Westminster Hall

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 11 November 2025

[Dawn Butler in the Chair]

Support for Dyslexic Pupils

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

11:30

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for dyslexic pupils at school.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and hon. Members from across the House for supporting it. I thank all the young dyslexic pupils, their families and the campaigners for their tireless work to raise awareness. They are all such inspirations.

Dyslexia is a neurological difference that affects around one in 10 of us. That is more than 1 million children in classrooms across the UK. It presents in a range of ways and with different degrees of severity. For me, words float on the page—Members may be able to tell that they are doing so at the moment. I struggled with reading, writing and spelling, and I have the reading age of a 12-year-old, so I ask Members to bear with me through this speech.

Dyslexia is not a flaw or something to be ashamed of; that is the most important thing we can take away from the debate. It breaks my heart when I hear young dyslexics say, “I wish I never had it”, “I feel ashamed”, “I felt stupid” or “I will never achieve anything”. Intelligence and poor behaviour are not linked to dyslexia. Being dyslexic just means that one learns and expresses oneself differently. That comes with challenges, but it also often comes with strengths in problem solving, resilience, creativity or practical work. That is my message to all dyslexic young people: they can do anything in life, and it is the job of schools and the Government to help them achieve that.

Unfortunately, support for dyslexic pupils at school is still not where it should be. I have said this before, but in Somerset, chronic underfunding means that support has got worse since when I was at school, despite the hard work of educators. I left school in 2008, and I had more support in school then than there is now. We have gone backwards as a country, and it is not good enough.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech on a very important subject. Early diagnosis is key for dyslexic students to access the necessary support and assistive technology, yet as the hon. Member pointed out, 80% of dyslexic children leave school without a formal diagnosis. Does he agree that a universal screening programme could help to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, have their needs recognised and talents nurtured by our education system?

[Adam Dance]

I totally agree, and I will come to that later. The hon. Member has probably seen my ten-minute rule Bill about getting support, and I ask him to sign it.

The biggest problem is identifying dyslexia. Although three children in an average class likely have dyslexia, four in five dyslexic pupils leave school without having their needs properly identified. There is no NHS pathway to diagnosis for dyslexia as it is not a medical condition. That means diagnosis and support is based on a postcode lottery and family income. The average cost of diagnosis is £600, which is unaffordable for too many of my constituents and creates real inequality. Some 90% of dyslexic children in higher-income households are diagnosed compared with 43% in lower-income households. That is not good enough.

If we cannot identify needs, how can we support young dyslexics through education? For those whose needs are identified, it often comes far too late. Even then, the support they need may be unavailable. Our councils are in desperate need of financial support to keep up provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Our brilliant teachers just do not have the appropriate training or proper resources to support all their pupils’ needs. Teachers should not have to learn about dyslexia and work out classroom adjustments in their spare time. They should be supported from day one.

Even simple things just are not available. In this day and age, getting access to assistive technologies such as word processors should not be a challenge, yet the British Dyslexia Association has found that only 18% of dyslexic people reported having access to assistive technology at school. Without support, the classroom becomes inaccessible for dyslexic people. The curriculum is too narrow and not developed with dyslexia properly in mind. Exams such as GSCEs test written ability and recall in timed environments, rather than testing knowledge. That ends up punishing dyslexic people who do not have enough alternative qualification pathways.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

It is an incredibly important subject. I left school before I was 17, and that was the end of my education. I have had a fantastic business career, I have written lots of novels and I am now an MP. That is despite no help at all from the educational system, and society as a whole putting across the message that people such as me at school are not on the same level as more intellectual people. The subject is close to my heart. Does my hon. Friend agree that society should better recognise people such as him and me, to help people get on with their careers?

[Adam Dance]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The impact is devastating on young dyslexic people’s education and their mental health. We know that 26% of 11-year-olds leave primary school below the expected reading standard. At GCSE, only one in five pupils with dyslexia achieve a grade 5 or above in English and maths, compared with over half of pupils without special educational needs.

The British Dyslexia Association’s most recent research found that 70% of young dyslexic people report feeling bad about themselves because of their dyslexia, and that 78% report having experienced people assuming that they are not as clever as others due to their dyslexia. That is not true—we have heard that today in the interventions.

I know that if I had not had the support I had at school, I might have ended up in prison or even taken my own life, like too many others who never get the help they need. Sadly, young people with dyslexia are three times as likely to be suspended from school and twice as likely to be repeatedly absent from school.

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

My son is dyslexic, and the statistic that shocked me is that 80% of people with dyslexia leave school without it being diagnosed, and that is the concern—that people will go through life not even realising why they struggle with certain things. Does the hon. Member agree that that needs to change?

[Adam Dance]

I definitely agree and I thank the hon. Member for her comment.

Young people with dyslexia are also three times as likely to not be in employment, education or training by the age of 16 to 17. Research suggests that about half of people in prison may have dyslexia, compared with one in 10 in the general public. I have heard from people who have come out of prison and found out that they were dyslexic. They realised that had they had the right support, they may not have given up on school and ended up where they were. That tells us all we need to know about the dire consequences of not getting support for dyslexic people.

What can we do? Action is long overdue. We have to make dyslexia and other neurodiversities—such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and dyscalculia—a priority by having a national dyslexic strategy, and a national body for SEND to oversee it. Any changes must start with early identification and teacher training. That is why I proposed my Bill on universal screening and teacher training. The idea is simple: that the Department for Education uses its expertise and resources to work with us all to create a universal screening programme for neurodiversity in primary school-aged children to identify their needs, and to provide statutory guidance on training on neurodiversity in initial teacher training and continuous professional development. The screener can be classroom based and the assessment done in a cost and time-effective way. That will allow teachers to better recognise the signs early.

With better training, teachers can make those all-important in-class adjustments, such as using more visual, auditory and physical aids, as well as offering tailored support. Teachers also need to be taught how to use assistive technologies throughout teaching and assessment. That targeted early intervention can move some children at risk of being adversely impacted by dyslexia to no or low risk. That is important.

More broadly, we need to rethink assessment design, so that assessments focus on measuring understanding, not memory recall or spelling accuracy—and I make many mistakes with spelling—except where essential. That has to start by looking at other forms of assessment beyond exams, and strengthening vocational education. I hope that V-levels will offer some of that. Access to assistive technology must be standard, and how to use it must be properly taught through key stage 2, to support independent learning.

I cannot end without addressing the elephant in the room—the now delayed SEND White Paper. I think the Minister and her team will have heard the fear and anxiety about the reports of cuts, and the real frustrations at the delay. Will the Minister address reports that dyslexic children may lose one-to-one support and extra teaching staff support? If that is the case, I urge the Government to think again. Cutting costs at the expense of young people’s futures is never worth it.

Ultimately, I think we all want the same thing—an inclusive and fair education system that gives young dyslexic people the chance to shine. With the changes I have set out, we can take a big step towards that future. I hope the Minister will take these ideas on board and work with us as the SEND White Paper is finalised. Without the changes, I fear this will be another missed opportunity and an entire generation of dyslexics will be failed by the Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

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

11:41

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Butler. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), my co-sponsor of the debate, for his continued support and tireless campaigning on the issue of dyslexia. I rise not only as the Member of Parliament for Broxtowe but also as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dyslexia, a group I have been a member of since 2016—some eight years before becoming an MP—and now have the pleasure of chairing.

After my son was diagnosed with dyslexia, I set up a not-for-profit organisation to raise awareness of dyslexia and to train educators in how to identify dyslexia in the classroom, and to offer support to dyslexic children and their parents, which is something that my family did not receive. Sadly, despite that being many years ago, in the UK we are still remiss at early identification of dyslexia. Many children and young people are still not being identified and are still struggling. Too many children go through their childhood feeling disempowered, confused and sad because they do not receive the support, the understanding or recognition of how hard they are working because dyslexia has not been identified.

In the UK, around 10% of the population is dyslexic, yet despite its prevalence, dyslexia remains underdiagnosed and parents often struggle to get their children the support they need. Dyslexic people often face barriers that affect their self-esteem and educational outcomes, result in a loss of the love of learning, reduce their earning potential and mean they are over-represented in the prison system.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

We know that in our children and young people dyslexia frequently co-occurs with other special educational needs like ADHD or developmental language disorders. With fewer than half of education, health and care plans issued on time last year, too often families are left struggling to secure the support they desperately need for their children. Does my hon. Friend agree that giving dyslexic pupils the right support means ensuring access to EHCPs is absolutely essential?

[Juliet Campbell]

I absolutely agree that the support that young people need is crucial, not just for their education but across and throughout their lives.

The challenges that dyslexic people face should not be an inevitable part of being dyslexic. The British Dyslexia Association’s recent report “Set up for somebody else” was a disheartening read. It identified that 70% of young people said their dyslexia makes them feel bad about themselves; 78% said people assume they are not clever because they are dyslexic; 59% had been bullied or teased about their dyslexia, and 65% hide their dyslexia. It does not stop there. Parental income makes a difference: 90% of young people in high income households are diagnosed, compared with only 43% in the lowest income households; and only 30% of young people in lower income households say the support they receive in school is good, compared with 86% of young people in higher income households.

Embracing the strengths of dyslexia is essential to changing the trajectory of the lives of the current and future generations. People with dyslexia often shine in creativity, problem solving and verbal reasoning, and have excellent entrepreneurial skills. During Dyslexia Awareness Week this year, I called on the Government to introduce a national dyslexia strategy to even the playing field for dyslexic people by reforming the teacher training curriculum so that educators are equipped to recognise and support dyslexic learners; standardising dyslexia identification and interventions across schools; and prioritising early identification and assessments so that tailored support can be given as early as possible in a child’s educational journey. Those steps would help create a more inclusive and effective education system that recognises that neurodiversity can also be a strength.

It is 130 years since Rudolf Berlin coined the term dyslexia, which means “difficulty with words”. In 1970, a report entitled “The Dyslexic Child” identified developmental dyslexia as an issue requiring urgent official attention. In 1972, another scholar argued:

“Preventive and supportive steps taken early are immeasurably more humane and fruitful than attempts to remedy a problem which becomes increasingly complex as the child grows older.”

That is still relevant today. Precise definitions of dyslexia have changed over time, but it is agreed that those with dyslexia struggle to break down words into their smallest constituent parts, making the use of phonics in school close to useless for dyslexic pupils.

It was the last Labour Government who set out how to understand and improve provision for dyslexic children. In 2008, they tasked Sir Jim Rose to lead a review to make recommendations on the identification and teaching of children with dyslexia. In 2009, the final report of the Rose review defined dyslexia as

“a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed.”

It is poignant that Sir Jim Rose provided that clear definition under the last Labour Government, and fitting that this Labour Government should produce the first national dyslexia strategy to take forward what he began back in 2008 and 2009.

Dyslexics face inherent societal inequalities, which fall into four categories: educational attainment, career progression, over-representation in the criminal justice system and proportionately higher use of mental health services. In education, children fare much worse. In the 2023-24 academic year, only 22% of pupils with specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia achieved grade 5 or above in English and maths, compared with 52% of their peers. A strategy would significantly upgrade the teacher training curriculum, in partnership with universities and unions, so that teachers are properly equipped to teach dyslexic children.

Turning to career progression, it is clear that the 15-year-old Equality Act 2010 has largely failed dyslexics in the workplace. A strategy would outline specific expectations of the public sector and other sectors in terms of what adjustments need to be made, and what difference those adjustments are expected to make, with the opportunity to review.

Our prison system fails to recognise and address the deeply troubling statistic that between 30% and 50% of our prison population are dyslexic, which is way higher than the 10% of the general population who are dyslexic. Dyslexia does not predispose people to crime, but a lack of early support can lead to educational failure, social exclusion and loss of confidence, all of which heighten vulnerability.

Finally, on mental health outcomes, many dyslexic people experience high anxiety and low self-esteem, with many of them also experiencing depression. These outcomes are preventable. With early identification, understanding, adjustments, support, and a culture that supports neurodiversity, we can prevent a lifetime of avoidable emotional, educational and workplace distress.

Those are the reasons why I am calling for a national dyslexia strategy. Such a strategy would call on the Government to set out how they can improve the life chances of dyslexic people, supporting schools and workplaces, and in that way also benefit our health system and our criminal justice system. It would focus on early identification, consistent standards in the classroom, and greater teacher training in kinaesthetic and adaptive teaching methods, and it would ensure that those born with a learning difference are not socially excluded.

This is about investing in our children and young people. I ask the Minister to commit to a national dyslexia strategy, so that we begin the process of changing so many people’s lives. Enabling people to have the best start in life is a key ambition of this Government and I hope the Minister includes dyslexic people in that ambition.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

Order. I would like to get to the Front-Bench speakers by 12.28 pm, but I do not want to impose a formal time limit yet.

11:51

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on securing this important debate.

On a conservative estimate, there are on average three children with dyslexia in every classroom, including in Bath. That is three children in every classroom, or perhaps even more, being let down by our education system, unable to receive the support that they need to learn and succeed.

People with dyslexia are often failed at the very first hurdle: 80% do not receive a diagnosis until after they have left school, and some never receive a diagnosis at all. I am freewheeling slightly here, but I have a suspicion that I am dyslexic. I was never diagnosed; I just always struggled with spelling. Once I had finished bluffing my way through spelling tests in German, which is my mother tongue, English came along and the same thing happened again. All I can say for all those who are dyslexic is that the feeling of being slightly at sea all the time will never go away. For those who manage to get a diagnosis, that is only the starting point. With increasing pressure on school budgets and a lack of teacher training about how best to support neurodiverse children, getting a diagnosis is just the first of many challenges.

Without proper support, children with dyslexia often find themselves falling behind in school, because they struggle to learn at a similar pace to their peers. I was a secondary school teacher, and because teachers have to rush through the curriculum, often there is little opportunity to support children who are struggling. Often all we do is to punish those who have a neurodiverse disposition, rather than supporting them. That absolutely must stop. We must stop punishing young people with dyslexia in the classroom simply because we—including me, when I was a teacher—do not know how to respond to their needs.

Only one in five pupils with dyslexia achieve a grade 5 or above in English and maths, compared with more than half their peers. That gap is unacceptable. Far from being a reflection of pupils’ academic ability, it demonstrates that our education system is failing those who need it most. Dyslexia often affects children’s ability to spell, read and write, which are fundamental parts of almost all examinations. As a result, many students struggle to navigate lessons and assessments that have not been adapted to their needs. Identifying dyslexia early in children and offering them support will help to close the attainment gap and ensure that dyslexia is never the reason that a child is prevented from learning.

Dyslexia’s wider impact on a child can be severe. It affects not only academic performance but mental health, which I think is the most important thing for us to concentrate on. For a lot of young people, the sense of humiliation and exclusion that they feel if they are dyslexic and not being properly supported has a severe impact on their mental health. Too many children begin to feel as though they are “stupid” or “dumb” as they fall behind in school. Over time, those difficulties may contribute to more serious mental health issues, including depression and anxiety.

Jamie Oliver is one of many remarkable campaigners who have highlighted the struggles that many dyslexic children face in the education system by powerfully sharing their own experience. For someone to see an experienced, strong, successful businessman almost shuddering as he remembers his time at school, when he faced such humiliation, is so moving. I am proud to have supported him in his campaign and will continue to do so. If anyone is yet to watch his documentary “Jamie’s Dyslexia Revolution”, I strongly advise them to do so. It is a powerful testimony.

To truly support children with dyslexia, the Government must reduce the steps required for an official NHS diagnosis while increasing funding to reduce waiting lists. Both measures would allow dyslexia to be diagnosed earlier. We Liberal Democrats are also pushing for increased training for teachers—as I mentioned, it is essential that classroom practitioners understand where to go with support—so that they can confidently identify and know how best to support all neurodiverse individuals, including those with dyslexia. These steps would ensure that we support every dyslexic child to realise their full potential and stop punishing them.

11:56

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) for leading on this very important issue.

In the short time that I have, I want to give a perspective from Scotland, where the Government state that one in 10 children are dyslexic. I am so glad that we are joined by so many young people—I count 20 or more, which means that perhaps two of them suffer from dyslexia. I am sure that far more of us speaking today have encountered the condition.

Dyslexia is widespread. We have a lot of data, but the gaps are quite wide in Scotland. We know that a boy who is fortunate enough to be diagnosed will be 13 before that happens, and a girl will be 15. That is too little, too late; as the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) mentioned, being identified late in school is no good. We went to school at roughly the same time, although his skincare regime means that he looks a lot younger than I do.

While there is no doubt that dyslexia did not go recognised in our school days, I was shocked to find out from Donna MacLeod of A Dyslexia Life, an advocacy group in my constituency, that young people and their parents, not just in the Western Isles but across Scotland, are still not dealt with properly in Scotland’s schools. Donna MacLeod has not just worked tirelessly to have her own child assessed and supported, but, having witnessed at first hand how the education system can fail pupils, asked for mandatory screening for pupils and mandatory training for teachers in Scotland to recognise dyslexia in younger children. That would come through a dyslexia screening and teacher training Bill in Scotland of the sort that Jamie Oliver campaigns for here; Donna MacLeod would like to complete in Scotland the work that he has started, and for good reason.

As has been pointed out, some 40% of the 70,000-odd schoolchildren in Scotland with dyslexia are not receiving support. Studies by Made By Dyslexia show that 80% of dyslexic children leave school undiagnosed, and only one in 10 teachers have a good understanding of dyslexia. There is clearly a need for change, but in Scotland there is a lottery in the availability of support. While the Scottish Government publish statutory guidance for dealing with dyslexia under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and children with dyslexia are given additional support, there is no mandatory provision. There is support—£200,000 of core funding goes to Dyslexia Scotland to promote free online resources and a professional toolkit for teachers to support dyslexic learners aged three to 18—but Dyslexia Scotland and the Scottish Government both acknowledge that more must be done. Specifically, the Scottish Government must move away from guidance and towards mandatory support.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Jenny Gilruth MSP, recently wrote to all executive directors of education and children’s services in Scotland, urging them to provide appropriate support for children and young people with dyslexia in schools, but urging and issuing guidance is not enough. The Scottish Government do a lot of that—putting systems in place and thinking the mission is accomplished. Actually, the mission is accomplished only when we measure successful implementation and delivery.

There needs to be far more scrutiny of the work of Dyslexia Scotland and of the work and support that the Scottish Government provide to pupils. It is only with mandatory screening and training that this issue can be properly addressed in Scotland’s schools and schools across the UK, so that many children do not leave school unsupported and still suffering from the effects of dyslexia.

12:00

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) for securing this vital discussion of dyslexia. Dyslexia is an evolving issue, with the definition being discussed as we speak. One in 10 children—more than a million—are potentially dyslexic, but the definition itself is too narrow to address the issue, which we have to work on.

