Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15 July 2025

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

SEND Provision: South-east England

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Before Mike Martin moves the motion, I should say that 16 Members wish to speak, so I will probably have to impose a three-minute time limit after he has spoken. My aim is to try to get everybody in, so if we can cut down on interventions, that should give everybody a chance to speak.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEND provision in the South East.

It is an honour and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I will speak specifically about Kent and my Tunbridge Wells constituency; I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will speak about examples in their constituencies. We are speaking about some of the most vulnerable people we represent and, as the Government are reviewing special educational needs and disabilities, it is important that the voices of children and families are heard, because they see the system from the inside and can see its shortcomings.

In Kent, more than 21,000 children have an education, health and care plan—that is 14% above the national average. As a result of rising demand and some mismanagement by the previous Conservative administration, there was a SEND overspend in a recent year of nearly £100 million, which is now being managed down by the Department for Education. At the same time, alongside all other local authorities, Kent has statutory duties to meet EHCP deadlines and provide provision. This creates a conflicting pressure. The story is the same for local authorities everywhere where there is rising demand and declining resources.

The balancing act required creates a false economy. When children do not get the support they need, they fail in their educational setting, but that means they are less likely to achieve in the world of work and are more likely to become a burden on the state in their later years. So getting this right now creates a long-term economic benefit for our society, and it is not just economically right: it is morally right that we do so to create life chances for the children under our care.

To go back to the situation in Kent, under the previous Conservative administration, only 13% of EHCPs were completed within the statutory 20-week deadline in the year to March 2024, and because of that Kent was put into special measures. I have called a number of times for that status to be continued because there was some improvement, in that the provision of EHCPs within the deadline went up to 65%. Kent was therefore taken out of special measures. But unfortunately, quantity does not equal quality. I do not have time to go into the litany of mistakes on some of the EHCPs, but they included incorrect names of schools, schools that do not exist, schools that are not approved, schools that do not have funding, incorrect needs and spelling mistakes—really basic errors.

Often, when families complain about the errors, they are told by Kent county council to go to a tribunal. This is deeply cynical. Kent county council has been using tribunals not as a last resort, but as a tactic to delay, to deter and to exhaust families. In other words, the council is using tribunals to try to get families to give up seeking appropriate support for their children. And it works. Tribunals are utterly gruelling. Families and children spend months preparing for them. The emotional toll is enormous throughout the time they are preparing, and it costs, as they have to get legal advice to go to a tribunal. All the while, they do not know whether, at the end of this year-long process, the child will get the special provision that their EHCP says they require.

I have spoken to Matt, one of my constituents, whose daughter Ella has cerebral palsy and has just finished year 4. Her original EHCP was issued when she was at nursery and was recently reissued. This is an example of the problems with EHCPs in Kent: the only change the council made was to replace the word “nursery” with “school”. When the family complained, they were told to go to a tribunal. They declined, for all the reasons I outlined relating to the financial and emotional cost.

It later emerged that Ella’s teachers believed that a mainstream school would not meet her needs. Their application for a specialist placement was lodged but rejected by Kent council, which did not consult anyone, including Ella’s teachers or parents. It was purely a paperwork exercise. The family were again told that the only option was to go to a tribunal. At that stage, because it is so important for Ella to get specialist secondary provision for her cerebral palsy, they opted to go to tribunal. They have been given a date in May 2026.

Currently, Ella has an insufficient plan because her parents declined to fight the first tribunal. They will have to wait for more than a year to fight the second tribunal, all the while wondering whether they will get the specialist provision that all the experts agree is what Ella needs.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this incredibly important debate; the number of people who wish to speak is a testament to that. As one Kent MP to another, I agree that the problems he is outlining—the inability to access the system because EHCPs and other assessments take so long, and the poor-quality provision when they have been completed—indicate a broken system in Kent. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to see EHCPs done properly, with a substantial increase in pace? We also need an increase in resources, so that the quality of provision following assessment is up to the standard that parents and pupils expect. Getting those two elements of the system right will go a long way towards fixing what is currently broken.

[Mike Martin]

I thank my fellow Kent MP for his intervention; I will address many of those points as I make progress. He is right that there is a reason for the statutory deadline for EHCPs, and it would be nice if local authorities could meet it.

To return to tribunals, between 2021 and 2024 Kent council spent more than £2 million on SEND tribunals, of which 98% were successful for the parents. If parents have the money and the emotional bandwidth, and can go to tribunal and fight, they will be successful. But we do not know the percentage of parents who decide that they are not able to put themselves through that process. That is one of the legacies, I am afraid to say, of Conservative mismanagement in Kent.

Since Reform took over two months ago, it has gone from bad to worse. A cabinet member resigned within 45 days, which is a day longer than Liz Truss managed, so one assumes his lettuce is still going strong. Another councillor has been suspended and is under investigation by the police. The matter is now before the courts, so I cannot say much more about that, but Members can have a google. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely. That meeting was relevant to this debate, but it is only one among a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government. Reform cannot even organise its own house, let alone grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale.

I am glad the Government are reviewing the system, because it needs to be reformed, but real change must be driven by the principles that the Lib Dems have articulated time and again. We must listen to the voices of children and families. They do not have all the answers, but they do have insight into how the system works, and we would do well to listen to them. Where appropriate, specialist capacity must be provided for the minority of children who have EHCPs and need specialist support.

For the vast majority of children who have special educational needs, we must drive inclusion in mainstream schooling, because that is appropriate. Mainstream schools prepare people for the mainstream world in a way that is more appropriate, provided that there is the extra provision, with teaching assistants and speech and language therapists, that can help the child to thrive in a mainstream setting. We are ready to work with the Government to improve the system.

Some of the media reports around the scrapping of EHCPs are concerning. It seems like a bit of a red herring. The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that—and before that we had statements. If we get rid of EHCPs, we will still need a statement of needs for passporting to services. If we scrap EHCPs, what will we replace them with? I am sure the Minister will speak to this in her response to the debate, but we must have an outcomes-based review of the system rather than a Treasury-driven, cost-cutting exercise. I hope the Government will learn from some of their recent travails in that regard.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not fix a financial problem by giving away a right? For many parents and families battling the system, an EHCP is the only protection that a child gets to a right to education.

[Mike Martin]

My grandmother said that the mark of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable—she was wise. She was very active in politics, but for a different party. [Interruption.] She made a journey that many people have made in recent years. Unfortunately, she is dead now. She would be 110 now if she were alive.

To return to the theme, it is morally right that we get this right, because these children and families are the most vulnerable among our constituents. It is also economically right, because if the children have the right provision, the parents can continue to work. Without the right provision, one parent will probably not go to work, so that has an immediate economic detriment. Allowing a child to thrive, to be included and to work in society as they get older affects the medium and long-term economic health of our society and our country, so it is both morally right and economically sensible. On that point, I will conclude: every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. There will be an immediate three-minute limit on speeches.

09:43

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.

We are lucky in East Thanet to have several brilliant council-maintained SEND schools: Forelands Field, Laleham Gap, Stone Bay and St Anthony’s. They do brilliant and vital work, despite the incompetence of Kent county council. I know from my casework just how deep the crisis in special educational needs provision runs. In Kent it is particularly acute, because the previous Tory council administration let the crisis spiral out of control. I have constituents who are frustrated by delays to getting EHCPs, parents who are aggravated by poor communication from the council, and others saying they believe that Kent county council is making the appeals unnecessarily difficult.

Similarly, far too many tribunals in Kent involve parents appealing the inappropriate allocation of school places. Often, as a result, either the state-maintained schools end up oversubscribed and overcrowded, or the spiralling costs of private provision contribute to the dire financial state of Kent county council. The state-maintained schools are now being put through a wildly inappropriate redesignation of the education and support they will offer, putting suitable educational provision for some of our most vulnerable children even further at risk.

The previous Tory administration was forced to apologise after a damning Ofsted report found that the council had “not made sufficient progress” in tackling nine areas that were identified following an inspection by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. The report quoted one parent as saying:

“Communication is poor, co-production is non-existent…it feels as though my son’s needs are not being prioritised, and they don’t care. They are incompetent.”

I am afraid to say that I do not have any confidence that things will improve under the new Reform administration. In the few months that they have been in power, we have seen important meetings cancelled, cabinet members sacked, councillors suspended and chaos ensuing throughout the council—all while the new council leader went on holiday.

Although it is only right that we champion fantastic SEND schools, it is important to acknowledge that many children would be better served by mainstream schools that have adequate SEND support available, creating inclusive environments for children to flourish. While idealistic, this can be a reality. It will require a huge overhaul in the provision of SEND support in schools. We need to make it possible for children who can be in mainstream school to stay in mainstream school with the best support package available, designed around them and their needs.

I am glad that the Labour Government are looking into reforming the current system, and I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State for Education say that the Government will strengthen the support available for the children who need it. The crisis in SEND has gone on for far too long. I look forward to seeing the proposals to tackle it and empower the next generation of young people.

09:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on setting the scene so well. My contribution to this debate is to support him in his request to his education authority and to outline some of the concerns we have where we are, which are replicated by him and will be replicated by others.

The situation back home is no better. The Minister has no responsibility for it—I wish her well in her answers. In Northern Ireland, we have incredible problems with the transformation programme. The budget was cut by 50%—an example of the financial restraints that we are all under, which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells and others referred to. There is a duty of care to children who, due to their educational needs, need that little extra support, and it comes down to money, as most things in the world do. The hon. Gentleman outlined a serious case in his constituency. I have spoken to some of the principals in my constituency of Strangford, who have stated that the current funding is not fit for purpose and that children will be the ones who suffer because of those cuts—a point made by other Members.

One teacher said that

“it is so difficult when you have a passion for supporting and wanting to do your best for SEN children, but it seems impossible to get the tools to do so. It feels like its always budget cuts and reduced staffing, there is never any good news where you feel inspired to do your best.”

That is every teacher who works in the SEND sector. They want to do their best for their children and make sure that the children will be inspired to do their best when they get the opportunity.

The other massive question, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells and will be mentioned by others, is about support for the provision of classroom assistants. One-to-one and small group support is crucial but again, unfortunately, the funding is simply not there to sustain their employment. SEND pupils back home already fall behind their peers in other parts of the UK, so we have a big problem, although the Minister’s response will relate to her responsibilities here.

My last point is about the hundreds—indeed, thousands—of university students out there with a lifelong dream of working with special needs children in schools. How can we tell them that, once they complete their three to four years of education to do that, the funding is simply not there to sustain a job in that field? Can the Minister give us some idea of what we can do for those who are coming through with the potential to help and educate our young people?

We can and must do better. While it is understood that this is a devolved matter for us back home in Northern Ireland, and also for Scotland, our central funding comes from here. I thank the Minister for her contributions and social engagement with the relevant Minister back home. I am very keen to hear what she can do.

09:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. In the 12 months since I was elected as the Member for Aylesbury and the villages, I have been struck again and again by the urgent need to reform our SEND system, given the sheer number of people who get in touch having been let down by different parts of the system, whether that is families, teachers, heads, councils or, of course, the young people at the heart of it.

In this speech, I will focus on what better SEND provision could look like and make three points. First, provision must be local and mainstream wherever possible. When I talk to parents, they tell me that they want their children to go to their local school and to be part of their community, but too often they are told that their children’s needs are too complex, or that the school just cannot offer the provision that they need. I was heartbroken to hear from a mother whose child was excluded from school, not because of a poor behaviour but just because their complex needs were misunderstood and not supported in the right way. I know it is very difficult for schools too, but we urgently need to support mainstream schools to deliver more inclusive provision. That means funding for adaptations, training and confidence building for teachers, and it probably means drawing on the expertise of specialist providers to help mainstream schools build their capacity and confidence.

Secondly, although we should aspire to local mainstream provision wherever possible, there will always be a need for specialist provision for children with the most complex needs. In Aylesbury, we are fortunate to have some really inspiring leaders who are helping to build that capacity. Jane Cole is working night and day to establish a Red Balloon centre for teenagers with special educational needs on Walton Terrace, which will open in September. It is a lovely setting, and a safe and nurturing space. The team at the Chiltern Way academy trust is working to launch a new SEND sixth form to help SEND children to get over the line and into work at the end of their education. It is crucial that we keep building on that.

Thirdly, we have to address the crisis in home-to-school transport. So many young people in Aylesbury are going on two or three-hour taxi rides to Oxford or Milton Keynes and beyond. I have heard from families in Aylesbury whose children are left waiting for transport that arrives late or not at all, sometimes with drivers they do not know or in vehicles that are not appropriate. Just imagine telling an autistic child that you do not know whether anyone is coming to collect them or what that journey will be like. Their distress is really palpable. We have to ensure that standards for home-to-school transport are really clear, and that home-to-school transport providers are better held to account. I welcome the Government’s funding commitments in that area already.

I really welcome the commitment to reforming the SEND system, and it is right that we will be taking a consultative approach to it. I will be ensuring that in my constituency, people are able to feed in and that, ultimately, we are delivering better results for those parents and young people who desperately need it.

09:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. I rise today not just as a constituency MP, but as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as someone alarmed by what I see every day: a system stretched to the point of failure, with vulnerable children paying the price.

In my first year as an MP I have taken up 98 SEND cases, but I accept that that is just the tip of the iceberg in my constituency. Those cases include a family whose son’s autism assessment is so delayed that he will finish school before he gets the help he needs. Another family is spending over £10,000 on tribunal proceedings. This is not a system; it is a fight, and families are losing. Across both Surrey and Hampshire, 3% of pupils in state-funded schools have an EHCP and a further 13% receive SEND support, but behind the numbers are children waiting years for basic support, parents forced into legal battles just to access what their children are entitled to and councils collapsing under the sheer volume of demand, without the necessary support that this requires from national Government.

The crisis is compounded by serious concerns about legality and quality. I have heard credible reports of educational psychologist assessments being drafted by trainees and rubber-stamped without proper oversight—a process designed to evade scrutiny, not deliver support. Meanwhile, the cost of failure is spiralling. In Surrey alone, more than £13 million a year is spent on taxis to bring more than 500 children to school. Nationally, the average cost of special school placements is now over £61,000 per child per year, and councils are staring down a projected £5 billion SEND deficit by 2026.

All of that is worsened by the Government’s ideological attack on independent schools. Schools like More House and Undershaw school offer bespoke, life-changing provision, often in partnership with local authorities, for children who cannot cope in mainstream education. However, tax changes and policy hostility are forcing closures, reducing places and driving up costs. The result is fewer options for children and more pressure on already overwhelmed state schools. I pay tribute to Councillor Jonathan Hulley, who has just taken over as the new cabinet member in Surrey and is trying his best to grapple with this problem.

As we have heard across the Chamber, this is not a Surrey or Hampshire problem; it is country-wide, and the Government need to step up. Will the Minister ringfence capital funding to expand specialist places in high-need areas? Will she publish guidance and support to reduce the cost and overuse of solo SEND transport, which is neither sustainable nor in the child’s best interest? Will she protect alternative and independent providers that deliver high-quality specialty education?

[Monica Harding]

I thank my fellow Surrey MP for his thoughts. Last year, nearly half of Surrey’s high needs block of £122 million was spent supporting SEND places at non-maintained independent schools. Placing those children in state-maintained school is often half the cost. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we need to put more money into state schools rather than independent schools, which are often run by private equity firms taking money out of local authorities and making profit on the backs of very vulnerable children?

[Gregory Stafford]

I respect the hon. Lady deeply, but I must say that I entirely disagree. Pitting the state sector against the independent sector, and vice versa, is entirely the wrong way to go about it—it would damage education. I am very happy to take her around More House or Undershaw in my constituency to show her the amazing work that those two schools do; she may change her tune once she has seen that.

The key thing is this: will the Government step up and make the national changes and reforms to make this system fair, equitable and sustainable across the country? SEND families are asking not for special treatment but for lawful, timely and compassionate support. No child should feel hopeless in the very system meant to help them, and no family should be forced to break themselves to secure basic rights. Let us fix this, and mean what we say when we talk about inclusion.

09:57

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing the debate. I agree with much of what he and so many others have said. The fact that we all have similar stories from our constituencies underlines the scale of the challenge.

In my constituency, one in five children receives some form of SEND support, and one in 12 has an EHCP. That is far above both the Sussex and national averages. However, I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg. At my surgery just last week, I met a couple whose son finally has an EHCP after years of fighting—but there is no place in the local authority to provide it. He will almost certainly remain out of school, joining countless others who, as we have heard, are being let down by a system that too often frustrates and limits, rather than supports and fulfils potential.

I do think in this Parliament—and this may be the optimism of a newcomer—we have a real chance, perhaps a final one, to sort this mess out. I welcome the fact that the Government are not ducking the issue, and the cross-party approach that has been taken; the longer we can sustain that, the better. I also recognise the scale of the challenge ahead of us and the need to listen to those most directly affected. That is why, a few months ago, I held a SEND summit in Saltdean, in my constituency, bringing together local parents, councillors, advocates and experts to hear their experiences. In the time I have, I want to outline three of the main takeaways from that summit.

First is the need to dramatically improve SEND training in schools—in particular, to introduce mandatory and expert SEND training for all new teachers as part of initial teacher training, and then as part of continuous teaching development. Of course, that must go alongside wider reforms to schools and the curriculum to ensure that more children stay in and flourish. Mandatory SEND training would support early identification, allowing proper plans to be put in place sooner. It would boost professional standards and end the postcode lottery in how neighbouring schools approach SEND so differently. There is a Bill before the House, which I have co-sponsored with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), that would achieve this. Will the Minister support it?

The second major recommendation was to enhance the parental voice. That is really important and too often ignored. SEND families include not only those receiving support, but those who know how the system works and how it fails. Our summit discussed the idea of regional champions—SEND advocates, perhaps across new devolved areas—who could bring this together on a larger scale. Can the Minister say more about how she will listen to parental voices as these reforms come forward and how she will work with the sector?

Thirdly, underpinning all the other points, is the need for a cultural change on how Government, Parliament and local authorities approach SEND. We need to focus less on proving exceptionalism and the limitations of SEND children, and more on how we fulfil the potential of every child; end the adversarial culture and lack of accountability that pervades in too many cases, and instead work with parents to navigate it; and, crucially, shift SEND services away from emergency, when there is already proof of trauma, to early intervention. There is a lot to unpack in those points, but they are the three main solutions that we have, and I hope the Minister will respond to them.

10:00

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Since my election last year, I have visited most of the schools in my constituency. That has been one of the nicest parts of my new job, but it has been less nice to hear about the tremendous pressure that schools face in coping with the ever-increasing demands of special educational needs.

The crisis has now extended well beyond the SEND sector into mainstream schooling. I heard how children who have been refused a place in specialist schools because their needs are considered too great have instead been placed in ordinary mainstream schools. If a specialist school cannot cope, how on earth do we expect a regular school to manage?

The stats from my local education authority, West Sussex county council, do not look good. For the last full calendar year available it completed just 3.4% of EHCPs within the statutory 20-week deadline, which is one of the worst rates in the country. Even if a child is lucky enough to get an EHCP, that does not mean they are guaranteed the support they are supposed to get.

West Sussex has been run by a Conservative administration for many years; I would argue that it has always prioritised lower council tax bills over running adequate services. Despite that caution—that ingrained cost-cutting inclination—it has still run into severe financial difficulties. It has a deficit of £59 million from 2023-34 for the high needs block, and that is forecast to rise to an unsustainable overspend of £224 million by next year. Every week I see the human cost of that; problems with SEND access are the single biggest issue in my postbag.

