Westminster Hall

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 7 May 2025

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for employment in the automotive manufacturing sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The automotive industry is an important part of the UK economy, contributing £93 billion in turnover and £22 billion in value added. It invests around £4 billion each year in research and development and employs around 0.8 million people across the wider industry. Many of these are high-skilled, high-paid jobs, of which a considerable proportion are outside London and the south-east, but I am pleased to say that some of these high-value jobs are in the south-east, in places like my constituency of Reigate.

In Burgh Heath, just down the road from Epsom, we find the UK headquarters of Toyota. It is not only one of the biggest employers in the local area; it is also an eco-HQ. In a project that started in 2014, Toyota partnered with Kew royal botanic gardens and the Surrey Wildlife Trust to create a landscaped oasis full of native species from the surrounding countryside, complete with an orchard and meadow. It is wonderful to see a business taking the time and energy to ensure its HQ fits into our special corner of Surrey.

And it does not stop there. Outside the site, Toyota has supported many local initiatives, from providing rooms for community meetings to providing buses for local groups and charities. In 2024, more than £40,000 in grants were given to support the work of local groups, including, to name just a few: the Brigitte Trust; Home-Start Epsom, Ewell and Banstead; St Catherine’s hospice; and Warren Mead school parents and friends association. Before I talk more broadly about the automotive industry, I want to take the opportunity to thank Toyota GB for its significant contribution to the Banstead, Burgh Heath and Epsom area.

The automotive industry is important to this country and our economy, and it is vital that it is not smothered by over-regulation, over-taxation and green initiatives. Only by creating an environment that is conducive to growth will we see the creation of more high-quality jobs. UK car and commercial vehicle production saw a significant decline of 11.6% in February 2025. Worryingly, that marks the 12th consecutive month of declining car production. This must be an important wake-up call. More must be done to protect the automotive industry we already have, to help it grow and to encourage inward investment in new plants and new technologies. It can only continue to create new jobs and innovative technologies with growth-supporting policies.

The automotive industry accounts for over 12% of total UK goods exports, generating £115 billion of trade in total automotive imports and exports. Eight out of 10 cars produced in the UK are exported overseas to 140 different countries, but automotive manufacturers now face additional US tariff costs of around £1.9 billion, which will have a significant and detrimental impact on the industry. The USA is the UK’s second largest car export market after the EU, with exports of over 101,000 units in 2024. These tariffs have material implications for competitiveness, investment and export potential, and it is vital that the Government’s policymaking reflects this new protectionist and uncertain environment. With this massive setback to the industry, it is now even more important that we get things right domestically, to create an environment that stimulates growth for this important industry. I want to raise some of the biggest challenges here in the UK, and I ask the Minister to confirm her plans to address them.

In simple terms, for an industry to thrive, it needs to be able to manufacture products at competitive cost, employ people with the skills it needs, have free access to a market for its products without barriers or restrictions, and not be taxed to high heaven, so that it can reinvest in innovation and growth. A good product will always do well. If it is something someone needs, if it provides value for money and if it makes their life easier, they will buy it—it really is that straightforward—so let us talk about the zero emission vehicle mandate challenge first.

The ZEV mandate sets out the proportion of new zero emission cars and vans that manufacturers are required to produce each year up to 2030: 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans sold in Great Britain must be electric vehicles by 2030, increasing to 100% by 2035. Part of the reason for introducing this policy was to provide investment certainty for the charging sector to expand the network, given that lack of charging points is one of the things that puts consumers off buying an electric car. There can be no doubt that it is a well-intentioned policy, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Notably, the moving of goalposts by Governments of various colours in recent years has been deeply unhelpful. The previous Government made the decision to delay the ban on new diesel and petrol cars by five years, from 2030 to 2035, whereas the new Government have reversed that. Putting aside the question of which position is the correct one, such chopping and changing is not fair on the automotive industry, which needs certainty and consistency so that it can deliver what is expected of it while still growing its businesses.

I do, however, recognise the Government’s recent announcement about increasing the flexibility of the ZEV mandate, which is welcomed by the industry and shows that the Government are listening. In particular, I welcome the reduction in fines for missing targets and the allowance for all forms of hybrid cars until 2035. However, I would suggest that the whole approach in this area needs to be reconsidered as a priority. Tinkering is not enough.

The ZEV mandate targets are incredibly challenging for businesses to meet. It makes no sense to expect businesses to dictate what products their customers should buy, when we all know that consumer preference and need should drive the products that a business sells, and rightly so. In 2025, ZEV sales will need to increase by 43% for cars and 171% for vans for automotive businesses to achieve the mandate targets. That is not achievable, and a fine of £12,000 per vehicle is levied on those businesses for every missed EV sale.

The automotive industry cannot win on this one. Consumers are not ready to buy EVs yet, because of the lack of charging infrastructure, the battery range issues and the cost, but the automotive businesses will be held responsible and expected to pay the price. If we continue in that way, we will see contraction of the industry, plant closures and job losses, all in the name of net zero. That has already started, with Vauxhall owner Stellantis announcing plans to close a van factory in Luton that employs around 1,100 people.

The industry has already invested billions in bringing more than 130 ZEV models to market. Despite spending some £4.5 billion in market support for EVs in 2024, it still missed last year’s target by some way. Such a level of support from industry is unsustainable and is diverting resources away from investment in new technology, models, plants, and research and development. I urge the Government to take responsibility for their role in delivering charging infrastructure and lowering energy costs, rather than beating businesses over the head for their own failings.

I also urge the Minister to review the mandate targets as soon as possible and to consider other, more effective ways of driving growth in EV take-up. It would make much more sense to incentivise consumers, rather than penalising businesses. The ZEV mandate targets cannot magically drive demand out of thin air. What we need is more carrot and less stick.

Has the Minister considered such alternative options as reducing the VAT on EV sales and public charging, or offering plug-in grants for cars? Those could be straightforward and effective ways of boosting consumer demand. If the Government are wedded to the current draconian ZEV mandate approach, the fair thing would be for them to commit to delivering public charging infrastructure on equivalent targets.

For example, in 2025 the target is for 28% of new car sales to be electric, so the Government must ensure there are sufficient public charging points across the UK to serve those new EVs by the end of 2025. If the Government fail to do that, the shortfall should be offset against the fines levied on the automotive industry, reducing what it has to pay. Surely that is fairer. The Government need to play their role and must also be held to account when they do not deliver.

Before moving on, I want to touch on domestic energy prices, which apply to all manufacturing industries, not just automotive.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I did some research on the industry back home in Northern Ireland, and I am sorry that I cannot make a speech because I have sponsored an event at 10 am, and it cannot happen if I am not there.

We have a vibrant automotive sector in Northern Ireland that provides some 11% of employment and 13% of gross value added. That is down not just to Wrightbus, which has great sales across the United Kingdom and further afield, but to the rest of the automotive industry in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to step up in supporting businesses and helping research and development? We have the skills, but we need the support, and today’s debate is a significant step forward for the industry across this great United Kingdom. Research and development is on the mainland, yes, but it is also in Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that already and, I suspect, is already on it.

[Rebecca Paul]

I agree with the hon. Member on the importance of supporting businesses. We must make sure that we remove obstacles and barriers that hinder growth. I hope that conversation starts today and that we can get to a better place where we support our amazing automotive industry, which delivers so much for this country, including Northern Ireland.

Energy costs must come down. The industry cannot manufacture at a competitive cost with energy costs being so high compared with what other countries pay. We must not shoot ourselves in the foot with a net zero obsession. We must make sensible decisions on the energy mix to ensure energy security and value for money so that our manufacturing industry can compete on the global stage. That means investing in nuclear and not making the mistake of thinking that solar and wind are a silver bullet.

I urge the Minister to share her views on how she intends to reduce energy costs for manufacturing industries in the short to long term so that they are better able to compete. I recognise that some of this goes across many briefs, so I appreciate that this is not something over which she has full control.

Another important challenge is ensuring that we have a skilled workforce. Research by the Institute of the Motor Industry suggests that around 107,000 additional technicians will be needed by 2030. That is an amazing opportunity for this country. The more the industry grows, the more jobs and opportunity there will be, but we must ensure that we have people here with the skills to take up the jobs to ensure the industry’s success.

That is why it is so important to support apprenticeships, which are a great way for young people to gain the skills they need while working. A survey from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in February 2025 found that the UK automotive sector will increase apprenticeship numbers by 16% in 2025, with opportunities spanning manufacturing, supply chain logistics and vehicle maintenance. The most in-demand roles are design and development engineers, EV technicians and specialists in batteries and power electronics. That equates to over 700 new apprenticeships available among UK automakers.

I want to take this opportunity to mention East Surrey college in my constituency, which offers full-time and part-time qualifications in vehicle technology, maintenance and electric/hybrid vehicles. I recently visited and was impressed by the expert teachers, the well-equipped workshops with industry standard equipment, and the very talented and engaged students. We must ensure that we provide the right courses so that people with the right skills will be available to fill job opportunities in the industry. East Surrey college is certainly playing its part.

I ask the Minister to clarify what the impact of abolishing level 7 apprenticeships will be on the automotive industry and how she plans to mitigate any detriment. Additionally, I urge her to consider how the new Government’s Employment Rights Bill will impact on the automotive industry. In February 2025, a Motor Ombudsman survey found that 58% of businesses reported difficulty in recruiting qualified technicians to meet growing workload, and that those difficulties would be made worse by the Employment Rights Bill, which is causing businesses to re-evaluate their hiring strategies.

It is vital that the UK remains competitive and that the industry is not further burdened when it already faces so many challenges. It is clear that the rise in employer national insurance contributions is putting additional pressure on the automotive industry, with a cost of £200 million. The increased cost of doing business in the UK will reduce inward investment, economic growth and ultimately jobs. The Institute of the Motor Industry stated:

“These changes are likely to have a significant impact on costs for small businesses that operate in the automotive sector, which is already facing a skills gap of 20,000+ vacancies.”

It went on to say that the additional costs will

“dampen investment in training and continuous professional development”.

If the Government are really committed to boosting job opportunities and growth in the automotive sector, they need to reflect on some of their recent policies. Just saying that growth is a priority does not make it so. They need policies that do not put obstacles in the way.

Lastly, I want to raise the challenge of taxation. In the interests of time I will not speak in detail, but the automotive industry has raised concerns about recent announcements on proposals to ban employee car ownership schemes and changes to capital allowances and benefit-in-kind treatment for double-cab pick-up vehicles. The SMMT is concerned that those changes will

“undermine the market, hit profitability and viability and have serious consequences for UK tax returns, automotive OEMs and their employees, and sole trader/small business operations.”

Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to remove or adjust the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement?

That is enough from me for now. I will bring my comments to a close so that anyone else who wishes to contribute has the time to do so. I thank all hon. Members for attending the debate and showing their support for the automotive industry.

09:45

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for introducing this timely debate, particularly in the light of the turmoil and uncertainty caused by US tariffs.

As on many occasions, I rise to champion a flagship site of the UK automotive sector: Jaguar Land Rover’s engine manufacturing centre at the i54, which is just outside my constituency. That world-class facility employs 1,700 people, with many of them living in my constituency. I welcome the 100 more roles recently announced as part of JLR’s drive towards electrification, which is part of an additional £18 billion investment over the next five years.

The UK automotive sector is a cornerstone of our manufacturing economy, generating £93 billion in turnover last year and supporting hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs. Yet, today, the sector faces serious uncertainty following the announcement of a 25% US tariff on automotive imports. I am therefore here to seek urgent clarifications. First, what progress has been made in negotiations with the US to remove or reduce those damaging tariffs? Secondly, in the worst-case scenario—the absence of a deal—how will the Government act to support the industry through the immediate and longer-term challenges?

The US is a crucial market for JLR, accounting for around a quarter of its global sales. A prolonged 25% tariff would hit the business and the UK auto sector disproportionately. We need a deal that prioritises reducing those barriers. I support the calm, clear and statesmanlike leadership of our Prime Minister amidst the turbulence and erratic policy shifts from across the Atlantic. However, if a deal cannot be secured, the Government must act swiftly to protect jobs, sustain investment and safeguard our industrial base.

In the west midlands, we are talking about a potential £6.2 billion hit—the biggest regional impact in the UK. The support announced at JLR’s Solihull site in April is welcome. To support the transition to net zero and the automotive sector, the Prime Minister has introduced pragmatic changes: easing EV targets, allowing cleaner petrol cars to count towards quotas and extending hybrid sales to 2035. Those realistic steps back innovation, while keeping our ambitions intact.

We must now fully deliver on our promise to protect British industry from global shocks. That includes supporting time to pay arrangements, to help manage cash flow; cutting energy costs; and creating a new advanced manufacturing partnership with the west midlands to bolster supply chains and drive growth.

Finally, I want to highlight another reason why JLR is such a vital employer in my constituency: its outstanding commitment to skills and apprenticeships. With 350 new places across BTEC and T-level routes, from engineering to electrification, it is building the workforce for the future that we so badly need. It is a powerful example of how business and education work in partnership, hand in hand, to secure long-term prosperity.

I again ask the Minister, what progress has been made in securing a deal with the US? If one cannot be reached, what specific support will the Government provide to protect this vital sector and ensure that world-class facilities such as JLR’s i54 site can continue to thrive?

09:49

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Thank you for indulging me, Sir John, and for letting me speak after I walked in so late. I also thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) and congratulate her on securing this important debate.

We have heard today how strategically important the automotive industry is for our country and about the £93 billion turnover across the industry and its supply chain. I would also like to flag how important the industry is to many of our regional economies. In my constituency, which covers Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley—the home of the industrial revolution—we have 21,000 manufacturing jobs across 1,000 firms, many of them in the supply chain for the automotive industry.

I recently visited J.H. Lavender & Co., which makes cast aluminium casings for JLR’s new electric Land Rover. It was incredible to see the process go from the silver liquid all the way through to the finished casing. Those world-class products are made in a family firm in the heart of my constituency. Truflo makes industrial air-cooling fans that go in industrial vehicles—the construction and heavy goods vehicles we are all so familiar with—and exports across the world, including to China and the US. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) so eloquently outlined, the west midlands is also the home of Jaguar Land Rover, with its 34,000 jobs—many of those people live in my constituency—and 200,000 jobs in the supply chain.

The automotive industry faces two key challenges: transition and tariffs. On the transition piece, automotive is critical if we are to reach net zero. I do not believe that this country will give up its cars—I certainly do not want to give up mine—so it matters that we move towards net zero in a way that is sustainable and that supports the freedom that owning a car brings. We can see that the investment towards that net zero future has already begun, whether it be JLR’s investment of £18 billion over the coming five years or the investment elsewhere in the industry. I was so glad the Prime Minister went to JLR in April to announce the flexibilities that have been needed for so long in the ZEV mandate to smooth the requirements, cut the fines and ensure that there is a continued role for hybrids.

We know there is more to do to increase the uptake of electric vehicles, whether that be on consumer demand or the charging infrastructure we need. More broadly, I hope that the industrial strategy, when we see it, takes action on the issues that have held back advanced manufacturing: skills, access to finance—particularly in the supply chain and for smaller manufacturers—and energy costs. I was absolutely appalled to hear Nissan tell the Business and Trade Committee two weeks ago that its plant in Sunderland is its most expensive in the world, because of the energy costs. It will be great to hear the Industry Minister’s thoughts ahead of the industrial strategy, although I know she will have more to say in the coming months.

Let me turn now to tariffs. This morning, I talked to Richard Parker, our Mayor of the West Midlands, and his team. They have produced research by Steve Rigby, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East touched on, showing a £6.2 billion hit to the west midlands economy from the US automotive tariffs if nothing changes—the biggest regional hit in the country. Some 52% of firms in our local manufacturing base are warning about profits because of the tariffs.

JLR alone accounts for 4% of UK goods exports. We need a deal, and soon. I thank the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Business Secretary and the Industry Minister for their calm approach to the negotiations. That is right, but we must get a deal; otherwise, that impact will be coming down the road in my constituency and in all our constituencies in terms of jobs and the critical research and development that will help us navigate the transition that we need to electric cars and net zero. When it comes to a deal, fast is better than perfect: that is the message from the west midlands automotive industry to my colleagues in the Government.

I would like to hear from Ministers what options they intend to explore to help the industry, and especially the employment base in the automotive industry supply chain in my constituency, if—God forbid—we get no deal. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee set out a number of options in a letter to Ministers earlier this week. It would be good to hear what consideration is being given to things such as a reduction in employer costs, help with energy costs, domestic sales subsidies for EVs, an increase in research and development tax credits, and help with cash flow, particularly for the smaller companies in the supply chain, which tell me time and again that they need that.

Then, of course, there is the £2 billion that was allocated in the Budget to the automotive industry’s transition, which we will hear more about in the industrial strategy. It would be good to know whether that can be used to help in the event that there is no deal and there is a prolonged period of tariffs. But that money is necessary for the transition—for research and development, and for moving our workforces to the new industry’s new production techniques and requirements—so it will have to be replaced in time.

My colleagues in Government know how urgent this issue is and have been working at pace to get the deal that our automotive sector needs. They have the support of all of us in this House, and I urge them to continue that work for this vital sector of the UK economy, of which we are so proud.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

We will move to the winding-up speeches now but, given how much time we have left, I emphasise that Front Benchers should not fall into the Gladstone trap of becoming intoxicated by the exuberance of their own verbosity.

09:56

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this important debate.

The UK’s automotive industry is a cornerstone of our economy, contributing £93 billion and providing many high-skilled, high-wage jobs across the country, which pay 13% above the national average. Crucially, many are located outside London and the south-east. However, the industry faces intense global competition, supply chain pressures and the ongoing demands of the transition to net zero, as well as Trump’s disastrous tariffs, which are deliberately targeted at the automotive sector. The UK Government, under the Conservatives and now Labour, have struggled and failed to grow the economy. The automotive sector will need to be at the forefront of any plan to get on to the right path again.

When I visited BMW’s Mini plant in Cowley earlier this year—

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for trade, for visiting the Cowley Mini plant in Oxfordshire. All Liberal Democrat Oxfordshire MPs attended; it was a pleasurable visit and we saw the amazing work being done there. I am worried that the Government are asleep at the wheel on this issue and that we will see job cuts at Cowley as a result of the very high energy costs in the United Kingdom. I would like the Government to do more to tackle that and, potentially, to support the industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should announce greater flexibility, benefiting not just luxury manufacturers such as JLR—that is very welcome—but those that make cars intended for the mass market?

[Clive Jones]

I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend says about energy prices, and I will talk about that a bit later.

When I visited BMW’s plant, I met hard-working staff, who are the most at risk if the Government continue to get this wrong. Whether plants are being closed or investment scaled down, people lose their livelihoods and a rich history of manufacturing at the heart of Britain is lost, possibly forever.

This sector is at a crossroads: with the right support, it can lead the way in innovation, climate action and economic resilience, but without swift and strategic action, we risk losing a competitive advantage built up over generations. That is why more must be done to end the uncertainties that the car industry faces, and that starts by building consumer confidence in electric vehicles. The previous Conservative Government failed to support a thriving electric vehicle market in the UK, implementing chaotic U-turns that badly hurt the industry, and they continually failed to deliver the charging infrastructure needed to boost demand, create jobs and cut emissions. The Government must right that wrong by cutting VAT on public charging by 5%, by investing urgently in schemes to speed up the installation of rapid charging points throughout the country and by making it as affordable as possible to own an EV by reducing electricity prices that are passed on to the consumer.

One of the clearest calls from the sector is on energy costs. UK automotive businesses face electricity prices that are, on average, twice as high as those in the EU; gas costs are nearly 60% higher. That is an unsustainable burden. If we are serious about reshoring manufacturing and making the UK a global hub for ZEVs, we must address that urgently.

Ensuring that we have a strong trading relationship with our economic allies is vital for supporting UK automotive employment. The EU remains our largest trading partner for vehicles, and electric vehicles are now the biggest share of UK automotive exports by value. With the next EU-UK summit on the horizon, the time to act is now. We must give investors and manufacturers certainty and protect the employment and regional growth that depend on it.

