients, and it means that the pressure does not stop at the pharmacy door. In my constituency, I have heard from patients whose pharmacies have had to reduce opening hours and staffing because of financial pressures. When a pharmacy closes earlier, a prescription issued later that day can potentially be delayed until the following day. For someone waiting for an essential medicine, that can be deeply distressing.

When a pharmacy is struggling to fulfil prescriptions, the consequences ripple through the entire health service: a patient who cannot get their medication may return to their GP; that GP surgery then has another appointment to deal with; a patient whose condition worsens may ultimately require hospital treatment; and another pharmacy, already under pressure, may have to pick up the pieces when a patient desperately seeks an alternative. That is why I ask the Minister to look at community pharmacies not as an optional extra but as a vital piece of the system.

We can see the difference locally. Through Pharmacy First, community pharmacies in my area have reportedly saved almost 2,000 GP appointments—1,937, to be precise. That is 1,937 occasions when people have been able to receive appropriate care closer to home, freeing up GP capacity for those who need it most. That is the model we should be expanding, but we cannot ask pharmacies to keep doing more with less. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a new long-term and sustainable funding model for community pharmacies.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) tabled amendments to the Health Bill about rescuing pharmacies when they have gone bust, which the Liberal Democrats supported; will the Minister seek to add those to the Bill when it goes to the Lords? We want further investment to be directed towards smaller towns and rural areas, as other Members have set out, including parts of Mid Sussex where access can be particularly difficult. We want Pharmacy First to be expanded, giving patients more accessible routine services and freeing up GPs to concentrate on more complex cases, and an exemption for pharmacies from the national insurance contribution increase so that funds are being spent on patients and vital medications.

We also need to tackle the practical problem of medicine shortages. Pharmacists need greater flexibility to substitute medicines where clinically appropriate, rather than spending hours trying to source a particular product that may simply be unavailable. The message I heard in Haywards Heath was very clear: pharmacists want to help. They want to provide more services, support their patients and take pressure off GPs and hospitals, but they need a system that recognises the value of what they do.

Community pharmacies are often the first place someone turns to when they need healthcare advice. They are local, accessible and trusted. When they are properly funded and supported, they can keep people healthier for longer, help vulnerable residents remain independent in their own homes and take pressure off the rest of the NHS. The Government have made a start with their recent funding settlement; I welcomed that, but a first step is not enough. I urge the Minister to listen to the pharmacists I have spoken to in Mid Sussex and across the country and put in place a genuinely long-term plan for community pharmacy. Our local pharmacies have been there for our communities; we need to make sure that the Government are there for them.

15:29

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I welcome the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to her new role and congratulate her on her appointment.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing this most important debate. She spoke very powerfully about the pressures facing community pharmacies and I want to build on her speech by discussing what is happening both in my constituency and nationally.

In Farnham and Bordon, we have access to 15 community pharmacies, which collectively dispense around 142,000 prescriptions every month and deliver around 6,500 flu vaccinations. The Government’s 10-year plan wants more healthcare to be delivered in the community, which is an aim that I think we all support. At the same time, however, the Government appear to be making it harder for those very pharmacies to deliver such care and to remain sustainable.

The reality is that community pharmacies are being asked to do more while facing rising costs. We have seen higher national insurance contributions, increases in the national minimum wage, rising business rates and persistent inflationary pressures. At the same time, pharmacies are dealing with medicine shortages, higher procurement costs and disruption to international supply chains. The financial picture is impossible to ignore. Funding for community pharmacies in 2025-26 was actually £800 million less in real terms than it was in 2015-16. In the last year alone, the number of NHS-prescribed items dispensed by pharmacies and the service volumes increased by 2.3% and 17% respectively.

As the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) has already highlighted—he was echoed by a number of Members around the Chamber today—the Government’s own independent economic analysis in March 2025 identified a funding gap for pharmacies of £2 billion a year, and trade bodies that have spoken to me identify a structural funding problem. Of course, we on this side of the House welcome additional funding, but pharmacy is not made sustainable by giving with one hand and taking with the other. We need to ensure the long-term viability of community pharmacy and I am very sceptical that the Government’s approach will achieve that.

I turn now to Pharmacy First, which is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we make better use of the skills and expertise available within our NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) is absolutely right to be proud of his Government’s record on this matter. Created and implemented by the last Government, Pharmacy First shows what NHS reform should look like—the right professional, with the right responsibility, delivering the right care in the right place. It should be a game changer and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for its introduction.

Pharmacy First recognises that patients with seven common conditions can be safely assessed and treated by qualified pharmacists without there always being a requirement for a GP appointment. However, the scheme is currently limited and not as expansive as it is in Scotland, where it covers up to 30 common conditions. I would like the Government to move rapidly to expand Pharmacy First elsewhere. We should be ambitious about the skills and clinical expertise of our pharmacists.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Member agree that another opportunity for Pharmacy First—indeed, a generational opportunity—is independent prescribing? That would really unlock the potential of pharmacies and help patients, but it requires both a vision and adequate funding.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we can use pharmacists and pharmacies much more creatively and in a manner that would in no way put patient safety at risk. In fact, it would allow patients more choice, and free up GPs and other health professionals to do other parts of their job, so he is right.

Community Pharmacy England’s 2026 pharmacy pressures survey makes the scale of the challenge facing pharmacies clear. Drawing on responses from nearly 4,000 pharmacy owners and staff members, it found that 75% of pharmacies are currently losing money, while only 14% reported being profitable. There is little value in providing additional funding for services without recognising the wider cost and workforce pressures facing the sector: 30% of pharmacies have reduced their opening hours and 76% report an impact on patient care, including longer waits and delays in accessing medicine.

That brings me—briefly—to the issue of business rates and the wider cumulative costs facing pharmacies. A pharmacy might occupy a storefront on a high street, but it is not simply another retailer; it is part of the national health service and is an essential provision in our community. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined, pharmacies are also part of our national resilience. The Government want pharmacies to take on more responsibility, but they face rising costs that have been caused by the Government.

Pharmacies need to be properly considered within the system and not treated simply as another high street retailer. The same issue applies when we consider national insurance increases, and indeed the national living wage. These cumulative increases are having a real impact. Unlike a high street retailer, a pharmacy has contractual obligations to the NHS and a moral responsibility to its patients, so it cannot just increase prices or stop providing a service like other businesses could. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) rightly put it, the Government have to recognise the cumulative impact of these terrible decisions when considering future policy.

[Jim Shannon]

I want to underline a point I made in my speech: some of my community pharmacists back home are using their own money to subsidise their pharmacy and keep the business going—because of their compassion, their understanding and their concern for their customers and patients.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and his point goes to the heart of the debate. Pharmacies are businesses that must make a profit, and pharmacists must pay their staff and make sure that they can feed their own families, but they are also public servants. They are people who have decided to work in our national health service to provide for our patients, and the Government should recognise that.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) mentioned independent prescribing. If properly supported, it will give patients quicker access to treatment, but it brings greater clinical responsibility, greater governance requirements and greater pressure on pharmacists’ time. Given the limited capacity that we have already talked about, I want to ask the Minister three questions on independent prescribing. Does she believe the sector is ready? Does it have the workforce and the capacity to do it? What additional funding and support will be provided? We also need clarity on the timetable. Pharmacists have trained to prescribe, and they should be able to use that skill.

That brings me to the pharmacy workforce, because none of these reforms—independent prescribing, Pharmacy First or any other idea—will work without a sufficiently large and properly supported workforce. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members about recruitment and retention pressures, including concerns about the number of full-time equivalent pharmacists. At the same time, the demands placed on existing staff are increasing. We cannot continue to add responsibilities to community pharmacy without considering whether there are enough people to deliver them safely and effectively.