Dyslexia diagnosis is difficult at the best of times, but unfortunately it is even more difficult for some than it is for others. There is real inequality of diagnosis. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, for too many families diagnosis depends not just on the child’s ability, but on the parents’ bank balance. The figures are really stark. Work done by the Sutton Trust and others shows that 90% of dyslexic children in households that earn more than £100,000 have a formal diagnosis, while only 43% in households earning less than £30,000 receive one. The inequality continues even after diagnosis, with just 30% of young people from lower-income households describing the support that they receive at school as “good”, whereas for children from wealthier families, that figure rises to 86%. When private assessments by a specialist teacher cost £540 on average, and by an educational psychologist £720, they are frankly out of reach for too many people. I read something many years ago in which a commentator summed it up very painfully:

“Rich parents have dyslexic children; poor parents have thick children”.

That is something we need to address.

Another issue widens the gap: race. Unfortunately, many children from black, Asian or ethnic minority communities simply do not know what the term dyslexia means. Expert Jannett Morgan notes that more than 80% of young, black British people who are dyslexic are not diagnosed

“until they are in university and are pushed to their limits.”

She has spoken about the burden of labels, such as being black and being female, and asked whether they need “another label” of being dyslexic. We see then how visible and hidden differences together compound disadvantages even further. Early research into neuro- diversity ignored race, and the experiences of many children were written out of the story altogether. That too must be addressed.

As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, studies have shown that approximately 30% of our prison population have dyslexia—the true figure could be as high as 56%—so we need to help our children in order to help ourselves. Our schools also need adequate training resources. Teachers are doing their best, but the truth is that many do not have the capacity to identify and support dyslexic pupils effectively. Special educational needs co-ordinators are often overstretched and provision varies significantly between schools. There are currently no consistent national standards for SENCO training or for the level of support children should receive. Teachers want to help, but without time, funding and specialist guidance, their ability to do so is limited.

We also need more clinical research into tools and aids that actually assist our dyslexic population. I declare my interest here as an optometrist. We have provisions available for children, such as changing background colours, coloured overlays and tinted lenses, and it does work. I have seen grown men crying when, for the first time, they have been able to read to their children. Such measures are really effective, but the evidence is still incomplete. The Government should commission research to identify which tools genuinely make a difference, so that schools can adopt the evidence-based approaches, rather than just relying on anecdote and trial and error.

I am very lucky that in my constituency of Leicester South we have Every Cherry Publishing, which offers a specialist range of books for dyslexic children and adults, bringing classics like “Frankenstein” and “A Christmas Carol”, among other stories, to be enjoyed by people with dyslexia. Their books incorporate senses, signs and images to cater for students. That is the work of educator turned publisher Emma Steel, and these books are changing lives.

The British Dyslexia Association is calling for urgent and practical action. We need a national strategy for dyslexia, universal assessments and screening tools, a national standard for SENCO provision, greater investment in research, and real, sustained support for our schools.

12:05

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Ms Butler. I thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), not only for his powerful speech drawing on his deep personal experience, but for his steadfast campaigning in this place. He is a strong advocate for children and adults with dyslexia. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) should also be given credit for her fantastic speech, particularly her call for a national dyslexia strategy, which I echo.

When I speak to people in my constituency, often self-employed or small business owners, I am struck by how many are very open about their experiences going through school with an unidentified learning disability, often dyslexia. Many say they felt stupid, and many were actively treated that way, yet what they needed was not dumbing down; it was simple and more inclusive, tailored ways of working. They have gone on to thrive in professions that they have a talent for, which I think shows us two things: that dyslexia does not limit what you can go on to achieve despite how limiting it can feel in a restrictive school environment, and that we as a nation are missing out on a wealth of talent and success if we fail to give children with dyslexia support in their formative years.

The Government’s “Curriculum and Assessment Review” is an important and ambitious step towards ensuring that every young person in this country benefits from a rich education. It is an ambitious, evidence-led piece of work led by Professor Becky Francis, which rightly recognises the importance of equipping young people with the skills and understanding they need to thrive in a rapidly changing world. The review makes it clear that the curriculum must work for all pupils, and not just those who fit neatly within traditional measures of attainment. I confess that I was one of those highly academic schoolchildren, but in a way, that made me more acutely aware that I was in a minority and that much of school life did not inspire my peers in the way it did me.

The review emphasises inclusion, high expectations for all learners, and the need for a coherent system that supports both academic and personal development—principles that I am sure every Member of this House welcomes. However, if we are to truly build a world-class curriculum, it must work for children and young people in all our schools. One area where we can clearly go much further is the experience of those with dyslexia.

As we have heard, one in 10 children in the UK is thought to have dyslexia. For many of them, the difference between thriving and struggling depends not on ability, but crucially on whether their needs are recognised early and supported effectively. While the review refers to special educational needs and disabilities more broadly, it does not explicitly mention dyslexia, and I hope that will be addressed by the Department as it responds to Professor Francis’s findings. We cannot afford to overlook the very real challenges these learners face in a system still too reliant on one-size-fits-all assessments.

Charities like the British Dyslexia Association and Made By Dyslexia are clear that we must strengthen teacher training, ensure early identification and screening, and expand access to assistive technologies that will help pupils to demonstrate their knowledge without being held back by barriers in reading or writing. They also remind us that dyslexic thinking, creativity, problem-solving and innovation are skills our modern economy needs, and that we should celebrate them.

These are not criticisms of the review, but opportunities to build on its work. Its commitment to evidence-based reform, professional development and raising standards aligns perfectly with the goals of improving support for neurodiverse and dyslexic learners. By embedding dyslexia awareness and practical strategies into teacher training and curriculum design, we can ensure that every child is able to access and benefit from the knowledge our curriculum seeks to deliver. I therefore welcome the review’s ambitions and ask the Minister for School Standards to ensure, as I am sure she will, that as implementation begins, the Department works closely with charities, schools and experts to ensure that inclusion is not just a noble principle, but the lived reality in every classroom.

12:09

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on securing this debate. I thank them for their excellent speeches, and I echo their calls for a national dyslexia strategy.

Within six weeks of starting primary school, pupils are tested on their literacy, communication and maths ability, and they are pushed to meet the expected standard in phonics by the end of year 1. Those who fail are pushed in year 2 and re-tested at the end of that year. This pressure, and thoughtless comments by staff or pupils, can make a dyslexic child feel stupid or thick because they struggle to read and write, but they are not; they are different.

My constituent Neil contacted me earlier this year about improving SEND provision, giving the example of his dyslexic 15-year-old daughter, Lucy. He told me that Lucy will leave school with,

“low self-esteem and low expectations, because the world will judge her based on her grades. She will assume that there are just things that are not within her capability.”

That is shocking. Our education system must do better than that. If a child is not diagnosed at an early stage, support is not put in place and students struggle further—albeit we know from Lucy’s experience that even pupils who have been diagnosed with dyslexia do not always get the support they need. They then go on to sit their exams, often remaining undiagnosed, and as we have heard, only one in five dyslexic pupils achieves grade 5 or above in English and maths. As they move into sixth form, they are then further impeded in their sixth form studies because they have to resit English and/or maths.

Neil told me this morning that Lucy is sitting two mock exams today, and that she was extremely distressed at the mere thought of going through such a stressful process. I am sure colleagues will join me in wishing Lucy the best of luck today, and in all her exams. Does the Minister agree that more should be done to give dyslexic pupils a fair chance in the assessment process? Will she update us on the steps the Government will take to improve reasonable adjustments for pupils in exams? If we make early diagnosis the norm, we will not only give children more support in the classroom but boost their educational attainment.

Teachers too need support to be able to spot the signs of dyslexia from an early stage, and to support dyslexic pupils in their classroom. Neil told me that his wife spends a lot of time emailing Lucy’s teachers to give them constructive feedback on how a dyslexic student learns. No parent should be expected to bear that additional burden, nor should teachers for that matter. What will the Government do to support teachers and better equip them to support dyslexic pupils? I discovered that the Government do not publish data on levels of dyslexia among school-age children, so we do not actually know the full scale of the problem. Will the Minister commit today to exploring this option further?

We have heard that many dyslexic people lead successful lives—famously, Richard Branson, Jamie Oliver and Zoë Wanamaker, to name but three—but too many do not. Somewhere between three and five in 10 prisoners have dyslexia, compared with one in 10 in the population as a whole. We see from the many entrepreneurs and brilliant artists that dyslexic people have valuable skills to share. We need an education system that identifies dyslexic pupils early and supports their learning, so that they all have the chance to succeed in life.

12:13

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

What a privilege it is to serve under you today, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for introducing this debate, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell).

As others have noted, dyslexia affects around 10% of the UK population, with 4% experiencing severe dyslexia. Up to 80% of children with the condition leave school without a diagnosis or the support they need to reach their full potential. When I was at school, dyslexia was understood even less than it is now. I was one of those kids who took a long time to progress through English. Some people might not be surprised to hear that it took me three attempts to pass my O-grade English, which was Scotland’s equivalent of O-level English. It was not until I became a university lecturer and encountered kids with a proper diagnosis that I started to understand the condition and how it affected me. I developed coping strategies that enabled me to try to sit my higher English at evening college. I did succeed, but it was not a journey I entirely enjoyed.

As a university lecturer, I met students who had been really well supported at school, and that had helped them to reach their full potential. I taught civil engineering, a subject that often attracted students with good mathematical skills but perhaps not the best English skills. I also encountered students who had not been diagnosed at school, and it was not until their first set of exams that they started to be flagged as needing extra support.

[Adam Dance]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if someone with dyslexia has not been identified and fails English at GCSE level, and then has to go to college and retake it, that puts them off going to university? It certainly put me off.

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. Particularly if the condition is not understood, they just assume—let us face it—that they are not the smartest kid in the class, whereas often the opposite is true. Through working with dyslexic students in my job as a lecturer, I know they are often real problem solvers, as we have heard, and systems thinkers able to see the bigger picture. Once they had a diagnosis, we were able to support them in their studies.

I worked in the sector for a long time. I started lecturing in the late ’90s, and when staff back then discussed dyslexia we had spectacularly uninformed debates about the condition. I remember one well-intentioned colleague talking about his hope that a student could shake off dyslexia by the time they left university. If only that had been possible, that lecturer would be world renowned by now. He is still a great person, though.

In Edinburgh we are lucky to have organisations such as HealthCare in Mind stepping in to help parents in Edinburgh South West to secure a recognised diagnosis, so that their children can finally access the support they deserve. But receiving a diagnosis and the associated help should not be down to a postcode lottery. It should come early enough in a child’s life to allow them to adapt their style of learning and make the most of their school experience.

A recent survey by Dyslexia Scotland showed that dyslexia is still widely misunderstood. Many parents, and I dare say some teachers, still think it is something that children can grow out of, that it affects only boys, that it is about eyesight, or that children can overcome it if they just try harder.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not the case that people just become better at bluffing and finding coping strategies? But that does not really deal with the dyslexia.

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. I became very good at avoiding being given the pen to write on the whiteboard at school, and that was a coping strategy.

As we have heard, at the heart of the differences in diagnosis is a real inequality. We are all here, from all parties, to reduce inequality, and it makes absolute sense to focus that lens on dyslexia. We have a duty to try to bring justice for everyone affected by dyslexia.

I am proud that researchers from the University of Edinburgh are leading groundbreaking work to help to us better understand and identify dyslexia at an early stage. The university’s recent study involved over 1.2 million people—probably people from the constituencies of everyone here today—and identified 36 new gene regions linked to dyslexia, confirming it as a neurodevelopmental brain difference.

I hope that the confirmation of dyslexia’s biological basis can help to reduce the stigma, alongside fantastic campaigns like Dyslexia Scotland’s “Busting myths” initiative. By challenging the stigma, equipping educators and supporting young people early, we can ensure that children with dyslexia are not left behind. By understanding early intervention and proper support, we can transform thousands of young lives throughout the UK and help them to reach their full potential.

I want to end by talking about strategies. The idea of agreeing today to take forward a strategy is fantastic, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe for proposing it. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), we have a strategy in Scotland, but when we compare what is happening in Scotland, where we have is a strategy, with what is happening in England, where we do not, there is not a substantial difference. If we are going to agree a strategy, we have to ensure that it is properly funded and that there is real accountability for ourselves, for parents and, most particularly, for young people, to make sure they get the maximum benefit from it.

12:20

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) for setting the scene. Nothing tells a story better than personal stories, and both Members gave us their thoughts on where we should be. By doing so, they inspire others out there who have dyslexia, and perhaps other issues, who can maybe say to themselves, “If he or she can do that, perhaps I can do the same.” I know that is the ambition of both Members and hope it will be the case.

I am pretty sure I am the oldest person present; I can look back to the early ’60s as a child at Ballywalter primary school. I remember it well. The boys all tended to play together and the girls played together—maybe that was the way it was back in those days—and there were young boys who definitely had issues. I never knew what they were and never once understood their problems, but I do understand that they had some of the symptoms of dyslexia, and perhaps other things as well. Looking back, I do not think anybody knew what dyslexia, autism or any other issues were. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) referred to people saying, “They’ll grow out of it”—I heard those words often from the teachers—but they did not.

I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do in these debates, because it adds to the information and helps the Minster—who has no responsibility at all for Northern Ireland—to understand what we have there. The issue of dyslexia impacts every region of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Although Northern Ireland does not fall under the direct remit of the Department for Education, sharing information and best practice is vital to ensure that we arm those with dyslexia to fight their way to their chosen career, without the limitation of how they learn affecting their outcomes. The fact is—we all believe this—that they can achieve their goals and job expectations. That is what education should and must do.

In Northern Ireland, studies suggest that unfortunately some 25% of pupils may have some form of dyslexic-type difficulty, while around 10% require additional support. Similar to what others have said, in the 2020-21 school year, over 9,300 children in Northern Ireland were officially listed as having dyslexia or specific literacy difficulties.

The way we view dyslexia has changed massively in recent years, and that is good news. They know what it is now. They did not know when I was at school, back in the ’60s and early ’70s, but it is good news that they know now. Dyslexia is no longer a barrier to education, but we must see it as a different route within education so that people can achieve. This debate is about how that happens, and how they do it here on the mainland.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) referred to Jamie Oliver and his event in the Churchill Room; just listen to the story he told and the success he has had. It is not just him; we should look at Lord Sugar and Richard Branson, who are very successful businessmen. Holly Willoughby is successful as a presenter, as is Keira Knightley as an actress. Even our own Princess Beatrice, who delivers speeches so beautifully, speaks eloquently on this issue. When we look at the examples of those who have done well, we must say, “If they can do it, then I’ll tell you what: we can do it as well!” We can see that there is no barrier—and there should be no barrier—to success when we give children the tools to their own learning to help them to succeed and achieve.

It is important to focus on early support and intervention. When it comes to dyslexia, identifying the signs early can make a world of difference. By spotting indicators early, we can create the tailored pathways that help children to thrive in their education and personal development. A bit more time spent now will help them to achieve their dreams and goals. This can and must happen.

I wish the Minister well in responding to the debate. I do not doubt for one second her commitment to try to do better. Schools also need support. Reading recovery schemes are essential, as is ensuring that early years teachers can spot the signs and signpost for assessment and help. The earlier we can spot the need, the easier the intervention will be. The hopes are that by high school time, the child will understand their needs and get support, ranging from a scribe to simply getting their tests on a different kind of paper—something so small can make a big difference.

I conclude with this, Ms Butler, because that cough of yours is getting worse—I say that very kindly. [Laughter.] Schools need the funding and expertise to get the tools right for each child, and that can come only with a confident system in place. We all look to the Minister to provide guidance and support for schools; will she also share that with us in Northern Ireland?

12:26

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate. He has raised the topic consistently and I know it is personally very important to him, as well as to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell).

As we have heard, dyslexia is a common, lifelong difference in how a person processes language that affects reading, writing and spelling, but not intelligence. In fact, many people with dyslexia excel at creative thinking, problem solving and seeing patterns that others miss. As we have heard, it is estimated that up to one in 10 people in the UK are dyslexic—this is not a rare condition—yet too often the system treats those strengths as an afterthought.

Families wait months, sometimes years, for an assessment; in the meantime, children are told to try harder, when what they need are simple, evidence-based adjustments. Teachers do their absolute best, but without the training and resources to confidently support different styles of learning, provision can become a postcode lottery, and school budgets that are already stretched leave little room for specialist staff, assistive tools and the protected time that inclusion requires.

For many, diagnosis comes too late. If a child is not diagnosed early, they can find they are already years behind other students when it comes to reading and writing. Early identification and practical support can change the trajectory of a child’s education and their life beyond school.

What should we do? First, we must put early identification at the heart of special educational need interventions. That means streamlining NHS processes so that families are not stuck before support need is recognised. It means investing to reduce waiting lists—constituents of mine in Frome and East Somerset struggle to get timely diagnoses. Crucially, it also means empowering schools to implement reasonable adjustments at the first signs of need, without forcing children to wait for a piece of paper before help arrives.

Secondly, we need to equip teachers and schools to include every child, every day. That starts with initial teacher training and continuous professional development that is practical, hands-on and focused on what works for dyslexia in real classrooms. It continues with a national inclusion framework, so that every school has a clear, evidence-based blueprint for inclusive practice. It includes a national parental participation strategy, recognising that families are experts in their children and must be partners from the start, not last-minute consultees.

We must also strengthen the role of the SENDCO. They should sit on senior leadership teams and have protected time to do their work. They are the bridge between strategy and practice, and they cannot do their job effectively if they spread impossibly thin. We should reform Ofsted so that inspections look seriously at inclusive provision, not just exam results. Inclusion is not a footnote: it is the mark of a great school that every learner is seen, supported and stretched.

Thirdly, we should normalise simple adjustments and assistive technology. This is not about lowering standards; it is about measuring understanding, not just handwriting speed. Coloured overlays or paper, clear fonts, chunked instructions, alternatives to copying from the board, text-to-speech and speech-to-text tools—that is incredibly difficult to say—help students to access the curriculum and express what they know.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I used to be a teacher, and I know from my own practice that many of the measures that were originally introduced to support students with special educational needs, including dyslexia, actually support all children to learn better in the classroom. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need much more focus on inclusive teaching practice, because that will support everyone in the classroom, including, most importantly, those with additional needs?

[Anna Sabine]

As a parent of children who are not dyslexic but had other ways of learning, which were well supported in schools, and as someone who recognised later in life that I had different ways of learning and would have benefited from different and inclusive practices, I totally agree. It would have helped me to say the words “text to speech” as well. As the hon. Member said, adjustments can benefit many learners, not just those with a diagnosis.

We can use artificial intelligence to help us to create text that those with dyslexia can use. A constituent of mine from Peasedown St John told me last week that she has an older child with dyslexia, who was diagnosed later in childhood and is now suffering from a lack of age-appropriate resources. He enjoys “The Legend of Zelda” computer games, so my constituent asked AI to write a story based on that for a person of his age with dyslexia with his characteristics. She said it was the first time he has been able to read something he is really interested and engaged in. AI can be a tool to allow a whole new group of people to access something they never normally would.