Last Friday at my surgery in north Horsham, I met with yet another distressing case. Graci is 14 years old. She has a diagnosis of autism, ADHD, dyslexia and suspected postural tachycardia syndrome, and she experiences significant pain, fatigue and sensory overload. But she is a bright girl with great potential, and she has already managed to take two GCSEs, despite the fact that she is now fully home educated. The local authority has twice refused to even assess her, which leaves her entirely without funded support as she approaches year 10. Her mother says that Graci needs an immediate, meaningful intervention if her future is to be preserved. At the age of just 14, Graci feels that she has been written off and left to put together her own DIY education, funded by her lone parent—her mother—who has to work full time.

In terms of Government action, we must not see a repeat of what just happened with the welfare Bill, where they tried to solve demand for personal independence payments by simply cutting access. We need to rediscover the value of investing in people, not just things. Children such as Graci are not problems; they are fantastic assets to society, if only we can give them the break that they need. We need to sort this issue out.

10:03

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. He is a fellow Kent MP who regularly speaks about these issues—it is one of his passions. I will echo many of the views that have already been expressed. With 21,000 students on EHCPs, Kent stands among the worst in the country, with 13% completed within the statutory deadline—in Medway it is even worse, at 12%.

Across the county we see those stark figures, but they represent the real human lives that we see in our casework every single week, from the child who does not get to school within the statutory deadline of 90 minutes, or the child who is not given access in the classroom through the specialist teaching assistant provision that they need, to the parents who have to give up their jobs in some cases and go on to benefits to look after their children and get them into those schools. Every single Member of Parliament has received testimony in their inbox about the problem.

I know that the Government inherited an appalling legacy from the previous Government—it was basically admitted that SEND provision was an absolute mess. Although I blame the Tories on Kent county council for the problem, it is not unique to any one council or to the control of any council; it is a systemic and structural problem as a result of demand not having been met over many years. In my area, it is manifestly worse because the chaotic Reform council has cancelled meetings about education and SEND, ambushed its own transport cabinet member and fired him on the spot, and suspended councillors already. It is turning into a nightmare because councillors cannot even manage their own house, let alone focus on the priorities of SEN students and deal with the plurality of residents.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Many constituents have raised concerns about the new Reform administration’s plans in my constituency. It is even thinking about cutting transport for vulnerable young people who cannot get to school. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very concerning that the council, without a proper plan, has brought in an external agency to look at how to save money, and that it is unacceptable to cut the transport budget for those vulnerable children?

[Tristan Osborne]

The day after the change of control of the council, party political auditors came in. There has been a communications exercise highlighting the SEND transport budget for cuts, but we do not know what those cuts will be, and there has been no communication with residents, causing fear to spread about whether their children will be affected. This is not just about my hon. Friend’s constituents in Ashford, but about residents in Margate, Maidstone and Tonbridge—the problem is manifest across the entire county.

A number of solutions have been proposed, so I would like to ask the Minister a series of questions about them. As the Government have now created three-year budget cycles, can something similar be done to secure long-term funding for councils, so that we do not have to rely on the safety valve going forward?

Although I agree that students need to be in an appropriate landscape, private provision for SEND is sometimes 10 times more expensive for each child, which is not sustainable when the budget is going up by so much. What could we do to transfer those children and bolster mainstream schools? I know some excellent examples of that, such as at Bradfields academy in my constituency, which is receiving Building Schools for the Future funding under this Government. How can we expand that principle into other mainstream schools, so that we can provide specialist autism and ADHD units?

How do we align services regionally? In my area, child and adolescent mental health services are fundamentally failing and we have had to transfer them back in-house to the Kent mental health trust. How can we ensure that CAMHS is really working?

Finally, the appeals system is failing across some counties, so how can we ensure it is fit for purpose and does not cost councils millions of pounds to sustain? These are my questions and I hope the Minister can answer them.

10:08

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this important debate.

In my constituency of Mid Sussex, families with children who have special educational needs and disabilities are being let down by a broken system that is exhausting parents, bankrupting councils and demoralising teachers. We have heard rumours of changes coming to the SEND system, but let us be clear: if we have learned one thing from how the welfare Bill was handled, it is that what politicians call rolling the pitch causes fear, confusion and anxiety for those who may be impacted.

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

I sure that, like me, the hon. Member has taken up many cases with her local education authority on behalf of parents and children. I have not heard a single parent or child say to me that the current system is working; I keep hearing them say that the system is broken. The Government have been clear that a legal right to additional support for SEND children will be maintained, but that we have to reform the system. Surely she agrees with that?

[Alison Bennett]

I thank the right hon. Member, but there are questions and uncertainty because the future of EHCPs and what may replace them has not been made clear. That is causing genuine concern for campaigners and people who have children with special needs.

In West Sussex, approximately a third of children with an EHCP require transport to and from school. SEND transport is budgeted to cost the county council £31.3 million this year, which is up from £13.5 million five years ago—every year, it spends more than its budget in this area. Managing that provision is hugely complex for councils and requires judgment on the individual needs of a child, including their need for an escort and/or private transport, as well as the individual home-to-school route that they travel. Does the Minister agree that that is one of the less considered pressures on council budgets in relation to SEND provision, particularly in larger, rural county council authorities? Does she also agree that the Government need to consider how to mitigate those costs in any review of SEND provision in order for the reforms to be successful?

The system is not delivering for children, families or local authorities. Any changes must be rooted in children’s rights and common sense, and not in arbitrary cost-cutting exercises. One example that instils hope and sets an example is Woodlands Meed in Burgess Hill, which provides an education for those with special needs. After a decade of delay because of a string of broken promises from the Conservatives on West Sussex county council, years of tireless campaigning by governors, teachers, parents and local Liberal Democrat councillors led to Woodlands Meed finally being completed with the opening last year of the new college building.

I visited the new college site a few months ago, and saw at first hand what a brilliant and inspiring environment it provides. It means that pupils can seamlessly transfer from the school to the college, avoiding the loss of friendships and long journeys to other providers. Prior to that, the school had to make very difficult decisions each year about whether it could continue to meet the needs of the children moving from the school to the college. In some cases, children had to be sent to a school away from their friends and community. That would, for example, affect a child with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who could thrive at the school intellectually but would have to be moved to a site with the hygiene, therapeutic and accessible facilities that they would have needed for their physical disabilities.

The building of a local facility at Burgess Hill saves money in the long term, and provides a better experience for students and families. We need more examples like that, and more fantastic places like Woodlands Meed. Families have waited too long for a system that works, and change is overdue—it is time we delivered that change.

10:12

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. SEND comes up in every surgery I hold, every time I knock on doors and at every coffee morning, as it will for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hear heartbreaking stories of parents fighting to get the support their children need. Families in Bracknell Forest have been struggling for a decade or more to access those services. When a local area SEND inspection recently highlighted gaps in provision, it did not say anything that parents and carers did not know from bitter personal experience.

During the election, I committed that this Labour Government would fix the broken SEND system that is failing families in Bracknell Forest and across the country, and I am proud that we are doing just that. I understand why parents are anxious, however, because they have been failed by the system for so long that it is understandable that trust in it is so low.

It is important that we start from the principle that we need to see more support for more children more quickly, moving from a system where a crisis point has to be reached before any support is given to one where early intervention is the priority. It is also essential that we protect parents’ legal rights to support for their children. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for listening to families, children and the sector, because it is vital that we get this right and take families with us as we make the changes we need to make.

This Labour Government have already delivered so much. They have delivered £1 billion more into the high needs budget, including £2.2 million more for extra SEND provision in Bracknell Forest. They have funded family hubs in Bracknell Forest where the previous Government did not and empowered them to offer more early years support, particularly for SEND. They have rolled out the highly successful PINS—partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools—programme to more schools and secured £760 million in transformation funding, because reforming the SEND system will require spending more money. It is not and cannot be a cost-saving exercise.

I thank the Minister for meeting me last week to hear about the concerns of local families. She will not be surprised to hear that I will continue to raise with her and the Secretary of State the concerns of parents and carers in Bracknell Forest, so that their voices can be heard as plans are developed. She will also not be surprised to hear me raise one final issue: support for a new SEND school for students with high needs autism at Buckler’s Park, which was promised by the previous Government without a penny to pay for it. Although more children could and should be supported in mainstream education, and I was proud to open a new specialist resource provision at Sandhurst school just the other month, there will always be those who need additional support that can be provided only at a special school. I know that the Minister will consider that as part of the reforms.

10:15

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this debate. Although Torbay is not in the south-east, I am sure that a lot of our SEND issues are reflected there.

A recent Ofsted report on our SEND provision identified widespread failings for children with SEND and disabilities. Although a lot of colleagues have highlighted challenges with local authorities, we must also reflect that the health service needs to play its part in driving the positive change that we need for our young people. Only yesterday, health bosses failed to turn up and play their part at a continuous improvement meeting for youngsters in Torbay, even though that Ofsted report was under discussion. I would like to know how the Minister is holding the health system to account on this issue, not just local authorities and education departments.

As an example, I am aware of one failing in Torbay where a decision should have been made by the end of March for a youngster on where their next year’s placement would start in September. They were only told the day before they started their GCSEs that their placement was going to be changed, which, un-shockingly, sent them into a meltdown, and they underperformed massively.

I would particularly like to hear the Minister’s reflections on a couple of areas. One is the safety valve system. That is very much financially driven, but what investigations has the Minister made into how that system may have driven any improvement of the outcomes of SEND pupils, or not? What are the Minister’s reflections on the future of the safety valve system, because it has some real challenges?

I would also welcome the Minister’s reflections on the ladder system that is applied in Torbay, in which the level of intervention with a child is increased quietly, bit by bit, from mainstream education to a high level of intervention, and so on, until the right level is found. But to achieve that level, the youngster has to have failed repeatedly in school. That reinforces trauma both for the youngster and the family involved, through failure after failure. Surely that ladder system cannot be appropriate for the youngsters or their families. It seems a very wicked way, rather than sending those youngsters directly into the appropriate places.

I will give a couple of examples from my constituency. Rachel has to home tutor her youngster because provision was withdrawn. Shaan had to give up work because there was inadequate provision for her youngster. A non-verbal autistic youngster had two really good offers for education, but neither was accepted by the local authority. I look forward to the Minister’s reflections because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells identified, these are some of the most vulnerable youngsters in our communities, and they deserve better.

10:18

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. The crisis in SEND provision is inextricable from the crisis in health and social care, and it is a shameful legacy of the neglect of the austerity years, but funding is not the only issue. What we see with SEND in West Sussex happens because education, health and care are not integrated. SEND provision suffers because there has been little to no working relationship between the local education authority and the integrated care system. As a doctor, it pains me to ask this, but where is the health in education, health and care plans? There is little parity of responsibility for outcomes, and no joined-up work towards shared goals. The profound neglect of specialist services, such as speech and language services, that support early health needs to be addressed, and health also needs to be far better integrated into the EHCP system.

For our schools and families in Worthing West, Sussex devolution is an opportunity to create a system that actually works, where education, health and social care colleagues work together on the issues and outcomes that families and schools so desperately need solving. Yes, we need to address the demand for SEND provision through proper investment in services, preventive healthcare and investment in schools, and yes, we need early intervention and proper access to specialist services, but we also need a functioning system where education and early years have a strategic voice outside siloed local education authorities.

In West Sussex, we have seen years of county council delays and mismanagement, and a complete breakdown in support for SEND children, their families and schools. Like all the other hon. Members here, I have had the privilege of visiting schools and colleges across my constituency. Without exception, they have outstanding teachers and leaders crying out for more SEND support, whether it be the need for specialist staff and training, or for physical space and facilities. Many of them have been waiting for years for decisions from West Sussex county council to build these facilities, let alone actually seeing any funding to directly address the issues that out-of-county settings have with transport costs, which continue to spiral beyond control.

Worthing High, for example, has been unable to move forward with planned expansions of its specialist support centre due to local authority delays and budget reductions. The school finds itself battling the local authority and unable to meet the demand for special social communication support without additional space, which it has actually identified. Northbrook college has had to find funding for increased levels of physical and medical need, with EHCP provisions that it is not equipped to provide, despite its best efforts. Oak Grove college is an excellent example of a local special needs provider, but it, too, is waiting on a decision to expand—again, into land that it has identified—and on funding that has been promised. In the meantime, it has taken the excellent, innovative step of providing support outreach to mainstream schools from within its capacity.

The SEND system is not working, and neither is the two-tier system of local authorities. It is time for a new model of regional school boards, with increased accountability, shared goals and, most importantly, multi-year funding settlements to address issues of demand and supply of SEND services—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but there is a three-minute limit.

[Dr Beccy Cooper]

Oh, I am sorry, Sir Edward.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

It’s all right—it is a very good speech, but we have to keep to time.

10:22

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this important and timely debate. We all know that the SEND system is broken in this country—a point even acknowledged by the Prime Minister at a recent Prime Minister’s questions. Families in my constituency and across the south-east are in desperate need. Children are being let down, and councils such as East Sussex county council are under unbearable financial strain.

Across my constituency, in Seaford, Lewes, Newhaven and Colgate, and across our villages, the reality is stark, and children are forced to travel unacceptable distances. One little boy in my constituency travels 56 miles daily to school in Hastings because school provision simply does not exist locally. We should bear in mind that East Sussex has a higher than average number of specialist provision schools, yet this is still taking place in the area.

Multiple children still have no places for September. Imagine the anxiety and distress being faced by families right now. Colleagues have mentioned individuals coming to their surgeries to talk about this issue. Almost weekly at my advice surgeries, distressed parents speak to me about SEND provision in our area and a lack of spaces. Indeed, schools, including primary schools, in particular, have been in touch, concerned with the level of intake of children with special educational needs and disabilities—some are quite acute—and worried about how they are going to cope in the coming academic year.

A local teacher I spoke to put it very well in relation to one of the structural challenges facing our SEND system:

“Parents feel they have no choice but to fight for a full specialist place, because the so-called ‘facility’ secondaries can’t meet their needs.”

The said that the primary to secondary

“transition planning is broken and it leaves children vulnerable.”

The situation facing one of my local families epitomises the crisis. Their child is severely disabled and cognitively delayed, and needs specialist schooling, yet despite unanimous agreement from the parents, nursery and mainstream primary school, the local authority insists that he attend a mainstream secondary school. It is July, and after months of battling bureaucracy, he still has no suitable place for September.

Across East Sussex, nearly 5,000 pupils have EHCPs. Labour’s plan to strip away the legally enforceable rights that families rely on could leave more than 1,400 EHCP pupils in mainstream East Sussex schools vulnerable. We must be clear that children’s rights cannot be rolled back. We urgently call for a new national SEND body to oversee and fund the most complex cases, removing the postcode lottery once and for all. We need immediate investment in specialist and mainstream education, teacher training and support for local authorities. The system must put children and families first, because every child deserves better than what the previous Government offered them.

10:24

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this really important debate. We all know that too many children are being failed by a system that is under-resourced and facing unprecedented demand. Policy failures over many years have meant that parents and carers often see little option but to fight for an EHCP, as that is considered the only way to secure the wraparound support that their child needs. Who would not fight for their child? But we are in the worst of all worlds, where few are content with the current state of the SEND system in Kent and Medway, and across the wider south-east.

Before I highlight some examples of how the system is not working in Medway, I pay tribute to all the professionals working in the sector, whose passion is to support children and young people to get the help they need. The system is really letting them down, too. Years of chronic underfunding of local government under the previous Government, combined with a surge in demand, have created a perfect storm, which is contributing to pushing many of our councils in the south-east to the brink financially.

In Rochester and Strood, SEND is the second main reason, after housing issues, why constituents contact me. Parents and carers are waiting years for a SEND diagnosis. Children are languishing on waiting lists while their future life opportunities are being impacted, because they are not getting the support they need to fulfil their potential.

One issue that I will highlight in particular, as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for skills, careers and employment, is the difficulty that lots of councils have in recruiting enough educational psychologists, because of funding cuts in previous years for educational psychology degrees. The same applies across many sectors of our economy; we are simply not investing enough in the staff we need to perform the critical functions in our society, such as the professionals employed in our SEND system. That and other factors lead to excessive delays in EHCPs being finalised, often well beyond the legal deadline. I have recently been contacted by parents in my constituency who have experienced a 62-week delay, which is beyond the 20-week legal deadline for issuing an EHCP for their child. I am sure that that is by no means a unique example.

We know that this situation is taking a toll on children in terms of their emotional wellbeing and high anxiety levels. It also has an impact on parents and their ability to work. Recent polling from Sense found that two in five parents with a disabled child are educating their child at home due to a lack of appropriate provision. The system is failing and it is incumbent on all of us to challenge it. I welcome the Government’s commitment to reform. I understand that this has created some anxieties, so I welcome the comments from Ministers in recent weeks, and I look forward to hearing further comments from the Minister today to allay any concerns.

In conclusion, I emphasise that we must improve the quality of SEND provision and make sure that no child is left behind. We particularly need to focus on early intervention, as others have said, on better-equipped teachers and teaching assistants in mainstream schools, and on the needs of individual children, rather than diagnosis. I particularly look forward to the recommendations from the Education Committee, which is conducting a very comprehensive review into this topic.

10:28

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this hugely important debate. Like many other Members here, SEND is probably the subject that I get the most emails about, and it is very closely related to children’s mental health, which I will start by discussing.

The process of struggling to access an educational support plan starts right from trying to get a diagnosis. It is difficult to get a diagnosis through CAMHS for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or for being on the autism spectrum. Delays of more than two years are not only awful for individuals, but make up a huge chunk of their time in school. If a child is eight or nine years old and has to wait two years for diagnosis, it is very difficult for them to make up for that lost time.

Although we should be clear that ADHD and being on the autism spectrum are not themselves mental health issues, if such conditions are unrecognised and undiagnosed, and are not supported in school, that can lead to mental health issues, including children feeling inadequate and struggling to achieve what they should. That causes a lot of stress and anxiety.

[Monica Harding]

In Surrey, for example, 1,800 children with special educational needs are missing education because there is no provision. They are sliding into poor mental health as a result, and that needs to stop. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Dr Chambers]

I completely agree. The issue that everyone has brought up today is that the system is adversarial right from the point that parents try to get a diagnosis in the first place to show that their child needs support. When they finally do, they then have to fight tooth and nail—including in time-wasting tribunals, which take a large emotional and financial toll—to get the support that their child is entitled to.

Even once the child gets the support package required, that is not guaranteed all the way through schooling. Let me give a bit of an extreme example: I was recently contacted by a parent whose child, who has just one week to go in primary school, still does not know where he will go to secondary school. The parent and the headteacher of the primary school have asked continually, but there is no clear response. In this instance, Hampshire county council has failed to plan on time and ignored parental choice. It is insisting at the last minute on a wholly unsuitable mainstream school, which has no record that the child is coming and says that it cannot meet his needs—and we are talking here about a parent who managed get the package required for their child in primary school.

I could talk about this for half an hour, given the amount of casework I have. There is a huge issue about how we pay for SEND, but we must also consider what happens if we do not pay for it, as some other Members have touched on. The issue is a little like free school meals: if a child goes to school either hungry, or with undiagnosed learning needs that are not being met, they are clearly not going to fulfil their full educational potential. They will not get a job that pays as well as one they could otherwise have got and they will be more likely to end up on welfare throughout the rest of their life.

We have a prison in Winchester, and some 25% of the prison population are diagnosed with ADHD, compared with 3% to 4% of the general population, while 9% have autism spectrum disorder, compared with 1% to 2% of the general population. It costs £50,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give people the support they need in school to help them to make better life choices. If we did that, it would be better for those individuals and more cost effective for the taxpayer in the long run.

10:32

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this crucial debate. The number of people in the Chamber and the power of the testimony that we have heard are testament to how important the issue is to our constituents across the country.