What contingency planning is in place to protect UK manufacturers and exporters if President Trump’s damaging tariffs remain in place? What action is being taken to reduce the UK’s industrial energy costs to ensure a level playing field with our global competitors? What is the status of the £200 million that was announced in the autumn Budget for charging infrastructure but is in limbo? What is the status of the rapid charging fund, which has delivered ultra-rapid en-route hubs across the country? Will the UK formally seek to accede to the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention to provide manufacturers with a more flexible and reliable origin framework?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I remind the remaining Back Benchers that interventions should be pertinent and pithy.

10:03

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on not only securing this debate but delivering a superb opening speech. She spoke with passion for the automotive sector, particularly Toyota in her constituency, and she spoke with realism about the challenges that we face, and the other way that is possible to ensure that consumers get to choose vehicles of the future that are greener and cleaner and do not rely on fossil fuels, but do not necessarily fit in with the Government’s chosen winner, despite the fact that they claim to be technology neutral. That is battery electric, whose sales figures, once we remove fleet sales, are utterly appalling because people simply do not want to buy one of those vehicles.

Employment in the automotive manufacturing sector— a sector that has long been the backbone of British industry, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and driving innovation—is the foundation of regional economies across our great United Kingdom. My constituency does not have any major vehicle manufacturers, but it sits in the absolute heart of motorsport valley. The motorsport sector and its supply chains do so much to create the next big thing and innovate. They find solutions, yes, for speed and the racetrack, but there is often a direct translation from the race car to the road car. So much British innovation in motorsport has found itself in the cars that I am sure all of us in this Chamber and people across the country drive today.

It is therefore with great concern that I speak about the marked lack of support for the vital automotive sector under this Labour Government. Let us be clear that this is not a new challenge: automotive manufacturing has been under pressure for many years from the combined forces of global competition, supply chain shocks and the urgent transition to cleaner technologies—note the plural, cleaner technologies; there is not just one. We now see a deeper, more systemic failure, which is rooted in the inability of this Government to deliver on their own promises and provide the strategic direction that the industry so desperately needs.

Take, for instance, Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitment to “supercharge the electric vehicle revolution” and make the UK “the best place in the world to manufacture electric cars”. Those are bold words yet one year into their term, we see precious little action, only rhetoric that seems to accept an electric future rather than a technology-neutral approach.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Greg Smith]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Does the hon. Member regret the lack of action to bring forward battery manufacturing in the UK under the Conservative Government?

[Greg Smith]

What I regret is the ZEV mandate, which is why I voted against it at the time. It puts shackles around our automotive industry, and it needs to be revisited so that our automotive sector has the freedom to get on, innovate and provide future solutions that consumers might actually want to buy.

Even with the electric obsession, the promised gigafactory developments remain stalled or mired in uncertainty, commercial investment incentives have been vague at best and crucial supply chain support has failed to materialise in any meaningful way. Labour also pledged to spend on a national training programme to reskill workers for the green transition, yet we still await details of how, when and, crucially, where that will be delivered.

The skills gap in the automotive industry is widening by the day. Thousands of jobs are at risk, not because there is no demand for people to work in that sector, but because we do not have a pipeline of trained, job-ready individuals. The industry has been crying out for a co-ordinated national effort to address this, and what it has received instead is a patchwork of pilot schemes and a lot of ministerial hot air.

Contrast that with the pragmatic and targeted steps taken by the last Government, which launched the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the Faraday battery challenge—programmes that secured investment in cutting-edge technologies and laid the groundwork for the electric vehicle sector in particular. To attract global investment, we need to back British innovation and give investors confidence in our long-term industrial strategy. In government, the Conservatives also took real action to support jobs: the automotive transformation fund, which was backed by Conservative Ministers, delivered vital support to manufacturers, and let us not forget the commitment made to freeports, which are already starting to attract inward investment and create highly skilled jobs, including in areas directly linked to automotive logistics and component manufacture.

Now, under Labour, we see dithering where there should be decision making. The industry does not need more consultations; it needs action. Businesses are ready to invest—yes, in electric, but also in synthetics and hydrogen. However, they need the certainty that they can get on and do that. They need clarity on planning reform, energy prices, trade policy and the Government’s commitment to industrial growth.

The Government must address the ever-growing training deficit. They must launch a comprehensive industry-led training strategy that spans apprenticeships, technical colleges and adult reskilling programmes. It must be tailored to the needs of automotive employers, not devised in isolation by Whitehall, where the Government pick the winners and losers at odds with what consumers want to buy. The Government must do more to attract foreign direct investment into the automotive sector. That means tax incentives that are actually internationally competitive, a planning system that works at pace and a stable regulatory environment. Labour’s flirtation with regulatory overreach is already spooking the investors.

The Government must ensure that the UK’s de-fossilisation transition is an opportunity for jobs and growth, not a burden on industry. I repeat: that means genuine technologically-neutral support, embracing other technologies beyond battery electric, such as synthetic fuels and hydrogen, as well as putting realistic deadlines around any transition.

The automotive manufacturing sector is not asking for handouts; it is asking for clarity and leadership. The last Conservative Government took steps in that direction. Labour, in contrast, have offered slogans over substance, and pledges over performance. We cannot allow this Government’s inaction to cost Britain its place at the forefront of the global automotive industry. The time to act is now.

10:11

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to have this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing the debate and on her words; she gave a very helpful summary of the importance of the automotive sector to the UK. She is absolutely right about the number of jobs it creates and the amount that it brings into the economy, as well as the importance of Toyota in her area, which is not far from mine—I know how important Toyota is. Other Members have talked about the importance of the factories in their constituencies, stabilising whole economies through their supply chains. I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for her valid points.

I start by saying that we need to deal with the world as we find it, and the world we find today is a difficult one in terms of tariffs. I will talk about those in more detail. There are many challenges facing the automotive sector. However, as nobody has mentioned it, I will champion the trade deal with India that we secured yesterday. This is good for the automotive industry in the UK, in particular JLR and our high-end manufacturing —they are going to win from this deal.

Automotive tariffs into India are historically incredibly high at 100%, and we have negotiated bringing them down to 10% under a new quota system. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said that we could see 22,000 high-end cars from the UK being sold into the Indian market. That is very substantial for those high-end vehicle manufacturers, and hopefully it is something that everyone will welcome. We worked with the automotive industry as we developed our relationship with India and came to this deal, so we are confident that it is a good deal for the industry.

Members rightly pointed to the challenging issues of the day in their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and I spoke yesterday about those issues. We will continue to do so, just as she will continue to champion JLR, the number of people it employs and the importance of that site. I will come on to our approach to the US and what we are doing, but I hope that we will continue to have those conversations about JLR. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) also talked about the importance of her area in the supply chain, quoting companies such as Lavender’s, which is so important in JLR’s production. I will say more about our approach to the US in a minute.

Of course, it is about not just the US but the rapid growth of China as a major car manufacturer, high energy costs—as Members have rightly said—and the transition to electric vehicles. That has led to lower sales and volumes of production, which in turn has put pressure on the supply chain, increasing the risk of job losses across the sector. This Government are not prepared to sit back and leave industry to face those challenges alone. I would say that I speak to the automotive industry every week, but often more regularly, and since the introduction of tariffs I have been having regular roundtables with the whole affected sector and talking in detail about what needs to be done. We are determined to do what is necessary to help our car industry to weather the storm and achieve the long-term growth that we all want to see.

Where manufacturers are telling us that there are policy hurdles, we are listening, responding and helping industry to overcome them. That is why we launched the zero emission vehicle mandate consultation back in December, and in April we announced significant changes to the mandate, which I think everyone in this place welcomes, to ease the path for the automotive sector’s transition to electric vehicles. We have increased the flexibilities within the mandate for manufacturers up to 2030, smoothing the transition towards zero emission vehicles. We are allowing hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Corolla and the Nissan e-POWER, to be sold until 2035 to ease the transition and give industry more time to prepare. British supercar brands, such as McLaren and Aston Martin, have been exempted altogether from the 2030 phase-out date.

Crucially, we are also boosting demand for electric vehicles by improving charging infrastructure—an issue that several Members mentioned. The current statistic on charging infrastructure is that there are now 76,500 public charging points, and the National Audit Office recently found that we were on track to deliver 300,000 charging points. However, I hear what Members are saying, and I heard what the hon. Member for Reigate said about the need to go further. Of course, we are working with our colleagues in the Department for Transport to do just that.

Moving on to the US trade deal, Members will have seen speculation in the Financial Times this morning that we are very close to a deal. Of course, we cannot comment on that, but we know that we are in a good starting position. We have good relationships with our colleagues in the US, and the Business Secretary has been having regular conversations with them; the Prime Minister has also been talking to the President.

We know that tariffs are a real concern for the sector, and we saw JLR temporarily having to pause shipments to the US last month. From the outset, we have been talking to the industry and playing back our approach to them all the way along. They very much support our calm and cool-headed response, as well as the discussions that we are having with the US. That is what industry wants us to do, and that is exactly what we are doing.

At the beginning of April, we launched a request for input to hear from business about their concerns and assessments of what the next steps need to be. We are working through all those responses now. Following that request for input—it was not a consultation; for some reason we have to call it a “request for input”, but I do not know why—we are looking at the feedback and my colleagues are continuing to talk to the industry every day.

We will always act in the best interests of UK consumers and businesses, and throughout the last few weeks we have rightly focused on negotiating a deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned the letter from the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), and other Members mentioned preparations in the event that there is not a deal. Obviously, our focus is on getting that deal, but we would not be doing what we should if we did not also look at the available options in the event that there was not a deal. Of course the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee has suggested some options and, as I say, we are considering all options in the event that there is not a deal. However, we firmly believe that we are in a good position. We have a good relationship with the United States and we want to secure a deal as quickly as we can.

In addition to trying to achieve a reduction of tariffs, we are really investing in the automotive industry. In the Budget last year, we committed over £2 billion of capital in research and development funding until 2030, as has been mentioned, for zero emission vehicle manufacturing and the supply chains, and a further £300 million to drive the uptake of electric vehicles.

This new funding will support cutting-edge research and the scale-up of innovative zero emission vehicle technologies. It will also unlock capital investment in ZEVs, batteries and the wider supply chain. And that comes on top of the great work being supported by our Automotive Transformation Fund, which enables British brands and car manufacturers to benefit from a globally competitive supply chain for electric vehicles and their batteries. That has given much confidence to the sector and helped to secure major investment in the UK —including, of course, the £4 billion investment by Tata in its new gigafactory in Somerset. We also want future initiatives to work alongside the National Wealth Fund as part of a comprehensive offer to other big-hitting international investors.

Several Members raised the issue of skills, and they were absolutely right to do so. We recognise that we have a skills gap, and we need to ensure that we can fill it through the development of the industrial strategy, which will come out in a few weeks’ time. We are working with the Department for Education and with Skills England to look at the skills gaps across a whole range of industries in the UK, including advanced manufacturing and automotive, to see what the gaps are and to see how we can tilt funding to help to fill them. That is exactly the work that we are doing. Apprenticeships are also incredibly important in this space. There are some brilliant apprenticeship models out there in our car manufacturers. Of course we will continue to support those models. We are also making the apprenticeship levy more flexible, so that a wider range of people can use such models.

The hon. Member for Reigate mentioned East Surrey college, which I know; it is very good, and I am very pleased to see that it is helping in this space. She also raised the level 7 apprenticeships issue, which I recognise. We are working on all these issues in the run-up to the industrial strategy and the publications that will go alongside it.

Skills have to be at the heart of this agenda. We do not just want to grow the automotive industry. It is an industry in transition, so we must ensure that we are transitioning skills and creating the workforce of the future that we want to see. So, Members are right to raise these issues. Of course we are working very hard on them, and I hope that we will have much more to say about them shortly.

The hon. Member for Reigate also mentioned a couple of tax issues—the employee share ownership scheme and the double-cab pick-up vehicles. We have no plans to change those things at the moment, but I hear what she says about the pressures that exist. What we are doing through the run-up to the spending review is looking at how we can support the industry more widely. How do we increase demand, how do we provide support, how do we help to fund, and how do we break down further barriers? So, she is right to raise those issues and of course we continue to look at them. There will also be technical consultation later this year on the employee car ownership scheme, which she might want to look out for. However, I have heard the points she makes. We are currently in a period when we are developing plans but are unable to speak about them, because we cannot yet confirm what the spending review will tell us. However, I hope that the industrial strategy and the spending review will give her reassurance that we are very serious about the automotive sector and will support it in the future.

In the run-up to the publication of the industrial strategy, we are engaging with the sector on very complex issues such as access to finance or the planning system when it comes to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. We are looking at everything.

Of course, all Members rightly mentioned energy prices. I am acutely aware of how high our energy costs are in this sector compared with other sectors. Our industrial energy costs doubled under the last Government, and we want to take action to tackle that. Of course, we are pushing for clean energy by 2030 to ensure that energy bills come down in the long term and that we have the stability to ensure that we never again suffer a massive shock, as we did when the war in Ukraine began. However, we know that we need to do more. I am working at pace to do that. I hope that, through the processes that we have coming up in the next few weeks, we will see movement; but I completely understand the situation. I am working with lots of sectors, including ceramics, chemicals and automotive. Everybody has the same challenge, and we are looking to see what we can do about that.

To conclude, the automotive sector is incredibly important to our country. I appreciate Members’ caring so much about those high-quality jobs and supply chains. We know we need to upskill and reskill the workforce, provide the industry with support for the transition, and build our strengths in new technology, artificial intelligence software, connected and autonomous vehicles—which comes under this remit—and of course, our off-road vehicles as well, which we are supporting. The automotive sector will be at the heart of our industrial strategy, and we will create the right climate for the industry to thrive.

10:25

[Rebecca Paul]

Thanks to everyone who has attended this important debate today, particularly the hon. Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who I thank for their powerful speeches. It is so clear how much they care about JLR and what it brings to their constituencies. I am grateful to them for coming along and providing more on the manufacturing piece, which is not in my constituency. It was really good to hear that from them.

What came through is that tariffs are the big and urgent issue right now. Clearly, getting that deal must be the No. 1 priority. Obviously, energy costs are also an issue, and all of us here today have spoken about them. I was struck by the fact, which the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned, that Nissan’s plant is the most expensive to run in the world due to energy costs. That in itself should be a massive wake-up call. For the medium to long-term success of the automotive industry—and all manufacturing throughout the country —we clearly need to address that. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for the excellent questions raised. A lot of us are asking the same questions, which is really helpful.

I was not sure whether there would be anyone else in the room with the same view on the ZEV mandate as me. I was heartened to hear—funnily enough, from the same side of the room—that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) is also sceptical about whether that is the right approach. I appreciate that the Government are trying to make that work as best as they can, and to make the adjustments.

Lastly, I thank the Minister for a clear, constructive and logical response. I am grateful that they have gone through and addressed all the concerns raised. I am reassured that they are looking into those. I acknowledge that the India deal may well be beneficial for the automotive industry, because the cost of employing those people will be lower, but we also need to think more broadly about that, because we could disincentivise the recruitment of local residents. The deal needs to be viewed through a wider-angle lens, and those concerns need to be considered too. I thank everyone for attending this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for employment in the automotive manufacturing sector.

10:28

Sitting suspended.

New Nuclear Projects: Wylfa

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the development of new nuclear projects at Wylfa.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am leading today’s debate with one simple message to the Government: Wylfa is the best nuclear site in Europe and must be prioritised for new nuclear energy projects. We know that UK energy demand will likely double by 2050, as we develop the new technologies of the future and grow our economy. To reach our energy needs, nuclear power will play a part in the energy mix. It is a source of consistent baseload power, needed to cut our reliance on fossil fuels, improve energy security and keep energy bills down.

However, the last nuclear power station built in the UK was in 1995, and only one nuclear power plant is currently under construction, at Hinkley Point C. Wylfa is in prime position to help meet our energy needs by producing clean, reliable home-grown power for Wales and the rest of the UK, and it will last for 60 years. As Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy says:

“New nuclear development at Wylfa is imperative to retain and grow our incredible civil nuclear workforce. Sizewell C should not be the last Gigawatt project in the UK and Wylfa would create thousands of well-paid, highly skilled and unionised local jobs whilst supporting UK energy security by generating critical clean baseload power”.

How did we get to the situation where Wylfa has been overlooked? For context, it is worth recounting the history of nuclear generation at Wylfa. Two Magnox reactors were constructed at the site and came online in 1971. The Wylfa nuclear power station then generated electricity for 44 years. In 2012, both reactors reached the end of their operating life and were shut down by 2015. Plans for a successor project, Wylfa Newydd, were first proposed in 2009. Those plans were paused in 2019 and scrapped in 2021 after Hitachi withdrew, following a failure to reach a funding agreement with the then Conservative UK Government.

In March 2024, during the spring Budget, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), announced that the Wylfa and Oldbury sites would be purchased from Hitachi for £160 million. Since the current Government came to power last year, I have raised the issue of Wylfa several times in Parliament. I have been told by the Government that,

“we will work with Great British Nuclear to assess options for new nuclear at Wylfa”,

but there has been no further clarity on the project since.

The lack of clarity and urgency from the Government on Wylfa is all the more confusing, given that it is an excellent site for a new nuclear project.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I welcome her shedding light on the terrible legacy of 14 years of Conservatives who did nothing to invest in Wylfa, but while this Government get to work on delivering the greatest upgrade to our energy system in decades, I believe Plaid Cymru is playing politics here. Is it not the case that the party’s previous leader came out against Wylfa and called new nuclear “the wrong answer” for Wales?

[Llinos Medi]

I thank the hon. Lady for that timely intervention, because I can say that I went out publicly against the leader of my party at the time and stood strongly for the people of Ynys Môn, recognising the need for nuclear as part of the energy mix and the Plaid Cymru policy being that Trawsfynydd and Wylfa are sites for future nuclear development.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Given that nuclear is so significant for north-west Wales as a whole, this begs the question of what the future use of Trawsfynydd will be. I would like the Minister to update us on what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government in relation to Cwmni Egino and the potential use of this public-owned nuclear licensed site for an advanced modular reactor or radioisotopes, for example. What future does it have?

[Llinos Medi]

We need to make sure we do not lose the nuclear legacy in Wylfa and Trawsfynydd and the can-do attitude of our workforce, and we must make sure these sites work for those communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady. All the time that I have known her and the leader of her party here, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), their commitment to nuclear has never been in doubt. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential that we safely implement a new nuclear power strategy that will ensure we have capability and capacity, as well as energy resilience—a topic that is foremost in our minds after the devastating effects of the power cuts in Europe? Does she also agree that it is possible to achieve net zero hand in hand with nuclear options?

[Llinos Medi]

Nuclear is an important component of reaching our clean energy goal of net zero and bringing costs down, which I will touch on later in my speech.

Wylfa is located in a perfect site. It is on higher ground with hard bedrock, ideal for construction of a nuclear power station. The risks of coastal flooding, erosion and sea level rises are considered to be low. Its proximity to seawater means there is a readily available and abundant supply of cooling water. The site has nuclear heritage, with an existing grid connection established in 1971. However, that is at risk of being taken up by a large solar farm on the island—all the more reason for the Government to commit to the site before the opportunity is lost.

Significant work has already been accomplished at the site by Horizon to characterise the site and to seek licences and planning consent. There is considerable public and political support for the project, both nationally and locally. Vendors are serious about the site. The Nuclear Industry Association has told me that it has hosted several interested vendors who want to build at Wylfa, but are waiting for the Government’s plan. What discussions has the Minister had with developers regarding the Wylfa site? Is the Government’s lack of clarity deterring investment?

The Government have argued that regulations are stifling new nuclear. They claim that

“The industry pioneered in Britain has been suffocated by regulations and this saw investment collapse, leaving only one nuclear power plant—Hinkley Point C—under construction.”