The previous Conservative Government’s NHS long-term workforce plan included an ambition to increase pharmacist training places by 29%, taking them to around 4,300 by ’28-29. That ambition will clearly not be met under this Government, and we are still waiting for the long-promised NHS workforce plan. Despite my asking the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), in July when the plan was coming out, we still have no answer.

Finally, I will move on to medicines supply. Pharmacies are facing global supply chain disruption and rising medicine costs, with repeated price concessions adding further pressures. They cannot absorb these pressures indefinitely, so what are the Government doing to mitigate the impact of geopolitical disruption on medicine supply and prices, and what assessment has the Department made of the financial burden that these pressures are putting on community pharmacies? They are being felt by pharmacies across my constituency, including Vaughan James and Lalys in Farnham, Chase and Headley pharmacies and Day Lewis in Haslemere, and Grayshott pharmacy, all of which have contacted me about the issues that I have raised.

In conclusion, community pharmacy has a crucial role to play in the future of our NHS. We all want to see care delivered closer to people’s homes. Pharmacy First has shown what can happen when we give pharmacists greater responsibility and trust them to use their expertise, but ambition needs to be matched by capacity. The Government cannot say that community pharmacies are central to the future of neighbourhood healthcare while making it harder for those pharmacies to remain financially sustainable. I urge the Government to recognise the cumulative impacts of their policies on businesses, to look again at the treatment of business rates for community pharmacies, to ensure independent prescribing is properly supported, to protect the supply of medicines, and to provide clarity on when the NHS workforce plan will be published.

The fact is, we cannot ask pharmacies to take on more responsibility and deliver more NHS care while simultaneously making it harder for them to survive. The Conservative party believes that community pharmacy is absolutely central to the future of the NHS. If the Government agree, they must make sure that pharmacies have a future, too.

15:39

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing this important debate and on her opening statement, which set out thoroughly the current situation of pharmacies and the challenges that they face.

We all agree that community pharmacies are at the heart of the NHS and of their local communities. We absolutely recognise the important role that pharmacies play in delivering health services in neighbourhoods across the country, and the opportunity for that role to keep growing. We also recognise that many community pharmacies face financial pressures and that ensuring financial sustainability for community pharmacies is essential to improve patients’ access to medicines and services.

That is why, since coming into office, the Government have delivered successive uplifts to pharmacy funding, following years of cuts or flat funding, and have invested in pharmacies to roll out NHS prescribing and to improve patient access to care in their communities. Of course, none of that would be possible without the dedication and professionalism of pharmacy teams supporting patients across the country. Over the years, like other Members, I have visited many pharmacies in my constituency to listen to what the teams have to say, and I have met with my local organisation Community Pharmacy Humber and its chief executive Paul McGorry.

The contributions to the debate have been excellent and very well-informed. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) is the chair of the APPG on pharmacy and a community pharmacist. He talked about his vision of the integration of primary care by 2040, and how important pharmacy is in that. I very much look forward to discussing that with him outside of this debate.

We then heard from the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). I think his mum would be very proud that he is banging the drum for pharmacy. He talked about pharmacies in his rural constituency and the important role that they play in rural areas, which was a common theme in the debate.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), a vice-chair of the APPG on pharmacy, gave a very thoughtful speech outlining the challenges facing pharmacy. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) referenced the closure of the Jhoots stores and highlighted the potential weaknesses in the current regulatory frameworks around closures, which are the reason the Department has been reviewing whether changes are needed to strengthen the oversight of pharmacy businesses. We are actively considering a range of options, including whether legislative changes are required. My officials have been working closely with the General Pharmaceutical Council, NHS England and others to identify any gaps in the current framework. I am of course very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that further.

We of course heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked about pharmacies in Northern Ireland and the effect on pharmacists and their staff of the stress they are under. He also made the economic case for the use of pharmacies.

I was very impressed that the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) did work experience in a pharmacy, but I was a little concerned that he seems to have forgotten all the cuts that occurred to pharmacy under previous Conservative Governments. I think it is fair to say that they made pharmacy payments practically a fixed contract. In essence, with inflation, that meant there were year-on-year cuts to pharmacy funding.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), spoke about the role of pharmacies and the particular role that they played during covid. We must all remember how important pharmacy staff and pharmacists were during that period; I assure her that I have not forgotten that, and I do not think that the Government have either.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), seems to be suffering from amnesia, which is a common problem among Opposition Members when it comes to the funding situation under the Conservative Government.

[Gregory Stafford]

You’re in charge now.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely, we are. I will set out what we are doing about pharmacy, but I thought it would be useful to reflect on the comments and contributions.

First, I want to address the issue of funding. As I said at the outset, the Government recognise the challenges facing community pharmacies following years of underfunding and the difficult fiscal environment. That is why, last year, we took the necessary decisions to give the sector a record 19% funding uplift across ’24-25 and ’25-26. I stress that, at the time, it was the NHS’s largest uplift. However, we know many pharmacies continue to face financial pressures, which is why we have followed last year’s settlement with a further significant uplift of 10% for ’26-27, worth an additional £340 million for the sector.

That funding will help to ensure that patients can continue to access medicines and important clinical support from community pharmacists. The uplift will also support the national roll-out of NHS pharmacist prescribing. From autumn ’26, those services will enable pharmacists to prescribe within the existing Pharmacy First and contraception service pathways, and for up to five new pathways. This will deliver increased access to NHS care, relieve pressures on other parts of the NHS and strengthen support in communities across England, delivering on the commitment made in our manifesto.

This year’s uplift is almost three times the rate of growth in the overall NHS budget and it demonstrates the priority the Government place on community pharmacy, but I do not pretend that the challenges will disappear overnight. Many pharmacies continue to face financial pressures, but the settlements represent a clear change in direction and provide the foundations for longer-term reform. Numerous Members raised pharmacy closures, and I can tell them that, according to recent data, there were 19 net closures in ’25-26 compared with 112 in ’24-25. There has been some progress, but I recognise that there is a lot more to do.

The long-term sustainability of community pharmacy depends on making better use of pharmacists’ clinical skills, reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and enabling pharmacists to deliver more care closer to people’s homes. We will deliver this through the three shifts set out in our 10-year health plan: sickness to prevention, analogue to digital, and hospital to community.

Let me give a clear example of how community pharmacy can support the shift from sickness to prevention. As a new Minister, I have already been struck by the vital role community pharmacists play in bringing vaccination services closer to the communities they serve. The NHS vaccination strategy and our 10-year health plan set out a clear ambition to increase vaccine uptake through primary care. That means complementing the core offer from general practice with accessible vaccination services in settings including maternity and sexual health services, schools, health visiting teams and, crucially, community pharmacy. During the ’25-26 flu programme, community pharmacists vaccinated approximately 4.7 million people, around 600,000 more than in the previous year. This demonstrates the growing contribution that pharmacists can make to prevention as a central part of the NHS-commissioned vaccine programme.

The shift from analogue to digital is very important. I am well aware that outdated technologies prevent skilled staff across the health and care sector, including pharmacy teams, from working to their full potential, stifling innovation and efficiency. Of course, digital transformation is not just about technology for its own sake; it is about giving pharmacists the tools they need to spend less time on admin and more time on caring for patients, and about giving patients more control over the care and support they receive.

Last year, a new prescription tracking service was introduced on the NHS app across nearly 1,500 community pharmacies in England. It allows patients to receive real-time updates and to check when their prescriptions are ready. This year, we will go further by strengthening the digital links between pharmacies and general practice as we build neighbourhood health teams in every community. Digital technology also has an important role to play in strengthening medicine supply chains, which is another issue raised today.

We also want prescribers to have better information about medicine shortages. At present, GPs cannot routinely see live national shortage information when prescribing. We intend to make that information available in real time to help GPs to prescribe suitable alternatives where necessary, saving time for patients and neighbourhood health teams. That will mean fewer patients going from pharmacy to pharmacy in search of medicines.

