Westminster Hall

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 9 September 2025

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

Hydrogen Supply Chains

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered hydrogen supply chains.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts, and a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. I congratulate him. It is good to see him back at the Dispatch Box, renewing his already well established work in our Government’s mission for growth and change. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate. Unfortunately, there has been a switcheroo and I am taking his place, but I am very glad to be doing that and very grateful to him for the opportunity.

This is of course a very important topic. We have faced an overly warm summer this year and we keep seeing the weather reminding us of the urgent need for change. The global energy system is also rapidly transitioning, and the UK needs to respond to that. With our ambitious mission for growth, looking to have the highest growth in the G7, it is vital that we are competitive and, indeed, that we lead in the energy space, as well as renew ourselves industrially. The UK has shown great leadership in hydrogen supply chain development and hydrogen technology development. We have been leaders, but we have also navigated and illustrated the technically complex, multi-sector, internationally charged difficulties in decarbonising our economy. It has been unclear which technologies will win, but although there is still some small uncertainty associated with how the mix of technologies will play out, the questions of how we will produce, transport and store energy at that macro scale are now finding firm answers, so we are at a turning point. The transition is no longer being led by technology, but by economics, and it is time for us to respond to that shift.

The wider picture is beginning to resolve into clear focus, especially for hydrogen. In the future energy system, the UK will be more independent. It is quite likely that it will still be a net importer of energy but with a very strong position in Europe, given our incredible assets in renewables. Hydrogen and ammonia are likely to replace oil as the vector for intercontinental energy transport, and electrification will be common, especially in well-developed societies. The competitive economic battlefield will be for these fuels.

Just as that crystalising picture informs our context, it informs the UK energy strategy. We know that we will electrify what we can—and that will require a huge expansion of our electricity system across the board, from production to transportation, storage and end use—but it is also vital that we go big on hydrogen, as this is critical for reindustrialisation, for heavy transport and for us to maximise our country’s strengths. That all points to hydrogen if we are to reindustrialise the UK, which is vital for economic growth and national resilience.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech on a very important subject. He mentioned the production of ammonia. The fact is that fertiliser is made from ammonia and right now our farmers are facing increasing prices for a number of world reasons. Does the hon. Member agree that one of the strategic purposes of creating hydrogen is to support hard-pressed farmers all over the UK?

[Tom Collins]

The hon. Member is entirely right. Ammonia is a very important part of the future energy mix. It is interchangeable bidirectionally with hydrogen and it is a very compact energy carrier. It is a liquid—it is relatively easily handled and stored—but it also, vitally, provides direct injection into the agricultural fertiliser chain. That makes it a vital asset in our future energy system, as agriculture currently plays a very large role in our total carbon emissions.

How we get to the future energy system is similar to how we got to this point: economics is overtaking technology as the driver for change. It is not about choosing technologies; it is about choosing these key energy vectors and then facilitating markets to grow around them. If we look more closely at that challenge and at the current UK energy system, we have seen electricity decarbonising, but if we look at electricity use in comparison with other vectors in the UK, it plays a relatively modest role. If we look at our energy use over the course of a year, our daily electricity consumption is pretty flat, but if we overlay on to that the amount of gas we use as a country—remember, gas is providing a vital part of our electricity production, and indeed the responsive part—and we see waves with peaks in the winter and troughs in the summer. The peaks of those waves are three times higher than our day-to-day electricity use. Gas is doing the lion’s share of moving energy around the UK and supporting our electricity system, and oil, which is primarily used for transport and is our main vector for transport, sits at about the same level as electricity. That is the picture of how energy is split across the UK energy system.

What we can learn from that is that UK energy demand is peaky. It varies very rapidly, seasonally and throughout the day, especially for heat applications. As we move into a renewable world, we need to recognise that renewable production is also subject to these synchronous peaks and troughs. The UK is a small enough country that one weather system can influence the production of all our renewables. We are therefore subject to fluctuations both in the supply of renewable energy and in demand. We also know that global prices for energy will continue to fluctuate, and part of our Government’s strategy to make the UK rightly more energy independent is informed by our vulnerability to variations in international energy prices.

Whatever our vector mix, and however we cut up the pie of our future energy system, we absolutely will need storage to navigate these variations. The transition has rightly been described as a chicken-and-egg problem: how do we build a new energy system out of an existing one? We are led by economics, which means that we need a price for the new system. We need a price that breaks the cycle by providing producers with a way to sell their energy and by providing people decarbonising at the end-use point with the ability to buy the energy they need for decarbonisation and to make long-term investments. That price enabler is made stable by storage. The crux, therefore, of building this future energy system is to build transmission and storage of the key vectors that we want to use in the future. Therefore, it would be very valuable for the UK to develop a plan to commission and build out a strategic national clean energy reserve. That can be left to markets, but the Government need to drive it with an extremely strong and firm grip and with a clear vision. I urge the Minister to look at the ways that we can build on our current work in storage, while expanding it with a very clear and ambitious vision.

We can also start blending. Blending is sometimes misunderstood. There are currently investigations into blending hydrogen into our natural gas supply. That has a small benefit for decarbonisation, but it has a huge benefit for allowing us to build out production of hydrogen, because it gives producers a large and available sink for their hydrogen to be produced and sold and it allows them to build large-scale production with the certainty of a market. Blending is therefore a key enabler not of decarbonisation but of building production for a future energy system with hydrogen playing a major role.

It is also vital that we take action to fill the remaining gaps. Through my experience as an engineer working in research and development I have seen personally how powerful it is when the Government set goals and work in partnership with industry to try to meet those goals. Goal setting cuts through the noise of the usual business of research and development and the competition for investment, and it allows us to move forward. It has put the UK in an incredibly strong position.

The UK is already the leader in hydrogen standards, and with the publicly available specifications 4444 series, it is leading the way in establishing technical standards. We have an opportunity to build those out up to the norms of the British Standards Institution and the International Organisation for Standardisation. The UK has led and is leading that. The UK has led on technology with a series of first-in-the-world projects in hydrogen over recent years, and we have an opportunity to lead through our geography with a well-established oil and gas industry ready to transition with fantastic geology for salt cavern storage.

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

The hon. Member refers to geography. In Northern Ireland, particularly in my adjoining constituency of North Antrim, hydrogen buses have become a phenomenon that was unheard of 15 or 20 years ago. This week, with the tube strike taking place, buses are being used inordinately in London and are making very slow progress through the congested streets. Hydrogen buses emit much less pollution than diesel or petrol vehicles. Does he agree that we need to promote hydrogen in all aspects, but particularly transport, whenever difficult times come?

[Tom Collins]

I thank the hon. Member for his point—he is entirely right. Hydrogen is a key enabler for industrial processes that need high temperature, high power and reducing atmospheres. It is a vital feedstock for a large part of our materials supply chain, and it is a key enabler for future heavy transport, with buses being an excellent example. I share his passion—my constituents will be the first to tell everyone how important buses are to me, and I desperately desire our current oil-fuelled buses to be replaced by some form of electrified transport, be that energised by batteries or by hydrogen and fuel cells.

So, what next? There are quick wins available in the space of hydrogen. Reviewing some of our safety regulations, which are slightly outdated for a world where hydrogen will become more commonplace, could make a big difference, particularly on exclusion distances and ammonia, which is currently treated as a chemical for storage. Introducing regulations that treat ammonia as a fuel and allow its storage under simplified guidance would make a huge difference. I have already mentioned blending. It is time for the Government to work in an agile and innovative way with other Departments—as they are doing—to build out this capacity.

A longer-term road map for heavy transport and for heat would be very helpful. These are hard-to-abate sectors. I would like to see recognition that heat has proven one of the hardest areas of our economy to decarbonise. It is important that, while we have ambitious targets to electrify heat, we keep the door open to hydrogen providing that fallback, as gas does now for many electrified projects, to allow us to get there with confidence, rapidity and depth of decarbonisation.

Our planning reform is doing fantastic things for the energy transition, allowing us to build out our electricity transmission system and future storage. There are opportunities for us to echo that in gas and liquid fuel transport and storage, alongside electricity, for hydrogen and ammonia in particular. As I have mentioned, innovation support is vital as we work cross-Department to bring this transition. I have seen at first hand how powerful it can be when Government set goals and work in close partnership with industry, but I have also seen where there is room for us to strengthen our innovation offer around hydrogen to make this transition even more successful.

There has never been a more important time for the agile, mission-led approach of our Government. There is a need for ambition in this space. Investment is currently following vision, and the UK has an opportunity to present a powerful vision. We have seen some of our work around hydrogen and the investment rounds slipping. This is the time for Government to be agile, mission-led and work in partnership with industry to accelerate that, bring shared focus and work in closer partnership with industry, with a goal-setting approach, to cut through the administration and bureaucracy and, with confidence, build out the future economy that we can start to more clearly envisage. With ambition and decisive action, the UK can prosper, and a vital part of that is our hydrogen supply chains prospering.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Six Members are indicating that they want to speak. We have about 45 minutes, so that means a maximum seven minutes for each speech from Back Benchers. I call Wera Hobhouse.

00:00

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Betts; it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate—I supported the application—and the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on introducing it so competently.

The UK has established strong foundations for a domestic hydrogen industry, which already contributes £8.4 billion to our economy. Improving hydrogen supply chains could benefit the economy by £18 billion in gross value added and 60,000 new highly skilled jobs by 2050, according to research from Hydrogen UK. Sixty thousand new jobs and £18 billion in gross value added for our economy are not something to ignore.

Sustainable, or green, hydrogen has the potential to drive job creation, economic growth and decarbonisation across sectors currently reliant on high-carbon fuels, and particularly the aviation sector. There is enormous potential for hydrogen in aviation. According to the International Energy Agency, 65 million tonnes per year of low-emission hydrogen must be produced globally by 2030 to meet our net zero targets. Domestically, Hydrogen UK has made it clear that we need 10 GW of hydrogen production capacity by 2030, alongside urgent investment in storage, to more than treble our capacity between 2030 and 2035. We need this infrastructure to reach a final investment decision.

A significant portion of the UK’s hydrogen storage will be for aviation. On a recent visit just north of my constituency, I saw the extraordinary work of ZeroAvia. Its business model is currently built on retrofitting relatively small aircraft, but it has the ambition to expand to medium-sized aircraft. It is absolutely fascinating to see what ZeroAvia has achieved. Backed by the likes of Airbus, British Airways and the UK Infrastructure Bank, ZeroAvia has already achieved world-first flight demonstrations of hydrogen electric engines. It has raised more than $250 million and employs more than 200 people.

ZeroAvia’s hydrogen electric engines are not a distant dream. Airlines are already pre-ordering more than 3,000 units, with commitments from American Airlines, United Airlines and UK operators. These engines can cut aviation’s climate impact by more than 90%, with only water as a by-product. Again, the real beauty of this is that ZeroAvia is retrofitting planes, so we do not have to build new ones. That in itself is an emission reduction. Of all modes of transport, aviation is perhaps the best suited to hydrogen. It is energy-intensive and weight-sensitive, making hydrogen’s high-energy density and efficiency critical. Unlike road or rail, aviation has more limited alternatives.

Hydrogen is not just desirable, it is essential. But we can achieve these things only with better storage solutions, as the hon. Member for Worcester mentioned, lower operational costs and a secure, consistent supply. Producing green hydrogen is extremely energy-intensive and requires a large amount of renewable energy. On average, producing 1 kg of hydrogen consumes around 50 kWh of electricity. This high energy demand means that to produce more green hydrogen, we must drastically accelerate our renewable energy capacity.

That is why I am a little concerned that some renewable energy projects are being pushed out of the grid connections queue, because they are not seen as immediately necessary. That seems a short-sighted approach, and it could hinder our ability to scale green hydrogen production. What we should be doing is oversupplying renewables so that we have a surplus that allows us to not only produce enough green hydrogen but potentially become a net exporter of renewable energy across Europe.

The hon. Member for Worcester also mentioned the need for stronger regulation for the wider applications of hydrogen. The Government must set clear standards for sectors such as domestic heating, where hydrogen boilers still lack the necessary regulation for home use. I know that the Government are a little slow on hydrogen in home heating.

[Tom Collins]

Before coming to this place, that was my exact area of work, and I can assure the House that the current regulatory framework has enabled the certification of these products. They have been shown to be safe; in fact, they are soon to be trialled up in Scotland, in Fife. So some of these barriers have recently been mitigated and reduced very quickly by UK innovation. The opportunity is there now to push forward into delivery.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am glad the hon. Member clarified that. He also made a point about mixing hydrogen. Hydrogen is possibly not the end destination for heating in this country, but it will be extremely important to continue looking into it as a transition and to ensure that the Government do not miss an opportunity. In a recent meeting with Wales & West Utilities, which manages the gas grid in my constituency and beyond, it was explained that hydrogen remains a highly viable option for household heating, particularly if we look into blending.

We should take inspiration from the University of Bath, a national leader in research and innovation. Bath is a key partner in pioneering hydrogen aviation projects such as the hydrogen fuel cell-powered double-decker bus and liquid hydrogen pump technology.

Hydrogen is not a silver bullet, but in aviation it is the fuel of the future. If we back it with the urgency it deserves, Britain can lead the world in hydrogen supply chains, deliver cleaner, cheaper energy, and ensure that our journey to net zero is also a journey towards prosperity and fairness.

09:50

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on opening it so well.

The Teesside region already produces much of the UK’s hydrogen, in an economy built on the legacy of ICI, and it continues today with BOC’s Teesside hydrogen carbon capture, usage and storage project. We have the pipelines, the port and the skills, and now the prospect of a new £4 billion net zero Teesside CCUS project linked to the Endurance saline aquifer beneath the North sea. With projects across our industrial cluster, we are well equipped to deliver perhaps a quarter of the Government’s 2030 target.

The potential is huge, representing thousands of construction jobs in the short term, with long-term roles in energy, transport and manufacturing, and the chance to give our young people skilled work close to home. This is about livelihoods and whether young people in Middlesbrough, Redcar, Cleveland, Stockton—my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is in his place—Hartlepool and Darlington can find skilled, unionised work in the industries of the future, rather than having to leave home to find opportunity elsewhere.

That shift will not happen by accident and needs Government to back British supply chains, to ensure that we build the infrastructure and elements we need here, not overseas. It means putting in specific sector support for industries such as steel manufacturing and construction to adopt hydrogen where it is needed—for example, hydrogen for direct reduced iron. It means ensuring that contracts come with conditions on fair pay, skills and apprenticeships. And it means putting local communities in the driving seat, devolving power and investment so that the people of regions such as Teesside can shape this transition, not just watch it happen from the sidelines.

Given the outsized role the north of England is already playing through the three major clusters, the Government should perhaps establish a regional body—an acceleration forum—to draw together existing work and drive hydrogen development in the north. In any case, pioneering businesses, research partners and regional governments are driving the work forward, and co-ordinating that investment and innovation is important.

I am slightly more cautious about domestic heating, which has been touched on in the debate. That is purely because our region saw the unsuccessful trial in Redcar in 2023, when the public opposed the project in the end. It is important that people are brought along in the process. That is not to say these things are not safe or possible—there are areas of the country where blending works well—but it is about doing this with communities.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I already made the point that we need to take the public with us, but that would be the same for any hydrogen application. Where would we be if people were so concerned about hydrogen that they did not want to be on a hydrogen bus or a hydrogen-powered aeroplane? Is there not a case for educating the public better, rather than abandoning projects altogether?

[Luke Myer]

I can only speak to the public shift we saw in our region. The public are fully behind projects such as hydrogen fuels for public transport, which we are seeing trials of in Teesside. But, for whatever reason, there was much more reluctance over the Redcar trial, and it was not without significant investment in educating people on the benefits.

[Tom Collins]

Once again, I intervene only because I have painful personal experience of this situation. The Redcar trial was subject to a distinct, explicit and targeted campaign seeking to bring about its failure. It was extremely frustrating to experience, as the trial was testing both electrification of heat and conversion to 100% hydrogen—two key pathways for decarbonising heat that need to be validated. It was very frustrating to see that, and it was the result of a targeted campaign, but we have also seen that where the engineering is well explained and consumers are able to understand that this is just a different gas—in fact, a gas that already circulated in UK gas pipes prior to the conversion of the 1960s—these things can be done successfully. It is therefore important that we show positive ambition for hydrogen and help the public to feel secure about a problem where the engineering has been solved.

[Luke Myer]

Having tried to make many of the points that my hon. Friend made during that experience, I am more sceptical about whether that shift will happen quickly or easily. There is certainly huge potential for industrial use and for transport.

In any case, our region helped to power Britain’s industrial revolution, and we can do the same today through the age of clean energy. Hydrogen can anchor a new era of good jobs and pride in our communities if we have the ambition to make it work for working people.

09:56

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship in Westminster Hall, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for leading the debate and for the many conversations in recent years surrounding the need for alternative methods to fossil fuels. There is no doubt whatever that hydrogen is a much talked-about method, so it is great to be here today to discuss these matters. I believe that we must commit ourselves to the net zero targets, and we must meet them, or try to. To do so, we must have a strategy that encompasses all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I am pleased to see the Minister, who has a passion for this issue, in his place. Maybe the fact that he is still here today tells us just how good a job he is doing. He is a safe pair of hands and a friend to us all, for he has a deep interest in this matter. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, who brings a spark to this debate in every way, as he does when he speaks in the Chamber.

Northern Ireland wants to play a role. We have strong potential for green hydrogen production, due to our significant offshore and onshore wind resources, especially surrounding the Antrim coast in the Irish sea. There are also interests in blue hydrogen, but for Northern Ireland specifically, green hydrogen is the focus for sustainability. Queen’s University has been to the fore in trying to promote the issue; I spoke to the hon. Member for Worcester beforehand and I know that he knows that, but maybe the Minister does not, although he is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, and why not? What better place to go for work or indeed for a wee trip? It is important to have connections between universities and business, and the partnerships that come from that. Perhaps Government could focus on that as well. I know that the Minister does that regularly.

There have been discussions throughout Northern Ireland about hydrogen storage and the potential need for development. Northern Ireland’s main hydrogen storage development is the Islandmagee energy storage project, a unique salt cavern facility in County Antrim, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). That is just an example of what we can use to move this development forward in the direction that it needs to go. That unit was initially planned for natural gas, but it has the potential to transition to hydrogen, supporting net zero goals.

We have heard of many developments in relation to hydrogen and transport over the last couple of years—my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to that in his intervention, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) will do likewise in a few moments. The great thing about Wrightbus is that its net of employment applies not only to North Antrim; many people across all constituencies work for it and have helped to develop the project there through their work on the shop floor. Some of the UK’s companies have taken part in a project to inject millions into the economy and create thousands of jobs, and Wrightbus in Northern Ireland is one of them. It is a leading producer of hydrogen buses, which provide safe, reliable and cost-effective transport.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry was right to make the point about the travel chaos in London yesterday. What should have been a 15 or 20-minute journey took an hour and 20 minutes; the lady who works in our office had to leave home two hours earlier to try to get the bus connections—or even to get a bus. These are things that we should be looking at, not just because of this week but because of their ability to reduce the impact on the atmosphere and environment.

The progression to net zero will also bring countless jobs, offering great opportunities in terms of apprenticeships. My query to the Minister is what has been done to encourage apprenticeships. There was a great defence development strategy statement yesterday, which was good to hear, and out of that was coming jobs—but were apprenticeships coming out of that as well? Could the Minister tell us about apprenticeships within the hydrogen sector?

There are also numerous hindrances preventing hydrogen from emerging. There is the opportunity to establish strong supply chains, but there are some challenges, for example the high cost of producing and using low-emission hydrogen compared with fossil fuel alternatives. There is also some uncertainty surrounding the future applicability of hydrogen in different sectors. Globally, we need to be aware that there is so much competition. It is good to have this hydrogen debate, and to have a hydrogen strategy, but we also need to be competitive. We must take advantage of the opportunities that we can while we have the capability to do so. I ask the Minister, how we can keep those costs down and make it competitive for the future.

As we look to the future of energy, hydrogen offers one of the most promising, yet complex, paths to decarbonisation. It presents us with a clear opportunity to create cleaner industries, decarbonise transport and build a more resilient energy system across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I always think that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with all the regions together, can do it better, and I think the Minister will reinforce that in his summing up.

I look to the Minister to engage further with his counterparts in the devolved nations. I know he does so regularly, but it is always encouraging when the Minister says he has been in touch with Queen’s University Belfast, or with Wrightbus in Ballymena or wherever it might be, to ensure that we are doing things to progress and move forward as a collective—a collective that is better together in relation to our net zero supply chains.

10:02

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on a very timely debate indeed; he knows his subject, and that is to the benefit of us all. Touching on the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), if we had mentioned hydrogen aviation prior to about 1940 it would have had people screaming in fear, because that was the era of the Hindenburg and the R101. The hon. Member for Worcester is absolutely correct that the potential for air transport is massive; the fact that when hydrogen and oxygen are combined we get water means that it is the cleanest of all forms of energy.

I made mention in my intervention of the production of ammonia. If my chemistry lessons have stuck, I think it is NH₄, which can then be turned into fertiliser. Our farmers are very worried by the increase in fertiliser prices, and it looks as if they are going up again this year. That can play merry hell with their farm accounts as they try to forward guess what their profitability will be. We know that EU tariffs on Russian fertiliser mean an increased price for EU countries. My point is a simple one: the more we can promote the manufacture of fertiliser out of ammonia from hydrogen produced in the UK, then the better that will be for this country. We have a great export opportunity.

