(1 week, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I always try to be helpful by talking about what we do in Northern Ireland. Issues around funeral service premises are sensitive and people must be treated with care when they are dealing with the death of loved ones. In Northern Ireland, funeral premises operate within general health and safety frameworks rather than a dedicated inspection programme. There is also no published fixed frequency for routine environmental health inspections. Does he agree that more must be done to create clearer regulation? I believe that the code of conduct in Scotland would be helpful to ensure industry standards and oversee premises and services more consistently.
Mark Sewards
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the example of Scotland, which I encourage the Minister to consider. I think the Government should consider everything the hon. Gentleman set out, which I will come on to.
This debate is about a fundamental issue that many of us find difficult to talk about—death. The treatment and dignity of our dead is not typically a subject for dinnertime conversation; those who have experienced bereavement, which is most of us, know how complicated and emotionally overwhelming it can be. At such a vulnerable time, one of the few sources of comfort should be the reassurance that a trusted funeral director is caring for a loved one with dignity, professionalism and respect. The vast majority of funeral directors live up to and often exceed such expectations. People’s trust has been betrayed by a very small number of rogue operators. Each stunning revelation about a rogue operator —in some cases, they have even desecrated remains—has a compounding effect on the public’s consciousness. People used to believe that the funeral sector was regulated, but they now know that it is not regulated, and they worry about the consequences of that for their families.
There are a variety of options open to the Government to solve this problem. Empowering local authorities to carry out environmental health inspections, which I will get to, is one of them; introducing a national standard is another; and empowering trade bodies should also be considered. Ultimately, however, we have to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime. I want to be clear that inaction is not an option that we should consider. I firmly believe that statutory regulation should be introduced for this sector. However, that will take time and primary legislation to achieve, so we need to consider our options for such regulation and what can happen in the interim.
Environmental health inspections could act as a stopgap before full regulation, or become the statutory regime itself, or both. However, there are differing opinions. I have spoken to representatives of the funeral service industry, including from the two largest trade bodies: the National Association of Funeral Directors, or the NAFD; and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, or SAIF. I have also had discussions with Co-op Funeralcare, having visited its premises in Leeds. I am also very pleased to serve as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, coroners and bereavement, which brings together many organisations from across the sector, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said in his intervention.
Every person and every operator who I have spoken to about this situation is appalled by the cases they have seen. They know how vital public confidence is to the funeral profession. They want the reassurance that a statutory regime will come into place, although views on what it should look like definitely differ.
Environmental health inspections could help to build back trust, but only if there is a unified national standard that funeral premises must adhere to. But that is precisely what we do not have right now: there is no statutory inspection regime in relation to the services provided by funeral directors. My constituent Cody put it best when she said that it is harder to set up a burger van than it is to set up a funeral home. Shockingly, she is right about that.
There are no routine checks or minimum standards of funeral homes outside those established by the trade bodies. The Government are still considering the Fuller inquiry’s recommendations on funeral sector regulation and inspections. I am very grateful for the engagement that I have had on this issue, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, including with the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She met me and some of my constituents towards the end of last year, and she was phenomenal in that meeting.
However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister who is here today: what assessment has her Department made of the Fuller inquiry’s recommendation to establish a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors in England? I appreciate that that is really a question for the Department of Health and Social Care, but given that it also affects her Department, I hope she has a view on it.
That question matters because of the steps that the Government have taken in the past. In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to all councils in England to strongly encourage them to inspect funeral premises. The letter said that this was to reassure the public that the sector as a whole is safe. That was a welcome step at the time, both for the public and the sector, but those visits were never intended as technical deep-dive inspections. Instead, they were conducted to check whether everything was generally in order.
The NAFD supported those visits, and it encouraged its members to co-operate and demonstrate the high standards required of them. It advised the environmental health officers on good practice and hosted webinars to help members to prepare for their visits. However, most of those EHOs had limited experience of visiting funeral premises. It is also unclear the extent to which local authorities communicated their findings back to the Ministry of Justice and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Has the Minister’s Department collated the information that was collected through those 2024 inspections? If it has, will it use that information to inform any position that it might take in relation to funeral sector regulation?
In my view, it is concerning that those inspections failed to identify the problems that came to light when my constituents needed help. Leeds city council participated in those inspections, but to my knowledge it did not inspect Florrie’s Army or identify it as a provider of concern at the time.
That also highlights a wider issue. There is scope for environmental health inspections to be carried out by local authorities and EHOs, but that approach would probably be best employed as a short-term or interim option. It must not act as a shield against wider regulation of the funeral industry. Environmental health officers may not have the relevant sector-specific experience, but they have the skills in overlapping elements, such as infection prevention, premises hygiene and safety. The benefit of utilising EHOs is that a move to expand their remit would not necessarily require primary legislation in the short term. It would be the quickest route to ensuring some sort of Government-backed regular inspections regime, but the issue of national standards would still be outstanding.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who I spoke to beforehand about the issue. He is absolutely on the button with what he has requested.