Thirdly, if we are serious about shifting care out of hospitals and into communities, community pharmacies must be part of the answer. They are trusted, accessible and highly valuable to the communities they serve. They have enormous potential.

[Lee Pitcher]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very conscious of time—I might get a dirty look from the Chair.

[Lee Pitcher]

I am glad the Minister did not get a dirty look. On moving from hospital to the community, pharmacists often tell me that people do not always know about the services they provide, and residents tell me that too. Does the Minister agree that every one of us has a part to play in promoting and raising awareness of the great services that pharmacies already provide, as well as those they will provide in the future?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I absolutely agree.

I was going to say a few words about Pharmacy First, the importance of which has been recognised this afternoon. Recent data shows growing public awareness of the service, with the proportion of people who know that pharmacies can treat Pharmacy First conditions increasing from 71% to 79%. There is more we can do, however, so I acknowledge the point made by right hon. and hon. Members.

Pharmacy First has also demonstrated what pharmacists can achieve when empowered to deliver more care. The introduction of NHS pharmacist prescribing will take that a significant step further. Evidence from the independent prescribing pathfinder programme is really encouraging. Across 200 sites, pharmacists delivered more than 34,000 consultations. Around 60% resulted in a prescribing decision, and 97% were completed without a referral to a GP. That demonstrates the real-world potential of pharmacist prescribing to improve access to care and relieve pressures.

The ’26-27 community pharmacy contractual framework builds on these lessons, as NHS pharmacist prescribing is rolled out nationally from autumn this year. That delivers on our pledges in the 10-year plan. We want to unlock the full potential of community pharmacy. It is not just about pharmacists; we are also enabling pharmacy technicians to take greater responsibility within dispensing processes, including allowing checked and bagged medicines to be handed out when the pharmacist is not present.

[Edward Morello]

I thank the Minister for being willing to meet me and the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) to discuss some of the issues raised today. She mentioned that officials are looking at whether legislation is necessary; will she ask them to consider whether the amendments I tabled to the Health Bill would deliver the powers she needs? If so, will the Government support them in the Lords?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very happy to have a look at the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman and to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset. I cannot promise anything else, but I am happy to have a look.

Community pharmacists are a vital part of the NHS and of the communities they serve. They already dispense hundreds of millions of prescriptions every year, but their role is growing: preventing illness, treating common conditions, prescribing where appropriate and improving access to care. Our investment, reforms and 10-year health plan all point in the same direction—a stronger, sustainable community pharmacy sector. This Government are committed to working with the sector to deliver that vision.

15:54

[Shivani Raja]

Thank you for your chairmanship of the debate, Mr Betts. I express my sincere thanks to colleagues from across the House who have contributed today. It is a reflection of how valued our local pharmacies are in communities throughout the country, and it highlights the importance of our commitment to improving Government support for these invaluable frontline small businesses.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for his contribution. He is a long-standing advocate for pharmacies and has witnessed at first hand the value that high street pharmacies bring to our communities and their potential to improve primary care provision. I thank him for his commitment to serving the community, which started at a very young age, as we heard.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for bringing his experience to the debate and raising the important issue of integration across primary care. I thank him and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) for all their hard work on the APPG. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for his continued efforts and campaigning for community pharmacies. The breadth and range of the contributions reflect how deeply this issue resonates in every constituency in the country.

I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response and for taking the time to address the concerns raised. These initial measures, welcome as they are, must be the starting point for further structural reform. Our local high street pharmacies are independent businesses delivering essential public care right on the frontline, but, as we have heard throughout the debate, they cannot continue to absorb squeezed margins, rising wage bills and uncompensated business rates liabilities while their income remains tightly capped by fixed Government tariffs.

To ensure that our primary care network remains resilient, I urge the Minister and her team to take away the four core priorities raised today: reforming the medicine reimbursement model and concessionary pricing mechanisms; updating the community pharmacy contractual framework; collaborating with Treasury colleagues to address the rising overheads; and ensuring that the NHS long-term workforce plan safeguards high street community pharmacy capacity.

Community pharmacies keep our constituents well, relieve acute pressures on our GP surgeries and A&E departments, and bring vital commercial life to our local high streets across Leicester East and the entire nation. They are one of the most cost-effective assets in our primary care system, but they require a stable economic foundation to survive. I urge the Government to give our independent local pharmacies the financial certainty, fair treatment and long-term backing they so urgently need and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government funding for local pharmacies.

15:57

Sitting suspended.

Youth Parliament: Government Support

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the UK Youth Parliament.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I warmly welcome the Minister to her place for what I believe is her first Westminster Hall debate.

Many colleagues have taken their seat in this place after years of serving their community as a local councillor or in a political role, but before my election I was a teacher and an academic. Standing for Parliament was almost the first time that I had run for anything; in fact, my only prior experience was running to be a Member of the Youth Parliament when I was about 14. I am sorry to say that I came third, although the confidence that I gained from putting myself forward stayed with me and, I have no doubt, helped me to reach this place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman may have come third that time, but he came first in the last election—well done. The National Youth Agency does magnificent work in delivering the programme. These brilliant young minds need certainty and sustainable funding, not just allocations handed out year by year. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that equitable funding across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including Strangford, would ensure that young voices are heard on the national stage with proper financial support to enable full participation, just as he himself achieved when he had the opportunity?

[Peter Swallow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, to which I will return at the end of my speech. As we look to deliver better youth services and participation for all our young people, we certainly need to think about how to fund it properly.

The UK Youth Parliament is an institution in which we can take great pride. It develops skills, provides opportunities to young people right across the country and helps them to have a voice in our democracy. I have had the privilege of meeting Erin and Kingsley, the last two MYPs for Bracknell. I believe that Kingsley has joined us in the Gallery today, alongside other MYPs; we briefly lost them to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), but I am glad to see that he has let them go so they can join us for this debate. I have heard at first hand from MYPs in Bracknell and across the country about the benefits of the scheme for them personally, as well as for the young people they represent.

I should declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment. Just before the summer, the APPG concluded its inquiry into votes at 16 with a report that I encourage all Members, especially the Minister, to read. The inquiry’s aim was to explore and make recommendations on how the Government can prepare young people to feel educated and empowered to use their vote at the age of 16. We heard from a wide range of young people, education professionals and youth and civil society organisations on how votes at 16 can be not just implemented, but made a success. Contributors to the report highlighted the importance of engagement with democracy and the democratic process, not just in the classroom but through wider enrichment opportunities. The UK Youth Parliament is a perfect example.

Votes at 16 has been a long-standing campaign of the UK Youth Parliament. Its imminent introduction is a direct example of the power of the UK Youth Parliament to give young people a platform to make change at the highest levels. I firmly believe that the Government would not be making this historic change were it not for the campaigning zeal of successive generations of MYPs. I pay tribute to them all.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I put on the record my sincere thanks to Wolverhampton’s youth council, which has done a tremendous job of bringing a strong voice to represent young people across our city. They truly care about our communities and our city. Do my hon. Friend and the Minister agree that investing in our young people now makes good economic sense for our future?

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely, and that is a theme to which I will return. Investing in young people is so important, not only for empowering them but for the skills and experience we need in the economy, so that young people can go on to get good jobs and support their local communities. That is exactly why I have always championed everything we can do to empower young people at the earliest age.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely important speech about young people’s participation in politics. I recently got to meet Freddie Burnett-Cherry, the MYP for Preston and South Ribble in my constituency. I was particularly impressed by how much work he has already done to better his community, such as youth surveys on antisocial behaviour and work on water safety. Does my hon. Friend agree that greater investment in the UK Youth Parliament is not just a nice thing for young people, but a brilliant investment in improving our communities right now?