I give great credit to the previous and present Governments—my constituents are very grateful to them—for having had the courage to go for Cromarty Firth and Inverness green freeport. The idea producing hydrogen was part and parcel of formulating that bid to the previous Government, and of the way we talk to the present Government. The experts in the field have been telling me that the potential for bulk hydrogen to be sailed across the North sea from the north of Scotland to very keen markets in Europe is huge, and that there is real money to be made here. When the bids were put together, the production of green hydrogen was part of that bid.

The Minister, whom I, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) am very glad to see in his place, knows full well that the issue of the grid we are proposing—where the pylons and lines go, whether they are sub-sea or above the ground, the batteries and all that—is a controversial and hot topic. However, I give him his due; in his previous incarnation he was as helpful as he could possibly be.

When the grid improvements were initially proposed, and yes we of course have to do that if we are serious about getting to net zero, I wrote to the then Prime Minister and the First Minister of Scotland to ask whether the proposals matched the production of green hydrogen that we are keen to do in the north of Scotland. I may or may not have got the formula for ammonia right but, if I remember my physics correctly, the longer the distance one has to send electricity down a wire or a cable, the more energy is lost. Is it I²R? It is something like that; I have probably got it wrong, and the Minister probably knows it better than I do, but the point is that the longer the cable, the more resistance, and energy is lost because heat is produced and radiates off it.

I earnestly say to the present Government, looking at the production of green hydrogen in the north of Scotland, “Would it not make sense to produce an awful lot of that as near as possible to where the energy is actually being created?” We have a plethora of wind farms in the north of Scotland. We have the Beatrice wind farm off the coast of my constituency and there are many others up and running or projected for Scotland. It seems to me that the manufacture of hydrogen as near as possible to that source of energy would make enormous sense.

[Tom Collins]

The hon. Member is entirely right. One of the key questions often asked about green hydrogen is cost. There are many projections showing cost coming down dramatically in future, and part of that comes from the fact that hydrogen production is able to utilise renewable electricity that would otherwise be constrained or not used. He is entirely right that geographical and time constraints on when energy is produced are vital, but create a low-cost source of energy for the production of hydrogen, which brings the cost of hydrogen down, so I thank him for his point.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Member for his helpful intervention.

I want to conclude with two points. First, I am optimistic that this is a subject that will enjoy cross-party support—I cannot see anyone rocking the boat on this one; it would be madness to do that—and sometimes, when things have cross-party support, they really can happen. There is a great opportunity in this country.

Secondly, to make an unashamed, blatant advertisement for my constituency, as Dounreay decommissions, we have sites and skills particularly near to where the energy is being created. If the His Majesty’s Government would look at the creation of hydrogen in my patch, I would be most awfully grateful. With that blatant touting for business, I conclude my contribution.

10:08

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I have the privilege of representing North Antrim, which has the success story of Wrightbus. One of Wrightbus’s many claims to fame is that it produced the first hydrogen double-decker bus in the world, and has been a leader in the technology in the evolving success story that hydrogen can be.

The fundamental problem for our nation in fully exploiting hydrogen is the mismatch between the technology and the infrastructure. The ability to refuel hydrogen buses is curbing their potential production. From talking to Wrightbus, I know that it could and would produce a lot more hydrogen buses, but for the fact that customers are restrained by the lack of infrastructure for servicing them and keeping them on the road. Despite the remarkable range of the Kite Hydroliner bus that Wrightbus produces—it can do up to 1,000 km—it needs to be refuelled. That is what is holding us back in the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.

It is not without significance that, although Germany is a major player in hydrogen production, Wrightbus has been able to sell it a large number of hydrogen buses. Why? Because Germany, through a Government programme, has advanced its focus on synchronising with the infrastructure that is needed. There is also a considerable German programme to actively support the hydrogen bus market. That is why it is possible. China, of course—as in most things—is also a big player when it comes to hydrogen. In particular, it has advanced the production of hydrogen from organic waste; in that regard it is probably well ahead of most of the rest of us.

There are multiple opportunities in relation to how hydrogen is produced, because we now have the leading technology to use it in transport, particularly in buses. However, the one area in which I think we are failing is in providing the infrastructure, which must be there to make it succeed.

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

Does the hon. and learned Member agree that to provide certainty for long-term investment and strategic infrastructure development, and to support robust supply chains, we must invest in changing regulatory environments by working with and funding regulators—such as, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority—to enable a long-term, clear road map for hydrogen development, production, supply chains and use? Does he also agree that £16 million for a four-year road map offers great value for money?

[Jim Allister]

Yes, I am happy to agree with that. It feeds into this point: the Government talk about their industrial strategy, which is good, but that strategy needs to energise the infrastructure in synchronisation with the technologies we are using. When it comes to hydrogen, part of that industrial strategy needs to focus more on ensuring that we have the supply infrastructure to enable the deployment of the buses and other vehicles that we can readily produce to use of hydrogen.

[Jamie Stone]

We all want to see electric vehicles being used as much as possible, because that is part of getting to net zero. However, in a far-flung constituency such as mine, it is significant that a hydrogen-powered car has a greater range than an electricity-powered car. That backs up the argument the hon. and learned Member is making.

[Jim Allister]

The range for hydrogen is excellent, but when drivers get to the end of that range, they need somewhere to refuel it readily. The refuelling is quick: a hydrogen bus can be refuelled in 10 minutes. It is not a lengthy process, as it sometimes can be for electric buses. The technology for hydrogen is good and is developing at pace, but the infrastructure is the drawback. That is what is holding us back.

I say to the Government: let us do it in tandem. Let us of course continue to develop the excellent technology that we have, and the world leaders that we have in it, but let us synchronise that with ensuring that the infrastructure is there to match it.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Back-Bench speeches must finish in time for the Front-Bench speeches to begin by 10.28 am. Thank you everyone so far for your co-operation.

10:14

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, and the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for leading it with such competence and aplomb.

Hydrogen has long been talked about as the fuel of the future, and we are beginning to see how it can be the fuel of the present. If we are serious about net zero, energy security and building the industries of tomorrow, hydrogen must play a central role. Electrification is advancing rapidly but, as we know, about 80% of global energy demand is still for molecules, not electrons. Heavy industry, transport and heating remain stubbornly difficult to decarbonise. Hydrogen offers us a way forward. It is flexible, storable and able to integrate with existing infrastructure. Hydrogen can be partnered with offshore wind in tanks under the water, reducing the need for pylons. It could reduce the need for oversized solar farms on agricultural land, which reduce the land available for food production. But if the UK is to reap the benefits, we must act with urgency. The Hydrogen Innovation Initiative has calculated that securing just 10% of the global hydrogen technology market could deliver £46 billion per year to our economy by 2050 and support over 400,000 jobs. That is a huge opportunity, but it will not wait for us. Other countries are also moving fast and if we are too cautious, we risk being left behind.

In my constituency of South Cotswolds, we see a glimpse of what that future could look like. In just three years, a start-up called Wild Hydrogen has grown from a small lab team to employing 18 skilled people. It is exploring ways to turn waste into clean hydrogen and biomethane, with the added benefit of capturing carbon. The company’s aspiration is bold: the idea that Gloucestershire could possibly host the world’s first carbon-negative town before the decade is out.

Another exciting young company, which is clearly hosting numerous MPs, is ZeroAvia, based at the Cotswold airport in my constituency. As already described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), ZeroAvia is developing hydrogen-powered planes with enormous potential to disrupt the aeronautical industry.

Whether or not those specific goals are realised, the principle stands: innovation is happening already here in the UK. What is missing at the moment is the scale of investment and policy certainty to move from promising prototypes to production at pace. This debate is extremely timely. We have a chance to shape the supply chains, the regulatory framework and the financial environment that will allow British firms to thrive and lead in this vital sector. If we succeed, the prize is not only economic but environmental: cleaner air, lower emissions and a more resilient, self-sufficient energy system. I echo the hope expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) that this technology enjoys genuine cross-party support. Let us match the boldness of the innovators in my constituency and beyond with equal boldness in our policy. That means backing domestic supply chains, ensuring the right market signals are in place, and providing the certainty that investors and communities need. If we truly seize this moment, the UK can lead the world in clean hydrogen.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation. I said to one hon. Member, quite rightly, that if you come late to the debate, you do not really expect to get called. Equally, if hon. Members speak in the debate, I expect them to stay and listen to other Members’ contributions. I shall be making that point to at least one hon. Member at the end of the debate. We shall move on to the Front Benchers. You can probably each have 12 minutes or so, but please make sure a bit of time is allowed at the end for the mover of the debate to wind up.

10:19

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate, and his able substitute, the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), for opening it.

With good access to offshore wind resources, the UK is ideally placed to scale up green hydrogen production, and I can see the benefits of that locally. At IAAPs—the Institute for Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems—which is just outside my constituency, work is being done on green hydrogen production and its uses in the aviation, marine and heavy transport sectors, and in June 2023 I attended the Western Gateway hydrogen conference.

The wider south-west and Wales could offer abundant renewable energy—the Celtic sea has huge offshore wind potential—which can anchor green hydrogen production alongside connected industries that can use the hydrogen. For example, in aviation, progress is being made by companies such as Airbus and GKN Aerospace, which employ hundreds of my constituents, and ZeroAvia, as highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage).

I recognise the importance of the green hydrogen industry for growth and the high-value jobs that it brings for local people, as expanded on so well by, among others, the hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It brings huge decarbonisation benefits for things such as buses, as highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), and adjacent benefits such as the production of fertiliser, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).

However, we are not realising the potential for the UK to be a world leader for a number of reasons, as set out in the September 2024 report by Hydrogen UK on the hydrogen supply chain. The level of capital funding that the UK currently provides the hydrogen supply chain does not match the level in competitor regions. It has been slow to respond to a rapidly developing market and has not made the investment in infrastructure or skills needed to take advantage. As the Hydrogen Innovation Initiative has highlighted, the UK must act now.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Since there is a bit of a south-west mafia here, it might be worth mentioning those at the south-west hydrogen hub and to urge the Government to engage with them, because they are doing great work on the provision of hydrogen across the region and the sectors.

[Claire Young]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am grateful for the support of the wider south-west mafia.

Hydrogen UK has reported that unlocking storage infrastructure investment is urgently needed as the sector could require 3.4 TWh of large-scale hydrogen storage by 2030, which could increase to 9.8 TWh by 2035. Projects in the UK are currently smaller and lack visibility so project developers and off-takers stick with their international suppliers, and there is the ever-present problem for all small businesses of navigating the so-called valley of death as they grow.

The Liberal Democrats want to see investment in research and development of new green energy sources, which will be vital for developing new green hydrogen technologies and breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. We support a transition to clean, home-grown renewable energy sources to reinstate the UK as a world leader in renewable energy, to improve energy security and to bring down consumer energy bills: the importance of long-term storage to achieve that was highlighted in the introduction. Disappointingly, the previous Conservative Government failed to act with anything close to the speed or ambition that this challenge demands, and Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine has exposed the risks of relying on countries that may seek to exploit dependence on fossil fuels and use it to their advantage.

Britan can lead the way on hydrogen innovation with our history of expertise, pioneering businesses and research institutions, but the Government have been criticised for failing to invest comparable amounts of capital funding in hydrogen to the level that other regions do. Hydrogen UK has called on the Government to support business-led innovation programmes, which would anchor supply chain growth into the UK and support collaboration with private business investment into key areas of the hydrogen supply chain. It has also called for a nationwide supply chain programme to leverage private investment into UK supply chains and key supply chain technologies, and to support both existing companies to pivot and new companies to enter the hydrogen market.

We want the Government to commit to winding down the oil and gas industry, but that must come hand in hand with a detailed plan for the redeployment of skills and local jobs. The economic impact assessment done by Hydrogen UK estimates that hydrogen can deliver significant economic benefits, including 30,000 jobs annually and £7 billion of gross value added by 2030. Trade unions in the industry are united in calling for substantial funding to build domestic renewable manufacturing but, disappointingly, the Chancellor did not commit to that in her most recent spending review. We urge the Government to invest in upskilling the existing workforce in adjacent sectors such as oil and gas, and to secure the investment that is needed to realise the job-creating potential of the green just transition.

Another key mechanism would be to link the UK emissions trading scheme with the EU’s, implementing a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, making the business case stronger for low-carbon hydrogen in domestic supply chains, and adopt green procurement policies that support clean supply chain development. Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has repeatedly called for a sovereign green wealth fund to reinvest wind-generated revenues into green industries including hydrogen, promoting decarbonisation and manufacturing job creation across the UK.

To conclude, we urge the Government to put in place a comprehensive plan to support low-carbon technology for industries and homes, in particular to make the UK a world leader in hydrogen.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I have had a note from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) explaining why he had to leave the debate. I fully accept his explanation and apology, and thank him for giving it to me.

10:25

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a pleasure to take part in a debate on energy in which there is such a cross-party consensus. It is very rare in debates on energy these days to get such agreement on the way forward and on what we should invest in. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for his very able opening speech. It is also rare that we actually learn something in these debates, but I have learnt quite a lot this morning, which is a surprise.

The hon. Member for Worcester talked about the vitally important part played by gas in our energy system both today and moving forward, as well as blending, which is something we need a resolution to in the very near future, as I have heard in my discussions with National Gas and others. I urge the Government to make their decision on what the future might be as quickly as they can. That would be good for everybody.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) spoke about hydrogen buses. He was followed by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) in talking about Wrightbus and the issues around refuelling hydrogen buses. That is something that my constituents know about only too well. The city of Aberdeen was the first city in the United Kingdom to have a fully hydrogen bus fleet. However, it has been off the road since July 2024 because of issues with the refuelling station and the lack of available alternative supply. Although there are significant issues that need to be resolved, the future could and should be very bright indeed for hydrogen-fuelled buses.

The hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the opportunities across our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are absolutely right: every community, I suspect, has some industry, business or body involved in the development of hydrogen as a technology and energy source of the future. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) raised the important point about ammonia and fertiliser, which is not spoken about enough in these debates. We focus far too often on the energy use of hydrogen and not its added benefits.

I often speak about my own experience of the energy industry. Coming from Aberdeenshire, I have been surrounded by those working directly or indirectly in the oil and gas industry—it is inescapable. Where I am from, the importance of supply chains and economic value to local communities is obvious: everybody knows it, sees it in their high streets and hears about it from their family and friends employed in the sector. However, the oil and gas industry has not succeeded in telling that story beyond the north east of Scotland. In reality, 200,000 jobs across the United Kingdom are reliant on the oil and gas sector and supply chains. The industry touches every constituency in the country.

All that is to say that the conversation around the significance, impact and resilience of supply chains is vital. The future of hydrogen in this country is central to our decarbonisation is central to our decarbonisation ambitions and sustainable future, as well as our industrial future, but it is also shrouded in uncertainty. The commitment and investment in using hydrogen as a solution in hard-to-abate industries, heavy manufacturing, long-distance transport and high-temperature processes began under the last Government.

When we were in government, we kick-started the world-leading hydrogen economy and launched a hydrogen strategy and a 10-point plan. We recognised the significance of hydrogen to decarbonising and the importance to the economy of the supply chain across the country. That supply chain—from utilities to manufacturers, transport, distribution and storage, and from monitoring and control to the fabricators of fuel cell components, end users and decommissioning—plays a vital role in securing a future for hydrogen in the UK and adding value to local economies. We identified attractive opportunities for the UK supply chain on electrolysis package manufacturing, electrical equipment, materials manufacturing and more, with the UK supply chain capable of attaining a market share valued between £4 billion and £5 billion.

If the UK aspires to be a world leader in green technology, as I think we in this House agree we should, we must underpin that aspiration with a strategy to bring down industrial prices. The Government—indeed, any Government—should be ambitious for UK industry, as the Government say they are, in order to make industry in the UK great. This cannot be achieved without cheap energy and energy abundance, which can be secured with hydrogen. British industry cannot be competitive with expensive electricity and with businesses and manufacturers suffering under the burden of levies, as they currently are. We should bring down industrial prices, build new nuclear, eliminate levies on manufacturers and embrace energy abundance. Let us all agree to aspire to manufacture, innovate and export technologies that will drive the world closer to global climate solutions. Hydrogen is at the heart of that.

From steelmaking to shipping, hydrogen’s versatility makes this fuel an exciting prospect and component of our future energy mix. Yet major uncertainty is hanging over the system when it comes to whether hydrogen will be used for home heating. With a decision not due until 2026, the future of hydrogen remains somewhat in limbo. Regardless of the outcome when it comes to hydrogen for domestic heating, the gas grid remains essential. It could be repurposed to transport hydrogen to industrial clusters, power stations and transport hubs. We cannot and must not abandon this vast, valuable national asset. When it comes to distribution, pipelines, road tankers and even ships will be needed to move hydrogen. The existing gas grid could play a transformative role, if it is repurposed effectively.

From production to storage and from distribution to utilisation, hydrogen in the UK heralds a wealth of opportunity. It is incumbent on this Government—and, indeed, on any Government—to create a landscape where the manufacturing industry can thrive and profit and where domestic production capacity can grow. The hydrogen supply chain does not exist in a vacuum; it builds on the legacy of the oil and gas supply chain—the infrastructure, engineering expertise and global logistics that have powered the UK for decades. With the right approach from the Government, it will do so for many decades to come.

10:31

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts—and to still be here as the Energy Minister. It is the only Government job that I wanted to do, which is perhaps just as well given how the reshuffle has landed, so it is genuinely a pleasure.

As I have often said, these debates are a great example not only of how we come together to talk about quite complex topics relating to the energy system, but of how this part of Parliament works. I always come out of these debates having learned something, as the shadow Minister said. Sometimes it is quite a niche fact that I am not quite sure what I will do with. I always learn a huge amount from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), given his detailed knowledge of the industry and its practical application, which is often lost in our debates. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who also worked in the energy sector, and whose constituency was home to Britain’s last coal power station, the closure of which I attended last year. His understanding of the importance of the transition and the potential of future clean energy technologies is hugely welcome.

It has been an interesting debate not least because, as the shadow Minister said, we have had a degree of consensus. We once had consensus on quite a lot of things in respect of the future of our energy system, but that has somehow changed in the last few months. I will leave it to others to judge why that is, but it is really important that, given the huge opportunities for the future of the country and for thousands of jobs, there is a degree of consensus. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, we get things done when there is a degree of consensus, and that is hugely welcome. The hon. Gentleman referred to Joule’s law on the loss of power, which I think, if my standard grade physics holds up, is P = I²R,. I am sure people will correct me when that is typed up in Hansard.

Let me say a bit about our commitment to hydrogen before I respond to some specific points. We have been clear that hydrogen will play a fundamental role in the future of our energy system. Not only is it a crucial part of how we decarbonise heavy industry and transport, which are among our most energy-intensive and hardest-to-decarbonise sectors, but it is, as many Members have pointed out, part of our work to provide large-scale storage for our baseload of year-round clean power. As the Government have set out in everything we do, our mission to achieve clean power by 2030 and to maintain that relates to tackling the climate crisis, delivering energy security and reducing our dependence on unstable, volatile fossil fuel markets. How we take back control of our energy supply and storage will clearly be a critical part of that. It can also help us to reduce system costs as both electricity demand and renewable generation increase.

There are other great other examples of the use of hydrogen. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) made the really interesting point that the world’s first hydrogen double-decker bus was made in North Antrim, which I had not realised. As the shadow Minister pointed out, there are challenges around how we maintain such innovation and make sure that it continues to work in the future. Last week I was in Denmark to meet European Energy Ministers. It was really interesting to see examples there, as well as at the port of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, of where infrastructure is being rolled out, while facing some of the same challenges about how we achieve the scale that makes it competitive. That is part of the work we will have to do.

We are acting now to seize the economic and industrial benefits of the hydrogen sector, which is why we have been not only pushing forward on our policy framework but trying to make clear our ambition. There is much more to be said about that, but there has been industrial and investor interest in our hydrogen allocation round programme. The first HAR1 projects are now putting spades in the ground, with the first wave expected to access more than £2 billion over the next 15 years in revenue support from the hydrogen production business model, and over £90 million in capital from the net zero hydrogen fund. Over £400 million of private capital has been committed up front for 2024 to 2026, with more than 700 direct jobs created in construction and operation. Those are among the first commercial-scale hydrogen projects in the world to take a final investment decision, and we expect them to become operational between this year and April 2028. That will kick-start our green hydrogen production at scale.

Following the success of HAR1, we expect to announce successful projects in the second hydrogen allocation round in early 2026. The current shortlist includes innovative projects that could support ammonia production in Shetland, produce new clean energy at Grangemouth and decarbonise lime kilns—one of the first steps in cement production—in the Humber area. Moving forward, in June this year we published our industrial strategy, which set out plans for the further hydrogen allocation rounds, HAR3 and HAR4, for our first regional hydrogen network, and for the launch of the hydrogen-to-power business model in 2026.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester talked about the crucial role that storage will play in the renewable energy we are building. The question of how we store that for when we need it is crucial. We laid out our plans in the industrial strategy, backed up by the spending review, with £500 million for hydrogen infrastructure, partly to look at how we unlock hydrogen’s potential for clean power and provide home-grown energy and good jobs. We also have an ambition to deploy the first regional hydrogen transport and storage network, to become operational from 2031, which will aim to connect producers with vital end users such as power for the first time. This will unlock hydrogen’s role in clean power and help to realise the potential of large-scale hydrogen storage in maximising renewable energy use to support the transition to a decarbonised energy system. We are also currently designing a hydrogen storage business model, alongside a hydrogen transport business model, with the intention of providing investors with the long-term revenue certainty that many Members have raised in the debate.

There is no doubt that the clean energy transition is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. This is about not just our energy security but, as many hon. Friends have pointed out, how we deliver the good, well-paid, trade-unionised jobs of the future. It is about how we reindustrialise communities that have for too long been left behind. The UK is well placed to be a global leader not only in hydrogen deployment but, crucially, in making sure that we capitalise on the supply chains, which is where we get the jobs, given the shared skills, experiences and qualifications in the existing oil and gas sector, our strengths in advanced manufacturing and innovation, and the policy environment we have set out.

