Westminster Hall

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 9 December 2025

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered consumer-led flexibility for a just transition.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. We have a problem in this country—one that is hitting all our constituents in the pocket, while wasting electricity and pushing up carbon emissions. At the root of the problem is a mismatch between supply and demand. The places where it is cheapest to generate clean electricity are not the areas that consume the most, and our current grid does not have the capacity to move the electricity from one place to the other when demand is high. It was built to transmit power being produced by a limited number of large power stations, not the dispersed renewable energy that provides so much of our electricity today.

As we make ever greater demands on the grid, as we electrify transport and move away from gas for heating, the problem grows, and those demands are not felt evenly throughout the day. In particular, there is a big peak in the evening as people return home from work and school, cook their evening meal, plug in their cars and turn on the heating. Those peak demand periods do not necessarily match the peak supply periods of intermittent weather-dependent forms of generation.

Something has to be done to balance the grid, so how do we deal with the problem currently? We have the farcical situation whereby we all pay producers to turn off wind turbines in Scotland and pay others to turn on gas-powered fire stations in south-east England. Those constraint payments have already cost us nearly £1.3 billion this year, and it is predicted that that could rise to a massive £8 billion by 2030. All of us are paying those costs through our electricity bills. Paying producers to turn off clean power while paying others to burn fossil fuels sounds like madness, but it is the reality.

What can we do to solve the problem? We could fix it by upgrading the grid infrastructure, which needs to happen, but that takes time, and time is not on our side. We could fix it by building new power generation capacity in the areas that need it most, but that cannot be done quickly either, and do we really want to locate renewable energy capacity in suboptimal locations simply to meet local demand?

Fortunately there is an alternative: consumer-led flexibility—a way for households and businesses to flatten the demand, help to stabilise the grid, increase our nation’s energy security and cut everyone’s bills. Unlocking just 10 GW of consumer-led flexibility by 2030 would be the equivalent of a third of the UK’s entire gas power station capacity. It is more sophisticated than the old Economy 7 time-based approach. Smart technology can respond to signals from the grid and to users’ needs.

Imagine someone arriving home from work in their electric car—they do not need to use it again until the next morning, but it is easiest to plug it in when they get home so they do not forget to charge it. Unfortunately, it is the peak period, so they are adding to the peak demand, but with electricity costing the home consumer the same throughout the day, where is the incentive to do otherwise?

With a smart charger and tariff, and a car that can do vehicle to grid—giving power back to the grid from its battery—things could be different. Importantly, from the consumer’s point of view, little changes—they plug in when they get home as usual, and next morning, their car is charged and ready to go. But instead of charging straight away, a smart charger recognises that the car could give back some power now. That helps to boost supply at the time of peak demand, and that supply is being provided right where it is needed, not hundreds of miles away at the other end of an inadequate grid. Then the car is recharged later, when demand is lower.

There are many other, similar scenarios involving battery storage, smart appliances, heat pumps and thermal storage in homes and workplaces, which are all ways to intelligently shift energy use to times when it is cheap, clean and abundant. The upsides are huge, not least because, by cutting constraint payments and reducing the investment needed in new and upgraded energy infrastructure, the potential is there to cut bills for everyone, not just those who can participate.

The MCS Foundation estimates that consumer-led flexibility could cut £375 from the average household electricity bill by 2040. It can be deployed more quickly than building new infrastructure. It can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the need for gas. It can increase grid resilience, enhancing our energy security, and it can create jobs and growth, with UK companies exporting their know-how abroad.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: I worked on RIIO-ED2 for the Northern Powergrid and on its business plan for the current price period. The hon. Lady mentioned the pace and speed of flexibility, and the whole concept behind that plan was flexibility-first. Flexibility has been talked about for a long time in the industry. Does she agree that what we need now is real urgency to make it happen?

[Claire Young]

I absolutely agree, and I am coming to those points.

The Government have set out a clean flexibility road map, and E.ON has found that 84% of people want more control over energy, so what is the catch? It might be said that this is all well and good for affluent consumers, who can afford the smart technology—the electric cars, battery storage and heat pumps, and the washing machines and dishwashers with timers so that they do not have to get up in the middle of the night to switch them on. It is all right for those who are digitally literate and for those who have heard of smart tariffs—let alone got their head around how they work. What about those who do not fit into those privileged categories? How does consumer-led flexibility fit with a just transition?

A report by the MCS Foundation in August found that 78% of people are unaware of schemes that reward households for reducing energy use at certain times and 41% are unlikely to switch to tariffs offering cheaper electricity outside peak times. If only a privileged few can access flexibility, will it deliver the potential benefits or simply place more of a burden on those already struggling to pay? It has the potential to lower all bills—as previously mentioned—by driving costs out of the system. That benefits even those who cannot participate. But we need to do more. To achieve the scale of change necessary, we need more action from the Government.

About three in 10 homes still do not even have smart meters, and the Government concede that, in those that do, one in 10 is faulty, while others put the figure even higher. That does not bode well for the roll-out of more advanced smart technology. What about the digitally excluded? The Government should oblige energy suppliers to engage with digitally excluded groups and those on low incomes on the benefits of flexibility. Does it not make comparing tariffs more complicated? Potentially it does, so why not support a “try it and see” approach by requiring energy suppliers to offer risk-free trial periods for time-of-use tariffs?

We have all seen, in other periods of rapid technological change, that some projects fail, so Ofgem needs to strengthen consumer protection, with clear redress powers if that happens. The Government’s own clean power action plan says that to reach clean power 2030, we need 12 GW of consumer-led flexibility—more than nuclear, hydrogen and carbon capture combined. But flexibility gets none of the coverage that those technologies do. It is all very well having a road map. What are Ministers actually doing to change the fact that nearly four in five people do not even know that they can be rewarded for changing when they use electricity?

The markets have been designed for the traditional fossil fuel generators, not for individuals and businesses that generate their own power or can offer storage. We need a presumption of openness in energy market design and rules to support them. If a rule from a market maker prevents a family with a battery, or a business with thermal storage, from participating in the market, it should be forced to justify why. The way that the network costs and final consumption levies work means that consumers cannot currently be paid to use excess renewable power when electricity prices go negative. That needs urgent reform. Imagine how much easier it would be to make the case for the clean energy transition if people could be paid for using clean, free power.

If flexibility is to be delivered, there needs to be clear accountability, without room for buck passing between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator. The new flexibility commissioner needs to be given teeth, the ability to demand transparency and accountability from everybody involved, and the authority to call out failure. Have Ministers looked closely at the industry progress board that has been set up, and can the commissioner work with it?

It is time to give people the chance to take control and be active participants in our energy system, rather than being at its mercy. The road map, the commissioner and the technology are all in place, and we know that the public want more control over their energy and their bills. Will the Government take the extra steps needed to make this happen, or will they allow the dinosaurs of the old system to stand in the way? Let us move beyond the map to make this a reality and slash bills for everyone.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

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

09:38

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing this debate.

As we know, the Government have declared a clean power 2030 mission, which aims to achieve a target of 12 GW in consumer-led flexibility. Earlier this year, the Government also published their landmark “Clean Flexibility Roadmap”, which I fully support and which formally recognises consumer-led flexibility as essential for energy security and will lower bills for more than 4,000 households in fuel poverty in my constituency. I have campaigned extensively, over my whole parliamentary career, on fuel poverty. I cannot beat the Minister, who comes from Scotland, but the north-east tends to be one of the colder parts of the UK, so that issue is very important. Consumer-led flexibility is essential for a just transition. Unlocking just 10 GW of consumer-led flexibility by 2030 is equal to a third of the UK’s entire gas power station capacity.

I will start by highlighting some of the impressive developments taking place in my constituency of Washington and Gateshead South. Nissan is leading the way by developing electric vehicles, while AESC is currently building a second battery plant in my constituency, supported by a Government-backed £1 billion funding plan, which will be the UK’s largest gigafactory. Those are proud additions to the north-east’s already impressive manufacturing history. EVs are an example of the smart technology we need to shift energy use intelligently to times when it is cheap, clean and abundant, as the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate mentioned.

Nissan has also boldly embraced wind power to supplement its power supply. Across the UK, however, we are not using that energy efficiently. Octopus Energy has found that we are currently wasting more than £1.2 billion a year paying wind farms to turn off and gas plants to turn on. More broadly in the north-east, we are pioneering solar energy through companies such as Power Roll, while former coalfield communities such as mine are exploring mine-water heating as a potential heat and energy source of the future, rooted in our past.

The award-winning Gateshead district energy scheme in the town centre supplies 24 buildings with heat and/or power, as well as more than 600 homes. That includes 4 MW of power capacity, forming part of the UK’s capacity market, and 5 MW of solar PV farms on urban brownfield sites. It also operates the UK’s largest mine-water heat pump, extracting renewable heat from flooded mines beneath Gateshead. Furthermore, Labour plans to ensure that clean energy jobs are always good jobs, by ensuring that companies receiving public grants and contracts must create jobs with decent pay, access to trade unions and strong rights at work.

The clean energy economy is currently growing three times faster than the wider economy. Labour’s analysis shows that employment in clean energy jobs is expected to double to 860,000 by 2030. Our energy transition must not just be driven by the technologies we know; the Government must also keep an eye on emerging technology. I am impressed by the widespread uptake of heat pumps and happy to see that heat batteries are one the latest technologies added to the boiler upgrade scheme.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, talking about different types of emerging technology. We have had solar panels on domestic roofs for more than 30 years, yet our electricity grid is not ready for new types of technology. Does she agree we should have started flexibility earlier, with the emergence of the solar revolution? Consumer flexibility will create those jobs and give people a stake in the electricity market.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Sadly, we could only start once we came into government. We can see that more should have been done over the past 14 years. At least we are now in government and heading in the right direction.

As a leading alternative for homes where heat pumps are not yet viable, heat batteries support consumer flexibility by storing energy at cheaper, off-peak hours and releasing it on demand. Consumers should also be rewarded when renewables are plentiful, which is an increasing proportion of the time. Perhaps the Government should investigate the final consumption levies and network costs to allow consumers to be paid for using power. That would be a tangible benefit of the green transition that they could feel in their pockets, which is very important to our constituents.

I warmly welcome the Government’s appointment of the UK’s first flexibility commissioner, following campaigning by organisations such as the Association for Decentralised Energy with its ADE: Demand initiative. The commissioner’s role will be to champion this agenda across government, Ofgem and NESO, providing the accountability and leadership that have been missing. There is more work to be done, but I welcome the positive steps the Government are taking and their recognition that consumer-led flexibility is essential for both energy security and a just transition.

09:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for leading this debate and for setting the scene incredibly well. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place; I look forward to the helpful and positive remarks he always makes. It certainly gives a lift when he answers the questions, and I am quite sure he will do likewise today.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Lower your expectations.

[Jim Shannon]

No, no—upwards! Everything upwards. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in his place and I look forward to his contribution as well.

Consumer-led flexibility is so important. It refers to ordinary households and small businesses adjusting their energy use to support a cleaner and more resilient energy system. Who does not want that? It is about how we make it happen, however, and whether there is a cost factor to it. Can people make the changeover—the transition, so to speak—in a way that achieves the goals but does not inhibit their pocket financially in the way it sometimes might?

The cost of energy has been such a huge issue nationwide. I know from my constituents that it is a real problem. The two things that affect them more than anything else are the price of foodstuffs and the cost of energy. Especially as we head into winter, the cost of energy becomes a critical factor. It is about balancing one’s income at the end of the month to ensure that all those things are covered. For my constituents, that is a real problem with increasing costs and consumption, so it is good to have an opportunity to represent them in this Chamber today.

I always add a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate, and I know that the Minister always endeavours to reply to us in Northern Ireland on how Westminster can help, so it is important to put that on the record. For a just transition in Northern Ireland, any move to low-carbon energy systems must be fair, affordable and supportive of communities reliant on older heating fuels.

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

My hon. Friend has just touched on affordability. Would he agree that, by and large, people across communities—whether in Northern Ireland or across the UK—want to embrace green energy and be environmentally friendly, but they do not want to pay a massive premium to attain a goal that is unrealistic in the timeframe? The important thing is reconciling those two things to bring the community with us.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that; it was my next point. He is right: I have not met anybody who does not want to improve the environment or support the net zero targets, but they want to do so in a way that does not disadvantage them inadvertently. It is very important that we try to achieve that.