We must make sure there is a fair deal for families. Too many parents feel that they must fight the system to secure basic support. A parental participation strategy should set out clear points of contact, transparent timelines, and co-produced plans that follow the child through school and into further education or apprenticeships. Families should not need to be experts in bureaucracy just to get their child the help that they need.

To achieve the changes that I have set out, we need to work cross-party—I am pleased to hear the cross-party consensus today—and with families, educators and employers. The result would be a system that sees every child, supports every learner, and opens the door to a lifetime of contribution and success.

12:31

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Conservative party on support for dyslexic pupils at school. I congratulate the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on securing such an important debate.

Probably every family in the country has been touched by dyslexia, and mine is no different. The personal experiences described today have been powerful, and it is right that they should inform our work as MPs, as well any future Government policy. The themes that we have discussed today—diagnosis, the curriculum, training and support for teachers, the life chances of people with dyslexia—were well covered in the contributions from Members on all sides. Those who spoke about their own dyslexia are not only great role models but evidence—as if it were needed—that dyslexia is certainly not at all about intelligence. I thank the hon. Member for Broxtowe for her work with people with dyslexia before she was elected to this place.

Reforming SEND is one of the most pressing challenges facing our education system. I can see in my constituency, and it has been proven in this debate, that there is serious strain across the country. The Education Secretary has previously said that she

“won’t shy away from what’s difficult and long term”

when it comes to SEND reform, and that “there is no responsibility” that she takes more seriously than that task. Those are welcome words, and we await the proposals from the Government.

Ministers originally promised a SEND White Paper for this autumn, but it has been broadened into a fuller schools White Paper, and it will not be published until next year. I do not want to overdo it on that matter, because it is obviously a complex issue, and we do not want anybody to rush ahead with the wrong policies, but we would like there to be time for the Government’s proposals to be thoroughly studied. I hope that Members from across the House will have the opportunity to work constructively with Ministers to get the best possible outcomes for children with SEND.

It is an issue that has been growing for quite some time. We have seen a massive increase in demand for EHCPs—up 140% since 2015. In January 2024, there were more than half a million children with EHCPs. SEND support in schools is now being given to well over 1.1 million children, which is a 14% rise since 2015. A National Audit Office report shows that there is a significant gap between funding and spending for SEND, growing to around £3.4 billion by 2027-28. Data also shows that two in five councils will be at risk of financial failure by 2028-29 without intervention from central Government.

Dyslexia affects people in all our constituencies, and we have heard it said today that it affects one in 10 people across the country. The British Dyslexia Association found that 80% of people believe they are not clever because they have dyslexia, and 70% say it makes them feel bad about themselves. It affects children’s self-confidence and self-worth, as much as what and how they learn, which demonstrates the sensitivity and care that we must take on this issue. We have heard some stories about teachers and those in positions of authority who have got things wrong in the past. As the hon. Member for Yeovil said, there is no relationship between dyslexia and intelligence or behaviour, and people with dyslexia learn resilience and important problem-solving skills.

Most worrying are the disparities in how people with dyslexia are diagnosed. Some 90% of dyslexic children in households with an annual income of over £100,000 receive a diagnosis, but as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) said, the figure is closer to 43% for dyslexic children in households with an annual income below £30,000. Although a diagnosis does not guarantee an EHCP, it can at least help parents and teachers to understand a child’s condition better and find the most effective ways to support them.

There is certainly a case to be made for rethinking how we teach the curriculum to children with dyslexia, and how we organise their classrooms and structure their time. We must also explore the best teaching tools available, as many Members have noted. Most of all, we need to get a grip on diagnosis. Clearly, there are parents who can afford to go private to find out whether their child has dyslexia, but that option is just not there for many families, and I encourage the Minister to discuss that problem with her counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to help to resolve that inequality.

There is no reason why a child with dyslexia should not have the best possible start in life. We are not talking about how smart a child is but about overcoming the obstacles to their learning and development. Going through this journey will shape who they later become as adults. That raises another issue about how education and health cannot be viewed separately or in isolation. As many as 54% of people with a learning disability have a mental health problem, according to the Mental Health Foundation.

EHCPs sought to bind education and health together for that reason. There are difficulties and much more progress to be made with EHCPs, but remarks made by the Education Secretary and by Christine Lenehan, who is the Government’s SEND adviser, have sparked some concern among parents. Christine Lenehan has said she is

“considering whether EHCPs are the right vehicle to go forward.”

We have yet to see what the White Paper will say about the future of EHCPs, so perhaps the Minister can give parents more certainty.

This debate has been highly informative and fruitful, and it has helped us all to understand better the challenges faced by children with dyslexia and the broader reform agenda that should best help them in their education. As I have said before about SEND more generally and about children’s social care, some things are far bigger than politics and party politics. When Ministers are ready to put forward their plans for the future of SEND, I hope that serious attention will be given to children with dyslexia, taking on board what has been said today and what parents and teachers across the country believe we need to do to help future generations of children.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, and inform her that I would like to allow two minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Yeovil to wind up.

12:38

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am sure you will cough at the appropriate time if I am going on.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate. As others have said, they are both really important champions on this issue. The hon. Member for Broxtowe has huge experience from their previous life in training teachers and parents, and they have brought that into their work for the APPG. Since I have had the privilege of taking on this role, I have seen the hon. Member for Yeovil at almost every debate, which I think says something about their passion. The way that they speak about their own experience and the challenges they have overcome is inspiring for many young people. As we have heard from many across the Chamber, dyslexic people and parents of dyslexic children are important voices in the debate, and this place is stronger as a result.

I appreciate the constructive tone of everyone in the Chamber. As has been said, this is a critical issue for many young people around the country. In my own experience as a council leader, I have seen the huge challenges in the system and am deeply motivated to change it. We are not waiting for the schools White Paper: interventions are already happening to support the SEND system. Mention was made of Ofsted; changes to include inspection on inclusion are already happening. Changes are being made to teacher training to help teachers support young people with SEND, in particular on adaptive teaching. We have invested an extra £1 billion this financial year into the high-needs block and an extra £740 million into specialist places across the system. Those changes are happening, but we recognise the need for wider reform. I support the desire to work cross-party and we wish to hear from Members across the House to help us shape those proposals and to scrutinise them as we go forward.

On the issue of dyslexia, which Members spoke about powerfully, recently I attended a parliamentary reception hosted by the British Dyslexia Association, where we heard some of the stark research referred to in the debate. The statistic that stays with me is the 70% of children and young people who feel bad about themselves because of their dyslexia. Earlier, we heard a powerful story about Lucy and her experiences. At the event, I spoke about my dad’s experience. He was severely dyslexic and failed his 11-plus, later leaving school with only one A-level. He talked to me about how he felt like a failure at school, but he was one of the most creative and brilliant people I have known.

I have heard from too many young people who still feel that same way so many years on—that sense, which someone described as humiliation, that they are not good enough and that their huge creativity and contributions are not recognised. That has to change. This debate and the ideas we have heard are important within that. On Thursday, I will visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), who was present earlier, where the British Dyslexia Association is based, to meet young people to hear their experience, to feed into the White Paper. As I said, however, we are not waiting and work is already happening to improve things on dyslexia while we look at the wider reforms.

I want to start with the focus on reading that we heard about, and on identifying needs around reading. Many MPs talked about early identification, which is vital. We heard about phonics and some of the great successes with that: 80% of young people pass their phonics screening checks, but 20% of young people do not. Putting in more support and intervention for those young people is a key priority for us. In the curriculum assessment review response, we set out a new reading test for all pupils in year 8. That is focused on identifying young people who are struggling at key stage 3, because given some of the statistics, by the time we get to GCSEs, it is too late.

[Adam Dance]

On reading, does the Minister agree that teaching assistants are vital? Without teaching assistants, I would not have got through education. To this day, if someone gives me a book to read, it daunts me; I have probably only ever read one or two books to the end in my whole life, because it takes me so much time. Does she agree that teaching assistants are important to help with reading?

[Georgia Gould]

I do agree. Teaching assistants play a vital role in supporting children with special educational needs, which can include reading, and there is good evidence that that support is working. Today, we have heard about some of the huge challenges, but I want to mention a school I visited in Amber Valley, which had brilliant support for young people struggling with reading.

I spoke to a child who said that, in the transition into year 7, he had had the reading age of a four or a five-year-old. He talked about trying to access the curriculum, but getting increasingly frustrated and not listening. The school had put in place a small nurture group, focused on supporting young people with reading, with a range of children—some had dyslexia and some did not. He is now 14, and that extra support and intervention means that he is fully accessing the curriculum and thriving. That was a teacher-led intervention.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We must also not forget that there is so much pleasure from reading, when we can read. Not to take away from attainment, but people receive a whole world of pleasure from reading and we should not forget that.

[Georgia Gould]

I could not agree more. As the daughter of a publisher, that was very much the mantra that I was brought up on. Reading gives us access to so many different worlds and brings so much joy; the Government are taking forward the National Year of Reading to inspire young people to enjoy reading, as well as accessing the full curriculum. That is why we are strengthening existing programmes and introducing new ones to ensure that all children can secure the essential skills of reading and writing.

I have talked about phonics; in the academic year 2024 to 2025 the Government launched a new Reading Ambition for All training programme for primary school teachers. The programme aims to improve reading outcomes for children who need additional support, including those with dyslexia, drawing on the latest research about how children learn to read and the effective approaches to teaching those who need specific adaptions. Following its pilot year, we are now working with the British Dyslexia Association to refine the programme to further support children with dyslexia. We expect the new programme to reach more than 600 schools.

The Government’s reading framework, which was updated in 2023, includes guidance on teaching reading to pupils with additional learning needs and offers guidance for schools on providing pupils with timely, focused support related to their needs. We are also working on a writing framework. Those who saw the curriculum assessment review will have seen the focus on oracy within it and the links between reading, writing and speaking.

The Government’s Reading Ambition for All programme is delivered by our 34 English hubs. It was launched in 2018 and builds on the work of the last Government. Those English hubs are dedicated to improving the teaching of reading, with a focus on supporting children who are making the slowest progress in reading, many of who come from disadvantaged backgrounds—as we have heard today. Those hubs are outstanding at teaching early reading. Since its launch, the English hubs programme has provided targeted support to over 3,000 schools across England. This year, the English hubs are delivering intensive support to over 1,200 partner schools, reaching over 140,000 pupils in reception and year 1. Some £26.6 million has been committed for the English hubs programme this academic year. We know how important the transition from primary to secondary is and that is a key area of focus for support.

Today’s debate has focused on early identification, intervention and the importance of early support. We know how critical that is for outcomes. The SEND code of practice makes it clear that meeting the needs of children with SEN should not require a diagnostic label. We want teachers to be able to offer support at the earliest possible point and where it is needed regardless. In an inclusive education system, settings should be confident in accurately assessing children’s and young people’s learning and development and meeting their educational needs with evidence-informed responses. We have had a good discussion about some of the areas where the evidence is strong, but also areas where we need to see more evidence, including around assistive technology. I welcome the focus on evidence and research, which is something that the Government are committed to.

Recently published evidence reviews from University College London will help to drive inclusive practice. It highlights what the best available evidence suggests along with the most effective tools, strategies and approaches for teachers and other relevant staff in mainstream settings to identify and support children and young people with different types of needs. The What Works in SEND research programme, led by a research team from the University of Warwick and supported by SEND academics from the University of Birmingham, is researching tools that settings can use to identify the needs of neurodivergent children and young people.

In closing, the depth and thoughtfulness of this debate has been incredibly important. As we look to reform the special educational needs system, I hope to discuss all these issues further. I am meeting the hon. Member for Yeovil tomorrow, and I hope we can have further conversations about some of the ideas that were set out today. As we move towards publication of the White Paper, which sets out a broader strategy for young people with special educational needs, I hope that it will build on the important issues raised today about teacher training and early intervention. We are determined to deliver reforms that stand the test of time, rebuild the confidence of families and, crucially, ensure that all young people are thriving at and enjoying school, and getting the support that they need.

12:50

[Adam Dance]

I, too, thank my co-sponsor of the debate, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell). It has been absolutely fantastic to hear so many supportive remarks about dyslexia from across the House. It is important to get across that this issue should not be political; it should be cross-party, because we want the best for our young people and their future. It is clear that in Parliament, dyslexia is on the agenda; that is great news, but it has to stay there and translate into real change. We need to make sure that it does not come off the agenda, so I will carry on pushing. I am sure that the Minister will get fed up of me eventually, but I look forward to meeting her tomorrow. We need to make sure that school is not somewhere dyslexic people fear, but somewhere to set them up to do what they want in life.

Something stays with me; we all, as Members of Parliament, visit schools in our constituencies, and the other day I visited a rural school to talk about my life and background, and why I got involved in politics. At the end, two lads asked their teacher whether they could stay behind. The teacher said, “You’re not going to say anything you shouldn’t be saying to Adam, are you?” They said, “No, we just want to talk to him,” and I said, “Let them stay behind.”

Those two lads were primary school-age children, and what they said stuck with me: “Thank you. We both have ADHD and dyslexia. We keep thinking we’re going to fail in life, and you’ve taught us that we’re not going to fail in life. We want to thank you for that.” Just before that, the teacher had said to those children, “What do you want to stay behind for?”. Children are already hearing, “Oh, you’re going to stay behind to say something you shouldn’t.” That is the perception we have to change in our education system. I will follow those two lads’ careers and see where they get to, because that really has stuck with me. I think they will succeed.

Let us keep working together on this. As I will say to the Minister tomorrow, “Let’s get on with it, move positively and make real change together.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for dyslexic pupils at school.

12:53

Sitting suspended.

Sixth-form Provision: Bolsover

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

13:00

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sixth form provision in Bolsover constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.

Residents of Bolsover must feel like they have déjà vu. My predecessor, Mark Fletcher, first raised the need for a sixth form in Bolsover in Parliament on 2 March 2020. On 7 March 2023, he spoke in this very Chamber about the need for Bolsover to have its own sixth form. On 6 September 2023, the then Prime Minister congratulated Mark on getting a sixth form. So the question that residents rightly ask is: why are we here today? Why have I raised this issue in Parliament five times in the past year? Why have I met Ministers and the Education Secretary to make representations? Why are Andrew Burns, the chief executive officer of Redhill Academy Trust, and Richard Pierpoint, the regional director, here with us to see this debate today?

As one resident succinctly put it, getting the promise is one thing, but making sure that that promise is delivered is another thing entirely. Despite Mark’s determined campaign and the tireless work of The Bolsover school executive headteacher Matt Hall, who sadly cannot be with us today because he has an Ofsted inspection, the previous Government’s promises have not been delivered.

Although I wish I was here congratulating Mark as new pupils enter North Derbyshire university academy, I saw as soon as I was elected that I needed to take up the baton. I will not rest until the young people of Bolsover, Clowne, Shirebrook, Creswell and the surrounding villages have the sixth form that they so desperately need.

Why is this so important? For far too many of our young people, Bolsover today is a story of unfilled potential. Bolsover covers a huge area, from Pinxton to Whitwell, Shirebrook to Wessington, yet there is no sixth form. When it comes to barriers to opportunity, surely one of the biggest is that the closest sixth form is a 30-minute bus ride away at a cost of £25 a week. The inability to access any form of education past the age of 16 without getting on one or two buses and travelling for up to an hour is why so few teenagers attend a school sixth form—only 25% from The Bolsover school, 13% from Heritage high school in Clowne and just 8% from Shirebrook academy do so. For those who live anywhere else in the country, the average figure is three times higher than for Shirebrook.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate and for her campaigning in this Chamber, which has clearly been instrumental—the people here and those at home watching will be greatly inspired by her, so well done. In my constituency in Ards, we need to ensure that our teenagers have support and sound career advice for the next steps, including in the sixth-form college at Regent House school and the South Eastern Regional college; the King’s Trust works alongside schools there. I know that the Minister is always looking for examples of good work, so may I suggest, through the hon. Lady, that he looks at the good things we are doing in Northern Ireland that could address the very issues she is working so well to address for her constituents?

[Natalie Fleet]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

Students are less likely to get A-levels in Bolsover than in any other part of Derbyshire. Some students do really well in their GCSEs and go on to a really good sixth form in Chesterfield, but it is more than 10 miles away. They have to get two buses: one to Chesterfield town centre and one to the Newbold area. The sixth form has a private bus, but it is £1,000 a year and takes about 50 minutes each way. That puts the school out of reach for students whose families cannot afford the travel, and the long travel times do nothing to encourage anyone to go there.

I want to talk about two brothers who recently left The Bolsover school and started at the nearest sixth form. Both dropped out in the first year because of the cost of the bus. One of the brothers tried to run the five-and-a-bit miles to sixth form and back every day, but with a bag full of books, and winter weather and darkness, he could not sustain it. They have both dropped out of their level 3 studies, and we believe they are no longer in education at all.

When we fail our children, there are lifelong consequences. Not having a sixth form is a large part of why only a quarter of 18-year-olds in Bolsover enrol at university, compared with the UK average of 36%. It is why, on education, skills and training measures, Bolsover is the 99th most deprived constituency in the country. It is also why people’s wages in Bolsover are £100 less per week than the UK average. Having less money and less education affects people’s ability to live long and healthy lives. A quarter of our residents only have GCSEs, but a quarter have no qualifications at all. On every measure I have looked at, Bolsover could and should be doing better. We have to give people the same opportunities that children living in larger towns and cities take for granted.

The young people I see when I visit their schools blow me away. On a recent visit to Shirebrook academy, they told me that they did not want to be called disadvantaged because it is another label that holds them back. Instead, they are funny, they are polite, they are smart—and my God, they are full of potential. They make me so happy just being around them. Ridiculously, they treat me like I am a big deal. It is them who are the biggest of deals. It is our job as a Government to put a world of opportunity in front of them, just like the last Labour Government did for me.

I grew up seeing more people I know going to prison than to university. I was really lucky to have a Government with the slogan, “Education, education, education”—a Government determined to be ambitious for me before I even knew what ambition was. The Labour Government gave me opportunity that I never expected to need and smashed down barriers that I could not have anticipated. Instead of writing me off as a young mum, they paid for childcare for my newborn, meaning that I could drop her off at nursery and take the short bus ride to West Notts college. They invested in brilliant education that I will forever be grateful for and supported me to get the grades that meant I could go to university with my second baby on the way.

The first time I visited The Bolsover school, I asked where the teenage mums were, and I was told that they did not have them. I panicked, because I worried that teenage mums were being excluded from education. Instead, I was told that they did not exist, at least not in the same way that they used to, because the same Government who had supported me had also implemented a teenage pregnancy strategy. That strategy meant that my area, which had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe when I had my baby, saw the biggest issue facing us and tackled it. That is incredible. I am here to make sure that we leave an equally impactful legacy for the next generation. We must give Bolsover’s young people access to quality education in our area.

I promise that I am not just being a difficult woman. In the last 12 hours, I have received well over 100 emails, messages and comments on this issue from parents, former pupils, current pupils and teachers who live in the area—anyone with a connection to the school, young people and education. They are desperate for this sixth form to go ahead.