Rather than overburdensome regulations, in fact political will is the reason Wylfa has been left behind. During the 2024 general election, Labour pledged to

“end a decade of dithering that has seen the Conservatives duck decisions on nuclear power.”

At present, it seems that this pattern of delays and false dawns is continuing, which is all the more shocking when we consider the fact that the original planning application was lodged for Wylfa B in April 1989—36 years ago.

Let us compare ourselves with other countries that are pushing ahead with new nuclear projects, such as the Czech Republic. Within five years, the Czech Government have gone from endorsing new nuclear at Dukovany in July 2019 to issuing tenders to developers shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, recognising the urgency of developing domestic energy generation capabilities, and are now on the verge of signing a fixed-price contract for two gigawatt nuclear power reactors at the price of $17 billion, which comes with a guarantee of at least $10 billion in work for the local area. Why can my community, which has been promised new nuclear at Wylfa for 50 years, not have the same benefits as Dukovany? What lessons are the Government drawing from the decisive steps that countries such as the Czech Republic have taken to invest in their nuclear industries in recent years?

What benefits would new nuclear at Wylfa bring to local people? It is estimated that a gigawatt plant at Wylfa would create 850 long-term jobs and 10,000 in the shorter-term construction. It would generate £90 million in wages annually for the local economy and likely nearly £40 million in business rates. The impact would be incredible, given that the decline of stable, well-paid employment in north Anglesey has left the area with fewer than 2,300 jobs. The project would bring good, well-paying, long-term jobs to north Wales, an area in desperate need of opportunity and new industry.

The Horizon project plan for Wylfa also estimated that 45% of the operational staff at the site would have come from north Wales and Anglesey, helping to draw back and retain Welsh speakers on the island. Wages would be well above the Anglesey average of £630 per week, helping to reverse the rising deprivation, low wages and economic inactivity in the region. Nuclear workers in Wales and the whole of the UK contributed around £102,300 per person in gross value added in 2022, four times the Welsh average of £23,804 per person. Construction of a large modular reactor at Wylfa would generate £5 billion in opportunities for the supply chain. A gigawatt project would be the single biggest inward investment in Welsh history.

The Government say that their No. 1 priority is growth. Backing investment in Wylfa is an obvious way to improve livelihoods and secure our energy supply for the long term. Despite those clear advantages, however, I am concerned about the Government’s approach: they have removed the list of designated sites, which included Wylfa, from their new nuclear planning policy. Their decision to consult on a new planning policy without committing to established sites such as Wylfa is creating damaging uncertainty and deterring the very investments we need.

I reiterate that Wylfa is the best site in Europe for a new nuclear project. What we need now is a clear strategic business case, a funding commitment and a timeline that gives developers the confidence to move forward. Of course I am supportive of future nuclear developments, including the next generation technologies such as small and advanced modular reactors, being prioritised at existing sites approved under the previous nuclear planning policy documents, which includes Wylfa, before other sites are looked at.

I will conclude by saying that it is astonishing that Wylfa, a site with proven capability, global potential and cross-party support, has been stuck in limbo for decades. People in Ynys Môn are fed up with the Labour Government, and the Tories before them, dragging their feet on this. Investors are ready, the community is supportive and the need for clean, secure energy has never been greater. What we need now is leadership, a clear decision, a funding commitment and a timeline to match the urgency of the moment. Will the Government finally give the people of Ynys Môn assurance that Wylfa will play a central part in their mission for the UK to become a clean energy superpower? Diolch.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks).

11:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

I think they call that my full Sunday title, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing this debate and also, as I said to her in the House last week, for her passion on this issue and energy projects more generally. We have debated a number of them in this Chamber over the past few months, and I am grateful for the way in which she does that.

This is a very important debate. I want to raise a few general points about the importance that the Government place on nuclear power, and then I will come to some specific points on Wylfa. First, new nuclear will play a critical role in this country’s energy mix by delivering the clean and secure home-grown energy that the country needs. As the hon. Lady said, it is increasingly clear that demand for electricity in this country is only set to increase significantly. Our estimate is that it could double by 2050, but given the current growth rate of things like AI, it is likely to be quite a conservative estimate. Nuclear will play a critical role in that energy mix.

As we adapt to a more uncertain world, as we continue to recover from the global pandemic and with all our future growth plans, nuclear’s energy security advantages make it essential. We have been clear that the role of our clean power mission is to push gas off the system, and nuclear will play a critical role alongside renewables. This is not a renewables-only drive; this is about renewables alongside nuclear. As the hon. Lady outlined, Wylfa has huge potential in that energy mix, and we are not overlooking it for a second.

I will come back to that point in more detail in a moment, but first I want to say something more generally about Wales. The hon. Lady gave us a useful history of nuclear power. Since the 1950s, Wales has played an important role in delivering nuclear power for the whole country. As she rightly outlined, the expertise and skills in Wales are extraordinary, and there is huge potential to build on those skills.

The tens of thousands of jobs that will be created by our new nuclear projects could be spread across the UK, which is why I think the opposition to new nuclear in some quarters—for example, from the SNP in Scotland—is so short-sighted. This is an economic opportunity as well as a key energy driver. Our forthcoming industrial strategy White Paper will say more about how we will support the wider energy industry in Wales and across the country.

The hon. Lady outlined the historical role of Wylfa, and she referenced decisions going back to the year after I was born, which brings it into stark contrast. In its 44 years of operation, the former nuclear power station at Wylfa generated enough safe, low-carbon and home-grown electricity to power 2 million homes a year, as well as supporting hundreds of good jobs in local communities. I pay tribute to all those who worked in the former plant for their expertise in running an incredibly safe operation over 40 years.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an assurance on continuous decommissioning at both Trawsfynydd and Wylfa. At Trawsfynydd, decommissioning is currently providing 276 very well-paid jobs. Trawsfynydd is the United Kingdom’s “lead and learn” site and could well be the first fully decommissioned nuclear site in Europe. However, we need an assurance that decommissioning will be continuous and that there will be sufficient funding, beyond this year and into the future, to ensure effective decommissioning, which will also give the public confidence in nuclear power into the future.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. Trawsfynydd—I think that is the correct pronunciation —is potentially also an important site for future nuclear, but she is right to highlight decommissioning. I am sure the Minister for nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Hunt, will be happy to discuss this in more detail, but clearly decommissioning is important. It creates a lot of jobs and skills, as well as developing future economic opportunities—it might be new nuclear, but it might also be other things. I am happy to volunteer my noble Friend to speak to the right hon. Lady about this, but it is certainly something we take very seriously. With something like nuclear power, we also have a responsibility to decommission it responsibly, which is part of the story of nuclear, alongside the years of generating.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Last year’s Welsh Labour manifesto said that our two Labour Governments in Wales would explore the opportunities for new nuclear at Wylfa. Could my hon. Friend elaborate a little on that, bearing in mind the extensive history provided by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) gave? I was listening carefully, and it was excellent to listen to. We have, of course, been in power for only 10 months, after 14 years of failure. Will my hon. Friend expand a little more on that point, further to the commitment we made to the electorate in Wales last year?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend, not least because that is the very next part of my speech, so it is excellent timing. The history of Wylfa is important to our energy story, but so is the future. The potential of the site has long been recognised. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that, after several years of hard work, the withdrawal in 2020 of Horizon’s plans to develop a new large-scale nuclear power station at the site was a setback for the whole country, but particularly for the local community. She rightly outlined the role that such projects can play in developing skills and good, very well-paid jobs, which often have salaries considerably above the average. It is really important that we move those projects forward.

I will reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said. It has been nine months since this Government came into power, and our in-tray has had no shortage of issues from the previous Government to deal with—I note that no Conservative Members are present at this debate—but delay and dither is by far the biggest issue that we have had to deal with in our energy system. We have not been moving forward at pace on several key decisions that were taken, and I am afraid that Horizon is just one of many examples of delays and setbacks in nuclear project development since 2010.

It is a real disappointment that not a single nuclear power station was completed, or even progressed significantly, in that period, and the previous Government should take responsibility. Too many proposals have fallen by the wayside, leading to the loss of huge opportunities not only for our energy system but for local economies right across the country.

We are determined—I say this very clearly—to enable faster and more sustainable nuclear project development around the country. We have been clear that we are in favour of new nuclear. We want to create an investment landscape in which investors come to invest in nuclear projects in this country, and in which we give the certainty that nuclear will play a key part in our energy mix long into the future. We are taking important steps to kick-start new nuclear in Britain by working closely with EDF to get Hinkley Point C over the line, while Sizewell C is making good progress. However, the final investment decision is for the spending review. Great British Nuclear, the Government’s expert nuclear delivery body, is driving forward the SMR competition for UK deployment. Final decisions on that competition will be taken very soon.

I will highlight other actions we are taking to make progress.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the Minister provide any information on whether there will be updates on sitings for SMRs? We understand that the siting is being reconsidered, and businesses that are engaged with a design are very keen to know where the likely sites will be.

[Michael Shanks]

I will come on to the question of siting in a moment. I do not want to be drawn into the particulars of the SMR competition because Ministers are not involved in that at the moment. That process is under way, and we are moving forward with it at pace.

First, our targets for clean power are really important. We have set out the clean power mission for 2030, as well as the wider question of decarbonising the economy by 2050, in part because we want to drive momentum in the energy space for investment into sectors like new nuclear. Nuclear power is a crucial part of our toolkit to deliver energy security and decarbonisation, and we have said that our striving towards clean power does not end in 2030. We are in a sprint because that is necessary for our constituents, who are paying far too much for their bills, but the effort will continue long into the 2030s and 2040s. That is when nuclear will particularly play a critical role.

Secondly, the new national policy statements reflect a new era of nuclear. Wylfa was, of course, one of eight sites designated for new nuclear in the EN-6 national policy statement, which recognised the site’s future potential. Nothing that we are doing takes away from that crucial future potential, but we recognise that the new range of technologies in nuclear open up a series of sites that are different from the eight that were fixed for larger-scale nuclear in the past.

National policy statement EN-7 is all about turbocharging our ambitions for new nuclear: not taking away from sites that were already designated but opening up a range of new sites. It sets out a refreshed planning framework for new nuclear reactors, including, as we have discussed, small and advanced modular reactors.

The proposed planning framework is robust, transparent and agile, and it is about empowering developers to identify more sites across the UK. Clearly, those must be set against a very robust set of siting criteria—we are not saying that new nuclear can be built anywhere in the country—but there are a lot more sites for SMRs and AMRs than there were in the past.

Thirdly, and this comes to a point the hon. Member for Ynys Môn made about regulation, we have been keen to cut outdated and bureaucratic rules that are holding back investment, but clearly we also have in this country one of the most robust sets of regulations for nuclear, which is important for the public to have confidence in nuclear energy. It is also why we have had decade upon decade of incredibly safe nuclear generation in this country. We will maintain robust regulation, but we will update it to make sure that we are driving forward investment. The Prime Minister recently announced that John Fingleton will lead a nuclear regulatory taskforce to identify opportunities for better regulation in the nuclear space, particularly to speed up delivery.

Fourthly, we are tackling one of the biggest reasons for delays and uncertainty head-on by taking bold action on the connections queue in the GB grid. Connections reform is about helping viable clean energy projects connect faster, and it is about giving investors the certainty that, if they come forward to develop a project, they will be able to connect to the grid much faster. Future nuclear projects will benefit from those reforms, freeing up the more than 700 GW currently sitting in the queue and freeing up a lot of that capacity for important future projects.

Returning to Wylfa, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn noted, Great British Nuclear purchased the site alongside the site in Gloucestershire at Oldbury, which gives us a real opportunity to make strategic decisions. Although I hear the call to move faster on those decisions, it is crucial that we take time to make sure that they are fully informed. The question of how we finance any such projects is a critical one for Government to think about.

As we fix the foundations of new nuclear in this country, it tees us up for rapid future success. We will make sure that we drive forward the potential for communities to benefit from the supply chains and the construction that go alongside those sites. I reiterate that we are hugely ambitious and excited about the opportunity for new nuclear in this country. I recognise the frustration that the past 14 years of dither and delay have meant that it seems like we are not making as much progress on those nuclear sites as possible. I gently ask that we are given the space and opportunity to drive forward our ambitions for nuclear. After more than nine months, we have demonstrated the pace at which we want to move. We will do the same on nuclear, but we need the time to set that out fully.

I close by thanking the hon. Member for Ynys Môn again for securing this important debate. I know she will continue to engage with the Minister for nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Hunt, on these questions. We are ambitious for Wylfa and for other sites. The hon. Lady is right to push because “further and faster” is the mantra of this Government in a whole range of areas. She is also right to highlight the huge potential for her community, but also for our energy security across the country, of moving forward with new nuclear as part of our energy mix.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for participating in this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:24

Sitting suspended.

Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan in the Chair]

14:30

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Personal Independence Payment and disabled people.

I am proud to have secured this debate today, and to be able to stand up for the disabled in the light of the catastrophic effects that the proposed cut to personal independence payments will have on them. This is the week after the council elections and the Runcorn and Helsby by-election proved disastrous for at least two major parties. The issue on everyone’s lips, and the cause of much of the disaffection, was welfare cuts, and specifically cuts to personal independence payments.

I begin by thanking in advance all those who will take part in this debate, all those watching, all those in the outside world who are campaigning against the cuts and, above all, the disabled community itself, which, day by day, shows exemplary resilience and courage.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in her spring statement, raised the curtain on a series of welfare cuts: the health element of universal credit will be cut by 50% and frozen for new claimants, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has outlined that the planned cuts to disability benefits will reduce PIP for at least 800,000 claimants and cut health-related universal credit payments for 3 million families. And that is just the beginning.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

On that point, I thank my right hon. Friend because many of my Slough constituents are extremely concerned about the proposed welfare cuts, especially to personal independence payments and other disability benefits. Unlike the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that embarked on austerity, and unlike Conservative Governments of recent years that became characterised as “the nasty party,” does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the job, indeed the moral duty, of this Government to protect the most vulnerable so that they can lead a dignified and independent life?

[Ms Abbott]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government insist that the rising disability benefits bill means that something must be done, but in a recent report, the New Economics Foundation revealed that the disability benefits bill has risen because there has been a rise in the number of disabled people and a rise in deprivation. But, as we learned from David Cameron’s round of austerity, cuts have consequences that severely limit, or even eliminate, their supposed savings.

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

In my Birmingham Perry Barr constituency, notwithstanding these forecasted cuts, people are already suffering because the Department for Work and Pensions—or perhaps His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—is trying to clamp down and suspend benefits such as PIP. That is causing immense anxiety for disabled and vulnerable adults, who are now having to seek an appeal while their benefits are being cut. Does the right hon. Member agree that an equality impact assessment needs to be conducted now, as opposed to simply cutting £5 billion in the near future?

[Ms Abbott]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need an equality impact assessment now, and I cannot understand why the Government are introducing these random welfare benefit cuts without allowing MPs to understand fully what the consequences will be. The fact that the proposed welfare cuts come on top of the cut to the winter fuel allowance and the failure to raise the child benefit ceiling makes everything worse.

The furious response to their proposed welfare cuts, particularly the cuts to personal independence payments, seems to have come as a surprise to the Government. PIP is a benefit intended to help people who have a health condition or disability with the extra costs of living. Unfortunately, some people, including some Ministers, talk about it as if it were a handout.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that PIP is not an income, and that those councils that count it as income should be called out? Leicester city council counts PIP as income. The number of people applying for PIP is therefore reducing, and they are not getting council tax support. People like my constituent Jason will be £900 worse off.

[Ms Abbott]

PIP is certainly not an income, and I imagine that the Minister will be in contact with Leicester city council to try to understand what it thinks it is doing.

The new points system that the Government are suggesting for people to qualify for the maximum level of PIP is particularly concerning. For instance, it will mean that people who cannot wash below their waist could lose points and lose benefits, and be expected to find a job. Focus groups are revolted when they hear that. The country’s anger at these cuts boiled over last week in spectacular fashion with the by-election in Runcorn, where Labour lost its 16th safest seat.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. Westminster Hall is full today, so this is clearly a massive issue.

PIP is effectively a lifeline to help to maintain people’s wellness and independence, and in many cases people’s employment, so more needs to be done. Furthermore, if a claimant no longer qualifies for the daily living component, any carer will also lose their direct access to carer’s allowance, which would be a loss of £10,000 on top of the other money that is lost. This situation is a minefield for those who are disabled and depend on PIP to continue having some quality of life. Does the right hon. Lady agree that today the Minister must give us many, many answers and change the policy?

[Ms Abbott]

It is indeed a cruel and brutal system that needs reform. It does not need cuts.

Elements of the Labour party seem to want to claim that the loss of the by-election in Runcorn and the fact that Labour lost two thirds of the council seats we were defending was all about immigrants. However, voter surveys show that, far from being all about immigrants, the single most important reason for vote-switching was anger at the Government for the winter fuel allowance and welfare cuts, such as the proposed cut to PIP. Immigration came well down the list.

Labour people who went out knocking on doors said that two issues came up over and again: cuts to winter fuel payments; and cuts to personal independence payments. However, despite the catastrophic results last week, the Prime Minister has made it clear that nothing will deter him from pushing ahead with these cuts. So far, his only concession has been to say that he will go “further and faster.”

In my Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency, well over 8,000 people are on either personal independence payment or disability living allowance, which translates nationwide to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men and women whose fury will only mount as they find that, month by month, their payments are shrinking or disappearing altogether.

The Labour leadership have not helped their case for cutting PIP by putting forward a set of contradictory arguments. On the one hand, they insist that they are helping the disabled by putting them back to work, but on the other hand, they say this cut will save £9 billion. Well, they cannot do both. Putting disabled people into rewarding, sustained employment, which we would all support, means spending money on training, therapy and childcare. In the short run, putting disabled people into jobs will not save money; it will actually cost more. The only certain way that cutting PIP saves the billions of pounds that the Government want is by making PIP recipients live on less, and this is something that Ministers claim they do not want to do.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful speech. I briefly draw attention to some figures from the Public and Commercial Services Union about its members working in the Department for Work and Pensions, including in jobcentres. Almost 50% of PCS members working in the DWP claim the very benefits that they process. Many of them rely on PIP to work, which further underlines the point she is making about the folly of cutting the benefits that enable people working for the Government to deliver these policies—they will not be able to do so if those benefits are cut. Does she agree that these cuts will punish sick and disabled people, including those working for the Government in this policy area?

[Ms Abbott]

Far from enabling the Government to put people into work, removing PIP will actually stop people working, because they depend on PIP for the extra cost of going to work.

Perhaps the most preposterous argument for cutting disability payments is that it is the moral choice. This is obviously nonsense. In what universe is slashing benefits for the disabled moral? No one is taken in by that, not even those who think that all benefit claimants are scroungers.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I have a constituent who has two sons suffering with cystic fibrosis. The condition means they have to be on a high-calorie, high-fat diet, so the cost of their food is much more than the ordinary shop. On top of that, my constituent has to bear the additional costs of buying medication and the loss of income as a result of having to be a carer for her two children. My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to look after our children. Does she agree that we need a system in which PIP provides for individuals such as my constituent’s two sons, so that children can also have the support to lead good-quality lives?

[Ms Abbott]

I entirely agree. Furthermore, it seems to me that Ministers have not really looked into the costs that PIP is covering, otherwise they would not be talking about slashing it in this way.

I wonder whether it ever occurs to the Government that voters will begin to notice that whenever they want money, they take it from the most vulnerable—old people, poor children and now the disabled. When we suggest a wealth tax, they recoil in horror, yet a 2% levy on men and women whose assets are worth more than £10 million would affect only 0.4% of the UK population and raise £24 billion a year. Politics is the language of choices, and sadly, this Government are making a conscious choice to balance their books on the back of people on welfare in general and the disabled in particular.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that, by the Government’s own estimates, 300,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 and, as a result, will need to rely on council services that are already severely oversubscribed? Does she agree that these cuts, without funding for council emergency services, will be a disastrous combination that risks exacerbating the pressures already faced by our local councils?