Since I was elected as MP for Surrey Heath, special educational needs has been the single biggest issue to dominate my email inbox. That is a refrain that we have heard from many other Members. It is bigger than housing and the cost of living crisis—it is even bigger than potholes. That is because, certainly in Surrey, there is a deep and ongoing SEND crisis. Right now, I have more than 140 active cases involving children with special educational needs, many because Surrey county council has issued EHCPs in the wrong names, describing the wrong conditions or offering wrong and inappropriate packages of support. Those EHCPs often come only after weeks and months of parents fighting and advocating for their children and asking SEND co-ordinators at the schools to do the same.

Over the past three years, Surrey has had the highest number of tribunal appeals anywhere in the country—a fact that, very unfortunately, it chose to hide from its own scrutiny committee for more than 14 months and that the leader of Surrey county council denied in writing to Surrey’s Lib Dem MPs. Children, broken and neglected by the system, have attempted suicide. Parents, shattered by endless roadblocks and barriers, become permanent carers for their children, who cannot be placed in schools—and at what economic cost? SENCOs and teachers, already stretched to breaking point, spend their days chasing paperwork instead of supporting pupils.

An ITV investigation recently revealed that when parents lodged official complaints, Surrey county council—with a sleight of hand and a swift move of the pen—simply reclassified those complaints as inquiries in order to massage those problematic figures downwards. Zooming out across England, councils are carrying a hidden SEND deficit of almost £5 billion, as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) said, parked off their books by a temporary accounting override that ends in March 2026. When that expires, more than 60 local authorities face the risk of insolvency overnight.

Ministers promised a White Paper this spring to recalibrate the system; now we are told that the Department for Education cannot commit to publishing plans for at least six months. Many parents consider that uncertainty an insult. Their lives revolve around EHCP reviews, tribunal appeals and statutory deadlines. Rumours abound that the Government may attempt to scale back or even scrap the EHCP and replace it with a narrower, potentially cheaper framework. Let me be absolutely clear: they cannot, and should not, remove statutory protections before they have built the capacity to replace them. Removing EHCP rights in a vacuum would strand families in legal and emotional limbo and potentially drive councils even closer to collapse.

The Liberal Democrats believe that reform of the SEND system is long overdue—I think that is a position shared across the House—and to guide that reform we have set out a five-point plan. I want to highlight just three of those key points. First, in any changes, we must put children and families at the forefront of reform. Reform cannot be done to families; it must be done with them. They are essential partners in redesigning a system that shapes their children’s futures.

Secondly, we must recognise that inclusion and specialist support are not opposing ideas. We need both inclusion in mainstream and specialist capacity where each is appropriate. They need to be boosted in parallel. Right now, 67 specialist free schools approved by the Government are currently stuck in limbo waiting to open. That is 67 communities left in the lurch. At the same time, councils should be empowered to open specialist hubs within mainstream schools and allowed to get on with it without tripping over Government red tape. Inclusion only works when it is resourced. Without resource, it becomes exclusion by another name.

Finally, we must support local government to do its job. That means reforming a system where private SEND providers, too often backed by hedge funds, extract eye-watering profits. I have heard in my own area of fees being charged in excess of £130,000 a year for access to independent private provision—more than double the average cost of educating a child with special educational needs. That is not an attack on the independent sector, but it is an attack on profiteering on the backs of the most vulnerable.

[Monica Harding]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to measure accountability in these schools? Where does accountability sit, and how do parents know that their children are achieving in those schools?

[Dr Pinkerton]

Accountability is very often opacity. I have certainly seen examples of schools charging those fees I have just mentioned, in excess of £130,000 a year, with extremely opaque governance structures, so I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention.

We also need a fair funding guarantee and ringfenced central support for every child whose assessed needs exceed a defined cost threshold. Councils should never be forced to choose between their budgets and a child’s future. I say to the Minister, in the spirit of cross-party support and in the desire to ensure a better system for the future, “We share your concern about the broken system—but any reform must start with strengthening rights, not dismantling them.” That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a new national SEND body, an independent commission to oversee the most complex cases, guarantees of fair funding and performance tracking across England.

I hope that we can come together across this House to publish a White Paper within three months, with clear timelines, resourcing and genuine co-production with parents and families. We need to extend the high-needs deficit override until councils are properly supported. Let us open every delayed special school in this Parliament, so that no child is left without a place. We must seize this opportunity, this moment, to get SEND reform right, before any more children are failed in Surrey or across these isles.

10:39

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for obtaining this important and very timely debate on SEND provision in the south-east. First, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a serving Surrey county councillor. I was also a member of the Public Accounts Committee during its inquiry on support for children and young people with special educational needs.

SEND support in the south-east is in crisis. Children are not getting the support that they are legally entitled to at the right time, which is driving poorer outcomes and putting untold stress on families. My inbox, like those of many Members here, is full of examples: parents battling to secure much-needed support for their child to thrive, yet facing incompetence and fundamental misunderstandings of the law by the council; carers forced to give up work to stay at home with their child while they languish without school provision; and families driven to the brink of despair by the adversarial system. Those issues must be addressed, and fast, for the sake of our children and their loved ones.

Despite significant increases in recent years in SEND funding, to £10.7 billion, there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for children and young people since 2019. Only half of EHCPs are issued within the 20-week statutory deadline, resulting in children having to wait too long for support. Shockingly, in about 98% of cases that go to a tribunal, the tribunal finds in favour of the family, indicating that something is going very wrong in the original decision-making process. It is clear that the overall system is not fit for purpose and is inadequately funded, making local authorities’ already difficult job in this area even harder.

Worryingly, a statutory override system has been put in place, which essentially allows the ever-growing SEND deficit on local authority books to be ignored. According to the recent Public Accounts Committee report, nearly half of all English local authorities are at risk of “effectively going bankrupt” when the statutory override ends.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rebecca Paul]

I will not, because of the time—we all have lots of questions for the Minister that we want to get through.

The statutory override was due to end in 2026, but the Government have decided to extend that accounting trick for another two years. I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister that we are on the brink of a financial disaster in local government. Accounting fudges only delay the inevitable and make the problem even worse—and it will not just be SEND services impacted when local authorities are issuing section 114 notices; it will be all local authority services.

Before I put some questions to the Minister on her proposed changes to the SEND system, I want to address some of the issues raised about Surrey county council specifically. Members have already laid out clearly some of the challenges experienced by Surrey parents trying to secure SEND support for their child. I too share their concerns and agree that that is unacceptable. Like them, I have spent much time grappling with the council to ensure that it delivers the right support to children in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, so I have seen at first hand deadlines being missed, information being withheld, decisions being delayed and essential support not being provided. Although I recognise the challenges and pressures on the council from an insufficiently funded and less than optimal system, the fact is that the law is clear on support for children with SEND.

I thank parents and groups that have fought hard in recent years to shine a light on the issues both in Surrey and beyond. I want to make special mention of the Let Us Learn Too campaign, whose founder, Hayley Harding, is one of my constituents. That important campaign started in 2021 and has sought to raise as an issue the difficulties that disabled people and young people have been experiencing in accessing education. It is important to say that they were extremely disappointed at the lack of detail coming out of the hearing of the Education Committee on 1 July about the forthcoming changes.

To return to the situation in Surrey specifically, I welcome the recent appointment of Councillor Jonathan Hulley with a specific focus on addressing the issues and delivering a better, more effective SEND service. One of his first actions has been to propose boosting the future annual SEND budget by 42% in order to substantially increase staff. As part of the plans, the number of caseworkers will be increased from 81 to 111, resulting in caseloads being reduced from over 200 per staff member currently to 150. Also, 30 new assessment officers will be put in place to support families during the 20-week process, and a mediation and dispute resolution officer team will be established to support early resolution of cases where mediation or a tribunal has been requested. The proposals will increase SEND staff by 103 permanent positions—an 80% overall increase in SEND staff. That is all very positive, and I welcome Surrey’s actions to address the issues raised, but we are still in the dark about national reforms and how they might impact plans such as those at local authority level.

Without firm information, we see speculation starting. Last week, the future of SEND support was splashed across the front pages of three national newspapers. Despite the off-the-record briefings from the Department, Government Front Benchers have failed to give parents any reassurance on their plans. Parents are rightly anxious about what any change could mean for their child and the support they are entitled to.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. When will we finally see the White Paper? Does she anticipate a change to the Children and Families Act 2014 as a result of the Government’s proposed reforms? Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes? Will EHCPs be part of the plan going forward?

Will there be any new capital funding for new special schools, or does the Department plan to build capacity in mainstream schools? Is the Department engaging with parents, schools, colleges and local government leaders ahead of the publication of the White Paper to ensure their support? Will the White Paper include reforms to school transportation? Is work under way in the Department to look at early identification, and what role will support staff and access to specialist interventions, such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, play? Given that any changes will be a worry to many constituents up and down the country, can the Minister confirm today that MPs will be given a chance to vote on any proposed changes? I will now allow time for the Minister to go through that list of questions.

10:46

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this debate about an incredibly important subject. He, like many others here today, has a real interest in supporting families in his constituency to navigate the complex and challenging special educational needs and disabilities system. I know that he has met with the regional director for the south-east, Dame Kate Dethridge, to raise directly with her the concerns on a local level.

I want to be clear from the outset that improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. I have to say that I was a bit surprised by the speech made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) and what appeared to be some amnesia about the record that has been inherited. I appreciate that people do not want to talk about the past; they want to talk about the future and how we are going to fix it, and that is what we are focused on. However, we have to be careful to put this issue into the context of the huge challenge that we are currently facing and the absolutely abysmal legacy. It was put on the “too difficult” pile for far too long—it was somebody else’s children who were facing these challenges.

We grasped the issue immediately on coming into Government and are determined to deliver on it because we want all children to receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives. That message came across clearly in the contributions today. The first thing we did when we came into Government was move the responsibility for special educational needs into the schools group within the Department and into the role of the Minister for Schools because we recognise that that is where the challenges lie. However, it is also where many of the chances to turn around opportunities for children lie.

In recent weeks and months—indeed, since I took this role—we have engaged with and listened to children, young people and parents. We have sought to understand what they want to see change and how we can together co-produce an education system that will lead to better experiences for them and their children and fundamentally drive improved outcomes for children. For too long, the attainment gap between children with special educational needs and their peers has been too large. It is pervasive and has not shifted in the right direction at all.

For example, last month we joined 80 parents at a meeting of the National Network of Parent Carer Forums steering group, alongside key representatives from the Disabled Children’s Partnership, to listen to the current challenges and what they want to see change. We plan to do more of that in the lead-up to publishing the schools White Paper in the autumn, and we will continue to listen beyond that. It is important that we co-produce any reform of the system so that we rebuild the trust of children, parents and families—a trust that has been so badly broken over the past 14 years.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

What I have heard from parents in Gravesham, and what I know from my time on Kent county council, is that we have sleepwalked into this crisis. For decades, we have not been listening to the needs of young people. Parents simply want a lawful system—one applied lawfully, with support given at the right time. Will the Minister give some assurance that that is coming soon?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes, we absolutely recognise that the current system is really difficult for parents, carers and young people to navigate, and it is not delivering the outcomes we want to see. While we will set out the longer-term approach to reform in the schools White Paper in the autumn, we are clear that the changes we make must improve support for families, stop parents from having to fight for that support and education, and protect the effective provision already in place. We have given that reassurance. We know that sustainable reform will take some time, but we have already begun the work to ensure that children and young people are getting the support they need.

We have introduced the regional improvements for standards and excellence advisers to work with mainstream schools, where we know outcomes need to be better. We want to ensure that all pupils in those schools can achieve and thrive, whatever their background, so we are targeting the support where that challenge is currently greatest. I recently had the opportunity to see that in action in Kent, when I visited Astor secondary school in Dover with Sir Kevan Collins. We met school and trust leaders, as well as the RISE adviser and the supporting organisation, Mulberry Schools Trust. We listened intently to the school’s experience of the programme so far. It is early days, but looking incredibly positive and it was good to see that support being put in place for schools that have been struggling for far too long.

We are also building a robust evidence base on what works to drive inclusive education, including through the creation of the expert advisory group for inclusion, led by Tom Rees. We are extending the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools—the PINS programme—to a further cohort of around 1,200 additional mainstream primary schools, to build that teacher and staff capacity to identify and better meet the needs of neurodivergent children in mainstream primary schools. The programme is supported by the Department for Education and the Department for Health, because we absolutely recognise the challenges outlined by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), about making sure that we work together with the Department for Health where that is needed.

[Steve Darling]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will, but I am conscious of time and want to respond to all the issues raised.

[Steve Darling]

Can the Minister provide reassurance on how she is holding health services to account? They can be part of the solution, if they play their part.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What we want is a system in which local partners work in partnership. Currently, that is inspected by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. I will come to the particular examples in Kent and the south-east that hon. Members have raised.

We want to support and challenge local authorities and health authorities to ensure that partnership is real, working and—most of all—delivering outcomes for children. Everything we do is focused on improving those outcomes, which is why we are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision. We know that early intervention prevents unmet need from escalating. It supports children to achieve their goals alongside their peers, and we have a clear target for more children to meet their early development goals. We are absolutely laser-focused on improving those outcomes for children.

On accountability and inspection, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission jointly inspected the local SEND provision. I read with great concern the inspection reports for Oxfordshire and Bracknell Forest, both of which have been inspected under the new Ofsted-CQC framework. They identified significant concerns about the experiences and outcomes for children with SEND in the local areas. The issues that have been raised are incredibly serious, and DfE officials and NHS England advisers are meeting regularly with leaders and representatives from schools, colleges and parent-carer forums to continue to review and challenge the progress against the improvement plans.

The Department has also appointed SEND advisers to provide advice and challenge to local leaders. That is happening is Bracknell Forest, Kent, Surrey, Slough, Oxfordshire, West Sussex, Medway, Milton Keynes, and the Isle of Wight. There are also additional packages of support to provide training and advice in those local areas. It is vital that rapid action is taken to improve SEND services where weaknesses are identified, and that leaders accept collective responsibility and accountability for delivering on these improvements. There is a relentless focus on driving improvement, supporting where we can and where necessary, but also ensuring that good practice, where it emerges, is spread. That is what we want to focus on with our reforms.

The number of education, health and care plans has increased each year since they were introduced in 2014. As of January 2025, there were over 630,000 children and young people with an EHCP—an increase of 10% in the last year alone. As a result of flaws and lack of capacity in the system to meet lower-level need, additional strain has been placed on specialist services, which has had a detrimental impact on families’ experiences of accessing support and contributed to creating an unsustainable system.

Many parents feel that the only way they can get any support for their child is by going through the EHCP process. However, independently published insights show that extensive improvements to the system, using early intervention along with better resourcing of mainstream schools, could create much better outcomes for children. I know that is what many constituents want to see, including those of my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and for East Thanet (Ms Billington).

The insights show that more children and young people could have their needs met in a mainstream setting, rather than a specialist placement. That would ensure that they could go to school locally and help to tackle some of the incredible transport challenges and costs, as well as the time that young people spend travelling around. They should be able to go to their local school. We also know that it takes a vast workforce, from teachers to teaching assistants, early years educators and health professionals, to help children thrive. We are investing of each one of these to improve outcomes and experiences across the country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) said, high-quality teaching is central to ensuring that pupils with SEND are given the best possible opportunities to achieve. That is why we are implementing a coherent offer of high-quality teacher development for all teachers. It begins with their initial teaching training and goes into their early career teaching support, so that all teachers have the right skills and support to enable them to support students with special educational needs. It will enable teachers to identify those needs and to signpost if needed, as well as to adapt their teaching according to different learning abilities.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister needs to give the Member in charge some time to respond.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Okay, Sir Edward.

I take the points about the specialist teaching workforce, and how we need to invest in that.

Finally, on increasing the capacity in the system, we have already allocated £740 million to capital funding for high-needs capital allocations. Kent county council has been given £24 million as part of that funding. The funding is to create additional capacity in the system to ensure that mainstream inclusion can be a reality for schools—the capital allocation is there to make that happen.

I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells again for bringing forward this debate. My final word, as always, goes to those working across the education, health and care systems in the interests of our children and young people, both in Kent and the south-east and right across the country. They want to deliver the best for our children, and we as a Government want to support them to do so. I thank the hon. Member for bringing this matter to the House.

10:59

[Mike Martin]

I thank the Minister for her remarks, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and the Lib Dem spokes- person, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton).

I thank the hon. Members for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) for their comments. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne), for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Lewes (James MacCleary) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers).

There is a lot of commonality here; this is not a particularly party political issue. I say to the Minister that we all wish her well in these reforms. We want them to work, and we hope that this debate has been constructive in giving her a greater understanding of the issues that our constituents face.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered SEND provision in the South East.

Women and Girls with Autism: Mental Health Support

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

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

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered mental health support for women and girls with autism.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to have secured this debate today to discuss a matter of deep importance for one of my Bournemouth West constituents, Lindsey Bridges, as well as the thousands of families across the country affected by the failings in our mental health and autism care system. I rise today not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a voice for Lindsey and her daughter Lauren, known as Lolly to her friends and family, who is no longer here to speak for herself.

Lauren was just 16 when she died. She was a bright, compassionate young woman, and a straight A student who dreamed of being a doctor or a paediatric nurse. She was also autistic, and like many girls and young women with autism, she faced serious challenges getting the support she needed. In 2021, Lauren was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. She was placed in an in-patient unit in Manchester six hours from her home in Bournemouth. As a result, her mental health deteriorated severely. In February 2022, Lauren went into cardiac arrest and died in that unit. Her mother Lindsey had begged for her to be moved closer to home, but her pleas went unheeded. This is not an isolated incident. Like too many others, she was let down by a system that promised care but failed in that promise.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

My heart absolutely breaks hearing the story about Lauren—it is awful. Many autistic women and girls are undiagnosed, misdiagnosed or diagnosed late in life due to the outdated belief that autism mainly affects males. As a result, many women receive mental health treatments for conditions they do not have, including treatments that could be ineffective or even harmful. These diagnostic failures can seriously affect mental wellbeing and may explain high rates of depression in that group. Does my hon. Friend agree that the healthcare system must adapt to better identify and support autistic women and girls early on, prevent misdiagnosis and improve mental health outcomes?

[Jessica Toale]

Absolutely. There are now more than 2,000 people with learning disabilities and/or autism detained across the UK in in-patient units similar to the one that Lauren was held in. They are often far from home, cut off from their families and placed in highly restrictive environments that frequently do more harm than good. Lauren’s case is heartbreaking, but it must also be a turning point, which is why Lindsey is campaigning for Lolly’s law and why I am bringing this campaign to the House today.

Lolly’s law proposes four urgent reforms that could prevent future tragedies. The first is mandatory retraining for psychiatric professionals and support staff so that they have a proper understanding of how autism presents in girls and women. Too often those young women are misdiagnosed with personality disorders or wrongly pathologised.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is absolutely right to highlight the issue. It is very hard to listen to because the particular circumstances are so personal. Numerous studies have shown that girls and women are more likely to internalise the stress and anxieties that come with autism, whereas boys are likely to be more openly tempered or passive-aggressive. That is a statement rather than an observation. Does the hon. Lady agree that we could work more closely with teachers in schools and other individuals to ensure that young girls struggling with autism have support in the educational system to externalise some of their stress?

[Jessica Toale]

It is obvious that women tend to mask symptoms of autism more and that they present very differently from men. Our medical system is not set up to properly diagnose it in women.

The second proposal of Lolly’s law is a reassessment of personality disorder diagnoses where autism might be missed. There needs to be a national reassessment programme to identify cases of misdiagnosis and provide appropriate support for those affected. The evidence already shows that where female in-patients are diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder and/or eating disorders and are reassessed for autism, 100% of them receive a diagnosis for autism.