Sky, a former Bolsover student, said:

“I finished Bolsover School in 2023 and had to move to another Sixth Form, but I didn’t think it was worth the experience. The education felt like a downgrade—if Bolsover School had a Sixth Form, I would have stayed and had a better experience, like I did in my secondary years.”

Alysha, another former Bolsover student, said:

“After my GCSEs, I would have loved to continue my studies somewhere familiar and local. I now travel over an hour each day to Sixth Form, but if Bolsover had one, I’d have stayed. I hope future children can have that chance”.

Parents of young children are already looking for the best option for their child to gain a higher level of qualification, and they know that a local sixth form would help them to achieve those goals. Victoria, a Bolsover mum, said:

“My daughter is a hardworking and bright child in year 8 at The Bolsover School. Her dreams and ambitions should not be cut short because Bolsover is deemed not to be worthy of such a basic requirement, the investment in education, by some.”

Another mum said:

“My oldest son is currently in year 10, he’s a high achieving pupil predicted 8-9 grades in all subjects. He does however have severe anxiety, particularly social anxiety. If he needs to get a bus to school for sixth form, he simply won’t go.”

Other parents of children with special educational needs have echoed this sentiment, telling me that their children need the supportive and structured environment of a sixth form at the school they know and are familiar with in order to continue their education.

However, this is not just an issue for SEND parents. A teacher from my area told me that many students feel daunted by travelling to a big college and often give up on their ambitions because there is no local option. That teacher said that a sixth form in Bolsover would be transformational: inspiring young people, raising aspirations and showing them that their community believes in their potential.

Parents can see that the playing field is not level and that their children have an undeserved disadvantage because of where they live. One dad, Sammie, wrote:

“The difference to growing up on the outskirts of Nottingham 20 years ago to living in Bolsover today is quite scary. The opportunities around Bolsover for young people to grow and develop are dire.”

Another dad, who has two children, said:

“The sixth form would raise aspirations, build on the strengths of one of the best schools in the area and ensure our children have the best educational start in life, so they can help contribute to the financial and economic prosperity of our district for generations to come.”

That is key. If Bolsover people are already leaving the area to get their A-levels, they are more likely to move away to pursue a career, and a cycle of low attainment and low aspiration continues for those who are left.

As a child of the last Labour Government, I am determined to deliver for the children of this Labour Government. I hope I have shown that what I speak of today is really personal to me. However, this is not just about me; I have a community behind me, and they are desperate for this to happen. This is important, and this is why politics matters. I leave that very special community and my family behind every week to be here because I cannot let it be only me who benefits from the last Labour Government’s investment in my education. I want these children—the children of this Labour Government—to benefit in the same way. I am thrilled to see us smashing down barriers to opportunity, making sure that no child is ever too hungry to learn and that our little ones are ready for school on that special first day.

I have an extra ask of the Government, on behalf of the young people of Bolsover. Let us show these incredible children that we will not leave them behind any longer. I ask that we get spades in the ground and open the doors of North Derbyshire university academy.

13:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on securing this important debate on post-16 education in Bolsover, and on championing the needs of young people in her constituency. She is a tremendous advocate for the people who elected her.

Every young person deserves access to high-quality post-16 education and training options. It is essential that we provide clear, ambitious pathways for all children across the country. By investing in diverse education and training options, we unlock the potential of our young people, and we meet the evolving needs of employers and the wider economy. I commend my hon. Friend’s continued advocacy for securing post-16 education in Bolsover. Her commitment ensures that local voices are heard loud and clear, and that her constituents get the best chance of meaningful change as soon as possible. From her speech, I recognise the strength of local feeling on this matter.

Young people across England should have choices after their GCSEs, but those choices are currently unevenly spread across our country. The Prime Minister, at the Labour party conference earlier this year, announced a new ambition that two thirds of young people gain higher-level qualifications, which will set them up for a fulfilling career and life. This new ambitious goal will be challenging to meet for the Government and the country, but in meeting it, we will create incredible life chances for children and young people in progressing not just to university but to higher-level qualifications through other routes.

Our skills strategy puts the detail on how we will go about achieving that to deliver fantastic outcomes for young people when they turn 16. It includes a targeted system that prioritises training pathways where skilled labour is needed and demand is growing. We will ensure high-quality routes for young people at all levels of attainment, including the new vocational level—the V-level—and the recently introduced T-levels, as well as A-levels, which have a really important role to play.

Let me directly address the proposal for North Derbyshire university academy, which my hon. Friend put so well. I recognise her tireless support for the new academy in Bolsover, which would provide much-needed academic post-16 education in a town that currently has none.

I also recognise that participation rates for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency going into some form of education or training at 16 or 17 are below the national average. The anecdote she shared about £25 a week bus costs and 30-minute bus journeys resonates with me personally; I represent a constituency in rural, post-industrial Cumbria, where transport links to colleges and opportunities have a big impact on young people’s chances. The story of the young boy needing to run, or to consider running, to college paints a vivid image of the challenge faced by young people in Bolsover. I commend Redhill Academy Trust for its work and perseverance in developing its exciting proposals.

I will now say a little about the mainstream free school review that we are undertaking. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are reviewing 44 free school projects that are in the pipeline, including the college in question. I understand that she and the proposers of the school—Redhill Academy Trust, Derbyshire county council and families in her constituency—want certainty about the project as soon as possible, and I thank everyone for their continued patience. Our review has a clear rationale: we want a school system in which all children and young people can achieve and thrive.

The previous Government spent substantial amounts on free schools, despite evidence that they would create surplus capacity, diverting resources from much-needed work to improve the condition of the existing school estate. The image of crumbling roofs and the RAAC crisis was a vivid demonstration of the previous Government’s failure to keep on top of the school estate. We want children everywhere to have the excellent places they need, not extra places they do not. We must drive efficiency and reduce wasteful spending so that we get the best bang for every pound that we spend.

That is why, in October 2024, the Secretary of State for Education announced a review of mainstream free schools planned by the previous Government that have not yet opened. We want to ensure that the places are needed in the local areas where they are proposed, and that they represent value for taxpayers’ money. We recognise that academy trusts play a vital role in fostering collaboration and improving education, especially in disadvantaged areas. They have an essential role to play in the future of new schools and colleges as well.

We have been carefully evaluating evidence-based recommendations for all 44 projects in scope of the review, which has been a substantial exercise. In taking final decisions, we are considering all projects in the round. We are also taking into account the recent multi-year spending review and competing priorities across the Department. I am happy to personally assure my hon. Friend that I will provide her with an update on the matter before Christmas, and as soon as possible, so that we can answer the questions put by her and her community.

I again commend my hon. Friend’s continued commitment to improving outcomes for those in her constituency, and her desire to see 16-to-19 provision in the town of Bolsover. Education is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage and give every young person the best start in life, no matter their background. We know that potential is spread right across the country, especially in places such as Bolsover, but that opportunity is not. We need to make sure that it is.

Question put and agreed to.

13:24

Sitting suspended.

Autistic Adults: Employment

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner in the Chair]

16:30

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered employment opportunities for autistic adults.

It is a real pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. This is an important issue, and one which has risen in prominence with the increased awareness and diagnosis of autism. We have also seen extensive press coverage of the case of Tom Boyd, an autistic man who has been working at Waitrose in Cheadle Hulme, near my Hazel Grove constituency. I could not ignore the many variations of the same conversation I have had with constituents about the problems that they or their family members, like Tom, have faced getting or keeping work or thriving in their career. That so many people are facing the same issues means we are getting something wrong as a society. As the National Autistic Society says,

“Autism influences how people experience and interact with the world. It is a lifelong neurodivergence and disability. Autistic people are different from each other, but for a diagnosis they must share differences from non-autistic people in how they think, feel and communicate.”

An autism diagnosis should not be a barrier; it should help autistic people find how to be the best version of themselves.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In my constituency, I recently held a roundtable discussions on the state of special educational needs and disabilities education—which we know is dire. Does my hon. Friend share my belief that we should be promoting opportunities in employment for autistic people —who we know can be among the sharpest minds—so that those in education have roles to work towards?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that interventions are meant to be very short.

[Lisa Smart]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of getting the right education suited to each young person to enable them to flourish in their lives and contribute meaningfully to our community.

Clearly, the issues that my constituents have faced are not the same as every autistic person’s experience. When someone has met one autistic person, they have met one autistic person—that is a key point. All too often, autism is viewed in just one way, and it can be seen as a burden that employers have to overcome to employ that person, rather than as a range of differences and strengths.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My niece successfully secured a place on a civil service internship. She was then able to go on and train as a work coach and is helping people who face similar challenges with neurodiversity or health conditions to get back into work. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that other employers set up these bespoke internship schemes, particularly to give opportunities to young people?

[Lisa Smart]

People with lived experience are often the best trainers and best able to explain a situation and enable employers to adapt to get the best out of their employees. I very strongly agree with the hon. Lady’s point.

I see it in my own area of Stockport, where the council delivers training for employers on how best to welcome neurodiverse employees into their workforce. That training is delivered by those with lived experience. Stockport council also provides adapted spaces at inclusive job fairs. That enables it to support attendance by those for whom busy, noisy spaces do not necessarily bring out the best in them.

As a Liberal, I want to ensure that people are viewed as individuals; that they are given a platform to be the best version of themselves; that we give our fellow citizens opportunities and not barriers; and that we ensure they are not limited by someone’s view of a category in which they happen to fit.

I thank my constituents who have shared their experiences with me and who have very different lives, needs and experiences, but who have faced very similar problems when entering the world of work. My constituent, Bradley from Marple, has had several voluntary jobs in the past. He has done them well and he now volunteers as a digital champion in the local library. Bradley is autistic and has a speech and language condition. He is capable, reliable and determined. I was really pleased that he and his mum came to see me at my advice surgery a few weeks ago, and that they are here today. He is now on universal credit, including the disability element, but tells me that what he wants is the independence and dignity that comes with having a paid job.

For Bradley, the problem he faces is getting over the hurdle of having a chance to prove his worth. He has applied for over 100 jobs. He has been given interviews and has passed tests, and yet is never given the job. All too often he tells me he hears the same refrain: “We have another candidate who we feel best suits the post.” Although that is said to anyone who applies for a job and they hear it from time to time, Bradley hears the same thing every time, after every interview and every successful test. That is what stings.

Another constituent has had two jobs with the same organisation. He has been diagnosed as high functioning with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He has a master’s degree and a range of awards and accolades that attest to his brilliance. He also struggles to know what day of the week it is or how to cook a pizza. He fits many of the stereotypes that people have about autism. In the first job, although he was given support to help him, it did not take account of the way he processed information. Instead, he was put on a performance improvement plan, which gave him no time to embed the enabling strategies that his mentor had helped him with. Instead of being supportive, it fed into his anxiety, and such was the stress it caused that he ended up with autistic burnout and on medication.

Fortunately, with support from his parents and some courses of cognitive behavioural therapy, he was able to start again. However, such was the lack of confidence in his own abilities that his first experience caused, he applied for a much less senior role. This time around, though, the experience was a world apart. He had a structured induction that gave him all the information he needed to settle into a new role. Similarly, when he starts a new project or task, he is introduced in a way that gives everyone the information they need to work well with him, such as sharing with any new colleagues how he prefers to receive information related to the task. He is now a valued high-performing member of staff ready to step back up the career ladder, and his mental health is in a completely different, far more positive place.

Those two wildly different experiences are with the same organisation, the civil service, which shows the need for best practice to be implemented much more consistently. My constituent is someone who has the potential to do things that few other people can, and when his job is built to get the best out of him, he flies. When it fails to take account of his needs, he crashes. I suggest that in a world where we hear all too frequently from some politicians demeaning descriptions of the lives that autistic people will have, we instead need to work on removing barriers that stop them living the right life for them.

A Stockport council officer working in this area reports interesting conversations with employers about the fact that adapting the business to be more inclusive is really, in his words,

“about looking at what skills a person can bring to the role and that isn’t as difficult as people first think. It’s about listening and understanding. It certainly doesn’t stop you being successful and profitable and it might actually help you!”

Two of my constituents faced challenges when starting and running their own businesses. Both of them set up their own companies—one supporting people with autism and ADHD and the other a small business selling games and toys. In both cases, their efforts to run their companies were undermined when they were in what we could term an irregular part of running a company. In the first case, it was going through the set-up of the company, which took longer than expected. In the second, it was when they missed an email they were not expecting from Companies House. In both cases, my constituents struggled with the sorts of activities that too often people and processes take for granted: making calls, sending emails and completing documents.

Katie, who joins us today, was allocated funding for a virtual assistant through Access to Work payments. But when her caseworker retired, her case was not reallocated and she was left facing mounting bills. To resolve it, she was forced to pursue her funding through a labyrinthine process. Were it not for her fantastic mum advocating on her behalf and further support from my superstar casework team, she would not have got it sorted out. As her mum said,

“The process to claim completely failed to recognise her disability. It was like asking someone in a wheelchair to get out and walk up the stairs.”

When someone has communication issues, layering inaccessible processes on top causes a struggle that is cruel. The irony is that Katie was caught out by this when she was setting up a company helping people with neurodivergent conditions. In a further twist, it was systems designed to help people like Katie into work that failed to take account of her autism.

Those are just four examples of people’s lived experience of trying to get into or on with work. Disabled people with autism are among the least likely to be in employment of all disabled people; 34% of disabled people with autism are in employment, compared with 55% of all disabled people and 82% of non-disabled people. The Buckland review of autism employment found that adjustments for autistic employees are highly variable, and that the onus is normally on the autistic employee to identify and advocate for the adjustments that they need. That is why the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for there to be obligations on employers and local authorities to provide appropriate care assessments and support. To repeat the words of Katie’s mum, not doing this is

“like asking someone in a wheelchair to get out and walk up the stairs.”

All too often we are building employment practices and processes that are one size fits all, but that size is too small. People are different, and we need to take account of that. It is only by recognising the differences between people, and by allowing for them and working with them, that we will get the future workforce that we need. I look forward to the Minister telling us what more the Government plan to do to make employment work for autistic people more easily, whether that is businesses employing autistic people, who can bring so much to a workplace, or changing processes so that autistic people can work in a way that suits them and gives them a platform to thrive.

Schemes such as Access to Work, Connect to Work or Disability Confident certainly exist, but my inbox suggests that too many people with skills and talents are falling through the gaps. I am particularly keen to hear when the Minister expects to publish a response to the recommendations made by the independent panel of academics led by Professor Amanda Kirby.

I really want to thank my constituents who have taken the time to share their experiences. Some of them are here today, and others are watching online. I hope that this place will change things for the better, so that we can do real justice for all the autistic people who just want the same opportunities as everyone else—to work, to live their best life and to thrive.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

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

16:42

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing this debate, and to her constituents for joining us today in Westminster Hall.

I am proud to be a member of the Labour party—it is the party for workers; it recognises the dignity that we get from work, and that work is the foundation for independence, confidence and wellbeing. I have heard many stories in my constituency about how stable and secure employment has transformed the lives of people with autism and other disabilities. The key words there are “stable” and “secure”; to unlock people’s potential, we must ensure that work is consistent, meaningful and fulfilling.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

When given the right tools and support to succeed, we know that members of the autistic community can thrive in the workplace. Despite research showing that the majority of working-age autistic people want to work, the reality is that only about three in 10 do so. Local to me, Autism West Midlands champions autistic communities and supports service users into work, both by providing coaching and by making workplaces better for them.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. This is supposedly an intervention. If you want to ask him a question, please do so, but do not read a speech.

[Baggy Shanker]

Thank you, Mr Turner. Does my hon. Friend agree that services such as those are vital in building the skills and confidence that help these people work?

[Mike Reader]

I agree that those services are critical—we are seeing that at first hand in Northamptonshire; when placements and employment opportunities collapse, when local provision disappears, and when funding dries up, people lose trust in the system.

The reality is that, across the country, the support network available to autistic adults is fragile. We rely on a patchwork of charities, specialist employers and often the good will of large organisations to make the investments needed to open up the opportunities that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke about. When part of that network collapses, the impact is immediate and devastating, and that is exactly what we are seeing in Northampton.

For over 40 years, Workbridge has been a lifeline to many in my community. It is a place where people with autism, learning difficulties and mental health challenges are able to build confidence, learn new skills and contribute to our community through meaningful employment and volunteering. It provides a café, garden centre and workshops for many. But it is all set to close. Last week we found out that St Andrew’s Healthcare had withdrawn funding from it to try to patch up its main business, which is rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission. I have been contacted by residents—by email, by letter and, actually, quite a lot on Remembrance Sunday—who are shocked and, frankly, devasted that this community institution will be closing. It is quite unforeseen.

The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), visited Workbridge in July and described it as a shining example of how social prescribing programmes work and of what we need across our country. There are many questions, including: how can the organisation go from promoting itself to the Government as best in class to closing within six months? I am meeting the chief executive officer next week to ask the questions that constituents are asking me about how this has happened and why Workbridge is being sacrificed to prop up the rest of the business.

Before I finish, I will highlight a positive example from Northampton. Nordis Signs, a business supported by Kier Group and Kier Highways, is a local employer that has operated in my constituency for the best part of 50 years. It provides work for adults with disabilities, including autism, by providing signs for the highways network right across the country. It is a great example of how secure work has enabled people to create careers. When I visited this summer, I met people who had worked there for over 30 years and were so proud of the work that they deliver. To have a business like that making such a positive contribution to our community is fantastic. It is a great example of how being both commercially sound and socially responsible can make sure that businesses deliver.

The lessons are clear: when we invest in supported employment everyone benefits, but when that support disappears, the fragile system will struggle to replace it. I stand by to support those who will lose their jobs or volunteering opportunities through the closure of Workbridge, and my office is working hard with West Northants council and local groups to try to re-provide that provision in Northampton. I hope the Minister will make time to meet me to discuss this issue, particularly as her Department visited and praised the work of Workbridge in July. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove again for securing this critical debate, and I thank her constituents for joining us in the Public Gallery.

16:47

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing this important debate. Like many other Members, I have met many neurodivergent adults and their families in my constituency who are desperate to contribute to society and really do want to work but are still struggling to access the same opportunities as their neurotypical peers.

As other Members have said, it is heartbreaking to hold roundtables and hear of autistic individuals who, having volunteered for five years with some of our corporate chains and been told that it would build their experience, find that there was really no pathway to paid work. On the very day that their work experience finishes, after five years, they are told to go home. That leaves them with a real sense that they do not belong anywhere. They thought they were working and did not realise that, after five years, they would simply be told to go home. That is not equality. Our companies need to do much better and show a sense of responsibility.