Back home in Northern Ireland, this is crucial, because of the point that my hon. Friend referred to. We have a very specific issue in that 68%—two thirds—of Northern Ireland homes use oil heating, which is more than anywhere else in the UK. Fuel poverty rates are also historically high, I suspect, as a result. I have oil in my house, as do all the farmhouses in the countryside, and there is very little access to gas except on specific estates in Newtownards and perhaps a bit in Ballynahinch and Saintfield as well.

Furthermore, according to the 2023 update from housing statistics, only about 39% of dwellings have a rating of band C or higher, especially in rural areas, which is a very large section of my Strangford constituency. Few homes have access to gas in Northern Ireland and there are no alternative decarbonisation pathways, so we have to be realistic about trying to achieve the goals in a way that does not bring people down to not only fuel poverty but poverty overall.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to try to address some of those things, but perhaps the Minister can give us some ideas on how we can help our constituents in Northern Ireland—both mine and those of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell).

[James Naish]

The hon. Gentleman is outlining a range of issues that make it difficult for people to reduce their bills. Does that not highlight the benefit of flexibility, because it would give people greater control, empower them and give them information, so that they can control their bill as best as possible? That is why we have to lead with a flexibility-first approach.

[Jim Shannon]

The reality is that, although people subscribe to the idea and wish to develop the net zero targets, it is about how that sits in their pockets. That is the ultimate goal that people reflect on. I am no better than anybody else, and my constituents are telling me—as I am sure they are telling every other MP in here—that Christmas is coming. I stay across the river at the Park Plaza hotel, and I asked a guy last night, “Are youse busy today?”, and he said, “No. It’s much quieter than it’s been for a long, long time.” He surmised that it was because it is Christmas and people are cutting back. It is the same back home. As I said before, I have not met anybody who does not want to achieve the net zero goal, but it is about how the Government help them to reach it.

There are income inequalities and geographic inequalities in Northern Ireland, and they interact strongly with affordability—it is a key issue. There is also poor uptake of smart meters in Northern Ireland, so many people end up paying way more as a result of estimates. That is another critical factor. The Minister travels to Northern Ireland regularly, so that might be an opportunity to get his thoughts across to the relevant Minister back home on how we can achieve some of these goals.

When we talk about consumer-led flexibility, the conversation must be about giving households the ability to shift their energy use to cheaper, cleaner times of the day. There are things that can be done, and things that the Government are helping people with, which I know the Northern Ireland Assembly are also trying to take advantage of, but when it comes to smart technologies and fairer tariffs, and generating or storing energy locally, how can they be achieved? That vision will work only if ordinary people can access and afford the technology and infrastructure required, but too many households are being left behind. Rural households face higher charges and costs, and the up-front expense is simply too much. I know that this is a critical issue, but we can never move away from thinking about affordability, as my constituents tell me.

Consumer-led flexibility should be not something that happens to communities, but something that communities shape, benefit from and own. To respond to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), if consumers can see it as part of what they want to achieve and the Government can help them in that transition, it is a win-win for everyone. Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK have enormous potential: world-leading renewable resources, strong communities and a desire for a cleaner and more secure energy future. Let us build an energy system that works for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—not just for today, but for my children, my grandchildren and generations to come.

09:53

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has made the case extremely well. I think I have heard unanimous opinion around the Chamber that we should not only do this, but do it now with some urgency. Flexibility first is the way to go. I will go one level further than the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who called this a “win-win”: I would call this a win-win-win. We can shave £1.3 billion off infrastructure costs through actions like this, which will be reflected in every single person’s bill. That is a massive win. It is also a win for producers because it is easier to balance production and consumption, and it is a win for individual consumers who will reduce their individual prices. It is three wins in one. Why would we not want to do that?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel)—we should have done this yesterday. The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago; the second best time is now. We are at the point of the second best time, but let us use this time and make sure that it happens. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate in pushing the Government to take action urgently.

When preparing for this debate, I remembered a geography school trip I went on where we looked at last-century solutions for balancing the grid. We went to visit Dinorwig, which is a pumped storage system—or was; I am not sure it is still going—in the hills in Wales. During the night, it pumps the water from the lake at the bottom of the hill up into a corrie at the top—aptly, as it turns out. As was quoted in the ad break in the middle of “Coronation Street”, when people switched on their kettles and created a power surge, that system could switch on in 30 seconds and provide significant amounts of power into the grid. It was a very good solution, but it is last century’s solution. What we need is an information-based solution, an individually empowering solution, such as we are talking about here, with consumer flexibility coming first.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The hon. Member makes a point about a modern solution. I have felt for some time that our supermarkets, with the installation of bi-directional chargers, could offer consumers the opportunity to bring their mobile energy source—their EV—as a power supply during peak times for supermarkets; in return, consumers could be offered a discount on their shopping for that hour. When the Minister makes his comments, I would welcome his thoughts on whether we need to go further with bi-directional chargers in supermarkets.

[Martin Wrigley]

That had not occurred to me, but it is an amazing idea; people taking their mobile power source with them—fantastic.

That brings me on to other solutions that we should be looking at, particularly community energy generation, community networks and community power consortia, as well as business inclusion—businesses that can generate more electricity during the day than they are using. We should be encouraging those things to happen, moving away from the centralised model of the past and towards the distributed and inclusive model of the future.

While flexibility is an excellent step, it will obviously not solve all the issues. We still need to fundamentally change energy generation contracts to de-link the cost of electricity from the price of gas. That will need to be done as well, but all these things are largely contractual issues, not technical ones. We do not need to reinvent something humongously different; we simply need to get the contracts right and change the energy market. I say “simply”—I understand that these changes have their complexities, but they are achievable. We know what we need to do.

The other massive energy issue is home insulation, which must not be forgotten. It is the single most important thing we need to do to reduce our fuel usage. The district council that I led demonstrated that very well—I draw hon. Members attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which notes that I am still a councillor on Teignbridge district council—when it started building council houses for the first time in 30 years. The first pair of semi-detached houses that we built are well insulated, with solar panels on the roof and air source heat pumps. At the height of the gas price crisis, the power bill for that home was just £500. We can do that with modern insulation and modern efficiencies.

Flexibility is one extra piece that we need to further reduce the cost. It is all part of a journey, and we are going in the right direction. I urge the Government to take faster action and to do everything they can to make it happen. As we have heard, industry is already looking for it. Let us make it happen.

09:59

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As ever, Mr Vickers, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The Opposition have a deep and growing concern about the direction in which Ministers of this Government are taking our energy system. It is a direction that depends increasingly on the weather, and I do not believe that anyone in this House should pretend that such dependence makes our country more secure. I have battled with this in my own constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, where large-scale solar development projects threaten to consume vast areas of productive farmland and countryside while adding yet more intermittent generation to an already fragile system.

Expanding weather-dependent capacity without addressing firm power needs not only strains local communities, but further undermines the resilience of our national grid. We are also moving towards a system in which electricity supply must follow the wind rather than meeting the needs of households and businesses. This is being presented as modern, progressive and resilient. In truth, it is none of those things. It is a system built on hope rather than reliability, which is not what this country needs.

The National Energy System Operator has already set out that the future system will require a very large amount of what it calls flexible demand to prevent power shortages and to keep the lights on. “Flexible demand” is a polite phrase. What it means is encouraging or requiring people to use electricity at times when they might not want to use it. It means shifting everyday life around the weather to accommodate low output from wind power. That is not energy security; it is energy insecurity by design.

As the economist Sir Dieter Helm has put it, such arrangements amount to voluntary power cuts, because they rely on people reducing their demand whenever renewable output falls. Sir Dieter has also warned that wind and solar do not provide firm power and that without enough firm capacity, the system simply cannot function reliably.

The facts support Sir Dieter. A recent study of wind patterns found that extended periods of very low wind are surprisingly common and can last a week or more. These wind lulls occur at times, and for durations that exceed the capability of storage and interconnectors to compensate. In those conditions, families, hospitals and industry cannot simply wait for the breeze to return, yet that is exactly what the current strategy risks requiring them to do.

Consumers are already paying the price for an energy system that prioritises intermittency over reliability. According to the Nuclear Industry Association, balancing costs, which are the payments needed to bring dispatchable power online when renewable output is too low, reached £2.1 billion between January and September this year. That represents a 25% increase on the previous year. These costs add nothing to the strength of the system; they simply mask its weakness and push bills upwards.

NESO’s winter outlook for 2025-26 forecasts an operational margin of 6.1 GW. Although this is the highest margin since 2019, the operator warns that there will still be tighter periods, when further interventions may be needed. In other words, even now, with relatively healthy margins, the system is fragile. As more dispatchable plants retire and more intermittent generation comes online, that fragility will only deepen. That point leads me to the most pressing issue underpinning this debate.

At the end of this decade, the United Kingdom faces a firm capacity crunch. Older baseload and dispatchable plants are closing, and they are not being replaced at the required scale. Nuclear projects are delayed, investment in new gas capacity has slowed, and Government strategy appears to assume that flexibility and good fortune will fill the gap. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has called for greater private investment in gas power stations to provide the security of supply that only firm capacity can deliver, yet the Government persist in placing their hopes in demand shifting and in a growing share of intermittent power. That is not a credible energy strategy for a modern industrial economy. Other major economies are not taking this gamble; they are investing in firm, reliable power generation, because they understand that energy security is the foundation of economic strength and national resilience.

I ask all Members to consider what this would mean in a time of national emergency or war. In such circumstances, our productive capacity would need to run at full speed, continuously and without interruption. A system that is built around weather-dependent electricity and consumer demand shifting simply could not meet that requirement. We should not resign ourselves to an energy future in which households are constantly asked to postpone cooking, heating or charging appliances during peak times purely to compensate for low wind output, nor should business be expected to halt operations because the breeze has dropped. Innovations that give consumers the option to save money or lower bills are welcome. Where demand flexibility is voluntary and genuinely benefits consumers it should be encouraged, but it must never become the cornerstone of our national energy strategy. Flexibility should support the system, not prop up its structural weakness.

Our ambition as a country should be far higher. We should aim for an energy system that provides cheap, reliable and abundant electricity at all times of day and in all seasons; a system that does not depend on weather patterns and does not require consumers to become the balancing mechanism; a system with enough firm capacity built in that the lights remain on, even in the stillest winter week.

[Martin Wrigley]

May I draw to the hon. Member’s attention the analogy with off-peak train tickets? That is a similar way of using flexibility and offering consumers cheaper tickets when the trains are empty. He would have us believe that that is not a good thing, but it is exactly the same with offering flexibility in electricity consumption.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the trains will continue to run 24/7, whereas we are talking about a system in which if renewable sources drop and the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, the electricity is not there. I am not sure that his analogy is necessarily a helpful one, but I hear the point that he makes.

Ministers are creating a system that depends on the weather, while claiming that it makes us more secure. It simply does not. It papers over a capacity crisis that is approaching fast, and it risks burdening families and businesses with the consequences of that miscalculation. True energy security requires firm power, serious planning, serious investment and, above all, a willingness to confront reality rather than wishing it away. I urge the Government to rethink their approach and pursue a strategy based on reliability first and flexibility second. The country deserves nothing less.

10:07

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Vickers. I am frequently told that consumer-led flexibility does not get enough time, but I now have almost an hour to talk about the Government’s plans on it. I intend to use every moment I have.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

You don’t have to!

[Michael Shanks]

No, I don’t intend to—do not worry, colleagues.

This is an important debate, however, and I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing it. She made a point that those in the industry make regularly to me: that this is too often a footnote in the discussion about achieving our future energy security. It should not be. It should be much further up the agenda. It is not for want of trying; I often talk about it, but it is regularly the bit that gets cut out of interviews before they are broadcast. The Government are certainly talking about these issues.

The hon. Lady outlined perfectly the problem of how we get cheaper, more secure power to homes and businesses, and the three fixes: building more grid, strategically planning where energy is built in the first place, and utilising flexibility. The truth is that we need to do all three at a pace never before seen in this country. I will come back to those points, but I welcome her recognition of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) made a fantastic speech, as always. She is a fantastic champion for the north-east and a long-standing campaigner on the issue of how we can reduce fuel poverty. She made the point that we risk losing the opportunity of getting cheaper power to people’s homes and bringing down their bills, and she mentioned the fantastic innovations out there already. I have had the pleasure of seeing a number of them. When I visited the Mining Remediation Authority recently, I had the genuine pleasure of hearing about the mine water heating scheme. That is a fantastic example of how we can utilise something that we used decades ago to power the country. There is also a social justice argument, as those communities who still have deep scars from that period can benefit from cheaper bills in the long run.