Thirdly, specialist suicide prevention and self-harm teams must be available in all mental health units for vulnerable young people. These should be multidisciplinary teams trained specifically in females with autism. Finally, anti-ligature doors and safety infrastructure must be mandated across all in-patient mental health facilities. These are basic safeguards that can and do save lives.

Lindsey has set up a petition for Lolly’s law, which has already gathered 225,000 signatures—clear proof of the public demand for action. She has also developed a training course for child and adolescent mental health services professionals, solicitors and others involved in mental health decision making, which has been positively received by those who have seen it.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

We understand that girls with autism are more likely to be underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Without appropriate and tailored support, those girls can face unnecessary distress, particularly in the school setting. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should ensure teachers and other professionals are given the correct training to better understand autism?

[Jessica Toale]

Clearly, we need better training across many of our institutional settings. This is in part where Lindsey has put together the training course, which I hope she will be able to discuss with the Minister at some point. Lindsey is also backed by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, Emotional Dysregulation Autism, the Abbey clinic and many other respected voices in this space.

Let me be frank. The current system is failing young people with autism. The number of people in long-term institutional care remains stubbornly high. It fails to distinguish between autism and other mental health illnesses. It overuses restraint and seclusion and separates children from their families, often for extended periods. It is a system that punishes difference rather than supports it. It is indefensible. Families are exhausted. Parents like Lindsey are forced into campaigning roles they never asked for, because they have been let down so completely by the very institutions meant to protect their children.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

One of the toughest challenges that autistic women and girls face is misdiagnosis and late diagnosis, so girls’ problems go unnoticed. Parents in my constituency frequently tell me how frustrating and exhausting it is for them and their families to try to get the support and diagnosis that their daughters need. Does my hon. Friend agree that too often young women get a late diagnosis and are left wondering how life could have been so much different if they had got that support earlier?

[Jessica Toale]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are far too many families across the country left fighting for their children and, like Lindsey, having to take up campaigning roles, which are clearly exhausting.

Will the Minister and the Government back Lolly’s law and commit to a formal review of autism diagnosis pathways for girls and women, with particular attention paid to those currently diagnosed with personality disorders? Will the Department of Health and Social Care mandate anti-ligature safety standards across all NHS and private health in-patient units, and develop specialist suicide and self-harm prevention teams in children’s in-patient care? If not, will the Minister consider piloting some of those schemes? Will she agree to meet Lindsey Bridges, hear her proposals directly and consider supporting the formal introduction of Lolly’s law as part of a broader strategy to transform in-patient care? Finally, will the Government review the current use of out-of-area placements and set targets for their reduction?

Lolly’s law is not radical; it is responsible. It is about safeguarding and justice for those families. It is about listening, learning and delivering reform, so that nobody is failed again like this and no more lives are lost. It is within our power to build a system where care means connection, not containment, and one that understands autism rather than punishes or isolates those living with it. It would be a system where families are partners in care, not visitors trying to navigate a maze of red tape, and where features such as anti-ligature doors are not considered nice to have but essential.

Lindsey’s courage in the face of unimaginable loss is truly moving. I am here to stand beside her in calls for change. Lauren should still be here and we owe it to her and every young person like her to build a system that sees, supports and safeguards every child, not just in words but in actions.

11:10

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing this debate and raising this extremely important topic. We know that, sadly, autistic people are at the wrong end of statistics on a range of mental health conditions: 70% to 80% of autistic people will experience mental health problems during their lives, and tragically many are more likely to die by suicide.

We have heard the devastating impact that can have on individuals and families. I pass my heartfelt condolences to my hon. Friend’s constituent, Ms Bridges, on the loss of her daughter. My hon. Friend spoke of the campaign for Lolly’s law, and I commend her for her tireless work to ensure that autistic people get the mental health support and treatment they deserve. As my hon. Friend said, that is exhausting, and too many parents are forced into campaigning roles. As she rightly said, Lauren should still be here.

It is clear that the number of autistic people and those with a learning disability who are in mental health hospitals is unacceptable. There are still too many people being detained who could be supported to live well in their communities. We want to ensure that people get the support they need in the community, improving care and keeping people out of hospital. The Mental Health Bill, currently before Parliament, would limit the scope to detain autistic people and those with a learning disability, so that they can be detained under part 2 section 3 only if they have a co-occurring mental disorder that requires hospital treatment.

The Bill would also introduce a package of measures to improve community support for autistic people and those with a learning disability. It is also critical, however, that when autistic people do need to be admitted to mental health in-patient settings, due to a co-occurring mental health condition, they receive the right care and support.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

My constituent, Annabel, who is a teenager, has parallel experiences to Lolly, as set out by the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale). She also had a terrible experience being detained in a secure unit, which her parents did not think was safe. Does the Minister agree that when teenagers—children—are detained in secure units, more needs to be done to ensure that they are safe and fit for purpose to protect those children’s welfare?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady raises another terrible case concerning a teenager on behalf of her constituent. We must of course be mindful of that provision for children and young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West spoke of her constituent’s campaign to retrain mental health staff, to improve understanding and acceptance of autistic women and girls. As we have heard, we know there can be differences in how autism presents in males and females, which can make autism harder to identify in girls.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing the debate. Will the Minister ensure that mental health trusts and integrated care boards do not put people waiting for an autism assessment through a process of filling in a pro forma, only to be left languishing on a list, perhaps never having an assessment? We know the predominance of young women on those lists, yet the right support in the right way never comes. Will the Minister ensure that that process is brought to a conclusion?

[Karin Smyth]

I will come on to talk about what we expect local providers to do, but obviously no one should languish on a list as she describes.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

In the new training regimen, can we please ensure that parents are believed? Young women and young girls often mask very well in schools where all the professionals are, but then at home they can explode and have meltdowns. Some parents are not believed at that stage. Will that also be included in the new training guidelines?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about carers. We should address that. She made an excellent point about support for parents wanting to support their own children. With regards to training, we are taking action to increase awareness and understanding of autism in health and adult social care services. Under the Health and Care Act 2022, providers registered with the Care Quality Commission are required to ensure that their staff receive specific training on learning disability and autism appropriate to their role.

To support that, we have been rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism to the health and adult social care workforce. The first part of the training has now been completed by more than 3 million people. NHS England has also rolled out additional training across mental health services, and 5,000 trainers have been trained as part of the national autism trainer programme. That training covers autism representation in women and girls, as well as exploring misdiagnoses, including of personality disorders, for example. These trainers will cascade their training to teams across mental health services. NHS England also commissioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists to deliver the national autism training programme for psychiatrists, with over 300 psychiatrists having been trained in the past three years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West spoke about her constituent’s campaign on suicide prevention. We have committed as a Government to tackling suicide through the suicide prevention strategy for England. It identifies autistic people as one of a number of groups for tailored or targeted action at a national level. To support that, the Department, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, has commissioned a review to understand what is known about the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and experience of interventions to reduce suicide among autistic people.

More broadly, we also know that autistic people can face challenges in accessing mental health services. While it is the responsibility of local NHS bodies to ensure services meet the needs of their local populations, we are taking actions to support them to address the challenges that autistic people face. In addition to the training I have outlined, NHS England has published guidance on how to improve the quality, accessibility and acceptability of care and support for autistic adults to meet their mental health needs, as well as taking guidance on adaptation of NHS talking therapies for autistic people.

NHS England has also developed a reasonable adjustment digital flag, which enables the recording of key information about a patient and their reasonable adjustment needs to ensure that health support can be tailored appropriately. We are taking action to support early intervention and improve access to mental health services more broadly. Through the 10-year health plan, we will continue to roll out mental health support teams in schools and colleges to reach full national coverage by ’29-30. We will also ensure that support for the mental health of children and young people is embedded in the new young futures hubs, alongside a wellbeing offer to ensure that there is no wrong front door for young people seeking help.

[Afzal Khan]

Clearly, there are issues on the school side. Without tailored support, accessible information and properly funded SEND pathways, too many girls are being left behind, often resulting in mental health difficulties and poor educational outcomes. Does the Minister agree that urgent investment in SEND support in schools is needed, alongside reforms that recognise the different ways that autism presents in girls?

[Karin Smyth]

I understand that the previous debate was on SEND; I am sure my hon. Friend will pick up that point with the relevant Minister. As I have said, we are rolling out more support into schools, so that should join up to support those young people.

We are also transforming mental health services through the 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres, to support our ambition to shift care from hospitals to communities. People will also get better direct access to mental health support and advice 24 hours a day, seven days a week through the NHS app, without needing a GP appointment. Our ambition is that, through improving access to mental health support in the community, we will prevent the escalation of mental health needs for all people, including autistic people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West asked a number of questions that I hope I have largely addressed. Regarding anti-ligature doors and specialist suicide prevention for in-patient units, I know that she has received a letter from the Department. I will make sure that officials provide a more thorough answer on the issues outlined in that request. She also raised the issue of the transformation programme, and support for and work with families. We have committed to developing a new national autism strategy to help support the direction of local systems to include families. I will ask officials to consider the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, and make sure that she gets an answer.

I also assure my hon. Friend that, on out-of-area placements, ICBs have published plans to localise in-patient care under the national in-patient commissioning framework. To support that, we have allocated £75 million in this financial year to help stop mental health patients being sent far away for treatment. I know from my own constituency work that that is an issue of great concern. We will make sure that we are focused on it.

I am happy to request that the Minister responsible for this policy area, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), meet my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West and her constituent. I know that he wanted to attend this debate, but could not do so for family reasons. We will get that meeting in train.

I again thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue, and recognise the tireless efforts of her and her constituent to raise awareness of mental health needs, and the need for support for autistic women and girls. I also thank all hon. Members in this debate who raised issues on behalf of their constituents. This is a really important issue for many of us, and I hope that my comments have gone some way to assure people that we take it very seriously, and are committed to working with them to make life better for people.

Question put and agreed to.

11:21

Sitting suspended.

West Coast Main Line

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

14:30

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the West Coast Mainline.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate. As I look around the room, I see a large number of MPs from different parts of the country, reflecting the significance and length of this stretch of railway. However, it is clear that the line faces critical problems both now and in the future, as I hope to outline in the debate.

For me and, I imagine, many of the other MPs here, “critical problems” on the west coast main line are experienced by each of us, and indeed many of our constituents, every day. As fate would have it, in the very week when I have secured this debate, the west coast main line was affected by a day of disruption yesterday that impacted my journey to Westminster from Crewe, with issues between Stoke-on-Trent and Rugby affecting the line all day. Indeed, a meeting I was due to have earlier this afternoon was disrupted because the person I was due to meet could not get here on time.

In case Members were not already aware, the west coast main line is the beating heart of our national rail network. It runs 400 miles from Edinburgh and Glasgow, through Crewe and all the way to London Euston. It links the south-east to the north-west, Wales and Scotland. Not only does it serve more than 75 million passengers a year, but more than 40% of the UK’s rail freight moves along the route. That is nothing short of seismic—a point expanded on brilliantly in the Aslef trade union “Rail Freight Future” campaign, which I am proud to support. Outside of London, it is probably the UK’s most important rail line, and it is the busiest mixed-use railway in Europe, but unfortunately it has been left with no strategic vision or plan for future capacity shortages.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; we sometimes share journeys to and from Westminster. The whole point of High Speed 2 was to relieve capacity on the west coast main line from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, yet my constituents have suffered through years of endless delays and disruption because of HS2’s shocking mismanagement by successive Conservative Governments. Expanding villages in my constituency cannot be served by the line because of continual failure, and passengers are still stuck on overcrowded trains. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is simply not good enough and that the future of the west coast main line must ensure our constituents can travel without constant disruption and overcrowding?

[Connor Naismith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the primary purpose of HS2, on which I will expand later, was to deliver much-needed capacity on the line. Unfortunately, the Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government a worst-of-all-worlds situation in which we are not delivering on the capacity benefits that HS2 was due to provide while also leaving residents on safeguarded land with a lack of certainty and, in many respects, failing services. That is simply intolerable, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight it.

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; I too travel on the west coast main line. Does he agree that there is a common public misconception that HS2 was just about faster train journeys to London, when in reality it was about capacity issues? Does he also agree that the project should have started in the north, where the need is the greatest, so scrapping phases 2a and 2b to Manchester has robbed our region of the chance to improve local services, to support freight and to deliver the levelling up we were promised?

[Connor Naismith]

My hon. Friend is correct. It is fair to say that “High Capacity 2” would not have had the same ring to it as High Speed 2, which is potentially why we have ended up with the situation we are in, but she is absolutely right that capacity was the main benefit. The cancellation of the project north of Birmingham exacerbates the sense that we can deliver major infrastructure projects in London and the south-east, but it is always the north that loses out when it comes to decisions about cost savings.

Outside of London, the west coast main line is probably the most important rail line in the UK. Covid provided a brief respite for capacity challenges, but passenger numbers are already back at 98% of pre-covid levels and are growing at 13% annually.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate. Many people in Chester South and Eddisbury rely on the west coast main line, but unless they have a car it is a real challenge for them to reach a station easily and join the line, because there is a lack of public transport options. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need not only to promote the west coast main line and improve capacity, but to recognise that plenty needs to be done locally to support transport and connectivity within Cheshire, so that our constituents can benefit from the national links that the west coast main line offers?

[Connor Naismith]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; it is an understated point, but connectivity is the lifeblood of our economy. If someone cannot get from A to B, they cannot access the opportunities on offer. As well as improving key arterial rail routes like the west coast main line, we need to see local services to smaller stations improve.

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

As my hon. Friend will know, Stoke-on-Trent sits on a side branch of the west coast main line that feeds a conurbation of over 400,000 people, many of whom work in and travel regularly to Manchester, London or Birmingham. Does he agree that any future development of the line must not impact negatively on direct services from Stoke-on-Trent to London and from Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester, which previous plans for HS2 threatened?

[Connor Naismith]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be in the business of improving services for our constituents, so we must, wherever possible, ensure that we protect direct services in whatever plans we bring forward in the future.

The challenge is clear, because the west coast main line is statistically the least reliable railway in Britain, with fewer than 50% of the trains running on time—a situation that will only get worse.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Connor Naismith]

I am spoilt for choice, but I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. On reliability, I understand that there are 2,639 railway stations in the United Kingdom. The fifth least reliable of them is Oxenholme and the third least reliable is Penrith. Obviously, they have one thing in common, apart from serving my constituency, which is that they are both north of Preston. The hon. Gentleman might know that Avanti has a habit whereby if there is anything wrong with the line north of Preston, everything stops at Preston, even if the issue is in Scotland. Does he agree that that is wrong? Does he also agree that although Avanti should rightly be held to account for making such decisions, it is not all Avanti’s fault, because it is often down to the fact that the rail track itself is not properly maintained and there has not been enough investment in it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should also be a priority for the Government?

[Connor Naismith]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I do not often have to travel north to his constituency on the railway, but I have heard from several colleagues about the particular issues on that part of the line. He is absolutely right that although we should hold the operators to account, Network Rail needs to address key infrastructure issues.

[Wendy Morton]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman having allowed the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to intervene first, given that the latter is fortunate enough to have a train station on his patch!

You may wonder, Dr Murrison, why I am here for this debate when normally I am campaigning for Aldridge station, but connectivity is the point. We are talking about infrastructure and how we can make our railways much more reliable. We recently had the re-announcement of the funding for the midlands rail hub, which is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful now to fully understand the timeline for that, and whether the whole project will be fully funded? That will have a big impact on my constituency, as and when the Mayor allows us to have our train station in Aldridge—when he gives us the money—and we will see a much broader improvement in infrastructure, capacity and speed.

[Connor Naismith]

I am pleased to hear that we have cross-party support for the crucial improvements for the midlands rail hub that were announced at the spending review. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the detail that the right hon. Member asked for.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

First, the Minister of State in the House of Lords made it clear yesterday that since the cancellation of HS2, there is no plan for capacity. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must soon be a plan to increase capacity, preferably based on something like HS2?

Secondly, the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about trains being cancelled north of Preston is true, but although I am sure he did not mean to do so, he seemed to be letting Avanti off the hook. We should remember that not only is Avanti taking many millions of pounds out of the public purse, but it has been caught on tape laughing at the public purse and saying how easy it is to rip off the Exchequer. The sooner Avanti is taken out of the system, even before there are capacity increases, I am sure it will benefit all of us who travel on the route.

[Connor Naismith]

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s plan to bring our railway into public ownership, and hope to see the west coast main line brought into public ownership soon.

[Wendy Morton]

On nationalisation, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Connor Naismith]

I am going to make some progress.

The recent report “Research on Long-Term Passenger Demand Growth”, commissioned by the Railway Industry Association, illustrates that rail passenger volumes could grow by between at least 37% and by up to 97% by 2050. Under any scenario, rail demand in the UK will grow beyond today’s network, but capacity is not merely a future issue; it sits in our in-tray as a problem that needs solving today. As recently as 3 July, the Office of Rail and Road rejected three open access applications for the west coast main line, citing concerns about capacity.

I think the issues are generally well understood, but perhaps the elephant in the room in terms of the capacity challenges on the west coast main line—it has been touched on already—is the 2023 decision to cancel HS2 phase 2. As has been said, the primary benefit of HS2, despite its unfortunate name, was never speed; it was always about relieving capacity on the west coast main line. That single decision by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), then Prime Minister, in a hotel room in Manchester, blew a hole in the UK’s approach to addressing future passenger demand on this key UK rail network artery. I urge the Government to make addressing that problem a priority.

The Government have been clear that they are reviewing options in this policy area. HS2 Ltd has a new chief executive, Mark Wild, who is charged with getting phase 1 of the project back on track. He is expected to report on those plans by the end of the year. If Mr Wild can demonstrate that he has addressed the company’s previous failings and that he has a credible plan to deliver phase 1 on time and on budget, the Government should reconsider extending the line north of Birmingham under that new leadership.

Alternatively, I again press the Government to look carefully at the proposals developed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham; the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker; and Arup and other stakeholders, namely the midlands-north west rail link. Their report estimates that the plan could deliver 85% of the benefits of HS2 phase 2 at approximately 60% to 75% of the cost, and that private finance could be leveraged to deliver the project. Crucially, the plan could save the taxpayer approximately £2 billion in costs from the HS2 phase 2 cancellation, through the reuse of much of the land, powers and design work that have already been secured through public investment.

A further option would be to look at remodelling existing stations and investing in infrastructure to relieve capacity problems. Crewe station, for example, causes one of the biggest bottlenecks on the west coast main line. It is recognised that the existing station infrastructure will not keep up with the forecast growth in passenger demand. Among its challenges is the fact that Crewe has a series of unevenly allocated platforms, many undersized for modern, 400-metre-long trains, because the station—which I remind colleagues is a key strategic hub on our rail network—has seen little investment since the 1980s. Yet plans for a new station were shelved with the loss of HS2 and the investment that was to come alongside it. They could be picked back up if the Government wished to do so. Indeed, Cheshire East council still owns the land that it purchased around the station to facilitate that development. A new station could also support wider employment, regeneration and housing needs. Overhauling Crewe station would provide more reliable services between the north-west and the south-west, while also providing more options into Wales.

It would be welcome if the Government committed to improving capacity on the west coast main line. The benefits of improving the route will be felt not only on our railways but on our motorways, in our carbon footprint and in our national growth. Something not always considered when talking about the need for better rail services is the knock-on for freight, car and air travel. Upgrading the main line would enable the Government to hit their target of 75% growth for rail freight. As a result of more freight on the main line, there will be less congestion on our motorways, making them greener and allowing for quicker journey times, while freeing up domestic air travel.

Failure to do anything is simply not an option, so I politely ask the Minister, what will the Government do to flesh out the options that they are considering? When will they produce a plan to tackle this problem? Something has to be done urgently. There is wide-ranging consensus, at least from the conversations that I have had with industry figures, rail operators, trade unions and experts, that doing nothing cannot be an option on the table. I urge the Minister once again to give the west coast main line the attention that it so clearly needs. Let us improve the main line, let us rebuild Crewe station, and let us show people across the north-west that this Government care about their future.