Across the UK there are approximately 700,000 autistic adults of working age, yet only three in 10 are in employment. Only 15% are in full-time paid work. Just 35% of autistic graduates find work within the first 15 months, which is half the rate among non-disabled graduates. This is not just an autism issue; for people with learning disabilities, the picture is even starker. Of the 950,000 working-age adults with a learning disability, only 27% have a paid job.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that closing the disability gap—indeed, the specific employment gap for people with neurodiversity—will mean opening up opportunities in different ways, so that autistic people do not have to go through interviews and other barriers that a normal application process requires of neurotypical people?

[Shockat Adam]

I wholeheartedly agree. We have to think expansively and not follow the rigorous rules that we have for abled individuals.

Some 77% of unemployed autistic people say they want to work. They are not unwilling; what is unwilling is the system, which creates barriers at the crucial first step, the transition into work. Many of them have never had any work experience at all. We need a structured supported internship and greater flexibility. The minimum 420 hours required by the current Access to Work scheme is simply too rigid and too difficult for many people, and unrealistic for small employers—and employers, too, need support. The Keep Britain Working review identified a culture of fear among managers and staff, which discourages open conversations about disability.

Many people from autism and disability backgrounds find that a lack of visible role models affects their transition into work, and there is inconsistent guidance for employers trying to make reasonable adjustments. That is why I agree with Mencap, which is urging the Department for Work and Pensions to go further and create a central online hub of best practice for employers, provide training and peer-to-peer support for businesses, and ensure that autistic people themselves are consulted. Currently, two thirds say they have never even been asked what support they need.

We also have to look at the benefits system, because for many autistic people it remains an obstacle to work, not a bridge. People fear losing their safety net if they cannot meet their job recommendations and commitments due to a lack of reasonable adjustments. We need a system that rewards their effort rather than punishing their vulnerability.

Helping autistic people and people with learning disabilities into meaningful employment reduces welfare costs, raises living standards and unlocks enormous economic potential. It gives people purpose, dignity and belonging. There are great examples in my constituency of what can be done when we get things right. Leicestershire Cares is a fabulous organisation that assists people with autism and learning challenges into the workplace. Eyres Monsell Club for Young People gives young autistic adults real-world experiences in community pantries and food banks. Café Neuro, which is specifically but not exclusively for people from ethnic minorities, offers supported placements where participants learn teamwork, customer service and confidence. Millgate school is developing leadership and life skills through student-led committees, creating the role models of tomorrow. Finally, charities such as Jamila’s Legacy are showing how conditions like autism intersect with anxiety and mental health, reminding us that holistic pastoral support in schools is essential to preparing young people for employment.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

It is great to hear of these commercial companies doing so much good work. I think of FinTrU in Derry, which is actively recruiting autistic people because of the skills and values they have. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to much more effectively match those companies with people with an autistic background?

[Shockat Adam]

I wholeheartedly agree, and the companies will be rewarded for it.

The evidence is clear: we have the talent and we have the will; now we need the systems, the flexibility and the leadership to make employment truly inclusive for autistic people.

16:53

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing the debate. She outlined some fantastic best practice in Stockport, where I know she was a local councillor for many years. I am sure some of that work is down to her powerful advocacy for her constituents—those who are here today and those who are not.

I thank all the families, campaigners and organisations who fight every day for change, not least because those in my own constituency, including our local branch of the National Autistic Society, who I meet regularly, have told me time and again about the sheer exhaustion that comes from trying to get a system that is supposed to help people to actually do what it is meant to do and what it promises. Many people face a broken path from school to work, with the journey from childhood from adulthood a series of locked doors. We hear of many families waiting for months—often years—for autism assessments, and we hear about teachers, undertrained and underfunded, struggling to provide the right support. One mother in Harrogate told me that by the time her son was finally diagnosed he was already told he was lazy, disruptive and difficult. How is any child meant to come back from that? That line has stuck with me because if we get things wrong in school, we do not just risk a bad exam result; we risk shaping how young people see themselves for years to come, into adulthood.

That is why the Liberal Democrats believe fixing SEND is not just about education; it is about setting children up for life, too. We need early identification, we need properly funded support plans that do not depend on parents shouting the loudest, and we need schools to be judged on how inclusive they are, not just on pupils’ grades. If we want autistic adults to thrive in work, we have to start by helping autistic children thrive in school.

[Mike Reader]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while we do need that reform, we should recognise the brilliant organisations in our communities that are working so hard to support people—particularly, in Northampton, SEND Mummas, West Northants SEND Action Group and SENDS 4 Dad?

[Tom Gordon]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is highlighting some fantastic work. I completely agree; there are great examples out there. What we need is a system that holds those up and champions them, and encourages people to do the same and do better across our country.

That brings me to Access to Work, a system that is currently shutting people out. This is another part of the broken pipeline, and I want to be really clear: it is not fit for purpose. Everyone I speak to tells me that it is failing them. It was designed to support people but simply falls short. It is also failing the employers who want to do the right thing but cannot navigate the red tape. I have heard examples of businesses that reached out to try to secure training for staff, but that fell on deaf ears and was never taken up. And it is failing the economy by wasting talent that we desperately need.

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

My constituent John has experienced prolonged periods of unemployment —he has been employed for only four of the past 14 years—and I think his experience is redolent of that of many other people with autism who feel that they are not getting the support that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do potential employees need support, but employers need education to help them facilitate economic independence for adults with autism?

[Tom Gordon]

I completely agree. This comes back to one of the systemic barriers that people face throughout the Access to Work system, and the barriers to employment for autistic people.

Access to Work sounds good on paper. In practice, it has become a bureaucratic maze that far too many autistic people simply cannot navigate. I have spoken to constituents who waited six months, nine months and even more than a year for applications to be processed. It is simply not good enough. I have heard from people who have lost job offers because the scheme could not provide basic adjustments in time, from others whose support was suddenly cut back without explanation, and from employers, especially small ones, who gave up trying to help because the process was so unclear and too slow.

Let us be honest: if Access to Work was a business, it would have gone under years ago. It is inefficient, unaccountable and detached from the lived reality of the people it is meant to serve. There is no consistency, no urgency and seemingly no understanding of autism. Many of the assessors have had little to no training in neurodiversity. Applicants are repeatedly asked to prove their condition and justify basic needs, and to fill in complex forms that would test the patience of anyone, let alone someone who suffers from communication or executive function issues that are daily challenges. It is not empowering; it is humiliating.

The worst part of all is that people’s lives are on hold while they wait. I met one man who was offered a job by a local company. He was up front about his needs, honest, open and hopeful, and the employer was supportive, but trying to get adjustments in place through Access to Work took so long that he ended up losing the job offer. His confidence was shot. There is nothing about that that is acceptable, in any way, shape or form. Worryingly, that is not an isolated story. This is happening up and down the country, and it is something that people regularly email me about. What makes it worse is that we have known for years how to fix it. Backlogs can be cleared with proper staffing and resourcing. Delays can be reduced by digitising the system and simplifying forms. Training can be improved so that assessors actually understand neurodiversity. But the Government are seemingly sitting on their hands.

The Buckland review made sensible suggestions and recommendations: awareness campaigns, better recruitment practices, inclusive workplace design and real career progression support. None of that requires new legislation. What did we get instead? Nothing. A review was launched and delayed, and now we are told that we might not get a proper Government response at all. It is really frustrating. Autistic people, who have waited long enough for change, are seemingly left out in the cold again.

I have heard about recruitment processes that are commonly exclusionary and job adverts with open-ended interview questions that just make it impossible for people. When I met the Harrogate branch of the National Autistic Society, we spent about an hour and a half talking through these barriers. What really resonated with me is the desire and passion of people with autism who want to contribute, and we are simply not letting them.

People’s fear of disclosure was also raised. They do not want to explain or even talk about their autism because they are not convinced that employers will help. One constituent of mine had been happily in employment for seven years, with the support of a really helpful line manager. When that manager left, there was seemingly a breakdown in the relationship with the workplace, which left her without the necessary adaptations and support. She ended up losing the job and has now been struggling to find alternative employment for two years.

What needs to happen? We need a complete overhaul of Access to Work—not tweaks or new guidance, but a root-and-branch rebuild. That means clear targets for processing times, so that people are not left waiting for months; dedicated neurodiversity teams who actually understand the conditions that they are assessing; transparency, so that applicants can track their progress and appeal decisions easily; automatic continuity of support, so that when people change roles, they are not thrown back to square one; and, above all, trusting autistic people that they know what they need. If we did that, we would not only help thousands into work, but restore faith in a system that currently does the opposite.

This is not meant to be about schemes and structures; it is about people. A woman in Harrogate told me that she had recently given up looking for work altogether—not because she does not want to work, but because the last time she tried to get support, she was made to feel like a fraud. She said:

“I can cope with being autistic. I can’t cope with being disbelieved.”

That sentence should haunt this Government. We talk endlessly in this place about productivity, growth and getting more people into work, yet we actively exclude people who want and are ready to work, because our systems are so rigid and slow.

Fixing Access to Work will not solve everything, but it is one of the easiest, quickest and most practical steps that could make employment fairer for autistic people. If we linked that together with a proper SEND strategy that captures early need, supports families, trains teachers and equips young people with confidence, we would finally have a joined-up system that might be better at supporting people with autism from childhood into adulthood. That is what inclusion really means.

I will end with this thought. Another constituent told me that what makes work hard for them is not being autistic, but the world around them not understanding what they need to thrive. There is a thread running through everything we have heard today. Autistic people do not need to change who they are. It is the systems, services and structures that need to change. Access to Work could be a bridge between ability and opportunity, but right now it is a barrier. Until that changes, we will keep on losing potential, wasting talent and letting people down. I urge the Minister to fix Access to Work and SEND, and to start building a society that sees autistic people not as a problem to solve, but as part of the solution.

17:02

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this afternoon’s very important debate, and I likewise welcome her constituents to the Chamber.

It is clear that we all have the privilege of representing autistic adults and children. The debate has brought to mind one particular gentleman in my constituency, Alistair, who I have known for a couple of years. He likes to tell me that he enjoys campaigning for the Labour party, which is fine—I am still very kind to him, obviously—and he sends me little tweet messages every so often, asking me very direct questions, to which I give very direct answers. He is brilliant.

Alistair had been volunteering at the Box—for those hon. Members who have not been, that is Plymouth’s award-winning art gallery and museum. The other day, I bumped into him at work in the Grayson Perry exhibition, and I said, “Oh, are you still volunteering, then?”. He said, “No, I’m actually now working here.” That was a really great example, bumping into him a couple of Saturdays ago and seeing what he is doing.

As Conservatives, we believe that meaningful work is the surest route to success. We believe in the power of aspiration and are committed to ensuring that everyone in this country gets a chance to pursue purposeful employment. Having a job means more than earning a wage; it means that we have somewhere to belong, a place where our contribution matters and a route to financial self-sufficiency. I am proud of our Conservative record of supporting people into work. We oversaw the creation of millions more apprenticeships and cut youth unemployment by nearly 44% between 2010 and 2023, but right now autistic people continue to face especially high barriers to entering and staying in work, leaving them unable to fulfil their potential, as we have heard time and again this afternoon.

Concerningly, only 16% of autistic adults in the UK are in full-time employment, compared with 31% of neurodiverse people and 55% of disabled people overall, according to the National Autistic Society. That is despite the fact that three in four unemployed autistic people would like to be employed, according to Autistica. An estimated 40,000 people with autism said that they were looking for full-time employment in 2024-25.

We have already heard about the Buckland review of autism employment, published under the Conservative Government in February last year, which painted a sobering picture of the daily challenges that autistic people face in seeking to access and thrive in work. It found that autistic people face the largest pay gap of all disability groups, receiving on average a third less than non-disabled people. Autistic graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed after 15 months as non-disabled graduates, with only 36% finding full-time work during that period. When they do find employment, autistic graduates are most likely to be over-qualified for the job they have, most likely to be on zero-hours contracts, and least likely to be in a permanent role.

Many of those problems stem from employers’ misunderstandings about autism and neurodivergence more generally. Sadly, 59% of line managers did not know how to make a reasonable adjustment to support a neurodivergent employee, according to ACAS. One in five neurodivergent employees have experienced harassment or discrimination at work. The possibility of such discrimination is one reason why around only 35% of autistic employees are even fully open about being autistic. As the Buckland review highlighted, during many interview processes, where the focus is on social rather than job skills, autistic people

“feel they must mask their autistic traits to succeed.”

To complicate matters further, many people with autism do not have a formal diagnosis, due to a fear of negative reaction from others, long NHS waiting times and so on. The current situation means that everyone loses out. Autistic jobseekers are being denied the opportunity to contribute their valuable skills to the workplace. When they do find a job, they often feel unable to bring their whole selves to work. Employers, on the other hand, are missing out on that wider talent pool we have discussed this afternoon, which comes from creating an inclusive environment for autistic employees.

Autism remains an untapped asset in the UK workforce. Autistic people often have remarkable cognitive abilities, including pattern recognition, sustained concentration and exceptional attention to detail. When matched with suitable roles, autistic employees can deliver productivity improvements ranging from 45% to 145%. As the Buckland review notes, many reasonable adjustments intended for autistic staff tend to benefit the wider team, such as noise-cancelling headphones and a designated quiet space if a co-working area becomes too noisy.

The number of autistic people out of work is also contributing to the overall unemployment rate, which is set to reach 5% by 2026, at a time when the Chancellor is facing immense financial pressure in the upcoming Budget. Obviously, getting as many people as possible into work at this point will help with the growth challenges she faces.

As has been mentioned, the Buckland review identified 19 key recommendations for ensuring that autistic people receive the support they need at work. Those include creating autism-friendly workplaces, via design guides for a range of industries; improving recruitment processes and career advice for autistic jobseekers; encouraging employers to join the autistic and neurodiversity employers’ index; and enhancing IT systems to meet autistic employees’ needs. I welcome the bipartisan nature of this challenge. I do not think anyone here would disagree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that it is about the individuality of each individual. I do not think that is just a Liberal thing; I think it is something we could all agree on.

In the Government’s response to the Public Services Committee’s October 2024 report on transitions to work for disabled young people, many of the successes listed included work that had already been started under the previous Government. For example, this Government are on track to double the number of supported internships, originally a Conservative Government initiative announced in 2023. It is good to see that almost 800 employment ambassadors have now been recruited to advocate for supported internships within businesses.

I look forward to scrutinising the findings of the Government’s independent panel on neurodiversity in the workplace, to ensure that it adequately addresses autism specifically. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already confirmed that the panel’s conclusions will build on the Buckland review, which is encouraging. However, I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how she plans to take forward the Buckland review more fully.

I finish by paying tribute to programmes that serve my constituents, providing a vital bridge into work for many autistic people across Devon. Project SEARCH Derriford is an award-winning scheme, enabling young people with autism or learning disabilities to complete work placements at the University Hospitals NHS trust’s Plymouth sites over the course of an academic year. Nationally, Project SEARCH has seen more than 60% of its interns enter full-time employment after completing the scheme, creating a win-win situation: the interns gain real-life employability skills and an enormous confidence boost, while employers gain committed, well trained staff, helping to reduce hiring costs and improving retention.

More broadly, Pluss in Plymouth and elsewhere across the country delivers specialist employment support for people with autism or learning difficulties, including work trials and ongoing mentoring, something I have been able to witness over the past 10 years or so. These organisations are brilliant examples of how effective job coaching can be.

To conclude, we must ensure that autistic people are not sidelined from the workplace. They are disproportionately out of work. Most of them want to be in work, yet many employers are poorly equipped to create inclusive environments. The Buckland review was a much-needed start in identifying areas for improvement, and I look forward to hearing how things might progress over the coming weeks and months. We must continue breaking down barriers to opportunity. Every individual deserves the chance to contribute their talents; when we unlock their potential, workplaces become richer in every sense.

17:10

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)]

As a fellow Hull MP, it is a real pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Turner.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this important debate. I thank her and all hon. Members who have spoken or intervened for their thoughtful contributions, and of course I also welcome her constituents who are with us today in the Public Gallery.

The hon. Lady made a very powerful case, talking about how a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. She referred to some of her constituents, Bradley, who is volunteering but rightly wants paid work, and Katie, who has to navigate a system that is supposed to help her, but has found that sadly it did not help her at all.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) about Workbridge. I was really disappointed to hear what he said, and of course I will meet him to discuss what, if anything, I can do to assist. However, we also heard about the very positive example of Nordis Signs, which has been providing careers for people for more than 30 years in some cases. That is excellent.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) spoke about the need for businesses to be supported in working with and employing autistic people or other neurodiverse people, and how important that is. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, talked about the importance of getting SEND issues right, and I absolutely agree with him on that. He also talked about Access to Work, which I will make some comments about in a moment.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke for the Conservative party and it was really good to hear from her about Alistair—it is excellent that he now has paid work. However, she was perhaps wearing rose-tinted spectacles when she described what had happened for 14 years under the previous Government and what they had actually achieved.

As the Minister with responsibility for employment, every day I see how good work can transform people’s lives. It gives people purpose, independence, pride and, crucially, a sense of belonging. We have been really clear that we want to achieve an overall 80% employment rate and that that is the key to delivering economic growth and prosperity for all of citizens. To achieve that ambition, we must address low employment rates for disabled people and people with health conditions. Until we do so, disabled people who wish to work will be denied the opportunities to participate fully in society. That has to change.

If we look more closely at the employment prospects of neurodivergent people, the picture worsens. For example, only 34% of autistic people are in any sort of employment, compared with around 55% of disabled people overall. We need to understand the workplace barriers that neurodivergent people face, and the support that employers require to create workplaces that are inclusive for neurodivergent people.

We need to do all this for those people who are currently being denied the opportunity to work and to enjoy all the benefits that we know work can bring. As has been said, there are benefits for employers, who are missing out on a significant source of talent at a time when there are over 700,000 vacancies in the United Kingdom, and there are benefits for our economy, because a more inclusive labour market, with more people in good work, is vital to delivering this Government’s No.1 mission, which is growth.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to the case of Tom Boyd, which has received quite a lot of media attention and coverage. I will say again that people such as Tom are vital to the UK’s workforce, and volunteering can play a vital role in preparing people for work. I imagine that Waitrose is regretting the way it handled the situation with Tom, and I hope it might consider progressing on its Disability Confident journey, which I will talk about in a moment. It is important to recognise the valuable role of volunteering, and how it can play an important part in getting people ready for paid work, but that should not be at the expense of finding sustainable paid employment for everyone who wants to work. I hope that is something that Waitrose, and all employers, will reflect on.

We want to ensure that neurodivergent people, disabled people and those with long-term health conditions are fully considered and supported to participate and remain in secure, sustained paid employment. That is why we are providing £1 billion to fund the voluntary supported employment programme, Connect to Work, across England and Wales. That will assist up to 300,000 people by the end of this decade. The programme follows internationally recognised evidence to deliver holistic, personalised employment support to disabled people, those with health conditions and others with complex barriers to work. It also works with employers to support participants once they are in work.

At this point, I should also mention that last week I had the great pleasure of meeting Laura Davis from the British Association for Supported Employment. We had a really interesting discussion about the diverse needs of neurodivergent people and the importance of the personalised, inclusive approach that Connect to Work can provide.