We have taken significant steps to attract inward investment, and the public finance tools set out in the clean energy industries sector plan will play a crucial role. We have also looked at the question of skills, which a number of Members raised earlier. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), made the point very well. The hydrogen skills framework, which we published just a few months ago in April, is an open-source framework to try to enable the development of new qualifications and training programmes, in conjunction with industry, to make sure that we are bringing forward the apprenticeships and the skilled workers of the future.

We are also making sure that companies can access international markets and collaborate with global partners. We want to build a domestic success story by exporting hydrogen equipment and services across the world and reinforcing their role in global hydrogen supply chains, with the UK set to benefit from being right at the forefront of that work.

As the sector grows, we want to make sure that it benefits from the comprehensive public finance offers that we have set out. I will cover that briefly, because we have debated many of these things in the past. Part of that includes Great British Energy, with its £1 billion clean energy supply chain fund, which will be aligned with the clean energy industries sector plan to support companies that have the potential to grow in supply chains.

We have empowered the National Wealth Fund with a total of £27.8 billion in capital to enable it to take on higher-risk investments, including equity. It will invest in capital-intensive projects, businesses and assets, with at least £5.8 billion on carbon capture, low-carbon hydrogen, gigafactories, ports and green steel over the lifetime of this Parliament. We have also launched £4 billion in British Business Bank industrial strategy capital to scale up the financing package, and we introduced the clean industry bonus following the success in the round that we have just concluded. We are looking at whether we should expand that to hydrogen, and we will consult on that in due course.

We will continue to do all that we can to put the UK at the forefront of the global hydrogen revolution and thereby unlock billions of investment, create new-generation jobs, build the infrastructure and drive the clean growth that we—there seems to have been consensus today—all want to see. This autumn, we will publish the UK hydrogen strategy, which will be evidence-led, impact-focused and designed on the premise of fast-tracking delivery.

Since the publication of the last hydrogen strategy four years ago, the landscape has evolved significantly. Electrification technologies have moved on rapidly, pointing to a more focused and essential role for hydrogen, complementing the electrification that we will see in so much of our energy system. The new strategy will sharpen our priorities, deepen collaboration with industry, which is key to this, and seek to unlock the full potential of hydrogen over the next decade.

[Jamie Stone]

Does the Minister agree that we should at least check the proposed grid improvements against the possible strategic sites where hydrogen could be made?

[Michael Shanks]

My very next point was on the future of the network. It wasn’t, actually, but I will come to it now, because the hon. Gentleman made a very good point, which I meant to come back to. He is right, of course, that we need to invest in the grid—even if we were not embarking on this clean power mission, the grid is very much in need of upgrading—but we want to take the strategic planning of that much more seriously than it has been taken in the past.

We know that we need to build significant amounts of grid—the hon. Gentleman recognised the importance of that—but we also want to plan the future of the energy system strategically so that the grid follows a logical way to build out the energy system. His point about trying to make use of the abundance of clean energy to transfer it into hydrogen as an off-taker was well made. It will feed into the work on the strategic spatial energy plan. It is about how we best use all the energy system to our advantage. It is also about how we can reduce things like constraint payments and make use of it as efficiently as possible. That is an important point that we will take forward.

To conclude, our vision is clear: a thriving low-carbon hydrogen economy—one that decarbonises those hard-to-electrify sectors, strengthens our energy security and fuels good jobs and growth across the country—is at the heart of the Government’s mission.

[Jim Shannon]

I asked a question about the opportunity for apprentices. I know that the Government are committed to that; I have never had any doubt about that, but I want us to show where the opportunities may be. I know that the Minister is also committed to ensuring that all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can take advantage.

[Michael Shanks]

A key part of my conclusion was the useful challenge that there always is from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about ensuring that we represent all parts of the United Kingdom. He was right to point out earlier that it is a beautiful part of the country to visit. I confess I have still never been to Strangford, but there is still time.

The hon. Member is right on two other fronts. First, the skills strategy is all about unlocking the next generation of workers. We need to inspire people in school right now to see that we want them to be at the heart of the energy system of the future, and apprenticeships are crucial for doing that. We will create tens of thousands of jobs in the sector, but as part of that there has to be investment in apprenticeships. On his wider point, he knows that I enjoy the engagement with Ministers in devolved Governments across the country. We work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive. As I always say, the energy system is transferred in Northern Ireland, but there is a huge number of areas where we can learn from each other and work together to ensure that the people in Northern Ireland and Great Britain benefit from what we are trying to achieve, and we will continue to do that.

To conclude my conclusion, unless anyone else wants to intervene, we are firm in our commitment to working with industry. There is a huge opportunity here. This is an exciting moment for us to recognise—as we are doing with small modular reactors and with floating offshore wind—that we have the potential to be at the forefront of the next great thing in our energy system. It requires the strategy that we are putting in place and the long-term confidence for investment, and we will continue to work hand in hand with industry, investors, innovators, workers—

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not, because I am just about to conclude. We will work with workers and trade unions to turn this vision into reality and ensure that every part of the UK benefits from the potential of growth and jobs in hydrogen and in securing our energy system for the future. I again thank all Members for this hugely constructive debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester for the way he introduced it and for the knowledge and experience that he brings to all these matters.

10:47

[Tom Collins]

Mr Betts, I will be brief. I am grateful for your generosity with time, and for the generosity of other Members in allowing me to intervene. I thank the Minister for his response. He reasserted the fundamental role that hydrogen will play in our future energy system and the vital need for storage. I really appreciate that. I am excited about the hydrogen strategy, and to see that built with our new Government’s approach to partnership and with a clear vision for our future hydrogen system. That was reflected in his speech when he reasserted our firm commitment to working in partnership with industry.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate and for his continued championing of the energy sector and all our work in it. He is a strong and powerful proponent, and I am grateful to him for the opportunity he has given me today. The debate has reflected the huge opportunity that hydrogen presents for the UK in growing our economy and facing the challenges of decarbonisation and new energy systems. It has reflected the versatility of hydrogen, the importance of building a system where it is abundant, the need for us to support industry not just in classic industrial heartlands but in towns across our country, and therefore the need for us to transition the gas networks to hydrogen in the future as well.

The consensus that we have heard in the room today, for which I am very grateful—I am grateful for all Members’ fantastically knowledgeable contributions—shows that we are at the turning point where this transition is being led by economics rather than debates about technology. Electricity, hydrogen and ammonia form a pyramid of complementary energy vectors whereby we can provide sector coupling, flexibility and a dynamic future energy system that allows rapid and deep decarbonisation. I have had the opportunity to meet representatives of industry and hold workshops with a very diverse cross-section of industry, and the urge for the storage piece to be built urgently and in a decisive way, sponsored clearly by the state, is very clear, with that backed up by transition.

It is not often we hear industry asking Government to be more hands-on, but here they are. The need for that in building storage is very clear. They want Government to have a very clear vision and high ambition, and the Minister has been good today in helping to articulate that on the Government’s behalf. We are a Government of partnership, and now is the moment to build on that partnership and break down silos. In taking these steps, now is the moment when we can change gear, put our foot on the gas and bring about a rapid and ambitious transformation of our hydrogen supply chains.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered hydrogen supply chains.

10:50

Sitting suspended.

National Trails

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Before I call Freddie van Mierlo to move the motion, I remind other hon. Members that they can speak in this debate only if they have the prior permission of the mover and the Minister, and they have told the Chair. As no one has told the Chair, I presume no one else wants to speak. Of course, interventions are possible.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the condition of national trails.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. National trails are the less well-known but no less important friend of national parks and national landscapes. They deliver significant benefits by improving access to nature, as well as for health and the economy. However, due to their low profile, national trails have been an easy target for cuts. Funding remained flat for the decade from 2013, resulting in a 30% real-terms cut. Although funding began to rise with inflation in 2023, no account has been taken of that lost decade.

There are 16 national trails across the UK, which have more than 309 million visits every year. They provide access to nature, often just a stone’s throw away from people’s houses. They are treasured assets for walking, horse riding, running and cycling. Unlike some other countryside rights of way, they are extremely well signposted, making them more navigable to those less familiar with the countryside.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand. Northern Ireland stands apart from the rest of the United Kingdom in that it does not have a formal national trail system. What we do have is the Ulster Way, a 636-mile walk across the six counties of Northern Ireland. However, there are issues about signposting, overgrown paths and access. Does the hon. Member agree that these beautiful scenic walks need to be protected and that we need to work closely with the relevant agencies to maintain upkeep?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The hon. Member is right to point out concerns about the upkeep of the Ulster Way. I thank him for bringing that route to our attention; I look forward to perhaps walking it myself one day.

National trails tend to be far more accessible for people with disabilities due to additional work that takes place to replace stiles with gates and improve the standards of paths for wheelchairs users. For these reasons and more, the great British public appreciate the trails, and so does our economy. The combined economic impact of national trails totals £1.8 billion, and the contribution to health every year is £300 million through savings to the NHS.

In my constituency of Henley and Thame, we are lucky to have two national trails—the Thames Path and the Ridgeway.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

The River Thames arises in my constituency, and hence the Thames Path does too. As well as providing a beautiful walking route, it offers a valuable corridor for wildlife. Does my hon. Friend agree that funding the Thames Path adequately is essential if we are to protect habitats, contribute to biodiversity targets and preserve the natural beauty of South Cotswolds?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the opportunity that exists in leveraging national trails for the improvement of biodiversity and meeting the Government’s biodiversity goals. I will come on to that a bit later.

I am going to focus on the two trails in my constituency: the Thames Path and the Ridgeway. As we have heard, the Thames Path begins in the Cotswolds. It enters my constituency at Benson, before darting across the river into Wallingford, and then crossing the river again and coming into Henley and Thame at Goring. From there, it makes its way into the beautiful village of Whitchurch-on-Thames before paying a visit to Reading and then onwards to my home town of Henley-on-Thames.

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

My hon. Friend makes a point about the urban settlements that the trails go through. I have three trails in my constituency—the Pennine Way, the Pennine Bridleway and the Coast to Coast Path. They go through beautiful countryside, of course, but places like Orton, Shap and Kirkby Stephen benefit hugely from people walking through them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that there should be good services and facilities in those places? I mention that in particular because of the current threat in Shap to close the public loos. Does he agree that local councils, both at parish and district level, should do everything in their power to maintain these services for local people and for all the walkers?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of services along these well-loved routes. He is also right to highlight that national trails are accessible from urban areas, which makes them particularly special compared with national parks and landscapes.

Walkers are currently forced to deviate from the Thames Path at both Benson and Henley. While the weir project is progressing in Benson, the Marsh Lock horse bridge between Henley and Shiplake has been closed for over three years. The current diversion requires crossing the dangerous A4155 twice and takes the walker well away from the water.

Since coming into office, I have been campaigning to reopen Marsh Lock bridge. With the help of an 11-year-old Brownie, Claudia, and her petition, access to a pot of £500,000 has been secured to begin plans for repairs. I continue to have conversations with the Environment Agency to ensure that repairs move forward. I am grateful to the Minister for Water for her engagement on that issue, but there is a long way to go, including to find the estimated £2.5 million needed to actually implement the repair.

Further north in my constituency, the Ridgeway national trail carves an impressive path from the iconic Goring Gap, through the village of Nuffield and the idyllic town of Watlington, before crossing the border into Buckinghamshire just after Chinnor. The Ridgeway is known as Britain’s oldest road. It is believed to have been in use over 5,000 years ago as a trading route. We know how important connection to our history and cultural heritage is. It is amazing to think that when we walk the Ridgeway, we are striking our feet on the same earth as our ancestors all those years ago.

The Ridgeway is also well known for the internationally renowned Uffington white horse, carved into chalk, but such chalk is vulnerable to damage and parts of the Ridgeway are classified as byway, meaning they are legally open to motorised traffic. The Ridgeway therefore suffers damage from recreational vehicles and off-road motorcycles. Local authorities and National Trails UK find it difficult to justify the regular repairs needed to maintain the trail to the correct standard. Ian, the project’s trail officer, is fighting to prohibit recreational motorised vehicles from the trail so that road users are limited to Trampers, off-road wheelchairs and road-legal pedal electric bicycles.

From just those two examples in my constituency, we begin to get an idea of how important protected national trails are for nature and our history. After speaking with representatives from National Trails UK, the Thames Path and the Ridgeway, I know that stark action is needed.

There are three main problems preventing the maintenance of national trails: legal status, underfunding and bureaucracy. National trails were originally designated by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The main goal was to provide public access to the countryside and establish protected landscapes. Trails, parks and landscapes were considered under that legislation. It gave powers to Natural England to survey, plan and propose long-distance routes that would subsequently be maintained.

Since that legislation, however, the legal status and protections of those routes have deteriorated. Although national parks and national landscapes have what is known as a statutory purpose, national trails do not. They are therefore not sufficiently protected by or referenced in key legislation alongside parks and landscapes, giving them a lower status. That lower level of protection puts people’s access to the outdoors at risk.

Furthermore, the current designation of national trails is mostly limited to the width of the path, which is particularly worrying given that they neighbour vast biodiversity. The Thames Path, in my constituency, runs along the edge of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust’s Hartslock nature reserve, which is one of the two remaining UK sites to have the monkey orchid. The Ridgeway passes through the Chinnor Hill and Oakley Hill nature reserves. Failure to recognise the paths’ interconnectedness with other nature means that BBOWT has reported damage to the surrounding nature due to ill-thought-through diversions or people straying from the paths, but without recognition of the surrounding nature, there is no allocation for renewal and maintenance.

The second main problem is funding. Considering how many economic benefits national trails bring, they have not received a meaningful funding increase since 2013.

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

My hon. Friend talks about the economic benefits of national trails. In my constituency, we have the South West Coast Path, which attracts 9 million visitors every year and is reckoned to support them spending about £500 million. Does my hon. Friend recognise that a south-west inland path would maintain more hospitality jobs in Devon? Does he recognise the value for the hospitality sector in his constituency too?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend’s intervention speaks exactly to my point around the closed Marsh Lock horse bridge, which has resulted in a direct loss of hospitality revenue in the local economy because of people avoiding the path due to the long diversion.

As I said, there are many economic benefits to national trails, but they have not received a meaningful increase in funding since 2013. That is despite the fact that the national trail network has increased in size over the last decade, and will double in size by the end of 2025 with the addition of the King Charles III England Coast Path and the Coast to Coast Path. Increasing the workload while stagnating the funding is a recipe for decline; the Ridgeway’s funding now stands at just £1 per mile to cover all revenue, staffing costs and maintenance.

National trails are facing a range of new challenges that funding is not keeping up with. When speaking with Wendy and Ian, representatives from the two trails in my constituency, they both noted the changing weather patterns as a barrier to the trails’ protection. In Oxfordshire, rainfall was 300% above average in September 2024, but dry weather in the summer has worn away the grass on the riverbank in popular areas of the Thames Path, leaving bare soil exposed. The combination of bare soil and high rainfall means that there is an increased likelihood of erosion, with banks washing into the river. In Goring, part of the river path had to be closed last year precisely because of that issue.

Flooding presents an additional challenge. In anticipation, national trails are preparing to identify winter routes and diversions to avoid flooding, but without the funding, groups are worried that that they will find it difficult to tackle these new challenges.

Staff work day and night to support national trails. Hannah, who takes care of the Thames Path in Oxfordshire, says that they have consistently doubled any match funding that they receive. Despite their hard work year on year, a lack of funding coupled with inflation pressures has caused them to make some difficult decisions, cutting funding for improvement projects, engagement activities, information provision and volunteer programmes to stay afloat. With rising costs, there may soon be nothing left to cut.

A third issue facing national trails is bureaucracy. For work to be carried out adjacent to the River Thames, there is a need for a flood risk activity permit, but there is currently a four-month delay from the EA in issuing these. In addition, for some of the year, such as in winter when the river is flowing fast or in flood, work cannot be carried out, but funding is still given year by year. That leaves an extremely short window for work to be done, if there is any opportunity at all, and funds often cannot be used in time.

Although I have painted a bleak picture so far, some simple changes could improve the future of national trails. I make three recommendations to Government. First, they should support a statutory purpose for national trails, including them in the group with national parks and national landscapes. With a statutory purpose would come the duty to protect and enhance people’s access to the outdoor and to experience the national trails. It would give national trails a proper place in the planning system, and would help to stop the loss of trails to development, as has already happened to the new King Charles III trail. Changes to the national planning policy framework, such as making it clear that changes to national trails require the consent of the Secretary of State, would further protect their status. Automatically, with small cost-free changes, we can better protect national trails for future generations.

Secondly, the Government should invest in national trails properly, or at least restore their funding in line with inflation from the 2013 benchmark. Further, those funding settlements should be made three years long. Thirdly, the Government should communicate with agencies, such as the EA, that have responsibilities that interact with national trails to ensure that they produce assessments in a timely manner and are given the resources that they need to maintain assets, such as the Marsh Lock horse bridge and Benson weir. Without that, national trails are in danger of falling below the quality standard. In 2023, the Disabled Ramblers’ condition monitoring report revealed that nearly 80% of the 50 miles surveyed along the Ridgeway did not meet the established standards.

The Government have previously recognised the vital role that national trails play in rural tourism, promoting the cultural assets of England and the health of the population. With proper funding and support, we can ensure internationally high standards and deliver more for people and nature.

11:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate on an important issue. I recognise his long-standing interest in the Thames Path, which runs through his constituency, and his assiduous representation of his constituents through the long series of parliamentary questions he has tabled since entering this House.

The Government are committed to protecting, enhancing and expanding access to national trails. Let us think of other countries. The Camino de Santiago starts in France and goes through Spain. A friend is currently following one of the long-distance paths in Portugal on a bike, finding out about the hills not shown on the map; the map is two dimensional but there are three dimensions out there. The grand routes in France—such as the GR20, or Grand Route Vingt, which that bisects Corsica—are epic, long-distance, mythical trails that connect us to thousands of years of human history.

Every town and constituency in this country has a Green Lane that was literally a green lane. It is important to protect them, not just for inclusive access for local people and the benefits to tourism, but because they say something important and cultural about the human condition, heritage and history.

We have 16 national trails across England and Wales. As the former MP for Wakefield, I know and dearly love the Pennine Way. We always had a new year’s day walk; we would drag the children out, complaining, and then they would find an animal skull and spend the rest of the walk asking what it was and whether they could put it in their pocket. We showed them the Ladybower reservoir where the Dambusters practised for their assault on Germany. Those are iconic, special places that have a heritage in the hearts of local people whose forefathers and foremothers did the Kinder trespass, coming up from Sheffield and Manchester to assert their right to access those beautiful landscapes.

Before the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) leaves, I want to say that in Northern Ireland the national trails are mainly supported by Northern Ireland Government bodies and not the UK national trail funding pot. I like the sound of the Ulster Way and I will look it up next time I am in Magherafelt visiting my uncle.

The Pennine trail up and down the backbone of England offers incredible views over the Peak district and the Yorkshire dales. The South Downs Way runs between Winchester and Beachy Head for more than 100 miles. Those trails are vital public assets that promote wellbeing, health and tourism. It was the previous Labour Government that started work on the vision of an England coastal path, which will be completed under this Government. The King Charles III England Coast Path will be completed next year, an incredible infrastructure achievement.

[Richard Foord]

The King Charles III coastal path will be an impressive achievement, if we can make it happen. Would the Minister commend the section between Lyme Regis and Sidmouth in my constituency? Would she also pay tribute to the National Trust, which does great work in maintaining our coastal paths?

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to that section. I have not been to that part of the path but I opened a section of the coastal path in 2011 or 2012, when, sadly, no Minister from the coalition Government could be found to make the journey to Dorset. I was asked as the shadow Secretary of State, and was happy to walk up and down—a lot of up and down—with a pint of foaming ale at the end, which made the visit worthwhile. Achieving these paths requires lots of partners, and the hon. Member rightly mentions the National Trust, which does incredible work in maintaining and protecting the paths through its huge membership support. I was down in Dorset with the National Trust in March, releasing the first wild beaver on the Isle of Purbeck. The National Trust plays an important role in the life of this nation.

When the coastal path is finished, we will have an extraordinary national corridor of access: a 4,750 mile path around England. I have walked certain sections of the Appalachian trail in America, and have heard stories about who goes on these long-distance paths and why. We also have seen the story of “The Salt Path”, which is now subject to some controversy. The Appalachian trail was used by lots of Vietnam veterans as a way of healing; they walked from Georgia to Maine as a way of processing and dealing with the trauma that they had suffered as people who had served their country. Imagine walking 5,000 miles around England! It is lifetime’s work; I do not know whether I will have time to do all of it, but I will certainly have to mark off the bits I have done already.

Since 2009, successive Governments have invested £25.6 million in the planning and establishment of the coastal trail. Successive Governments have recognised the value it will have in connecting communities, landscapes and coastlines, and boosting rural economies. It will be a really important part of rural economic growth. This has never been done before. I remember that, when the Welsh completed their coastal path ahead of us—which was obviously galling—there were articles in The New York Times about it. The path became a tourism destination, with the breathtaking sweep of the Atlantic coast down there. Obviously we have some drier bits, certainly down the east coast, which I know and love dearly—particularly sections around Bridlington and Filey. Coast paths generate a huge amount for local economies. Research has shown that more than £300 million has been spent in local economies by people walking on England coast paths, directly supporting almost 6,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

This Government have backed their commitment to access with action. Since 2022, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has invested £2.5 million into the protected landscapes partnership, which brings together the National Landscapes Association, National Parks England, National Trails UK and Natural England. The partnership focuses on enhancing access and ensuring that our trails have a real impact on people, nature and climate.