[Peter Swallow]

I quite agree. Many young people have used their time as MYPs to make a real difference, including Sienna, a former MYP for Wolverhampton whose campaign against knife crime delivered bleed control kits across the west midlands, and Caitlin, a former MYP for Durham who worked on setting up the Big Debate in her local area. I am proud that I will be working with Kingsley, the MYP for Bracknell Forest, on his priorities for our community, including young people’s mental health and local transport.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

I must thank Sienna, too: Sienna completed a week of work experience in my constituency office and in Parliament. I truly think that she is extraordinary. I just wanted to place that on the record.

[Peter Swallow]

What a lovely thing to have on the record. Sienna sounds like an incredible young woman.

MYPs, like MPs, are elected to represent their local area. They engage in debate at a local, regional and national level on a huge range of issues. In 2009, the Youth Parliament became the first body ever, aside from Members of Parliament, to use the Commons Chamber.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

We have some alumni of the Youth Parliament in this Chamber today. As a young person, I was on the steering committee that set it up. It is great to see so many former MYPs taking a seat in this Chamber, although sadly not so many on my side of the aisle. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK Youth Parliament plays a crucial role, but that young people who are less confident and more disadvantaged or who simply feel that politics has nothing to do with them might not engage through it? This is an opportunity for the Government to encourage more engagement across youth politics, not just among those who want to take elected roles.

[Peter Swallow]

I quite agree. That is a theme to which I will return. I think that there are sometimes some miscomprehensions about how diverse the YP scheme really is, but as the Government look to its future, we should absolutely be talking about making it even better and more inclusive; that is all to the good. In the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s own words:

“The UK Youth Parliament is DCMS’ key mechanism for engaging with young people and ensuring their voices are heard in policy and decision making.”

If we are serious about protecting and nurturing our democracy, we must also protect and nurture the opportunities that we give our young people to properly engage with it, understand it and feel a part of it.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that with Pride in Place we have a great opportunity to get our local youth voices heard in shaping the future of their local community?

[Peter Swallow]

I completely agree. Sadly, I have not yet secured Pride in Place funding for Bracknell Forest, but I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to think about including their local MYPs and other youth representatives as part of that programme. It can only be for the better.

With the welcome enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds, all this has never been more crucial. The UK Youth Parliament has a vital role to play in seizing the opportunity presented by votes at 16 to make the next generation the most informed and engaged ever.

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

My hon. Friend makes a good point about young people being informed and engaged but, more than that, it gives their brilliant ideas the chance to be heard and have an impact. I pay tribute to the young people who joined my “Your Voice, Your Future” campaigns programme this summer and in previous summers. They raised with me things like the social media ban, which has come into force, and I have been able to ensure that their voices are heard in my contributions in Parliament. With the Youth Parliament, however, they can do that directly. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important is the impact that young people can have through those ideas?

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. I passionately believe, as do the Government, that it would be very wrong to form policies that will directly shape young people’s lives without actually engaging with young people. We might not always agree with their conclusions—on the social media ban, many of the young people I spoke to in Bracknell Forest came to a different conclusion from mine—but I hope they feel that I have listened to their concerns. Their views have very much shaped my thinking on that issue and many others.

In 2023, DCMS commissioned IFF Research to evaluate the UK Youth Parliament. The evaluation found that the programme is delivering on its intended goals: to engage young people across the country in the democratic process and give them a route to express their voices on the issues that matter most to them. MYPs reported improved confidence, resilience, communication, problem solving, teamwork and critical thinking skills, to name but a few—the very skills that employers are crying out for from young people, and the very skills that the Government have committed to placing at the heart of our education system.

I emphasise that MYPs consistently reported that meeting and making connections with other young people from across the country was a highlight of the programme. I share the concern raised by parents and teachers across the country that an increasingly online world is an increasingly atomised, isolated one for young people. Programmes such as the UK Youth Parliament, which inspire and excite young people and give them the opportunity to connect and learn from their peers away from the online world, are crucial.

The Government’s national youth strategy was the first in two decades. It sets out our commitment to building a country that works not just for but with young people. The UK Youth Parliament has a clear role to play in helping the Department to achieve the strategy, especially its key aim that our society must be one in which young people are meaningfully seen and heard.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech on an important topic. On ensuring that young people’s voices are heard at the very heart of Government, does he agree that the Government should consider appointing a Minister for the younger and future generations, with a team of staff whose sole job is to listen to those voices, bring them to the Cabinet table and assess all policy, legislation and proposed legislation through the lens of whether it gives a voice to young people and takes their interests into account?

[Peter Swallow]

I welcome the point. I will do my hon. Friend one better: I think that that should be the job of every single Minister. The Government’s role is to deliver for people up and down this country, and we have a particular duty to deliver for our young people. Sometimes it is their voices that are the most forgotten.

I recognise that the UK Youth Parliament scheme always has room for improvement. It is certainly disappointing that not every area is represented in the Youth Parliament and that not all local areas engage evenly with the scheme. To coin a phrase, I want to see youth opportunity and youth engagement in every postcode.

I have also heard concerns that it is not diverse enough and that it engages only those most likely to participate already. In fact, on that measure the Youth Parliament is far outperforming this Parliament, its older sibling. It is a far more representative body than we are. About 52% of the previous UKYP intake were women, compared with 41% of MPs; 40% had an ethnic minority background, compared with 14% of us; and 9% came from the most disadvantaged 10% of areas, according to the index of multiple deprivation, with roughly 51% coming from postcodes ranked in the most deprived half of IMD deciles. There is always more work to be done, but we would do well to take note of the UK Youth Parliament’s success in electing a rich and diverse group of representatives.

I also think it is important to stress that although the programme’s most visible success might be the annual debate in the House, where young people stand up and debate so eloquently, there are many local successes that we should remember as well. We have already spoken about many of those here today. All those successes, both locally and nationally, come at a cost, but in departmental terms—certainly in Government terms—they are extremely small and extremely good value. The last full two-year funding commitment given by DCMS came to only £750,000.

I hope colleagues will appreciate that I have tried to avoid too many clichés about young people. From a man of my age they are, in the words of young people, “cringe”. But I do want to indulge a little bit now with some final thoughts, not from myself but from Kingsley, our current MYP for Bracknell Forest. He put it so much better than I ever could hope to, saying that

“investing in UKYP is investing in young people, our communities and the future of our democracy”.

16:16

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for securing the debate and for his excellent speech.

As the Member for Hemel Hempstead, I am proud to support, and want to see continued support for, a nationally elected UK Youth Parliament. That comes from personal experience, from having been elected as a Member of the UK Youth Parliament way back in 2001, then proceeding to be part of the procedures group, as it was, until 2003, and subsequently serving as a trustee of the UK Youth Parliament for a brief period later in that decade.

I want to pay particular tribute to Kate Parish and Peter Clarke, two people who were central to the creation of the UK Youth Parliament and certainly provided me with a great deal of support. I really do attribute the UK Youth Parliament, and my experience in it, to my standing here today as a Member of Parliament; it was the start of my journey towards dedicating my life to public service. As we have heard, there are many others who have now followed that path too.

When I was first elected to Parliament to represent Hertfordshire—well, for the first time since representing Hertfordshire as a Member of the UK Youth Parliament—I was sad to discover that Hertfordshire, at that point, was not participating any longer in the scheme. Along with other Labour MPs in Hertfordshire, I worked very closely with both Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors on Hertfordshire county council to try to bring it back. I am delighted that Hertfordshire now participates in the UK Youth Parliament again. I had the pleasure of meeting this year’s new representatives, including a gentleman who represents Hemel Hempstead, a few weeks back. I pay tribute to Katie Fineman and Karen Haswell for the brilliant work they do as youth workers in Hertfordshire.

The best part of the UK Youth Parliament, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell have touched on, is when it reaches people from diverse backgrounds, particularly working-class backgrounds. I recognise that there is sometimes some criticism around whether it does that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell eloquently laid out the ways in which it is actually doing a terrific job.