I also want to recognise the point the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate made about the equality aspect and how we will bring everyone with us on this transition. I will return to that point, but first I want to return to first principles and say why the Government are committed to delivering clean power by 2030. At the heart of that mission is an energy system that delivers flexibility for consumers: not forcing consumers to make choices, but giving them the opportunity to make choices that bring their bills down, and to use technology for the betterment of their lives in a way they choose.

The clean power action plan outlined 10 GW to 12 GW of consumer-led flexibility. I think that in the months ahead we will be talking much more about that part of the action plan. The Government have had to move very quickly in the first 16 months to deliver on the auctions in offshore and onshore wind, to lift the ban on onshore wind and to deliver much more solar than we have ever seen, but flexibility has been hugely important in the background, and we will say much more in public about it in the coming months.

Let me respond briefly to the core argument that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), made about the clean power mission:

“The UK is a world leader in renewable energy…and we must go further. Energy security means national security. We must replace imported fossil fuels with cheaper, cleaner, domestic sources of energy. That is how we will ensure that the UK never again suffers the rising prices caused by Putin’s weaponisation of energy following his invasion of Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 21WS.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), in November 2023. I am not quite sure what has happened to the Conservative party in two years, but the Conservatives seem to have completely changed not just their position, but their understanding of the facts and science behind what they were saying then. The right hon. Member, who was Secretary of State at the time, made my argument just as well as I could ever seek to. I will leave it at that.

A just transition has the power to unlock enormous benefits for people right across the country. It is why we have pledged to deliver clean power, because we know it is cheaper and it removes the volatility of which all our constituents are still facing the cost. It will shield consumers from the volatility in global gas prices, over which we have absolutely no control, but it will also create new jobs in industries right across the country. It is the economic opportunity of the 21st century.

The role of storage will be important. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) talked about a school trip to Dinorwig; in Scotland, I think every single school child went to Cruachan, the hollow mountain, which is another pumped hydro power station. Although pumped hydro may be a technology from the last century, it is critical in this century as well. Indeed, the Government have launched the first new long-duration energy storage in 40 years. It is a critical way of dispatching clean power and storing it for when we absolutely need it, so it still plays an important role.

Consumer-led flexibility will play an important role in getting renewable energy to people’s homes. It will help us to balance the grid and ensure that we have supply when we need it. It enables us to take advantage of low-carbon energy and reduce periods of peak demand and the associated infrastructure needs. It also involves financial rewards for those who choose to shift their electricity use to times when supply is more abundant, cheaper and cleaner. Smart meters are a key part of that. As we all know from our constituencies, we would all have liked to see a more efficient roll-out of the smart meter programme over the years, but 70% of meters across Great Britain are now smart or advanced meters, with more than 40 million homes and businesses having them installed.

We will continue to monitor the roll-out in Government very closely. Indeed, I chair a working group that is looking at how we can deliver market-wide half-hourly settlements much faster. That is really important so that consumers and businesses benefit directly from having a smart meter and new technology.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for the positivity of his answers. The take-up of smart meters in Northern Ireland has not been good at all—nowhere near expectations. In his discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, what can be done to help us to do better back home?

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I always appreciate the kindness of his contributions, although he needs to lower his expectations of mine. He rightly mentioned the statistic that 68% of households in Northern Ireland have oil heating, which he raised with me in a previous debate. That figure surprised me, and it is a reminder of the complexity of the different circumstances across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I work closely on this issue with Northern Ireland Executive colleagues in the Department for the Economy, and we share much of our good practice to make sure that everybody comes with us on this journey. I will shortly say more on the hon. Gentleman’s point about gas.

We are already seeing consumers benefiting from flexibility. Last year, the demand flexibility service saw over 2 million households and businesses save money by flexing their demand. We are committed to ensuring that all consumers have the option to participate, not just those who can afford certain technologies. The Government have committed £1.5 billion through the warm homes plan, which will help to upgrade low-income households. The Government will also work to ensure that flexibility is simplified and accessible for all consumers who want to take part, not just the tech savvy and those who are already able to. We have to remember that flexibility brings down the price for everyone, even those who are not participating, because of the benefits it brings to the overall system.

As we shift away from gas, consumer-led flexibility will become even more vital for managing an electrified system. Crucially, it will bring down bills for all consumers, not just those who actively participate. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, gave a figure on the direct benefit from consumer-led flex, and a more flexible system is estimated to save up to £10 billion a year overall because of that efficiency. It is hugely important.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about the transition. Obviously, connecting to the gas network is difficult in Northern Ireland, and this is a huge opportunity for many households to jump a step—from oil heating to heat pumps and other technologies. There is a real opportunity for those households to benefit, perhaps even more than some other households, if we get the transition to consumer-led flex correct. I look forward to more conversations with the hon. Gentleman on that issue.

The other point I want to make is about the role of technology. Consumer-led flexibility is becoming increasingly automated, which means that consumers can benefit from these opportunities with little or no intrusion in their daily lives. Indeed, I have seen examples where consumers have set up technology and let it run for months at a time. For example, an EV owner can plug their car into a smart charger, which will optimise charging so that it happens at the most cost-effective times of the day, while still meeting the battery charge they need the next morning, saving a significant amount of money.

I recently had a great opportunity to visit Flexitricity in Edinburgh, which is a fantastic business—not least because it has a fantastic view of Edinburgh castle, although that was not my reason for visiting. My visit brought home two things: first, the cutting-edge technology and innovation that we already have in this space; and secondly, how this is an opportunity to create high-paid, skilled jobs across the country. I met a number of apprentices and people who had changed career to be part of that innovation—the business is a fantastic example. I thank the Association for Decentralised Energy, some of whom I see in the Public Gallery today, for joining me on that visit and for the work they do.

We recently published the flexibility road map, which sets out specific, measurable actions for DESNZ, Ofgem and NESO to deliver the flexibility we need. The road map sets out a strategy and clear actions to make sure we can deliver on this. It acknowledges that the Government, in partnership with Ofgem and NESO, will need to take a leading role in making sure this is a priority for those organisations. The publication puts consumers at the heart of what we want to achieve.

The road map is a first step. To deliver it, we know we have to sustain that momentum. As many hon. Members have said, agreeing that this is the right thing to do is not enough; we have to get on with delivery. This debate is perfectly timed, because this afternoon I will attend the first clean flexibility road map quarterly forum to make sure we are driving progress on this. That was already in the diary, but this debate is perfect timing.

I thank the ADE for all its engagement and expertise on this matter, and I thank all the organisations working in this space for raising innovative and creative ideas for how we can make this happen faster. This is an area where the Government do not always know best, and the innovation from the private sector and communities across the country will help us to deliver this transition. It is crucial that the Government continue to hear that, and that we continue to be challenged to move further and faster.

We have seen good progress on leadership, which goes hand in hand with our work on the road map and on the appointment of a flexibility commissioner. We will be able to announce who we are appointing very soon, and they can then get on with driving this work forward as part of the clean power mission. Leadership is important more generally in this space. As politics moves away from a fact-based, rational discussion of the challenges this country faces, it is ever more important that we have these debates on the detail of how we deliver such important policies.

We must also recognise that we are making progress. There is sometimes a tendency to think that nothing is happening, but a huge amount is happening: the migration of consumers to half-hourly settlement has begun and is making great progress; NESO is about to consult on the next iteration of the demand flexibility service; Ofgem is assessing how to recover costs through bills in a way that is fair and efficient; and we have consulted on our smart secure electricity systems programme, including how we can make it easier for electricity consumers to participate. All that work going on in the background will start to have a real impact on people’s lives in the coming months.

I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate. The Government are committed to delivering a clean power system, because that is the only way to bring down people’s bills in the long run, to remove the volatility of fossil fuels, for which we are paying the fossil fuel penalty, and to deliver energy security in an increasingly uncertain world. Flexibility is at the heart of this, and for us to have a genuinely just transition—one that brings people with us—we have to do what is challenging. This is a new way of working. It is different, and it will require people to think differently about their energy use and about how we deliver the change as a country, but opportunity is right at the heart of this—we should never forget that opportunity is the prize if we achieve this.

We will continue to work across Government and across the energy sector so that people can take advantage of the benefits of consumer-led flexibility and so that, ultimately, we end up with a 21st-century energy system that recognises that all our lives have changed in the last few years in how we consume electricity. Every single projection suggests consumption will increase over the coming years, so it is hugely important that we take these steps now so that the people of this country benefit from the energy transition that is under way.

I thank everyone again, and I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for securing this important debate.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for not taking the full 50 minutes available, which leaves more than the usual two minutes for Claire Young to wind up.

10:22

[Claire Young]

I will not test everyone’s patience either. I thank everyone for their contributions. Between us, we have highlighted not just the potential for lowering bills but, as the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) explained, the benefits for local economies through the generation of good, clean energy jobs. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the benefits for those in rural, off-gas areas, which many of my constituents will appreciate, and the importance of making the technology affordable.

I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), does not really want our constituents to continue paying for excessive fossil fuel generation when there is an alternative. It is important that consumer-led flexibility is about empowering our constituents, not forcing them to do things. It is also important that we support everyone who wants to participate, not just those for whom it is easiest. I thank the Minister for his response, which gives me some hope, but I will be keeping a close eye on this transition as it progresses.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered consumer-led flexibility for a just transition.

10:24

Sitting suspended.

Medal for Wounded Service Personnel

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

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

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a medal for service personnel wounded in combat.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. The UK’s military honours system is comprehensive. We recognise gallantry through the Victoria Cross and the George Cross. We commemorate operational service through campaign medals. We created the Elizabeth Cross in 2009 for families of the fallen. Yet there remains no official recognition for those wounded in service. Unlike the United States, with their Purple Heart, the British armed forces have no equivalent. While everyone who serves deserves recognition, I believe that those who are injured deserve special acknowledgment of their sacrifice.

Let me start by saying that serving in the military is a positive and honourable career choice. Like everyone in my constituency of St Helens North, I am proud of our community’s history and heritage of service, and I am incredibly thankful and respectful of all those who serve today and everything they do. I have heard at first hand from servicemen and women that a life in the forces brings with it fantastic opportunities for those who join—opportunities for education, training, travel and personal development.

Our armed forces play a significant role in defending and protecting us all and we should celebrate that, but those who join the armed forces know that by the intention and design of their role they are significantly more likely to face hostile action than those in other public services. Military personnel are deployed specifically to environments where armed enemies attempt to kill or injure them. That is the fundamental nature of military service, not a criticism of it, but we need to recognise the unique sacrifice that it entails.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. I spoke to him beforehand. Obviously, I am a Northern Ireland MP, and I declare an interest as someone who served in the forces in Northern Ireland for some 14 and a half years. I gently remind Members that many soldiers were wounded in combat while serving in the Northern Ireland troubles. I believe they deserve formal recognition for their sacrifice—the very thing the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

For over three decades, British soldiers, many barely out of their teens, patrolled our streets, stood between communities and faced down threats to protect civilians from terrorism and uphold the law. What the hon. Gentleman refers to is about acknowledging the lasting physical and emotional scars borne by those who serve. Does he agree that awarding a dedicated medal to those wounded in combat during the troubles would be a moral gesture and the right thing to do?

[David Baines]

I completely agree with the hon. Member; he makes an excellent point.

According to Ministry of Defence statistics, since January 2006 a total of 2,644 personnel have sustained battle injuries while on operation—that is, they were wounded as a result of hostile action. Behind every one of those numbers is a person like my constituent Corporal Andy Reid MBE, whose life has been permanently altered in service to this nation yet who receives no specific recognition for the wounds that he carries.

On 13 October 2009, Andy stepped on an improvised explosive device while on patrol in Helmand Province. He was 22 years old. The explosion destroyed his right leg below the knee, his left leg above the knee and his right arm above the elbow. Medical professionals doubted that he would survive, yet after just two weeks in hospital Andy made his first trip home to St Helens. Within a month, he met up with members of his patrol again.