[Ms Abbott]

There is no question but that my hon. Friend is correct. These cuts will put even more pressure on local authorities, which are already in difficulties.

There is all this talk about getting disabled people into jobs—what jobs? The areas of employment where there are labour shortages tend to be minimum wage, like social care, or seasonal, like agricultural work. The DWP’s own figures show around 102,000 registered vacancies. Of those, only 807 can be done completely remotely, of which 127 are with employers that the DWP describes as Disability Confident, and of those just 10 are part time. Where are these jobs that the Government want to coerce the disabled into, and with what employers?

The PIP claimants that the Government want to force back to work may have physical disabilities, but they may also be severely depressed or have mental health problems. Most employers will not tolerate the intermittent patterns of employment and long periods out of the labour market that come with those types of health problems. Furthermore, there is very little evidence that cutting benefits boosts employment—a point made by a group of concerned charities recently—and, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) said earlier, Ministers seem to miss the point that PIP is paid to disabled people regardless of whether they are in work. That means that many of the women and men the Government are taking PIP off already have jobs.

Supporters of the Government’s cuts claim that, all too often, men and women on welfare are “taking the mickey”—I am quoting a Minister there—or making a “lifestyle choice”. People who describe welfare as a lifestyle choice obviously do not actually know many people who live on welfare. The poor housing, the struggle to pay for the basics and the humiliation they often endure mean that it is not a lifestyle that anybody would choose.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank the right hon. Member for her passionate speech and, in particular, for highlighting the real human impact of these cuts. Over 1 million disabled people were forced to use food banks last year, while, for many others, basics such as affording transport to hospital appointments will be jeopardised by these cuts. Does that not only emphasise and underline the case that right hon. Member was making: that this is a political choice, and that asking the very wealthiest in society to pay a bit more in tax would be the moral thing to do?

[Ms Abbott]

It is indeed a political choice. I would prefer my Government to introduce a wealth tax or some taxation system that asks the very wealthy to pay a little more than take money away from the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. But the Government refuse to accept that there is anything wrong with cutting benefits for the disabled. Instead, they say that there has been a “communication problem”. Some of us have tried explaining to Downing Street that they could employ the best communicators in the world, but these welfare cuts will be impossible to sell to the public and will undermine Labour’s position in communities.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I recently met many furious constituents outraged both by the cuts already made and by those still to come. Nearly 10,000 people in Blackburn rely on PIP. I join the right hon. Member in condemning these cold-hearted and cruel cuts that leave people fearing that they cannot even heat their homes or eat.

[Ms Abbott]

I entirely agree, and I would add that if Ministers think that the recent local election results were bad, they should wait until next year’s council elections in Scotland, Wales, big city conurbations such as Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool, and every single London borough.

There are people in No. 10 who believe that we did not go far enough. A nameless No. 10 adviser said:

“We didn’t go big enough the first time round…It’s a fairness issue”.

Another nameless Government source said:

“We should’ve done it all in one hit—we didn’t go far enough.”

I wonder how many poor or disabled people those people have ever met or known.

The Government should drop the cuts to the winter fuel payment and review the personal independence payment. They should consult the disabled and organisations that work with them, and genuinely improve and reform it.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is really important that the Government work on co-production so that disabled people are involved in the decision-making processes. On the interaction with the Scottish Government, the UK Government have said that they are cancelling work capability assessments and are relying on the PIP assessment to make the decisions. In Scotland, we do not have PIP assessments; we have adult disability payment assessments. Will the right hon. Lady join me in encouraging the Minister to set out clear plans before the welfare Bill comes to Parliament? Otherwise, we will be taking a decision about something with no idea about its impact.

[Ms Abbott]

We undoubtedly need more information before we can meaningfully vote on these proposals.

Some of us are old enough to remember Mrs Thatcher and her poll tax, which was her undoing. It is not too late to drop the winter fuel tax and the cuts to PIP. I plead with my Government to do so.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. As so many people wish to speak, and I would like to give everyone the opportunity to do so, I will unfortunately have to set a one-and-a-half-minute timer; otherwise, we would simply not be able to get everyone in. I know everyone feels strongly about this issue.

14:52

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I commend the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this very important debate.

Young people battling cancer are being failed by the system. They are forced to wait an average of eight long months before they can access PIP, including a three-month qualifying period that applies even after a confirmed cancer diagnosis. In that time, those young patients and their families face an extra £5,000 in out-of-pocket costs, on top of the emotional, physical and psychological burden of the cancer itself.

Does the Minister understand the consequences of these reforms for young people already enduring the fight of their young lives? Will he commit to working with his ministerial colleagues to scrap the arbitrary wait times, ensure that a medical diagnosis alone is accepted as sufficient evidence for PIP eligibility, and reshape the system so that it does not punish but protects?

14:54

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Harold Wilson once said:

“The Labour party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing.”

We need to be clear, as millions of people outside this place are clear, that to try to balance the books on the backs of the poor and disabled is fundamentally immoral and un-Labour. The Prime Minister and the Government need not to plough ahead apace with this immoral, appalling plan, but instead to drop it now. Let us be clear: someone who needs assistance to cut up their own food and wash and dress themselves would currently get a personal independence payment, but they could lose it thanks to the Government’s proposals. That is completely appalling.

These cuts were cruel enough when the OBR estimated that 800,000 people would lose PIP, but a new freedom of information answer from the DWP estimates that 1.3 million people could lose it. The Government should come clean and say what the figure is. It is outrageous to have a vote without knowing the figures. I say quite clearly that if the Government do not drop this immoral plan, I will vote against these cuts to disability benefits. I know that many of my colleagues will do so as well.

14:56

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Too many disabled people in West Dorset are living in fear: fear that the PIP support they rely on will be taken away or that loved ones might not qualify. In recent weeks, I have heard from 190 constituents each sharing their distress about the plans. One of my constituents, Barbara, is 65. She has lived with juvenile idiopathic arthritis since she was three. She has experienced constant pain, multiple surgeries and increased disability throughout her life. Yet she worked in social services for many years and never claimed employment and support allowance. Her PIP award helps her fund the support she needs to give her independence: mobility equipment, home adjustments and private care when the NHS service falls short.

Despite scoring three points in some areas on her most recent assessment, and scoring on virtually all areas of daily living, Barbara would not qualify for any support under the proposed changes. For constituents such as Barbara, this is a terrifying prospect. As she put it herself:

“PIP is not a benefit. It is a tool for survival.”

As we debate the potential changes to PIP, I hope we will remember her words. Disabled people and their carers deserve dignity. They deserve to be seen not as a cost to be managed, but as valued citizens, worthy of respect and entitled to fairness and compassion from this House.

14:57

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Everything is hard in body or in mind. People face the barriers, pain, dejection and not being believed—even when they are, assumptions are made on which only lived experience can speak. They face the effort to live, to just get up and face the day and to prove that their experiences are real, and they face the costs. After 14 years of battling, here we are, with “Pathways to Work”, taking away money, agency, dignity, independence and the essence of life itself. I fear, like many do, that people will take their lives, once again crushed by a system that fails to believe and points the finger rather than offering the hand, turning hope to despair. Poverty, dependency and harm—if not physical, most definitely psychological—await.

Colleagues, we are better than this. Let us vow to stop such pernicious cuts and rewrite the story with the voices, experiences and hope of disabled people. Even if tech, task, time and place can be accommodated, work is not always the answer. We do not even have the diagnosis, understanding of the evidence, or answers from Charlie Mayfield’s report. I will vote against these cuts because I am Labour and because disabled people matter.

14:58

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Dr Allin-Khan; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Of the so-called savings, £4.5 billion will come from restricting eligibility for the daily living element of personal independence payments. Restricting that will result in an average financial loss of £4,500 each for our constituents. PIP is not a benefit for people out of work. With one in five people in the workforce in Wales being disabled, taking away PIP, or the option of PIP, from disabled workers will leave people worse off.

Often, post-industrial areas have a higher proportion of working-age people receiving PIP, and they will be disproportionately affected by these changes. Recent Policy in Practice data has shown exactly that: Wales will suffer three times the economic impact and have twice as many affected residents as London and the south-east. Four out of 10 of the most affected local authority areas are in Wales. In Carmarthenshire alone, over £17 million will be lost because of PIP changes, with nearly 4,000 people losing eligibility within my constituency.

Data and analysis by organisations such as Policy in Practice are crucial for our understanding, especially since the UK Government have so far refused Plaid Cymru’s call for an impact assessment in Wales. Even the Labour First Minister of Wales has requested a Wales-specific impact assessment, but the proposal was batted away and refused. This is not the change that Wales and the UK voted for, and they have recently made that crystal clear.

15:00

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

For the last few years, I have chaired a group of unpaid carers—the Minister has met them—who struggle to manage on carer’s allowance as it is. Under the Government’s proposals, 150,000 unpaid carers will lose the carer’s allowance. Already, 1.2 million carers live in poverty and 400,000 live in deep poverty. I fear the impact of the proposals on carers who have devoted their lives to looking after family members.

A few months ago, I hosted a drop-in with Siobhan O’Dwyer from the University of Birmingham, whose team have been researching the risk of suicide and suicide incidence among carers. Most MPs who attended were shocked by the scale of risk and the scale of incidence at the moment.

I am absolutely terrified that the proposals will push more carers over the edge and that people will suffer. When such changes occurred in the last round of austerity under the previous Government, people lost their lives. I do not like to do this to my own Government within their first year—they are so new—but I will be voting against the proposals. I hope that the Government will think again and withdraw them.

15:01

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

With limited time, I will share the voices of some of the 200 constituents who have been in touch with me about the proposed changes to personal independence payments. For example, one worried father, Robert, contacted me on behalf of his son, Richard, who lives with functional neurological disorder. Robert told me how vital PIP is to Richard, who will never be able to work again. They feel completely abandoned by these proposed cuts and, after countless attempts to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions, they feel ignored and disillusioned.

Another example is James, who lives with multiple mental health conditions that have left him hospitalised several times in the past. He wrote to me saying:

“Nearly all my PIP goes towards paying for my guardian angel carer. Without that support, I would have to move into a supported living arrangement, which would make my mental health problems much worse and I would end up in hospital again. I don’t want to lose my independence as I am just managing with the support I have now.”

For James, it is clear that PIP is the difference between managing or entering crisis.

Meanwhile, Susan is the sole carer and appointee for several disabled members of her family. Under these proposals, at least two of them would lose all of the support they get. She wrote to me saying:

“I honestly am broken, life is hopeless—I can’t feed my family if these cuts go through. Please can you join us in fighting the cuts.”

My constituents in Chichester are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking to live with dignity, fairness and, importantly, independence, which is what PIP gives them. The changes are the exact opposite of what the Government claim they want to achieve.

15:03

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. Many of my constituents have contacted me with serious concerns about the proposed changes to PIP. Putting aside the human cost of that worry for one moment, we already know what happens when we take money away from early intervention and preventive support. It does not save money; it simply shifts the cost, and often ends up increasing it.

We have evidence for that. When the disability living allowance was replaced with PIP in 2013, people with multiple sclerosis were often taken off the benefit. The MS Society investigated the effects of those changes on 2,500 people with MS who lost the higher rate of DLA. Unsurprisingly, it found that those people relied more on NHS services, particularly GPs and A&Es. In one year alone, those GP and A&E costs were £7.7 million for just 2,500 people.

We are still dealing with the real human cost of 14 years of Conservative austerity and cuts to health and social care. We have to learn from the failure of those policies and do something differently. This party was elected on a promise of change. I stand by that promise, and I stand by my Government, but no one is denying that our welfare system needs serious reform. That should not come at the cost of disabled people.

15:04

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

In response to all the letters and emails from my constituents, I will focus on PIP and the effect that the changes will have on the 1.3 million people who are suffering from ME and long covid. I am particularly concerned that the additional criterion for a PIP award of needing four points in one descriptor disproportionately affects people with ME and long covid, because they currently reach their eight points with a spread of low points across many descriptors.

The abolition of the work capability assessment and the focus on PIP are a double whammy, particularly given the extra difficulty that people with ME and long covid will have in accessing PIP. They did better under the work capability assessment, because that could accommodate the fluctuating nature of ME and the reality of post-exertional malaise as a distinct aspect of it. PIP does not accommodate the nature of that disability for those who suffer with the condition.

The Green Paper talks about two positive moves, which I potentially support: the redesign of the PIP assessment and the recognition that many people have lifelong disability and cannot return to work, so there should be some accommodation for them through special funding. I ask that the Minister consider people with ME and long covid when looking at that redesign.

15:06

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

We have heard from the Government that by 2029-30, 800,000 fewer people will get the daily living component of PIP. For the 370,000 people already on it, the average loss is £4,500. Three million people will see their health-related universal credit cut, some by as much as £3,000. The consequences will be rising poverty, greater food bank reliance and mounting pressure on public services.

The Government claim that those consequences will be offset by incentives to work. However, estimates from the Learning and Work Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that only 1% to 3% of those affected—perhaps tens of thousands out of millions—may gain employment. That leaves 97% worse off. As the MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, I have repeatedly asked how that will affect my constituents, how many will lose their entitlement, and how many will fall into poverty.

I have asked at Prime Minister’s questions and I have tabled written questions for equality, employment and poverty impact assessments to be published before legislation is introduced. I have asked whether disabled people and carers will be consulted on changes, such as the one requiring claimants to score four points. I have not received any response to those questions, yet the changes will proceed with urgency. This is policymaking in the dark. I will be voting against the changes, because for me it is always country first and party second.

15:08

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I extend my extreme gratitude to the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for bringing forward this debate. Thousands in my constituency will be affected by the proposed cuts to PIP and to wider benefits. That is about not just numbers on a balance sheet, but the daily lives of real people.

PIP is a vital lifeline for those living with disabilities and long-term health conditions. It helps to cover the extra costs that many of us never have to think about: mobility aids, transport and specialist care. Cutting that support does not just tighten budgets; it strips away independence and, more importantly, dignity.

We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to be: one that turns away from its most vulnerable, or one that lifts them up, ensuring that disability does not mean poverty, isolation or fear. Behind every efficiency saving is a person: a mother skipping meals so her disabled son can get to an appointment; a veteran left waiting months for a reassessment; or a young woman terrified of losing the support she needs to work part time and stay independent.

This is about not just fairness but justice, compassion and basic human rights. I ask the Minister to halt these proposed cuts, to review PIP with empathy and not austerity, and to build a system that supports not punishes the most needy in our society.

15:09

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this important debate. I wish to place on record my grave concerns about the Government’s proposals to change the eligibility criteria for PIP. When His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has written off £27 billion of debts over the last five years, saying they are uncollectable, and the UK is still failing to act on UN tax avoidance guidance, losing us millions of pounds every year, it is impossible to accept that targeting disabled people is the answer. No consideration has been given to the knock-on effects to local government.

In my area, Conservative-run Dudley council has made more than £42 million-worth of cuts, which includes a loss of services for carers, for mental health, for domestic abuse and for dementia, as well as the slashing of funding to the charitable sector. Where are people supposed to turn for help? A narrative is being created of scroungers and cheats, when in reality, disabled people are fighting tooth and nail for every little scrap they can get. As one constituent told me, being disabled is a full-time job.

The Green Paper suggests that disabled people will be supported to retrain or access voluntary opportunities. That is patronising; they have qualifications and careers. One in three of us will become disabled in our lifetime, and I will vote against these proposals.

15:11

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for her courage, and I commend the courage of all hon. Members who have made a clear commitment today. I thank them for that, and I mean that quite honestly.

I have a wonderful lady in my office as our benefits adviser, and she is fantastic at talking people through the PIP and benefits process, and supporting them with filling in their forms, as it can be a very stressful process. The points system can already be challenging, often leading to mandatory reconsiderations and appeals, so I can easily understand why many people are worried about the changes.

One of the criteria changes that Labour will introduce is a requirement for claimants to score four points on at least one of the 10 activities to qualify for the daily living component. That change could result in some existing claimants no longer meeting the eligibility requirement, which could impact them severely month to month. Parkinson’s UK told me that the degenerative condition incurs average extra costs of more than £7,500 a year, so PIP is a crucial payment for people with Parkinson’s.

I do not have much more time, but more study is clearly needed to assess how the changes will truly impact people. I speak on behalf of the 200,000 people across Northern Ireland who the changes will ultimately impact. I look to the Minister for greater clarity that action will be taken only when backed by evidence. The Minister is a great friend of us all, but today we need answers.

15:12

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

The Government claim that the proposed cuts are about getting disabled people into work, but they have provided no evidence that they will result in significantly more disabled people in work. Even if that was the result, there would still be some disabled people who are unable to work. They deserve support too, but under the proposals, many of them would not receive it. The proposed disability cuts mean more poverty, suffering and hardship for disabled people.

One young person living with mental illness told Just Treatment, which I hosted in Parliament yesterday:

“I feel suicidal when I get caught up in the thoughts of losing this life changing support.”

Another says that she will not be able to access

“food, shelter, and vital care”

for her condition. A third young person says:

“I am terrified they will take my PIP away, that I will end up homeless, and my only option will be suicide.”

We should be in no doubt that these proposals will cost lives. That is not hyperbolic: the benefits system has already been a key factor in the deaths of disabled people such as my constituent Philippa Day, who tragically took an overdose and was found next to a letter from the DWP refusing a home assessment visit.

If the Government go through with these disability benefit cuts, they will be making a huge mistake that the public will not forgive us for. We must be true to our values as a party and stand up for the whole of the working class, including disabled people, whether they are in work or not. It is not too late for the Government to drop these cuts. If they do not, I will vote against them.

15:14

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

In Yeovil, 7.9% of working-age adults claim PIP, which is higher than the average for the south-west. For my constituents, PIP is not some kind of luxury; it allows them to live their lives, manage their disabilities, go to work and do daily tasks that people without disabilities can do. For example, one constituent told me that

“we are terrified of becoming homeless if these cuts go ahead”.

The Government’s proposals are likely to result in rising child poverty, and that is just not good enough. Many of the changes detailed in the Government’s new Green Paper seem to be financially driven. That is simply wrong; Labour should do something about that.

The assessment process has to change, especially assessments over the phone, which have left my constituents unable to express their needs and get the support they are owed. The Government cannot make decisions about disabled people without consulting them. Over the past decade, we have seen under-investment in our social care system, which has to change. If it does not, there will be no meaningful drop in the welfare bill.

In conclusion, it is right that we bring down the welfare bill, make Britain healthier and give all our constituents meaningful work, but that cannot come at the expense of the most vulnerable.

15:15

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I will be brief. I want to draw Members’ attention to a report published on Friday that provides evidence of the impact by constituency. It clearly shows the impact on northern areas: an average of £269 per working adult in the north-east, and similar in the north-west and in Yorkshire and Humber. The cumulative impact could be tens of millions of pounds for each constituency.

The impact on local economies, which we have not explored in great detail, is significant. My constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth will lose £15 million a year, which will have a huge impact on our local economy. Importantly, the financial losses will be highest in the constituencies with the lowest life expectancies, which means that health inequalities are likely to widen even further.

15:16

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Millions of lives have been impacted overnight by a single policy. It is indefensible. It will drive more disabled people into poverty, push children further into poverty, further strain public health and leave those in the greatest need behind. We should help those in greatest need in our society, not abandon them.

Let me be clear: the four-point rule is a cruel test dressed up as a reform. It means that people with complex, overlapping needs who score few points in many areas could be cut off. Those are real people, with anxiety, chronic pain or fluctuating conditions. If they do not tick a box, they do not get help. The system should protect, not punish.

As outlined by a number of speakers, a 2% tax on wealth above £10 million would raise £24 billion a year, more than five times what the Department for Work and Pensions hopes to save. Let us be honest: this is not about sustainability; it is a political choice. We cannot weaken the foundation that protects those with the greatest need. This is a moral line that we cannot and must not cross.