14:48

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing this debate. Unfortunately, I think my contribution will add to the long list of grievances I have against Avanti, but of course the west coast main line is used by other operators as well. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—in particular, donations from trade unions to my constituency Labour party.

My hon. Friend made the point about the state of Crewe station. The state of Stockport station is not much better. For the last reporting period, 3.8 million entries and exits were made at Stockport station, which makes it a major category B station. The infrastructure at the station is simply not good enough. Often the lift is broken, so people who are disabled or have mobility issues or health conditions are not able to use the services. The main door, which is frequently broken, has been replaced, but the general state of the station is not good enough. I am grateful to the staff members who work there. The facilities they have for their rest breaks or when they change shifts are simply not good enough. With such a high volume of passengers at Stockport station, we need to do better. I urge Network Rail, which owns the station, and Avanti, which manages it, to do far better.

The point has already been made about the private aspect of Avanti. Profits made by Avanti West Coast are turned into dividends for its parent companies, and ultimately their shareholders. In the latest declared accounts for the year to March 2024, Avanti declared that it paid a dividend of £8.1 million to the parent company, FirstGroup, in 2024, and a dividend of £11 million in 2023. That means that a total of £19.1 million has been paid in shareholder dividends in just the last two years, so the point about value for money is quite serious.

I did a little bit of research before coming to this debate. It is just under two hours from Stockport station to Euston if the train runs on time—which is quite rare, to be fair. If travelling from Stockport to Euston during peak hours, an anytime return ticket would cost £386 for an adult, which is ridiculous. The off-peak return is slightly less at £113. The current minimum wage for someone who is 21 or over is £12.21 per hour; for 18 to 20-year-olds it is £10 an hour; and for 16 to 17-year-olds it is £7.55 an hour. Unless someone is a business traveller or has a generous expense account, I am not sure how many people can pay £386 for a standard class ticket for a peak return from Stockport to Euston.

[Wendy Morton]

Even if someone can afford those prices, current statistics show that in 2024 only 40.6% of Avanti trains were on time, yet under the current Government plans, Avanti will be one of the last to be nationalised. Does the hon. Member agree that somewhere along the line—forgive the pun—we have to see improvement in Avanti’s service, for all our constituents?

[Navendu Mishra]

The data I have says 41.6%—the right hon. Lady is depriving Avanti of a crucial 1%. The service is simply not good enough. A lot of us were told that privatisation would mean more competitive pricing for tickets and greater choice, but what choice do I have if I want to go on a fast train from Stockport to Euston? The only choice I have is Avanti. This is a good opportunity to welcome the plan for Great British Rail that was in the Labour party manifesto last year. But we need to make sure that we learn from the mistakes of privatisation and do not repeat the errors that were made.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Navendu Mishra]

I will come back to the right hon. Lady in a minute. I will just make the point that reliability is far too poor. If we compare the annual performance for Avanti between April 2024 and March 2025, just 39.9% of Avanti trains were on time, which is a drop of 3.6% compared with the previous year. That is ridiculous. The more we look into the data for Avanti, the worse it gets.

We talk a lot about climate change and global warming. If we want people to use public transport, we need to make sure it is reliable and affordable, and that people can access facilities in cases of health or mobility issues. On the specific aspect of Stockport station, perhaps I should join my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich in his campaign to get his local station rebuilt. I would definitely want the Government to prioritise, with almost 4 million passengers, the Stockport station infrastructure.

I want to make a point about freight. Of course passenger services are important but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out, around 40% of all UK rail freight uses the west coast main line corridor. We need to think about freight services as well, because we need to take heavy goods lorries off our roads. We must ensure that the freight option is attractive and reliable.

The service known affectionately as the Thunderbird rescue service involves locomotives that sit at strategic locations on the west coast main line in case a train breaks down and they have to come out to shift it. On Friday, when we left the House of Commons after private Members’ Bills, I was on the train to Stockport while my colleague was on a different train to Cheshire that broke down because it overheated. That added two extra hours to her journey home. These are serious issues.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made the point that when it comes to maintenance and reliability, Network Rail has let us down. Of course, 14 years of austerity have had an impact on its budget, but there needs to be some accountability for Network Rail. We all want a big stick when it comes to Avanti, but Network Rail bears some responsibility as well.

I could say so much more, but I know that many colleagues want to speak, so I will limit my frustrations to what I have said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich.

14:55

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing this important debate on a topic that very much affects my constituency.

My constituents in Warrington South are not asking for the moon. They are asking for trains that turn up on time, seats they can find, journeys that do not involve standing room only, and carriages with working air conditioning that does not buckle under the summer heat. Even the basics, like getting food or drink on a six-hour journey from London to Glasgow, are not guaranteed.

Warrington sits at the heart of the west coast main line, and we know the pressures on the network at first hand. The Office of Rail and Road has been crystal clear: the southern portion of the west coast main line has no room for new services. Virgin; Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway; and Lumo all had their applications rejected because performance on the line is already stretched to its limits. The Department for Transport estimates that the west coast main line will reach full capacity by the mid-2030s—just 10 years from now—and right now there is no plan.

Let us be honest: the current system is not built for the demand it is trying to serve, and without new, adequate infrastructure it will only get worse. HS2 was supposed to change things. It was meant to unlock capacity not just for shiny high-speed trains but for more local services, more freight and better reliability. Cancelling the northern stretch has not just cancelled a rail line; it has cancelled opportunity for towns like Warrington. It has pushed the bottleneck further north and left our communities behind once again. The Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, has called this out.

The DFT still does not have a credible plan to manage capacity on the line post HS2, there is no clear strategy for the land now left dormant, and there is no timeline for improving resilience. This is not what good infrastructure delivery looks like and it is not what northern towns were promised. If the Government are serious about bringing growth to all parts of the country, this is where it starts. It means investing in the west coast main line and our rail network, not just patching it up; giving northern communities more than warm words and waiting rooms; and treating places like Warrington, Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester as the backbone of the country’s economy.

If the west coast main line fails, the north falls further behind. That is not just bad transport policy but bad economic policy. At the start of this month, I asked the Chancellor what steps her Department was taking to improve the oversight and delivery of major infrastructure projects. The response noted reforms, the streamlining of approvals, the strengthening of assurance and publishing business cases, all of which are welcome. But let us be clear: better paperwork does not build railways. Communities like Warrington need not just more transparency, but more capacity, and we need delivery—

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady is helping me when it comes to making my arguments about Aldridge train station. On improving capacity, she mentioned some open access lines; does she share my disappointment about the open access bid for a direct route from Wales into Euston? That would have been a game changer for many communities, and also helped with the issue of capacity.

[Sarah Hall]

We should exploit any opportunities to improve access wherever possible.

As I was saying, communities like Warrington do not just need more transparency. We need more capacity and we need delivery that lives up to the promises we have been given.

14:59

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing this debate—although I feel it is slowly turning into that famous Monty Python “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch, with all of us declaring our woes with the west coast main line.

My constituency was built by the railway. When trains first arrived in 1846, they transformed a small coastal community into a mecca of British tourism. By 1911, Blackpool Central station was the busiest in the world. By 1936, 650 trains a day moved in and out of our town. It was the golden age for Blackpool, and the golden age for rail travel.

Since then, our train services have drastically changed, but our need for connectivity has not. Whether for access to tourism, education or jobs, Blackpool relies on a railway system that works. Our town welcomes more than 21 million visitors every year, from families to conference delegates and people looking for fun and escapism, as they always have in Blackpool. These people should be able to get to Blackpool without relying on expensive parking or wondering whether their train will arrive on time—or whether it will turn up at all.

A reliable, affordable and frequent rail service would help us to cut emissions and grow the local economy, and it would give our visitors the experience they deserve. A reliable service is also essential for my constituents, especially Blackpool’s young people. Far too often, promising young talent is forced to move away just to access better work or education, in a significant brain drain that reinforces Blackpool’s many challenges.

A functioning west coast main line would make a daily commute to Manchester, Liverpool or Preston a real option for them, instead of a logistical gamble. It would mean that our talent could stay in Blackpool and still have the world at their fingertips. That is not the reality today. Delays, cancellations and overcrowded trains have become a headache we just cannot shift.

As someone who regularly travels to Parliament on trains from Blackpool, I am sadly all too familiar with the stresses of commuting from our town, which is literally and often figuratively at the end of the line. I hear from constituents every week who have been forced to accept and even expect delays, cancellations and overcrowding. They want action, and without delay.

In 2024, some of the operators serving the west coast main line were missing their timetable targets by more than 20%. That is not a bad day in the office; that is a broken system. Yet under the last Government, contracts were renewed and dividends were paid, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). Passengers were told to settle for less.

I am proud to say that this Labour Government are not willing to settle. Bringing our railways back into public ownership is a vital first step to fixing the mess—sending the clear message that this Government are on the side of passengers and staff, not private shareholders. Great British Railways will give us a single accountable body to run the system in the public interest—a railway run on a long-term plan, with fewer delays, better timetables and services that connect communities instead of cutting them off. That is what my constituents deserve and what this Government will deliver.

I also welcome the immediate steps to fix the system we have inherited: restoring performance, updating infrastructure and driving electrification. These are the foundations of a better system that Great British Rail can build up. I hope it will deliver the passing loop on our south line; I know previous MPs for Blackpool South have been calling for that for nearly 20 years.

Reform cannot be something that happens only in big cities or major commuter routes. As we upgrade transport in the north, we must ensure that towns such as Blackpool are not forgotten simply because they are at the end of the line. I ask the Minister to reassure my constituents that, while we work towards long-term rail reform, she will hold operators to account to ensure performance is improved in the short term. Will she ensure that Blackpool will not be left behind as decisions are made about infrastructure, investment and national strategy?

Blackpool is a town with rich history, but also a town that, with the right investment, has a promising future. We have strong ambition and huge potential. Let us build a transport system that matches the aspirations of the people it serves, and let us make sure Blackpool is no longer seen as just at the end of the line, but at the beginning of something better.

15:03

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing this timely debate. I do not intend to speak for very long—although, unlike the west coast main line, we have plenty of capacity in this debate—because he has set the scene in detail and there is no need to relitigate it too much.

I want to make just two points. The first is about HS2. When it is eventually completed, we will have spent tens of billions of pounds only to achieve the trick of reducing capacity on the west coast main line—and we know why that is. It is because HS2 trains are shorter, but the pinch points, the bottlenecks around Stafford and Crewe stations, will still exist. We will have to have fewer Pendolinos on the line. They will be replaced by shorter HS2 trains with less capacity. It is a ridiculous situation that the Government have inherited, but the fact that HS2 has been mismanaged over many years does not change the reality of the infrastructure. Those pinch points are still preventable, so I hope that Ministers will bring forward proposals—realistic, deliverable solutions—for the capacity problems.

My second point is about Northern Powerhouse Rail—also known as the Liverpool-Manchester railway or HS3, depending on people’s pedigree on the issue—which I understand we will hear more about from the Minister or her colleagues in coming weeks. It is an important project that will deal with the serious capacity issues on the Castlefield corridor in Manchester and at Piccadilly, but it is likely to force more rail traffic on to the west coast main line through Mid Cheshire, particularly the heavily congested section between Winsford and Weaver Junction where the number of tracks goes down from four to two.

Had HS2 phase 2b gone ahead, it would have dealt with that. Now, I have no love for that ridiculous route: in a three-mile stretch, it goes over the top of the Winsford salt mine, a set of subsidence flashes from the 19th century, the underground gas storage plant at Stublach and 60 infrastructure crossing points where pipelines take key chemicals to Runcorn to secure the UK water supply. It is not a route that should ever have gone through sifting; it should never have been in the hybrid Bill. It is symptomatic of the way the project has been mismanaged that we are where we are. Indisputably, however, had it been possible to build it—who knows?—it would have provided the extra capacity to restore two trains per hour from Winsford to Liverpool Lime Street.

Whatever the solution, if NPR is to be delivered, we need to address the capacity issues on the west coast main line between Crewe and Warrington. I frankly do not envy the Minister, or the Minister for Rail in the other place, because they have been left with a complete mess by the previous Administration. I hope that the Minister will address Members’ points about a capacity plan and provide some certainty about the HS2 phase 2b hybrid Bill and whether the Government plan to bring it forward.

I hope that Members will be able work with the Minister on a solution that delivers the capacity we need and creates frequent, reliable services. That will get cars and lorries off the road and support jobs and prosperity in Mid Cheshire and beyond.

15:07

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing the debate and for his wide-ranging introductory speech.

The hon. Member told us that 70 million passengers a year and 40% of freight use the west coast main line, highlighting its criticality to our railway and transport system. He also highlighted the critical role that HS2 was planned to play in relieving the west coast main line, and he was correct to point out that the main purpose of HS2 was—and to some extent, still is—to relieve pressure on the west coast main line to enable us to make better use of it for local, regional and freight traffic. I will come back to that shortly. He was also right to highlight the need for remodelling at Crewe, because having flat junctions to the north and south of the station is a major bottleneck on the west coast main line.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) used the debate, as many hon. Members have and as I will continue to do, as a cheaper alternative to therapy, having suffered at the hands of Avanti West Coast. He was right to highlight issues with Stockport station and with staff welfare. He was also correct to make the point that many of the challenges faced by Avanti in delivering a good service are not purely down to Avanti; it is a partnership with Network Rail. That is why the Government’s hopes and plans for bringing infrastructure and train operation closer together with Great British Railways are the right ones. When that eventually happens for inter-city operators, we hope it will lead to some improvement.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) gave a very reasonable list of what she would like to see on her Avanti West Coast journeys: specifically, a seat, functioning air conditioning and catering on an inter-city train. She was right to highlight the need for reliability and capacity if we are to attract more people on to inter-city and other kinds of trains.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) was right to highlight Blackpool’s history as a railway centre. He probably knows far better than I do that what used to be the main line into Blackpool was converted into a high-capacity road route into the centre of town. That is perhaps a symbol of some of the choices we have made as a country over the last few decades to favour road over rail—choices that, I think it is fair to say, we sometimes find ourselves regretting.

The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) was quite right to highlight many issues with HS2, including the phase 2 route, and the criticality of that proposed route for enabling capacity improvements in the north-west. For those with an interest in the topic, the Transport Committee recently quizzed the new boss of HS2, Mark Wild, and the Rail Minister from the other place in great detail about the HS2 phase 2 route and some of the issues we have been exploring today. One critical point that the Rail Minister revealed at that session was that, when the previous Conservative Government decided to scrap HS2 phase 2 up to Manchester, leaders of the existing rail industry were informed only the previous day. They were not given any time to even come up with an outline of an alternative plan for how west coast main line capacity would be improved in the future, or how the west coast main line would be able to accommodate all the trains coming off near Stafford, rather than continuing on HS2. There is much to learn from that Select Committee session.

The west coast main line is a railway that is close to my heart. I worked in rail, in many different roles, before coming to this place. In fact, my first job working in Network Rail was putting in place the December 2008 timetable, which, following an expensive and disruptive upgrade programme, led to significant journey time improvements and more frequent trains. However, we learned from that process that upgrading an existing railway only gets us so many benefits; it is not too long before that that capacity gets absorbed. That is why, even after that £13 billion programme, the case for HS2 had to be made.

There is a long history of upgrades to the west coast main line. In recent times, it was electrified as far as Liverpool and Manchester in the 1960s and up to Glasgow in the 1970s and, more recently, tilting trains were introduced. We have seen progress, but we need a radical step change now. It is critical to many communities, as hon. Members have said. Because of inter-city traffic, so many commuter trains rely on it in the west midlands, the London and home counties area, and in the north-west, and it is critical for freight. A critical thing—including for some of my hon. Friends in this House—is the Caledonian Sleeper between London and Scotland, which is a popular and useful alternative to flying, and very time-efficient, as people can travel overnight on it.

I also worked on the west coast main line in other capacities, managing signal boxes between Crewe and Runcorn, many of which are now gone as part of modernisation. On far too many night shifts on call, I ended up at the Warrington signalling centre, dealing with one disaster or another, and I have managed train drivers on the west coast main line. That railway is close to my heart; we must respect the history of it and invest in it for the future.

Hon. Members have articulately explained the current challenges on the route in terms of performance, capacity—including limited capacity for freight growth—and poor journey times to non-London destinations. In terms of solutions, it is clear that a high-speed line is still needed in one form or another. HS2 in its current limited form just moves the problem to the north of Birmingham; it will worsen it along constrained sections near Stafford and north of Crewe—which are two-track sections—and exacerbate the existing key problem of the west coast main line, which is a combination of traffic running at speeds of 75 mph, 100 mph, 110 mph and 125 mph. Particularly on two-track sections, that is difficult to deal with.

The Government have reiterated their commitment to signalling upgrades and other forms of upgrades north of Crewe over the next 15 years. That is welcome, but those upgrades are needed based on today’s traffic, and will potentially be made worse because of the HS2 situation.

A real missed opportunity for increasing capacity on the west coast main line is the fact that few of our freight trains are hauled by electric locomotives. Data modelling of acceleration proves conclusively that electrically hauled freight trains accelerate far faster than diesel trains, and can be accommodated far more easily amidst faster inter-city traffic. I hope the Government will consider what can be done to encourage freight operators to use electric traction in the future.

As hon. Members have noted, open access applications have been rejected. The Government—certainly in their communications with the Office of Rail and Road—have been rather ambivalent and ambiguous about their views on open access, but the lack of it means that we urgently need a solution to Avanti’s high fares, even advance purchase ones. There is a lack of choice on key sections of the route. Certainly between London and Birmingham and even London and Liverpool, there is the option of using slower but much cheaper London Northwestern Railway or West Midlands Railway services, but between London and Manchester and London and Warrington, Wigan and Preston, there is no realistic alternative. As I know from friends in the north-west, that sometimes leads them to drive, even to and from London.

As I said, the west coast main line has been upgraded many times. Upgrading a heavily used railway has been likened to performing open-heart surgery on a patient without anaesthetic: it is always disruptive and expensive, and the benefits are not long-lasting. That was particularly the case during the 10-year west coast route modernisation between 1999 and 2008. Nobody said this during this debate, which is pleasing, but there are those who say we do not need high-speed rail because we can just upgrade our existing lines. Sadly, it is not as simple as that, because it is very difficult to upgrade those lines; it causes chaos and provides limited benefits.

More widely, Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have convenient, affordable options to get around. A safe, reliable transport system is vital for our economic prosperity in all parts of the country. Improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, and to provide access for jobs. It is the critical cultural change we need in this country. Public transport is not a nuisance; it is a critical enabler of social inclusion and economic progress.

Some hon. Members highlighted the Conservatives’ poor record on public transport, which is true, but the UK’s attitude is a long-standing problem. High-speed rail got under way in France in the late 1970s, and in Germany in the late 1980s. Today even Morocco has more high-speed rail than the UK. Those are choices we have made; we have been making the wrong choices for a long time. Yes, we do need to sort out the mess of HS2 but it is still needed and we must get back to it.

More widely, we need to freeze rail fares and simplify ticketing to ensure that regular users are paying fair and affordable prices and to entice more people to rail. We have big hopes that Great British Railways will do that. We need more electrification and a public body that joins up the industry from track to train, putting regular passengers first and bringing in wholesale reform of a broken fare system. Doing all those things would provide the opportunity to increase the number of passenger journeys and bolster freight, so that our railways can play an even more critical role in delivering an effective economy and tackling climate change.

15:17

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, for the first time. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing the debate. Hon. Members will know that I am not the usual face to respond to a debate that sits with the transport team, but colleagues are busy discussing sustainable aviation fuel this afternoon, so I stepped into the breach. It has been an informative debate and I highlight the contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth).