The UK Youth Parliament certainly helped me, as someone who had not participated in anything like it before, and it really built my skills and confidence. It is often the first experience many people have of speaking in public, networking and meeting other people. We have to ensure that we do not lose that.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend’s point about youth services—with young people being supported to find their voice, and to understand and navigate the relationships and adult structures within the UK Youth Parliament in order to feed in their ideas, ambitions and thoughts—is incredibly important. The youth service has been decimated, but it is the youth service and those supporting youth workers who are required to really back this work up.

[David Taylor]

I could not agree more. If we are looking at the future of the UK Youth Parliament, perhaps the solution to the postcode problem my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell alluded to is to mandate that local authorities go further and faster in making sure that the UK Youth Parliament is inclusive and reaches people from working-class backgrounds. It would be a shame if we lost that. It is really important that working-class kids get a chance to have their voices heard, as they do at the moment.

Particularly with votes at 16 on the horizon, it is important that there continue to be elections to the UK Youth Parliament, with participation from as many young people as possible in schools in each county. It is also important to remember that the UK Youth Parliament is not just about the few who are lucky enough to be elected; over the years, millions of young people have participated in one way or another, through the elections and the campaigns in local areas. As my hon. Friend said, it is about not just the national conference, but the activities that go on around the country throughout the year, and we should not lose sight of that.

I join others in asking that the Government, Parliament and the Speaker’s Office work together to find a truly sustainable funding mechanism for the future. In 20 years’ time, we will perhaps not be standing here ourselves, but we want to see people who are sitting in the Public Gallery today standing where we are now, giving speeches about the importance of the UK Youth Parliament.

16:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Vicky Foxcroft)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) on securing this incredibly important debate and on the success of the campaign for votes at 16, as highlighted in the recent inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on schools, learning and assessment, which he chairs. I am sorry to hear that he came third in his national Youth Parliament ambitions, but I am delighted that he is with us in Parliament now.

The experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) as a Member of the Youth Parliament between 2001 and 2003 highlights the lasting impact of youth participation. I want to express my deepest thanks for his tireless advocacy for young people in his constituency and across the nation. I know how passionately he cares about ensuring that the next generation is not merely listened to, but genuinely heard and empowered.

That goes for all Members who contributed. My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) all spoke about the powerful young advocates in their constituencies, and it was fantastic to hear them being celebrated.

I also pay tribute to the incredible partner organisations, the youth workers and, above all, the inspiring young people who deliver the UK Youth Parliament day in, day out. It is genuinely great to see so many of them in the Public Gallery.

Throughout my time as an MP and previously—particularly in my work leading the Youth Violence Commission—my purpose has been rooted in supporting and standing with young people. I have seen at first hand the transformational impact of timely intervention, and how a trusted adult, a safe space or a creative outlet can offer a vital lifeline and a transformed future. That work showed me that young people have the solutions; they just need space, support and opportunities. That insight drives my decisions as Minister for youth and underpins our commitment to ensuring that every young person gets the opportunities they deserve.

Our young people are not merely the leaders of tomorrow; they are the active, vibrant and thoughtful citizens of today. They deserve to be heard and valued, and they should be in the driving seat when decisions that affect their lives are made. Since 1999, the UK Youth Parliament has given thousands of young people a platform to champion key issues, hold decision makers to account and drive positive social change in their communities. We are currently working closely with young people and partners, including Members of the Youth Parliament, to co-design the Government’s work to increase young people’s involvement in democracy and decision making, with a particular focus on under-represented groups. We will share the outcomes of that work later in the autumn.

We are also keeping our promise to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote through votes at 16. We are working closely across Government to implement that commitment, ensuring that the necessary legislative and operational preparations are in place to successfully embed early democratic participation, so that young people have a formal stake in shaping the future of our country.

I am personally passionate about ensuring inclusivity in everything we do. It is not enough simply to open the door; we must actively break down the structural and socioeconomic barriers that prevent young people from under-represented backgrounds from stepping through it. Every young person, regardless of their ethnicity, geography or background, deserves an equal voice. It is imperative that more young people across the country gain direct and meaningful access to influence decisions, locally in their communities and nationally. By embedding young people in decision-making processes, we ensure that our policy solutions are richer, fairer and genuinely reflective of the nation we serve.

We are taking proactive, transformative steps across our wider youth empowerment initiatives through our “Be Seen & Heard” pillar of Youth Matters, to ensure that young people are directly in the driving seat. As part of that work, we will recruit a dedicated new youth policy network to co-design national Government policy, and we will shortly be refreshing our youth advisory group, which will oversee the delivery of Youth Matters. We are also backing youth social action by continuing to support the #iWill movement.

Through the Youth Matters fund, we are assembling youth decision making directly into local investment. This will include a range of tools and support to ensure minimum standards and meaningful engagement with young people, so that provision is targeted where young people need it most.

All those democratic and participation initiatives align directly with our overarching Youth Matters national youth strategy, which was published in 2025 and was, as has been said, the first in more than 15 years. Youth Matters represents a fundamental shift in how we support young people across our Government. For too long, youth services were subjected to short-term, fragmented funding that left provision patchy and unsustainable. We are moving away from those temporary fixes towards sustainable, long-term support that gives youth workers and local organisations the stability they need to build lasting relationships with young people.

Youth Matters provides the foundations for our ongoing work with young people to co-design our fresh approach to youth empowerment, ensuring that national opportunities are better connected to local infrastructure. I invite hon. Members to share experiences of what is working in their constituencies with the Department, and to continue to create opportunities for young people to engage with them and, where appropriate, with Parliament.

I hope this debate will be the beginning of an ongoing conversation. I genuinely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell once again for introducing this important debate. Our wider youth strategy is about giving every young person someone who cares, somewhere to go and something to do. Together, we will build a society where every single young person feels valued, safe, supported, seen and truly heard.

Question put and agreed to.

Pica Eating Disorder: SEND

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Pica training within SEND provision.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. Before I go any further, I want to make an admission. Until last year, I had not encountered pica, either in a personal capacity or through my work in Parliament. I had never heard of the condition. My first awareness of it was at a special educational needs and disabilities roundtable event that I organised last year, the purpose of which was to hear the experiences of parents and professionals across my Dagenham and Rainham constituency so I could feed their voices into the Government’s consultation on SEND reform.

At the event, I heard a brave story from a young woman and her family living with the realities of pica. There are many moments in a MP’s life that really move them, and despite the thousands of cases that we deal with on behalf of our constituents, there are ones that truly stick with us. The brave young woman at that SEND roundtable was Suzy Read, and she is here today. I can honestly say that her story, her journey, her perpetual struggle and the fight she has had to get her daughter the care she needs and deserves hushed the room.

Suzy told us about her life, where she constantly risk-assessed every room, setting and experience, and how the lack of help, combined with the failures of the system, took a toll on her mental health and the physical wellbeing of her child. We heard how the failure to provide access to a safe educational setting for her child resulted in daily anxieties, daily struggles and, because of the lack of pica recognition, understanding and training, daily explanations of why her child required bespoke care. The room was moved to tears.

Something Suzy said has stuck with me ever since:

“Pica is not rare. It is just rarely spoken about.”

That is why I am here today, to make the case for pica training to be a statutory requirement across educational settings under SEND provision.

What is pica? It is an overwhelming compulsion to eat non-food and non-nutritional items such as glass, soil, clay, lead, ice and much more. It can include items that poison, puncture organs, choke, and end a child’s life. It is important to note that while the debate will focus on training in schools and other educational settings, pica also affects adults who have lived with it from an early age or whose condition has presented late.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward; she is right that the ailment is not well recognised. Like her, I did some research on the issue and found out that it is a UK-wide problem. Last year in Northern Ireland, there was a tragic incident involving a care home resident with a cognitive impairment who exhibited some pica behaviours. Sadly, he died after choking on a non-food substance. Does the hon. Lady agree it is not just schools where training is needed; it is also essential for staff in care homes and residential settings, and it could prevent potentially dangerous behaviours, which often go unnoticed?