One of the most innovative projects under the partnership is the coastal wildbelt project, which is being led by National Trails UK. It focuses on the coastal margin adjacent to the England coast path, which amounts to an area the size of Dorset. Our pilots will identify innovative ways to connect the public with this coastal area around the country. They will also identify ways to better drive nature recovery in these places, because once the path is created, access is created, so we will be able protect and restore nature in some hard-to-reach places.

We have also provided around £5.5 million in support to National Trails UK to enable it to continue its vital work of protecting and restoring the trail network. Trail maintenance funding is provided through Natural England, which is responsible for managing those relationships and ensuring that the trails are well cared for.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) mentioned, many of the challenges facing our national trails are caused by the impacts of climate change, but at the moment Natural England’s fund for environmental incidents covers only coastal erosion and riverbank erosion. Does the Minister agree that this funding pot must be expanded and increased in line with inflation to cover proper provision for climate impacts such as storm damage and flooding?

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Lady raises an excellent point. Making sure we are resilient to a rapidly changing climate with warmer, wetter winters and hotter, dryer summers is important for not just food and water security, but all infrastructure, including our roads and bridges. With the flooding in Tadcaster, we saw what happens when a bridge that connects two parts of a town is knocked out during a flood as well as the huge economic and social consequences that that brings. I will take the hon. Lady’s suggestion back to the Department as we look at business planning for this year.

In the Labour manifesto, we committed to deliver nine new national river walks, one in every region of England. That will open up our riversides to the public in a transformative way, creating new opportunities for recreation, supporting biodiversity and strengthening community access to nature. The walks represent a step forward in our mission to make nature accessible to everyone, improve public health and provide opportunities to engage in the great outdoors.

The new Coast to Coast Path national trail from St Bees to Robin Hood’s Bay—an area I know and love well—will take walkers across some of the most beautiful parts of the north of England, including through three national parks: the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors. It will be one to walk from west to east, so that hikers always have the rain on their back—and I can promise that there will be rain.

The new national trail will bring increased access opportunities for recreation and tourism, improving health and wellbeing and increasing spending locally. We already have fantastic rights-of-way networks across England, with 120,000 miles of footpaths, bridleways and byways. On Sunday, I got lost near Crawley and Gatwick airport while looking for a friend’s house on my bike. When we go down the little country roads and trails, the signposts are so important when the sat-nav is out of range.

Let me share a story with the House. As the Minister for the circular economy, I am always looking out for waste and pollution. I saw this big, white polystyrene thing by the side of the road and got off my bike, thinking, “That is absolutely disgraceful—someone’s chucked this huge piece of litter here”. It turned out to be a massive puffball mushroom family. I took it and put it in my bag. Last night, my husband and daughter enjoyed puffball mushroom steaks with a hot chilli sauce; we did a lot of checking to make sure it was not poisonous, but fortunately it is literally the size of a football so we could not really mistake it for anything else.

The hon. Member for Henley and Thame raised three points. On the issue of statutory purposes for national trails, the statutory purposes of protected landscapes have been established and evolved over 75 years. If we were going to make any changes, we would need lots of consultation and evidence gathering. Although trails and protected landscapes are part of the same family, they have different roles and responsibilities. Giving trails statutory purposes may not be the most effective way to support them to achieve their objectives.

A statutory purpose would not, on its own, bring planning protections. Many trails cross through existing protected landscapes and other designations. They are covered by protections for those designations already. As such, we do not at this time believe that additional planning protections for trails are needed to support trails in their mission. Perversely, without robust evidence they could place additional burdens on the teams that manage them, so we could not be certain they would provide the benefits that the hon. Member suggests.

We have, as he said, a constrained fiscal environment. This year, the trails have had additional funding with £3.26 million for access-for-all improvements. I saw when I visited Dartmoor how important that was in giving people with Tramper scooters, which I had not previously come across, access to the amazing landscapes there. I am afraid that the percentage quoted by the hon. Member is inaccurate, but we can give him the correct percentage if he wants it afterwards.

We had also funded National Trails UK. In ’25 to ’26, it received £108,000 in revenue and £150,000 of capital support from partnerships. DEFRA has also allocated £500,000 for national trail reinstatement this year to help reestablish the England coastal path when there was a break in continuity due to erosion.

There has also been movement in the last year on removing bureaucracy at the Environment Agency and I will take the good words from the hon. Member for Henley and Thame back to my colleague. I understand the Thames Path national trail partnership is continuing to work with the Environment Agency to reopen Marsh Lock bridge. The EA has conducted a survey and has options for repair and we will continue to work in partnerships on this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Neurodivergent People: Employment

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

14:30

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of supporting neurodivergent people into employment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to have secured this debate on an important topic and I want to acknowledge that neurodiversity has a huge range of impacts. Many neurodivergent people need no support with employment, while those with certain learning disabilities need significant support.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenges neurodiverse people face with employment often start at school, and that we need universal screening for neurodivergence, alongside proper teacher training, so that our fantastic teaching staff are given the tools and confidence to identify and support all their pupils?

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree with my hon. Friend that recognising neurodivergence in school and giving support at an early stage is incredibly important. As I said, I want to make the distinction and recognise that neurodivergent people and those with learning disabilities are distinguishable groups, both of which I will speak about.

Over the past year, I have visited many fantastic businesses across my constituency and have been struck by how many are going above and beyond to forge pathways into the world of work for people with learning disabilities. I want to share some of their success stories today.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In Wokingham, the Kimel café does a fantastic job taking on neurodivergent youngsters, giving them key skills and including them in our community. Does my hon. Friend agree that more businesses should employ neurodiverse people? Does she also agree that the Government must do more to support excellent businesses that support neurodiverse people, like the Kimel café?

[Charlotte Cane]

I do agree and will speak about that.

Local businesses have described employing people with learning disabilities to me as like a game of bureaucratic hopscotch. They can see the end goal but they need to hop from square to square, assessment to assessment, with a lack of resources to dedicate to training staff. Sadly, that is borne out in the data. Under 30% of people with severe or specific learning difficulties were in employment in 2023-24, compared with more than 82% of non-disabled people. Those figures are bad enough in isolation, but just 65% of employees with severe or specific learning difficulties remain in employment for at least a year.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that Foxes hotel in my constituency of Minehead is a trailblazer? It is the UK’s only fully operating training hotel for young people with learning disabilities, many of whom have Down’s syndrome. It has shown that structured on-the-job training, dedicated mentorship and clear progression pathways not only transform individual lives but drive outstanding business outcomes. It has been described as the Oxbridge of training for such young people.

[Charlotte Cane]

It is great to hear that example. One thing I am calling for is proper structured apprenticeships.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

On the statistics, I agree with the hon. Member that having 30% of autistic people in employment compared with 82% is a huge gap. The Buckland review made clear that without a national campaign to raise awareness among employers, those gaps will persist. Does she agree that the stark gap highlights the urgent need for stronger action to ensure that autistic people have fair access to the labour market?

[Charlotte Cane]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I agree that we must provide these people with much more guidance and support, and also give them fair access to work and a career.

In addition to the problems that autistic people encounter in finding and staying in employment, the raw pay gaps for people with autism and for people with severe or specific learning difficulties are 28% and 20% respectively. We can see that there is a huge problem. Those people have less than a one in three chance of finding employment. Even if they are among the lucky ones who find employment, they might not make it past their first year anniversary in work and they will be paid less than their colleagues.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

The hon. Member may be aware that prior to my election, I worked in diversity and inclusion, and what she says rings true. Does she agree that job coaching and mentoring is crucial in the workplace? It is crucial for anybody doing any job, but it is incredibly empowering and a supportive tool for those with neurodiversity, particularly in retaining them in the workplace. We can really learn in our country from coaching and mentoring; it is a vital tool for employees.

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree with the hon. Member that helping people to stay and flourish in employment, once they are in employment, is hugely important.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As a proud auntie to Benjamin, who is autistic, I am delighted when I hear of employers who are doing great things for neurodivergent people. A constituent of mine, Ian Carlier, is the chief executive officer of Momentic, which supports people to get off benefits and into self-employed work. Does she agree that when we consider employment for neurodivergent people, giving them a pathway and support into self-employed work might suit them better?

[Charlotte Cane]

I do not know about self-employment being “better”, but it is certainly important, because different things will work best for different people. Neurodivergent people need the same full choice as non-neurodivergent people.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Specifically on that point, it is important to recognise that neurodivergent people, particularly young neurodivergent people, should be treated individually, as the hon. Member has just suggested. In my constituency, West Notts college offers a number of entirely bespoke courses that are specifically designed have that sort of impact. The outcomes from those courses are truly phenomenal and West Notts college deserves our praise for helping so many young people into further education and back into employment. Does the hon. Member agree that a one-size-fits-all approach is really not the best way to get neurodivergent people, and those with special educational needs and disabilities, back into education and employment?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind hon. Members that interventions are just that? They are interventions, not short speeches.

[Charlotte Cane]

I thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for his intervention and I congratulate the college that he mentioned. He is absolutely right—one size fits all does not fit anybody, but particularly not neurodivergent people.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Charlotte Cane]

I will make some progress.

Think of the challenges that neurodivergent people can face in everyday life: knowing they are different from others; being unable to read social situations in the same way as others; being uncomfortable travelling on public transport; and, commonly, experiencing anxiety after years of bullying at school. Now imagine what it is like to face what must sometimes feel like insurmountable barriers to one of the most basic parts of everyday life—that is, work.

We know that neurodivergent people want to work. They want to contribute in a positive and meaningful way to our society. In 2021, the National Autistic Society found that 77% of unemployed autistic people wanted to work. Despite that, as we have heard, businesses remain concerned about employing neurodivergent people, often because they fear that they cannot support the employee properly.

Recently, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation told me that neurodivergence is the least understood aspect of equality, diversity and inclusion. As such, learning how recruitment practices and the workplace can be adapted to become more inclusive for neurodivergent individuals is an evolving aspect of good practice. I am really proud today to have the opportunity to celebrate businesses in my constituency that lead the way in supporting people into work. They are shining examples that the Government would do well to learn from. We have already heard about some other examples.

Burwell Print provides experience to adults with additional needs and has done so for over three decades. It prints, folds and collates many of our excellent village magazines, keeping the community in touch with what is going on. It also makes soap and small ceramic gifts. Harry Specters is a luxury chocolate company founded by Mona Shah. She recently received an MBE for her services to training and employment for young people with autism. In 2012, Mona was inspired to launch the business by her autistic son, Ash, and they are proud to have autistic staff involved in every aspect of the business.

We have heard how important school is, and I also have many brilliant specialist schools across my constituency, such as the Highfields academies in Ely and Littleport and the Centre school in Cottenham, where I recently talked to some very confident students about their career ambitions. The nurture and support provided by those schools equips students with the social and intellectual skills to contribute to society.

The businesses I have met have told me of success stories where employees that they have taken on have gone on to thrive in the workplace as a result of someone supporting them. Prospects Trust is a working farm that supports people with additional needs, and it runs Unwrapped, an organic café and shop in Ely. The café has up to four supported co-workers per day, Monday to Saturday, giving people employment, skills and the experience they need to go on and make a successful career. So far, five of its co-workers have gone on to secure employment positions after their placement.

At Harry Specters, one staff member faced difficult circumstances. They struggled in traditional workplace environments, suffered long-term bullying and had retreated into self-employment as a safe space, but that was not sustainable and they were stuck in an abusive, financially dependent relationship. Mona hired them, and they have thrived ever since. They have built the confidence to speak on radio and podcasts and at hosted events. They have moved into their own flat and built an independent, stable life. I want stories like that to become the norm, not the exception.

Unfortunately, businesses are hindered by ongoing problems blighting the Access to Work scheme. I am sure that colleagues will also have heard from constituents about difficulties in accessing payments and reduction in support.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for agreeing to take an intervention when I spoke with her before the debate. She speaks very eloquently about the frustrations that we see in our constituency surgeries. I had a constituent’s mother come to see me; it had taken six months for Access to Work to be put in place for him to take up a position that he had been offered. Does the hon. Member agree that the new Connect to Work scheme needs to work a lot better for these people than Access to Work has?

[Charlotte Cane]

Absolutely. It needs to be much faster in doing the assessments and delivering the payments.

One of Mona’s staff experienced a traumatic event that made it difficult to manage work without more regular therapy, so they applied to Access to Work. They were told that they could not be supported because they were already accessing one monthly therapy session, albeit they are paying for that privately and they cannot afford to pay for any more. They face the prospect of having to cancel their vital therapy to apply on the basis that they might get help, and in their own words:

“The message seem to be stop getting the help you need, wait months for a decision, and then maybe we’ll support you.”

Another local business, Red2Green, said the payments are so slow that it is difficult for small organisations to claim the money back, and it gives them huge cashflow problems. I have talked to individuals who have withdrawn from doing this work because they cannot afford to wait over three months before they get paid. Red2Green also told me that some neurodivergent people cannot make phone calls or advocate for themselves, but under the Access to Work scheme, it has to be them who applies, not the employer.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree it is ironic that, when neurodivergent people commonly experience executive functioning difficulties, applying for Access to Work requires them to have good skills in that area, and people actually need support to access support?

[Charlotte Cane]

That is absolutely true, and I have seen people trying to deal with filling in the forms. These people are likely to be dyslexic or have similar conditions, so they will inevitably have real trouble with those forms. A scheme designed to grow inclusion and increase support should really do better than that.

I hope the Minister will provide a clear update on what action the Government are taking to clear the backlog and what more can be done to make its responses faster and speed up payments. Specialist apprenticeships, as we have heard, would go a long way to helping neurodivergent people into work, with expert support on a daily basis through their employment. That would provide tailored, individual work plans that take their condition into account, allowing them to get work experience while having space to adapt.

[Leigh Ingham]

Walton Hall Academy in my constituency, which I visited when I was first elected as an MP, continues to raise the difficulty of getting work experience for its neurodivergent pupils. Does the hon. Member agree that it is as important to support businesses through the work experience process as it is to ensure that people go through to employment? Neurodivergent pupils find it so much more challenging without that.

[Charlotte Cane]

I thank the hon. Member for those points; I agree entirely. We need to help employers to help these people into work and help them to thrive in work. Will the Minister set out the Government’s position on a wide roll-out of specialist apprenticeships and planned actions to encourage it? The Buckland review recommended that, in order to get some flexibility on the apprenticeship rules, the requirement for an education, health and care plan should be removed, given the difficulties families face in obtaining EHCPs. That recommendation has not yet been accepted by the Government. Will they do so today?

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

It is deeply concerning for my Stratford-on-Avon constituency that young adults over the age of 25 can no longer access NHS-funded ADHD assessments. Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time when we should be removing barriers to employment, taking away access to such a vital first step is doing exactly the opposite?

[Charlotte Cane]

We have heard there is a problem with young people being assessed in school; we cannot then cut off the backstop of being assessed in adulthood. Can the Minister update us on the Buckland review’s recommendations and when they intend to publish the conclusions of their expert panel on employment prospects for neurodivergent people? Local businesses have told me that neurodivergent employees find the jobcentre system difficult to navigate, stressful and triggering. What will the Department do to adequately train jobcentre staff in appropriately supporting them?

Finally, many people do not disclose their neurodivergence or learning disability for fear of discrimination. Will the Government commit to reviewing the guidelines on disclosure and whether they adequately consider neurodivergent conditions? Neurodivergent people have so much to offer our businesses, our communities and our economy. We just need to do what my local businesses do: go above and beyond to make this the gold standard. If the Government support businesses to do that, we could unlock a sizeable community full of untapped potential and enthusiasm, which can only be a benefit to our country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

14:48

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to have the chance to speak on the importance of supporting neurodivergent people into work. I will focus my remarks in particular on the experiences of autistic people, drawing on the voices of my own constituents and on the work of local organisations in Staffordshire. Since being elected, I have had constituents with autism reach out to my team and me, sharing with us that they find it difficult to get into and stay in work, despite being well qualified. They have spoken candidly with me about the barriers they face, as well as the skills and determination they have and can bring to an employer. Only by hearing directly from autistic people can we get this right.

The statistics remain stark. Only around 28% of autistic adults are in any form of work, compared with more than 80% of non-autistic people. That is not about a lack of ability; it is about the barriers that are in place, and the failure to make adjustments that are both reasonable and achievable.

The evidence tells us that, even with legal protections, too many disabled people and people with neurodivergence encounter managers or decision makers who simply do not believe in non-visible impairments, or who resist making adjustments. That creates mistrust, isolation and ultimately exclusion from work. We need to reduce stigma, but we also need to make it much simpler for employers. Right now many businesses, particularly small ones, simply do not know what adjustments look like in practice, how to put them in place or how to access the funding that exists to help them to do so. If we want employers to be more inclusive, guidance, training and access to support need to be much clearer, consistent and easy to navigate.

There are many positive examples. I recently met with the Staffordshire Adults Autistic Society, which does invaluable work supporting autistic people and their families. On the national stage, the inaugural neurodiversity employers index has highlighted organisations that are showing real leadership in adapting recruitment practices and workplace culture. We know that schemes such as supported internships can provide a pathway into work for young people with special educational needs and disabilities.

However, there are gaps. Supported internships, for example, are only available to those with an education, health and care plan, and many families in Staffordshire have told me how hard it is to secure one due to delays and mismanagement locally—something that we will be debating no doubt at length in this Chamber next Monday. This is not just a moral issue, but an economic one. The brilliant organisation Pro Bono Economics has shown that, by doubling the employment rate of autistic people by 2030, we can deliver up to £1.5 billion in societal benefits each and every year. As has been mentioned already, Sir Robert Buckland’s recent review concluded that to close the employment gap, we need more than just high-level words; we need practical, bottom-up support for employers, including training and long-term programmes such as Access to Work.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

One of the things that constituents have to come to me with is worries about the proposed changes—which have now been shelved—to personal independence payments. Does the hon. Member agree that the rhetoric and language of Ministers has not helped people to want to go out and seek support to get into work, due their worries about barriers they may face?

[Josh Newbury]

When we approach things such as welfare reform—this is probably also true of SEND reform—it is always bound to cause anxiety for people. We absolutely have to be mindful of that, particularly in this place, with the rhetoric we use and the way we go out to consult. I am concerned that the hon. Member is picking that up in his constituency; I have certainly had constituents reach out to me with concerns about welfare changes. It is incumbent on all of us to listen to that, to appreciate where the proposals are coming from and to try to find a common ground. We absolutely can do that in this case and in the case of PIP changes.

Above all, for me, this is about fairness. Everybody deserves the dignity of meaningful work, and everyone benefits when talent is not wasted. Autistic people have so much to offer, whether in science, like Einstein, in conservation, like Chris Packham, or in the day-to-day workplaces that keep our communities and economy running. The Government have already taken important steps, creating the independent panel, ensuring that work coaches have access to autism-specific training and providing disability employment advisors to offer specialist guidance, but the real test will be whether those reforms can deliver change on the ground in job centres, interviews and workplaces.

In the shortest line possible, everyone benefits when talent is nurtured, not wasted. My ask is that the insights of the new independent panel are coupled with autism-specific training, so that constituents such as mine and thousands of others across the country can finally see the promises of inclusion turn into the practical support they need to succeed in work.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

We have quite a lot of Members in the room wishing to speak, so can we keep speeches to a maximum of four minutes?

14:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I commend the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for her passion in this matter. She has done this House credit today and she deserves many accolades for the way that she presented the case.

I wish, as always, to give a Northern Ireland perspective on the matter, which I hope will add to the debate. The issues that the hon. Lady and others have spoken to are replicated in Northern Ireland. Some 5,367 people were recorded as having an autism diagnosis in the 2021 Northern Ireland census, and prevalence in school-aged children is much higher, reaching 5.9% in 2024-25, according to a report by the Department of Health.

Some 70,000 adults may have ADHD in Northern Ireland, according to an April ’25 BBC report citing an ADHD expert. Those figures are relevant and fresh for this debate. The same expert suggests that there are a higher number of undiagnosed adults as well, with 5% of school-aged children estimated to have ADHD, according to Northern Ireland Direct.

It is clear that there is now much more awareness of neurodivergence. That is a good thing; it means that we can help those young people, with their lives ahead of them, to find a job that fulfils them and fulfils the communities in which they live.

There are many fantastic programmes currently in Northern Ireland that do phenomenal work with those who need a different way of training to achieve the right result. One of those is NOW Group, which works with those who need training in a different way to learn their trade. It supports 1,630 people across its services and it is estimated that £1.5 million of disposable income was generated by those in paid work, meaning that every £1 invested in NOW Group generated £21 in social value—again, if we want return for our money, there it is.

However, this issue is about more than money; it is about making sure those young people have the opportunity to do well. Money does not take into account the value of dignity and pride for those who may have struggled to fit in, and now realise that there is still a place for them. That restoration of dignity, pride and confidence for those young people in work is so important. Some 257 people are in paid employment because of the service and there are 70,000 online training sessions. NOW Group is doing truly great work, but the difficulty lies in the fact that it is not funded consistently and is reliant on grants and charitable giving, as well as the goodness of volunteers who have donated 2,000 hours of voluntary service.

As we see the rise in neurodivergent diagnoses, so will the need increase for these groups, which enable young men and young women to find work and self-worth and enable businesses to realise that thinking outside the box and processing in a different way can be a bonus to running a business. The question is how we encourage businesses to see the potential in those young boys and girls.

It is my belief that the Government must pour resources into this in the same way they do for other college and education funds. I look to the Government, and particularly the Minister, to instigate sustained funding for groups such as NOW Group, Usel—Ulster Supported Employment Ltd —and others. What they do for our young people cannot be ignored. We thank them, and we look forward to more work with them in future.

14:57

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to be able to contribute.