On the current offer from the DWP to employers—which I know hon. Members are particularly concerned about —we already have a digital information service that guides employers through workplace scenarios, including supporting neurodivergent employees or employees with learning disabilities. In addition, the DWP oversees the voluntary Disability Confident scheme, which I just referred to in relation to Waitrose. That encourages employers to create disability-inclusive workplaces and to support disabled people to get work and to get on in work. However, we know that there is much more to do, and the DWP is actively engaging with stakeholders to look at how we can best strengthen that scheme.

Some employers are already doing well. Microsoft has a neurodiversity hiring programme, making adjustments to its recruitment processes to be more accessible for neurodivergent people. GCHQ has not only adjusted its recruitment processes, but made specific adjustments in the workplace to help neurodiverse people to thrive. As a Government, we want that to become the norm, not just an example of good practice.

That is why in January this year, we put in place an independent panel of academics with expertise and lived experience of neurodiversity. The panel, led by leading academic expert Professor Amanda Kirby, has been reviewing the existing evidence on neurodiversity in the workplace to consider why neurodivergent people have poor experiences and a low overall employment rate. Part of its work has focused on how employers can better support neurodivergent people in the workplace.

Several hon. Members have referred to the Buckland review. The independent Buckland review on autism employment reported to the previous Government, as we have heard, in February 2024. I agree that it was a valuable piece of work, and my predecessor and the Minister for Social Security and Disability met Sir Robert Buckland last autumn to discuss its findings and to outline our plans to raise awareness of all forms of neurodiversity.

I am really pleased that we have now received the independent expert panel’s findings and recommendations, which we want to consider alongside the Keep Britain Working review. That review, which came out last week and was led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, represents a pivotal moment in our mission to create genuine opportunity for all—fundamentally reshaping how we support people to stay healthy, stay in work and build better futures for themselves and their families. It is about creating a system with greater clarity and support, and where employers feel confident and empowered to act to support their employees to deliver greater productivity. It is also about helping more people to stay and thrive in work throughout their working lives, whatever health conditions or disabilities they may face. We want to work in partnership with employers to create workplaces that support health and wellbeing. We all know that successful businesses and healthy workers go hand in hand.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, talked at length about Access to Work. That scheme currently supports thousands of disabled people, including people who may have hidden disabilities, to start or stay in work. I do not accept the picture that the hon. Member painted. I do accept that the scheme needs to be looked at, and we have been working directly with disabled people and the organisations that represent them to make improvements to it. I hope to be able to report back on that in due course.

I will seek your guidance, Mr Turner, because I have been speaking for more than 10 minutes now. Is it the case that there is no time limit because we can sit until 6 pm?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Correct.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Then I will carry on, because there are a few other issues that it might be helpful for hon. Members to be aware of.

Since August this year, there have been the full-time equivalent of more than 1,000 Pathways to Work advisers in our jobcentres across England, Scotland and Wales. I wanted to highlight that because the DWP and Jobcentre Plus committed to making sure that the personalised work advice that we talked about earlier is available to individuals. We also have 700 disability employment advisers and 90 disability employment adviser leaders supporting work coaches, or customers directly, to deliver that holistic and tailored support.

[Rebecca Smith]

I seek clarification on those numbers. When I have heard them in the main Chamber during questions and statements, I have wondered whether those people are new members of staff or existing members of staff who have moved into a slightly different role. When we say that there are 1,000—or the other numbers that the Minister has just read out—are they brand-new members of staff, who previously did not work for the DWP, or are they members of staff who have changed jobs?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with the details about that, but what is happening is that we are realigning the needs of individuals who come to jobcentres to ensure that they get a much more personalised, tailored approach. That is why the work that people do has shifted around. Some of those posts will of course be new, but other people will have been moved in. I am happy to get the details of that, but I want to recognise how important it is to have that personalised approach and specialist support.

We are going further by reforming, as I said, the employment support service into the new jobs and careers service, with much more personalised support. We have a pathfinder in Wakefield that is testing what that personalised offer would look like. Of course, the findings from the academic panel that I talked about will be a valuable addition to the evidence base available when we are looking at how we reshape the jobs and careers service for people whom we want to ensure get the support that they need.

I want to make some comments about young people, because we know that tailored support is equally important for them. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, work or training—that is more than one in eight of all young people in this country—and we expect that a significant number of those young people may be neurodivergent.

It is important that there is an effective careers education approach and programme during school and college for all young people, including those who are neurodivergent. That should particularly ensure that autistic young people gain the necessary employability skills and learn about themselves, while accessing tailored opportunities to prepare for adulthood and move into the workplace. Some excellent work is already going on in some of our special schools. In my constituency, Northcott in Hull North is an outstanding special school and does amazing work with young people in Hull and the East Riding.

We are testing and delivering eight youth guarantee trailblazers around the country for localised, tailored support for 18 to 21-year-olds. They will have the flexibility to tailor support and interventions to meet the specific needs and address the barriers faced by young people in those areas. The Chancellor announced that every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be offered guaranteed paid work. That forms part of the Government’s youth guarantee, and further details will be announced in the Budget.

To conclude, I hope I have made the case that getting more autistic adults into work is the right thing to do economically in reducing the disability employment gap and helping us to meet our long-term ambition for an 80% employment rate. Fulfilling that ambition would be a major driver for economic growth, but of course it is also the moral and right thing to do. We should never lose sight of how much this matters to every single neurodivergent person who is denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We all want that chance in life, and that is no different for neurodivergent people.

We have a huge challenge on our hands, but it is a great opportunity. By pressing on with the work we have begun—and by working with employers and autistic people—I have every faith we will be able to grasp it.

I will also add that many of the 1,000 individuals who I talked about earlier in my speech are existing staff but there will be additional funding to create new roles, so it will be a combination of both. The key thing is those staff are offering personalised support to groups for whom the one-size-fits-all approach of the past that I referenced at the beginning did not work.

17:27

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to the debate, particularly those who brought stories from their constituents. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) suggested changing the way that some people enter employment, and we should take seriously the idea that interviews are not right for everybody. I was disappointed to hear about Workbridge closing from the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). That underlines the fragmented nature of the support that is available—it can look different in different parts of the country.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and the Minister, made the important point that employers need support, particularly some small employers who do not have a whole fleet of HR colleagues to work with. A number of hon. Members talked about how valuable work experience is; it absolutely can be, but there is a reason the campaign to end unpaid internships has been successful. That success has brought a sense of justice—that someone cannot go on volunteering their time without a pathway to paid employment, or a clear view as to what they are gaining from it or how they can contribute.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for talking clearly about the exhaustion that can come from fighting against and within a system that does not work well enough. He talked about how Access to Work, although it exists, is not working for too many people. He made a point that was echoed by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith): of course this issue is about individuals, but it is also about growth, productivity and our whole economy.

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the work that is going on, but also that more needs to be done. We have not quite nailed this as a society just yet. We are missing out on the skills and talents of too many autistic people, and there is more we can all do to fix that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered employment opportunities for autistic adults.

17:29

Sitting suspended.

Rural Railway Stations: Step Free Access

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

16:39

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

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

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of step free access at rural railway stations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

In constituencies such as North Shropshire, access to public transport is poor. There are just three fully operational railway stations in North Shropshire, along with two very rural request stops. Shropshire’s second and third largest towns do not have a station at all. Whitchurch, home to around 10,000 people, does not have step-free access from the southbound platform. The station is a vital hub, particularly for the eastern side of the constituency and for those needing to connect with west coast main line services at Crewe or on to Chester or Manchester and southward to Shrewsbury, Birmingham and Wales. This has been an issue for a very long time. Every time I go out and knock on doors in Whitchurch, inadequate access to the railway is brought up by countless people.

Residents of Whitchurch who want to access the southbound platform to travel down to the county town of Shrewsbury or to exit the station when travelling down from the north are forced to tackle 44 steps up and down a footbridge. Those who are disabled or elderly, in a wheelchair or with heavy bikes, prams or large suitcases are often physically unable to access half of the trains going out of the station, or exit the station into the town when coming in from the north.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the challenges that train users face when they have mobility issues. In my own constituency, for example, someone can come back from town into Bredbury but not get into town from Bredbury. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a broader point about staffing? If the gap between the train and the platform is such that someone needs a staff member to help with the ramp, does she agree that there is an infrastructure and a staffing issue to address so that people can access our railways completely?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask for interventions to be short, please.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She raises a good point because none of the stations in my constituency is staffed on a regular basis, which adds an extra dimension for people struggling with their mobility or carrying heavy items.

The nearest alternative stations in Shropshire are Prees and Wrenbury. Both are request stops, where we have to stand on the edge of the platform and hail the train for it to stop. They are six and seven miles away respectively. To get from Whitchurch to Prees, which is southward—the way someone wants to go if they cannot access the platform—a person must travel over an hour by walking and taking the bus if they do not have a car. There is not an alternative option to get to Wrenbury. There is no parking at Prees station—just a widening in the grass verge by the road.

One Whitchurch resident told me that 10 years ago, sadly, they developed a neurological condition, which led to their retiring from their profession and needing to use a four-wheeled walking frame. They had to make frequent trips to the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery in London, but were not able to use Whitchurch station. Instead they had to drive over 17 miles along a poorly maintained road to Crewe to access the station there. It is absurd that we must have a car to access the railway. Public transport is for people who do not have cars. The nation and the Government are trying to move towards more sustainable forms of travel, but preventing large numbers of people from using the railway will not help achieve that objective.

Nearly two years after I first wrote to the Department for Transport, shortly after I was elected, and after countless letters, questions and meetings, Whitchurch station was finally announced as one of the stations where feasibility work for a step-free solution would be carried out under the Access for All scheme in May 2024, shortly before the election. As one would expect, the announcement gave rise to hope in the town that work would finally be completed, and yet what followed was a chaotic confusion of mixed messages.

Shortly after the general election the new Labour Government indicated that they would pause the projects while they sorted out the nation’s finances. Over a year later, a press release identical to the May 2024 one was published by the Government, stating that feasibility studies had been given the green light, further adding to the confusion about the timeline for the work. In August, Lord Hendy then confirmed that the initial feasibility studies had been completed, and that a decision would be made on which of the 50 stations would be put forward for work to start in the context of the spending review 2025, which took place in July.

Almost two months later, we are still waiting to learn the Department’s decision. The Government’s answers to pleas from Members across the House for approved stations to finally be released have made full use of the phrases “will be announced in due course” and “will be announced shortly”, but there has been nothing in the way of clarity, either in terms of the timetable or the stations to be included.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Wivelsfield station in my constituency was also promised money in January 2024 under the Access for All scheme, and to date no more information has been forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Conservatives did in 2024 was nothing more than pork barrel politics?

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think there is an element of pork barrel politics and of making undeliverable promises shortly before the election. That is not forgivable, because it has created an expectation among constituents that cannot be fulfilled.

As I was saying, the lack of clarity has added to the frustration of residents in places such as Whitchurch—especially in Whitchurch, because the plans for the lift are in place. It has been designed and Network Rail is keen to start work on the project, having designated it as a high priority for delivery in control period 7. All we need for step-free access at Whitchurch is a green light from the Department for Transport. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s timeline for delivering step-free access to Whitchurch station, so I may share that with my constituents.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I share my hon. Friend’s frustration but would like to say what a luxury it is to be so far down the line with an Access for All bid. Despite having £100,000 pledged by Dorset council and local developers to support step-free access, Dorchester South station is still waiting to hear whether it will even be considered for the bid. Does she agree that more should be done to create transparency in this process?

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right: there should be more transparency, but there also needs to be more attention to the issue of step-free access in rural areas. I am about to come on to that in more detail.

Improving the accessibility of Whitchurch station will bring more people to the town via rail. That obviously could boost tourism—Whitchurch is Shropshire’s oldest continuously occupied town and is well worth a visit, along with the other beautiful and historic towns in my constituency—and bring customers to local businesses, workers to job vacancies, critically, and families to their loved ones.

Rural towns and villages have been consistently deprioritised by successive Governments and this Government, I am afraid, are no better, continually focusing investment into mayoral combined authorities’ coffers. Those areas do not face the same fundamental issues that rural areas do. They have regular buses that come within minutes, even on Sundays, and train services that are more frequent than every two hours. If people choose to drive, they can do so without the risk of damaging their tyres because they have bumped into a huge pothole. In a town like Whitchurch, if the bus turns up the round trip to someone’s destination is likely to be more than two hours—even if it is only to Shrewsbury, which is 20 miles away. Investment like the Access for All scheme in rural areas is part of the solution to improving economic growth—to more businesses thriving, more people spending and more money flowing into our economy.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

What the hon. Lady is describing sounds very familiar to the market town of Baldock in my constituency of North East Hertfordshire. Baldock is due to double in size, but does not have any step-free access. Would she join me in urging the Minister to ensure that rapidly growing rural communities receive a fair share of infrastructure funding?

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Whitchurch, like, I would imagine, many of the towns mentioned in today’s debate, has seen a huge amount of development. The criteria that might have been applied for step-free access some years back probably need reassessing now, because far more people are living there.

The investment would help revitalise our market town high streets, which have withered after years of the previous Conservative Government’s taking rural areas for granted. This Labour Government need to acknowledge the importance of rural parts of the country because they risk pushing the urban-rural divide to breaking point. I welcome the £373 million scheme to deliver Access for All projects over the next five years on a £70 million annual rolling basis, but it is key that that money is distributed to places where access to the railway network is currently poor and where it will have the most impact.

The only criteria that we could find for the provision of step-free access to railway stations come from joint code of practice created by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland in 2015—a decade ago. It recommends that

“stations that have a daily passenger flow of 1000 passengers or less…are not required to have lifts or ramps”

if a station within 50 km of the same route provides a step-free route. I am sorry, but once someone has got in their car and driven 30 miles to access a step-free station, they may as well drive the rest of the way—I certainly would; that completely negates the point of public transport. Will the Minister please set out whether his Department intends to update those outdated and ineffective criteria to ensure that rural areas are not left forever without accessible stations?

Of course, I understand that installing accessibility upgrades for urban stations may reach more people, but the people there already have other forms of accessible transport, often as well as a usable taxi service. In an area such as Shropshire, that is often not the case. If the Government want to achieve their mission of stimulating growth across the whole country, they should ensure that everyone has proper access to public transport, not just those people who are lucky enough to live in an urban area. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the needs of our rural areas are understood and prioritised to turn the tide on decades of persistent under-investment in public transport and take the first step to making the railway step-free in rural areas, and especially in Whitchurch in North Shropshire.

18:11

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. Accessibility on our railways is not simply a question of engineering and infrastructure development; it speaks to the kind of society that we want to build: one that enables independence and provides equality of opportunity and dignity for every passenger, regardless of their mobility.

Rural stations in particular can be lifelines for those who would otherwise find travel difficult, but as we have heard many remain inaccessible to those who need them the most. That is why I am delighted to mark the progress being made at Par station in my constituency. For many months, I have worked with Network Rail, Cornwall council and the Department for Transport to ensure that the long-promised accessible footbridge at Par remains part of the Mid Cornwall Metro scheme despite the significant pressures on the national Access for All programme, which may have proved useful.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

In my constituency, in Bookham, access to the train to London is via an uneven path through the woods. Network Rail has not prioritised accessibility upgrades. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must do more with accessibility schemes, like those he just mentioned?

[Noah Law]

I certainly agree that the Department for Transport and Network Rail must look where there are gaps in funding those schemes to see what can be done to help plug those gaps. As we have heard from hon. Members across the Chamber, the Access for All scheme has sadly come to represent the kind of pork barrel politics that characterised the last Government’s approach —and approach that said, “We will make plans that you will love but we’re not going to tell you how we will fund them.”

Happily, the outline work on the Par station project is completed, and local residents in Par are delighted, but project partners are preparing for a key go or no-go decision in December. There remains the £1.5 million additional funding gap that must be resolved if the scheme is to proceed to full design and delivery. I urge Cornwall council to make a final push to secure that investment so that much-needed step-free access can finally be delivered for local passengers. I urge the Minister to do everything that he can to help us get this project over the line. It represents not only an important improvement for residents but a clear demonstration that we can deliver the kind of change that so many have long hoped for.

Cornwall, with its dispersed population and its growing demand for greener and better-connected travel, stands to benefit greatly from that ambition. Investment in accessibility is not just an afterthought; it is central in ensuring that every part of the country, in urban and rural areas alike, shares equally in the economic and social opportunities that modern inclusive transport can unlock. Accessible public transport should not be seen as a luxury or an optional add-on; it is a basic expectation for every community, however rural. It deserves continued support across the rail network.

18:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner.

It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on rail accessibility in rural areas, which plays a vital role in opening up our railway to people who do not happen to live in towns and cities, regardless of their mobility, their age or the fact that they are travelling with heavy luggage. Accessibility is a core priority for this Government and will continue to be for Great British Railways. We are committed to delivering a rail system that allows disabled people and others who might need assistance to travel easily, confidently and with dignity; of course, this applies equally to those living in rural areas.

We know that too often disabled people’s experience of travelling by rail falls short of what is expected and what passengers deserve. We are not waiting for GBR to be established to deliver improvements to facilities and to the passenger experience. Our short to medium-term ambitions are set out in the accessible rail road map, which we published last week alongside the Railways Bill. The road map includes a wide range of accessibility improvements across seven priority areas, such as station and train accessibility, consistency and reliability of both assets and information, ticket retailing, monitoring, culture and training. The road map also announced that eligibility for the disabled persons railcard will be extended in two phases next year. This will make the application process simpler and reflect a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse barriers that disabled people face when travelling.

The accessible rail road map is a practical transitional plan focused on delivering immediate improvements to accessibility, while laying the foundations for longer-term transformation under GBR. It is the beginning rather than the end of delivering a more accessible railway for the future. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her ongoing work in making the case for improved accessibility in rural areas, particularly in her own constituency, which I will address in the course of my remarks.

The Government remain fully committed to improving accessibility across our rail network. Like Members in all parts of the House, we recognise the significant social and economic benefits that accessible transport brings to individuals, families and of course communities. Through the Access for All programme, we have already delivered step-free access to more than 270 stations right across Britain. This work has included providing lift installations, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes, all of which make a real difference in the everyday lives of passengers. Smaller-scale accessibility upgrades have also been completed at more than 1,500 locations. This work has included providing everything from accessible ticket machines to better lighting, handrails and help points. That is real progress. We are making strides to transform journeys for passengers who previously struggled to use the railway, or were unable to use it at all. We are also continuing to invest in improving station accessibility. As part of the 2025 spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over a four-year period.

I now turn to the specific topic of this debate: accessibility at rural stations. Like all taxpayer-funded programmes, Access for All needs to demonstrate value for money. Funding is therefore targeted at the busiest stations to benefit the maximum number of people. Consequently, stations in rural areas that are used by fewer people are unlikely to be prioritised for accessibility upgrades, although I should also make it clear that that is equally applicable to stations in towns and cities that are less used than other stations.