What Andy has achieved since is extraordinary. He married his wife Claire and became a father to two children. He climbed Mount Kilimanjaro on prosthetic legs, becoming the first triple amputee in the UK to do so. He raised over £200,000 for armed forces charities and he has established the Standing Tall Foundation in St Helens, providing mental health support and counselling for veterans and non-veterans alike. He received an MBE in 2019 for voluntary service to veterans and people with disabilities.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the debate. I fully support this excellent campaign to create a brand-new medal for all servicemen and women who have been wounded in combat. He mentions Andy Reid’s charitable works, which are legendary in themselves. I had the pleasure of meeting Andy at the recent Rochdale Man of the Year awards, where he raised many more thousands of pounds for our local Springhill hospice. Does my hon. Friend agree that Andy’s main motivation is his motto that he is not a victim but a survivor? That goes to the heart of this medal: all those wounded in the line of service deserve recognition by their country. Those like Andy who have literally risked life and limb deserve that recognition more than anyone.

[David Baines]

I completely agree. Andy’s motto, that he is a survivor, not a victim, is not about wallowing in what has happened but recognising it and using it to grow and help others. That is exactly what he is doing day in, day out.

Andy wears his operational service medal for Afghanistan with pride, but that medal tells only part of his story. It records where he served, not what he sacrificed; it does not mark the physical wounds he carries or the daily challenges he faces with tasks that others take for granted. Andy’s story is tragically not unique. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan created a generation of wounded veterans. Thousands carry visible injuries—amputations, severe burns, blindness—while others carry hidden wounds, both physical and mental.

Advances in battlefield medicine mean that many personnel thankfully survive injuries that would have been fatal in previous conflicts. That means more wounded veterans living among us, many facing lifelong challenges. Those men and women deserve formal recognition. Andy has been publicly advocating for the medal, drawing on his experience and extensive work with the veterans community.

This is not the only campaign being fought for such recognition. Recently, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) led a debate on establishing an injury in service award for emergency service personnel: police officers, firefighters and paramedics who have been injured in the line of duty. I fully support that campaign; it is good to see Parliament giving serious attention to recognising those injured while serving the public, which is long overdue. The campaigns for emergency services recognition and for a wounded in action medal both speak to the same principle: when people put their bodies on the line in service to others and pay a physical price, their sacrifice deserves formal acknowledgement.

I want to be clear that this debate and a call for a medal for service personnel injured in combat is not about comparing public services. I completely support the call for recognition of those in the emergency services. Some would maybe combine the two campaigns into one medal, but I believe that our emergency services deserve unique recognition. I would also argue that the fundamental nature of military service—men and women deployed specifically to environments where armed enemies attempt to kill or injure them—is likewise worthy of separate and significant recognition.

The Government have set an admirable goal: to make Britain the best place in the world to be a veteran, using a whole-society approach. This proposal for a new medal fits squarely within that vision. Defence companies have expressed positive interest in funding it. They recognise their obligation to support those wounded in service. With industry support, the cost to the public purse could be minimal. Even bearing the full cost, we are talking about recognition for individuals who have surely paid far more than any price we could put on a medal.

This is the whole-society approach in action: Government setting policy, industry contributing resources, and the voluntary sector providing support, as I am sure it would. The medal would be the visible symbol at the centre of this effort. I believe it could also help to boost recruitment and retention, which the Government are keen to do. Those considering military service rightly want to know that any sacrifice they may have to make will be formally recognised. This new medal is, therefore, practical policy as well as a moral imperative. As to the injuries that might be eligible for the medal and how far back it would apply, my strong feeling is that veterans’ organisations and forces personnel should be involved in setting the terms. This would be their medal and they should own it. I do not believe it should be for MPs or civil servants to decide those details.

Andy Reid does not lead this campaign because he seeks personal glory. He already has an MBE, the respect of his community and the gratitude of the charities he has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for. He campaigns because recognition matters. He has met countless wounded veterans who feel that their sacrifice too often goes unacknowledged. He believes those who have been injured in service to this country deserve to have that sacrifice formally recognised.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I completely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying and his plan for a medal. Does he agree that organisations such as Veterans in Sefton in my constituency do a remarkable job, supporting people across Merseyside? This would be another symbol of our support for our veterans, who do such a fantastic job for our country.

[David Baines]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In our part of the world, we have a long and proud history of service in the armed forces; I know it is the same in his part of Merseyside as it is in mine. I thank him for raising that point and putting it on the record.

I agree with Andy Reid and all those calling for this new medal. I am sure that many people in this country would agree too. It is time to address the gap in the system, honour our wounded and introduce formal recognition that says to every serviceperson wounded in defence of our nation, “We see you, we honour you, and we’ll never forget what you’ve given.”

11:10

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) for securing this debate and highlighting the continued importance of properly recognising those who have served in our armed forces. I know how much work he has been doing, both in his role as an MP and with St Helens borough council—including in his time as leader—to lead the way on implementing the armed forces covenant and showing support for the veteran community, for which I thank him, both as a Minister and as a veteran myself. I also thank Andy Reid MBE and acknowledge his amazing work. Again, he has done so much campaigning on this and other causes to support veterans. He is a fantastic campaigner and a huge inspiration.

I thank other hon. Members who have spoken today to highlight their support for veterans. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly highlighted the role of those who served in Northern Ireland; I have the greatest respect for those who served in that conflict. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) movingly spoke of how much work Andy Reid has been doing, particularly on behalf of Springhill hospice, which shows the impact that he has had on his wider community. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his fantastic work as well.

Although I recognise that the debate was originally aimed towards my Cabinet Office colleagues, as it is they who administer the UK honours and awards system, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North will see the practical reasons for me responding, given the focus on the armed forces. If it is the Government’s first duty to protect the population, they can do so only by asking the men and women of our armed forces to do extraordinary things. As I saw during my own deployment to Afghanistan, regular and reservist members of our armed forces served with courage, commitment and resilience, separated from their loved ones, often in difficult and dangerous situations. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North for highlighting how many people who are veterans of that conflict still have to deal with the impact on their lives every day.

If we are to expect our armed forces to display such qualities in protecting our country and the values that we hold dear, it is only right that we, as a Government, ensure that they are properly supported and recognised for doing so. That means expressing our gratitude on behalf of the British people through practical support—here I want to highlight our Valour initiative to improve the co-ordination of support for our military veterans; Fortitude, which houses homeless veterans and those at risk of homelessness; and the work to expand the armed forces covenant, which, as the Prime Minister announced in June, will be extended across central Government—and, of course, through the rightful award of medallic recognition.

Medals are a form of recognition from the Government on behalf of the monarch, instituted by royal warrant, and sitting firmly under royal prerogative powers. That is important, because it places the medals system and other honours and awards above the political fray. As such, it is a process underpinned by a Cabinet Office–led system of committees that make evidence-based judgments on the merits of individual endeavour to ensure that our system is fair. For that reason, I believe that the British model for medallic recognition is highly respected across the globe.

Medals for members of our armed forces mark an individual’s contribution to a military operation that has protected this country or enhanced global security. They may also recognise acts of exceptional courage. It is a basic principle that those who wear a medal must have earned it. Therefore, eligibility is always checked carefully against the person’s service record. Similarly, when a new medal is proposed, there must be a clear and robust rationale that doing so evidences the delivery of and furthers the UK’s aims.

Let me turn specifically to service personnel wounded in combat. Currently, those injured and evacuated from an operational deployment that attracts a campaign, operational or general service medal are automatically awarded the relevant medal, regardless of whether they have met the standard eligibility criteria. Effectively, the automatic award is made in recognition of the fact that the individual has sacrificed their wellbeing while on the operation. I recognise that there are those who wish to see a more specific acknowledgement of service personnel injured in the course of their military careers, and in particular, those wounded on military operations. With an awareness of the proposals, my officials are considering this, in terms of whether a defined injury medal would be the best method of recognition in such circumstances, whether such an award would be viable, and the hows and wherefores.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North for raising this important topic. I acknowledge that he, and indeed the House, might want me to go further today and make a commitment to implement an injury medal for armed forces personnel, but I hope that he will understand that that is not possible at this time, as any consideration of this matter must be progressed through the correct channels. However, I trust that he is reassured that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that those who serve this country with bravery and dedication will be supported in the practical sense, but will also have their selflessness and sacrifice properly recognised through the award of medals.

Question put and agreed to.

11:16

Sitting suspended.

Water Scarcity

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

14:30

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water scarcity. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. In a country where we always complain about the rain, we have somehow contrived to have a water shortage. I am reminded of the words of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

“Water, water, everywhere

But not a drop to drink”

But the honest truth is that it really does not rain like it used to. This year, the UK experienced the hottest and driest spring on record. Farmers endured a devastatingly poor harvest and lost £800 million to drought. Over the long term, the prediction is for ever greater weather volatility. In October—yes, October—my home county of Sussex was placed under drought measures, as Ardingly reservoir fell below 30% capacity, compared with the seasonal average of 76%, and there are greater challenges to come.

By 2050, the UK population is forecast to rise by 10 million. Further demand from data centres, renewable energy infrastructure and new industry is also rising quickly, but is yet to be factored in to demand. The National Infrastructure Commission projects a national supply-demand deficit approaching 5 billion litres a day by 2050 unless action is taken. That is a gap equivalent to the daily water use of more than 30 million people, and that does not even include commercial demands, such as farming, manufacturing, horticulture or business activity.

For something that has become so precious, we are remarkably careless about it. Fully one fifth of the water that enters the system is lost before it reaches even a single property because of leaky pipes. River abstraction now accounts for 61% of all environmental water abstraction, up from around 40% in the early 2000s. This is clearly contributing to severe pressure on our waterways, especially chalk streams, one of Britain’s most unique ecosystems.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about water abstraction and using water in the right places. The Independent Water Commission’s recommendation 10 suggested using pre-pipe solutions. Does he agree that mandatory rainwater harvesting on new homes and major renovations would allow us to capture water and use it at source, reducing pressure on reservoirs and the need for river abstraction?

[John Milne]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I very much agree. We need to look at every measure to utilise water that is already there, in addition to reservoirs, which take up lots of space.

When it comes to our groundwater bodies, 40% are already classed as over-extracted, and only 16% of England’s surface waters are judged to be in good ecological status. The National Audit Office warns that, as of today, 12 million people already live in water-stressed areas. Seven water company regions are expected to hit critical status by 2030, and the number rises to 12 by 2040. Meanwhile, average water use per person is surprisingly rising, completely contrary to policy. It is now at around 140 to 150 litres a day, despite a Government target of just 110 litres by 2050.

Water underpins everything—our environment, our economy, our wellbeing and, of course, our national food supply—and right now the evidence is clear: we are not on a path that will guarantee water security for future generations. The situation is not helped by poor management performance and under-investment from many of our privatised water companies, which has additionally resulted in a crisis of water quality as well as scarcity.

That is the national picture, but there are two sectors where the consequences are being felt most acutely: housing and the rural economy. The Government have set a target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament, but it is not going to happen without solving the water crisis. In Cambridgeshire, water stress has already delayed 9,000 homes and 300,000 square metres of commercial development. Over the course of this Parliament alone, more than 60,000 homes could become undeliverable due to water constraints, with more than £25 billion in lost value. Research suggests that in some areas nearly 40% of the Government’s new housing target cannot be delivered under current water supply conditions. Developers cannot invest when they cannot guarantee water. Local businesses cannot expand without commercial space. Communities cannot grow when basic infrastructure cannot be secured. Therefore, water scarcity is fast becoming a major handbrake on economic ambition, and in some of the UK’s highest growth potential regions.

In my constituency of Horsham, West Sussex, we have been fighting our own version of water wars for the past four years. That is a result of a unique requirement, known as water neutrality, by which no new houses could be built if they increased demand on water supply by as much as a single litre. That was ordered by Natural England to protect a rare river habitat in the Arun valley, threatened with over-abstraction. It was a daft rule imposed overnight and now it has been removed—again, overnight. Both decisions are wrong.

Those wild policy U-turns at a national level have left Horsham without a five-year land supply, turning Horsham district council into a wild west for speculative developers. Creating water headroom for new housing requires the Government to create new supplies, not simply fiddle with the figures. Looking at how Horsham has been treated, it is hard to have confidence in the Government’s bona fides on the environment.

The second area I want to turn to is the rural economy. Farmers, vineyards, garden centres and nurseries rely heavily on access to water. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, I hear regularly from farmers who have faced ruinous losses during drought periods. In 2025 alone, arable farmers have lost £800 million to drought. Increased water capture and storage is the obvious solution, but farmers face obstacles everywhere: historical abstraction limits no longer fit for purpose, complex planning rules and grant schemes not open to smaller enterprises. The Government have recently confirmed that they intend to reform permitted development rights for farm reservoirs. If the Minister could confirm a timetable for that to happen, I am sure hon. Members would be grateful.