In my office we are very open about neurodivergence, and I am proud to work with a neurodiverse team on behalf of our residents in Hertford and Stortford. Without the support and insights of my team, I would not have been able to recognise my own neurodivergence.

In May this year I was diagnosed with ADHD, something that I am learning to navigate alongside my role as an MP and in daily life. When I was first diagnosed, I did not think much of it. I had always known that there was something just a little bit different—with a mum who is a special educational needs co-ordinator, we probably should have realised just a little bit earlier. But as time has passed, I have had the opportunity to reflect on what my diagnosis means for daily life and how it has helped me to answer questions about some of the challenges I encountered in school and work which, until now, seemed to defy explanation.

Why did my mind wander, even in subjects I really enjoyed while I was at school? Why did I feel the need to jump from task to task without finishing or, almost without realising it, to procrastinate when I was approaching something difficult? I felt anxious that I was lazy or stupid, and when I was pulled up on it, I could not explain it. Now, with the right support and medication, the fog that I have unknowingly carried around with me for most of my life has lifted and I can see that I am neither of those things—just a little bit different.

I choose now to speak openly about my experience and how it made me feel, because I hope that it will encourage any young person living with those same anxieties to seek the support that they need to overcome them and because I want them to know that they can be an MP or do whatever else it is they want to do while living with ADHD or any other kind of neurodivergence. Neurodivergent young people—all neurodivergent people—are brimming with talent, but too often the additional support or alternative provisions they need to thrive are lacking. We can see that in the challenges that they experience when seeking employment.

Young people, in particular, face specific barriers to accessing employment, especially in the transition from education to work. Over the summer, I met families, parents and carers across Hertford and Stortford to discuss their experiences of the SEND system. Without straying too far from the topic of the debate, I want to share two things they shared with me that I believe are important.

The first is that early identification, whole-family support and access to the right care, support and educational and social opportunities are essential in paving the way for neurodivergent young people to achieve better outcomes when accessing employment. The second is the need for personalised, long-term support for neurodivergent young people as they make the transition not just from education to employment, but from children’s to adult’s services. Support to stay in employment is crucial too.

I know that the Minister takes these issues seriously, so I would be grateful if he could touch in his response on the work that he and the Department are undertaking, both within the Department and across Government, to ensure that neurodivergent young people can access timely diagnoses and support. On the point about fantastic businesses and charities in our constituencies, will he also tell us how the Government will learn from and support organisations such as Mudlarks in my constituency, which has been working with young people and neurodivergent and learning-disabled people for many years, providing vital and valuable opportunities?

15:01

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

It a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this important and timely debate and for her excellent speech.

As vice-chair of the f40 group, I know how vital fair funding is for education. Today, I want to highlight the importance of supporting neurodivergent people into employment, as not only a moral imperative, but an economic one. We need to harness the unique capabilities of neurodivergent young people, who with the right support and adjustments can and do thrive in the workplace. I would count in that number my own stepdaughter, Madelaine, who is working two jobs while studying at the University of Southampton. The Liberal Democrats are clear: every child with autism, dyslexia and other neurodiverse conditions deserves the chance to thrive in school and move confidently into work.

One of the greatest barriers to neurodivergent young people entering employment is the crisis in our SEND system. It is broken, underfunded and adversarial. In Somerset, that problem is magnified. The average student in Somerset receives over £4,000 less in dedicated schools grant funding than the best-funded authority. The impact of that underfunding is clear: schools cannot provide the early intervention services that children need, and support is limited to only the most complex cases. Families are forced to wait months, sometimes years, for autism assessments and an EHCP.

Like the SEND system, the EHCP process is horribly adversarial, pitting parents, schools and councils against one another. Teachers want to help, but often lack both the training and the resources to provide tailored support. A one-size-fits-all model does not work. Neurodivergent students must be able to attend the right setting post 16 if they are to thrive, build confidence and prepare for meaningful employment.

When young people reach the workplace, barriers remain. James from Glastonbury has autism. He told me of the distinct lack of autism-friendly jobs in our area. He seeks low-skilled, part-time work to support his mental health and build towards his career goal, but such opportunities are scarce. Stephen from Langport shared how his grandchildren were failed by the system. One never received the assessments needed in school, and got a private dyslexia diagnosis only at 16. Stephen himself, a design engineer, worked with colleagues of immense skill who had been underestimated by the education system.

Stephen’s story is a reminder that we are wasting the skills of so many children simply because they do not fit that rigid model. Nationally, only 30% of autistic people are in work, compared with 55% of all disabled people. Autistic graduates are the least likely to be in full-time work. Early intervention hubs in schools are welcome, but they must be properly scaled and resourced. Access to Work must be fixed. Delays and reduced support are undermining inclusion.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to long-term adjustments, reducing waiting times for diagnosis, streamlining NHS processes, training teachers properly and ensuring that SENCOs have the authority and time they need. If we continue to fail neurodivergent children in education, we will fail them in employment. We are not just letting down individuals and families; we are holding back our economy and our society.

15:05

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I decided to come along to speak in this debate after meeting my constituent Bryn, who recently won an award for his campaign to raise awareness of autism and learning disabilities. I have reached out to congratulate him on that success, but I also want to put on record how proud I am to represent a constituency that has within it such incredible people, who are championing the neurodivergent experience in the workplace. Having met Bryn previously, and met him again to learn more about the work he is doing, I know that suitable jobs for people with neurodiversity challenges are particularly hard to access in rural areas. That is particularly because of the difficult-to-access bus routes and other poor public transport links, the poor road surfaces and often the potentially precarious nature of employment. Hearing from Bryn directly about his experiences was incredibly informative and moving, and I thank him for giving up some of his time to meet me and share his experiences. I always try to recognise the contributions of my constituents when I am given the opportunity to speak in the House.

I also want to recognise the valuable work of Team Sunflower, an organisation in my constituency that provides integral support for adults with hidden disabilities. It provides its support and expertise to ensure that, with the right assistance available, employees can thrive in the workplace and reach their full potential. It supports a range of talented people, from photographers to dog walkers, some of whom run their own small businesses, while others remain in full-time employment. Through that valuable support, individuals have access to the help they need to navigate working environments.

The hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) has brought forward an incredibly important debate, and I genuinely thank her for securing time for it. I represent the largest constituency in England, and I am always reminded of the fact that, for too long, the employment support regime has been far too focused on what works in urban Britain—for people in central Newcastle, central London and central Manchester—and not nearly enough on what works in rural Northumberland. I would like the Minister to reflect a little on how we can make sure our systems work better for those in more sparsely populated areas, such as the Tyne valley, rural Northumberland, the Allen valleys and Longhorsley.

15:07

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), for securing this important debate. I would like to use my time to focus on some of the great work being carried out by organisations in my constituency and to share some of the practical suggestions they have made to me for improving the current system for those organisations and the people they work with.

One organisation that I have had the good fortune to visit, and whose work I have witnessed at first hand, is Switch Now. It is a qualified alternative education and training provider that supports neurodivergent people—whom it refers to as co-workers—into employment and, importantly, helps to keep them there. Switch Now was formed 10 years ago in St Neots and predominantly works with 18 to 35-year-old neurodiverse people. It works through the British Association of Supported Employment model—the BASE model—which sees it collaborate with the local community and partner organisations to find suitable jobs in inclusive workspaces. To do that, it works closely with employers to support them in hiring neurodiverse people and in making the adaptations that make a difference. Sometimes those can be as simple as swapping from analogue to digital clocks in the workplace. That can make a huge difference to the inclusion of some neurodiverse people.

One of the key elements with alternative providers such as Switch Now is how they look at the individual and their needs, and support them in the learning, skills development and work experience required to get into employment or regular voluntary activity—as others have noted, it is important that we do not take a one-size-fits-all approach to training and skills if we are going to support neurodiverse people into work.

Switch Now’s founder, Catherine, says that its model of looking at and securing an individual’s development and training needs means that, when they do gain employment, they are less reliant on social care and benefits in the long term, and can look forward to a more fulfilling future. At present, Switch Now is working with nearly 30 young people, who are given both on and off-site training and gaining work-based qualifications.

However, there are not nearly enough organisations like Switch Now, and there are barriers to these providers. Changes to the post-16 alternative provision framework have meant that organisations such as Switch Now have less direct contact with the young people they wish to help. They now see referrals on paper, and they do not have the opportunity to meet people in person. That is very slow and makes planning quite difficult.

As always with this type of provision, funding is a challenge, particularly when it comes to best practice. However, Switch Now’s long-term success means that, over the past 10 years, 83% of its co-workers have been supported into full-time, part-time or voluntary work, because it uses that person-centred method. I encourage the Minister to reflect on the BASE approach, and on providers such as Switch Now, and to see how levers in the DWP can be used to support those providers and to support individuals into work.

15:12

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this debate. It is also a pleasure to see so many colleagues from the east of England here. That is not because we have a larger number of more neurodivergent people than anywhere else, but perhaps we care a little bit more.

It is a sad truth that far too many neurodivergent people struggle in the workplace. It is an avoidable problem, one that is unfair and unjust in its own right. More than that, it is economically nonsensical. Better support for neurodivergent people would unlock the potential of millions in this country. The technology and engineering sectors show us the way, and the tremendous impact that neurodivergent people can have.

The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on employers to provide reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent people, but the reality is that these are inconsistent and inadequate. The problem starts at recruitment: traditional methods such as application forms, timed tests and panel interviews disadvantage neurodivergent candidates. Employers should be encouraged to adopt inclusive recruitment methods—for example, allowing the candidate to see the questions in advance.

We heard about the Access to Work scheme, which currently provides vital support, but it is slow, complex and inconsistent. The Government should cast a critical eye over that process and consider how to make it more streamlined.

The problem continues in employment: rigid hours, loud workplaces, obstructive technologies and a lack of written instructions all pose significant barriers to neurodivergent people. Simple steps to address problems such as those could be quick and cheap and could have a significant impact. The Government’s own research shows that most adjustments cost less than £75. Furthermore, proper neurodiversity training for managers and HR professionals would go a long way towards ensuring that those reasonable adjustments were widely understood. Sadly, employers do not know where to start, which is why we need a national framework of best practice, co-produced with neurodivergent people.

Although there is a long way to go, it is good to see the Government making some progress. As the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I was delighted to see that the Government have allocated £9.5 million to Suffolk county council to provide employment support for 2,700 disabled people. That will certainly help neurodivergent people in our community get into work and stay in work, but there is much more to be done. Making adjustments is not about lowering standards, but about giving people the tools to meet their full potential. Surely that is our duty. Reasonable adjustments must become the norm, not the exception.

15:15

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this important debate.

It remains deeply concerning that standard teacher training includes only half a day of autism-specific education. According to a survey by the National Autistic Society, just 14% of secondary school teachers have received more than that minimal exposure. Schools and academies are required to provide five days of professional development every year, so it strikes me as bordering on negligent if at least one of those days is not dedicated to the needs of children and staff who have some form of neurodiversity.

This debate focuses on supporting neurodivergent people into employment, but we have to acknowledge that the journey begins in school. Without adequate support in education, we are setting up neurodivergent people to fail. Society must recognise that people with a range of neurodivergent traits often make exceptional employees. Their unique strengths, sometimes referred to as superpowers, can make them ideal candidates for many roles, including, as in the case of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), as MPs.

I speak from some personal experience. My son George was diagnosed with autism, ADHD and other neurodivergent conditions at the age of 15. His educational journey was fraught with challenges. Although his nursery, Hoppers, had recognised that he learned differently from other children, subsequent schools failed him until a dedicated special educational needs co-ordinator intervened and helped us reset, and now Philly, his brilliant teacher at Linwood school, is putting him back on the right track. Our experience shows that young people with additional needs often take a winding path, fighting for every step. But as George approaches his 18th birthday, I can confidently say that any employer would be fortunate to have him, just as his current part-time employers, Jackie’s café, and Fab and Nikki at Custom House, already know. His journey is not unique. My inbox is full of pleas from parents to create a system where their children thrive.

Let me be clear: neurodiversity is not a disease; it is a natural and valuable part of the human condition. But our education system, curriculum and the fast pace of modern life often make it harder for neurodivergent individuals to thrive in work and in life. Simple adjustments, such as using coloured paper, changing the lighting or modifying furniture layouts, can make a world of difference in the workplace, the classroom, the supermarket, the cinema and across our world. Such changes not only support people with ADHD or dyslexia, but benefit people for whom English is not a first language, those with physical or learning disabilities and those with anxiety.

Failure to diagnose children early leads to adults feeling isolated, lacking confidence and facing unnecessary barriers. As others have said, only around a third of autistic employees are open about their diagnosis, which is a missed opportunity. With the right support, neurodivergent people thrive in the workplace, but they need the Access to Work scheme to function effectively. The current delays are leaving people without vital adjustments, jeopardising their ability to work. Changes must be made in consultation with neurodivergent and disabled people.

I encourage Members to vote for new clause 2 to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill tomorrow to allow people with disabilities to access work at any time of the day or night, and not just after 9.30 in the morning. Disabled people need to get to work if they are going to be successful. As the leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council I was proud to attend graduation ceremonies for interns in supported internships—young people who had never been given a chance to work. Witnessing their pride and their parents’ joy at their success was truly heartwarming.

Finally, I want to make a point about the future. Historically, autism was a barrier to military service, but that is changing. Even our military is recognising that autistic individuals bring valuable skills such as analytical thinking, attention to detail and technical aptitude. If the military can embrace people with neurodivergence, any business can do so. And we must remember that it is not about accommodating people who are neurodivergent, but making sure they understand that their way of seeing the world is as valid as anyone else’s.

15:19

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) on securing this debate.

Our workplace, culture and society thrive not when everyone thinks alike, but when talent, creativity and difference are allowed to shine through. There is strength in diversity. Although many debates on neurodiversity understandably focus on those furthest from the labour market, I would like to focus my remarks on those who do work who do not have a learning disability, but who, as society, we absolutely need to support to keep working. The recommendations of the Buckland review were about transforming employer behaviour and workplace design to ensure inclusivity. I often find that people seem to think that that just means a knee-jerk reaction from an employer—“Have some noise-cancelling headphones, and then we are covered”—but it has to be much more than that.

I think that there are a lot more autistic people in the workplace than is suggested by any of the statistics that have been quoted in this debate. King’s College London published research yesterday that said that 89% of autistic adults aged over 40 are living without a diagnosis, so simple tweaks in the workplace could help both those who are diagnosed and those who are undiagnosed. As we have heard in this debate, such tweaks could also help many neurotypical people.

It is particularly important to make job adverts a bit less woolly. That would ensure that every applicant understands what is actually required. Designing the option of quieter spaces with softer lighting can create calmer, healthier and more productive workspaces, and in a modern world where people are popping off to do Zoom and Teams calls all the time, organisations need those quiet spaces for everyone. Flexible hours, remote working and no expectation of going to the pub after work can be much more inclusive all year round.

That is not to minimise the experience of people with autism. I firmly believe that the Equality Act is vital, and potentially more so for women with autism than men, because workplace norms are gendered. A blunt male colleague may be described as being straight-talking, efficient or assertive, whereas a woman in that circumstance is far more often judged to be rude and abrupt. Human resources studies show that women are much more likely to receive criticism about their tone or communication style.

I sometimes worry that our debates focus a bit too much on misery rather than success and happiness—I am not just talking about this debate; I think it is a matter right across this place—and I do not want any child who has received a diagnosis to think that they cannot go on to have a really successful life, so it is really important that we highlight those positive role models. They can be a Lioness. They can be an author. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) pointed out, they can be a politician like him or like me. Many of us grew up watching Chris Packham on “The Really Wild Show”.

These conditions make people who they are—passionate, knowledgeable and observant. In a survey of silicon valley professionals, 30% believed that they may be on the autism spectrum. Some argue that Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci or Mozart were neurodivergent—Elon Musk, too; I am not sure whether he fits anyone’s definition of happiness, but he certainly sees the world in a different way.

Neurodivergent minds can excel to drive innovation. We succeed as a society when we embrace the talents of all. If we all did everything the same, frankly, nothing would change, and I think life would be very, very dull.

15:23

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for raising this important topic.

As we have heard, if we want to improve employment opportunities for neurodivergent people, we must start in schools. Too many children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities are still waiting for the right support. The system is under strain, and the result is that many are not given the tools they need to thrive. That is why the Lib Dems are calling for significantly more national funding for schools to support children with special educational needs and disabilities across the UK.

Too many schools are being forced to stretch already limited budgets, leaving pupils without the tailored help they need. If we want every child to have a fair start, the resources must be there in every classroom. Change must not be about managing down costs or restricting service access, but about giving children the capacity, training and support to improve their lives. That will save costs by driving down the number of emergencies. But school is only the beginning. The real test is whether neurodivergent people can carry those skills and that confidence into adult life and into work.

Currently, the outcomes are stark. Only around three in 10 autistic adults are in employment, and for people with other forms of neurodivergence, the figures are often equally bleak. That is not because of a lack of ability but because workplaces too often fail to adapt due to lack of experience. Neurodivergent people bring enormous strengths—problem-solving skills, creativity, attention to detail and fresh ways of thinking—yet employers frequently tell us that they are unsure how to provide the right support. Governments across the UK must step up by offering clearer guidance, better training for employers and practical help to make adjustments simple and affordable. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need a national strategy that links education to employment, and ensures that children are supported early, parents are listened to and employers are equipped to provide opportunities.

This issue is about not only fairness but opportunity. Neurodivergent people have waited too long for a system that works. With the right reforms, we can give them the chance not only to learn but, as we have heard, to build fulfilling careers and to contribute fully to our society and economy.

15:26

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) on securing this incredibly important and well-attended debate.

In my years of campaigning for disability rights, I have found that people are very interested in the difference between the medical system and the social system. The medical model sees people as having an impairment, whereas the social model sees the barriers as the disabling factor to people’s lives. One of the things that I have found so fascinating, inspiring and encouraging about this debate is that so many colleagues have identified that it is the very barriers that are disabling to people who are neurodivergent.

We started the debate with a very eager intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who made the strong point that this issue starts in schools. I know that he is tabling a ten-minute rule Bill tomorrow to call for universal screening in schools. I hope that the Government take that Bill very seriously. I put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend for speaking with such courage about his own experience of growing up with dyslexia, and for inspiring people young and old by doing so. I also put on record my admiration for the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for talking about his experiences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) spoke passionately about the SEND system. My own area of Hertfordshire is also in the f40—the 40 worst funded councils for special educational needs. We see the barriers that that poses to young people, who have huge potential but cannot reach it because there is not the support in place to help them tackle those barriers.

Throughout the debate we have heard from hon. Members from a number of political parties about the work of their local colleges, self-employment initiatives, job centres, businesses and so many other places that are actively going above and beyond to tackle those disabling barriers. It was wonderful to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about Foxes hotel in Minehead, which is regarded as the Oxbridge of employing people with neurodiversity.

If one thing that has come out from all hon. Members’ contributions, it is that the Access to Work scheme is anything but; it could be considered the “barriers to work” scheme by many people. The phones and the forms themselves are barriers, but delays are also a huge problem. In answer to a written parliamentary question that I tabled a few months ago, it was revealed that one person had waited 393 days—more than a year—for a response to an Access to Work application. How on earth will an individual get into a job or stay in their job, and how on earth can an employer offer a job with confidence, if it takes that long for the Access to Work scheme to work? I hope that the Minister will answer that question in his response to the debate.

We often hear the saying, “All politics is personal,” and that is more relevant to this debate than to many others. I imagine that many of us who have spoken in or attended the debate are here because our loved ones—our friends, family or relatives—our neighbours, or perhaps we ourselves have experienced neurodiversity. Given the age of many of us in this room, it is possible that some grew up in an age in which they were told that they were stupid and they grew up with the stigma, and they are now form-phobic, because they are still struggling with what they were told.

I hope that what people young and old will have taken from the debate is that we in this House consider those people to have superpowers. We recognise that neurodiversity is about creativity and ingenuity. People see the world in a different way, and their way of looking at the world in a different way actually will help businesses to make different, and better, decisions. On that note, I will finish. There have been a number of questions and suggestions, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

15:31

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and very good to see the Minister in his place after last week, when there were lots of changes. I thank the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), who gave a brilliant opening speech in this important debate. All Members, across the Chamber, have contributed very strongly. It is always a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, even though this afternoon I have missed the all-party parliamentary group on dyslexia event to which I had an invitation.

I absolutely agree about the breadth of impact of neurodivergence and the difference between it and learning disability. It was really important to set that out at the start. We are talking about different people with different needs. Like many of us, I have constituents who as parents find that funding issues are difficult, especially in rural areas, so I am very like-minded on better support for SEND. Education is what shapes us. Of course the impact, particularly in my part of the world, of the Government measure affecting small private schools and of choice being taken away from some parents has been very problematic. Many of us will have seen that in our constituency surgeries.

As Conservatives, we believe that no matter what someone’s background and talents are, their full potential should be realised, and neurodiversity as explained today is an amazing way in which difference can truly be harnessed. There have been brilliant speeches showing what real contributions people can make. Neurodivergence should be no barrier to someone’s future, yet unfortunately we have heard about challenges from too many Members today.

I thank those who have related their personal stories today. My yellow notes here remind people about my mild dyslexia—and the amount of cartridges that I go through in my constituency office. I think I have probably saved DWP a lot of money by leaving that Department, where I used a lot of yellow cartridges. But my brother has very severe dyslexia, and we go about things very differently, as people would expect. During the five years that I spent as a DWP Minister in the Conservative Government, it was my absolute privilege to work in that Department of wonderful people, as it was known when I was there—I hope it still is—helping to unlock potential and support people. As we heard today, with the right support and assistance, people can progress and thrive. In fact, this Minister is a great example of progression by being completely persistent and eventually getting his ministerial opportunity. It is great to see him there.