It might be helpful to our understanding of the issues around accessibility in rural areas to reflect on the accessibility of stations in the North Shropshire constituency, which is a largely rural area. On a positive note, I think that Prees, Gobowen and Wem railway stations in her constituency already provide step-free access to all platforms. All three of these stations are categorised as B1, which means that step-free access is provided to all platforms, albeit it might be via a steep ramp. In the case of Gobowen—I checked the pronunciation beforehand, but still cannot manage it; apologies to constituents there—and Wem, I am aware that access can also require the use of level crossings. If a passenger arrives when the barrier is down, they might not be able to reach their platform in time to catch the train.

[Helen Morgan]

I want to re-emphasise the point that to a person who lives in Whitchurch, Gobowen is a long way away; they have to drive there. There is no parking at Prees. It is in the middle of nowhere—literally, because the station is not in the village. At Wem, the barrier is down for seven minutes when a train comes in; it is really inaccessible. Although fewer people use those stations, they have fewer options for public transport. I wonder whether the criteria are the right ones.

[Simon Lightwood]

I am reminded that Cumberland is one of our bus franchising pilot areas. So far, from just looking at our city regions as discussed earlier, we are investing money in those franchising pilots to ensure that the major improvements promised under the Bus Services Act 2025 can also be realised in more rural areas.

Passengers’ access to parts of the railway via level crossings is an extensive feature of rural railways across Britain, and while we would all like to see a world where that is not the case, I regret that such changes will take many years to achieve. For now, it is important for passengers to plan their journeys carefully and arrive at the station in plenty of time. I also urge passengers in North Shropshire and other rural areas to make use of the railway Passenger Assist service, which allows those with mobility requirements to book assistance for their journeys from all stations, including rural ones that may not have full-time, on-site staff, as the hon. Lady mentioned.

Whitchurch station is categorised as B3, meaning step-free access is available only to one platform—platform 2, for trains to Crewe and further north. Access to platform 1, for trains to Shrewsbury and for those travelling back from the north, is via a footbridge with 44 steps. Clearly, that limits which passengers can make use of Whitchurch station.

Turning to our plans for further accessibility upgrades at railway stations across Britain, in 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received, including for Whitchurch station. That nomination was supported strongly by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The previous Government announced that initial feasibility work would be undertaken for 50 of those projects, and, as the hon. Lady knows, Whitchurch was one of them. I am pleased to confirm that those initial feasibility studies have now been completed. I know that she and the hon. Members representing the other 49 stations are keen to understand the next steps. I thank them for their patience while we carefully consider these important matters, and I can confirm that we plan to provide that information in the coming months.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for talking about Par station. The Government have invested more than £50 million in the Mid Cornwall Metro project, which is funding a new bridge and lifts. I am delighted with the progress that has been made toward delivering better accessibility across that part of Cornwall, and with the really collaborative approach taken by Network Rail, Great Western Railway and Cornwall council. Crucially, that demonstrates that there are potential funding sources other than Access for All to improve accessibility at rural stations.

During the debate, hon. Members have addressed some of the important issues and considerations around rail accessibility in rural areas. Drawing on examples in the North Shropshire constituency , we have identified challenging factors, such as the need to use level crossings for step-free access to some parts of the railway. We have also discussed stations such as Whitchurch, which, frustratingly, is only partly accessible—a legacy of the Victorian railway, which did not consider such issues.

This Government are absolutely committed to improving the accessibility of our railways, and we are in no doubt about the social and economic benefits of doing so. That is demonstrated by the £280 million that the Chancellor made available for the Access for All programme in the recent spending review. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire for leading this important debate, and I thank her and other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their patience before we announce which new Access for All projects will progress.

Question put and agreed to.

06:25

        Sitting suspended.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

18:31

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to colleagues for attending this evening’s debate. A bit of background and heritage: the United Kingdom has long been a global hub for beers, wines and spirits. Dating back to 1698, with the founding of Berry Bros. & Rudd, we are the largest exporter of spirits in the world and the second largest importer of wine by both volume and value. The sector represents some of the very best of British enterprise: from heritage distillers to pioneering new producers who continue to innovate and support our economy. Behind every bottle on the shelf is a small family business, a logistics worker or a hospitality employee whose livelihood depends on the trade.

Each year, the United Kingdom imports the equivalent of 1.7 billion bottles of wine, accounting for 99% of all wine consumed here. This vibrant culture of responsible enjoyment sustains our high streets, supports independent retailers and provides essential income for pubs and restaurants that continue to face difficult trading conditions. In 2024, more than £12 billion was paid to the Treasury in alcohol duty, with wines and spirits contributing £8.5 billion—around 70% of that total. The wider wine and spirits sector generated more than £76 billion in economic activity in 2022, supported £22 billion in gross value added and sustained more than 400,000 jobs.

However, when more than 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is tax, we must ask who is truly being squeezed—the consumer, the publican or the common sense of good economic policy? The reality is that the margins for producers and retailers are tightening. There is a limit to what the British public are willing to pay before they simply choose to stay at home. Changes in duty directly alter prices on the shelf and on restaurant wine lists. Every percentage point of duty may appear small in Whitehall, but for many businesses, it is the difference between survival and closure. Treasury Wine Estates, the producer of brands such as 19 Crimes and Penfolds, has warned that further tax increases will deepen pressure on hospitality. Its managing director of global premium brands, Angus Lilley, stated that higher costs mean tougher choices for local pubs, higher prices for consumers and less money circulating through the hospitality sector, which keeps our towns and cities vibrant.

A recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association found that one in four regular drinkers will buy less alcohol from shops if prices continue to rise, and two in five will reduce their consumption in pubs and restaurants. In my constituency, we have excellent local brewers such as Tilford and Kilnside, and craft distillers such as Hogmoor distillery; I had the pleasure of visiting the team recently and sampling their locally made spirits. Those are small creative producers that bring jobs, pride and flavour to their communities, but they will not survive if the alcohol industry continues to face relentless pressure from Government policy that fails to support its long-term sustainability. If we price people out of the pub, we do not just lose the sale; we lose the cornerstone of British community life.

Turning to the current picture, sales data illustrates the scale of the problem. In the 12 weeks to mid-June this year, volume sales for wine were down by 3% in the off-trade, rising to 5% for spirits. The picture in the on-trade is even more severe, with wine volumes down by 7% and spirits by 8%. Hospitality has been one of the hardest hit sectors of the economy since the Budget, accounting for nearly half of all job losses. We are now taxing our way to lower revenues. That is not sound economics; in fact, it is counterproductive. As one industry voice put it:

“Britain is becoming the most taxed place to raise a glass and the hardest place to sell one”.

Colleagues will recall that in 2023, the UK moved from the inherited EU duty framework to a strength-based system taxing wine by labelled alcohol by volume in 0.1% increments. Alongside that reform, the headline rate increased in August 2023, and it increased by a further 3.65% in February of this year. For a 14.5% ABV wine, that represents a cumulative increase of around 44% in just 18 months.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the point about excessive tax inhibiting entrepreneurship, I visited Ned Awty and his family, who run the Oatley vineyard in Cannington in my constituency, and they pointed out that it is perverse that the United Kingdom has a duty relief scheme for small brewers and distillers but no similar scheme for small vineyards. Does my hon. Friend agree that a small duty relief scheme for small producers would help English wine producers—and that we could all raise a glass to that?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and he pre-empts something I was going to say later about the inconsistencies and unfairness in the current system. Small producer relief is capped at 8.5% ABV, and the Government should look at what they can do for the smaller producers that he mentions.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted that the UK has the third highest wine duty in the world, now at £2.44 per bottle—an increase of 9p since 2023. By comparison, France charges the equivalent of just 2p per bottle and Romania 1p, and Spain applies no excise duty at all. In fact, half of the EU’s 27 member states do not charge duty on wine whatsoever. When neighbouring countries impose far lower rates, our competitiveness suffers. We pride ourselves on being a global trading nation, but we have priced ourselves out of the very markets we helped to create. Labour’s current approach is short-sighted and self-defeating: taxing ambition, throttling innovation and penalising productivity. The Treasury cannot build growth by breaking the back of the very industries that deliver it. As Winston Churchill put it in 1904, we cannot tax our way to prosperity any more than we can drink our way to sobriety.

I turn to the inconsistencies and unfairness in the system, which my hon. Friend just mentioned. Products with an ABV of between 8.5% and 22% are taxed at the same rate per litre of pure alcohol, and yet producers of beer with an ABV of between 3.5% and 8.4% pay more than twice as much duty as producers of cider of the same strength. Small producer relief, although it is welcome in principle, is capped at 8.5% ABV and therefore excludes virtually all winemakers and distillers. This policy fails to support small English wineries such as Chapel Down—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—Nyetimber or Camel Valley, which I am sure Members are all familiar with, and which contribute to rural employment and agricultural production.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech, and I agree with everything that he is saying. West Dorset is blessed with 11 fantastic small vineyards. For most of them, the primary route to market is through local shops and rural pubs. Does he agree that unless we raise the threshold to create equality in the marketplace and a fairer system alongside small producers of beer, those vineyards will never have a chance to grow beyond their local area?

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. It makes very little sense to design a system that punishes small wineries for doing precisely what we want, namely innovating, employing and exporting. We need a tax framework that supports the makers, not merely those who take.

There is a revenue reality to this as well. Between April and September this year, receipts from alcohol duty were £300 million lower than during the same period in 2024. If that trend continues, the Treasury will collect around £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We have reached the wrong side of the Laffer curve, where higher duties result in lower total receipts. The Treasury cannot continue to draw from the same barrel and expect it to refill itself. That should give the Chancellor, the Minister and Treasury officials pause for serious reflection.

With the autumn Budget approaching, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas of concern. First, have the Government undertaken, or will they undertake, a full assessment of the impact of successive duty increases on consumer prices, business sustainability and overall tax receipts? Secondly, will the forthcoming three-year review of the duty system consider whether the current tax by ABV model is appropriate for wine, a product whose alcohol content varies naturally with climatic conditions? Thirdly, will the Government revisit the structure of small producer relief so that it more fairly supports genuinely small-scale producers, including English winemakers and craft distillers, in line with the original policy intent?

Finally, will the Treasury review the cumulative impact of wider regulatory costs, such as the extended producer responsibility packaging levy, business rate changes and other compliance burdens, to ensure that they do not disproportionately harm low-margin businesses within the sector? I thank the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and Treasury Wine Estates, whose compelling evidence shows a sector under extreme pressure, a tax system that is internationally uncompetitive and an approach that risks delivering diminished returns to the Exchequer. When consumers are price sensitive, hospitality is struggling, and revenues are falling despite higher rates, it is right to ask whether the system remains fit for purpose. The objective must be a framework that is fair between product categories, proportionate in its impact, and effective in raising the revenue on which our public services depend.

The UK’s wine and spirits sector is one of our quiet economic strengths. It deserves a regulatory environment that allows it to thrive, invest and continue contributing to communities and the Treasury alike. The Government should remember that a thriving economy fills the Exchequer, and a suffocated one drains it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and in particular how the Government intend to support the stability, competitiveness and long-term sustainability of this vital industry.

18:42

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under you this evening, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing the debate so ably, and I agree with much of what he said. He presented a number of questions to the Minister on the operation of alcohol duty, but one question that was perhaps missing was around the health impacts of having the wrong level of alcohol duty in the UK. I will touch on that in my speech.

In my life, English wine has moved from being a feature of jokes on sitcoms to a premium product—sometimes in terms of price, but more importantly in terms of its quality. I am pleased to see that Scotland’s wine industry is also growing. In 2025, so far five new vineyards have registered with Food Standards Scotland. I hope that this industry will continue to flourish and grow. I am proud to have the North British Distillery, one of Scotland’s oldest and largest Scotch grain whisky producers, in my constituency; I would be in trouble if I did not mention it. I hope that any consideration to changes on alcohol duty covers the whole of the industry in the UK, rather than just one part of it.

As much as I want these industries to thrive, and I absolutely do, we must be conscious of alcohol’s public health implications. It is our responsibility to find the right balance, with an alcohol duty that works for businesses, as we have heard, but that also supports public health. We need an alcohol duty system that works for our wine industry, supports the hospitality sector and improves public health. I shall talk about informed moderation when it comes to drinking. I am not here to lecture anyone—I enjoy a drink, like everybody else—but I am a real advocate of awareness of the implications of consuming alcohol.

I am concerned about four things, really. I think that drinks are getting stronger; that has certainly been the case in my lifetime, and it is to the detriment of the taste of some wines. We are drinking more at home post covid, and that has real health implications. I also have to say that I am eating more crisps at home as well post covid. [Laughter.] It is a serious point, actually. Our hospitality industry is under huge pressure, and this impacts on the vibrancy of our high streets.

We have a duty to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of drinking. Recently, I met representatives from Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems. They told me that in Scotland in 2024, a total of 1,185 alcohol-specific deaths were registered. That was the lowest number registered since 2019—something that we should celebrate. It is perhaps, in least in part, due to minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland, but it still shows the damage that excessive alcohol consumption can do, and it remains too high in Scotland and elsewhere.

By choosing to consume lower strength alcohol, we can continue to enjoy drinking and the benefits that it brings us on social occasions, while also addressing the harms caused by alcohol. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking quite seriously to meet their commitment to label alcohol, just as we did as a country with cigarettes, to make people more aware of some of the risks that come with drinking. For example, the World Cancer Research Fund told me that alcohol-related breast cancer can be caused even by low levels of consumption of high-strength alcoholic drinks. Reducing the strength of alcoholic drinks can reduce the likelihood of this type of cancer. I have to say, they told me about this at the Labour party conference in Liverpool—not the best place to give people advice on drinking a little bit less. That is why I feel that a well-designed minimum unit pricing system across the UK is worth considering, alongside a meaningful and well-structured alcohol duty regime, but I understand some of the concerns around minimum unit pricing of alcohol.

Many people active in this sector look back to when Alistair Darling was Chancellor in the UK, and the changes that he made to the alcohol duty regime and how that directly related to improved health outcomes for people. That is something that we can learn from. I am always proud to say that I followed him, although there was someone between us, as MP for Edinburgh South West.

Alongside an effective duty system, it is also right that we encourage drinking in as safe an environment as possible, while supporting our hospitality industry. During a meeting with the Institute of Alcohol Studies last month, I was told that freezes in alcohol duty disproportionately benefit the sale of alcohol in shops, allowing supermarkets to maintain lower prices in comparison with hospitality venues. This is at the heart of so many pubs feeling the strain, because it is so much cheaper for people to drink at home than in pubs and other venues. Hospitality is a massive employer in the UK, and it is under huge stress. We need to look at taxation of alcohol right across the board to make sure that we are benefiting that sector while also reducing harmful drinking at home. An effective alcohol duty can support many of these jobs by closing the gap between the prices in pubs and supermarkets. That, in turn, encourages people to drink—hopefully, British-produced alcohol—publicly, which is far safer than consumption in private.

It is right that we take time to thoroughly consider alcohol duty, and make sure that it works for our wine industry and for businesses like the North British Distillery in my constituency. But we also have to see this debate as an opportunity to support the hospitality sector and improve public health. These are three really important things, and I do not envy the Minister in trying to reach a balance between them.

18:48

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on giving us an opportunity to discuss this very important topic that affects so many people and businesses in the Weald of Kent, which proudly produces some of the finest wines in the country.

The principle of taxing alcohol by strength may make sense in theory, but wine is an agricultural product. Its strength cannot be engineered to order; instead, it varies naturally with climate and vintage. A system designed for factory production simply does not work for vineyards rooted in the soil. Sadly, our wine businesses have faced steep duty increases, ever more paperwork and, as a result, mounting costs across the board. In the Weald of Kent, small vineyards—often family-run and started from scratch—are grappling not just with higher duties but with higher label costs, greater packaging charges and yet more red tape.

In May, I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor to raise my concerns about the impact of alcohol duty on the wine industry. In his reply, he said that producers below 8.5% ABV could claim draught relief and small producer relief. That is true, but almost no wine sits below 8.5% strength. Might the Minister be able to tell us how many UK wineries actually claimed either relief last year?

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Like the hon. Lady, as a south-east MP, I have some amazing vineyards in my constituency, such as Bolney Wine Estate and Albourne Estate. They have told me about the challenges of the 8.5% cap that the hon. Lady has so articulately set out. It strikes me, however, that the previous Conservative Government brought in that cap. Does the hon. Lady think that current members of the Conservative party regret that decision from 2022?

[Katie Lam]

It is not for me to speak for them, but it is reasonable to say that the system we have does not work very well. It would not be right to pretend otherwise on behalf of my constituents who have to deal with it every day.

The Minister’s predecessor also said that the new system benefits lower strength wines, including many British wines. Since February, overall rates have risen. Might the Minister be able to tell us what share of English wines are paying less or more duty now than under the previous system? Finally, the previous Minister said that reforms would strengthen the tax base, yet as far as I can see, between April and September, alcohol duty receipts were almost £300 million lower than in the same period last year, despite the rates rise. It would be useful if the Minister could explain that.

Duty on 14.5% ABV wine is now almost half as much more again as it was in August 2023. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon rightly pointed out, well more than half the shelf price of a bottle of wine is now tax. In France, the equivalent duty is a few euro cents, and in Spain, it is nothing at all. This duty system, combined with the general tax rises in the last Budget, is putting businesses at risk. Could the Minister please rule out any further duty increases in the upcoming Budget? Countless small producers in the Weald of Kent, and about 1,000 independent merchants across England, are already struggling under the weight of new bureaucracy and tax pressures.

Winemaking is not an exact science. As I mentioned, alcohol strength fluctuates from year to year, and small differences can double a producer’s duty bill. Large multi-national producers may be able to absorb that; small family wineries cannot. They cannot dial down their ABV without changing the taste or quality of the product. They cannot dilute wine without destroying it. These are new entrepreneurial businesses built on enormous risk and long-term investment. Many vineyards in the Weald have put everything they have into buying land, planting vines and waiting years before their first sale.

In my constituency, we are proud to host many of Britain’s leading wineries, including Chapel Down, Gusbourne, Balfour, Biddenden, Westwell, Woodchurch and Domaine Evremond—the list goes on. They bring visitors, jobs and pride to the Weald, and it is an utter pleasure to visit them all. We are also home to small start-ups, such as the husband and wife team I met last month in Hamstreet taking a leap of faith into the sector. It if is tough for the big names, it is tougher still for the small ones. Now, they face not just duty increases but rising national insurance costs, higher minimum wages, an end to flexible employment contracts, changes to inheritance tax relief, and packaging fees that penalise glass, which is the only viable material for quality sparkling wine.

When I last raised the broader issue of wine in England, I asked the Minister’s colleague in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he would support the sector’s call for targeted help, and he said it was a matter for the Treasury. I say to the Minister today, “Please look again.” I know that he did not create the duty framework, but my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon is right that we seem to have reached the tipping point at which our taxation system is so complex and onerous that it is collecting less money than a simpler lower-rate system would. It would be great to hear what plans the Minister has to support such an exciting and dynamic industry creating jobs and amazing export opportunities in rural parts of the country such as my home, the Weald of Kent.