I am the MP for a rural constituency, and I live on a farm in the midst of the unmatchable and beautiful countryside of Strangford, so the presence of horses on the country roads is not surprising. I see them all the time; my neighbours all have horses, and I know personally to slow down and give the horse a wide berth of 2 metres. There are riding schools and stables in the vicinity as well, so it is not simply the horse signage that tells people to be mindful in their road usage. For people who are not local, however, their knowledge is limited, and that is why it is essential that road users in the country are aware of the potential to come across a number of horses on the country roads.
I support the presentation Bill of the hon. Member for Newbury, and I hope that it can progress further. Some in the city may not be aware of the prevalence of horses on the roads, so their first trip to the country might bring about a whole new world. They might not understand that the need to slow down to pass a horse and give it a wide berth is not only useful—it is vital. Operation Gallop by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, NI Direct and the British Horse Society all promote shared responsibility, because horses are easily spooked. Instead of driving fast by a horse and rider, motorists must slow to 10 mph and pass 2 metres wide of the horse, avoiding noise and sudden movements. Riders should wear hi-vis clothes, use signals and follow road rules, keeping left and to single file if the road is busy. That can be the difference between life and death.
Mark Sewards
Very briefly, a young woman from my constituency described the scenario that the hon. Gentleman talks about. She is insured and wears hi-vis clothes, but now faces regular intimidation and abuse, so she has to go out with a camera. Despite that, she still faces those problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s flagship road safety campaign is exactly the right way to go, but that we need to do more in this area to keep riders safe?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
I will be very brief. As of late 2025, the British Horse Society said that a significant majority of equestrians—78%—have experienced an incident while using the roads, which is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to. Nationally, 81% of incidents occur because a driver passed a horse too closely or quickly.
Knowledge and an understanding of the consequences can and will address these concerns. I support the drive of the hon. Member for Newbury to put safety first on our countryside roads for our horses and riders throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
(9 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for mass transit in West Yorkshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Last week, I was delighted to have secured this debate, and the confirmation of its date came through just an hour before the news that the Government will indeed be investing £2.1 billion in West Yorkshire’s public transport, including more than £1 billion for a new tram in Leeds and Bradford, so I am now even happier to have secured it and to be leading it.
I will start with the background to that decision and explain why it is such a huge moment for my home city, Leeds, and for our home region of West Yorkshire. Leeds is currently the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system—that is such a well-known fact that if I had been given £1 every time I heard it, I could have personally financed the mass transit system 10 years ago, with spare change for a space programme—but transport aficionados and Members from my part of the world will know that that was not always the case. Leeds had a horse-drawn tram as early as 1871, and at its peak the network—which did not have horses by that time—had 476 trams and 124 miles of track. But while the horses did not leave us completely, the trams did. What had once been one of the largest urban transport systems in the UK was finally closed down, and in 1959 we saw the end of our tram system.
Leeds was often referred to as the “motorway city of the seventies”—I think that even appeared on a stamp—because we became entirely reliant on the car, which has held us back in some respects. There is only so much traffic that can be added to our roads before they have to be expanded, with new lanes added and traffic systems rethought—and often only for temporary benefit, before the next solution has to be considered. To their credit, policymakers and politicians figured that out—it is not something that we have just come to ourselves.
Trams can carry approximately four times as many passengers as a typical bus, and they massively increase the transport capacity of any region. They are versatile and can run alongside road networks where needed, because they can be segregated from traffic to avoid congestion and improve journey times for passengers. Trams are also very consistent. That is why politicians have tried multiple times, without success, to bring mass transit back to Leeds.
We have had everything: plans for trams; a trolleybus scheme; an elevated railway that was not dissimilar to the monorail in an episode of “The Simpsons”; and even, if we care to go back far enough, an underground proposal. That has left some people in my city highly sceptical of the announcement last week, because we have been burned too many times.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this welcome debate. I spoke to him earlier, and I know that this has been a passion of his since before he became an MP. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I am sure she will not let him down when she replies—no pressure, Minister! Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these transportation routes and hubs, which residents in London take for granted, take decades to build, but without sustained investment they are simply dreams? Does he also agree that Government and the Minister need to commit substantially to projects and give a small slice of the Budget to achieving them without onerous conditions?
Mark Sewards
I thank the hon. Member for his incredibly timely contribution—I could not agree more.