All of us this afternoon have spoken especially about young people, whom we want to see progress and who may face unseen and unrecognised barriers. I am thinking particularly of the covid generation—the young people who are coming through now. Under the Conservatives, people saw a transformation in disability employment, with 2.6 million more disabled people entering work since 2013—a target met five years early. There was the Back to Work plan, with a £2.5 billion price tag on it, to support that next stage; the £64 million for the WorkWell pilot; and the £53 million for universal support. I am very mindful that those are not just numbers: they represent lives changed, independence gained and dignity restored. I am very mindful, as I am sure we all are, that behind every single statistic is a person, a need and a community. We should have their backs and help them.

The Buckland review has been mentioned, of course. I had the pleasure of seeing its launch and the amazing work with the Autistica charity. The review offered 19 practical recommendations to help autistic people to start, stay and succeed in work, and to tackle the fact that around 30% of working-age autistic people are not in work. That is wrong. The supported internships mentioned today are absolutely vital, and the disability action plan—which I had the pleasure of helping to push forward—aims to ensure that the UK is the most accessible country in the world in the realm of work, tackling some of the inequalities faced in employment.

That key partnership between employers and Government, which we have heard about, helps to turn the aspirations and good practice of employers—things that look nice on websites or mindsets that people have—into the ability to support people in the workplace and make it truly inclusive. The DWP itself, and the health model offices, are about looking at it from the point of view of claimants and those who need support—to see it their way. I remember going to one office where the walls and the pillars in the room were painted differently, because neurodivergent people needed to access the room differently. That is the way that our Jobcentre Plus offices should be set up.

I am pleased to be supporting a Disability Confident breakfast in my patch to discuss and engage with the programme of understanding assistive technology and meaningful workplace changes, as we have heard today. It is vital that processes work for changed applications, and that access in technology means people are screened in rather than screened out.

Under Labour, I am afraid the welfare system is growing, and it is vital that those on universal credit, or whose lives are being wasted and potential squandered, are understood and helped. In fact, the Sussex chamber of commerce has been doing some great work in my own backyard with Little Gate Supported Employment, Genius Within and other great local employers such as PVL, Time 24, Thriiver and many others.

Removing barriers is hard for employers in all sectors and of all sizes, so partnership and best practice are vital. As the official Opposition, I offer to work collaboratively with the Minister and employers to help people to get in and stay in work. We in the Opposition will continue to focus on social mobility and life chances. I hope the changes at DWP make the impact that is needed, and I welcome the skills brief being brought into DWP. That is something I worked on and would have loved to have seen it realised.

We have heard about the challenges around Access to Work and the flexible support fund, but with technology and the right attitude, employers can make small changes that make a huge difference. Access to Work needs to be updated, and we recognise that DWP has certain needs in this. With employer adjustments—better training, HR and mindset—all this means that if someone is not the finished article, they can get through the door and become one.

Finally, Ms McVey—I can see you are rightly looking at me—welfare reform and living within our means are vital, because if we are to get back to being productive, to grow and to ensure there is support for those in the welfare system, we need people to be paying in. Sadly, Labour’s unemployment Bill is a concern, smothering employers with more red tape, making it more difficult for our constituents to generate revenue and offer jobs, and making it harder for young people—the ones particularly impacted by the pandemic—to get the start they need.

Labour rightly promised change—we have all seen the change in the last few weeks—and I hope this new opportunity is taken. Our mission in government, which the current Government should share, was to focus on delivery and on the vital outcome of making the UK the best and most accessible place in the world, where the employment needs of people with neurodiversity or other learning need, are met. That way, people can live, work and thrive in this economy.

15:39

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

I am delighted to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey; you have a long-standing record in this area. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) on securing the debate and the telling points she made in opening. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to a good debate.

We want to achieve an overall 80% rate of employment, as key to delivering the economic growth and widely shared prosperity we all want. To achieve that, the employment rate among disabled people, those with health impairments and neurodiverse people has to increase. The disability employment gap was first measured in 1998 and fell steadily from then until 2010, when it reached about 30%, but it has been stuck there more or less ever since. It moved around a little bit, down to 28% at one point, but it is pretty much where it was in 2010. That means, as we have rightly been reminded, that many people who have a great deal to contribute and want to work have been denied the opportunity to do so. That needs to change. We specifically need to get the disability employment gap back on to a downward track.

As we have been reminded, the picture is worse still for neurodivergent people. Only 31% of autistic people are in any sort of employment, compared with 55% of disabled people overall. There is a gap within the disability employment gap, to which the Buckland review drew attention. I join my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) in highlighting how big a contribution neurodivergent people are making and can make if they have opportunities and if the barriers holding them back are removed. We need to do much better to deliver the economic growth we need and because good work is good for health and wellbeing.

Like others in the debate, I have made a series of visits to look at initiatives supporting people with learning disabilities into work. It is great to hear so many examples read into the record. Last December, I went to New Warlands farm in Durham, to the North East Autism Society’s vocational training centre. I met autistic adults working on the farm doing interesting things, such as making superb juice from apples grown in the orchard. The farm also had programmes on woodworking and IT.

In April, I visited Little Gate farm near Rye, mentioned by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) when speaking for the Opposition. I was also impressed by what is happening there. We looked at two social enterprises that equip adults with learning disabilities and autism with skills and pathways into paid work. In June, I visited Northwick Park hospital, which every year recruits autistic people for supported internships, many of whom go on to permanent roles in the NHS. The staff love that impressive programme, which the hospital has been running for years. The hospital chief executive made the point that NHS staff find it extremely rewarding to support the interns and they enjoy that part of the job.

In July, I visited DHL at Heathrow to see how the DHL UK Foundation works alongside charity partners to provide work placements to 16 to 25-year-olds with learning disabilities or autism who are currently out of work. Last month, I went to Yusen Logistics in Wellingborough to see how that global supply chain logistics company is working with Mencap as part of its interns and outcomes programme, giving practical work experience to young people moving from education into employment—a difficult transition as we have rightly been reminded—or on to further study. The colleagues of the person with a learning difficulty I met in Wellingborough emphasised to me both how good he was at his job and, notwithstanding the support he needed, how much they enjoyed working with him.

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister has outlined a plethora of different places he has visited. I invite him to visit some of the fantastic organisations in my constituency, such as the Artizan café, for people who have learning disabilities and neurodivergence; Horticap, a garden centre with a similar scheme; or Henshaws college in Harrogate. I wish to press the Minister a little. He talks about how these are all fantastic organisations and schemes; many of them are charities and they face an increase in employer national insurance contributions. Will the Minister outline how he might support these fantastic organisations in helping and supporting people with neurodivergence?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Unfortunately, I cannot promise to visit all the employers that have been mentioned in the debate, but we certainly want to support them because they are doing a great job. I will say a bit more about what we are doing, and planning to do.

We need evidence for policies to deal with the barriers that neurodivergent people face in getting into work and once they are in the workplace, such as those rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. We need evidence to establish and clarify the characteristics of successfully inclusive workplaces.

In January, as has been mentioned, we set up an independent panel of academics with expertise in and lived experience of neurodiversity, led by Professor Amanda Kirby. It is reviewing the evidence on neurodiversity in the workplace to assess why neurodivergent people have poorer experiences and a low employment rate, and what we can do about it. Its advice will also focus specifically on how employers can support neurodivergent people at work, which has rightly been an important theme in the debate. We need practicable strategies for employers that are simple for them to adopt, with low cost or no cost at all.

The panel conclusions will build on the Buckland review of autism employment, which focused specifically on autism. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who was the Employment Minister until the weekend, I met Sir Robert Buckland after the election to discuss his valuable contribution to this policy area. I am looking forward to the panel’s findings and recommendations in the coming weeks—I think somebody asked when that would be.

[Mims Davies]

As well as the expert panel and the updates from the Buckland review, will the Minister undertake to use his good offices in the DWP and across government, including the NHS and other public sector employers, to ensure that the learning is used? As we have heard, it is tough in the wider labour market. Support is already given to care leavers across Government and by the Minister’s own Department; will he lead the way in the DWP?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, there are opportunities to do exactly that. We will look at the recommendations from the independent panel along with the results of the “Keep Britain Working” review, which is led by Sir Charlie Mayfield and is investigating how employers can reduce health-related inactivity. We want to bring all this work together to make a real difference. We are expecting the recommendations from Sir Charlie Mayfield in the autumn, so there will be a lot going on this policy area, with opportunities for improvement.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response to all the requests we have made collectively and individually. I am very keen to show that we can have an exchange of views and share ideas. In particular, I want us to share some of those ideas with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that the good things we do there can advise Ministers here, and vice versa. Does the Minister intend to ensure that will happen? If so, I would welcome it.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have had a number of opportunities to speak to my counterpart Minister in Northern Ireland and I am sure there will be more—I have always enjoyed those conversations. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland but that might also be a possibility.

The new jobs and careers service that we are setting up is a key reform. To echo the points made in the debate, the new service will deliver much more personalised support than has been provided in the past, moving away from the one-size-fits-all, tick-box approach that far too many people think of as characterising Jobcentre Plus. We need to be different from that. The pathfinder we have set up in Wakefield is testing how a personalised offer could be much more responsive to different support needs, including those of neurodivergent people in particular. We are testing how to make the jobcentre environment more accessible for both jobseekers and DWP staff with support needs, including neurodiversity. The findings of the academic panel will also help us to shape the new service.

Our new Connect to Work service, which is being locally commissioned and will cover the whole country by early in the new year, includes a specialist pathway for those with particularly complex barriers, using the IPS—individual placement support—methodology and the supported employment quality framework, which has been overseen by the British Association of Supported Employment, which I think the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned. There has been close collaboration with BASE in drawing up Connect to Work, which I think will make a big difference over the next few years.

Participants in Connect to Work will be given a dedicated specialist employment support adviser to work alongside them, understand their career goals and help them to address specific barriers to employment. We are taking a very different approach. The methodology is being tightly defined—the IPS and the BASE framework—but the service is being commissioned entirely locally. The decisions about who to involve and which organisations will take part are being made entirely locally by, I think, 42 groups of local authorities around the country. I am hopeful that that increasingly devolved approach will allow us to make substantial progress.

[Mims Davies]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. That commissioning model will be music to most constituency MPs’ ears. How will DWP monitor the local output and changes for people on the ground?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member raises a good point. What we will need to do, and what we are committed to doing, is to publish the outcomes from all 42 different programmes so that everybody can see how they are getting on. I am sure that some areas will do better than others, and where there is a problem, we will be able to provide additional support.

[Daisy Cooper]

We would all welcome a framework for monitoring the outcomes and the results, but we have heard today that people face many barriers in trying to access these kinds of schemes. Will the Government consider requiring service level agreements, so that when people apply to the schemes or engage with them, they know what they are going to get, how they are going to get it, and how quickly they are going to get it?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I need to correct myself: there are 47 areas, rather than 42. It will be for each local area to work out how best to engage people and establish the kind of confidence that is needed. I hope Members will watch closely what happens with Connect to Work, because it is a big opportunity.

A number of Members understandably raised Access to Work. There are problems with Access to Work, reflecting the substantial surge in demand for the scheme over the years—I think last year it went up by 30%, and I think it went up by a larger proportion in the year before and the year before that. We have put well over 100 extra staff on to administering the scheme, to try to get on top of the growing delays and waiting lists, but they have continued to grow, so in the “Pathway to Work” Green Paper, published in March, we consulted on the reform of Access to Work. How can we do a better job, hopefully supporting a larger number of people, and certainly without the lengthy delays that people are suffering at the moment? We have set up a collaboration committee, which includes representatives of disabled people’s organisations, to work with us on the proposals. We are currently working on the consultation responses with that committee, and I look forward to bringing forward proposals for reform before too long.

Tailored support is crucial for young people. There are nearly a million people not in education, work or training, which is more than one in eight of all young people. A significant number of them are almost certainly neurodivergent. Our “Get Britain Working” plan includes the new youth guarantee for 18 to 21-year-olds, to ensure that young people can access quality training, apprenticeships or help to find work, and eight trailblazers are testing localised approaches to support young people, including neurodivergent young people who are likely to face additional barriers and who need further support.

A number of Members rightly reminded us of the crucial role of employers in all this, and we heard some great examples of employers committed to providing support for neurodivergent employees. The Government have a range of support in place for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) was absolutely right to make the point that employers can find it difficult to know what they are supposed to do. It can be quite nerve-racking for conscientious employers who want to do the right thing. Our digital offer is support with employee health and disability, and tailored guidance on supporting employees, including how to effectively support those who are neurodivergent or have learning disabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) rightly highlighted the importance of that support.

I hope we are going to see more job carving, whereby an employer takes an existing role and reshapes it to suit the skills of a particular individual. One example that the Department knows of is a firm that had three vacancies for legal secretaries. It wanted to address the under-representation of disabled and neurodivergent people in its workforce, so it created a new support role across the team for tasks that did not require legal expertise, and that role was filled by an applicant with autism. That person did a great job, and other team members said afterwards said that the initiative made them want to stay with the firm. There is an important point here about the support from employees generally for doing the right thing for neurodivergent employees and would-be employees.

The disability confidence scheme that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), referred to encourages employers to create disability inclusive workplaces. I think we can improve it. We need to make the criteria for accreditation more robust, and the Department has been consulting a wide range of stakeholders, organisations and individuals on ideas over the summer. Look out for more on that over the coming months.

In our ambitious programmes of strategic reform—the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, the “Pathways to Work” consultation, the “Keep Britain Working” review and the neurodiversity panel—we are starting to set a new course. We are keen to continue to work across Government—a point rightly raised—as when we jointly provided evidence to the House of Lords special inquiry Committee on the Autism Act 2009 earlier in the year. We all have a part to play—every Department of Government—and I look forward to seeing the report and the recommendations from that Committee on the development of a new strategy later this year.

This subject matters to every single neurodivergent person who has been denied the opportunity to thrive and achieve their best in the past—but it also matters to every one of us, to the whole economy and to our whole society. I hope we see substantial progress in the years to come.

15:59

[Charlotte Cane]

I thank everyone who spoke in the debate. It is good to see that across parties we are all agreed on this issue. We have heard about the many barriers that people face, but we have also heard about some really good employers and opportunities. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to build on the Buckland review and to work with the independent panel to come up with ways to overcome the barriers. I really welcome the personalised jobs and careers support, which can make a huge difference, and I am grateful that the Minister recognises the problems with Access to Work and is trying to address them, but mostly—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Housing: North Staffordshire

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Allison Gardner to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with prior permission from both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing developments in north Staffordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and I thank the House for allowing this debate today.

With the publication of three draft local plans across my constituency, this is an incredibly timely debate. Too many of my constituents know the struggle of finding suitable affordable housing. Families need high-quality homes in which to raise their children, young people starting out need affordable homes, and many people need accessible bungalows. I understand our Government’s targets for house building and the three draft local plans for my constituency deliver on that commitment. My constituents deserve to have a home to call their own and I back every effort to support local people into good homes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand and I congratulate her on securing this debate. Does she agree that housing for over-55s, with smaller units, must also be a priority, in order to free up larger homes for younger families, and that every local authority should consider the inclusion of such units when housing developments are being built?

[Dr Gardner]

I agree with the hon. Member: we are an ageing population and need to think about how we house our older residents. I am a big advocate of bungalows, having just moved into one.

That is not to say that proposals for new housing developments come without challenges. In Barlaston, the local community are trying to resist a planning application on green-belt land off Barlaston Old Road. The local parish council has proactively produced its own neighbourhood plan and is not against developments. It is offering suitable alternatives that will deliver more housing and address local issues regarding abandoned land. I hope that Stafford borough council engages meaningfully with the parish council and works to protect the integrity of the village while supporting new housing. Does the Minister agree that parish councils have a strong role to play in planning—indeed, increasingly so, as we proceed with devolution? The local voice must be empowered and heard.

Similarly, my constituents in Lightwood are concerned about the draft proposal to build up to 3,000 new homes in a neighbouring valley. A development of such size would create a whole new electoral ward. Although this proposal is in the very early stages of the local plan, should it proceed, it would have a significant impact on the surrounding communities. Residents are rightly worried about the scale of the development, the loss of green space and the strain on local infrastructure.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It cannot be denied that we are in the worst housing crisis since world war two. I thank the Minister for his engagement; we have previously discussed this issue in relation to my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. We need housing, but the village of Loggerheads, right in the north of my constituency, has been left in chaos due to large-scale housing developments that were allowed under previous Administrations, but put forward and built without the proper supporting infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour agree that while we desperately need housing—particularly bungalows—it cannot be delivered in the Conservative way, where there are houses but no infrastructure, and residents are left in limbo?

[Dr Gardner]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s points.

The land I mentioned also contains a large quarry full of valuable reserves of Etruria marl. A major concern of mine with new developments is the impact on transport infrastructure. Access roads in Lightwood are minimal: one connects to a route already beset by traffic and speeding, while the other country lanes cannot safely accommodate significant traffic.

I have seen that in villages throughout my constituency, where villages are cut in half by major roads but not given safe crossings and speed restrictions. In Tittensor, villagers have been campaigning for over 30 years for a crossing, and in Draycott in the Moors, a large development and an industrial estate brought promises of high-quality traffic management measures that were watered down to a final proposal that will be incredibly disruptive to residents.

Reform-led Staffordshire county council has not supported my attempts to deliver safer roads, and the separation of responsibility between National Highways and the planning authority makes it an exceptionally difficult issue to solve. I ask the Minister, when responsibilities sit between multiple authorities, how can we ensure that the wider impact of developments on surrounding roads is properly considered, with co-ordinated action to support affected communities?

On a similar note, within the village of Tean, developments have led to an increase in flooding and sewage outflow. Developers tend to meet their requirements to build suitable infrastructure and flood mitigations on site, but the problem occurs when the outflow from the estates hits the water company’s mains, which have often not been updated to cope with increased demand. We then see flooding throughout the village and sewage outflow killing our rivers and streams.

Although water companies are consulted, they often put the onus on the developer to address increased demand. As far as I understand, there is no statutory requirement on water companies—in my case, Severn Trent Water—to upgrade their infrastructure to meet new demand. Without that, I question whether consulting water companies is anything more than a tick-box exercise. I ask the Minister, what powers can we enact to ensure that new developments are supported by upgrading main sewer systems, the responsibility for which lies with the water companies to deliver at their cost?

Many of my Lightwood constituents are concerned that the draft local plan does not make sufficient use of brownfield land. I reassure them that Stoke-on-Trent city council is doing the most building on brownfield sites on record. In my time as a local councillor, I had many battles with developers and the local council over proposed developments. That is not to say that I do not support new housing, nor that I always support residents’ objections, but I am a fierce advocate of green spaces and a built environment that support health and wellbeing.

That applies equally to our urban areas, which also deserve green spaces; in the push for brownfield redevelopment, I do not wish to see our urban areas concreted over. Innovative thinking and the use of existing buildings is therefore welcome. I commend plans to improve urban centres with thoughtful developments, such as the Tams building in Longton, and to increase housing in our town centres, utilising empty buildings and the upper floors of shops.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to mention historic and heritage buildings. Across Stoke-on-Trent we have many such buildings that have been left vacant for far too long. With the right support and partnerships, they can be brought back into use. Although Stoke-on-Trent city council is rightly taking a brownfield-first approach to development, as she rightly said, does she agree that unlocking those heritage assets is a central part of our ambition to deliver homes for families across our area?

[Dr Gardner]

I commend my hon. Friend for his hard work on transforming our heritage buildings. Many of those buildings are owned by private landlords who neglect them and they are an eyesore in our towns.

Indeed, in Longton we have had several fires in buildings that have not been properly maintained. While I welcome the high street rental auctions, many of those buildings are not fit for use in their current state. I understand that councils have several powers to take ownership of derelict buildings on our high streets, but I am told that the funds required and the time it takes to hold property owners to account is often prohibitive. I ask the Minister, what additional powers and resources can we give to local authorities to address empty and derelict properties in town centres, hold property owners to account and repossess empty town centre buildings if needed?

I acknowledge, though, that reutilising inner urban areas may not meet the full demand for housing and that such areas may not always be accessible for our ageing population. We need large developments in some places, but the new designation of grey-belt land has caused confusion. To many of my constituents, the area in the Lightwood proposal is not grey-belt land; it is the countryside. While much of the land is agricultural, it is a rich area with newts, bats and badgers. In redesignating the land as grey belt, I ask the Minister for greater clarification on the meaning of green and grey-belt land, and whether that extends to areas that have agricultural-grade land and minimal built spaces.

In such cases, we must consider the delivery of suitable infrastructure, and if a community must be enlarged, we can offer benefits that improve the lives of everyone in the area. For example, in Yarnfield, which has several proposed sites in the local plan, villagers have been in a long battle to gain ownership of their local pub. The owners, Stonegate, seem to prefer to keep a decaying building up for sale rather than allow the village to revive it. I would greatly appreciate an update on the status of the community right to buy, which was announced in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and further clarification as to how it can support my constituents in Yarnfield.

We must not allow communities to lose their heart and soul. Big developments must not be swathes of housing estates; they must be communities with the right social infrastructure, including pubs, shops and public services. The Home Builders Federation estimates that local authorities in England and Wales held more than £6 billion in unspent section 106 moneys and nearly £2 billion from the community infrastructure levy in 2024. It also estimates that over £800 million provided by developers for affordable housing is held in local authority bank accounts. That is unacceptable when so many constituents are fighting for the correct infrastructure for their communities, yet the money is available. I therefore ask the Minister how we can ensure that section 106 moneys are utilised in a timely and local manner.