15:18

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this important debate—as always, she is right. Like many hon. Members, I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who are angry and anxious about the Government’s proposed cuts, which make no sense and will push people further into poverty. There is no evidence that they will get people into work, but there is an abundance of evidence of how devastating they will be.

My biggest fear is that we may ultimately count the cost of these cuts in lost lives. Lest we forget, a study attributed 330,000 excess deaths in Britain between 2012 and 2019 to the last round of austerity cuts. There is no denying that the number of people claiming sickness and disability benefits is rising, but we cannot ignore the fact that the increase in claims is linked to an ageing population and a decade of under-investment in our health services.

If the Government are to recoup costs from somewhere, they should cast their gaze away from some of the most vulnerable in our society and instead look at those with the broadest shoulders. Disabled people bore the brunt of cuts under the previous Government, while UK billionaires saw their wealth triple. These cuts represent the worst of all worlds and will plunge disabled people into poverty while failing to increase employment. They will make people sicker and more reliant on the NHS, and they will not win the Government any favours with the electorate.

At the last general election, people voted for change—for a Labour Government that would be more compassionate than the previous Conservative one. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington that it is not too late to change course. The Government can and should reverse these plans.

15:19

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

Last week, I held a citizens’ assembly in my constituency on the Government’s plans, and dozens of disabled people told me how frightened they were. Laurence, a disabled man who led the debate against the cuts, said:

“Parliament is legislating to assist my suicide…while legislating to stop me from being able to live.”

The fear in his words—they are his, not mine—cut through the room. I held a vote at the end of the meeting, and every single person voted against the cuts.

If the proposed cuts are brought to Parliament, then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about Tory cuts a decade ago, I will swim through vomit to vote against them. I cannot express to the Minister the scale of the devastation they will cause for disabled people in my constituency and across the country. The Government’s analysis shows that they will drive 250,000 more people into poverty and many others deeper into deprivation. This is not what the Labour party was formed to do.

I conclude with this appeal to the Minister. We were elected last summer on a promise of change. These cruel cuts are not the change that people voted for. Last week, we saw the people’s judgment on unpopular, unnecessary and immoral cuts. For the sake of disabled people in Liverpool West Derby, and for the sake of basic decency and morality, abandon these cruel cuts, deliver the progressive change our country needs and stop austerity.

15:21

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this vital debate.

I want to speak about working people. My constituency of Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr has a proud industrial heritage. Some may claim that the birthplace of the industrial revolution is Telford, but I would encourage them to read up on Bersham. In 2010, we witnessed the closure of our large chemical plant, which in 1920 was the world’s leading producer of phenol. We were also home to the last coalmine in north Wales, in Rhostyllen, which closed in the late 1980s. Like many post-industrial areas, our region suffers from higher deprivation and increased rates of illness.

When I look at the proposed cuts, especially the unjust tightening of the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment, I am filled with deep concern for many of my constituents. Wales already has the highest poverty rates among disabled people in the UK, and a greater reliance on PIP than any other part of the country. These cuts will hit Wales and my constituents particularly hard. I will vote against them.

The Government must withdraw the proposals and ensure that disabled voices are at the forefront of all future reforms. We urgently need a welfare system that supports people when they need it most, so that they can continue to live, work and contribute to society, not one that pushes them further into poverty.

15:20

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

A strong social security system is not just the cornerstone of a welfare state, but a hallmark of a decent society. However, it is exactly because the system is so essential that we must safeguard its future. It is our duty not just to help the most vulnerable today, but to ensure that the system is sustainable so that it can offer support tomorrow.

That is the central challenge when we consider PIP. The number receiving it has more than doubled in the five years since the pandemic, and more than 1,000 new people join it every single day. Although health conditions have become more widespread in the years following covid, due mainly to the Conservatives’ terrible mismanagement of and under-investment in the NHS, the number of people on health-related benefits such as PIP has, on some metrics, increased at twice the rate that underlying health conditions have.

Those of us who believe in the welfare state cannot simply ignore this issue, and neither can we posit speculative new revenue sources to wish the problem away. Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned a wealth tax as a possible solution. I say to them gently: if only it were that easy. Dr Allin-Khan,

“no country in the world has ever successfully had a wealth tax”.

Those are not my words, but those of Paul Johnson, head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

If we are to protect the system, we must not seek to freeze it in aspic or ignore the problems it faces. Instead, we must confront the problems head on and seek reforms that will allow the institutions of the welfare state and the values they encode to endure.

15:24

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Many people in South East Cornwall are deeply worried about what the proposals will mean for them and their families. The Government’s consultation is still open, so I urge residents to participate and respond. Alongside the work that I and colleagues undertake daily, raising the issue in public and holding meetings, the consultation is a vital opportunity for people to participate.

In South East Cornwall, 9.3% of working age adults are claiming PIP, well above the south-west average. Behind every one of the numbers is a person—a neighbour, a parent, a carer, a young adult trying to build a life in a rural part of the country where access to services and transport is already difficult. The most common reasons for making a claim include anxiety, depression, learning disabilities and so on, so it is clear that we must do more to support working-age adults who can work to do so. That means quality mental health services and better special educational needs and disabilities provision for our families.

The cost of living continues to hit hard in South East Cornwall, so I welcome the Government’s commitments to raise the standard universal credit allowance above inflation and to introduce the new health premium for those who will never be able to work, but I ask the Minister: what is being done to ensure that those affected are protected from being pushed into poverty? Will he commit to reviewing how to ensure that more accurate decisions are made in the first place to reduce stress, deliver better for our communities and reduce costs? Ultimately, South East Cornwall people rely on these services, and that is who I work for every day and will continue to fight for as their MP.

15:25

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I give great credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for bringing this subject to the Chamber.

There is not one MP here who was elected to make people poorer—not one. If there is, they should look at themselves in the mirror and feel a million shames. I look at the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms)—a good friend of mine and a tremendous servant to this House—and I wonder what went wrong. Why, when the rich are getting richer, the very rich are getting even more rich and there are more billionaires and millionaires than ever, are we tapping people for pennies, taking away their livelihoods and making their lives so miserable? My constituency of Blyth and Ashington is in the bottom 10% for social deprivation. I have 10,467 people depending on PIP support just to live. They are not living a life of luxury.

[Imran Hussain]

I forgot to say in my speech that I will vote against these measures if the Government push ahead. Will my hon. Friend do the same?

[Ian Lavery]

I will definitely vote against these measures. I was not elected to make my people poorer, for heaven’s sake, and to reduce support and benefits. There are some decent proposals with regard to getting people back to work, but the threat of a blanket reduction of benefits is scandalous. It is not Labour.

By the way, I will not take any lectures from the Tories, who have said categorically that they would double the amount of money that we are looking to withdraw from the benefits system—probably up to £15 billion. I will definitely be voting against these measures. I am a voice for people who need a voice in this place, and we need to oppose this.

15:28

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this important debate.

I totally agree that the welfare system needs reform. There is something seriously wrong when a person who cannot work at one point in time is written off work forever and not supported to re-enter the labour market, after having failed the work capability assessment. That is the flawed system that the Government are rightly aiming to address, but I want to use this short time to express my real concerns about the proposed tightening of PIP eligibility criteria. The truth is that many people who currently qualify for PIP will no longer qualify under the reforms, despite having very significant care needs.

Jane, one of my constituents, has Crohn’s disease. The condition significantly impacts her daily life, affecting food preparation, washing and dressing, and leading to anxiety when interacting with others. She uses her PIP to buy more expensive free-from foods, and petrol to allow her to use a car to go to work. She is seriously worried that if these reforms are implemented and she loses her PIP, she will not be able to work.

I have had example after example from constituents whose care needs would seem, from the reasonable perspective of a member of the public, to be significant despite the proposed removal of PIP. The Prime Minister was absolutely right this morning to say that the principle is that the most vulnerable will be protected. At the moment, it seems to me that we are not meeting that test.

15:30

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

As the parent of a child with cerebral palsy and complex disabilities, I know what it is like to be a carer—I am a carer every day and I will be a carer until my dying day. It is therefore incumbent on me to speak on behalf of carers in this debate.

I am now privileged because of the income I earn, but I have been there: worrying every day about the struggle of caring and the cost of paying the bills and mortgage. I know how many of my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford are stuck in the bubble that you get yourself into—stuck on a mixture of carer’s allowance and PIP, often becoming disabled yourself because of the mental or physical cost of that care. According to analysis by the Carers Trust, 28% of carers are already living in poverty; it has particularly asked for a detailed impact assessment specifically on the carers community. Will the Minister comment on that when he sums up?

I believe that this policy is driven by the DWP and Treasury alone. It is incumbent on us to ensure that other Government Departments—the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport—come up with proposals that also support the measures. I ask the Minister to comment on that because if we are truly to get disabled people to access work, and if we are truly to support carers, we need a strong cross-Government departmental strategy.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I am going to call the final Back-Bench speaker and, following that, Steve Darling.

15:32

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

PIP and its predecessors have never been unemployment benefits but a critical aid to supporting people in and out of work to live independent lives. We know that being disabled or suffering from a chronic health condition means facing many additional costs. Scope estimates that households with a disabled inhabitant need to spend an additional £1,000 a month just to secure the same standard of living as those without. Prepared food delivery, specialised clothes and technology required to aid normal everyday living, or just simply to get to work, all come at a greater cost.

Right now, we know that these households are disproportionately impacted by the cost of living crisis, with Trussell estimating that three in every four households accessing a food bank have a disabled inhabitant. Data from the Department for Work and Pensions shows that 307,000 households who currently receive the daily living part of PIP needed to use a food bank in the past year. That is three times the rate of food bank usage among households in general, which illustrates the significant hardship that disabled households face.

Yes, we have problems and too many people need welfare support, but let us attack the reasons for that rather than simply cutting the financial envelope associated with those services. Let us build a system that reflects the founding principles of the welfare state—compassion and fairness—and that recognises the challenges of the 21st century, but removes the remaining obstacles, making sure that all people can live fulfilling and worthwhile lives.

15:33

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I myself applied for this very debate last week, but I am delighted that the Mother of the House came out of the hat—or maybe Mr Speaker chose her. I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has led the charge so ably.

This is about dignity and independence. What is the point of being an MP? It is to give people agency over their own lives, and that is what PIP does in shedloads—it gives people with disabilities agency over their own lives. In my constituency of Torbay, 8,592 people claim PIP—12% of our working-age population, against a national average of 8%. I have the honour of representing the most deprived Liberal Democrat constituency in the country, and I live some of that myself, being disabled. We face real challenges. The issue is the highest area of interest for those who come to our citizens advice bureau in Torbay.

Only this week, I met a couple of people who came to take part in events. A blind gentleman from Portsmouth shared with me how he has PIP to back him up if things go wrong with Access to Work—and sadly, things regularly go wrong with the Access to Work system, as the Minister knows, because I have crossed swords with him on this before. I also met a young lady yesterday who has mental health challenges. She is able to have therapy, but that would not be there and she would be spiralling in a mental health doom loop if she did not have PIP to support her.

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

In Stratford-on-Avon, I have heard from constituents who fear that the welfare reforms could actually undermine their ability to remain in employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents rely on PIP as a crucial support that allows them to overcome the barriers they face to staying in work?

[Steve Darling]

That is the crucial thing—PIP is there to support people getting back into work; my hon. Friend is quite right.

Whether it is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister, they all say that the benefits system is broken, so let us make sure we reform it with some compassion. Liberal Democrats would like to see the benefits system reformed, but we want that to be done with people with disabilities, rather than it being foisted upon them. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said there is no evidence that the cuts will get people back into employment—actually, 300,000 people will end up in poverty. We must also remember that PIP is a passport to other benefits; for example, carer’s allowance is often married to it. Under the proposals, a number of households across the country could lose £12,000 if they lost PIP and carer’s allowance at the same time. That would be massive.

I want to touch on a couple of case studies. One is from Scope: the case of a gentleman called Anthony who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and autism. He gets 13 points—brilliant—but sadly, all those points are collected up under the four-point threshold. That is extremely concerning. He is worried sick about what he will be able to afford, and he works part time. The citizens advice bureau in Torbay reached out to me about a lady whose condition got worse. She was assessed, but sadly she lost her PIP. She is almost a harbinger of what could go wrong for other people, because she is now not able to meet her living costs, particularly her housing costs. That is a massive challenge for her.

I have a few questions for the Minister. I am particularly interested to know why the Government are introducing this cruel cut to PIP without undertaking reform in advance. As a few Members have highlighted, academics have found that there were about 600 suicides at the time of the change from DLA to PIP. As this cohort is much larger, has the Minister undertaken an assessment of how many suicides there will be? Is it over 1,000? Will he share with us what mitigating measures the Government are considering to ensure we do not hit those figures, which are extremely scary?

As the Mother of the House highlighted, there was a by-election in the not-too-distant past. Will the Minister listen to the people who spoke in that by-election and make sure that some of the most deprived communities do not have the heart ripped out of them by cuts to PIP?

15:35

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Dr Allin-Khan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to participate. I acknowledge the powerful speeches made by all Members this afternoon and my deep respect for the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Nobody speaks with greater sincerity and authority on behalf of people who are marginalised and disadvantaged in our society. I pay tribute to her, to her work and to her contribution today.

I want to say a quick word about the history, as mention has been made of the Conservatives’ time in office. I acknowledge that genuine mistakes were made in the design of the welfare system that we have now. The system is clearly not perfect, but it was very much not perfect before: in 2010 the system was extremely complex, with high rates of benefit dependency. The introduction of universal credit and PIP helped to rationalise and bring greater order to the system, and to reward work rather than welfare. Significant improvements were made in that regard, including improvements in the number of disabled people who were able to work and were supported in work.

In the last year of our time in government, 300,000 more disabled people were in work than in the year before. There was genuine improvement. Nevertheless, not enough support was given to many welfare recipients; that was the consequence of our fiscal inheritance in 2010 but also of choices made by the coalition Government, which fell particularly hard on local authorities and the DWP. I acknowledge that point, which is often made by hon. Members.

Then something else happened, particularly around 2017 or 2018 and even more so after covid. We saw a significant rise in the number of people in receipt of health and disability benefits, including in the higher categories of the universal credit health element. People were stuck on benefits, in many cases indefinitely and forever. What explains the imperative for reform, which the Government are responding to, is that the number of people on the higher rate of UC has increased by a third over the past five years. The PIP budget grew by 50% in the last Parliament alone. The fact is that the benefit bill is unsustainable. However, it is also true that the system can be inhumane and ungenerous.

We have a paradox: a system that is bloated and unsustainable overall, leading to the large budgets we are facing, yet on the frontline, in people’s actual experience, the system is starved in terms of the consequence of the inadequacy of benefits for many people. This is a huge opportunity and an imperative for reform—genuine reform, not just the soundbite. I notice that we do not have any Reform MPs in Westminster Hall for this debate. We genuinely need real reform.

In 2024, the Government I supported had plans to bring in further reforms to the benefit system; we did not have the opportunity to introduce those reforms, thanks to the public. Labour was elected with a huge majority that includes many Members here. To my regret and surprise, after 14 years of complaints about Government welfare reforms, the Labour party entered Government apparently without any plans to change the system.

We have spent eight months waiting for reforms to be introduced, only to get what we have now: a crude and cruel set of cuts, without any reform to the system at all. It is purely in response to what the Chancellor has done to the British economy—induced a fiscal crisis and caused the Treasury to demand of the DWP that swingeing cuts be made to the welfare budget, without any opportunity to reform the system or to reduce demand for welfare. That is, of course, what we should be doing if we want to bring down the bills.

There are also, of course, tax increases, including on employers, making it much harder for people to move from welfare into work, which I will not discuss today, and the removal of vital support from pensioners through the winter fuel payment cut.

[Ian Lavery]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us how much His Majesty’s Opposition propose to cut from the welfare bill?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman will be gratified to know that we are not in government, so it is not for us to come forward with precise plans. At the end of the previous Parliament, we had a manifesto commitment to reduce benefit spending and reform disability benefits and UC. We are now in a position of policy formulation, so I am afraid I am not able to tell him exactly what we would do. My role is to challenge the Government on why they have taken so long to come forward with an absence of meaningful reform plans. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I want to see benefit spending reduced. I think we spend too much on welfare in this country, but that is because we have social breakdown and poverty. The answer to that is not simply to cut benefits without reforming the system, but to reduce the drivers of poverty.

I recognise many of the problems with PIP, and I understand the imperative for change. Members have powerfully made the case that the system is currently inadequate, particularly for people with fluctuating conditions. We have heard powerful testimony about that in the Work and Pensions Committee—the Chairman and many other members are here. In fact, just this morning we heard powerful evidence from people talking about mental health. People who have a set of very complex, interconnected needs might not reach four points on any one measure, so could lose PIP under the Government’s proposal. I have read evidence from the MS Society that makes the same point: 48% of PIP recipients with MS do not reach four points in any one of the measures, so would be at risk. I am very concerned on behalf of those individuals.

I am also concerned that we do not even know how many such people there are. Members made the point that it took a freedom of information request to get the figure of 1.3 million out of the Government. That is not the figure that was officially released. As the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) said, we are also unclear about the effect on passported benefits, which is a significant question for the Government to answer. Most of all, we do not know what the Government’s announced assessment review will come forward with, yet we are making the cuts before we understand how the method of assessing eligibility will be reformed.

I implore the Minister to pause the measures set out in the Green Paper. We need a proper review not just of the assessment but of the way the whole system works. We absolutely need to bring down the benefits bill, but we do that by reducing demand for welfare, and many of the levers for that are of course outside the DWP. Nevertheless, we should redesign the system itself because of the many problems I have identified. As Members said, we should do that with claimants, not to them.

People voted for change in 2024, but they are not getting it. The Prime Minister promises more of the same—to go “further and faster” on the course he is already on. I deeply regret what he is doing. I have very great respect for the Minister. Few people have spoken in Parliament with greater authority, conviction and expertise on the subject of welfare in recent times. I have great sympathy with him for having to defend this policy position, which I do not think he would have defended in opposition.

I echo the points made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the right hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. They said that Labour should be better than this, and I agree: we should all be better than this. My party will stand with Members who oppose the changes.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I kindly request that he leave Diane Abbott a couple of minutes to have a final closing word.

15:48

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Like everyone else, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing the debate and on the way she introduced it. I pay tribute to her for her consistent focus on this very important topic for a long time. To everyone who has spoken, I say that it is absolutely right to be passionate about this topic.

The “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, published in March, set out to deliver three things with a properly thought-through plan—contrary to what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) just said. First, we will provide proper, tailored employment support for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds, with the biggest reforms to support for a generation and a funding commitment rising to an additional £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament.

Secondly, we will remove the disincentives to work that were left behind in the benefits system by the previous Government’s haphazard benefit freezes, which forced too many people to aspire to so-called limited capability for work and work-related activity status, when it should be supporting people to aspire to work and providing the support to enable them to achieve those aspirations. As has been mentioned, we have announced the first ever permanent real-terms increase in the universal credit standard allowance.

Thirdly—this is where we have focused in the debate—we will make the costs of PIP sustainable and address the unsustainable increases that have led to an almost doubling of the real-terms cost of the benefit, from £12 billion to £22 billion, since the year before the pandemic. Last year alone, it increased by £2.8 billion beyond inflation. I think everybody who has spoken would recognise that we simply cannot let that trend carry on.

I think I am right in saying that 30 years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and I served together on the Treasury Committee. She knows as well as anybody the need for funding to be sustainable. It is not in the interests of those for whom PIP is a lifeline, in anything beyond the very short term, for the Government simply to allow the costs to rise as they have done over the last five years.

[Nadia Whittome]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will give way just once, as that is all I can manage.