The horticulture industry employs more than 770,000 people, contributes nearly £40 billion to the economy and more than £8 billion in tax revenue. This year, the driest spring since 1983, followed by among the hottest summers, has pushed many growers to the limits. Although hosepipe bans have become routine these days, the impact on business profits is anything but. One nursery reported to the Horticultural Trades Association that footfall fell by 20%, and it lost £300,000 the last time drought measures were imposed in their region.

An abstraction threshold of 20 cubic metres per day forces many growers to fall back on using treated drinking water, which is costly, inefficient and environmentally absurd. In Horsham, local growers tell me that water scarcity is now one of the biggest constraints on their investment. Ben from Tates of Sussex garden centres says:

“A few days without irrigation can mean tens of thousands of pounds of plant losses…and rising water costs are becoming a limiting factor on our entire business.”

The rural economy has the potential to contribute an additional £19 billion a year to the UK, but only if it has access to the water infrastructure it needs. What should we do? For housing, we need to be more water-smart. That means construction guidelines for new homes and usage standards for white goods. What it should not mean is overly restrictive rules enforcing hyper-low-pressure devices. Push too far in that direction and people simply respond by taking longer showers and double-flushing the toilet. Instead, we need practical, efficient, enforceable standards. We need retrofit incentives for existing housing stock, because old homes are where the real efficiency lies, and there are many more of them.

For the rural economy, we should introduce new permitted development rights for small and medium reservoirs. The current rules effectively block most farms or nurseries from qualifying. We should create more flexible abstraction rules for winter refill. It is not fair to ask farmers to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds building reservoirs, without the certainty that their licences will be renewed. We should support nature-friendly farming and soil health. Healthy soil can hold up to 350,000 litres of water per hectare, which reduces the risk of both drought and flood. We should recognise essential food infrastructure as nationally important, while also recognising the role that water storage plays in food infrastructure.

At the national level, we urgently need joined-up oversight. Britain remains without a single national strategy for water security. Responsibilities are spread across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, local authorities and water companies. The National Audit Office has warned repeatedly that this confused accountability leads to strategic inertia. Funding decisions are fragmented, planning cycles are misaligned and essential investment—nearly £20 billion in resilience infrastructure identified by the National Infrastructure Commission—remains unfunded.

We should bring water resource management plans, drainage strategies and price reviews into a single co-ordinated process. We should launch a national water literacy campaign to put water efficiency on the same footing as net zero, and we should give one agency clear responsibility for delivering long-term water resilience, ensuring that all future demands are met. If we get this right, the benefits are enormous: a resilient rural economy that can grow and innovate; ecosystems that are healthier, more diverse and no longer pushed to collapse by over-abstraction; chalk streams that remain a part of our national heritage; secure food production; reliable water for homes, industry, data and energy; and a housing sector that can actually deliver the homes we need.

It is a simple choice: action now or crisis later. Water is not an optional extra; it is the foundation of a functioning country. I hope that we can agree that what Britain needs is not just investment and regulation, but a national plan under coherent leadership. We need a commitment that water security will not be an afterthought, but will continue to be the backbone of our infrastructure system.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

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

14:42

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I begin by recognising that the Minister takes these issues very seriously, and congratulating the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate. I agree with him that one would think it would take true organising genius to arrange for water scarcity in a country as wet as ours. Yet water scarcity is not a future risk; it is a constant and present reality. Take chalk streams, which have already been referred to: they are the crown jewels in our natural heritage, but less than a fifth are in good ecological status, and that situation is largely driven by over-abstraction.

The River Ivel in my constituency is one of the most over-abstracted chalk streams in the country. Where once there were boats, watermills and watercress meadows, there is now often little more than a dribble. The nearby Cat Ditch chalk stream mostly no longer flows at all. If we are to deliver on our manifesto commitments to reverse England’s nature crisis, we must ensure that we have a chalk streams-first approach to water resource management, adopted in full.

The second point I will make is that reservoirs alone will not save us. The planned nine new reservoirs up to 2050 will provide around 670 million litres of water a day but, as has already been referred to, our projected deficit is more than 5 billion litres a day. The calculations for existing water resource management plans do not take into account the quenchless thirst of data centres, demanded not by our constituents, but by tech corporations.

The brings me to my third point: we must move towards an economic model and a planning system that respect environmental boundaries and stop acting as though they do not exist. Speculative applications from profiteering developers must be reined in and firmer restrictions put in place where new development would require abstraction at rates not compatible with the good ecological health of our rivers. We must also make more efficient use of grey water. Above all, we need a clear national assessment of the maximum population growth we can absorb in our country, for a future in which both our taps and our rivers still run.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

If everybody speaks as scheduled, it should be about seven minutes each.

14:45

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne), for securing this important and timely debate.

Over the past week, my constituents in Mid Sussex have watched the appalling situation in Tunbridge Wells—families left without water for days on end, businesses forced to close and vulnerable residents unable to wash or cook—with deep concern. South East Water’s handling of the crisis has been nothing short of shocking. My constituents are asking the very reasonable question, “Could we be next?”.

While we accept that climate change is affecting rainfall, and recognise that house building places additional pressure on supply, none of that excuses the simple truth: South East Water has failed to invest properly in its network, failed to maintain its pipes, and failed to plan to ensure resilience. We have also not seen a major new reservoir in England since 1991. In Mid Sussex, we are now seeing the consequences of that neglect. Ardingly reservoir is at 44% capacity—this time last year, it was full. We have had a hosepipe ban imposed since the summer, businesses have been restricted under a drought order and South East Water is now racing to design a 13-kilometre pipeline to move up to 30 million litres of water a day from Weir Wood reservoir, just to keep Haywards Heath and surrounding villages supplied next spring and summer. That is not resilience; they are chasing their tails. The pipeline proposal raises serious questions. Its route would cross private land, roads, railway lines and environmentally sensitive areas, including Ashdown Forest. Local people deserve clarity, they deserve transparency and they deserve independently verified information, not only on the feasibility of the pipeline, but on every contingency plan the company claims to be developing.

I call on the Minister to go further. We need a full assessment of South East Water’s long-term resilience and investment strategy. We need clear, published forecasts of supply risks for every community and we also need regulators to ensure that companies owned by far-off investment funds are delivering water security, not just profits. Most of all, we need to protect our residents. Households, care homes, schools and businesses cannot simply be left to hope for rainfall or trust in last-minute engineering projects.

My constituents expect—and deserve—reassurance that the disgraceful scenes in Tunbridge Wells will not be repeated in Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill, Lindfield, Cuckfield or anywhere else in Mid Sussex. It should be a given, especially with rising bills, that people can live safely in the knowledge that they have access to a clean, reliable water source. For a Government with massive housing targets, it is unreasonable to expect local people to support targets of more than 1,000 homes per annum that are being delivered when they know that the existing population’s water demands are, at best, precariously met. That breaks the social contract. I draw my comments to a close there, but I look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to ensure that the situation is better managed in the future.

14:49

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing a debate on this vital issue. The fact that I previously secured a debate in this place on flooding in Norfolk and our problems with too much water, and now I am complaining about the places with not enough, just highlights the range of challenges that North Norfolk faces. In a rural community such as mine, there is an ongoing battle with a range of environmental factors just to keep livelihoods and businesses functioning as they are.

Water scarcity is a big issue for the farming community, which is large in North Norfolk. Farmers I speak to tell me of the significant challenges they face with water abstraction, and how it is impacting our food production and, importantly, our food security. As with greater flooding, the root cause of greater water scarcity is the climate emergency.

Climate change is making our rivers and watercourses more unpredictable, leading to changes in the patterns that have served farmers well for decades. As a result, many farmers want to build small on-farm reservoirs to give them greater surety of access to water, which would also ensure that our rivers do not become over-abstracted. However, for many farmers, that is incredibly difficult to do. Permitted development rights in this regard are outdated and unhelpful; they need to be urgently reviewed to assess how we can make it easier and simpler for farmers to secure access to water.

This issue was raised as part of the discussions on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and an amendment was sent back to us from the other place to ask us to consider it again. The Minister in the Lords told the other place that

“We recognise the need to look at those permitted development regulations, and we will return to them.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2025; Vol. 849, c. 520.]

In the debate on those Lords amendments, I raised the concerns of my farmers with the Minister for Housing and Planning, and asked him whether we could expect a timeline for the Government to return to and review the regulations. Hansard reported that he “indicated dissent”, which is a rather diplomatic way of describing the fact that he shook his head vigorously.

I hope that the Minister responding to today’s debate will be slightly less dissenting than her colleague. On matters of water, I know that she is well respected in the House and in my community, too, so we look to her for some clarity and guidance.

Water attenuation also helps us to manage the other end of the spectrum, flooding. It is farcical that some of the same farmers who struggle with abstraction are then also hit by floods in other parts of the year, but cannot do anything about them. Attenuation on farmland also prevents floodwater from running off into the residential communities nearby, reducing flood damage to homes and businesses.

We could tackle two great issues here, but the Government will have to act. Farmers already face many challenges in keeping their businesses afloat and keeping our communities fed, but this is a burden that can be relieved, and it is in the power of the Government to do so. For once, I am not even asking for money—I am just asking for the Government to look again at the current regulations to see what they can do to help our farmers out.

However, it is not only farming businesses who find water scarcity limiting their development. Over the county border in Suffolk, we have seen some areas slapped with a ban on new non-domestic connections due to water scarcity, and we are incredibly fearful of the same thing happening in Norfolk.

I have spoken at length about the steps that we need to take to unleash the rural economic powerhouse; such limitations are so damaging to expanding businesses in rural communities, and yet another challenge that drives a wedge between rural businesses and urban businesses. That challenge would not present itself to someone expanding their business in London or Manchester, but in rural areas we are subjected to draconian restrictions on free enterprise because of years of water sector mismanagement. The situation cannot be allowed to continue—or, by the time restrictions are eased, there simply will not be any more rural businesses trying to expand.

As a rural and a coastal MP, much of my community is built around water: our precious coastline, the chalk streams running through our villages and the beautiful broads that attract so many visitors to Norfolk. Climate change now threatens to turn that water from an asset into a struggle. I hope the Government recognise the severity of the issue we face and take the necessary steps to protect my community in the years to come.

14:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am very aware that the Division bell might ring at any moment to signal that we have to go to the main Chamber for a vote, so I will very slowly begin what I had planned to be a three or four-minute speech, while waiting for the bell to ring.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne)—[Interruption.]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House, as brilliantly predicted by the hon. Member.

14:53

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

The debate may continue until 4.11 pm.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, as much as it was 15 minutes ago. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham for securing this important debate.

The south-east, where my constituency is, has been designated as water stressed since 2021. As reflected in many of the contributions, that sometimes feels quite hard to believe in such a wet country. Much of my constituency is a low-lying coastal plain, and weather volatility is causing severe conditions on both ends of the scale. Droughts and floods are a commonplace occurrence, whereas before they were less likely.

I would like briefly to talk about chalk streams. I am very lucky to represent two of England’s 200 chalk streams, and over-abstraction on the River Ems over many years means that the point of constant flow has moved two kilometres downstream since the 1960s. That means that a large proportion of the river is drying up every summer when it never used to. Constituents have told me harrowing accounts of trying to rescue the salmon that migrate down the River Ems, and it feels like a total catastrophe when people are trying to save those fish. The Test and the Itchen, just outside my constituency, are also rare habitats and important chalk streams. They, too, are really impacted by over-abstraction.

To address that, Portsmouth Water is building the first new reservoir in more than 30 years, the Havant Thicket reservoir, just on the border of my constituency. That was largely favoured by the local community, because it would create a new space and an exciting environment for people to visit and walk around. Then Southern Water got involved. It saw this brilliant idea that was popular among the population, and it put forward a proposal to invest in Havant Thicket with Portsmouth Water by introducing an effluent recycling scheme, the first of its kind in this country to supplement our drinking water supply. By investing in that technology, Southern Water can use clever accounting tricks to maintain its bottom line by describing the technology as an asset rather than investing in fixing its existing infrastructure, which is much less appealing to its shareholders.