[Margaret Mullane]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I thank him for raising that matter. While this debate will focus on training in schools and other educational settings, it is important to note that there is a desperate need for pica recognition and training across the NHS, local authorities, care providers and even housing providers. However, that is not the focus today.

Sadly, pica is still not fully understood, which often results in people being dismissed or the condition being treated as a behavioural issue. While there is a growing consensus that pica must be treated as the serious medical and safeguarding issue that it is, the lack of awareness means the condition is overshadowed. As such, it is not considered by policymakers. That has to change.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her work to champion this cause. I was also at that roundtable and she is quite right; every single one of us was brought to tears. Does she agree that, given the potentially serious health risks associated with pica—she mentioned the compulsion to eat glass or coal—we should not have a postcode lottery on whether teachers and SEND staff recognise the seriousness of the condition, and that there is a case for national guidance and training so there is awareness and we can help people at their most vulnerable times?

[Margaret Mullane]

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is ultimately what we seek in the long term. We do not want anyone to have to go through what some families have already gone through. Only if we adopt national training will that actually stop.

Earlier this year, I held a pica awareness parliamentary drop-in session with Suzy and the National Pica Advisory Service, representatives of which are in the Public Gallery. I met Tolu, Belinda and the team, who do amazing advocacy work to support parents of children with pica. Speaking to advocates and parents, the consistent theme was a lack of professional knowledge across sectors, whether at schools or—this is another important point—when people present at hospital. Parents are fed up of hearing, “The item will pass through; don’t worry about it.”

At my event, the National Pica Advisory Service told the story of a parent of a child with pica. Had that parent not persisted in pushing that their child did not just have an upset tummy, one of the child’s organs would have failed and they would have died. There was a screw lodged in the child’s intestines that was discovered only when the parent demanded an X-ray. That should have been the first port of call when the parent explained that their child had pica, not something that, once again, a parent had to fight for.

I heard another story of a child in a private-rented property who would lick paint. Sadly, due to the age of the property the paint had high lead content. In such circumstances, had the child continued and—again—had the parent not persisted, it would have led to the child’s death. Early diagnosis and early intervention are key, but so too is ensuring that adaptions are made, environments are made safe and that caregivers and educators are equipped with the knowledge and training to monitor those with pica.

In 2023, pica came to prominence in the media due to the tragic case of Owen Garnett, a student at Welcombe Hills, a specialist SEND provision school in Stratford-upon-Avon. Owen had pica and was in an educational environment that understood that, yet after choking on a paper towel unsupervised, Owen sadly died, aged 19. The coroner’s report highlighted that

“the school’s risk assessments…recorded that Owen should ‘Never be left alone when out’ and…in bold ‘NB due to Pica, a named person must watch Owen at all times’”.

The report concluded that

“Owen’s carer specifically raised concerns surrounding blue paper towels at a meeting…On 4 January 2023 Owen was discovered to have blue paper towel in his mouth and a message was sent to his carers saying this had occurred… On 9 January 2023, contrary to the…risk assessment, Owen was outside of the classroom and was unsupervised. When Owen was located, it was discovered that he had crammed a significant amount of blue paper towel into his mouth and throat and was choking.”

He was transported to Warwick hospital. He suffered a hypoxic brain injury. A decision was taken to remove life support and, sadly, he died on 11 January.

The Health and Safety Executive said that the school had failed to ensure that all risks associated with pica were identified and had failed to respond to family concerns. The multi-academy trust was fined £300,000 and told to learn from its mistakes but, let us be honest, people at the trust can move on with their lives; a family has lost a son and their lives will never be the same again. It was an exceptional case and not a common occurrence but it serves to highlight what can happen if pica is not taken seriously in an educational setting. All children deserve a safe, secure and happy educational journey, whether in mainstream education, a specialist school or other educational settings, but at present that is not being delivered for children with pica.

Parents with children who have pica live their lives in a state of constant vigilance, and they need the assurance that their child is being cared for with the same vigilance at school. That is why, alongside parents in my constituency and across the country, and the National Pica Advisory Service, I believe that educators who are responsible for a child with pica must receive mandatory pica training. This will support teachers to grow their knowledge of the condition and how to support anyone who has pica.

Training must be about planning for pica. Classrooms are full of potentially life-threatening dangers to children with pica. Risk assessments should take account of all harmful and hazardous substances, including staples, batteries, glassware, sharp or poisonous items and magnets. They should be replaced with safer items where possible, such as non-toxic Play-Doh, paints and crayons.

It is crucial that all educators who are responsible for a child with pica must have knowledge about that individual and have read their plan. That is to help them to develop a good understanding of the child’s pica behaviours, how to keep them safe and how to redirect them. It should include completing a pica monitoring form regularly. Through this process, if an individual has particular pica items, those can be identified and removed from the space as part of an ongoing risk assessment.

Finally, all educators must learn to understand the signs of choking, poisoning and possible blockages in individuals with pica, so they can seek medical assistance as soon as possible if something goes wrong. Herein lies one of my main worries about the Government’s proposal to reform SEND provision. I have heard many stories of pica oversight in specialist schools—places that have very good, well-trained professionals who should be able to risk-assess and keep children safe. However, because of the lack of specific pica training and the significant pressures in any SEND environment, there are justified parental concerns that pica is treated as an afterthought. As many local authorities are pushed to deliver SEND provision in mainstream settings, there is every possibility—given larger class sizes and more general training—that the new model will not build in specialist training on pica or other specific disorders.

I will end as I started, by requesting that pica training is considered for inclusion in any SEND reform, making it a statutory requirement across educational settings and under SEND provision.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

As no Back Benchers wish to speak, I will move straight to the Lib Dem spokesperson.

16:41

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Betts, and I thank the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for bringing this important topic to the House and for raising awareness of it in this place.

As the hon. Member set out, pica is a condition most commonly associated with autism, learning disabilities and some mental health conditions, whereby a person compulsively eats non-food items such as soil, paper, hair, small objects or chemicals. This, of course, carries serious health risks, including choking, poisoning and internal injury, and in the most severe cases, it can be a cause of death. The specific causes of pica are not clear, but the bottom line is that people with pica, especially children, need support and management to help keep them safe.

Pica is disproportionately prevalent among children and young people with autism and severe learning disabilities. Research estimates that between 20% and 23% of young autistic children engage in eating non-food items. We know that the more severe a child or adult’s learning disability is, the greater the chance they will display pica behaviour. School staff working in SEND settings, including mainstream schools with SEND pupils, special schools and early years settings, are therefore considerably more likely to encounter pica than the population at large. The Government’s SEND reforms, with their focus on inclusion, will undoubtedly be a cause of concern for parents of children with pica, who need to be reassured that their child will receive the support they need if they are going to be taught in mainstream education.

When it comes to SEND, we can probably all agree that the status quo is not working. The SEND system is failing children every single day. After years of neglect under the Conservatives, it is failing to deliver the outcomes that children deserve and is driving local authorities to the brink, so we welcome the Government’s commitment to improve outcomes. Their reforms are an important step in the right direction, but many questions remain about funding, staffing and early intervention—all questions that parents of children with pica need to know the answers to.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to press the Government to ensure that vulnerable children, including those with pica, get the support they need. One Liberal Democrat who has done just that is my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Unfortunately, she is unable to attend the debate, but her work to support one of her constituents whose child has pica illustrates how the system is currently failing such children. Her constituent lives in constant fear that as soon as she leaves the room, her child will eat something dangerous, such as carpet underlay, which could have fatal consequences.