[Nadia Whittome]

Has the Minister seen the latest analysis from the New Economics Foundation, which estimates that fewer than 50% of disabled people are claiming these benefits, and that the acceptance rate has remained static? It is not actually the case that people are claiming who should not be claiming: people are claiming benefits to which they are entitled.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people who are getting PIP are the people who meet the criteria. My point is that we cannot simply carry on increasing spending at the current rate. That has to be addressed.

I well understand the concerns among people who claim PIP, and I want to take the opportunity of this debate to address those concerns. We are talking to disabled people, disability charities and disabled people’s organisations. The Green Paper consultation will continue until the end of June, and a White Paper will follow later this year. But we need to act ahead of a White Paper. Claims to PIP are set to more than double this decade, from 2 million to more than 4.3 million. That increase is partly accounted for by a 17% increase in disability prevalence, as mentioned, but the increase in the benefit caseload is much higher. It would certainly not be in the interests of people currently claiming the benefits for the Government to bury their heads in the sand over that rate of increase.

Following the Green Paper, we are consulting on how best to support those affected by the eligibility changes. We are looking to improve the PIP assessment; as mentioned, I will lead a review of that. The current system produces poor employment outcomes, high economic inactivity, low living standards and high costs to the taxpayer. It needs to change. We want a more proactive, pro-work system that supports people better and supports the economy as well.

I will turn specifically to the changes to PIP eligibility. PIP is a crucial benefit that contributes to the extra living costs that arise from disability or a health impairment. The changes we have announced relate to PIP daily living; the PIP mobility component is not affected. We are clear that the daily living component of PIP should not be means-tested, taxed, frozen or anything else that has been suggested. We are committed to continue increasing it in line with inflation. For the majority of current claimants, and categorically for the most vulnerable, who have been highlighted in this debate, it will continue to provide, in full, the support that it currently provides. Employment support for those who are able and want to work will be substantially improved as well.

As has been referenced, we have published data that shows that just over half of those who claim PIP today scored four points in one daily living activity in the last PIP assessment. Understandably, as we have heard, almost half of those who currently claim the benefit will be concerned that they will not be eligible in future. However, we have also published the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment, which is that by 2029-30 only around 10% of those who currently claim the daily living component of PIP will lose it as a result of the changes. That is the assumption that has gone into the spending forecasts. We are projecting that spending on PIP will continue to increase in real terms every year, but not at the unsustainable rate of the last five years.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am afraid I cannot give way again.

The OBR is right on this. Its assessment is based on previous experience of changes of this kind. The behaviour both of the people claiming the benefits and of those who conduct the assessments changes. For example, I have met people who were awarded two points for one of the activities last time around, when I thought they were entitled to four, but it did not change their award, so it was not challenged and nobody minded. In future, someone in that position could well score four points on that activity and so retain the benefit, even though they did not score four points on any of the activities last time around.

Changes to the PIP assessment will not be immediate; they will take effect from November 2026.

[Imran Hussain]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I cannot give way again; a lot of points were made in the debate.

For a given individual, the changes will take effect only at their first award review after November 2026. Award reviews take place on average at three-year intervals, so for many PIP claimants the change will take effect only a year or two after November 2026. In line with existing practice, people who are above state pension age will not normally be reassessed and so will not be affected at all.

If and when people are reassessed, it will be by a trained assessor, and the assessment will be of their individual needs and circumstances. We are consulting on how best to support those who lose entitlement, including those who will lose carers’ allowance, who are explicitly flagged up in the Green Paper. We set out in the Green Paper our plans to improve trust in the way that both PIP and WCA assessments work, which many of us have heard worries about, through reviewing our approach to safeguarding; recording assessments as standard so that when something goes wrong with the assessment, we can look back at the recording, see what happened and improve the assessment for next time; and moving back to having more face-to-face assessments, while continuing to meet the needs of people who may require different methods of assessment.

I think I have time to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon).

[Anna Dixon]

I apologise for not getting here earlier; I have been listening to carers who have been sharing their stories. I spoke to a woman who is caring for her husband, who has a neurodegenerative disease and currently scores only two points across the board. Their family would be penalised under the tightening restrictions. Does the Minister agree that somebody with a neurological and degenerative disease should be counted as severely disabled and protected from the changes?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the details of that particular case. I think the threshold we have set is the right place to set the eligibility criteria in the future. I am happy to discuss that point specifically. Our goal is a system that is financially sustainable in the long term so that it can be there for all of us who need it in the future.

15:58

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister has again repeated the line that the number of people claiming PIP has shot up and that there must be something dubious about that. I ask him to look at the New Economics Foundation report that came out today, which says that the reasons why the number of people claiming has gone up are a rise in the number of disabled people, a rise in deprivation, long covid and the pressures on the NHS.

The Minister said we were asking the Government to put their head in the sand; no—we are just asking the Government to talk to the disabled and their supporters and not ram through legislation without giving us sufficient information. This cruel and misconceived legislation will not end well politically. Meanwhile, millions of the disabled will live in fear.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Personal Independence Payment and disabled people.

Defence Sector Financing

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

16:01

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

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

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered barriers to defence sector financing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for responding today. Every era has ideas that capture imaginations, but only some give birth to institutions that genuinely have the chance to reshape history. The World Bank kick-started post-war reconstruction, and in 1949 NATO was founded, representing a giant, global step forward towards peace and security—frankly, it is hard to imagine a world without it. The lesson here is clear: when institutions are bold and are built for the long term, they secure the peace that prosperity depends on.

Today I want to present another bold idea about an institution that would strengthen and deepen our alliances for generations. What makes this opportunity even more unique is that one of the architects of the concept will hopefully be joining us later. I speak, of course, of the urgent need for a multilateral defence development bank. In my view, that is the single most transformative lever the Government could pull to fortify our collective security.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on defence sector financing. Given the current precarious security situation in Europe, we cannot be complacent and be left behind while our adversaries and others ramp up their military capabilities. Does he agree that it would be highly misguided to hold back British industry in such volatile and unpredictable times?

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for his sterling work on the Defence Committee. Through our collective industrial strength, what greater deterrent could there be to our adversaries?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before, so he knows what is coming. Is it not ironic that at a time when the Government want to increase defence spending—most MPs support that, and I am one of them—the trustees of the Members’ pension fund have decided that there is to be no investment of MPs’ pension contributions in the defence industry? Is it not time for the pension trustees to change their attitude immediately? What a disgrace. I hardly believe it.

[Mr Charters]

There could be nothing more ethical than investing in the companies that support our Ukrainian friends.

I believe Britain’s membership of a multilateral defence development bank could cement Britain as a leader not only in financial services, but in defence. Today, I will also talk about how we can bolster our sovereign defence industries by fixing the capital stack here at home and by sorting out the credit and cash-flow issues for British companies.

I will just take a couple of steps back. When I was at the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority, I was working on cross-border payments, sanctions and so many related things, but more importantly, I had a front-row seat to the regulatory and financial barriers that defence start-ups faced when I was acting head of compliance at a fintech. I saw how everything from export controls and dual-use rules to complex international regimes made it really difficult for those defence customers.

A few months ago, the Prime Minister pledged the largest defence spending rise since the cold war. That sent a clear signal that now is the time to invest in peace. Yet British defence innovators have told me they still face hurdles accessing finance, bank accounts and insurance. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) and I brought together over 100 Labour parliamentarians to write to the sector, highlighting some of those challenges. Following that, we wrote to the FCA, which helpfully published a statement that, as we have heard from firms, has eased environmental, social and governance perception concerns.

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

At this pivotal moment for national security, I welcome my hon. Friend’s call to clarify ESG rules to better back defence investment. Collins Aerospace in my constituency works really hard to create highly skilled jobs and apprenticeships. Does my hon. Friend agree that financial institutions play a vital role in supporting the defence sector, so we can further boost UK jobs in our economy?

[Mr Charters]

If we can get the financing environment right for Collins Aerospace, perhaps it can grow at more pace and deliver more high-skilled jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, for which I know she is such a powerful advocate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot and I hosted a summit at the Guildhall last month, and we were kindly joined by the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). Also joining us were defence primes, small and medium-sized enterprises, major banks and other stakeholders.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned small and medium-sized businesses. Would he agree that, for small businesses in defence-adjacent industries that want to grow into the defence market—such as those in the Teesside defence and innovation cluster in my constituency—a defence development bank, as he proposes, would give them that opportunity for market growth?

[Mr Charters]

My hon. Friend is a really powerful advocate for the businesses in his constituency, and as I will come on to, a multilateral commercial bank could help commercial lenders lend to the SMEs in his area.

When we were at the Guildhall, we were gathering evidence from UK banks, investors, defence primes, SMEs and start-ups. We drafted a light-hearted report, of more than 6,000 words, which is due in the coming weeks. It diagnoses domestic financing barriers for defence companies, which can be summarised as the six Cs: credit, cash flow, capital, contracts, compliance and consensus. I will focus on two of those, credit and cash flow, before returning to the concept of a multilateral defence bank.

If the UK is serious about strengthening its sovereign defence capability, we must build a proper defence financing stack, from early-stage equity to multilateral development finance. The stakes could not be higher, as one outstanding British SME founded by a veteran, told me they are likely to move to the US because some of the issues I am about to touch on.

We know funding challenges affect all SMEs, but those issues are more acute in defence. The sector’s unique risks, long procurement cycles, unpredictable cash flow and stringent compliance requirements all make commercial lending much harder. Let me start with some reflections on cash flow. We know cash flow constraints significantly increase defence SMEs’ working capital requirements. If a prime contractor delays payments, it creates a knock-on effect that constrains smaller suppliers. Commercial lenders see those risks and apply higher risk premiums to working capital loans—or, in some cases, deny lending altogether.

To its credit, the Ministry of Defence under this Government is leading by example, paying 95% of invoices within five days. That is world class. However, some primes are not at that standard, and their slow payment practices squeeze liquidity from the very companies we need to support. I have been told first hand by commercial lenders that they find it difficult to raise lending limits for existing borrowers in the defence sector, or even worse, are not always able to lend to those with promising growth potential.

One UK bank, which is doing quite a significant amount in this space, has written to me calling for the creation of a Government-backed defence guarantee scheme. That scheme would allow defence SMEs to access loans that might otherwise be unavailable commercially. It could also increase lending to those with a restricted borrowing capacity, and it could be modelled on existing schemes run by the British Business Bank.

We also need to address, head-on, poor payment practices of some of the major contractors. I thought about naming some of the firms under parliamentary privilege, but I shall not. One commercial lender wrote to me with the idea of a prime contractor scheme, where major contractors are required to reduce payment terms or even pay some British defence companies in advance. That could be transformative for SMEs operating in this high-risk sector. Let us back British defence SMEs, not just with warm words but with the finance stack, fair terms and funding guarantees they need to succeed.

The two ideas I have set out—a prime contractor scheme and a Government-backed defence guarantee scheme—would both tackle the classic market failure, which is more prevalent in defence. This is where information asymmetries and high-risk premia leave a segment of the market undercapitalised. By underwriting a proportion of commercial lending via Government guarantees, we would be able to reduce some of those borrowing spreads, lower the cost of capital for those firms and better align commercial lending with our national security aims. I warmly invite the Minister to work with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Defence to see whether those ideas have merit.

I am delighted to be joined today by Rob Murray, an outstanding ex-Army officer. He has been working on the concept of a multilateral defence bank, known as the Defence, Security and Resilience bank. It would be not-for-profit and is one of the strongest proposals out there because of his expertise and that of his team. A multilateral bank, backed by allies across the world, be it the EU, our North Atlantic friends or Indo-Pacific allies, is the right fit for Britain at this time. Let me set out why.

Take the ongoing war in Ukraine. We are already feeling the effects of that in the UK, industrially and financially. While Russia is fighting with artillery, we are fighting with accounting rules. That is why now is the time to be involved as a founding member of a multilateral defence bank. On my earlier concept of the defence financing stack, a multilateral bank would supply a much larger funding source to support large-scale industrial capacity. It would sit alongside the other two ideas I mentioned. It would be a World Bank-style financial vehicle, focused on defence, and it is ready to launch. Owned by nation states, it would mobilise capital into allied defence production and supply chain resilience. It would raise capital at triple A rates and guarantee working capital loans to commercial banks, who would then in turn lend to individual companies. That would mean that commercial lenders would be able to get credit at sensible prices backstopped by a multilateral bank.

Not only that but, through its triple-A rating, it could save 50 to 100 basis points for some countries. It would hold factories, tooling and inventory on its own balance sheet, meaning that Governments would not need to borrow and book public debt, creating vital fiscal headroom in the process for nation states. It would crowd in private sector capital and kick-start reindustrialisation in Britain and Europe without breaching fiscal rules, such as my favourite acronym in fiscal politics: PSNFL or public sector net financial liabilities.

The reason this idea ultimately wins for me is on value for money. I know through my work on the Public Accounts Committee that it is not just about how much money is spent but how smartly it is spent. This is a great opportunity to continue the Prime Minister’s work to make Britain a leader on the world stage once again. A multilateral bank could unite our allies, and the UK could anchor a multilateral defence bank at the heart of any future defence pact with Europe. The UK and EU summit on 19 May could be an excellent place to start this conversation. It could also include like-minded partners from around the world, be it Canada, Australia, Japan or Ukraine on the frontline.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on a very important speech. I know he has been vocal on this topic since he was elected. He will not be surprised to know that I agree with him: the City has an important role to play in mobilising capital to support the defence industry, as he mentioned.

I also know how important it is for UK companies to have access to EU finance. For example, there is the Horizon scheme. British scientists have already secured £500 million in research funding, thanks to the UK rejoining the programme. He just mentioned the summit coming up. Does my hon. Friend agree that co-operative defence procurement should be a high priority for the Government at the UK-EU summit?

[Mr Charters]

As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. To secure lasting peace, we need greater co-operation in defence procurement and financing with the EU and allies across the world.

Last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot and I warned that Russia plans to produce 4,500 tanks and armoured vehicles this year, plus 250,000 shells per month. That would lead to stockpiles three times larger than those of the US and Europe combined. Let that sink in. This is not a temporary surge; it is a long-term shift. We must match military strategy with financial and industrial muscle through a multilateral defence bank.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The hon. Member is speaking eloquently about the need for joined-up financing and fundraising for defence, but the other side of that issue is clarity about what the Government want. A key example is space: the UK has significantly underperformed and punches well below its weight in defence space, which is spread across two Ministries. There is no clarity. The sector says, “We want just one person in Government to tell us what they want.” Does he agree that, as well as sorting out the funding, the Government’s key role is to be clear about what they want? I think that that is the strategy of which he speaks.

[Mr Charters]

Growth in the defence sector, and allied sectors such as space, will deliver prosperity across the UK. If we can get commercial lending working for defence, it will support growth in those allied sectors too.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is one of the most erudite Members, and understands the City of London better than anyone else, so I am sure she agrees with me that there is no better home for the bank than the Square Mile, not least because of our relationships across the Atlantic and our proximity to Europe. My simple ask today is that the Government invite officials from finance Departments around the world to meet in London to discuss and explore the concept of a multilateral defence bank.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I join colleagues in welcoming this debate. The hon. Member is making some constructive suggestions, but a simple thing that the Government could do, because they have sole control of it, is look at the British Business Bank, which is sector-agnostic. That would be persuasive to international partners and would fit with the arguments he makes. Why are Ministers not willing to give a steer to the British Business Bank?

[Mr Charters]

I praise the last Government for their role in setting up the national security strategic investment fund as part of the British Business Bank. One of the problems with it is that it allows lending only to dual-use parts of the defence supply chain. That is an interesting point for the Government to look at. We must not think about these institutions in silos; we have to look at the BBB, the national wealth fund and UK Defence Innovation as a collective to find out how they can best support the sector.

Defence has always operated on two fronts: economic and military. This week, we reflect on VE Day 80 years ago. During world war two, factories in Britain were transformed overnight to churn out Spitfires, tanks and munitions, while rationing and war bonds mobilised a home front economy to sustain the fight. Let me be clear: Britain faces strategic competition not just on the battlefield but in our factories, our budgets and our very financial systems. This is not a challenge on the horizon; it is one that is already confronting us, economically, industrially and financially. Turbocharging financial support for our defence industrial base will empower companies of every size and truly build a powerful economic and industrial deterrent. It is time to remove the barriers and act faster, further and more decisively in supporting British defence.

16:19

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate. I also thank the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions.

I am going to embarrass a few people now. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), who is one of my successors in a seat I represented between 2010 and 2019. It was great to hear about the success of Collins Aerospace, which is in that constituency. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), as well as the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), for their interventions.

Today’s discussion and the fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer have highlighted the complexities and challenges we face in ensuring that our defence sector is robust enough to protect our national security and support our growth mission, which is the No. 1 mission of this Government. In recent years, the world has been reshaped by global geopolitical instability, including Russia’s aggression and its illegal invasion of Ukraine—a war on our continent—as well as increasing threats from malign actors. This, combined with the challenging economic and fiscal context, makes it essential that we address the barriers to finance in the defence sector, so I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate in Westminster Hall.

National security is the first duty of the Government, as highlighted in our plan for change. We have demonstrated our commitment in recent announcements, such as the Prime Minister committing to reach defence spending of 2.5% of GDP from April 2027. As he said at Prime Minister’s questions today, the last time the UK reached that level of spending was under the last Labour Government. Our ambition is to reach 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, as economic and fiscal conditions allow.

Given that uplift in defence spending and the challenging fiscal and economic context we find ourselves in, this Government want to ensure that the defence sector contributes to achieving our No. 1 mission of economic growth. The Chancellor reiterated that message at the spring statement, when she announced a package of defence and growth-focused measures. That included the creation of a new organisation, UK Defence Innovation, with the explicit aim of supporting the scale-up of SMEs, start-ups and non-traditional defence suppliers, enabling them to grow and thrive, fostering an innovative defence tech ecosystem and crowding in private capital.

As has been discussed in this excellent debate, we have been made aware of a number of financing issues in the defence sector, and I will come on to them shortly. I will first respond to the final part of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, on the proposals for a multilateral defence bank. I thank him for drawing our attention to these proposals, and I thank Rob Murray, the founder of the multilateral Defence, Security and Resilience bank, who has been liaising with the Government and championing this proposal. We recognise the issues that my hon. Friend raised today. We are looking carefully at the proposals and actively discussing with our allies a range of multilateral options.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned the EU, and I should say that we are looking forward to the UK-EU leaders’ summit on 19 May. We welcome the EU’s efforts to bolster Europe’s defence, including the ambitions set out in the ReArm Europe package and the defence White Paper. We have been clear that we are keen to work with EU allies on common challenges to our shared security. The Chancellor discussed this with counterparts at the G20 in February, and we are discussing the shared challenges with our European partners. I cannot comment in detail on those discussions at this time, but we will continue to work together with our European allies on this incredibly important issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about some of the spillover effects, and I assure him that the Treasury and the MOD are keen to maximise spillovers and synergies between the civil and military sectors for both economic growth and military reasons. We are considering how to maximise these benefits as we develop the defence industrial strategy.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of issues to do with defence companies’ access to finance, and I welcome the recent meeting he held with our hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) at Guildhall in the City. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry was present at that meeting, as were representatives of the defence sector and a number of trade associations representing the City and financial services.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer brings to this House a great wealth of experience in financial services, from both a firm and a regulatory perspective, so he will know that decisions regarding the provision of financial services to businesses are a commercial matter; banks and insurers need to make an assessment of the relevant risks and conduct appropriate due diligence. However, we are very clear that no company should be denied access to financial services purely on the basis that it works in defence. I encourage all defence firms to read the very helpful guidance published by UK Finance and ADA Group. It is excellent to see the trade associations coming together, working from the different perspectives of the defence sector and finance, to produce that guidance.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The proposal for a multilateral bank is a fascinating, but part of this debate has been to focus on some of the inhibitors on providing private finance and investment in the United Kingdom. The situation is getting worse with large-scale pension funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the parliamentary pension fund, but it pales into insignificance when we consider that Aviva, Royal London and the National Employment Savings Trust are all divesting from defence in our own country. That contrasts with the efforts that this Government and previous Governments have made to invest in this space.