The line that we are debating passes through my constituency. Hatch End station, although not served by high-speed trains, provides an opportunity for my constituents to see them go past and wish that they had access. I am familiar with the line, having travelled on it a great deal in my working life before Parliament.

Hon. Members, sharing the pain that we have all experienced when stuck on a long-distance railway journey, set out a number of important and detailed points. I am sure that Ministers will consider those as they look for improvements while addressing the points made powerfully by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including how to ensure a high degree of integration between the line and the important population centres, economic development centres and other transport nodes that lie along the route.

If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) were here, I am sure he would highlight that the west coast main line is also an opportunity for those wishing to travel in the direction of Northern Ireland, and Strangford in particular, because of connections to lines across north Wales and over to Anglesey. Indeed, as an MP whose constituency not only includes that line but the HS2 line, I empathise with the points about why we did not start HS2 in the north and build it down in the direction of the south. That is a sentiment that my constituents would wholeheartedly agree with, because they are very much of the view that rail connectivity is about benefiting the whole country. Improving and investing in connectivity, including in the north and the midlands, is therefore vital, not only for improving standards of living and quality of life in those places but for taking some of the development pressure off London and the south.

I will address a couple of points that were highlighted. It is striking to me, as a spokesman for the Opposition, that there is a high degree of consensus about the issues that exist around the west coast main line and about their possible solutions.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made specific references to stations in her constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury talked about her constituents’ need to access the west coast main line and all the routes it leads to via effective and affordable local public transport. Under the previous Government and now under the new Government, the concept of Great British Railways has been a key part of the strategy to begin to create a sense of coherence and integration and to make sure that the connectivity highlighted by a number of hon. Members is delivered in practice.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the growth in rail demand. We know that our country’s population is increasing. The levelling-up agenda started under the previous Government, but it has been committed to— perhaps more in spirit than in word—by the new Government. There is also demand for increased rail freight capacity, which has been spoken about in the context of the work being done on the west coast main line. Having travelled on the line just last week to go to the Local Government Association’s conference in Liverpool, I know that, in striking comparison with some other rail lines, it is very visible infrastructure and it makes a considerable contribution to removing freight traffic, in particular heavy lorries, from the already busy motorway network. As I say, there seems to be a high degree of consensus about the investment required for stations, the public benefits that would be delivered through that investment, and the role that such investment would play in the economic development and opportunities that people across and adjacent to the west coast main line route can expect to benefit from.

As an outer-London Member of Parliament, I am very conscious of how good-quality and reliable commuter routes are valued and the economic contribution they make, and therefore the extent to which the absence of such routes in parts of our suburbs acts as a drag on opportunity. That is not purely confined to the north of England or the midlands; it is an issue that affects all of us. We need to make sure that is properly considered as the Government look at the rail system and transport in the round.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those who served as Transport Ministers in previous Governments—would want me to draw attention to the fact that the sense of priority around the railways is reflected in the numbers. For example, maintenance spending on our railway network has gone up on average 3% every year since 2010. Previous Governments—both the coalition Government and Conservative Governments —therefore recognised that rail maintenance was a high priority.

At the end of the last Labour Government, there was £7.4 billion of rail spending. In the last full year for which we have accounts, which was when the last Conservative Government left office, that figure had risen to £26.8 billion. Although there will always be some disagreement about whether the delivery was what it should have been, and about whether the optimal priorities were selected, there is no doubt that all political parties represented in this House have a strong sense that improving and upgrading our rail network is critical, alongside improvements to motorways and local transport, and that we need to see it being delivered.

I will close by making two final points. The first is the value of learning—a number of hon. Members referred to the importance of open access—from the improvements that have been delivered in recent years. Not everything has been a success. In particular, we know that the impact of people working from home during the covid years on our rail network, including on the revenue gained from ticket sales and ridership, was absolutely catastrophic. The consequences for the system that we had in place at the time were very significant and we know that the Government acted by nationalising some railway lines to ensure that the travelling public could access what they needed to access.

There have also been strengths, however, such as the model on the east coast with Grand Central, which is often referred to positively, including by colleagues who use it to come to Parliament. We need to make sure that we do not simply assume that everything was a disaster and that we recognise those real strengths—not just the priorities for investment, but the things that have improved the quality of the service and that we can learn from and apply in the new model of Great British Railways.

The second point is the need to enhance integration. It is clear that the UK is a very politically centralised country, so transport projects tend to be delivered and funded by central Government rather than in a decentralised manner. The devolution White Paper has landed with Parliament, so we will be considering the roles that the Government envisage within that for elected mayors and regional authorities in developing and improving the transport network, but it is striking how many hon. Members in this debate talked about the need for additional scope so that their constituents could benefit from the speed and capacity that exists on the west coast main line, or the need to invest in other forms of local transport, including affordable public transport, to make that process more straightforward.

Coming back to HS2, it is striking that a huge quantity of the available investment has been sunk into very large national projects that are slow in materialising their potential benefits and that are creating huge cost overruns. All of the evidence appears to suggest that it is investment in locally-led transport—in the systems that make it possible for those who need to access trunk routes such as the west coast main line to do so—that produce the biggest economic benefit. That is something that many hon. Members have articulated, and I hope the Government will consider that as they look at their overall strategy for the United Kingdom, so that everybody can benefit from the additional investment that has been spoken of today.

15:26

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dr Murrison, after seeing each other yesterday to talk about roads.

It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall today with so many hon. Members to speak about the future of the west coast main line—a route that has long served as the backbone of connectivity between London, the midlands, the north-west, north Wales and Scotland. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing the debate. He is a powerful advocate for his constituents and for our railways, which is fitting for someone who represents a constituency that has had a long and proud position at the heart of our rail network since 1837.

As my hon. Friend anticipated, we have heard from hon. Members up and down the west coast main line and beyond, calling at the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—slightly off the line, there—and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) and for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), and diverting via the constituency of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and perhaps not stopping at the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

Rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich raised concerns about future capacity on the west coast main line. I should just say that it is also a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner); I know that he has lost his voice and so has not spoken, but that he will bring his great knowledge and expertise to bear on this subject on another occasion.

As so many in this House will know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, the west coast main line is one of the busiest mixed use railways in Europe. It provides vital inter-city connections between the country’s largest urban areas, which we have heard much about this afternoon. It delivers local services to our towns and cities. Very importantly, it enables the transport of goods that help to keep our economy running. While the covid pandemic demonstrated that demand modelling is a complex area, our current estimates indicate that the west coast main line may reach capacity from the mid-2030s.

Let me turn straight away to what this Government are doing to address the situation. I will start with HS2. As hon. Members will know, this Government inherited a difficult position on the programme. That is the line my civil servants have drafted. The truth is, the last Government could hardly have made a worse mess of this project if they had tried. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth described it as “shocking mismanagement” and frankly, she is not wrong.

A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to this House setting out the scale of the challenge and this Government’s determination to get the project back under control. We are clear that our priority is to deliver HS2 between London and the west midlands safely and at the lowest reasonable cost.

It is worth remembering the benefits that the new railway will eventually bring. HS2 will almost double long-distance rail capacity between London and the west midlands. It will significantly improve the southern section of the west coast main line, which, as we have heard repeatedly, is heavily congested. In turn, that could release capacity for local services. HS2 will deliver significant journey time savings too, not only from London to Birmingham, where travel times could be reduced to 49 minutes, but also to Manchester and Liverpool, where journeys could become 25 minutes faster.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and other hon. Friends have rightly noted, HS2 was always about capacity, and phase 1 will not improve capacity north of Birmingham. Addressing the problem of insufficient capacity on the west coast main line was, as many people have said, one of the key strategic aims of HS2. I am sure I have said in the House many times that it was misnamed—“HC2” could have tripped off the tongue quite easily.

Following the previous Government’s decision to cancel phase 2, we know that there are real and very understandable concerns about capacity between Birmingham and Manchester. I also understand the frustration—and, frankly, the anger—that this decision created for leaders and communities across the midlands and the north. We have heard that again today, and it is just as true for my own constituents in the east midlands as it is for those of so many colleagues.

Back in January, I set out to this House—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich—that we would not reverse the cancellation of HS2 phase 2. However, I also noted that we were, and are, continuing to review options for enhancing rail connectivity in the midlands and the north. That work continues and is now supported by the clarity that the spending review has provided. I do not like to disappoint my hon. Friend or other hon. Members, but I am not able to provide more detail at this stage. However, I can assure him and other hon. Members that the Government hope to say more in the coming months, including on the future of Northern Powerhouse Rail.

I very much agree that increasing rail capacity will allow for better services and enable more freight to travel by rail. That is desirable and can help us tackle multiple challenges not just on the rail network but on the road network, as well as issues around air quality and many other things. There is a great deal to play for.

In the meantime, Network Rail is undertaking a programme of renewals on the west coast main line between Crewe and the Scottish border to improve the performance and reliability of the railway. This section of the route was last upgraded in the 1970s and suffers from performance issues today. Renewing the railway also provides an opportunity to improve its capacity and capability in a more efficient and less disruptive manner.

The Department is working closely with Network Rail and the rail industry to consider various options, and decisions on those options will need to be taken in the context of the spending review outcomes. The settlement received by the Department shows the Government’s commitment to invest in rail and in schemes that support economic growth in every corner of the country. The settlement represents an increase in funding compared with what has been spent on rail enhancements in recent years. We are already investing to increase the capacity and capability of the power system at both ends of the west coast main line to improve performance on the route and enable the introduction of new electric services.

A number of Members took the opportunity to raise concerns about the performance of Avanti West Coast. It is obviously not acceptable that people are experiencing high levels of delays and cancellations, and we are tackling that issue. Avanti West Coast is beginning to see a steady and consistent improvement in performance on the network, but there is much more to do, with punctuality behind the industry average. Poor Network Rail infrastructure reliability continues to be the leading cause of passenger disruption.

While improvements to performance generally have been made, the Department for Transport will continue to hold Avanti West Coast to account to ensure that improvements are maintained in the future. Our officials regularly meet both Avanti West Coast and Network Rail as part of our relentless focus on improving rail performance, bringing together track and train, holding both sides accountable and getting them to work together. That is the great advantage of the integrated approach that has been mentioned in the debate. The Rail Minister met the Avanti West Coast managing director and the Network Rail west coast south route director in January and May to challenge poor performance and demand immediate action to deliver urgent improvements.

As many people have acknowledged, a new arm’s length body, Great British Railways, will deliver a unified system that focuses on reliable, affordable, high quality and efficient services, alongside ensuring safety and accessibility. Officials have been immediately convened to begin work on our plans to deliver Great British Railways and wider rail reforms, which I know will please hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Blackley and Middleton South and for Stockport. However, constituents should not have to wait until all those services come into public ownership to see improvements in their rail journeys, and we are absolutely determined that they will not have to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South set out her constituents’ very reasonable needs when it comes to travelling on the railway. The Government are determined to address those needs, and I assure her that we are serious about investing in our transport infrastructure to support economic growth across the country, including in Warrington. Indeed, last week we announced investment in 50 road and rail projects, but we are doing this in the context of the terrible legacy left to us by the previous Government. We are clearing up their mess and it will take time, but we will do it.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stockport and for Blackpool South spoke with passion on behalf of their constituents, both those who rely on the railway and those work on it. I assure them that we will be working to ensure that Avanti West Coast and Network Rail deliver the improvements that we all expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport will, I am sure, know that Transport for Greater Manchester and Stockport metropolitan borough council are working on business case development for a station refurbishment scheme. I assure my hon. Friend the member for Blackpool South that, as my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary told him at recent transport oral questions, the Rail Minister will be happy to meet with him to discuss the south Fylde line proposal.

I come to the need for interventions at Crewe station to address ageing assets. As I said, Crewe is at the heart of our rail network. It is a crucial transport hub providing 360° connectivity where four regional lines converge with the west coast main line. Network Rail has developed a £270 million programme of interventions to deliver essential renewals in the Crewe area over the next few years. The Department is supporting this programme, and is keen to work with local partners to consider any opportunities for investment over and beyond essential renewals.

Today’s discussion is an opportunity to reflect on the current challenges and advocate for the improvements to the west coast main line that the public rightly expects. It has provided much food for thought, and the Rail Minister will continue to work extremely hard to address all of the issues. Our Department is currently developing an integrated national transport strategy, which is coming down the track later this year. This is just part of the bigger picture of providing the transport infrastructure we need to support economic growth, housing development and the shift of freight from the roads on to our railways, and to ensure that every part of the country is able to thrive.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

15:39

[Connor Naismith]

I thank all Members who spoke in the debate. There are too many to mention individually, so I am grateful that the Minister did it for me. It is fair to say that we represent a wide variety of areas, but most particularly those areas suffering most acutely from the capacity issues that have been well outlined in today’s debate.

We heard about structural issues with stations and rail lines, such as those affecting Crewe station, and about the need to hold operators to account for delivering the better routes, fares and services that our constituents desperately want to see. I do not want to be over-prescriptive, but a number of hon. Members and I have suggested some solutions that I urge the Minister and the Rail Minister to factor into their thinking.

I thank the Minister for engaging constructively with the substance of the debate, and I look forward to seeing more detail of the Government’s plans to address the challenges facing this key route, which have been outlined today. I am sure that she heard loud and clear the case that has been made by several hon. Members, and I will continue to press the importance of this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the West Coast Mainline.

15:41

Sitting suspended.

British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Mr Gregory Campbell will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the implementation of the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. At the centre of the issue that we are debating today is how successive Governments—Labour, Conservative, Conservative and Lib Dem, and now Labour again—have determined how the issue of nationality in Northern Ireland is dealt with. A consensus has come about, with all the successive Administrations following a series of what have been called internationally binding agreements, including the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement. They all left successive Governments with the consensus view that people in Northern Ireland who wished to describe themselves as British, Irish or a combination of both could do so. Each successive Government said that they would ensure that they dealt with people impartially and proactively, according to the nationality of their choice—in the constitutional framework of Northern Ireland within the UK, of course.

The consensus emerged, and many people in Northern Ireland expected that to mean—they certainly did not receive any information to the contrary—that whenever a nationality issue arose, there would not be any differentiation or favouritism shown between a person wanting to express an Irish identity and a person wishing to express a British identity, within the context of the United Kingdom. That all came about as a result, as I said, of those successive agreements, but the seeds of the issue in relation to UK passports were sown in 1949, when what is now the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth.

At that stage, legislation was passed to allow people who previously had lived in what is now the Republic, and had moved to Northern Ireland, to be regarded as British citizens and to acquire a British passport. That worked fine for a number of years, because most of the people who had moved had moved prior to that date. But obviously, as the decades wore on and we got into the 1960s and the troubles in Northern Ireland emerged, more people who had been born after 1949 were moving from the Republic into Northern Ireland.

For example, if we take the beginning of the troubles, the period from 1969 to 1972, people who had moved to Northern Ireland because of disturbances and violence in the Republic were at that stage in their early or mid-20s. They were born in the period from 1950 right up to the mid-1950s. All of them—including their children—were born after 1949 and none of them was able to avail themselves of a British passport, unless they went through the expensive and time-consuming naturalisation process. Therein lay the problem, because as time wore on, more and more people were falling foul of the 1949 process.

I have in my hands a British passport and an Irish passport. We expected Governments to treat people who were owners of these passports equitably and not to deal with them in a partisan way that would result in someone saying, “Well, is this because I own an Irish passport?” or “Is this because I own a British passport?” I entered this House in 2001, and in June 2005 I tabled my first written parliamentary question, which was to ask the Secretary of State whether he would

“ensure that people who have resided in Northern Ireland for a certain length of time, but were born in the Irish Republic, can obtain a British passport at the same cost as those who were born in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 167W.]

The answer was a standard answer about the fee that was payable, and did not distinguish between whether someone was born in the Republic or in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I was minded, when my hon. Friend had a passport in either hand there, to think, “Which one is best?” Well, we know which one is best: the British one. Does he agree that one of the benefits is that people who designate as Irish can and do have the facility to apply for the greatest passport in the world—the United Kingdom one? There are people who want to have the protection of their local British embassy, yet they are being precluded from that due to a delay that is difficult to understand, so does my hon. Friend further agree that those in Ireland who designate as British must be enabled to have that British protection that we take for granted with no further delay?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Indeed, of the passports that I held, the British one was mine. The other one was not—I can reassure him of that. I acquired it temporarily for the purpose of this debate; I will hand it back to its rightful owner. My hon. Friend is right: we have at long last seen an end to the delay, and I will come to that shortly.

In July 2005, immediately after the non-reply that I got in June 2005, I attempted to drill down and ask about the distinction between those who had been born in the Republic and those born in Northern Ireland. The answer came from the then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office—now Mayor of Greater Manchester, no less—Mr Andy Burnham. He again indicated that the full fee had to be paid in order for someone who had been born in the Republic but moved to live in Northern Ireland in the past 60-odd years to acquire a British passport. That answer was given 20 years ago this month.

I should add at this stage that I live very close to the border—I was born there. I can walk to the Irish Republic. It is within five miles, so on a good, nice day, I can walk there in an hour or an hour and a half, depending on how quickly I walk. There are 280 crossing points along this uncloseable border, which we have debated in other contexts. The relationship between people who live in the Republic, but close to the border, and those who live in Northern Ireland is intense, because there is much that we share. Those who moved from the Republic to Northern Ireland cherish the fact that their Britishness is enshrined deeply within their family, their generations of service in the military and their loyalty to the Crown—to Her Majesty previously and His Majesty now—so they took great offence at having to go through this expensive process to get what they thought would be their right.

After July 2005, when I seemed to be getting nowhere, I succeeded in November 2005 in getting a private Member’s Bill, which ran into the ground, as most of them do. I then embarked upon a whole series of questions. I will not bore Members with them, but I asked a written parliamentary question in November 2006 and I raised the matter in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2008—from memory, Dr Murrison, you served with me on the Committee when we looked at this issue—in the Chamber in May 2008, in the Northern Ireland Assembly in June 2011, again in the House of Commons in June 2013, July 2013, March 2014, January 2015, March 2018, November 2018 and February 2019, and again in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in October 2019. We were struggling to get through the undergrowth of problems and bureaucracy in sections of the Home Office, to try to convince it that these people were entitled to a British passport.

Then we came to the 2020s. I raised the matter in September 2020, October 2022 and June 2023, and then my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) managed to secure a private Member’s Bill in April 2024, which brought us to where we are today. Thankfully, that got Government support and became law.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The timeline that my hon. Friend has outlined certainly highlights the number of years that he has been in this place. However, the Act must strengthen and not complicate the process. Does he agree that, currently, the practical outworking of the Act is complicating the process, particularly on the financial side?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I am just coming to. Even after my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East secured parliamentary support for his Bill, there appeared to be a delay. I raised matter again last September, and in January and May of this year. That brings us to today.

As I understand it, from next week, thankfully, we will have reached the point where people who qualify can apply to obtain a British passport, but the problem is the inequitable nature of the application.

16:10

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:24

On resuming—

[Mr Campbell]

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Division, the issue now is twofold. I thank the Minister for her assistance in getting a reduction on the standard naturalisation fee, from £1,735 down to a total of £853. The problem is that many people in Northern Ireland who can apply under the new system may well live next door or across the street from someone who wants to apply for an Irish passport, and that person will pay less than £100, while a person who qualifies under the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 has to pay £853. I hope that in the very near future, after the Act has been implemented, the fee can be reviewed, because it is exceptionally exorbitant. I accept that it is a reduction on the full naturalisation fee, but we are talking about people who fully feel themselves to be British citizens. They have been British residents, British taxpayers and British voters for decades, and now they are being asked to pay a fee that is eight times greater than the fee that others have to pay.