The cost of the scheme to introduce effluent recycling into the drinking water supply at the Havant Thicket reservoir is estimated to be £1.2 billion, but the costs are spiralling every year. There is also no lasting legacy to this project. The plant will become redundant in 60 years, but customers will be paying for it in their bills for far longer. It is also hugely energy intensive. At the same time, as many hon. Members have mentioned, Southern Water wastes 100 million litres of water every day from leaky pipes that it has failed to maintain.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

My constituency is in Wiltshire, and the northern part is served by Thames Water. In Lyneham we seem to see outages almost every week. Thames Water is wasting water and pouring it down the streets of Royal Wootton Bassett, but cannot supply tap water to Lyneham or to parts of Bassett. On top of that, the company gives residents no information about when supply will be reinstated. Would my hon. Friend agree that water companies should be making better use of their assets, but also giving residents information when they fail?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a valid point. I am sure that for that reason, she agrees that the best way to address our failing water system is to make water companies into public benefit interest companies, so they are beholden to their customers and the environment before the needs of their shareholders. Although these companies may profess to care about the public, they are always looking far more closely at the bottom line and how shareholders feel.

With confidence in water companies at an all-time low, Southern Water being one of the worst offenders, it is hard to believe that the Secretary of State will sign off on the Havant Thicket project without encouraging the company to prove that all other options have been exhausted. I would appreciate it if the Minister provided an update on whether the Government are in favour of the scheme. I understand that the decision has been deferred until spring 2026. That provides an opportunity for the Minister to meet local campaigners from my constituency and the neighbouring one who would love to share their thoughts on the project, which could end up providing a blueprint for the rest of the UK.

Water scarcity is not just about supply. It is also about demand, which is rising exponentially with a projected deficit of billions of litres of water a day, as many hon. Members have mentioned. That is why I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill calling for all new developments to introduce dual piping at the build stage so that households could introduce grey water recycling into their homes without a huge cost. The cost to the developer would have been very small—we are talking in the single hundreds of pounds—and yet if households had decided to start using grey water in their washing machines, for example, or to flush their toilets, they could have made huge savings in the long run.

Although the Government chose not to accept my amendment, there does need to be a serious conversation about the use of grey water to reduce demand on drinking water. We also need urgently to implement schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which is long overdue. Although local authorities can choose to make SUDS mandatory for all new developments—I know the Minister is passionate about SUDS, as she has told me in many a Westminster Hall debate—as my local authority, Chichester district council, has done, it is still not mandatory across the country, so I would appreciate an update from the Minister on the review of schedule 3.

Portsmouth Water is undertaking a project in my constituency of Chichester to install meters on every property for which it provides water, which should mean that those that use more water pay more, and those who are conscious of their water use see a saving on their bills. With water bills going up exponentially across the country, I am sure that would be a welcome saving to lots of my constituents in Chichester.

15:11

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It really is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this timely debate. I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an issue of huge importance for my Hazel Grove constituents, namely the impact of water scarcity on the UK’s canal network.

The UK is unique in having a network of more than 2,700 miles of waterways, much of it 250 years old and still supporting many businesses. My constituency, the finest in the land, is lucky enough to contain stretches of both the Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals, including the famous and beautiful Marple lock flight, which is an especially beautiful part of my patch—a green vein running through High Lane, Marple, over the Marple aqueduct, and through Romiley and Woodley on to Tameside. Earlier this year, I launched a campaign to make Marple locks, one of the steepest and longest flights in the country, a UNESCO world heritage site.

Marple is one of the best examples of industrial waterways in the UK. Our canal heritage makes it one of a kind, and it is our own local slice of great British history. I am a proud and long-standing trustee of the Stockport Canal Boat Trust for disabled people and their carers—I refer all colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not only are our waterways of cultural and historical significance to our communities, but they provide crucial habitats for wildlife and serve as a natural green corridor. Our canals are vital to our nature and our wellbeing, and they contribute hugely to combating climate change. They are vital for water management, and we should do everything we can to protect and preserve them for future generations.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

The Leeds and Liverpool canal runs through my constituency of Shipley, and on it is the very famous Bingley Five Rise locks. Because of water scarcity, that lock, and passage through it, has been shut for some time. Does the hon. Member agree with me that as part of managing our water system, it is essential that we keep our canals moving?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I agree strongly that keeping our canals moving is hugely important when we are thinking about how we manage our waterways, how we manage traffic on them, and how we keep them and preserve them for future generations.

Similarly to what the hon. Lady has described, because of a combination of drought and work that the Canal and River Trust had to conduct on some of their large raised reservoirs in line with the requirements of the Reservoirs Act 1975, many reservoirs in my area were drawn down last winter to permit legally required works to take place. As a result, the reservoirs started the year with a lower volume of water. This year, as the CRT told me, we experienced the driest spring in England for 132 years, the driest February to August in England since 1976, and the third driest March to August period on record overall for England, followed by the hottest summer since records began in 1884, according to the Met Office.

During dry seasons, low water levels can cause the canal banks to become unstable, leading to structural damage, erosion and, if left unaddressed, the eventual collapse of the canal. Therefore, it is essential that water levels are managed and maintained to ensure the stability and functionality of canals. When drought conditions are faced, restrictions are placed on boat movements to make the existing water in the canal system go as far as possible. This year, the CRT deemed that restrictions in my area, like in the area covered by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), did not go far enough to conserve water, so it stopped boat movements on the Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals over the summer.

As well as the challenges of a changing climate, there is an increasingly demanding regulatory framework, ageing and deteriorating infrastructure, inflation, higher construction costs and a reduction in Government funding. Without funding changes, I fear that such closures are sadly likely to occur more often. That will have a dire effect on not only the people who live and work on the waterways, but those who visit the canals for their benefits for physical and mental health. For many in my constituency, the canals are an escape from traffic pollution and noise. They provide a sanctuary of peace amid a busy world.

The principal reservoir that feeds the Peak Forest canal is Toddbrook. As a result of damage to the reservoir back in 2019, a key source of water for the canals has not been available of late. The CRT is currently working on a project to restore the reservoir, but without support from the Government, and increased funding to ensure that reservoirs are kept in good working condition, the water scarcity that we have experienced this year could result in more closures of canals and waterways in the future.

I join others, including campaigners from Fund Britain’s Waterways and the Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs, in urging the Government to put real consideration into our canals when allocating funding to ensure that water scarcity does not have negative ramifications for our waterways, and that we can protect these vital national assets for future generations.

15:16

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. Along with many others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate.

Only last week here in Westminster Hall, I was highlighting the issue of water scarcity in my constituency in the context of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. If we do not get this right, all those ambitious development plans will be dead in the water—or rather, dead in the lack of water. Our precious chalk streams, which the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning constantly to protect and are prioritised in the new environmental improvement plan, are already being degraded due to over-abstraction from the aquifers that sustain them. Far too many of them in my constituency now depend on artificial augmentation, which is when water is pumped from the boreholes into the headstreams just so that there is enough flow to sustain the wildlife within them. The fact that there is any flow at all is false. Sustainable water management must be the core principle that underpins growth across our region—as was said, it should be the backbone of our growth.

How are we doing? The Cambridge Water and Anglian Water plans say that they can meet existing and future demand, but last year, the Environment Agency did not accept that. It withdrew its support for already approved development plans for 9,000 homes and the cancer hospital, pausing construction and lodging an objection because it said there is not enough water. Never mind existing water; these plans do not include the additional thousands of homes being proposed as part of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. For example, the Fens reservoir, which we celebrate, will meet the already ambitious local plan for Greater Cambridge, but the thousands of homes planned by the Cambridge Growth Company are not included.

We need to end the doublethink; growth plans and water-resource plans must be aligned from the start. That requires projected demand—how many additional houses are we actually talking about?—as well as handling both sides of the equation.

First, we need to increase supply, potentially through more new reservoirs or infrastructure—the existing and planned reservoirs are not enough—and no more water should be abstracted from our chalk aquifers. Secondly, we should reduce demand by cutting leakage. As we have heard, in England, leakage stands at almost 50 litres per person a day. That dwarfs the potential savings from household behaviour change or efficiency measures in new builds. Alongside tackling leakage, as my hon. Friend said, we need changes to the permitted development rights to enable farmers to invest in farm reservoirs on their land.

My central question to the Minister is this: who will be responsible for ensuring that plans for growth and plans for water resources are properly aligned in South Cambridgeshire and across the UK, and that action to increase supply and reduce demand is delivered? The current governance for water is fragmented, with multiple institutions producing plans that do not include new growth ambitions, and that is a failing of the regulator. People no longer trust water companies to act in the public interest. We Lib Dems welcome the intention to abolish Ofwat, but we continue to call for a truly independent water authority.

Therefore, will the Minister join my calls for the Cambridge water scarcity group to be reconvened urgently, together with Lord Vallance and the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor team, to honestly address the mismatch between plans for growth and the measures needed to eliminate the water deficit, and for the water scarcity group—which brings together all the actors: the water companies, Ofwat, the Environment Agency, the planning services and the growth company—to continue to play a role, even if a development corporation comes forward?

15:21

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for setting the scene so incredibly well and giving us all a chance to participate through his choice of debate today. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place; I always look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I know that she has no responsibility for Northern Ireland—she will be glad to hear that—although I will explain the differences between what is done here and in Northern Ireland. The Minister always gives us reassurance in her responses, and we appreciate that very much. I thank her for that.

I like to attend these debates to give a local perspective from back home, with our own water service, Northern Ireland Water. Through my constituency office, I am in frequent contact with Northern Ireland Water—almost daily and certainly twice a week. Many constituents have raised issues with me regarding pressure, no water, or access to water for new developments, so it is indeed important to be here to discuss just this. Northern Ireland Water—as the Minister and hopefully others will know—is controlled by a Government Department; it is not beholden to any water company. Therefore, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of that Department, through the Northern Ireland Assembly.

When I listen to all the stories that hon. Members have told me around here or contributed in debates, and the regular questions on this issue, it is clear to me that the Lib Dems are very strong on this subject and that they understand the issues and put forward solutions. But for us back home, there is no big chief executive getting a six or seven-figure bonus for not doing his or her job right.

[Anna Dixon]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the chief exec of Yorkshire Water, while publicly not taking her bonus, took quite a large sum of money from the Kelda Holdings company. Given that lack of transparency at Yorkshire Water, does the hon. Gentleman agree that companies such as Kelda Holdings should not be involved in water, leveraging debt and handing out large secret bonuses to their chief execs?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I know the Minister is equally concerned about that, and I am hoping that the Minister’s response will give reassurance to the hon. Lady, and indeed to all of us, in relation to that. I think there is something obscene and immoral about these executives getting large sums of money—whatever Department it comes out of and whatever way it is manipulated to get that through—and it is good to know that the Government will be taking some measures to address that.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Will the hon. Member join me in asking the Minister to share her thoughts on the Southern Water boss having an incredible pay rise to get round the fact that bonuses for chief executives have been banned? These private companies will always find workarounds unless we change the structure of the water companies themselves.

[Jim Shannon]

I think the two words “immoral” and “obscene” sum up the issues that the hon. Lady has referred to, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

In 2024, Northern Ireland Water published a new water resource plan, extending its long-term planning horizon from 25 years to 50 years, so it has in place a structure to look forward at what will happen in Northern Ireland. Our population has increased by, I think, more than 200,000 in the last 10 years. The increase has been quite significant. There have been large developments. My constituency of Strangford has experienced that. There is a development coming through in the east of the town. There will be 750 new houses, and that will add stress on the infrastructure, including the water system and all the roads. But we have to address population growth, housing demand, water usage and climate change. The plan recognises that future weather patterns are likely to include more frequent extreme events, and pledges to build resilience so that the water supply remains secure.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

This is the first time I have intervened on the hon. Member—it is normally the other way round. He mentioned climate change, and I was alarmed to read that last year Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service attended 197 outdoor fires and wildfires, which was one of the highest numbers in the whole of the UK. We are seeing water scarcity and abstraction from rivers against the backdrop of having had the 20-odd hottest years on the planet—year after year after year. It has to be acknowledged that that is affecting water scarcity as well.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member highlights another issue in relation to climate change and the dry spells that we are having, which lead, ultimately, to the fires that take place, whether deliberately or by accident.

Spelga dam supplies most of the water for the Greater Belfast area, and that takes in the area that I live in, Strangford, and North Down, and goes down as far as South Down. I also want to refer to Lough Neagh in a few minutes. Water usage per person in Northern Ireland is rising—the hon. Member for Horsham referred to this issue in his introduction—and has exceeded 160 litres per day. The system is sensitive to dry spells. I am recalling the summer that we have just had and the Twelfth of July—this is a very important year for us Orangemen—when the weather was outstanding. So much more water was used for children’s play pools, sprinklers and watering plants. The weather should not be taken for granted and neither should the amount of water that we are using. That is what this debate is all about—how we use water better. The situation was similar to one a few years back in Northern Ireland. I remember that there was actually a hosepipe ban, involving restricted hours, to limit the amount of water that was being used. We have had drought spells in Northern Ireland in the past, but we do not really have much shortage of rain, by and large.