Will the Minister consider—perhaps through FCA guidance—strengthening the fiduciary duty that the trustees of these funds have to increase the coffers and increase growth? That would show that Government are prepared to do more than just issue guidance, but that they will challenge and encourage investment in this vital sector in our country.

[Emma Reynolds]

We have been clear that there is no contradiction between ESG considerations and investment in defence, and that investing in our defence industry is a way to protect our democracy and borders, and to work in solidarity with our European neighbours. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the specifics, but I know that various accusations have been levelled at some of the companies he mentions and others. We need to be very careful about that.

I heard what the hon. Member for Strangford said about our own pension funds. There is huge potential in our pensions industry. We should ensure that that industry is in a position to leverage the great returns that can come from defence companies, but there is a lot of muddying the waters around certain firms and what they are doing. I do not want to name particular companies, but I am happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman in detail after the debate. Aspersions have been cast against certain companies managing pension funds that are not absolutely accurate when it comes to ESG. A lot of things are piled under the ESG banner. We are very keen that opaque ESG ratings should not impede the attractiveness of the defence sector.

I am running out of time. I believe that the Member who moved the motion replies?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

No.

[Emma Reynolds]

I have a bit more time then.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about access to finance for defence companies with regard to bank accounts. That is a commercial decision. He also mentioned access to credit, loans and cash flow, where we know defence SMEs often face challenges. We want to work across the Government, with SMEs in the defence sector and with the main players in financial services to ensure that we bring down some of the barriers to finance. My hon. Friend suggested a Government-backed growth guarantee scheme, and made a strong, thoughtful and compelling case for that. With other interventions, that is being considered as part of the defence industrial strategy.

I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members with a keen interest in this vital sector. We want to see a thriving UK defence sector, with both large defence firms and SMEs in the supply chain, that provides security for the United Kingdom and helps to deliver the economic growth that the country needs to raise living standards across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

16:31

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling barriers to educational opportunities in semi-rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and it is a privilege to secure this debate on behalf of young people in Hertford and Stortford, along with our school leaders, teachers and support staff. It is the honour of my life to represent the community where I grew up and where I call home, Hertford and Stortford. Ahead of today’s debate, I reflected on my journey through the education system. I did not follow a traditional route into politics; I left school at 17, dropping out of sixth form to work in Hertford town centre. I felt that traditional education was not for me and wanted to follow a different path, but I was left feeling directionless, struggling to connect with the right opportunity.

For too long, young people in semi-rural communities such as mine have been overlooked and the challenges that we face have been left unaddressed. Since my election, I have visited almost half of the 50 schools in my constituency. I have held two roundtable discussions with secondary headteachers here in Parliament, and I will shortly be hosting similar discussions with heads from local primary schools. There is no end to the ambition of our teachers to deliver a thriving education for our children, but I hear regularly from school leaders about the challenges they face in recruiting and retaining staff.

In semi-rural communities such as Hertford and Stortford, the high cost of living makes it difficult for primary schools to attract early-career teachers. This challenge is reflected across the education sector in our community. Spiralling house prices and a lack of single-person properties or starter homes for young families offer little incentive for early-career teachers to settle in our community and teach in our schools, which presents an acute challenge for communities like ours. Our secondary schools and sixth forms are key to connecting our young people with opportunity, and it has been a privilege to visit many of them and to welcome some of their students here to Parliament.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I share his concern about the lack of affordable housing for many school staff and other public sector professionals in southern England. It is a serious issue in my Reading constituency, despite the council working at pace to try to provide more council houses, so I hope we get to discuss this further.

[Josh Dean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I completely agree that this presents an acute challenge in many semi-rural areas like ours.

Spiralling house prices and a lack of single-person properties are a real challenge, and our sixth forms and secondary schools are key to connecting our young people with opportunity. I have had many conversations with school leaders about the erosion of external services under the previous Government, which decimated services previously provided by the local authority, including mental health and family support services. This has left our teachers picking up the shortfall. They are now on the frontline of providing that essential support, taking on responsibilities well beyond their job description.

I know from my own experience that a traditional path through education is not always the right one, but a lack of post-16 provision in semi-rural communities can also hold young people back. I am proud that my community is home to Hertford regional college’s Ware campus, which I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of times since I was elected. However, it is the only further education college in my constituency, and I understand that Bishop’s Stortford is the largest town in the country without an FE college.

Similarly, limited access to apprenticeships, work experience and industry placement opportunities holds our young people back. That is a particular challenge for T-level students, whose placements have to be subject-specific, but it also applies to subjects such as digital, science and engineering. That lack of provision leaves many young people limited in choice and struggling to connect with the right opportunity for them.

I turn to three specific challenges facing semi-rural communities in Hertford and Stortford. The first is transport and connectivity. In Hertford and Stortford, the cost and frequency of public transport presents an ongoing barrier to our young people’s access to educational opportunities.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is laying out well the challenges that all our young people face in accessing educational opportunities. My constituency, which is on the urban fringe of Greater Manchester, is the bridge between the centre of Stockport and High Peak. Many of my young constituents in the rural bits of Mellor, Marple Bridge and Strines are denied opportunities, particularly of further education, just because there are no bus routes to get them there. Does he agree that when we look at growth in our communities and our economy, we should think about access to education in semi-rural areas, and look at transport as an asset, not just a cost?

[Josh Dean]

I agree. I often talk about public transport in terms of not just getting people to places but connecting people with opportunity. That is absolutely how it should function.

Issues around connectivity diminish the number of opportunities for our young people, making it harder for them to get to school and access work experience opportunities or apprenticeships. For many students, the extra activities outside the school day, such as clubs, trips or sports matches, are out of reach because they cannot get the buses they need to make it home safely. As we all know, those are the activities we remember most from school. They gave us the chance to develop our interests, explore culture, meet other students and expand our horizons. These opportunities should not be available only to those whose families can afford to drive them or pay for taxis.

Secondly, we know that young people are at the sharp end of the mental health crisis. I remember the challenges that my peers faced in accessing appropriate mental health support at school. When I speak to young people and school leaders today, they say that the situation has only got worse.

Isolation is a key driver of poor mental health. In a 2021 YoungMinds survey, a staggering 95% of children and young people from semi-rural areas cited feelings of loneliness and isolation. Child and adolescent mental health services in Hertfordshire are under huge pressure, leaving many young people facing long delays when trying to access desperately needed support. Schools are under huge pressure to keep young people safe and in school, but they are not always equipped to deal with mental health challenges such as emotional-based school avoidance, anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Thirdly, compounding the situation further, children living with special educational needs and disabilities face huge challenges, which are all the more acute in Hertfordshire, where only 40% of education, health and care plans were issued by the local authority within the statutory deadline in 2023, compared with 50% across England as a whole. That is largely due to a shortage of educational psychologists and a significant increase in the number of EHCPs and assessment requests. A shortage of specialist places leaves many children and young people waiting years for school places, and many SEND children are out of education for long periods.

I recognise that these issues fit into the national context on SEND, but the problems are exacerbated in semi-rural communities. For example, transport guidance currently states that primary school-aged children should travel no more than 45 minutes, and secondary school-aged children should travel no more than 75 minutes, including pick-up times. It can be a real challenge in semi-rural communities to meet those timelines, and that often puts huge demand on children living with SEND, who may find travelling distressing or have specific medical needs. It can also leave children feeling isolated. They may attend schools many miles away from where they live and be separated from their peers, and their parents may struggle to access the natural support network that comes with schools.

I welcome the work that the Labour Government are undertaking to break down the barriers to opportunity for children and young people in Hertford and Stortford and across the country. That includes the roll-out of free breakfast clubs to ensure that every child starts the day well fed and ready to learn, and the additional £1 billion of funding for SEND across the country, which is a welcome first step as we seek to fix the broken system inherited from the Conservative party. We have also committed to putting specialist mental health support into our schools. I was very grateful for the Minister’s recent answer to my question on that in the House.

I recognise that there are no quick fixes to the challenges that I have set out facing semi-rural communities, but they must none the less be addressed to ensure that children and young people in communities like ours can find the right path for them and thrive. I know that the Minister takes these matters incredibly seriously, and I commend the Government on the progress they have made so far. I would be grateful if he addressed a few specific points in his response.

Some of the issues I have touched on, such as the cost of housing or transport, sit outside the Department’s brief, but they have an impact none the less, so will the Minister confirm that the Government are taking a cross-departmental approach to address the challenges? Will he set out in further detail what progress the Department is making on rolling out specialist mental health support in our schools? And what consideration has been given in Government to open access early support hubs in semi-rural communities, to ensure that provision is accessible outside school, too?

There should be no link between where a young person comes from and how far they can go in life. I welcome the Government’s work to tackle the barriers to educational opportunity for young people, and I look forward to hearing the contributions from the Minister and all hon. Members here today.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

This is only an hour-long debate, and lots of people want to speak, so we will have to have a time limit of three minutes on speeches. If we have interventions, not everybody will get in.

16:41

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on setting the scene. I want to give, as I always do, a perspective from Northern Ireland—I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I think it adds to the flavour of the debate.

In Northern Ireland, barriers to education include financial pressures, lack of funding, declining pupil numbers and, as is so often the case, special educational needs. This is similar in other areas, but rural schools tend to be the smaller schools with the big heart—those who try extra hard to make things better. I can understand why education authorities and trusts are tempted to look at numbers as the bottom line, but rural school numbers and rural schools must be looked at differently, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford set out. According to the education strategy for 2022 to 2027, some 230 of the 800 primary schools in Northern Ireland have fewer than the recommended number of pupils. One primary school in my area has capacity for 95 pupils, but it could easily house perhaps another 10. We need to ensure that small schools—small by their nature—can survive, because they are vital to rural infrastructure.

In Northern Ireland, there is a further drive for integrated schools. My two eldest granddaughters attend such a school, and I was heartened that it was put in the peninsula. However, as a governor on the board of Glastry high school, I am also cognisant of the difference in funding that exists, when Glastry has long needed a building project and yet Strangford integrated college is in its new campus building already. Additionally, there is no issue if anyone wants to stay after school for sports or music in Newtownards, but if children live in the countryside, some will get a school bus at 7.15 in the morning and then cannot get one until 5.30 in the afternoon to get back home. That underlines the importance of schooling within the community.

I know that the Minister will respond very positively to the issues he has responsibility for. He is always very helpful, and we always share ideas, so I ask him to swap ideas with the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to look at improvement and what we can do to benefit us all. I am always proud to be the Member of Parliament for Strangford in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I always say that we are better together, and that is because we can share ideas and learn from each other. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to do that and let me know how he gets on with those conversations.

16:44

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your esteemed chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing the debate and particularly for including the phrase “semi-rural” in the debate title. Often in this place we debate the issues facing rural and urban areas, but the specific challenges facing areas such as my constituency—whose towns and villages, although a little too compact and urban to be considered rural, are certainly not major towns or cities—are not always heard. However, they are being heard today, so I thank my hon. Friend for that.

One of the biggest challenges facing families in my constituency is securing a place at a primary school in—or even near—their community. In the Cannock area, 147 primary school applications were refused across 11 primary schools for September 2024—the figure will be even higher this September—and in neighbouring Rugeley, 17 were rejected. That means that over 160 families in my constituency were essentially told that there is no place for their child at a local school.

Similarly, Norton Canes primary academy in Cannock and Poppyfield primary academy in Hednesford each turned away 35 applications, which is more than a full classroom of children. This acute shortage of school places has been going on for at least six years, yet county councillors have not engaged in finding solutions and schools have been left in the dark. These are not just numbers; they represent real families, often with both parents working. Suddenly, they are forced to find alternative arrangements, often miles from home.

Cannock Chase has grown significantly over the last few years, which is certainly something to be proud of. After all, why would people not be drawn to such a fantastic area? But growth without planning leads to pressure, and in this case the pressure is being felt in our school admissions system. It is clear that local capacity has not kept pace with housing developments.

Beyond admissions, access to education, from reception to college, is being hindered by poor public transport infrastructure, as has been mentioned. Like many of the semi-rural communities represented here, Cannock Chase suffers from infrequent and unreliable bus services. I have heard from teachers and parents whose children face long waits after school and who, in some cases, cannot attend extracurricular activities or get home safely.

Although Staffordshire county council provides free transport for some eligible pupils, eligibility is narrowly defined as living over 2 miles from a primary school and 3 miles from a secondary school, and only if the child is attending the nearest suitable school. That often leaves parents with no viable alternative but to drive their children to school.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that transport in rural and semi-rural areas can often be much more expensive than in urban areas, where it is subsidised to a far greater extent?

[Josh Newbury]

I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Often, the premium in semi-rural areas is very real.

I will finish by saying that children and young people in the semi-rural communities that those of us here represent have just as much potential as those in rural and urban areas. I look forward to working with the Minister and the Government to make sure they finally realise that potential.

16:47

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Nowhere is it plainer that there are barriers to educational opportunity in semi-rural areas than in the part of Devon that I represent. Young people are held back not by any lack of talent or ambition—far from it—but by structural challenges in the recruitment of their teachers, in transport and in broadband access.

Let me start with what matters in every school: the teachers. According to the latest data from the Department for Education, Devon has 5,620 teachers across 372 state-funded schools, which is a drop of nearly 50 teachers in the last year. Last week, I met National Association of Head Teachers representatives in Devon, who talked about a recruitment and retention crisis.

However, there are positives. The University of Exeter is pioneering a new postgraduate certificate in education approach across the south-west. It has set up primary training hubs—rural local hubs—in Exeter, north Devon and Somerset. That model recognises that teachers often stay where they train and where they go to university, so this new approach is really quite positive.

I will turn now to digital connectivity, which is another barrier that disproportionately affects semi-rural areas. The online newspaper DevonLive reported in 2021 that poor internet connection was impacting children’s learning. Four years later, that has not changed. I have had correspondence from constituents in Furley, Kentisbeare and Colyton who have all reported unreliable broadband, slow speeds and frequent outages.

Problems with travel distances are particularly acute in counties such as Devon, which is said to be the third largest county by area. People live scattered many miles from colleges and education hubs, but over the past decade bus routes have been cut, costs have risen and the options for safely cycling and walking to school have become fewer.

In its 2024 report “The Grass Ceiling”, the University of Exeter notes that rural underachievement is being hidden. On the face of it, there is high performance in rural areas, but that is because of some high-performing pupils. Advantaged households are skewing the data, and that masks the reality that many pupils are struggling—indeed, rural pupils are up to 8 percentage points behind urban pupils in GCSE results on average.

To summarise, talent is spread across the whole country, including the whole of Devon, but right now opportunity is not.

16:50

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Bolsover is one of only 15 constituencies in the whole of England to be without a sixth form. Our incredible and inspiring young people live in small towns and villages, and they have to rely either on parents to give them a lift or on barely existent public transport. One village, Morton, has just had its bus service cancelled, cutting it off entirely. Residents tell me that it is now impossible for young people to get to Chesterfield college.

The lack of a sixth form, combined with poor transport, means that far too many do not attend sixth form at all. In places such as Shirebrook, 7% of young people do A-levels, compared with 52% nationally. Across our constituency, fewer than one in four 18-year-olds go to university, and fewer than one in five have a degree—half the national average. The lack of sixth form provision is undoubtedly one of the main drivers of low aspiration and academic achievement. It sets our young people on a path to deprivation, poverty and poor health. It limits their earning potential and their opportunities in their professional and personal lives.

Bolsover has plans for a new sixth form, which the Department for Education, wonderfully, is considering. Access to further and higher education is essential to removing a preventable barrier to our incredible young people achieving their ambition. I call on the Minister to prioritise our young people, just like the last Labour Government prioritised my education, which meant that I could be here today. I want us to smash down barriers to opportunity and approve Bolsover sixth form.

16:53

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate.

It should not be controversial to say that children and young people deserve an equal start in life, regardless of whether they grow up in a city, suburb or small rural village, but for those growing up in semi-rural or rural constituencies such as West Dorset, there are persistent and systematic barriers that too often get overlooked in national policy.

Young people in rural areas rely heavily on public transport to reach school, college, apprenticeships or work, yet bus services in rural Dorset are disappearing. Dorset received just £3.8 million in Government funding for the bus service improvement plan—less than a third of what Devon received, and the lowest funding in the south-west. For too many families, that means there is no bus at all.

That matters when we consider that, in 2023, 64% of children in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings had to get to school by car, compared with just 28% in urban towns and cities. The cost of that travel is often unsustainable, particularly at the moment, during a cost of living crisis. For poorer families, in particular, the lack of affordable, reliable transport directly limits access to education.

Young people also need safe options to travel independently, but in rural areas that is often not possible. Although we need active travel and cycle to work and school schemes, we cannot ignore the fact that cycling on rural roads is disproportionately dangerous. Statistics show that cyclists are nearly twice as likely to be killed on rural roads than on urban ones.

Transport is only part of the picture. Children’s mental health matters too. In Dorset, CAMHS provision is centralised in one location—Dorchester. For a family living in Lyme Regis or Beaminster, that can mean travelling between 25 and 35 miles for help. That is not good enough. Poor mental health affects a child’s appetite to learn, make friends and participate in class. It can shape their entire educational experience.

Yet, rurality is not counted in the models that provide funding to our schools and services. The headteacher of the Thomas Hardye school in West Dorset previously worked in a London borough. He spoke to me yesterday and highlighted the difference: his previous school in London received approximately £10,000 per pupil; in West Dorset, it is closer to £5,000. Government funding formulas rely on deprivation metrics and overlook rurality, failing to reflect the challenges we face, such as transport, staffing and access to services. We are letting our parents, children and teachers down by not properly funding our schools.

Apprenticeships could help to fill the employment opportunity gaps in rural areas, but current funding arrangements do not take into account the additional costs faced by rural employers, such as transport and cost of materials.

Rurality should not be a barrier to aspiration. Young people in my constituency of West Dorset have every bit as much potential as those in cities, but potential needs opportunity, and opportunity needs investment. We must support our teachers, we must support our schools and we must support our children.

16:56

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate, which shines a light on an issue that affects my constituency.

Although Harlow itself is a built-up town, I am also proud to represent the surrounding villages of Nazeing, Roydon, Hatfield Broad Oak, Hatfield Heath and Sheering, to name just a few. These are vibrant communities, which I regularly visit through my constituency surgeries, local events and attendance at parish meetings. Time and again, I hear the same concerns: young people in semi-rural areas are being let down by barriers that limit their access to quality education.

I recognise that this Government are committed to making education an equal playing field for all, but in too many semi-rural areas there are issues that we need to address. One of the most pressing, as mentioned by other hon. Members, is transport. In urban areas, many students can walk to school, but families in villages such as Roydon or Sheering face long and often unsafe journeys. Buses are infrequent or unreliable, and parents—many of whom work full time—can spend hours each day driving their children to and from school.

One constituent, Kelly from Roydon, had to drive 30 minutes each way for the school run before heading to work. Her husband, Jason, often had to leave work early to pick the children up. That is not just inconvenient; it is a clear disadvantage, and one that working families should not be forced to bear.

Another issues I want to address, which I have seen a lot in constituency surgeries, is road safety and infrastructure. Even when children live close to school, the journey can be dangerous. Sheering Road, for example, is home to two primary schools, yet I would hesitate to call it child friendly. I have done the walk myself, and it is hair-raising at times. The road lacks the proper safety measures, and I have witnessed at first hand just how hazardous it can be for young pedestrians. School should be a place of learning, not something a child risks their safety just getting to. Poor road infrastructure also makes it harder to attract and retain talented teachers. As has been mentioned, long and difficult commutes into isolated areas are a barrier to recruitment. Without teachers, there is no education.