The other outstanding issue is the ceremony fee. I can understand that some people will see attending a ceremony as a nice thing to do—I wish them well and hope that they will enjoy the event that they go to. They may regard it as an event to cherish and look back on. But there are others who would take deep offence at having to go through a ceremony to get a passport that they believe they are fully entitled to. No citizen in Northern Ireland who wants to apply for an Irish passport has to rock up to the Dáil and go through a ceremony to get it. They simply apply and pay the fee, and the passport arrives after payment has been received. Hopefully, the ceremony can be made optional or voluntary. I would not want to deprive anyone who wants to attend a ceremony of the opportunity to do so, but, equally, I hope that the views of those who find it deeply objectionable to have to do that can be taken into account and there will be no requirement for one, even if the fee for a ceremony is incorporated in the amount that is payable.

I thank the Minister for her attention thus far. I am glad that she is here today. I thank her for deliberating on the matter and getting us to the point we are at, but these two issues remain unresolved. We have come on a long, protracted journey—every time I switch on the television, whatever the topic, people always seem to be on a journey, and we have been on this journey for 20 years. We are now 95% of the way there. Next week, we will get over the line, but there are two issues outstanding. I hope that the Minister can respond explicitly today and tell us that they will be addressed in short order, but I suspect that she will have to go back to the Home Office. Either way, I hope that the issues can be reviewed and that we can get 100% satisfaction so that people are treated equitably in Northern Ireland whether they regard themselves as Irish citizens or British citizens. Many thousands of people were inadvertently born 2, 3 or 4 miles away from where us UK citizens were born in the UK and long to be regarded in the same way as I and everyone in my immediate vicinity is regarded—as a UK citizen—and to be the proud holder of a cherished UK passport.

16:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison.

I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing this debate about the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024. I am grateful to him and to others who have campaigned on this issue, notably Lord Hay of Ballyore and the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I also commend the hon. Member for East Londonderry on his long history of engagement; I found it very interesting and helpful to hear how he has progressed his arguments throughout his time in the House.

I note all the contributions so far and thank all Members who have contributed to the debate today. I put on the record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Belfast East, who is not here today, for his steps in bringing the Act before the House in December 2023. His constructive engagement with all parties has been extremely important in bringing the passage of the Act to its conclusion. I was also grateful to meet him earlier this year, when I said that I would do my best to try to ensure that we commence the Act before summer recess. I am extremely pleased that we have been able to do so and I am also very happy to continue our engagement on it.

Last week I was in Northern Ireland, where I was pleased to announce the commencement of the Act, which introduces a new section into the British Nationality Act 1981 to make it easier and cheaper for Irish citizens living in the UK to become British citizens, and it applies across the whole of the UK. The 2024 Act strengthens the relationship between our nations and recognises our shared history, geography and cultural links. While I was in Northern Ireland, I had the opportunity to speak to Cool FM and to The Irish Post to highlight the commencement of this historic piece of legislation.

I have spoken to many people who said they wanted to see us commence this Act because of how it recognises those shared cultural, historic and geographical connections. However, it is also important that Irish citizens who want to become British citizens should have a simpler pathway, which recognises that Irish nationals are treated differently from other nationalities for immigration purposes, as codified in section 3ZA of the Immigration Act 1971. Again, that must be viewed in the context of our historic relationship.

The new route represents that unique relationship between our two countries and builds on the common travel area arrangements that have benefited citizens of both nations for decades. It will enable eligible Irish nationals who have made their home in the UK to participate fully in British society while maintaining their Irish citizenship.

The Act that was introduced into the House of Commons by the right hon. Member for Belfast East initially sought to allow for people born in Ireland after 31 December 1948 to register as a British citizen if they had acquired five years’ residence in Northern Ireland. However, the previous Government and Home Office officials worked alongside the right hon. Member to expand the scope of the initial act to cover Irish citizens of any age.

The Government were pleased to continue the work of the previous Government in commencing the Act following the general election in July last year. Like the previous Government, we wholeheartedly support the underlying principles of the Act and have given due consideration to its different components.

[Mr Campbell]

Does the Minister agree that one of the incongruous parts of the legislative process is that when the Bill, which is now an Act, was being negotiated in the other place, Lord Hay, who she referred to, was part of the process of it becoming an Act despite the fact that, although he could vote on it, he could not acquire the passport? Indeed, he was trying to get the legislation passed to allow him to obtain one.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. Indeed, he shared that when we met earlier this year. That was a helpful discussion, filling in the legislative and debate history as well as the personal history that contributed to where we have reached.

Hon. Members may be aware that the total cost for an adult to naturalise as a British citizen is £1,735, and the cost to register a child as a British citizen is £1,214. We agreed that those were not acceptable fee levels for applications made under the new route. Under the provisions of the new route, and in the context of a challenging fiscal climate, the application fee is 50% below that for other nationalities. It is £723 plus the citizenship ceremony fee for adults, which brings it to £853, and £607 for children. The fees for children can be waived if they are in the care of the local authority, or if it can be demonstrated that their families cannot afford them.

The new fees represent a substantial saving for Irish citizens resident in the UK who wish to become British citizens, and contrast with other fees associated with citizenship. The previous Government’s opinion from the Act’s passage through Parliament was that fees should be applied, subject to the usual process for establishing fees and charges for border and migration services. We believe that continuing the work in that spirit is the correct pathway for making the new route operational.

The Act extends across the whole of the UK. The decision on a fee, although recommended by the Home Office, is not solely a Home Office decision. The decision must be financially viable across the entirety of Government. It recognises that, although the route is easier, simpler and cheaper for Irish citizens, the checks and operations that are still required contribute to the costs of the migration and border system, as reflected in the fee.

I would like to make a couple of points about questions put by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The citizenship ceremony is an important part of the British citizenship process. British nationality law requires all successful adults for naturalisation or registration as a British citizen to take an oath and pledge at a citizenship ceremony. They will also get the certificate needed for a passport application at that ceremony.

The hon. Member asked where citizenship ceremonies take place in Northern Ireland. They happen in Hillsborough castle or at Lagan Valley Island and are presided over by one of Northern Ireland’s eight Lord Lieutenants. I hope that is helpful to him in understanding some of the ways in which the operational side happens in Northern Ireland.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, not just in Westminster Hall today but their work leading up to now. I am extremely pleased to announce that the new provisions set out in the Act will commence on 22 July. I reiterate our support for the underlying principles of the Act and our continued acknowledgment of the shared history and geography of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with our friends across the Irish sea. We meanwhile look forward to welcoming applications from eligible Irish citizens via the new route in the near future. I look forward to continuing discussions with the hon. Member for East Londonderry and others as we move forward.

Question put and agreed to.

16:40

Sitting suspended.

Beer Duty

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

16:45

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered beer duty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. We are here this afternoon to discuss beer. I love beer, and so does Great Britain. I secured this debate to acknowledge calls from constituents, brewers and the pub sector to call on the Government to reduce beer duty by 50p. That call makes economic sense and is backed up by the industry.

My Woking constituency is home to a great little brewery called Thurstons in Horsell and Asahi’s UK headquarters—a huge brand that covers Fuller’s, Peroni and Cornish Orchards, to name just a few. The beer and pub sector in Woking supports over 1,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to our local economy, yet customers and the industry across the whole country are struggling. Pubs are much more than just businesses; they are hubs in our high streets and the centres of community life.

Why 50p? The answer lies with the new extended producer responsibility scheme. In May, MPs were talking at great length in this Chamber about how brewers currently make around 5% on the average bottle of beer. Under EPR, brewers will lose around 3p a bottle, unless they raise prices or the Government step in. The economics simply do not add up. Without action, brewers will barely make a profit on bottled beer. By reducing beer duty by 50p, the Government would offset the cost of EPR for not just producers, but the entire supply chain, and, ultimately, consumers. All the people—from farmers in their fields to brewers in their brew houses, to the people drinking in pubs—are our constituents. It is our duty to reduce beer duty.

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

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to some lovely small breweries. Obviously, we are the natural home of cider and produce some of the world’s best. Fine Tuned Brewery in Somerton is one of our brilliant little breweries. Although I recognise the Government’s intention to make the packaging more sustainable, that cannot come at the expense of our producers. Many are concerned that the EPR will be a killer nail for their businesses, making them responsible for the end-of-life management of packaging that they do not even produce; they have to buy it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the current approach to EPR will create escalating costs for producers, threatening the viability of small rural businesses in particular, such as Fine Tuned Brewery in Somerton?

[Mr Forster]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We were in this Chamber talking about EPR several months back; she is a fine advocate for her whole constituency, and particularly the Somerset cider industry.

I talked about our need to reduce beer duty. The Chancellor announced a 1.7% reduction in alcohol duty on draught beer and cider in the previous Budget—I will give the Government that. However, the standard rate of duty on non-draught products is set to rise by 3.6%. When combined with the cost of EPR, that will seriously threaten the brewing and bottle industry in terms of growth and investment.

The Government are finding catchy headlines to say at the Dispatch Box, but the economic picture painted is this: the Labour Government are giving with one hand and taking with the other. This debate, at its heart, is a political response to that bad economics. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seems determined to push ahead with EPR, despite legitimate concerns raised in the Department. Meanwhile, the campaign to reduce beer duty, which has long been led by the Campaign for Real Ale and others, enjoys wide support across the industry.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a reduction in beer duty would help hard-working publicans like Simon and Alison from a micropub in Barnstaple called Beer Matters, who have just won the CAMRA award for North Devon, to continue in business? Not only is it a fantastic micropub, but it serves as a good social hub in the community.

[Mr Forster]

My hon. Friend is right to promote his amazing community hub and pub in Barnstaple. I pass on my best wishes to Beer Matters for its award.

A lot of us have concerns about the EPR rules. Under the current EPR rules, glass packaging used in pubs is wrongly classified as household waste, even though it is collected and recycled via private commercial contractors. EPR is meant to fund the cost of removing packaging from household waste streams—not from businesses that already pay for their recycling. This means that brewers and pubs face duplicate charges for the same glass, despite it never entering the household.

DEFRA has acknowledged that the policy is wrong and that it was never intended to be implemented in this way. It has committed to the industry to find a solution, but no fix has yet been delivered, and it has pressed on with the scheme regardless. Reducing beer duty would mean less tax per pint in principle, but, in practice, it would bring a great benefit.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Pubs such as The Grapes free house in Bath provide so much more than just being somewhere to drink or meet. They host cultural events and all sorts of things that otherwise could not take place, and that would be a loss to our community and cultural life. Does my hon. Friend agree that the small loss in beer duty would be far exceeded by the benefits we get from having these places open and running?

[Mr Forster]

I agree. There is an economic argument for a small reduction in beer duty per pint, but, as she highlights, there are wider public community benefits as well. I have talked about trying to grow the economy and the fact that less tax per pint has better economic benefits. One of Labour’s key economic election promises was to grow the economy, so why are the Government ignoring calls from the industry to help deliver one of their key missions?

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend will know—I have said this several times in this Chamber—that the overwhelming majority of businesses in West Dorset are microbusinesses, many of them in hospitality. Does he agree that EPR represents yet another attack on the hospitality sector, alongside increases in business rates and national insurance contributions?

[Mr Forster]

My hon. Friend is completely right. If the Government reviewed and cut beer duty, as I am requesting, the hospitality sector would see increased growth. Consumers would enjoy cheaper beer, and the industry would have more capital to invest, growing our economy when we need that most. Most critically, there would likely be an uptick in sales due to lower prices. All of that could lead to overall higher tax receipts, counteracting the flawed economics of the EPR policy.

Beyond the industry numbers, this is about people, communities and our British way of life. As my hon. Friends have highlighted, pubs are vital cultural and social centres. They bring people together, help combat loneliness and support the mental health of the nation. Many of us have personal stories that connect us to our local pubs. They are woven into the fabric of our lives, yet pubs continue to face immense pressures. The British Beer and Pub Association estimates that 378 pubs will close in 2025 alone, risking over 5,600 jobs. That is more than one pub a day.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive speech about reducing beer duty. One of the other great pressures facing microbreweries—such as the Crafty Monkey Brewing Co. in Hartlepool—is the inability to get their product into tied pubs. That is bad for pubs and microbrewers. Would he support a change to the pub code to allow them to get their produce into more pubs?

[Mr Forster]

It will be interesting to see what the Government make of my persuasive speech, but I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I am sure he will not be told off for saying that from his side of the Chamber. I am happy to look into what he said about changing the pub code. One of the things I am highlighting is that we want a thriving independent sector that supports small businesses, and reviewing the code could help.

I am really concerned that, effectively, one pub has closed every day in this country this year. Nationally, hospitality employs 3.5 million people. That is 10% of all UK jobs, and the concentration is even higher in coastal areas, such as those represented by some colleagues who have spoken today. The beer and pub sector contributes £34.3 billion to the UK economy and generates £18 billion in tax. It supports around 1 million jobs from grain to glass.

The UK has the second-highest beer duty in the whole of Europe. The highest is Finland, where alcohol can be bought only in state-owned shops or licensed bars and restaurants. It is one of the two European countries that effectively has an alcohol monopoly. On a European level, Finland’s alcohol prices are considered extreme compared with other countries, but even now, the Finnish Government are aiming to reform their policies to bring them more into line with others in Europe.

Bizarrely, we are more like Finland in regard to our alcohol laws, when we should be more in line with countries such as France and Germany, which have similar drinking traditions to us. So I ask the Minister: when will the UK take the same approach? Higher beer duty has wider consequences, such as increasing prices for consumers, reducing investment, fewer choices on the shelf and making the UK less attractive for international brewers.

Even with some recent reforms, the burden remains far too high and continues to threaten the viability of local pubs and breweries. Reducing beer duty is an economic argument, yet it is also about protecting British culture, supporting local jobs, encouraging investment in communities and helping people with the cost of living. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, as some of his colleagues have, and agree to review beer duty to ensure that the level that is set grows our economy and protects jobs. Let us act before the damage to the British way of life becomes irreversible.

16:57

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have also received hospitality from CAMRA, the BBPA, UKHospitality and probably the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates. I rise to speak not only as the Member of Parliament for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, but as someone who had the honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary beer group for more than five years. During that time, I worked with colleagues across the House to ensure that our brewers, pubs and beer lovers had a Government that understood their value to communities, our economy and local culture.

Under the previous Government, real progress was made on duty. We delivered reforms that simplified beer duty, recognising the unique role that pubs and small brewers play in British life. We implemented draught relief, giving pubs a competitive edge and encouraging the sale of lower-strength beer on tap. Crucially, there was a series of freezes and cuts to beer duty year after year, scrapping Gordon Brown’s damaging beer duty escalator and meaning that, by the time of the last election, the duty paid on a pint of real ale in a pub was lower than it had been 12 years earlier.

We embraced the freedoms afforded to us post Brexit to create a more proportionate, strength-based alcohol duty system, designed to support responsible consumption and encourage the production of lower-strength drinks, while putting pubs and licensed premises on a fairer footing compared with supermarkets and off-licences.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although beer duty seems to target large brewers, it quickly trickles down and hits the much smaller venues and brewers disproportionately hard?

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Lady is completely right because of the margins that such brewers operate on. The concern now is that, if reports are correct and the Government are considering beer duty as a revenue raiser to fill the gap in the Chancellor’s budget, so much of the progress will be put at risk.

Since the Government took office last July, almost every decision that the Chancellor has taken seems to have gone in the wrong direction when it comes to supporting pubs, hospitality and brewing. Just months into office, the Chancellor confirmed that beer duty would rise in line with the retail prices index from February this year—a sharp and sudden shift, which wiped out so many of the gains. That really needs to be a one-off because the return of automatic uprating every year would be a real betrayal of both the brewing industry and consumers. It would mean higher prices at the local, more pressure on struggling pubs and reduced confidence for independent brewers. That would be not just bad policy but economically incoherent. While costs are high across the supply chain and the Government are piling further costs on to pubs and brewers through wage costs, the Government have decided to add further instability and more tax, rather than consolidating reforms that were already delivering value.

Under the last Government the draft relief was introduced to give pubs a much needed lifeline, cutting duty on beer from draft containers over 20 litres and reinforcing the social and economic value of the on trade. I campaigned hard for that. I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), as Chancellor, agreed to a differential duty for draft beer. Then the Leader of the Opposition, as Exchequer Secretary, introduced it as part of the alcohol duty review.

I know that the Minister harbours some ambitions; I hope that the subsequent elevation of predecessors who moved to support pubs through duty reform will offer him some inspiration. Reports of a potential review that could scale back the benefits of that draft beer duty rate are deeply concerning. Small producer relief, launched under the last Government and building on the success of Gordon Brown’s small breweries relief, was a significant step forward. I pay tribute to Gordon Brown for that measure, if nothing else: small breweries relief played an important part in encouraging the emergence of a thriving small brewing community, from hobbyists through to established local brewers, in every part of the country. We are seeing the long-term benefits, both economic and cultural.

[Mr Brash]

The hon. Gentleman has argued eloquently in favour of the record of the last Government, but ahead of the last general election the British Beer and Pub Association reported that more than 10 pubs a week were closing under the last Government. That does not seem a record to be particularly proud of.

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that 10 pubs a week were closing; a number of those, I think, had been artificially sustained through covid by support, but there has been a long-term trend, going back to the turn of the century, of far too many pubs closing. The difference was that the last Government were taking action to try to address that trend. We are waiting to see whether this Government will match that action.

British beer is not just an industry but a cultural institution. The evidence of a link between price and alcohol consumption is tenuous at best, but we do know that as prices rise, habits change. When they rise sharply, consumers switch how and what they drink: they go from drinking low-strength beers and ciders to higher-strength wines and spirits. They go from drinking in well-regulated pubs and bars to drinking more at home, without that monitoring and oversight. Publicans tell us that the support that they once felt is now gone. Brewers, especially in rural and coastal areas, are seeing margins tighten and options shrink, and it is drinkers who are paying more for less.

We are looking to the Government to reverse the automatic RPI uprating and freeze duty for the remainder of this Parliament; to expand draught relief, to ensure that packaged beer sold in pubs pays a significantly lower duty rate than that sold mainly in supermarkets; to raise the small producer threshold, allowing businesses, including family brewers, to grow without fear of penalty; and to commit to a long-term transparent policy that supports investment and sustainability in the brewing industry.

Neither our brewers nor our community pubs can afford to take the hit now by being seen as cash cows for the Chancellor’s need to raise revenue. Real ale deserves real support. Labour’s national insurance rises and slashing of business rate relief has hammered pubs, while its cap on business property relief is a real threat to family brewers. The least that the Government can do is offer some comfort by reducing the pressures caused by high beer duty rates. Consumers, publicans and brewers alike will be watching carefully to see whether the Minister is truly on their side.

17:06

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing the debate. Given all the Liberal Democrat interventions, it seems that we are firmly the party of beer and pubs.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Where did they all go?

[Bobby Dean]

My hon. Friends all made their contributions and they are all on the record; there is no disputing that we have won today—one-nil to us.

Pubs are central to communities, as we have heard from others, and Carshalton and Wallington is no different. One of my favourite things about living in the Carshalton area is that we have some great pubs. I tried to list them all on the Floor of the House one time, but I was two short; I will not repeat that mistake here today. People make artwork about our pubs and there is a defined pub crawl that people come to our area to do. People come from all over the region because for six out of the past 12 years one pub, The Hope, has been CAMRA’s Greater London pub of the year. Pubs are super-important to where I live.

In a world with declining physical spaces, pubs are some of the last refuges for interaction with others. We have less footfall on the high street, fewer people going into offices and, let us be honest, it is getting quite pricey to go out for a meal. The pub is one of the last places we have to get together with our mates, or maybe even turn up on our own to be around other people, so it is important that we protect the industry.