Water quality is also a big issue back home. Environmental concerns have been released by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the safety of some of the water that it manages. Large bodies of water such as Lough Neagh, the UK’s largest freshwater lake—this has been in the headlines all over the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland—have repeatedly experienced toxic algae blooms. The issue is not isolated to just that location; it happens in other locations as well. Northern Ireland has also witnessed a risk to infrastructure and investment, which could have a direct impact on our drinking water supply. Funding constraints are always an issue, to the point that Northern Ireland Water has actually halted new wastewater connections for many new housing developments. It puts the onus on the developer to come up with the sewerage systems, come up with the water supply—come up with the infrastructure that it would normally put in—and the developer pays for that.

There are real issues regarding water scarcity back home. I always have great faith in the Minister in relation to her discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am always encouraged by the Ministers who come to these debates and whom I speak to, because when it comes to contacting the Ministers back home, by and large they have all done that. If this Minister has had that opportunity, what has been the outcome?

Water is not scarce in Northern Ireland, but there are many contributing factors that imply that the situation could get worse. On water condition and water access, more needs to be done to repair the damage and ensure that agencies such as Northern Ireland Water have the money that they need to improve our services. I look to the Minister to tell us what discussions and conversations she has had with the Ministers back home to ensure that we can address this issue centrally here at Westminster, but for the benefit of all the regions.

15:29

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

It is a joy to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Stuart. I plan to be here for the next two debates, so we will have a lovely afternoon together as we have apparently just rejoined the EU on a tied vote. The tie means that we win on the away-goals rule, which is good to hear. All legislation should be settled like that in future.

I give massive thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne), who not only secured the debate but led it superbly. All contributions from parties present have been excellent, focused on their communities and on trying to solve the issue. It was great to hear the affinity between the DUP and the Liberal Democrats; after all, we are both very fond of the colour orange. It is great to get a perspective from one of the devolved nations.

The amount of water available at any time depends not only on natural supply—rainfall, rivers, aquifers—but on the capacity of the infrastructure maintained since privatisation by the water companies. Demands from households, industry and agriculture also play a significant part. In Cumbria, we have 20 million visitors a year. Those people are very welcome but that is a lot of drinking water, showers and flushed lavatories, and we need the infrastructure to provide that. On top of that, we provide fresh drinking water for millions of people in the north-west of England. Again, we are proud to do so but we are under pressure.

The Environment Agency has projected national and regional deficits in water supply. Deficits will only worsen over the next 25 years as matters are scheduled. By 2050, the shortfall could reach nearly 5 million litres per day—equivalent to more than a third of the water that we currently rely on for public consumption. Outrageous water shortages have been experienced by South East Water customers, who have been referenced by hon. Friends and championed by our hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). Those water shortages could become the experience of people across the country, not just in the south-east region, if we do not radically reform our water industry urgently to ensure that we stop the leaking of billions of pounds of billpayers’ money into the pockets of shareholders and senior executives, when that money should be reinvested in a water infrastructure fit for the British people.

[Anna Dixon]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—

[Tim Farron]

Not yet.

[Anna Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman—sorry. As he said, Yorkshire has also experienced water shortages. From July this year, we have had a hosepipe ban and reservoirs remain at critically low levels, given what we should expect this season. It was at about 31% of capacity in September. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Yorkshire Water, like some of the others he mentioned, has failed to invest in the necessary infrastructure to deal with the impact of climate change, as well as rising demand?

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. All this afternoon’s interventions have been good and on the money. Talking about money, this is money leaking out of the industry and not being invested in it. Bonuses and dividends should reward success; clearly, Yorkshire Water and others have failed in their basic task, which is to provide clean water for their communities.

To focus on the scale of the problem, since privatisation the water companies have amassed £70 billion of debt. Adjusted for inflation, they have paid out £83 billion in dividends. That means that on average 30p out of every pound that people pay on their water bills is to service the debt of the water companies, which was racked up to pay dividends. That is a moral outrage.

The main drivers of this impending crisis are clear: climate change; population growth; increased housing demand; business expansion; the demands, which have been mentioned, for huge additional energy and water usage given the growth in AI; pressures on the natural environment; and the growing need to prepare for drought. Those drivers are compounded by historical underinvestment in infrastructure and insufficient demand management.

Successive Governments have comprehensively failed to take climate adaptation measures seriously, guaranteeing misery for communities affected by flooding, wildfires and heat stress. If we are to build new infrastructure, including new homes and data centres—and we must—we must also ensure that water infrastructure keeps pace. That means sustainable drainage, new supply capacity and integration of water resilience into planning from the start. For instance, we should ensure that data centres are built predominantly at coastal locations and that desalination plants are an integral part of their design and key to their gaining of planning consent. Otherwise, we simply will not have the capacity to both provide clean water for our people and be the AI superpower that we desire to be.

The Liberal Democrats have long backed an infrastructure-first approach to development. We cannot allow water infrastructure to remain an afterthought. It is not right that water companies that have failed to invest in adequate sewerage, drainage and water supply infrastructure are able to get away with telling the local planning authority that there is no need for further investment and, at the same time, gain the financial benefit of the extra water bills from new households, while not laying out the extra investment needed to provide for them.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the infrastructure necessary at waste water treatment works. In Bosham in my constituency, a new development is coming online, which has hundreds of homes. Currently, Southern Water says that it does not have any more capacity at the waste water treatment works. Yet because it has the statutory duty to connect, people will potentially be moving into the homes without any of the water infrastructure.

Meanwhile Chichester harbour, which is a protected landscape, is having more and more sewage dumped into it because the water infrastructure has not kept pace. Does my hon. Friend agree that water companies should play an important role in the planning decisions before the houses are brought online, so that those houses are built where the infrastructure is?

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

[Tim Farron]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We made those points during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, now the 2025 Act, and we will of course try them again in the near future. Water scarcity and limited water storage capacity put acute pressure on farming and food production. There must be more support for farmers to manage water well and for the development of local resource options to secure and store water.

Flooding and drought both threaten our agriculture sector and therefore threaten Britain’s food security. In the last few days we have been commemorating with great sadness and dark memories the 10th anniversary of Storm Desmond in Cumbria and elsewhere in the country. We see water levels rising today and recognise that it is so important that we invest in protecting our communities—in particular those who provide the food for our tables: our farmers.

Water companies must be held to account. That means requiring them to reduce leakages, deliver on efficiency targets, expand uptake of water meters and embrace water-saving technologies. In my constituency, we do indeed have an awful lot of lakes, and they need topping up, so it rains rather a lot. We are the most beautiful part of England, I would argue, but we are also the wettest. Yet despite the fact that we get three and a half times more rainfall per year than even Manchester, we end up facing droughts and potential water rationing over the summer months. That can only be the consequence of appalling levels of investment in our water network as we see good water leaking out of the system. The wettest place in England last summer had a hosepipe ban—that is barmy and outrageous.

At the same time, we recognise that augmenting supply may become unavoidable. Options must include new reservoirs, especially in regions that suffer from lower rainfall, as well as greater water recycling, desalination where ecologically feasible and transfers of water between regions. It is vital that we support farmers and land managers as they struggle with extreme weather. The Liberal Democrats stand alone as the only party in England calling for food security and resilience of food supply to be counted as public goods and therefore supported through the environmental land management schemes, which we would boost with an additional £1 billion per year. The lack of water through periods of drought is a fundamental threat to our food security, so we would ensure that farmers are actively supported to ensure that they remain able to put food on our tables no matter the weather.

Before I close, we ask the Minister: will there be a comprehensive cross-departmental UK adaptation strategy that embeds climate resilience, including water resilience, across all Government policies and agencies? Will that be set out in the water White Paper that we are expecting very soon following the Independent Water Commission report just before summer? Will the White Paper introduce resilience standards for water and support homeowners in installing adaptation measures against flooding and overheating?

Will the White Paper restore agricultural permitted development rights, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), to allow farmers to build on-farm reservoirs with the support of the local community? Will the White Paper bring in a new clean water authority to replace the failed Ofwat and merge it into an authority with other regulators too?

[Sarah Gibson]

On the subject of flooding, which is slightly off the point, I have just received information from the Environment Agency to say that Chippenham is flooding again this year. The Minister will remember that she and I spent some time mopping out in wellies, and we are at that point of flooding again. Does my hon. Friend agree that funding for flood resilience is vital? The fact is that areas not within mayoral authorities seem to be unable to secure any funding for anything.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Shortly after the hon. Member responds to that intervention, he should bring his remarks to a close.

[Tim Farron]

I have only a little left, but thank you, Mr Stuart. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a strong advocate for her communities and is echoing their anger at being overlooked for funding. It is worth recognising that, although it may be no fault of the Minister’s, DEFRA is one of the few Departments that got an actual cut in the Budget. Does that affect farming or flood investment? It is deeply concerning for all of us who live in habitually wet communities.

I want to press the Minster on whether the White Paper that is coming will set out a single, powerful regulator that the water companies actually fear, rather than what we have at present: a whole range of weak regulators that the water companies play off against one another. Meanwhile, the companies continue to take people’s money and not provide adequate water infrastructure. Water scarcity is a real and growing challenge. The causes are in part natural, but in part they are political. We have a water industry that is structured to make a small number of people incredibly wealthy, not to meet the needs of our country. Will the White Paper address the outrageous and outdated ownership model to ensure that we tackle the problem?

We will not deal with the issue by tinkering around the edges. It will only change when we have the kind of regulation that the industry cannot shimmy its way around, and when we have an ownership model that puts water supply and water users ahead of an amoral dash for profit. If we do not act now with joined-up planning, proper investment, accountability, strong regulation and a better ownership model, then the shortfall of water forecast by 2050 will hit communities across our country, and Governments both past and present will rightly get the blame.

15:41

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing a really important debate on water security and resilience—a topic that has not had as much focus as it deserves for a long time. Water is a vital resource, but one that has over the last half century, unfortunately, received nowhere near enough attention. We are now reaping the consequences of that inaction. In simple terms, our population is 10 million people greater than it was 30 years ago and we have not constructed any new reservoirs in that period; that is why we have ended up with the challenges that we have heard about.

The Environment Agency estimates that, driven by population growth and climate change, there will be a shortfall of nearly 5 billion litres of water a day in this country by 2055—the equivalent of a third of current public consumption. Water scarcity is of course important when we consider drinking water, but there are also dangerous knock-on effects for the environment and for food production, as has rightly been said. Over-abstraction of stretched water sources is having a huge impact on vital habitats such as chalk streams; this year alone, record-breaking droughts have cost arable farmers approximately £800 million in lost production. This was the second-worst harvest on record, and our horticultural industry has been severely impacted.

The hon. Member for Horsham rightly talked about the challenges facing chalk streams and infrastructure, and about the lack of strategy planning for water security and resilience. He talked about the implications for his farming community, where there are water-leakage issues with water companies. Indeed, Yorkshire Water represents my constituency, and we have had hosepipe bans consistently for months now. Given that in September we were at 31% capacity, it is not good enough for water companies across the country, including Yorkshire Water, not to put the level of investment into dealing with not only leakages but water storage capacity-related issues. That is not acceptable for many of our constituents.

[Anna Dixon]

As neighbouring MPs, the hon. Gentleman and I have a shared interest in Yorkshire Water’s performance. As he set out, this is not a recent problem; it has been going on for decades. Given his previous role in the last Government, would he take some responsibility for the consequences of the lack of funding for the infrastructure of our water system?

[Robbie Moore]

As the hon. Member will know, it is down to the regulator to set how much a water company is able to spend on infrastructure projects. Ofwat has not provided water companies with the flexibility they need to provide the correct level of investment. There is significant frustration about that, and that is coupled with frustrations about our planning system that have prevented large water storage schemes from progressing through the system. It is really disappointing that this Labour Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is progressing through the House, does not address any of the issues associated with the challenges of increasing water storage and water resilience in this country. That is a real missed opportunity by this Labour Government.