18:54

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. I was delighted that he broadened his comments beyond the wine industry because, of course, the lessons we can learn from the whisky industry will apply to the burgeoning wine industry. I also acknowledge the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I agree with many of his comments about the health implications, but I also acknowledge, for once, a Scottish Labour MP praising the Scottish Government rather than criticising them.

The impact of alcohol duty is being felt far beyond the UK wine sector. It is critically affecting the nation’s biggest food and drink export: Scotch whisky. Despite its proven value to the economy—it supports more than 66,000 jobs across the country and had an export value of £5.4 billion last year—the industry now stands under a mounting threat that has been created by current Government policy.

In just two years, Scotch whisky has faced a 14% increase in duty, meaning that 70% of the average cost of a bottle of whisky represents tax. On top of that, producers are under immense pressure from other rising input costs, higher employment expenses and global market pressures, including damaging US tariffs that threaten stability and market share. Despite that, the expected revenues from duty increases have perversely failed to materialise. We know that the Government want to put growth at the heart of their strategy, but last year’s falling revenues show that excessive taxation is hurting both the industry and the Treasury. That also applies to the growing wine sector in this country. I expect that is partly to do with climate change, although I do not expect that my constituency in the north of Aberdeenshire will see any vineyards in the near future.

The Scotch Whisky Association has rightly described the current excise duty system as broken. It is now up to the Chancellor to create a stable and supportive environment for the industry by freezing excise duty. With more than 1,000 jobs lost since the last Budget, it is time for the Government to recognise the counterproductive nature of this policy and set it right in the upcoming autumn Budget.

Significant progress is being made in Scotland, as discussions between the First Minister and President Trump during his state visit highlighted the potential for a trade deal that would strengthen ties between the US whiskey and Scotch whisky industries. The Chancellor must now show the same commitment by prioritising the Scotch whisky sector and recognising that supporting its growth means maintaining the duty freeze to allow for this world-renowned industry, and hopefully the wine sector, to thrive.

18:57

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for bringing us this very important debate; it is much appreciated.

The overall logic of more alcohol resulting in more tax makes sense, and the taxation of wine needs to be stable, fair and workable. That principle has to work in practice, and we are completely failing on that in the current system. We really need to fix that as soon as possible.

To recap, before August 2023, in line with EU regulations, wine duty was predominantly charged according to volume, rather than how much alcohol the product contained. In August 2023, through the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023, a new duty system was introduced that required duty to be paid on all products according to strength. On 31 January 2025, wines between 11.5% ABV and 14.5% ABV were taxed as if their strength were 12.5%, but that measure was withdrawn on 1 February 2025. Therefore, 85% of all wine sold in the UK is subject to the same rate of duty.

Under the new system, that has been replaced by 30 different rates based on ABV at 0.1% increments. That is extraordinary. It would make sense if we were talking about vodka, which is distilled, or beer, which is brewed, as the producer is able to perfectly and precisely determine how much alcohol is in those products. It makes absolutely no sense for an agricultural product like wine; a bottle of wine may have more or less alcohol in it from one season to the next. Dealing with the microscopic increments puts domestic and foreign producers and retailers in this country in real trouble, because every single one of those bottles needs to be measured and calibrated, and priced and taxed accordingly. The administrative burden of that is absolutely horrendous.

I hear that from Oli Gauntlett, the head of Eynsham Cellars and a loyal constituent, and from the Oxford Wine Company, which is a wonderful wine company that serves Oxfordshire. It has had enormous admin trouble dealing with this issue. I also hear it from Majestic Wine, which has a shop in Witney. The single best reason to change this is, as so many people have said already, that it is not working: we have £300 million less excise duty as a result. I cannot think of a better argument to tickle the Treasury into a sensible decision.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this policy directly hits the small independent wine importers, such as The Wine Loft in Brixham? It sells many different kinds of wine, but it does not have the power of Sainsbury’s or Majestic. It does not have a whole department to manage it and bring in large quantities of the same wine.

[Charlie Maynard]

I agree 100%. That is a great illustration of just how painful and unnecessary it is. This is not benefiting anyone, not even His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Budget is very soon and, bluntly—I do not want to stick the knife too much into my Conservative colleagues—I think the previous Government’s tax reforms were, overall, quite sensible in levying more tax on higher amounts of alcohol, but that is obviously mad when it comes to wine. I am an equal-opportunities knife sticker, so why did Labour follow a mad Tory policy? It is a bit like, why are they following a mad hard Brexit? Pull out, blame the Tories and then change the policy back to something sensible. They could raise more tax and put UK growers and UK retailers back on their feet.

19:01

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. In Blur’s immortal words, he knows his claret from his Beaujolais, but I will not have anyone say he is a charmless man.

It is a pleasure to speak in support of an industry that is doing well in this country, although it is facing some challenges. Wine is a home-grown success story, with more than 1,000 vineyards and nearly 5,000 hectares under vines across the country. In my North West Norfolk constituency, I am fortunate to have wineries including the award-winning Burn Valley and Cobble Hill, which are contributing to the local economy, supporting tourism and creating jobs. Overall, the wine and spirits industry contributed £76 billion in economic activity last year, with nearly half of that coming from the wine sector. Despite this success, the Government are putting more burdens on the sector.

This has been a good debate, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) wins the prize for the number of wineries in her constituency. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) made some important points about public health. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) could not resist mentioning Brexit—he seems slightly obsessed.

The domestic sector is largely made up of small producers, with two thirds producing fewer than 10,000 bottles a year. Generally, these are family businesses, local employers and passionate entrepreneurs. Employment in the sector has grown significantly over the past few years, and since 2010 bottle sales have increased to over 9 million.

The UK is a global hub for the trade, being the second largest importer of wine by volume and value. This is a sector that we should be nurturing, not penalising. When we were in government, that is what we did. We introduced the simplified duty system, based on taxing alcohol by strength, with an 18-month easement to help the sector. We encouraged businesses to diversify and move into wine production.

Importantly in the context of this debate, we froze alcohol duty rates in the 2023 autumn statement, and we continued that in the spring Budget of 2024. That is a record of support, but sadly this Government have taken a different path. At last year’s Budget, they raised the headline rate of alcohol duty by inflation. As we have heard, around 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is now tax, and Wine GB warns that the increases are driving down demand and, in turn, cutting revenue to the Treasury. One in four drinkers say they will buy less alcohol as a result of the price increases.

Let us be clear that producing wine in Britain is not easy. Yields are 30% to 50% lower than in France or Spain, labour costs are higher, the weather is obviously unpredictable, and input prices keep rising. But instead of backing the sector, the Government keep piling on costs. Alcohol duty—up. Business rates—up. National insurance—up. As we have heard, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said that revenues from alcohol duty are down £300 million in the first six months of this financial year. If that continues, the Treasury will be bringing in £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the spring statement.

The Government are putting the country on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, not just on alcohol taxes but across the board. The Minister is relatively new in post, but has he commissioned advice on the duty’s impact on the sector? Has he taken a fresh look at the data or at the assumptions used by the OBR? If not, will he do so, and do so rapidly? The Opposition are firmly on the side of Britain’s wine producers. It is a vibrant, innovative and home-grown sector that deserves support, not more taxation.

Of course, it is not possible to have this debate without talking about the hospitality sector, as a number of colleagues have. Wine is more than a drink; it is about socialising and shared experiences. The sector clearly depends heavily on pubs, restaurants and hotels to introduce consumers to this great British product.

However, under this Government, hospitality, like so many sectors, is struggling. Nearly 90,000 jobs have been lost since the disastrous Budget a year ago, and today we have seen the unemployment rate hit 5%—it has gone up every month under this Government. That is the result of the Chancellor’s terrible judgment in making it more expensive to employ people. With rising employment costs, the jobs tax, the extended producer responsibility and higher business rates, we see layer upon layer of additional cost, so it is no wonder that UKHospitality has described the Government’s approach as a “hammer blow”.

The wine sector has put forward some suggestions for the Chancellor and Ministers ahead of the Budget. First and foremost, it asks that they reconsider some of the decisions to increase business taxes, and it asks them to consider a freeze on excise duty or a wine tourism relief. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), and echoed by others, it also asks for the alignment of small producer relief with the realities of the wine industry. Those are all practical ideas that are worthy of consideration, so will the Minister commit to looking seriously and carefully at all of them?

Rather than taxing success, we should be nurturing it. The wine sector is a model of sustainable, rural growth, and it deserves our support. Its ask of the Minister is simple: will the Government work with the sector and listen to it, and will they look at the evidence and commit to easing the burden on our wine producers?

19:07

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

I am glad to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate, and for speaking so eloquently in support of the UK wine sector. It is fantastic to hear him speak about the sector’s growth, as well as its continuing progress on exports, which is a really good thing. The irony is not lost on me, though, that he said that Treasury Wine Estates has some reservations about the Treasury’s tax policy—I will look into that.

I heartily echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the UK wine industry’s significant contribution to our economy, culture and tourism. As he mentioned, the statistics speak for themselves: we are the world’s second largest wine importer, bringing in 1.7 billion bottles in 2024. Sales of both imported and home-grown wine support hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in hospitality and retail. In recent years, as many Members have mentioned, more and more people have taken up work in the UK’s domestic wine sector, which is much like a dessert wine—small, but strong.

Industry figures suggest that more than 1,000 vineyards and 200 wineries contribute to our rural economy, with land under vine growing fivefold since 2005. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) listed many of the wineries in her patch; one of the challenges of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), is that they do not always get to speak in these debates. However, I have been reliably informed by note that the two Members have the same number of vineyards in their constituencies—there may have to be a little Kent-based competition.

It is great to see that the number of home-grown products is increasing, with production exceeding 10 million bottles last year, and with sales rising too. This Government are committed to fostering an environment in which the wine industry, like its vines, can thrive and grow.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, as well as other Opposition Members, made important points about the UK’s alcohol duty system. Before I turn to those points, I will first acknowledge the Government’s wider work to support the wine industry through agricultural grants and export promotion. The Government have committed at least £200 million to the farming innovation programme through to 2030, and we champion domestically produced wines on the international stage. For example, we showcased English sparkling wine at the Osaka expo earlier this year.

As I have mentioned English sparkling wine, it is important that I also mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who talked about Scotland’s growing wine industry and the impact it is having on high streets. He also said that, in designing a sensible tax system, it is important that it takes account of the impact on the health of the population, which I think is reflected in the current system.

Members have spoken about the previous Government’s reform of the alcohol duty system. I am a Labour MP, so it is not lost on me that I am defending an alcohol duty system implemented by Conservative MPs, and that Conservative MPs are opposed to a system implemented by their own Government. We learned in opposition that it is not always wise to oppose the decisions made by our party when it was previously in government. Indeed, I think that one of the reasons we won the last election is because we were able to talk proudly and confidently of the achievements of previous Labour Governments. Anyway, it is up to Opposition Members to choose which aspects of previous Government policy they wish to support, or not.

As others have mentioned, the alcohol duty system is now based on the principle of taxing alcohol by strength, which means that alcohol duty increases with a product’s ABV. Although it is true that some higher-strength wines have faced increases in duty, that has been balanced by reductions in duty for lower-ABV wines, including some British wines. Prior to the reforms, wines with 11% ABV and wines with 14% ABV both paid the same duty per bottle. Now, there is a difference: wines with 11% ABV pay £2.43 in duty and wines with 14% ABV pay £3.10.

I am interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent about the extent to which British wine companies are producing wine with an ABV below 8.5%. I will consider that point. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading up on this topic earlier today. However, I know the changes were introduced alongside conversations with industry representatives, and those conversations will continue as the changes bed in.

In recognition of the big changes that were implemented, it is right to assess their impacts after they have had time to take effect. We have said that will take place at least three years after their introduction in 2023. I will take that work forward next year with officials from HMRC, and I would welcome evidence from Members in this Chamber, including representations from the businesses and communities they represent, and of course I will engage with the wine industry.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said he had three points, but I think he had four in the end, including on the cumulative impact—I will try to address all four. On his third point, yes, we will consider in the round all aspects of the system’s current design. I do not want this review to be one that does not properly interrogate the design of the system, and I also do not want to pre-empt where it will get to, but in my role overseeing that review, I want us to look carefully at the design of the system as a whole. I think the system is sensible and fair, but I also know there are challenges that have been raised by Members today.

On the hon. Member’s big point about cuts or freezes to alcohol duty, it is worth realising that any such cuts or freezes would come at a cost to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility produces the costings for any changes to taxation policy.

[James Wild]

They are always wrong.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman might think that some of the OBR’s assumptions are wrong. I encourage Members, if they have evidence, facts or figures that they want to put to the OBR on the elasticities—as I believe it is called when a tax rate is changed and has an impact on consumption—to send them in. The Government are confident in the OBR’s independence, but I will always want to ensure that we are putting forward accurate costings. In this instance, I believe that the OBR is in the right place when it comes to the elasticities, but Members should feel free to send in their own representations.

It is worth noting that freezing alcohol duty this year, if inflation was around 4%, would be equivalent to a 3.85% duty cut. Using HMRC’s published ready reckoner, this would cost the Exchequer roughly £440 million a year. It is right, therefore, that any decision on alcohol duty weighs the impact on overall revenues carefully. That is what I am confident that the Chancellor will do when she makes a decision in the Budget in just a few weeks.

I will try to run through some of the points made by Members in this debate. The hon. Members for Bridgwater, for Weald of Kent and for Farnham and Bordon, and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised the issue of small producer relief for wine. That question was considered in detail as part of the previous Government’s review into alcohol duty, and as I have said, we will look to review it three years after the implementation that took place on 1 August 2023. We want to gather data and really look at the impact of the reforms. If Members want to come forward with proposals for change, then they should do so.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Of course. I was looking forward to my first intervention, and will happily give way.

[Charlie Maynard]

I am just going to make a plea. HMRC is losing nearly £1 billion a year, which is incredibly bad news, and there are massive frictions and admin costs on business. Why would we not just go back to the easement? We can stand looking at this massive problem, or we can face facts and deal with it—and actually get money for the Exchequer.

[Dan Tomlinson]

We will look in the round at the changes that were implemented in 2023. I do not want to rush to implement something that does not work for the alcohol industry as a whole and is not fair or proportionate. But I understand the points that have been raised—they are well made and I have been listening.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon also raised the cumulative impact on the wine industry of various changes that have been made by previous Governments, and the current Government, including around packaging. That does go to a big-picture point that is contested in this place about the tax rises implemented in the Budget last year. It is my view, and the view of the Chancellor and the Government, that in the round we had to make those decisions to raise revenue. I understand that it led to additional taxation on businesses, but that was on the largest businesses—around half of businesses, those with the fewest employees, are not paying any additional national insurance as a result of the changes last year. But I understand that there was an impact on those firms that had to absorb those additional taxation levels.

The Government think that it was the right decision in order to raise revenue to fund our public services and ensure that borrowing was not increased more than is sustainable. It is right that the Government ensure that we borrow to invest in the future of this country, something I wish the previous Government had done when interest rates were down at 0.5%. On a serious point, as the Minister with responsibility for taxation policy and the Treasury, I am looking closely at the impact of all the changes that have been introduced in previous years that require compliance and burden for business. We have to look carefully at them, because we want to see businesses growing, thriving and being able to hire more people and expand.

On business rates specifically, the Chancellor will come forward at the Budget with the permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure. That policy was set out in our manifesto and we will announce the detail at the Budget.

Let me turn to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard). I was glad to hear a shout-out for my hometown of Witney—I went to Wood Green school in his constituency; it is a wonderful part of the world. He, too, raised the point that one of the challenges with the move to the new system is the additional bands. If we look at it on a chart, the line is flat because the rate is the same, but of course I am aware that, depending on the ABV, producers are at different points on that line. That is something they have to deal with, and he is right that it is maybe more of a challenge for those who are producing wine and growing products. I do understand that; the point was well made, and there will be a review of the tax three years after implementation.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned Scotch whisky and was interested to hear from me about the support that the Government are providing to the industry. I would say that the industry is set to be one of the biggest beneficiaries from the trade deal with India, which is set to reduce tariffs from 150% to 75% initially and then to 40% over time.

I do not think I have reached every single question that Members raised, but I hope they feel that I have covered the points that were made. To conclude, our Government are dedicated to supporting the UK wine industry through a range of measures, including ensuring an alcohol duty system that is fair and proportionate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon for securing the debate. I share his pride in this growing British success story and look forward to further discussions, including with WineGB and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association—tomorrow, in fact—about how we can build a prosperous and sustainable future for UK wine.

17:33

[Gregory Stafford]

Having eight minutes to wind up, when usually one gets about eight seconds in this place, is a luxury that I will indulge, at least to a limited extent—I do not want to keep hon. Members from their wine.

This has been a fascinating debate and a wide range of issues have been raised. It was wonderful to hear about the wine producers and hospitality industries in people’s constituencies, as exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who is a doughty advocate not just for her constituency as a whole but, from what I can see from social media, for her vineyards and the producers in her constituency.

Every day is a school day: I did not realise that Scotland produced wine, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for raising that—and for talking about his crisp-eating habits. He rightly mentioned the health implications, and I hope that nothing I said in my speech detracted from that. I would like to see more education, and more targeted services and treatment services. I think that would achieve more than taxing the Shiraz that we have with our Sunday lunch, although he may beg to differ with me on that.

We have not just talked about wine; the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) rightly mentioned the Scotch whisky industry, which is vital.

The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), outlined comprehensively how complicated the system is. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for mentioning Blur. I think that dates him and me, but he was right to outline that the last Conservative Government froze duties. That is something that the Government should consider at the Budget.

I feel sorry for the Minister, because—behind the Chancellor, perhaps—he probably has the worst job in Government, but it does not have to be that way. He could make everyone very happy at the Budget by being one of the first Ministers responsible for taxation in a Labour Government to reduce tax. We shall wait and see. I was pleased to hear that, in the three-year review, the Government will look at the wider implications and the design of the system—and, I think he said, at small producer relief.

However, I was slightly disappointed by the way the Minister dismissed the impact of tax rises on the hospitality industry. That 90,000 jobs have disappeared since the last Budget is a scandal. If the same number of jobs had been lost from a car plant or an oil refinery, we would be debating that in the House and the Government would be stepping in to bail the industry out. Although the impact is dispersed across the country, those 90,000 jobs are equally important, and I hope the Government reconsider in particular their national insurance increase, which has hit the industry so hard.

I urge the Minister again to review the cumulative burdens that have been placed on the industry through both tax and regulation, and I hope that when he has his conversations with representatives of the industry tomorrow—I am glad that my debate has spurred him to have that meeting—he listens seriously to their concerns and gives them the relief and response that they seek.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.

19:25

Sitting adjourned.