The industry is under threat, and hon. Members have spoken about the number of pub closures in recent years. It is getting tough for the hospitality industry in general. People talk to me about a staffing crisis and say that they are struggling to make ends meet. A number of smaller pubs, which used to be at the heart of communities, have been bought up by bigger pub chains, losing their sense of community. That is also an issue. Whenever policy looks as if it is going to have an impact, we should not look at pubs as we do other businesses, but as an important part of the community to protect.

The EPR has had an impact on the cost of selling beer. It has been acknowledged that that was an unintended consequence that needs to be fixed, and campaigners are putting forward suggestions about how we can fix that. They posit that this would be a Treasury winner, although we might hear differently from the Minister. Will the Minister model the figures, so that we can see what the numbers look like and what the net outcome of such a change would be, taking into account the expected increase in sales? If those figures do not show a net income for the Treasury and instead show only a marginal loss, will the Minister consider the wider benefits to the community, as well as the possible multiplier effect? That could boost the industry more generally.

My point is that a policy was introduced with good intentions but is perhaps having unintended consequences, and the centrality of pubs to our communities means that we ought to be addressing all asks by campaigners and making sure that we get this right.

17:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and it was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) set the scene so well. I was intrigued by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) referring to the fact that Lib Dems were here. It made me wonder what that means about the Lib Dems—I say that in jest, of course.

I am thankful that beer has become more than the mainstays of Harp, Carling and Guinness, which are all wonderful beers and stouts but increasingly being challenged by small independent brewers. There is only one small independent brewer in my constituency, but they are good guys; they have a good company, and I wish to mention them. Grant in my office tells me that Bullhouse East craft beer, which began in Newtownards, is top class and, for any of the big brands, hard to beat. I have tried it myself and I also think it features up there, but that is just my opinion.

Hon. Members may not be aware that, in Northern Ireland, small independent breweries are severely restricted from offering the choice and variety of local products that consumers demand, because of the liquor licensing laws. That limits Northern Ireland’s economic, hospitality and tourism opportunities and means that 99% of beers sold in Northern Ireland are imported. This year, Northern Ireland lost 20% of its breweries because of the limits. The current review of the licensing system, including the surrender principle, is the opportunity to introduce much-needed reforms. I will ask a question of the Minister at the end of my speech and I will be happy for him to get back to me in written form if that makes it easier, because of the particular question that I intend to ask.

Granting Northern Ireland’s independent breweries the ability to properly open taprooms, as happens in England, Scotland and Wales, would enable small businesses to reach their potential, meet consumer choice and increase tourism. I believe that is what we should be considering for Northern Ireland, so that is my wish and my request to the Minister. The Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 limits the number of alcohol licences available. Under the surrender principle, an existing licence must be surrendered before the granting of a new one. It is a quirk in the law, but it means that someone has to hand one in so that someone else can buy one, and the premium is exorbitant.

Obtaining a new licence costs well over £100,000, which is unaffordable for most small businesses. In some areas of Northern Ireland, it is impossible to get a new licence. The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 introduced a new but extremely limited local producer’s licence, but its cost of £10,000 or more outweighed its limited benefits. It was very limited, restricting a brewery to opening twice a week for 12 hours and selling only its own products.

Northern Ireland’s 23 small breweries struggle to sell their products in local pubs, as the vast majority are locked into sole-supply contracts with globally owned breweries. That is another negative for those people who want to be more independent, to have more choice and to give their customers more choice. Many of those globally owned breweries do not allow local draught beer to be sold. Currently, the only realistic option for Northern Ireland’s small independent breweries is to export their beer to the rest of the UK or to the Republic of Ireland. In England, Wales and Scotland, small independent breweries are permitted to apply for a licence to properly open taprooms, which helps to create jobs, regenerate the community and grow tourism.

The one thing that we have in Northern Ireland and have tried to encourage—this applies in particular to my council, Ards and North Down borough council—is tourism. We are very keen to ensure that tourism can produce economic advantages, jobs, money and opportunities for small businesses to grow as well. Northern Ireland’s independent breweries need the same opportunities to grow and thrive. Any discussion on Northern Ireland’s top-class beer industry must come with us urging Government to support our local breweries and, obviously, to liaise with the Northern Ireland Assembly to press for reform. That is what I look to the Minister for today. As I said, I will be very happy if the Minister wishes to come back to me on this issue in a letter to indicate what can or cannot be done.

The one thing I do know is that we in Northern Ireland want to play our part. We do not have a large number of breweries; we have 23 across Northern Ireland, with one of them being in my constituency, but I am very keen to see the opportunities presented by the proposal from the hon. Member for Woking, who as I said set the scene very well, and for us to be able to be part of that. I am ever mindful—others have referred to the news in the paper in the last two weeks about the number of pubs that will close in the United Kingdom over the next period of time; I think one per week was the figure referred to—that there is pressure on the hospitality sector and, in particular, on pubs. They are part of the community. Whether people are going for a drink, to socialise, to have fun, to meet people or for a meal, pubs are integral. Let us do our best to ensure that we keep all the ones that are there, so that in the future they can still be parts of the communities that we live in.

17:15

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this debate. I agree with him; I, too, love beer, and I have for some time—we will not go into how many years—been drinking it and thoroughly enjoying it.

As my hon. Friend will know, back in February our party supported the beer duty cut to support our pubs. The Liberal Democrats have always supported the local pub, perhaps because of our heritage as a party grounded in community politics. Across our country, pubs and other hospitality businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. That is true of my constituency of Wokingham, where we are blessed with many excellent pubs, and I know that it is true of my hon. Friend’s constituency as well.

Wokingham is not just a place where beer is consumed, although I know my constituency team do their best in that department whenever they get the chance, but a place where beer is produced. I have spoken in the House before about some of the breweries that operate in Wokingham. Siren Craft Brew has grown from a small local producer to a significant competitor in the market, with beers such as Lumina being found in pubs across the country. Just across the road, Elusive Brewing produces Oregon Trail, which won best IPA at this year’s champion beer of Britain awards. There are also countless smaller producers across Wokingham and the Reading area, as there have been for many centuries.

Like most MPs, I am happy to stand in this House and make the case for businesses local to me, but I am not just here to plug the record of Outhouse Brewery in Wokingham town centre, whose taproom is open five days a week, including Sundays, selling the feline-themed Apocalypse Meow pale ale.

Brewers and publicans regularly tell me of the challenges that the industry is facing. We need to address those challenges head-on. When the previous Government tried to make hay out of a draught discount in 2023, they managed to apply it only to containers of over 40 litres. That excluded many producers of real cider or craft beer, like those produced by the companies in Wokingham that I have mentioned, who often ship product in smaller containers. As so often with the Conservatives, it was a break for big business, not for local businesses that really needed the support.

[Mike Wood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Clive Jones]

I will carry on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister at the time managed to launch the policy with a photo opportunity in which he lifted up a beer keg for all to see. The keg was a 30-litre container, which did not qualify for the discount he was launching. If I were him, I might have drowned my sorrows in a couple of pints of Apocalypse Meow after that one. The industry knows which parties in this place have its back. After pressure from the Liberal Democrats, the Government applied the draught discount to containers of 20 litres or more. I do not believe that the former Prime Minister returned to lift more kegs to mark his U-turn.

A key challenge that comes up time and again, especially when I talk to local independent pubs, is the crushing impact of the broken business rates system. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for years for it to be reformed and replaced with a commercial landowner levy based on the value of landlords’ land, which would remove the responsibility for this tax from local businesses. This fair reform has one core goal: supporting our local economies to thrive and grow. I am led to believe that the Government place a very high value on growth. They are right to do so, but they will not get it while small local businesses choke under the weight of the outdated business system and increases in employer national insurance contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking spoke eloquently about the impact of extended producer responsibility on the industry. He is not wrong. It is a cause for huge concern among those I talk to across the drinks and hospitality sector. Our party welcomes the Government’s intention to make packaging more sustainable, but it cannot be at the expense of uncertainty and financial turmoil for local businesses, with all the economic consequences that that brings.

The assumption that local authorities will recycle the packaging from drinks bought in the pub is flawed, and the proposal means that pubs may pay for waste disposal twice: once for private recycling, and then again through EPR-related charges from producers. I urge the Minister to consider our call to exempt pubs from EPR, and to review the scope and timeline of that policy to avoid further harm to our hospitality sector. Will he today commit to a review of how successful the extended draught duty cut has been in supporting hospitality? If he finds that it has been successful, with all the economic benefits that that will bring, will he consider reducing it further to help our struggling pubs across the country?

17:21

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall and uniting us behind support for beer—although his colleague the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) slightly broke that consensus with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on a couple of points.

Beer and pub businesses support 1 million jobs across the UK and contribute £34.4 billion to the economy. In my own North West Norfolk constituency, there are more than 70 pubs and four breweries, which support 2,300 jobs and generate £53 million for the local economy. Those brewers are Brancaster, Fox, Lynn and Duration in West Acre—I strongly recommend Duration’s Turtles All the Way Down IPA. This has been a good debate with a long list of excellent-sounding pubs and breweries.

The previous Conservative Government introduced a new duty system in 2023, which has been referred to. That was the biggest reform of duties for more than 140 years and was based on the common-sense principle of applying duty based on the strength of alcohol to modernise existing duties, support businesses and meet public health objectives. New reliefs were also introduced: draught relief, which we have heard about, to cut the burden on draught products; and small producer relief. The British Beer and Pub Association, as quoted by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), said that those reforms were very welcome for the beer industry, and I am sure everyone would agree with that. Conservative support for the sector went further; at autumn statement 2023, we froze alcohol duty, and the freeze was extended at the spring Budget a year ago.

By contrast, at the tax-raising autumn Budget, the Chancellor increased the headline rate of alcohol duty by inflation, although she did continue our policy with a reduction in the rates for qualifying draught products and under small producer relief. While I recognise and welcome those steps, the changes to draught relief will mean that beer duty on an average 4.5% strength pint of beer reduces from 54p to 53p—a paltry one penny saving. With the average pint now breaking the £5 barrier to mitigate new costs, many are left wondering if the Government really get the challenges facing the pub and brewing sector. One in every £3 spent in the pub goes straight to the Treasury, and beer duty rates are now up to 12 times higher than in other European nations. The Government’s fiscal approach risks squeezing the life out of those vital sectors.

A lot has been said about the role of pubs, and I also want to reflect on the role of breweries. The brewing subsector sustains 85,000 jobs and contributes £5 billion to tax revenues. Breweries are clearly fundamental to the success of pubs and the hospitality sector. More than 80% of beer sold in the UK is produced domestically in 1,800 breweries, which have strong domestic supply chains and a strong economic multiplier effect. The economic value that they generate largely stays in the UK, and the Government should support that in the policy approach that they take.

Beyond the increase in alcohol duty, which is the primary focus of this debate, we have also heard a lot about EPR and the extra costs that producers are facing. The BBPA has calculated that EPR fees and Budget costs will add more than £800 million of extra burden on to the sector. The Government’s impact assessment failed to make any distinction between sectors, so will the Minister commit to properly assessing the impact of fees on pub closures and the brewing sector? In the current climate, how can he think that those sectors can afford these huge additional costs?

All Members know from talking to pubs and breweries in their constituencies just how worried they are about increased costs. On Friday, I was at the Rose and Crown in Harpley in my constituency, which was one of my favourite pubs under its previous management and has just reopened. From talking to the new team, who have pubs across Norfolk, it is clear that the national insurance increase—in particular, almost halving the threshold at which it is paid—has been challenging and is leading to job losses across the sector.

Pubs make an important contribution to our economy and our communities. When in government, we introduced measures to protect the nation’s beer producers and hospitality venues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, who was a doughty campaigner throughout the last Parliament to achieve that. Time and again, however, I hear that choices made by this Government are placing unsustainable pressures on businesses. UKHospitality has just published figures showing that since the autumn Budget, 69,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector, compared with the previous period where 18,000 jobs were added. It is little wonder that UKHospitality said that the decisions made by this Chancellor and this Government deliver a hammer blow to the sector.

Businesses are extremely concerned about what will come in the autumn Budget, given the black hole that has emerged in the Chancellor’s spending plans. Treasury Ministers keep saying that business confidence is at a record high, and they sometimes manage that without a smile on their face. But if the Minister makes his way to the Dog and Duck, he will get a reality check, and he will hear loud and clear how tough things are for pubs and brewers; how the Government’s increases in national insurance, wage costs and business rates mean a third of venues are running at a loss; and the need for the Government to change course. Otherwise, spiralling costs risk undermining the Great British institution of the pub, which is at the heart of our constituencies and communities. Rather than loading on more costs, the Government should be supporting pubs and brewers. If the Minister does that, we will all buy him a pint.

17:28

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

I always look forward to seeing you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—nearly as much as I am looking forward to that pint. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing and opening the debate. I thank all the colleagues who have spoken—perhaps unsurprisingly, given the subject—with great enthusiasm. I am shocked that there is in fact cross-party support for beer; that is the kind of bold politics that has got everybody in this room where they are today.

Nobody in this place needs persuading of the cultural, social and economic value of the Great British pint, nor of the pubs that serve pints and the breweries that produce them. Pubs are places of consumption but, more importantly, they are places of friendship, community and employment. I have learned a lot in a year as a new MP, but not as much as I learned about life when I started my first job in a pub at 16. I learned a lot about the price of beer, even if not about the ins and outs of alcohol duty, or indeed, drinking alcohol—obviously.

Last autumn, the Chancellor cut alcohol duty on qualifying draught products, affecting 60% of the alcoholic drinks sold in pubs. The cut reduced bills by over £85 million a year. People now pay 13.9% less in tax for draught beer and cider than their packaged equivalents—a discount up by more than 50% since the previous Government’s introduction of the policy, as mentioned in the debate. The cut recognised the roles of pubs and other hospitality venues in supporting responsible drinking in social settings.

The Chancellor also recognised the UK’s 1,600 or so small breweries by making more generous small producer relief, which, as the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) was kind enough to mention, was introduced by Gordon Brown under the last Labour Government, and continued by the previous Conservative Government.

To respond directly to the question put by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), small producer relief is available in Northern Ireland, even though licensing is a devolved policy matter. I am happy to exchange letters with him on the wider points he made.

The Budget also committed to a review of small brewers’ access to UK pubs, including through the provision of guest beers, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). I know that Members with breweries in their constituencies will contact the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), given his responsibility for that review.

Of course, alcohol duty does not exist in a vacuum. It relates to the real challenges that we face as a country on public health and the public finances. I understand the wish to call for lower duties, as the hon. Member for Woking did, but the implications for the Exchequer are real. I will dwell on a few related points, given that that call was the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am not sure that the 50p call has been entirely thought through: the duty on a typical draught pint of 4.5% beer is currently 48p, so the hon. Gentleman has called for the whole duty to be abolished. He might want to reflect on that.

Questions were asked about the relationship of what is technically called the elasticity of beer consumption to the changes in duties. The Office for Budget Responsibility publishes its own view on the elasticity, which hon. Members can go and find. Suffice it to say that the implications of any large change in alcohol duty for the Exchequer are real. Obviously, the context is that alcohol duty on beer is down by 10% in real terms since 2019.

Questions were also asked about the international comparisons. The proportion of the price of beer that is made up of tax here is similar to that in Ireland. As Finland was raised, I should point out that the proportion there is less than that in Sweden, where members of my family are consuming beer today at higher prices.

At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor increased the main duty rate in line with the retail price index, but she kept the tax burden on packaged products flat overall in real terms, as has been the long-established policy under all three main parties. Along with the increase to draft relief, that balanced the need to fund public services, reduce harmful alcohol consumption, and support moderate responsible drinkers with the cost of living. We have to weigh all those factors together.

Alcohol harm costs this country an estimated £27.4 billion a year. Regrettably, deaths from alcohol are at record highs—admittedly, that is mainly among a concentrated part of the population, but that is still something we all need to wrestle with. That is why the Government will introduce new standards for alcohol labelling.

But we want to address the health challenges while supporting valued producers and communal settings. That is the grounds for the balanced approach we have taken on duty, valuing the pubs that are at the centre of all our communities, as we have heard this afternoon. There is also good reason to be optimistic about the future of the brewing industry, although I recognise the wider challenges that brewers face. I thank hon. Members for their clear representations on those challenges.

Some Members, including the hon. Member for Woking in particular, raised the issue of the extended producer responsibility for packaging and the forthcoming deposit return scheme. I gently point out that the Liberal Democrats regularly call for a fast move to a circular economy, but when anything actually turns up, they oppose it in practice. I gently note that that is not a politics that will get any of us very far in the long term.

The reforms are designed to increase recycling and reduce litter and landfill. Critically, local authorities will receive every penny of the EPR fees, thereby bringing much-needed investment into our recycling infrastructure. The EPR scheme administrator has already published the 2025 base fees, with those for most materials, including glass, down on earlier illustrations. In the case of glass, the base fee is down by 20%.

DEFRA continues to work with the industry on the dual-use packaging that several hon. Members mentioned. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh) recently held a roundtable on the issue, and I think she intends to hold more.

I acknowledge, as many Members have, that alcohol duty is but one small part of the business equation for pubs and hospitality venues, which is why the Government have made concrete interventions to support the sector, including a £1.5 million hospitality support scheme. I also recognise the points raised, not least by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), about business rates. We have frozen the small business multiplier for the current tax year and are providing 40% relief to retail, hospitality and leisure properties. As I say, I recognise the points made, but the package is worth more than £1.6 billion this year, and the previous Government left us with the relief due to end entirely in April 2025.

We are introducing high street rental auctions to bring vacant properties back into productive use, thereby offering smaller brewers and taprooms more affordable sites. Although there is bad news about pubs shutting across the country, and we are all sad when we see it in our constituencies, we also see some opening up on some high streets, and that is to be welcomed.

On 4 April 2025, we announced the licensing policy taskforce, co-chaired by Nick Mackenzie, the chief executive of Greene King. It is working intensively with the industry to ensure that the licensing conditions for businesses such as pubs, restaurants and music venues are proportional.

I began by acknowledging the unique place that beer and pubs hold in our national life. They deserve and have the steadfast attention of this Government and, it is clear, every hon. Member in this room. My local pubs in Swansea, from the Brunswick to the Deer’s Leap, certainly have my attention, and—I promise—my consumption. Through draught relief, small producer relief and tailored interventions for high streets, we are helping the sector to thrive.

I close with two brief invitations. First, I urge Members to please continue to bring to the Treasury their stories, spreadsheets, and suggestions from pubs and brewers, as they have done this afternoon. Secondly, I invite the industry to continue talking to us and demonstrating, year in and year out, that the British brewing scene is second to none.

17:35

[Mr Forster]

I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate. I welcome the cross-party support for the change to and a review of beer duty.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), the hon. Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their contributions.

Overall, the debate was relatively good-spirited and cross-party, with the occasional breakout of political disagreement. From hearing colleagues’ contributions, it is clear that communities across the country would benefit from a review of, and hopefully a cut in, beer duty. There is appetite—quite frankly, thirst—for the Government to look at this.

Growth in the economy is vital, and we are offering a solution to try to grow the economy and support local communities. I hope the Minister asks his officials in the Treasury to redouble their efforts to work with the industry, improve EPR, and ensure that we have a thriving hospitality sector.

I do have some sympathy for the Minister, who was wheeled out to outline the winter fuel allowance U-turn and now again to try to defend taxing pubs more than we should. He talks about the financial impact, but when he goes back to a pub in Swansea, I hope he considers the benefits of a review. I know he has not committed to a review today, but were the Government to review beer duty in advance of the next Budget, it could have both financial and community benefits that I hope he will ponder over his next pint.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered beer duty.

17:38

Sitting adjourned.