Beyond infrastructure there is the issue of resources. Many semi-rural schools have limited access to reliable internet and electricity, holding them back from using technology that could enrich learning. Teachers, who are the backbone of our education system—I have to say that; I used to be one—often gravitate towards schools where they are offered better salaries, career progression, housing options and transport opportunities. That makes it even more difficult for rural and semi-rural schools to retain high-quality staff.

In Harlow, 20.4% of the adult population have no formal qualifications, which is 2.2% above the national average for England and Wales. That figure should concern us all.

In conclusion, if we are truly committed to educational opportunities for all, we must invest in transport, infrastructure and digital access to attract the best teachers to every part of the country, not just our cities. No family should be disadvantaged because of where they live. Education should not be a postcode lottery. Let us work together to ensure that every child—whether they live in central Harlow or the smallest village—can reach their potential.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I apologise; I am going to have to reduce the time limit to two minutes to try to get you all in. I would like to listen to the next speaker for hours, but he has only two minutes. I call Peter Prinsley.

17:00

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Edward. That is very kind.

Far too often, people who leave the academic track at 16 are not provided with an alternative. Apprenticeships and skills education were neglected by our predecessors, so I am glad that in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket we have some fantastic businesses, such as British Sugar and Greene King, providing high quality apprenticeships. We also have excellent technical education providers such as Nikos Savvas, principal of the outstanding Abbeygate sixth-form college in Bury St Edmunds and CEO of the Eastern Education Group, who has been visionary in championing the value of effective technical skills, extending all the way from early years to adulthood.

It has never been more important to have a proper system of technical education. We will soon see a wave of major infrastructure projects in the east of England, and we will need thousands of workers. We must ensure that we are educating people quickly enough to fill those jobs. Anglian Water reservoirs, offshore wind farms, East West Rail, Sizewell C—the success of these vital projects depends on a constant supply of technically trained people. The Eastern Education Group has suggested a formal network of “further excellence” technical colleges, a suggestion that I strongly commend to the Government.

I recently visited Hinkley Point C, the model for Sizewell C, and met outstanding nuclear technicians who started their careers with apprenticeships. They went straight into well-paid jobs and will eventually operate nuclear power plants. What matters most, they explained to me, was being a SQEP—a suitably qualified and experienced person. Whatever your academic background, it is important simply that you can do the job, so let us SQEP up our society and invest in technical education and apprenticeships across the country, especially in rural areas where it is so sorely needed. We will train the generation that will rebuild Britain.

17:02

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this incredibly important debate. I also thank my schools and the college in North West Leicestershire for welcoming me on my various visits in the last 10 months.

As time is short, I will focus on post-16 education. When young people make decisions about their post-16 education, they should be thinking about the jobs they want and the skills they need to get there. However, in rural communities, those decisions are complicated by the additional barrier of just how they are going to get to college. How are they going to access the transport that will get them to a suitable course to take them on their journey?

Just two years ago, a key bus link between Coalville in my constituency and Hinckley in the neighbouring constituency was withdrawn. The cut took place midway through the academic year and left many students, who used the bus route to access North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire college or Stephenson college, without suitable public transport. I know from speaking to parents at the time that they had to adjust their work schedules to ensure that their children could finish their studies. Going to college, accessing an apprenticeship or staying in school is a key part of striving towards independence, and getting there is so much more challenging for those living in rural communities. Some of my villages are barely served by two buses a day. We must ensure that long-term decisions are made on key bus routes to help my constituents to get not just to school or college, but to work.

We have also heard locally about the difficulties young people face in getting a driving test. I appreciate that that is a broader issue, and that the Government are taking steps to address it, but obtaining a driving licence in a rural community can be very important to access education. Being able to drive is much more important when bus connectivity is limited, and that has a detrimental impact on people’s choices. We have the opportunity to improve connectivity in rural areas and to help people in those areas to access additional educational opportunities.

17:04

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for raising this important issue.

Educational achievement in rural areas is not spoken about nearly enough, so I welcome this debate. It is something I have first-hand knowledge of: I grew up in rural Norfolk and went to school and college there, before serving as a school governor for a number of years at two separate schools. I have always been passionate about education—I had originally intended to become a teacher, but life took me in a different direction. It is often thought that students in more urban areas who are from disadvantaged backgrounds do worse than those who grow up in rural areas such as mine. However, it is poverty, not rurality, that lowers outcomes, and we have very similar issues. There is a clear link between rural poverty and educational attainment.

One of the main barriers, as has been said, is transport. I vividly remember going to college, waiting at 6 am at the bus stop in the winter, and it was no fun. It is no wonder that, by the time Christmas arrived, there were very few of us left at that bus stop; more than half had dropped out of our college course. Statistics show that only half of pupils in rural areas can get to a further education institution within a reasonable travel time.

There is also a choice barrier. I wanted to become a geography teacher, and I was disappointed that my sixth form did not offer that option at A-level. Fine subject as it is, there were just not enough people wanting to study it, and the course was not put on. That was one of the reasons why I ended up not going to university and not becoming a teacher. A lack of choice of subjects is a major issue, and so is the limited choice of places to study.

I am pleased that this Labour Government are breaking down barriers to education, and I welcome and have been proud of the measures taken since we took office.

17:06

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this vital debate.

My concern for Shrewsbury also focuses on educational opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds, in terms of both funding and geographical access. My local provider map will probably mirror that of many other semi-rural areas: the constituency serves the whole county of 19 market towns, and in recent years there has been a domino effect as smaller schools have closed down their sixth forms, leading to a centralisation in the county. As a result, Shrewsbury Colleges Group now supports more than 10,000 students. It is the sixth largest college in the country, offers a wide range of courses, and was recently graded as “outstanding” by Ofsted.

However, the situation presents geographic barriers to those aged 16 and 17 who live across the county in those smaller villages, due to the lack—as we have heard—of public transport. In Shropshire we have limited train stations and we have lost more than 5,000 bus routes in the past 12 years, leaving many young people excluded from opportunities. One example was a hairdresser I met in the village of Broseley. I asked her why she became a hairdresser; she said that she had really wanted to do an apprenticeship in engineering, but there were no buses, and this was the only apprenticeship she could walk to. There is poverty of opportunity, as young people reduce their aspirations to match their transport options.

That is depressing enough, but even where there is a bus between towns, the average annual ticket costs £750. It is known locally as the “A-level tax”, and for many families it is completely unaffordable. However, many rural colleges do not receive additional funding to help with the bursaries they offer. Colleges such as Shrewsbury combine both A-levels and FE courses, yet they fall between the two stools when it comes to funding. I urge the Minister to review the anomaly whereby sixth forms and FE colleges receive funding, but where the two are combined, as they often are in rural areas, they miss out on crucial funding.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Last but not least, Matt Rodda.

17:08

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Thank you for fitting me into this important debate.

I want to take a few moments to elaborate briefly on the concerns I raised earlier about recruitment and retention in the Reading area and Berkshire for school teachers and other school staff, but also staff in other parts of the public sector and our public services more generally. The basic problem in our area is that house prices are very high, but sadly national pay scales do not always reflect those additional pressures. That is a particular issue for a small number of areas; I am certainly aware that parts of Oxfordshire have similar problems to Berkshire, and there may well be other scattered issues across certain parts of England. Now that I have raised the issue, I hope the Minister might be able to look into it for me. I know that the Government are working extremely hard to raise standards in education and invest in the education system.

I wanted to give the example of a local comprehensive school whose former headteacher told me recently that it had had issues with recruitment and retention with certain subjects. That issue occurs across the country with certain shortage subjects, possibly in the case of science, technology, engineering and mathematics or English teaching, and maybe one or two other disciplines within large secondary schools. However, because of the increase in house prices and the cost of living pressures more generally, the situation has changed over the last few years and got progressively worse while the last Government was in office.

Last year, things reached a point where it was extremely difficult to recruit any teachers. Often, there was only one applicant for any advertised vacancy. That is a challenge for any leader in any organisation, and particularly for teachers and heads under extreme pressure. I appreciate the work that the Government are doing; I thank Reading borough council for its work on council house building, which I mentioned earlier, and the University of Reading for its excellent teacher recruitment work, but it would be wonderful if the Minister could look into this issue.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We have got everybody in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

17:10

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. I represent Frome and East Somerset, also a semi-rural constituency, and I recognise many of the challenges he talked about earlier, particularly around affordable housing and the mental health of our young people.

For far too long, young people in rural and semi-rural areas have faced persistent barriers to accessing education, whether due to poor transport links, limited youth services or a lack of training support. The Lib Dems have always believed that education is the cornerstone of a fair society, but we also recognise that not every child is given a fair shot. Geography should never determine opportunity. That is why we have been calling for a £2 billion rural services fund, which would enable the co-location of essential services, such as GP surgeries and schools, in local hubs that make the most of existing infrastructure, helping to revitalise and support local rural communities.

In my constituency, the lack of reliable public transport, as mentioned, is a daily challenge for many families. One constituent from Beckington, a village just outside Frome, has two children attending middle school in Frome. Although the school is under three miles away, the only walking route is along a narrow pavement beside a 60-mile-an-hour road. In 2019, the council deemed that route safe, yet almost every parent in Beckington drives their child to school because they quite rightly believe that it is not. If my constituent could not drive, they would be forced to pay £80 a month per child for school transport—an unaffordable cost for many families. That is not choice; it is necessity born out of neglect.

While we welcome the introduction of breakfast clubs under the Labour Government, we continue to believe that free school meals would be a more inclusive and effective alternative. In many rural and semi-rural areas, students simply cannot get to school early enough to benefit from breakfast clubs, due to sparse and inflexible bus timetables. There is currently no indication that those would be adjusted to support the policy.

Reliable broadband is another area where rural communities are being left behind. The Lib Dems have long championed the need for hyperfast fibre-optic broadband, with priority being given to rural areas. While we welcome the Project Gigabit roll-out across Devon and Somerset, I still await further detail on how it will benefit my constituency specifically.

The pandemic laid bare the digital divide. Too many households in semi-rural areas lack the reliable internet access needed for remote learning. In the 21st century, broadband is not a luxury; it is a basic educational need. Students who cannot log on cannot keep up, and we risk leaving them behind. As someone with a teenager who is about to start their GCSEs, I know it makes them very grumpy if they cannot log on.

Let us not forget about post-16 education. In rural areas, access to sixth forms, colleges and apprenticeships remains patchy, creating a postcode lottery for young people’s futures. Limited public transport and poor broadband only compound the problem. That is why the Lib Dems want to introduce a young people’s premium, extending the pupil premium funding to disadvantaged 16 to 18-year-olds. Every young person deserves equal access to education, training and opportunity, no matter where they live. When we invest in education, we invest in our economy, our communities and our shared future. Every child in every corner of the country deserves the chance to succeed.

17:13

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing today’s important debate on tackling the barriers to educational opportunity faced by young people in semi-rural areas. This issue touches communities across the country, including parts of my constituency, so I am pleased that we are in Westminster Hall giving it the attention it deserves. I have certainly felt that, for too long, much of the discussion around educational disadvantage has focused to a large extent on inner cities. While there are undeniable challenges in urban settings, that somewhat narrow framing has obscured the realities faced by young people growing up in less densely populated areas.

On the surface, rural and semi-rural pupils appear to perform well, often even outperforming their urban counterparts in headline attainment measures, but averages can be deceptive. Recent research from the University of Exeter has shown that when the data is disaggregated, a very different picture emerges. Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in rural and semi-rural communities actually do worse—sometimes significantly worse—than similarly disadvantaged pupils in urban areas. At GCSE level, the attainment gap can be as high as eight percentage points.

We also need to be honest about the practical barriers that young people in semi-rural communities face—barriers that, while often not obvious to central Government, are plain to see for anyone who has spent time listening to families, school leaders or employers in these areas. The first and arguably the most pressing, which has been repeatedly raised today, is transport. The lack of affordable reliable public transport comes up again and again in conversations with headteachers, apprenticeship providers and young people themselves. The result is that some young people simply cannot take up the opportunities that exist, whether that is a college course in the next town, a part-time job or a work placement that would open doors. Employers, too, are feeling the strain, reporting that inadequate public transport limits their ability to recruit young staff. That is simply not good enough.

No less important is solid digital infrastructure. In 2025, it should go without saying that high-speed broadband is a basic educational necessity, yet across pockets of semi-rural England, people still struggle to access reliable internet at home. During the pandemic, when learning moved online, that digital divide was laid bare, but it did not begin there and it has not gone away. Even now, slow speeds and patchy connections undermine students’ ability to complete homework, access the virtual tutoring used by their peers and easily apply for jobs and apprenticeships. The failure to deliver truly universal digital access is becoming a core driver of poorer outcomes in rural and semi-rural education.

The third barrier relates to choice and proximity. In many semi-rural areas, the number of local education providers is limited, as we have heard today. That can mean fewer subject options at A-level, less availability of vocational and technical qualifications and more pressure on local schools to stretch resources across a wide catchment. Whereas a student in a city might have a dozen sixth-form or college options within easy reach, a student in a rural town might face a daily bus journey of more than an hour each way, if the bus runs at all.

Schools and colleges everywhere are feeling the strain on their budgets, but for smaller settings in semi-rural communities the financial pressure is acute. The Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions has added costs to education budgets. For a teacher earning £40,000, the combination of national insurance and teachers’ pension scheme changes means an additional cost of nearly £3,000 per year per staff member.

The reality is that semi-rural schools and colleges are often the most vulnerable to cuts. Their smaller size limits economies of scale, their geographical isolation makes recruitment more difficult and their budgets are less buffered by reserves or alternative income streams. When costs go up and funding falls short, they feel it first and they feel it hardest, and it will have an impact on the most vulnerable students.

In many semi-rural areas, students face a stark lack of choice as to further education and skills pathways post 16. The push for T-levels and other reforms has not been matched by the transport funding or delivery infrastructure needed to make them a realistic option outside urban centres. The promise of parity between academic and technical routes is laudable, but is hollow if it depends on travel that students cannot afford or on opportunities that do not exist locally.

I ask the Minister: what is the strategy to ensure that young people in semi-rural areas can access the full range of educational opportunities, regardless of where they live? Where is the investment in transport links, digital infrastructure and sustainable funding settlements for small schools? When it comes to education, geography should never be destiny. We believe that every child, whether they have grown up in a city suburb, in a coastal town or in a rural village, should have access to a high-quality education that allows them to thrive. Despite our policy differences, I know that the Minister shares that aspiration.

This has been an extremely valuable debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford for securing it. I will speak no longer, because we all want to hear from the Minister.

17:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this debate on such an important topic. As his efforts to secure the presence of so many hon. Members today demonstrate, he is a champion for tackling barriers that young people face in his constituency and in rural areas up and down the country. I also welcome the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) to her place on the Opposition Front Bench.

This is a mission-led Government, and one of our key missions is opportunity. Indeed, the Department for Education is the Department for opportunity. Our mission means breaking down the barriers to opportunity for everyone, regardless of socioeconomic background. The Government will ensure that everyone can access education and training opportunities that will support them to succeed, progress in their education and thrive in work and life. That means that everyone, whatever their background and wherever they come from, should have the opportunity to get on with the education and training they need.

As we have heard from Members across the House, people who live in rural or semi-rural areas face some specific issues relating to distance and transport for education, work and life, by virtue of their location. The problems facing people in rural areas include choice and availability of provision, physical access to provision, and transport to training providers. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Harlow (Chris Vince), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) all said, rural transport systems are often a significant barrier to accessing post-16 education.

Although such matters are not for my Department, I absolutely recognise the points made about the importance of connecting opportunities. I am aware that Hertfordshire specifically offers a discounted travel card, a spare seat scheme and travel support for young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities who have an education, health and care plan. The Department for Transport offers a 16-17 saver card and student railcards to support travel for young people. For example, the saver card offers 16 to 17-year-olds a 50% discount on rail travel.

The statutory responsibility for transport to education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds rests with local authorities, which are in the best position to make reasonable decisions. They can consider the specific needs of their young people, the local transport options and the resources available. Each local authority must publish a policy statement annually to set out the support available, but that does not have to include free or subsidised transport.

We recognise that the cost of transport can be an issue for some young people, and 16-to-19 bursary funding is allocated directly to schools and colleges to support financially disadvantaged young people who need additional support with costs such as transport. Many local authorities, though not all, offer some form of subsidised travel. Many transport companies also give some kind of discount for young people; as I have mentioned, such schemes operate in Hertfordshire.

Regarding the matter of choice for young people in rural areas, local authorities have a statutory duty to identify and track the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in education. That includes supporting those not participating to do so and making sure there is sufficient and suitable education and training provision to meet their needs. If a local authority identifies a need for additional provision, it can negotiate with existing providers to expand their provision. Where that provider is an academy, the academy trust can then make a significant change request for the Department to consider.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford also mentioned the issue that some people are struggling to get to and from part-time jobs while undertaking their studies. Again, those are local transport matters, but I should point out that the Department makes 16-to-19 discretionary bursary funding available to support students with travel, equipment, books or other education-related costs where they would not otherwise afford to participate. As part of this mission-driven Government, we will continue to work across Government to identify barriers and seek solutions.

On the points raised about the mental health of young people, arguably nothing says more about the state of a nation than the wellbeing of its children. That is why this Government are prioritising mental health support for children and young people, helping them to achieve and thrive in education. We are working across Government to provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, ensuring pupils in all areas—whether urban, rural or semi-rural—have access to early support to address problems early before they escalate. Mental health support teams continue to be rolled out in schools and colleges across the country, and we expect coverage to reach at least 50% of pupils and learners later this year.

In addition, the Department for Education provides a range of guidance and practical resources on promoting and supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing. For example, there is a resource hub for school and college mental health leads to help embed effective whole-school approaches and a toolkit to help education staff review and develop early-support options for pupils. Outside of education settings, this Government have also committed to recruiting 8,500 new mental health support staff to treat children and adults, and to opening new Young Futures hubs with access to mental health support workers in communities.

I now turn to the numerous contributions on SEND reform. Every child deserves the opportunity to achieve, thrive and succeed. However, we are aware of the challenges in the SEND system, and this Government have made a clear commitment to addressing those. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, as we know that early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating, and that this supports all children and young people to achieve and thrive alongside their peers. We are providing an extra £1 billion for high needs budgets in England in the next financial year, following the Budget of autumn 2024. That brings the high needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities to over £12 billion.

We have also published local authority allocations for £740 million of high needs capital funding for 2025-26 to invest in places for children and young people with SEND who require alternative provision. Reforming the SEND system needs a considered approach to deliver sustainability and change. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford that we are working at pace with a neurodiverse taskforce and experts to develop that, and we will be setting out plans in due course. We are committed to working with the sector, our partners and the experts we have appointed to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered in partnership.

I close by once again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford for securing this important debate and so strongly supporting the interests of his constituents, some of whom will face the problems that he has highlighted. As a Department, we want young people, wherever they live, to have the opportunities that they need to succeed. The Department will continue to work closely with local authorities as we continue to break down barriers to opportunity. I reassure all hon. Members today that I have listened carefully to the range of points that have been raised, and I thank them for their contributions.

17:27

[Josh Dean]

I thank all hon. Members for their very insightful contributions this afternoon. I attempted to list everyone’s constituency, but there are too many for the time I have, which is a nice problem to have in my first Westminster Hall debate. I thank everyone for contributing.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for their contributions. And I thank the Minister for his detailed and considered response to the issues raised in the debate, which I know will be much appreciated by children, young people and families in my constituency.

Every young person, regardless of where they come from, should have the opportunity to thrive and live a fulfilling life. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues as we seek to break the link between a child’s background and their ability to succeed, and to supporting the Government as they work to break down the barriers to opportunity.

On a very brief personal point, as a young person who did not take a traditional path through education and who feels these issues very deeply when I speak to young people, children, teachers and school leaders in our community, and as the son of a special educational needs co-ordinator, I appreciate the thoughtful contributions this afternoon. It is a real pleasure to have secured this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling barriers to educational opportunities in semi-rural areas.

17:24

Sitting adjourned.