We must ensure that councils are sufficiently resourced to carry out enforcement against developers not meeting their required duties. My constituent, Dennis Rothwell, has fought a constant battle against dust pollution from nearby development in Trentham Fields, and residents in Broadway have been reduced to tears of frustration at noise and dust. However, councils cannot hold developers to account without sufficient resource. There is a national shortage of planning enforcement officers, and that needs urgent attention.

In addition, although councils have a statutory duty to investigate breaches of planning law, there is no statutory duty to enforce against breaches. I suggest considering a process similar to the decriminalisation of parking enforcement to ensure that there is an impetus for councils to act on planning breaches. In so doing, council sanctions would accrue money that could then be repurposed for our communities. I ask the Minister to consider the merits of introducing statutory ringfenced funding at the local authority level to pay for planning enforcement and a refreshed approach to planning enforcement.

Developers must also be held to account when building affordable and accessible houses, but that must not come at the cost of quality infrastructure, green spaces and community character. Building is not just about meeting metrics; it is about delivering real improvements to new and existing residents and invoking a sense of civic pride with good-quality and diverse homes in good-quality communities.

16:13

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing the debate and commend her for managing to fit a phenomenal number of issues into that very brief speech.

In general terms, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government want to see more plan-led development and want development generally to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. While there is much more to be done, I trust that she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual local development plans or individual planning applications in her constituency due to the role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, but I will seek to respond to as many of the general points that she raised as I can. If there are any that I am unable to cover in the time that I have, I will happily write to her with further detail.

I very much welcome the fact that the local planning authorities that cover parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency are all taking forward draft local plans. It is really important that local plans are put in place, and at speed. Having an up-to-date local plan, or, where one is not in place, ensuring that one is brought forward quickly, is the best way for a community to shape the development required in its area. Where local plans are not up to date or in place, there is a detrimental impact on individuals and communities. We really need to drive that point home: it is not cost-free to not have a local plan in place.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I commend to the Minister the draft local plan in Stoke-on-Trent, which is very bold. It recognises that there is an acute waiting list for housing in Stoke-on-Trent, and that we need to build the houses that we need for local people, so that generations of families can live there. The council is taking some tough decisions and building on pieces of land that residents would not ordinarily want built on, but that is one of the trade-offs for having a growing city.

The Minister and I spoke about an urban development corporation covering Hanley, in Stoke-on-Trent, to allow land assembly in order to bring derelict brownfield sites back into use and build the homes that we need. Is that a conversation that we can pick up again? The opportunity is there with the local plan, but it just might need a shove from the centre to help get it over the line.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am more than happy to pick up that conversation and see where we have got to. For the reasons I have already given, I will not be able to comment on the local plan in question, but suffice it to say that we have a local plan-led planning system, and such a system operates effectively only if coverage of up-to-date local plans is extensive.

My hon. Friends will no doubt be aware that the Government inherited a system in which less than a third of local plans were up to date. We have taken decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both by providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and by intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. We are also introducing a faster and clearer process for preparing local plans, which will set a clear expectation that local plans—as well as minerals and waste plans, it should be said—should be routinely prepared and adopted within 30 months. Other aspects of the reforms—such as the introduction of gateways; shorter, simpler and standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making; and a series of digital transformation initiatives—will support that aim.

I very much commend the efforts being made in the area in question to get the local plan in place. As I said, where local plans are not up to date, and where LPAs are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, areas are open to speculative development. It is right that, in those circumstances, development comes forward outside of plans—the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold—but we have made it clear that that is not a route to poor-quality housing, and we have added new safeguards to the presumption in the national planning policy framework in order to ensure that.

It must also be said that the absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable developments acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in development. Local planning authorities already have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with such provisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned a number of issues in relation to brownfield development—development on previously developed land—as well as green-belt development. It should be said at the outset that, like all Governments over the last few decades, this Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. We want, in all cases, local authorities to exhaust their options for brownfield development. Indeed, we are making that easier: we made changes to the NPPF in December, and we have consulted on what we call a brownfield passport—essentially a means of making sure that, when applications on brownfield land are suitable, the default answer should be a straightforward yes.

[David Williams]

We have certainly talked about the brownfield-first approach being taken. As I alluded to earlier, one of the issues in Stoke-on-Trent is that we have a number of historic and heritage buildings lying dormant. I encourage the Minister to talk across Departments about how we could create a heritage building release fund, similar to the brownfield land release fund. Those buildings are at the centre of our towns and communities, but at the moment they tend to fall down on value for money.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily take that conversation up with colleagues in other Departments, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about heritage policy in the planning system more generally if he would find that useful.

The point needs to be made, and it needs to be made again and again, that there is not enough brownfield land on registers—and certainly not enough viable sites in the right locations—to meet the demand for homes across the country. That is why we have taken a different approach to the green belt. We are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over recent decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbourhoods from merging into one another. We have acted quickly to replace the haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.

I emphasise that Ministers do not themselves determine what, if any, grey-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for the local planning authority itself to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify doing so. In those instances, we expect it first to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land, optimising the density of development—a number of local authorities across the country are looking again at brownfield sites and exploring whether they can get additional density to make up housing numbers—and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated across borough boundaries.

Where those options have been exhausted, we expect local authorities to look again at green-belt land release. National policy makes it clear that, in those circumstances, local development plans must take a sequential approach: first exhaust previously developed land, then consider low-quality grey-belt land that is not previously developed, and only then consider other green-belt locations. Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must also be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.

[Leigh Ingham]

The Minister and I discussed this issue just prior to the recess, particularly in relation to Eccleshall, where greenfield sites with really poor transport infrastructure, as well as poor sewage and water infrastructure, are being proposed for development. I gently remind him that we were going to meet this month or early next month to discuss that further. It would be great to have that meeting put in the diary as soon as possible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am looking forward to that meeting. The relevant diary slots have moved around on several occasions, but I will ensure that it takes place in the very near future. We can discuss that and other issues.

Because we recognise the value that communities place on green-belt land, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new green spaces, or improvements to existing green spaces, that are accessible to the public; and necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, released either through plan making or subject to a planning application.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make this the final intervention; otherwise, I will not be able to cover all of the many topics that were raised.

[Gareth Snell]

While the Minister is talking about green-belt land, I want to talk about the Stoke-on-Trent local plan. Berryhill Fields in my constituency has been given a reprieve from previous Conservative plans to build. Other green spaces in Stoke-on-Trent could be protected if there was a way of passporting the Homes England compulsory purchase powers to local authorities so that they could do land assembly in built-up urban areas where landowners who have no interest in building houses in the city are sitting on great swathes of land, which are just causing nuisance and antisocial behaviour. That would help with housebuilding, but also with urban and economic regeneration. If the Minister looked at that, Stoke-on-Trent would probably be up for being a pilot area and seeing what could be done.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is probably worth me writing to my hon. Friend. The Government have undertaken a number of reforms—building, it has to be said, on reforms made by the previous Government in the last Parliament—to compulsory purchase powers. Some of those powers are novel; not many places, if any, have tried some of the new powers that I have brought into force. We are very encouraging of any local authorities that want to explore them. Let me set them out in writing to my hon. Friend so that he has the full detail.

In the time left, I want to address a couple of other issues that were raised, starting with infrastructure provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South made clear, communities across the country want to see infrastructure delivered as early in the development process as possible rather than as an afterthought. The provision of infrastructure is incredibly important. The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF we published last year also supports the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.

Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare what is known as an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure through the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner has written to local planning authorities to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 or community infrastructure levy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South knows, the Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes, such as the housing infrastructure fund. The Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details on that specific point in due course.

My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of section 106 moneys. While there is a variety of entirely legitimate reasons why local planning authorities may be holding unspent developer contributions, including to facilitate the effective delivery of phased development projects, we recognise the need to ensure that the contributions that developers make to mitigate the impact of development and make it acceptable in planning terms are used effectively and in a timely manner. Local planning authorities are expected to use all the funding received by way of planning obligations. Individual agreements should normally include clauses stating when and how the funds will be used and allow for their return after an agreed period of time where they are not.

The planning advisory service, funded by my Department, provides support to local planning authorities in the governance of developer contributions. Any local planning authority that receives a contribution from development through section 106 planning obligations must prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement at least annually. Reporting on developer contributions helps local communities and developers see how contributions have been spent—and, in some circumstances, underspent—and what future funds will be spent on, ensuring a transparent and accountable system. I know from my own constituency, and I hear from many hon. Members, that what communities want is transparency about where those funds go and certainty that they are being spent on the right mitigations to ensure that development is made acceptable. As I said, we will bring forward further reforms to strengthen the section 106 system so that councils are better placed to strike those agreements and ensure that developers are held to the commitments they make.

My hon. Friend raised a number of other issues, including empty homes. I am more than happy to write to her on them. Community right to buy is not my responsibility as a Minister, but I will get the appropriate Minister in my Department to provide her with an update. She rightly mentioned the provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which recently had its Second Reading.

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and other hon. Members for taking part. There is clearly a shared set of issues among a set of colleagues that needs addressing. I am more than happy to pick up conversations, and to meet them as a group rather than individually if that is useful, since some common concerns have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns of her constituents and the points that she made.

I emphasise once again that the Government are in complete agreement with my hon. Friend on the importance of plan-led development that provides the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services that communities want. If they get those things—this will not be the case for all her constituents, as it is not the case for all of mine, but it will be true in lots of cases—and we ensure that we get better development as well as more development, that will be a way to assuage some of the concerns that communities have about what housebuilding in their area means. I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes the Government have already made, along with those to come, of which there are many, are of lasting benefit to her constituents as well to as others in the region.

Question put and agreed to.

Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of free to air broadcasting on cricket participation.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I don’t like cricket—I love it. How could I not love a sport that has given me the joy of the 2005 Ashes series, an England victory in the 2019 world cup and so many long afternoons in the sunshine, sometimes with whites on, sometimes with a real ale in my hand, and sometimes both at the same time? It is a sport that reminds us of patience, perseverance, heritage and tradition, and—rare in a world now dominated by doom scrolling and a 24/7 news cycle—the virtue of delayed gratification.

The English cricket calendar, however, has undergone a major change in my lifetime, particularly in the last few years. The season is now crowded, in large part due to the introduction of the Hundred: a competition focused on the search for a format that would work for that elusive thing, a new audience. We, of course, all applaud the England and Wales Cricket Board for searching for that audience.

At the outset I should state that I am open-minded about different forms of cricket. I enjoy all of it, but it is very strange that we have so many different formats in this country: five days for a test match, four days for the county championship, a 50-over competition, a 20-over competition, and now the Hundred, a new 100-ball contest run to a completely different pattern of play and contested by new franchises with which few long-standing cricket fans have any affinity. But it has brought new people in to follow the game—younger people.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the T20, will he take a moment to congratulate Somerset county cricket club for reaching the finals—I heard the cheering from my garden at the weekend—and will he recognise that county cricket needs all the support it can get?

[Max Wilkinson]

Yes, I will congratulate Somerset. As a Gloucestershire fan, I can tell the room that I was a member at Somerset as a student. It was an excellent deal, and we used to travel from Weston-super-Mare to sit in the ground at Taunton. I spent many fun days there. It is a pity that Somerset triumphed over Gloucestershire this summer, but we will have to look past that.

Let us start with the good news about the Hundred. Although the debate is sometimes shrill and the suggestion is that it has been a total disaster, there have been some good points to the Hundred. It is pretty much the only high-profile cricket available on traditional free-to-air television, although some of the one-day internationals are on free to air too. The model has undeniably helped to fund the wider sport with new income. It has promoted the women’s game and there is more income for disabled cricket as well. The sale of franchises has brought new investment, which has been shared among the traditional counties. That success is to be welcomed, but it has not come without cost—I know that cost is acknowledged in the sport.

Even as somebody who is open-minded, I feel somewhat alienated by the Hundred. There is no team competing in the Hundred that represents my town, my county, or indeed the entire west region. For those who have suggested that the Welsh Fire is the west’s team, I beg to differ. I suspect Welsh cricket fans will be pleased to hear me say that I am not going to attend Sophia Gardens to support the Welsh Fire any time soon.

The creation of the Hundred means four-day county cricket has been pushed to the peripheries of the season, with August reserved for the short form of the game, although this year the amazing end to the final England-India test did just creep into the start of August, into the summer holiday period. As a knock-on effect, it is argued by many in the game that time and player availability for county championship cricket, which is crucial for test match preparation, has been greatly cut back. It is worrying to see the bedrock of the sport being pushed to the margins in that way. The fans who attend their county grounds and many of those involved in the administration of cricket at all levels could be forgiven for feeling overlooked and ignored. I have heard from many of those people.

What of the impact on the choices forced on test match players who deserve opportunities for time in the middle? What about the impact on the One-Day cup, which will never gather as much attention in August as the Hundred, despite serving up some absolutely brilliant cricket?

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that another problem with the lack of four-day county cricket during the August period is that it is pushed to the margins, which impacts on batting development for future test players, as they are playing in the colder conditions of the early season, and inhibits the development of spin bowlers, who struggle at that time of year? We are perhaps inhibiting some player development in both batting and bowling for our future test stars.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points that have been rehearsed by cricket commentators over the last few years. I believe we have to bear that point in mind, and I may come on to it a little later.

It is no secret that this jumble of the calendar has profound consequences. As I said at the beginning, the ECB is doing the right thing by looking for new audiences, increased participation and more cricket on television. It might argue that participation is increasing as a result of the Hundred and the investment brought about by deals with subscription channels for test matches and other forms of cricket. Indeed, there is clear evidence that watching sport leads to increased participation and more money flowing into the game. The ECB reported a 61% increase in amateur cricket club membership following England’s victory at the 2019 world cup. Sadly, however, these days only a handful of free-to-air cricket matches are available each year in the traditional media, and county club cricket takes a variable approach to broadcast.

We should consider the wider consequences of the situation. It is a jumbled calendar with multiple different formats that are confusing to many and a lack of free-to-air broadcast. That cumulative impact risks alienating existing fans while reducing the number of younger people engaging with different forms of the game that are not the short-form Hundred, and making it harder for our test team to thrive. It also puts at risk the long-term sustainability of the county game.

Peter Matthews, chair of Gloucestershire county cricket club, told me:

“Cricket needs to be played at a time when the next generation can be encouraged to go. If this isn’t the case, it will continue to be watched by retired folk and will not grow a new audience. This means that weekends and school holidays are important. Right now, there is very little county cricket in the school holidays, other than ‘The Hundred’ (only at eight venues) and the One Day Cup. Non-hosts have a total of four days home cricket at the height of summer. This cannot be helpful commercially or for developing the next generation of cricket lovers.”

That is a warning from the chair of a club that is doing a lot of good work with the ECB to make cricket more accessible for all through the Gloucestershire cricket talent pathway.

That warning comes as state school cricket continues to suffer decline, bringing about the opposite of the ECB’s aim to increase participation. Peter also told me about the difficulties presented to those counties that retain much-loved out-ground festivals. The Cheltenham cricket festival is the world’s longest-running out-ground festival, having started in 1872. These out-ground festivals bring cricket closer to communities and should be encouraged, but they risk falling victim to ever-higher running costs and an overcrowded cricket calendar.

The Liberal Democrats believe in giving sport back to the fans, which is why we are calling on the Government, the ECB and others to act. We favour taking the more televised fixtures out from behind paywalls. We favour boosting participation by investing in grassroots facilities—I know the ECB is doing that with new indoor domes. We favour supporting community sports clubs too. While the Government clearly cannot interfere in the governance of sport, and I am not suggesting that they should, the nation’s shared interest in cricket should provide Ministers and Members with an important opportunity to engages with the ECB and all others in cricket authority about options that lower barriers to participation, including discussions about the cricket calendar.

Finally, we should consider whether the apparent commercial success of the Hundred might have been achieved by other means. Could the T20 Blast have been adapted to bring new revenues and audiences? Will it be adapted like that in future? Could the Blast and the Hundred be combined or tweaked in a way that protects the traditional forms of the game while retaining new audiences, perhaps with some cricket broadcast via a free-to-air model? The Hundred came about after a well-meaning discussion about participation and audiences, but the challenges that cricket faces as a sport are nothing new. As David “Bumble” Lloyd recently told the excellent “Sports Agents” podcast,

“the game has been dying since I started in 1963.”

That game has constantly adapted to survive. Those with longer memories will recall the fierce debate when limited-overs cricket was introduced in the first place, but at least those formats took the existing pattern of play, making it easier for fans of traditional cricket to understand what was going on. If we can properly balance the cricketing schedule to bring county cricket back into focus, the game can protect its local links and cricket will continue to thrive. We must ask whether the long-term prosperity of the game, the counties and the England team is best served by the continuation of the Hundred in its current form—that is, distinct from the continuation of the Hundred at all.

As part of the discussion we must of course focus on the test game, or we put at risk exactly the sort of moments that cricket fans cherish the most: Shane Warne’s ball of the century, Graham Thorpe batting in the dark in Karachi, the heroics of Chris Woakes coming out to bat with one arm in a sling, the 2019 Headingley test match and my favourite, the 2005 Ashes series—I was there for the day when we won at the Oval. Without those kind of moments, cricket ceases to be the special game it is.

16:41

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this important debate. I agree with him that cricket is a fantastic sport. I also love cricket. Where we disagree is that my drink of choice when I go to watch cricket is cider, and I think that the test format is the supreme format of the game, although I appreciate that people enjoy other formats.

I am proud to represent a constituency that has several cricket clubs, including Stockport cricket club, founded in 1855; Heaton Mersey cricket club, founded in 1879; and Heaton Mersey Village cricket club. Before the parliamentary boundary review I also represented Offerton cricket club, which is now represented by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and which also has a rich history.

I do not want to repeat the points made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, but participation in cricket could be a lot better, particularly among young people from lower-income backgrounds, and young people who do not go to private schools or boarding schools. The 2023 report of the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket warned of an elitist culture

“driven…by the lack of access…in state schools”.

They reported that, at the time, 58% of England players had been privately educated. The data will have changed over the last two years but so much more could be done.

I wish to declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for cricket. I place that on record. I love cricket, but as a Labour party member, who many people would call quite left wing, some people say to me that cricket is not really a sport enjoyed on the left. I make the argument that the majority of people who play and watch cricket across the world are from countries in south Asia and in the Caribbean islands. Many countries in Africa also enjoy cricket. We should make sure that cricket is introduced to young people in schools at all levels across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is a lot more to be done.

I know that the ECB funds many programmes, and that Sport England supports several cricket programmes, but I do not think it is enough. The England and Wales Cricket Board announced a £2 million investment in programmes aimed at engaging black and south Asian communities and state-educated children. That is good, but £2 million will not scratch the surface in the 4,000-plus secondary schools in the UK. It amounts to about £480 per school if shared around. That is not much. There are also reports in the media—hon. Members can look them up if they are interested—that the latest deal between the ECB and Sky for television broadcasting rights is approximately £220 million. That is a lot of money. I was just speaking to one particular member of the House Service before I came into this debate, because I know he enjoys cricket. He said that the TV licence fee that most of us pay should contribute towards enabling people to watch live cricket games. A lot of people are excluded because they cannot afford the £35 to £40 per month to watch Sky Sports. A lot more could be done, and it should not be left to the Government. The ECB should be doing more, and Sky could be doing a lot more. We need to have a genuine debate about including more people from low-income backgrounds in cricket.

I want to finish on a more historical point. I have not mentioned this since I was elected to this House about six years ago, but according to data from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, the ACS, the earliest known reference to the sport being played in Lancashire has been found in the Manchester Journal, dated Saturday 1 September 1781. It concerned an 11-a-side match played the previous Monday, 27 August, at Brinnington moor—Brinnington is the ward I live in—between a team of printers and one representing the villages of Haughton and Bredbury, who were the winners. As Bredbury was in Cheshire, that account is the earliest reference to cricket in that county, going back to 1781, which is quite special.

There are so many fantastic sports available across the board these days, but cricket is so special. I do not think there is a sport that is more English than cricket. So much more could be done to encourage more young people and people from various backgrounds to play cricket.

16:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Again, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. This has been a special afternoon for me; I hope it has been special for you as well.

I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for setting the scene so incredibly well and so clearly outlining his love of cricket. As someone who is maybe not as enthusiastic, but who loved cricket during my time at school at Coleraine Inst back in the late ’60s and early ’70s—that has completely aged me—I can never understand why cricket is not more highly regarded. Indeed, some in those days might have seen the sport as upper class, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cricket is for everyone, and I believe that allowing more cricket to be broadcast will open the door to many others.

I am going to speak about the Irish cricket team. I hope I will not offend any English cricketers when I mention that the Ireland team, which is north and south—people from both sides of the community and both countries play for the Irish team; Ireland’s national team represents both the Republic and Northern Ireland—has increased the sport’s profile with key victories, for instance knocking out England in the 2011 cricket world cup. That boosted national interest and led to a boom in grassroots participation. That culminated in Ireland being granted elite test match status by the International Cricket Council in 2017, which was another step up in the level of cricket back home.

We have plans for the future, with Cricket Ireland initiating projects to build world-class facilities to support the sport’s growth, and the board has approved a strategic £1 million investment for phase one of a major redevelopment at the Northern Ireland Civil Service Sports Association at Stormont in Belfast. Just some four weeks ago, I attended an event at which games from both sides of the community were promoted. I spoke to the guy in charge of cricket and was really encouraged by what he told me they were going to do. This investment will transform the international venue of Stormont to host matches for the 2030 T20 world cup, which Ireland is co-hosting. We anticipate great things for that tournament, which will be an opportunity to celebrate right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland south—a cricket tournament in which we will be sharing venues for this special moment.