The National Pica Advisory Service—which I believe is represented in the Public Gallery—has been a vital resource for my hon. Friend’s constituent, for which I offer thanks, but it should not have to be. I repeat: children in the UK have died and will continue to die as a direct result of pica, yet no one is taking my hon. Friend’s constituent or pica as a whole seriously. Many medical professionals do not understand the condition, there is a fundamental lack of awareness and it is regularly dismissed as autism, even though it is a separate diagnosis. Importantly, there is a lack of formal support pathways and an absence of national guidelines, which is unacceptable. Children and young people living with pica and their families deserve so much better.

Effective management of pica could include staff recognising the behaviour, understanding its triggers and applying consistent, safe strategies, such as de-picaing the environment, teaching children to discriminate between edible and non-edible items, and offering safe sensory or textual substitutes. If we are to have an inclusive SEND system that works for all children, including those with pica, schools and teachers must be equipped with the training they need to support these children.

That is one reason why the Liberal Democrats would improve teacher training and continuing professional development, with a focus on identifying and supporting children with SEND, including those with autism, dyslexia or other neurodiverse conditions, such as pica. Being aware of this condition is the first step to keeping children safe. We have also consistently campaigned for putting early identification at the heart of any SEND interventions and reducing diagnostic delays by streamlining NHS processes and increasing funding for assessments.

Awareness of behaviours such as pica is an important part of keeping pupils safe. Teachers and support staff need to be able to recognise pica when they see it. As a result, advice on recognising pica should be included in the new SEND training offer for teachers and support staff at a general level.

However, although there needs to be a greater emphasis on teachers and support staff being able to identify conditions such as pica and other general barriers to learning as part of the SEND reforms, it should not be their responsibility to diagnose or offer detailed support. Knowing how to safely manage and support a child who is showing pica behaviour is a specialist skill, and more detailed advice and support must be available to teachers who have a child with pica in their class.

That is why it is so important that the health element of an education, health and care plan actually means something. Currently, there is no legal footing for ensuring children, including those who have conditions such as pica or avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, can access the healthcare they need as part of their education, health and care plan. We Liberal Democrats were disappointed that earlier this week the Health and Social Care Committee’s amendment was not added to the Health Bill. It would have given statutory footing to the “H” in EHCP, and helped children with pica and ARFID get the health support they so desperately need.

It is also why we need to ensure that teachers have the help they need in the classroom, with more specialist staff in schools to meet neurodiverse children’s needs. We welcome the Experts at Hand service, but we cannot create these people out of thin air. Given the lack of such specialists, the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to publish a credible workforce plan to recruit and train the staff needed and to encourage trained specialists back into the profession. Pushing the emphasis on to individual teachers to spot and manage learning needs without new specialist capacity is a cost-saving measure, rather than a genuine improvement in support for our children.

Teachers cannot be expected to have every form of SEND training required to meet the specific needs of every child, while also having all the skills necessary to teach the class. We cannot shove the burden of SEND on overworked, burnt-out teachers and expect good results for all children with special educational needs, as well as all the other children in the class.

It is important to note that inclusion-focused SEND reforms will be deliverable only if we reduce wider pressures, such as workload, on educators. I recently ran a survey of teachers and got just under 1,000 responses. Nearly half of those teachers said they were planning to quit the classroom in the next five years, citing high workload as a key reason. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for proper enforcement of teachers’ legally mandated working hours, the introduction of reasonable limits on overtime and for all schools to be required to introduce flexible working policies.

Returning to the topic of the debate, the Liberal Democrats are clear that children with pica must be kept safe if they are to be taught in mainstream school, and their parents deserve that guarantee, which I hope the Minister can provide. Every child with autism, dyslexia or another neurodiverse condition, such as pica, deserves the chance to thrive in school and move confidently on with their life and into work. With earlier assessment, better training for teachers, inclusive education and more specialist support, we can unlock the talents of neurodivergent young people and help them to thrive in life.

16:50

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for her eloquent and important speech, for securing the debate and for her work campaigning for a better SEN system for her constituents. I commend her for bringing as many local voices into the debate as possible, because if we are to deliver the system that children, young people and parents deserve, we must ensure that we listen to a wide range of voices.

I was pleased to be reappointed as shadow Minister, not least because I can continue to stand up for SEND families, but I was also pleased that the Minister was reappointed to her position—I genuinely mean that. I will work with her on any reforms around pica, given the nature of the condition, and around SEND reforms more broadly.

As has been said, pica is a condition where people, usually children, routinely ingest non-edible items. It is often associated with autism spectrum disorder, and reportedly affects between 9% and 25% of children with developmental difficulties, including autism. Although children with pica may eat non-food items that are relatively harmless, others ingest much more potentially harmful substances, including soil, sand, hair, toothpaste and faeces. Non-food items can, on occasion, pass through the child harmlessly, but there are significant health risks—risks that no parent is ever willing to take. The items can cause blockages in the gut, infections, choking and dental problems, to name but a few of the risks.

Parents of children with pica can understandably find their behaviour distressing, and often have to go to great lengths to prevent harm to their children—locking cupboards, removing potentially harmful items, and auditing their home and garden to ensure that the child can play safely. That will inevitably lead to a sense of isolation for not only the parents but their child. Parents may not know what kind of support is available or be unsure about how to support their child, and it is often said that children with pica feel marginalised and excluded at school and in social settings.

There are indications that, with the right support and treatment, many children overcome pica behaviours, but not all do. That is why training is incredibly important. Getting to the root of the underlying cause is important, and in some cases can be transformative. For some children, pica behaviours may arise from certain nutritional deficiencies, so identifying those factors can be important. For many, it is not always clear what has happened. That is why parents and teachers need more awareness and clear, signposted support.

Parents and carers can benefit from a range of online resources, including the National Pica Advisory Service, which was established in 2023. I pay tribute to the work of the organisations, including those in attendance, that provide essential resources and a support network to parents and families, helping them to navigate their child’s condition. I understand that the National Pica Advisory Service is aiming to expand its services so that there is a support hub in every NHS trust. What discussions has the Minister had, or will she be having, to help to improve awareness and support for families affected by pica?

It is important to get the right support not only at home but at school. Successfully implemented support plans can help to safeguard children and support them to move away from pica behaviours. That is why teacher training is incredibly important. What conversations has the Minister had with officials about the practical steps that the Government can take, as they do their SEND reforms, to enhance teacher training in this space?

Teachers who are trained in pica are not only better equipped to put in place safety interventions in the classroom, but better placed to identify pica behaviours in the first instance. Teachers and school staff are uniquely positioned to notice unusual eating behaviours during school meal times, missing non-food items in the classroom, or physical symptoms such as choking and stomach pains.

Given the significant safety risks involved in this condition, including choking and poisoning, it is right that we look at the current training offer for educational staff. There are a number of training certificates that teachers and early years practitioners can obtain, but their discretionary nature means that there are bound to be discrepancies and regional variations, which is particularly important at a time when our schools are being put under significant financial pressure. What is the Minister’s assessment of the adequacy of pica training for teachers, teaching assistants, special educational needs co-ordinators and school safeguarding leads?

Pica can lead to incredibly heartbreaking situations, such as the case of 19-year-old Owen Garnett in a school in Stratford-upon-Avon, which the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham mentioned. Owen’s tragic death came days after a near-identical miss that should have provided a wake-up call to staff and that the Health and Safety Executive inspector said should have triggered remedial action. Although the school was fined, at the heart of the tragedy was a lack of specialised training for staff and a failure to reassess and reinforce preventive strategies. Has the Minister taken a look at that incident? What lessons will she learn from that as the Department undertakes its reforms?