One reason that some residents of Leeds were sceptical last week was the repeated failures of previous Governments of different colours to deliver the transport improvements that we know we deserve. I am here to say that this time it is different. The money for the tram system has been committed and announced by the Government, in conjunction with the combined authority. The obstacles have been removed, and I will spend the rest of my time as the Member of Parliament for Leeds South West and Morley ensuring that the system is actually built.
The system will provide the boost that Leeds needs to compete with other major cities in the UK that already have their mass transit systems in place—but we have some things that they do not. As well as a newly promoted Premier League team, we can already boast the largest financial and professional service sectors outside London and the highest rate of growing businesses outside the capital, depending on how that rate is measured. The mass transit system will help us to supercharge these sectors, and more, once it is finally completed.
The funding provided by the Government allows for construction of phase 1 of this scheme—I will give just a bit of information on phase 1 for those who are not familiar with it. It provides two main tram lines. We have the Bradford line, which connects Leeds city centre to Bradford city centre, with an option to connect through Wortley too. I am very much advocating for that option, since Wortley is in my constituency—and not just because there would be a stop right next to my house.
The second line is the Leeds line, which has the potential to connect our hospitals, Leeds railway station, Elland Road stadium and the White Rose shopping centre to each other. I am also very excited about the White Rose stop, which is the confirmed stop for that line; although the rest of the stops are out for consultation, all lines finish at the White Rose. The shopping centre is in my constituency, and I spent much of my early life there, working there throughout my A-levels and university, so I know what it will mean for jobs in my constituency and what it will mean for the communities I represent if we are able to link them up under this unified transport system with the tram in the White Rose centre. It is a really important move for our region and for my constituency.
While I do not want to get too far ahead of myself, I am very hopeful for phase 2 of the plans. Phase 2 should connect more locations in our region directly to the network, allowing many more constituencies to feel the full benefits of a mass transit system on their doorstep. It is clearly important that not only Leeds and Bradford, but the whole of west Yorkshire should benefit from these plans.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, I am determined to find solutions for growth in our region, and so is every member of the APPG. Mass transit is key to achieving that, and it has certainly been popular among residents and businesses in west Yorkshire. The combined authority spent a bit of time last year speaking with individuals and businesses across our region—5,000 in total. Two thirds of those they surveyed backed the Bradford line and three quarters backed the Leeds line—so mass transit is extremely welcome. The two lines will improve transport for nearly 675,000 people.
All this would not have been possible without the tireless work and commitment of Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire. Tracy has been the strongest advocate for mass transit in our region ever since she took office. It formed a key part of her manifesto last year and now she is delivering on that promise. Her fierce desire to grow our local economy and to build infrastructure that benefits everyone in west Yorkshire is an inspiration. Her efforts mean that we can take advantage of devolution in full. The transport scheme is part of the local growth plan and will see the creation of about 33,000 new jobs, new homes and about £26 billion of extra growth in our region over the next decade.
I must also make a commitment to the Weaver network, because our brand-new franchised and integrated transport system is key to that network. It would be remiss of me not to state how pleased I am that all our buses are being brought back into public control under one banner from 2027 onwards. Although the tram will bring the huge benefits that I have already spoken about, our buses are just as important. In my constituency, the Ardsley and Robin Hood ward is very poorly served by the current bus arrangements. I will work with Tracy Brabin to change that, because, sadly, it is not just true for Ardsley and Robin Hood, but for many routes and networks across my constituency. The Weaver network will connect that franchise bus network with our trams and our train services, as well as linking up with active travel routes. It is the unified transport system that our region deserves.
Before I conclude, I thank all my colleagues who have contributed to the campaign to secure a tram network for west Yorkshire. I also thank my constituency neighbour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). Her support for this project has been consistent and it has been incredibly welcome.
We know that this investment is a vote of confidence in west Yorkshire. It is a vote of confidence from the Government; they know how much we have to offer and how much potential our region has. It is just the start of our plans to unlock our region’s potential.
I have some questions for the Minister to consider. Can the Government confirm that the funding provided to the combined authority will be flexible and will allow phase 1 to be built in full? How will they work with the combined authority to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver this infrastructure? What is their latest assessment of the economic benefits that the project will bring to West Yorkshire? How do they envisage working alongside the combined authority to take advantage of the opportunities created by our mass transit system once it is completed? Are they as optimistic as I am that the case for any second phase of the project will be even stronger once the impacts from the first phase are felt? I will be very grateful if the Minister takes those questions into account when she delivers her closing remarks.
I put on the record my thanks and appreciation to all those who share our region’s ambition, and everyone who has supported this project. It gives me great pleasure to say that we will have spades in the ground for the tram in 2028, and that finally—finally—it is time for trams in West Yorkshire.