Despite the positive momentum, cricket in Northern Ireland still faces challenges. Although investment is under way, a lack of quality training and playing facilities remains a barrier to expansion—the hon. Member for Cheltenham set that point in perspective for his constituency and his area. The co-hosting of the 2030 T20 world cup, while a major boost, has faced funding challenges in Northern Ireland. A funding shortfall was reported in July 2025, just a few months ago, requiring consultation with Government partners to secure necessary investment. The Northern Ireland Assembly Member Gordon Lyons has been in touch with the Minister here to see how they could advance. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution, as I think we all do, because the Minister always brings energy and enthusiasm for the subject matter, and today it is cricket. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has played cricket. If she has, I am sure she would have been dynamic. There is no doubt about that.

On trying to find a way forward, it is important to have a joint approach delivering the cricket world cup, if we are hoping to sponsor it jointly. Cricket faces strong competition from more established sports in Northern Ireland, such as soccer, rugby and Gaelic games. For the sport to thrive it needs to be more widely available and accessible. I support the motion, as it would allow cricket to be a riveting game that is understandable and available to people throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

16:51

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I start by placing on record my membership of the all-party parliamentary group for cricket. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on bringing this important debate. Although I share his love of the long-form game as by far superior, I disagree slightly on the Hundred, which I recognise has introduced an impossibly packed schedule. When I can find time to attend a Hundred match, I am struck by how accessible to families—girls as well as boys—that format has made cricket. That is a big difference I have noticed in the crowds that turn up to watch the Hundred.

I add my support to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) about the importance of widening access to young people and lower-income families. Sadly, we are long past the days of finding our most talented fast bowlers by sending the coach down the pit. As much as we would celebrate the achievements of Harold Larwood, those days have sadly gone. We need to find a way to bring more young people from diverse backgrounds into this wonderful game.

I have a confession: I do not play, nor have I ever played, cricket. I did not benefit from growing up in a first-class county or a family of cricket enthusiasts. My love of the game came entirely from being able to watch it on free-to-air broadcasting. From Richie Benaud’s dulcet tones, gently breaking over the fading chords of “Soul Limbo”, to lazy Sunday afternoons spent watching the John Player league on BBC2, televised cricket lit a lifelong love of a game with silly fielding positions and glorious cover drives.

When cricket is accessible, without the barrier of subscription fees, it becomes more than a sport; it becomes a shared experience. In the 2019 cricket world cup final, free-to-air broadcasting drew millions of viewers and, I believe, inspired the next generation of Nat Sciver-Brunts and Harry Brooks and, to echo the point, those from more diverse and lower-income backgrounds, I hope.

Free-to-air coverage also helps grassroots clubs, such as Lanercost, Carlisle, Rockcliffe, Scotby and Wetheral in my constituency of Carlisle and north Cumbria, not necessarily a county associated with heady summer days spent watching cricket. That club cricket creates the important pipeline of talent and passion that sustains cricket at every single level. In short, free-to-air broadcasting grows the game of cricket, widens access, sparks dreams and strengthens participation.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is now 20 years since the last televised Test series—the greatest Test series of all time—and that since then participation has gradually declined? Is that not clearly an indication that fewer people are being exposed to the joys of this fantastic game?

[Ms Minns]

I certainly agree with the hon. Member. It cannot be denied that participation shrank in that period. We also have to look at how accessible our schools are in making cricket available to our young people. Lastly, I invite all hon. Members to join me in placing on record our very best wishes to the England women for next month’s ODI World Cup.

16:55

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech. This summer has been a great one for British sport with the Lionesses’ success in the Euros, and I hope the Red Roses will follow suit in the women’s rugby world cup later this month; the Hundred cricket tournament also finished recently. All have been viewable on free-to-air TV and watched by millions.

I recently met Holly Woodford, the co-founder of Her Spirit, a women’s sport platform. Her Spirit’s motto is, “You can’t be what you can’t see.” This matters for all sport, especially women’s sport and cricket. Her Spirit’s barriers survey last year found that nearly half of respondents wanted to see more coverage of women’s sport on TV, in the press and media. Research from Women in Sport has also found that equal visibility increases the number of girls believing they can reach the top in their sport.

As my fellow Somerset colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, Somerset has a proud cricketing history, with our county club celebrating 150 years “not out” this year. It is in cricket that we have already seen how free-to-air coverage changes perceptions. The women’s Hundred has consistently attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers on the BBC, many of them watching women’s cricket for the first time. This exposure has been directly linked to record levels of participation in grassroots programmes.

In Glastonbury and Somerton, we have a thriving network of women’s and girls’ cricket clubs, with the Street cricket club ladies’ team participating in the T20 softball Holland division; Ilton cricket club competing in the Somerset ladies’ softball league, cup and festival; and the Long Sutton cricket club ladies’ team continuing to grow year on year. However, we know that girls drop out of sport in their teenage years at a higher rate than boys. Some fear being judged, or all too often they are self-conscious or just do not feel good enough; some simply do not feel safe. There is also a lack of opportunities.

Meanwhile, the recent Government proposal to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee from the planning system could result in the loss of sporting facilities across Somerset. Research from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport suggests that converting spikes of interest in sport into long-term participation requires access to facilities and programmes. However, women and girls do not receive an equal share of available funding from Sport England. Those are all key barriers to boosting participation for girls and women.

Free-to-air broadcasting of sports such as cricket, however, should form part of the answer, as it generates demand. More coverage normalises women playing sport. It shows that women and girls have sporting skill, and that they are passionate and competitive, in the same way as our male sporting role models, who have been idolised for generations. There is a disparity between male and female coverage. Free-to-air TV covers less women’s sport than paid channels, hurting visibility. Research from the Women’s Sport Trust in 2023 found that the BBC and ITV accounted for just 11% of total hours of coverage of women’s sport, but 77% of viewing hours. The Liberal Democrats are clear: the list of women’s sporting fixtures available on free-to-air channels must mirror men’s. We need to expand the list of sporting fixtures with live free-to-air coverage. Key national sporting events—the crown jewels of sport—should be available to all television viewers, including those who cannot afford the extra cost of subscription television, especially during a cost of living crisis.

Analysis from the Somerset Cricket Foundation found that participation in the sport has a positive impact on wellbeing and generates savings for the public purse of more than £40 million. But women and girls still lag behind when it comes to participation. Only 250,000 women play cricket, compared with more than 1 million men. Somerset is encouraging further growth. In 2025, the region launched its first formal women’s indoor cricket league, with 33 teams competing. In addition to the girls-only Dynamos programme, Glow In The Dark cricket sessions have engaged nearly 300 girls this year alone.

In my playing days—yes, I did play cricket in the garden with my brother, Rupert, invariably beating him both in batting and in bowling; I also played for my village team, Buckhorn Weston, and I played county cricket for Dorset and Wiltshire—women’s cricket was entirely absent from free-to-air broadcasting, with aspiring players unable to see their role models on television, which reinforced the idea that cricket was just not a sport for them. Today, thanks to free-to-air coverage of the Hundred, England international Twenty20 matches and highlights of the women’s T20 Vitality Blast, women and girls across the country can see players who look like them, competing at the highest level and fuelling enthusiasm for the grassroots level, because let us remember:

“You can’t be what you can’t see.”

17:01

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as always, Ms McVey—fantastic umpiring, and hopefully no need for DRS. I start with a declaration of interest: over the summer I, alongside a number of colleagues, attended a cricket match with Sky. It was below the registrable threshold, but I am making sure that it is transparently disclosed.

I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate. After another great summer for English cricket and sport, and ahead of the Ashes series and the women’s one-day international world cup, it is timely that we are having this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their fantastic contributions so far.

As many of us will remember, between 1999 and 2005, test matches were shown on Channel 4. That culminated in the historic 2005 home Ashes series, shown on Channel 4. There was an average of between 2 million and 3 million viewers per day for an average test match, before that soared to upwards of 7 million viewers for the 2005 tests and peaked at 8.5 million on the deciding and dramatic final day of the series. The impact of that fantastic series was clear, with the ECB reporting a massive increase in junior club memberships after the 2005 series, and waiting lists at many clubs across the country. Sport England data showed that junior participation rose in 2006 by roughly 7%, bucking wider trends across the sector.

However, there has been a decline, which has been referenced, in participation rates following the switch from free-to-air cricket to subscription-based broadcasting, and there is of course a discussion to be had, as always, about coincidence versus causation, which is why we are here today. For example, Sport England’s Active People survey showed a fall from 428,000 adults playing cricket weekly in 2007-08 to 278,000 in 2014-15. That represents a drop of about 35%, and over the same period participation halved among 16 to 24-year-olds.

More recently, we have begun to see a welcome revival in participation rates as more matches are shown on free-to-air television and England’s Bazball style has attracted new admirers. Most famously, that includes the 2019 cricket world cup final, sub-licensed by Sky and shown on Channel 4 as live international cricket returned to free-to-air television for the first time in 14 years. That thrilling final, which I also had the joy of watching, saw a peak of 4.8 million viewers for Channel 4 and 3.5 million for Sky—a total of 8.3 million. It was a huge audience for a huge moment for British sport. Data from the ECB has shown that more than 1 million under-16s watched that final, and I am sure each and every one of them took inspiration from what they saw.

Of course, all sporting bodies face a tension between ensuring that their sports are accessible to the widest possible audience and the need for financial stability and support as provided by subscription-based broadcasters. The broadcast contracts with Sky have been the financial engine of English cricket for some time now, and the most recent deal is worth more than £200 million per year. Those revenues have funded professional central contracts for men and women. That includes increasing the number of professional women cricketers from 17 to more than 100. It has also helped to sustain the England team at the top of the world game and finance grassroots programmes that have reached millions of children across the country. Without that support, the professional and grassroots structures of cricket would simply not be sustainable. As a fan of cricket, I applaud Sky’s innovative coverage—I had the privilege of seeing behind the scenes first hand over the summer.

Recent years suggest that a balance can be struck—and has been struck. The 2019 world cup final was shared by Sky and Channel 4, and reached millions of people. The Hundred has brought live cricket back to the BBC, with sizeable audiences for both the men’s and women’s games, and a clear impact on youth and girls’ participation, alongside vital grassroots community work.

I am pleased that women and girls’ cricket is growing fast across the country, including in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency. It is fantastic that local clubs, such as Bexley cricket club, Bexleyheath cricket club—they are separate clubs—and Sidcup are growing the girls’ game in my local community. Last year saw a 21% growth in girls’ teams, a 25% growth in women’s teams, and 1,000 new women’s and/or girls’ teams across the country. Moreover, initiatives such at Metro Bank’s girls in cricket fund have added to that momentum, delivering over 1,000 hours of dedicated coaching support and helping to grow the number of girls’ teams by more than a fifth in the past year alone. That contributed towards a record 192,000 recreational games being played across the country in 2024, more than 12,500 higher than the previous record.

Those moments and the data that follows show that when cricket is visible, it can capture the imagination of the public, regardless of background. That is why the previous Conservative Government were proud to invest £34.7 million to maximise the opportunity of the women’s T20 world cup in 2026, cricket’s inclusion in the Olympics in 2028, and a men’s T20 cricket world cup in 2030 to build a network of state school cricket programmes and facilities.

While the recent announcement regarding cricket dome funding from the Government over the summer is very welcome, this Government have so far only allocated £1.5 million to fund those two new cricket domes. The money was there, but the Government have instead taken the political choice to reallocate what remains of the capital fund. Will the Minister say whether clubs across the country, which will be listening to this debate, should expect more funding to come their way in terms of grassroots support in the years ahead?

The challenge remains trying to find a balance between reach and growth in participation via the exposure that free-to-air broadcasting brings, and with the financial resources provided from subscription funding. We can all agree across the House that too much of one without the other undermines the long-term health of the sport. That is an outcome that none of us wants. I thank all hon. Members again for this important debate, as well as the hon. Member for Cheltenham for supporting it.

17:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to be responding to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing it. His passion for cricket was incredibly clear in the speech that he gave.

Cricket is one of our nation’s most beloved and cherished sports. Whether it is played at Headingley or in a village’s local cricket club, it builds character and brings communities together. Indeed, I visited Darfield cricket club in the village where I live last weekend for one of their community events. Barnsley is the home of Dickie Bird—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Indeed: hear, hear. Cricket is how he became lifelong friends with one of Barnsley’s other famous sons, Michael Parkinson. For those who want to hear more about Michael Parkinson’s views on cricket, he wrote a book on it and was a lifelong fan himself.

Cricket is an enduring part of our social fabric, played and loved by millions. It is right that we take the time to recognise the importance of cricket participation across the country. Grassroots cricket reaches a broad and diverse range of communities, with a third of recreational players coming from south Asian backgrounds, who otherwise make up just 8% of the overall population, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). I am also delighted to see the strong growth in women’s cricket, with participation in England and Wales up by 22% last year, as the Liberal Democrat shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), outlined. It is also great to see the ECB youth programmes, such as All Stars and Dynamos, providing fun and engaging ways for young women and girls to participate in inclusive cricket.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked if I had ever played cricket. I remember the predecessor to the youth scheme from when I was at school, Kwik Cricket, and I also grew up with my grandad, who was a huge fan of Warwickshire county cricket club, in the West Midlands. I did have a go a few weeks ago when I had the pleasure of visiting the women and girls cricket festival at Sheffield collegiate cricket club, just down the road from my constituency in Barnsley, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), to hear about the impact that grassroots cricket clubs have in their local communities, particularly on young women and girls. Of course, it was also a pleasure to cheer on England at Edgbaston back in July—I think the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton and I were at different matches.

I recognise that the hon. Member for Cheltenham has chosen free-to-air broadcasting as the subject of today’s debate, so I hope he will allow me to begin by touching on the wider investment into cricket participation, as it is essential to understand the position relating to broadcasting. The Government are committed to supporting cricket, from the elite game down to grassroots participation. The Government provide the majority of support for grassroots sport through Sport England, which annually invests over £250 million in Exchequer and lottery funding. That includes long-term investment to the ECB, which receives £11.6 million over five years to invest in grassroots cricket initiatives in local communities, to get people more involved in cricket.

I recently saw some of the great work that Chance to Shine does to provide opportunities for children to play, learn and develop through cricket, at its impact report event here in Parliament. I was delighted to see that in action myself when I visited the Chance to Shine project in my constituency, in Worsborough in Barnsley last year. Initiatives such as the ECB’s Chance to Shine, Premier League Kicks, the FA’s Comets and Premiership Rugby’s Hitz programmes are transforming young people’s lives through the power of sport, particularly those under-represented groups such as girls, those with a disability and those from ethnically diverse or lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

I am particularly proud of the Government’s recent commitment to invest £1.5 million in capital funding for two new state-of-the-art cricket domes. This investment, which is in addition to the funding that Sport England provides for the ECB to support grassroots participation, will see new domes at Farington cricket club in Preston and in Luton. These facilities will serve as community hubs focusing on women, girls and under-represented communities, and will form part of the legacy plans for the 2026 T20 cricket world cup.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), as I am sure all hon. Members do, in wishing the England women all the best. I echo the points of the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on women’s sport. It was an absolute pleasure to be in Brighton this weekend to launch the Government’s women’s sports task force—in the interests of time, I will perhaps write to the hon. Lady to share some information about that.

The investment that I touched on aligns with our key strategic priorities on place-based policy, because Luton and Preston are poorly served by cricket facilities. In June, we announced that a further £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities, which will remove the barriers to physical activity for under-represented groups, including women and girls; it will support more women and girls to take part in the sports that they love, particularly by ensuring that funded sites across the UK provide priority slots for them. That funding is in addition to the £1.5 million for the two cricket domes.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup says that the previous Government invested £34 million, but they did not as the money was not there. I direct him to the parliamentary written question that he posed to me, which I answered on Thursday 3 September 2025. That commitment was simply unfunded, and I made that point when I appeared in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Government are now working with sports and local areas to decide how and where the £400 million will be spent, to ensure that more people can access a wide range of sports in the places most in need of investment. Cricket will clearly be part of that conversation.

I will now turn specifically to the impact of free-to-air broadcasting on grassroots sports participation. Sport has the power to inspire people to get active. Evidence suggests that viewing infrequent major events, such as the Olympics, that feature a range of sports, including sports that appeal to the inactive, have a greater impact on participation than regular broadcasts of professional sports. Evidence also shows that those events need to be followed up by the right grassroots facilities and programmes to support people to harness that inspiration and get active.

Watching elite sports inspires young people to engage in participation. At the same time, broadcasting rights deliver revenues for sporting bodies, which are often invested in activities to promote physical participation. It is therefore important that governing bodies consider access to live sports and maximising much-needed revenue. It is important to get that balance right, and that balance is for each sport’s governing body to determine.

The balance is demonstrated well in cricket, where certain fixtures are behind a paywall, including live television coverage of test and one-day matches. However, some fixtures, including the Hundred competition, radio coverage of test matches, coverage of some T20 fixtures and highlights of test matches are broadcast by free-to-air broadcasters. The ECB has considered the impact of free-to-air and behind-a-paywall broadcasting over the years, and has proceeded with this balanced approach. Approximately 75% of the ECB’s £310 million annual revenue comes from the sale of broadcasting rights.

The ECB is a signatory to “Broadcasting of major sporting events: a voluntary code of conduct for rights owners” in the UK. Signatories of the voluntary code should endeavour to ensure that broadcasting coverage of all major sporting events under their control should generally be available in the UK through free-to-air television in live recorded or highlights broadcasts and that a minimum percentage of broadcasting revenue should be reinvested to support the long-term development of their respective sport. That is why, between January 2024 and January 2025, the ECB invested £77.5 million—37% of total broadcast revenues—into activities to support the recreational game and the development of the game.

The listed events regime is designed to ensure that such events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of the event without prior consent from Ofcom. However, listing an event in either group A or B does not guarantee that an event will be broadcast live or on a free-to-air channel. Rights holders are not required to sell live rights for listed events and free-to-air broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them, because all UK broadcasters are operationally and editorially independent of Government.

The list of events works well to strike an appropriate balance between public interest and income generation for sporting bodies and includes a varied cohort of events that have had an enduring popular appeal. The Government have no plans to review the list at this time, but we listen carefully to people’s representations and developments continue to be kept under review.

In closing, the debate has been a brilliant opportunity to discuss the continued success of cricket. I recognise the strong desire to see more cricket on free-to-air television, but I hope I have been able to set out how the Government are supporting that directly as well as the balance we seek between free-to-air audience reach and commercial viability. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) once again for securing the debate.

17:18

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank all hon. Members for turning up for the debate. I have 12 minutes left, so I will take hon. Members through a rundown of my debut for the Uphill Castle cricket club under-13s back in 1997—it was a special occasion. I jest, of course.

This has been an important and instructive debate and there is a lot of common ground. I will quickly reflect on the point about “free to air”. It was in the title of the debate, but as we have heard free to air and broadcast coverage that is not free to air have a huge impact on how cricket is consumed, participation levels and the cricket calendar. The point I was attempting to draw out about the Hundred is that, although it has been a success in getting more cricket broadcast on free to air, there have been unintended consequences. That is the point that the ECB and everyone with an interest in cricket needs to work to unravel.

Reflecting on the Minister’s comment on cricket books, such as “Michael Parkinson on Cricket”, I can recommend —if she is up for a cricket read—Geoffrey Boycott’s “Opening Up”, which is one of the best, and “Boycott on Cricket”: two excellent summer reads.

I join the Minister in saying that it is good news that the ECB is investing in domes; clearly, with the changeable weather in this country, we need many more of them. Domes are obviously useful for winter nets for young people, too.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), set out the scale of the improvement in participation numbers, but clearly there is a wave here. Although in recent years participation has gone up a little bit—even quite a lot in some years, in which we have seen spikes in participation—the trend over the last 20 years or so has been downwards. That is what I think the ECB is trying to address by increasing participation and interest in cricket via the Hundred.

I will just reflect briefly on what various Members have said. The points about elitism, class, access and the availability of cricket to everyone are not lost on me. I went to a school where we played only one cricket fixture in five years and of course we got absolutely tonked in that one fixture. I do understand those points. I had to get all of my cricket by playing at a local club, Uphill Castle, and I am extremely grateful to all the coaches who gave their time there. Of course, increasing availability will come down to the levels of investment that the Government are making in education, the availability of PE teachers and the availability of sports pitches. Planning was also raised during this debate; it is an important point.

I would really hate for the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) to leave this debate thinking that I am one of those people who spends my whole time ranting about the Hundred and saying that we must abandon the tournament. That was not the purpose of this debate. I have many friends who tell me repeatedly that the Hundred must be stopped immediately, but that is not my view. I have been to watch the Hundred. Indeed, as a Hundred orphan, I had to go all the way to London to watch London Spirit play, because I have no local team.

There needs to be a lot more thought about how the ECB reworks the cricket calendar, so that in a few years’ time, when my daughter goes to school, we will have an opportunity to go and watch some cricket in the school holidays. At the moment, it is really difficult; it will be the Hundred or nothing and we do not have a team in the Hundred. We would have to come all the way back to London, or go to Birmingham, or Wales, or maybe even Leeds—somewhere else.

[Navendu Mishra]

Lancashire, perhaps.

[Max Wilkinson]

Lancashire, perhaps—yes, to Manchester.

Those are real issues that will have an impact on young people’s participation in cricket and so many people’s enjoyment of cricket. We need to think for much longer about how the calendar can work for everyone, whether that means the young people who want to go and watch cricket during their school holidays, or the old gents and ladies who attend games with their cheese and pickle sandwiches and their weak lemon squash, sitting all day in the sunshine watching the sport they love. That is the thing that I think is so special about cricket and it is why I love red ball and county championship cricket.

I thank all the Members who have taken part in this debate for their contributions and I thank you for chairing it, Ms McVey.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of free to air broadcasting on cricket participation.

17:23

Sitting adjourned.