Although I understand that personalised treatment is often at the heart of successfully helping children with this condition, what consideration has been given to the potential merits of nationally recognised training? What discussions has had the Minister had with the Department of Health concerning pica, especially with the SEND reforms? I have asked about that before, as it is important that the gap between health and education is overcome.

As the Government implement their plans for SEND mainstreaming, gaps in the quality of pica awareness training are bound to become more apparent and pressing. How will the Government ensure that pica is taken into account when SEND is brought into mainstream settings? How is the Minister’s Department working to support a joined-up approach between parents, health professionals, schools and specialist organisations to ensure that pupils with pica have an updated risk management strategy that evolves with them? Will training on pica form part of the Government’s support for mainstream teachers as their schools take in more SEND pupils? How will funding for pupils diagnosed with pica follow them throughout their education journey? Will that be adaptable in those SEND reforms?

To conclude, today’s important debate has highlighted the need to raise awareness and improve support for families affected by pica. When talking to people before the debate, I had to explain what pica was and how it affects so many different aspects of society—in this case, children with special educational needs. There is a real need to reassess the training and safeguarding procedures currently developed within schools. Our focus must be on keeping children safe and ensuring that they have the best chance to thrive both within the current system and as the Government implement their mainstreaming reforms. Parents, carers, pupils and teachers will be listening, and they deserve clear answers. I hope the Minister can provide some.

16:57

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for bringing this deeply important discussion to Westminster Hall. The story she told shows her effectiveness as a local MP. I know that she has listened to parents, professionals and school leaders at a number of different events in her local community. Bringing their voices directly to us is much appreciated.

I am grateful to the parents and professionals in the Public Gallery for making the time to be here today and for their leadership in campaigning on this issue. I would be keen to sit down with the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham and campaigners to discuss it in more detail. We have heard powerfully the profound impact that pica can have and the huge stress it can bring to parents who are desperately monitoring their child’s circumstances and safety.

As I have been going around the country talking to parents and visiting schools, I have seen schools with brilliant and extraordinary provision, and young people with pica who are really thriving. I have also spoken to parents who present stories similar to those we have heard today and who feel that support is not in place, leaving them in fear. Sometimes they have had to give up work to support their children.

The tragic cases we have heard today show how important this issue is: it goes to the heart of the relationship between special educational needs and health. All Members, I think, mentioned the importance of us working in partnership and having clarity on the role of teachers in supporting and safeguarding pupils, and the role of health professionals in diagnosing and giving advice and guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the importance of that guidance and of roles and responsibilities of health and schools.

Earlier this year, we consulted on revised statutory guidance on supporting children and young people with medical conditions. That reflects our commitment to ensuring that every child or young person can participate effectively in education, notwithstanding their medical conditions. Schools, colleges and early years settings should understand the risks that a medical condition poses and manage them proactively. That includes ensuring that staff understand the relevant medical conditions and their impact and can recognise and respond to an emergency.

We had a really positive response to the consultation and are still working through the responses. We had a lot of detailed feedback, including on specific medical conditions. The draft guidance did not make reference to pica. Given the conversations we have had, the responses to the consultation and today’s discussion, I can confirm that we will rectify that when we finally publish the guidance, to provide clear information and guidance around pica for schools.

As part of the SEND reforms, we are looking at developing national inclusion standards that will provide a baseline of ordinarily available provision that we expect of all schools. We have an expert panel working on those standards and on specialist provision packages, which will determine the support needed in an area for a range of different special educational needs and disabilities. Currently, our independent panel, which sits across health and education, is leading that work. I commit today to ask the panel to take a specific look at the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham raised in relation to pica, specifically those that relate to research and identifying gaps in support.

More broadly, a number of questions were asked about the SEND reforms, including about how we will support early intervention and ensure that the right training is in place and that we have the right professionals in schools. As part of the SEND reforms, we are investing £4 billion in early intervention. That includes £1.6 billion going directly into mainstream schools, and all schools are being asked to develop inclusion strategies. We are putting £1.8 billion into an experts at hand service, which includes occupational therapists, educational psychologists and specialist teachers. I had a brief conversation, just outside this Chamber, with an occupational therapist who specialises in pica. We talked about their critical role, and it is important to reflect on that as part of the experts at hand service.

We are also developing a new package of teacher training, into which we are putting £200 million. The purpose of that training is to support all schools to be inclusive, including by identifying needs and adapting classroom practice to support children. It will not be detailed training on specific conditions, but it will include how to provide wider support and adaptions for pupils. We should also give teachers the tools and strategies to find the relevant information about specific issues as they occur in the classroom. We are currently working with parents, disabled children’s organisations and teaching organisations to develop that training, and I welcome Members’ thoughts about the process.

Many Members mentioned the importance of engaging with parents. One of the components of the training will be ensuring that teachers are listening to the voices of parents and having strong relationships with them, so that schools can pick up on what is happening at home and put that into their plans.

[Lee Pitcher]

I thank the Minister for all the work behind the scenes prior to the debate to allow some commitments to be given today; it is absolutely phenomenal. We can see the impact that is having on people in the Public Gallery and how much it is welcomed.

On sustainability and thinking about the future, I am a very “head and heart” person, and I talk a lot from the heart, but in terms of the head, if we are to continue to provide funding, support and resources for things like pica, we first need awareness, so that we can start to understand the numbers, and for that we need a record. I realise that the Minister cannot answer this right now, but can some thought be given to recording the number of people with pica so that we can use that in future business cases and when funding is considered?

[Georgia Gould]

I will absolutely take away the issue of reporting.

Members spoke about the need to invest in inclusive spaces. We are continuing to invest £3.7 billion in the creation of new specialist places. That money can go into new special schools, inclusion bases or adaptions in mainstream schools. I have visited really high-quality inclusion bases, and I know that part of that investment has been about creating safe spaces for children with pica. We have also issued new guidance about how to create estates that are inclusive by design, which includes guidance to schools about how to work with children and understand their experience of the school. That will make sure that schools are genuinely inclusive for those young people. That is another area that is relevant to the conversation.

The hon. Member for South Devon made a really important point about accountability across our systems and about working in partnership. We are working closely with Health Ministers on this issue, as we recognise how critical that is. The hon. Lady also spoke about experts at hand and the workforce. We are investing £40 million in training up new ed psychs and speech and language therapists, and a lot of work is going on with Health colleagues about workforce planning to ensure we have a sufficient workforce to support experts at hand and specialist settings. It is critical that we have that specialist resource to deliver early intervention.

I was asked about how the funding will work in the new system. It is envisioned that for children with individual support plans, schools will get dedicated funding that is ringfenced for pupils with SEND, so that the necessary staff can be employed and the right support can be put in place. At the moment, the funding often comes quite late in the day after a huge battle for support, and it leaves with the child. The idea is to give schools sustained budgets so that they can build the necessary provision. For pupils accessing a specialist provision package, the funding will come with the package and the child into the school. Depending on where the child sits in the system, the funding will flow differently.

I welcome the tone of the debate—there has been cross-party recognition of the scale of the issue—and the way that Members throughout the House are working together to address these really difficult questions. I have heard so many stories of families who have been badly let down. We all acknowledge that things need to change and that we need to get it right. I am committed to continuing to work in partnership with all Members, and really appreciate their bringing stories like the ones we have heard today to me, so that we can continue these really important conversations. Critically, we must talk to young people and families. I really hope this is just the start of the conversation, and that we will have a longer conversation soon so that we can look at the issues raised today.

17:09

[Margaret Mullane]

I thank the Minister and agree with her that this has been a very good cross-party discussion, with thoughtful input from everybody. I know that her door is always open and that she is always there if there is anything we need. What she has committed to today is good news for my constituents.

This debate, under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, has been Parliament at its best. An issue that is very important to many constituents across the country has been debated and highlighted. The work goes on.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Pica training within SEND provision.

17:10

Sitting adjourned.