We all know that the last Government took some steps to address the risks of water scarcity. We set a clear direction through the Environment Act 2021 to reduce water consumption by 20% per person by 2038. Although the target will ease demand, we should still be planning to address the larger challenges around increasing water storage. I was proud to help develop the last Government’s plan for water, which set clear objectives to improve efficiency, reduce leaks and plan for increased supply. It is encouraging to see that the Government have announced a further 670 million litres of daily water supply through the proposed new reservoirs, but I challenge the Government on the speed of delivering them, including the Fens reservoir, as mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). It is frustrating that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—a key piece of legislation—has not addressed those challenges on the speed of delivery.

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

Weir Wood and Ardingly reservoirs in my constituency are covered by South East Water, which, out of the blue, wants to build an overland emergency pipe to improve water resilience, but there has been no consultation or engagement with businesses and residents even though the pipe will affect 58 residences and homeowners, as well as the Bluebell railway line. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the issue is a lack of consultation?

[Robbie Moore]

Yes—absolutely. My hon. Friend has spoken to me on many occasions about her challenges with South East Water, which is not investing sufficiently in increasing water storage capacity. I know there is a meeting tonight to address some of those challenges, but South East Water seems to be consistently chasing its tail and not interacting enough with my hon. Friend, in whose constituency these reservoirs are, or with wider water users. More openness and transparency should be expected from South East Water.

Although new reservoirs are definitely needed—I think all Members in this Chamber would concur on that—we must have a broader conversation about water in this country, and most importantly, how we value water. Water can have a positive or negative value depending on whether one’s constituents are being flooded or whether one’s area needs to store more water. At the moment, we are wholly reliant on water companies to deliver major infrastructure and reservoir projects. When a price review index is set by a regulator in a five-year rolling strategy, it is not providing the flexibility that the Government require to increase water storage.

I encourage the Government to go further to provide more certainty on increased water storage beyond that which has already been announced. Would it not be better to look at how we can deliver greater water storage capacity in a dispersed way? We should empower smaller-scale projects on private land, which could involve incentivising farmers or landowners, potentially financially, to not only go above and beyond the water storage capacity they need for their own usage, but to store water on their land and then release it to a water grid. I encourage the Government to look at different ways of attracting private sector investment to increase water storage capacity, rather than it being the water company’s responsibility to do that. We must think outside the box on this water resilience issue.

Likewise, farmers and landowners do a great service when they allow their land to be flooded during rainy periods. I remember very well, having previously been the water Minister, that I met many farmers who had been flooded during Storm Henk and Storm Babet. Environment Agency assets had burst, and the Environment Agency was saying to me—the current Minister may be getting the same response—that we must not look at dredging or removing vegetation from our man-made assets to get water to flow better through the system. If she is getting that advice, as I did, I would encourage her to push back and say that, as well as trying to build better flood alleviation schemes, we should look at those strategies for water to be stored to potentially deal with some of our water scarcity issues we have.

Vast amounts of water are there for us all to see when the land is flooded, and there is an opportunity to use that land to deal with water scarcity issues. At the moment, far too much water is going out to sea during rainy periods and then, come summer, as we have all experienced with another drought, we cannot deal with the water resilience issues.

Finally, I strongly encourage the Minister to look at how we can expand and develop the relationship and the flexibility between the internal drainage boards, the Environment Agency, and landowners and farmers who want to increase water storage and capacity on their farm but also want to move water through the system. The catchment-based approach of IDBs and their grassroots nature mean they are doing some excellent work across the country. While they are facing challenges, the way that they are moving water across our farmland and farm businesses is a huge success story.

I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what level of investment the Government are making beyond the current promises about existing reservoirs that have been announced. How will the Minister deal with the planning challenges to ensure that we get more smaller-scale reservoirs built at speed? What future legislation is she planning to present to the House beyond the missed opportunity of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which does not deal with water resilience or security measures? What additional pressures are the Government putting on water companies like Yorkshire Water to deal with water leakage, despite us seeing hose pipe bans and dealing with challenges around water security? We have heard South East Water, Yorkshire Water, Southern Water and Thames Water all mentioned in this debate, but we do not have certainty from the Government that they are putting enough pressure on those providers.

15:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for bringing forward this debate, which has raised some important issues that I do not think have had the hearing they need in Parliament.

Water scarcity is a huge and pressing issue, and it is particularly brought to mind by the climate change that we can see happening in front of us. As has been mentioned, we have just had one of the driest spring and summers, and I have been involved throughout the year in the national drought group that brings together the Environment Agency and all stakeholders to look at the issue of drought across the country. Next year will be a special anniversary of the situation 50 years ago, in 1976, and I am mindful not to be in a similar situation as a Minister. What we do around water and how we deal with problems of scarcity are therefore very much at the forefront of my mind.

I agree with many of the points that have been made, including about the issue of leakage. In effect, customers are paying for a resource that is literally being spilled out in the wrong place. We have strong targets on leakage, because looking at reducing leakages is one of the big levers to pull in how we deal with and meet the demand for water in future. A 20% reduction by 2027, 30% by 2032 and 50% by 2050 is where we need to get to in reducing leakage, using the baseline of 2017-2018.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) mentioned that her constituency is flooded again. I well remember visiting it with her and seeing the devastation of people mopping water out. They had done a brilliant job by the time we arrived, and I remember being very impressed at how well they had cleared it out, but it is absolutely awful. That shows why we need all the money that we are putting into flood alleviation, and why it is crucial.

I hope that this time the flood alerts and warnings system was more effective. Following last year, we looked at how we could improve that system, which has been upgraded, so I am keen for feedback. I wrote a “Dear colleague” letter—which I know you will have read in great detail, Mr Stuart—about how we can support constituents and businesses with information and contact numbers related to flooding, and I am also keen for feedback on that.

This debate is about our other water problem, however: not flooding, but scarcity. The situation for the people of Tunbridge Wells has been horrific. I have been in regular contact with the chief executive officer of South East Water and the local Member of Parliament. I have made it clear that we think the disruption in Tunbridge Wells is completely unacceptable.

On what happens next in the process, hon. Members will understand that people there are under a boil notice, and South East Water is looking at when that boil notice will be lifted. Importantly, the Drinking Water Inspectorate will do a full investigation that will include interviewing all the relevant people and drawing its conclusions. It is looking into why the problem happened, why it has taken so long to restore supply, and at the company’s important communication with customers.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Please speak through me, Minister.

[Emma Hardy]

Apologies, Mr Stuart; I should gaze upon you at all times.

Protecting customers, of course, must be one of the top priorities, so I have been chairing one of the multi-agency responses. Normally agencies talk to agencies and Government, but I felt the need to intervene personally in this matter—which I have done three times in the last week—to look at every step that has been taken to resolve the issue, and particularly the concern around communication and making sure that vulnerable people are getting the water that they need.

[Alison Bennett]

Does the Minister support Liberal Democrat calls, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), for the chief executive of South East Water to resign over this issue?

[Emma Hardy]

At the moment, the chief executive needs to focus on getting the boil water notice removed and getting drinking water back into everybody’s house. Of course, the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be doing a full investigation into exactly what has caused the problem and why it has taken so long to resolve. South East Water is responsible for compensating customers. The changes that we introduced to the guaranteed standards scheme mean that for the first time compensation can be given to people who are under boil notices. Under the previous Government someone under a boil notice did not receive any compensation; we have introduced compensation. Customers will be compensated not only for not having water but for the duration of their boil water notice.

On water scarcity, I agree with many of the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) talked about the over-abstraction of chalk streams and he is absolutely right that that is crucial. Over-abstraction and pollution are the main causes of problems for our chalk streams. One of the reasons that we have such a demand for future water is because we are committed to reducing abstraction, particularly from our chalk streams. He is right to say that we cannot think just about having the reservoirs; we need more actions, including strong and stringent targets to reduce leakage, and we need to look at all our water needs going forward. He was right to highlight—although there seemed to be some amnesia in the Chamber—the years of under-investment in water and in infrastructure more widely. We are getting on with doing many things that should have been done in the last 14 years.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Briefly, may I encourage the Minister to come to my constituency and see the incredible work being done by the RevIvel campaign, which is trying to restore the Ivel chalk stream? It has a brilliant proposal for a chalk stream-first approach that would restore not just that chalk stream but the whole chalk aquifer and help the Cat Ditch flow again. It would be great to see her there.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that lovely invite. Visiting a chalk stream sounds beautiful—perhaps in springtime, when it is looking particularly gorgeous, or in summer.

I agree with so many of the points made—even those made by the shadow Minister—about farming, what we can do to support farmers and how we can make it easier for them to store water on their land. At this moment, I cannot commit to saying exactly where my thinking is on this, but I can say I am looking at it extremely closely: how can we make it easier for farms to become more resilient and for farmers to store water when it rains, so that it is there when they need it? I have also been looking closely at the interestingly titled WAGs—I thought that meant something else entirely, but as we all know stands it for water abstraction groups. I have been looking at how they have been doing some of that work.

[Robbie Moore]

Landscape recovery schemes are a great way of dealing not only with water quality schemes, but with water resilience strategies. Will the Minister commit to working with her colleagues to look at removing the one-year break clause that now exists within landscape recovery schemes, because it makes it very difficult for anyone willing to get involved to sign up?

[Emma Hardy]

I commit to taking that to the farming Minister to have a thorough look at it. I am acutely aware of how difficult farmers have had it this year. The flooding in the winter and the drought in the summer have been devastating for them, so I am really keen to see what we can do.

There was a call for a campaign on the preciousness of water, but one already exists: the water efficiency fund campaign, the chair of which will be announced in the new year. It is a fund by Ofwat looking into the communications we need around water and how precious it is.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), keeps wanting me to give him spoilers, but I will continue to refuse to give spoilers on exactly what will and will not be in the White Paper. As has been announced—he knows this already—we are going to look at having one powerful regulator and a joined-up, comprehensive approach to regulation across the whole of the industry.

I completely agree with the point that was made about fragmentation; there are so many different plans involved in how much water we need. We need to look at how we can streamline this, make it more straightforward and hold people to account for who is delivering what and when. There is much more to come in the White Paper, as well as the legislation following it.

[Anna Dixon]

I commend the Minister for all she has done so far to address the problems in the water sector, and look forward to the forthcoming water White Paper. I realise she cannot give away too much, but I urge her to look again at some of the recommendations of the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, particularly the idea of a SAGE for water—having an expert advisory panel—and stronger democratic oversight, particularly of catchments. I urge her to look at those ideas again before she finalises her paper.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work she has done on the People’s Commission. I have read it, and thought there were some interesting suggestions in it. There is so much consensus on this issue; everyone fundamentally wants the same thing—enough water, including for farmers, growth and the general public. Furthermore, everyone wants to do that in a way that does not damage the environment or too expensive for customers. There is so much consensus on which we can all build when we tackle this issue.

On the issue of performance-related pay, in a report on 5 November, Ofwat highlighted the broader issue of a lack of transparency when it comes to executive remuneration across the water sector. It noted in particular the examples of Yorkshire Water and Thames Water, which made retention payments from the parent company. Due to that, Ofcom will consult on requiring companies to publicly report in full the details of all executive remunerations, including explanations of what the remuneration relates to. This is intended to apply to company accounts in 2025-26. In a nutshell, it will get a better grip on the situation.

Lots of Members mentioned canals. I spoke with the Canal and River Trust and I hear the difficulties it has had, mainly because of the drought. When water becomes more scarce, of course that creates a problem for canals. I acknowledge that it has been a particularly difficult year. Many Members talked about chalk streams. One of the best things we can do to support chalk streams is to reduce over-abstraction.

There were lots of comments about how we will deal with future water use and make sure that we have all the water we need. There is some good news that I think everyone here might become very excited about, as I have. It is the building regulations consultation, which is happening at the moment and lasts until 16 December. If any hon. Member has not responded to that consultation, I encourage them to do so. It is considering how we can make homes more water-efficient, including the use of grey water, water reuse and what potential future standards could be. The outline proposal is for the minimum standard to be reduced from 125 to 105 litres per day and there are even options for a tighter standard, which range from 110 to 100 litres a day.

The consultation is also looking at evidence on water reuse systems in new developments, so there is quite a lot in it. That is really exciting, because these ideas will enable customers to save money on their water bills and on their energy bills, because they will not have to use as much energy to heat their water. They also support the environment and our house building targets. As I say, the consultation is quite exciting, and it closes on 16 December.

We also intend to introduce mandatory water efficiency labelling to help customers to make informed choices about different appliances when they buy products for their home. We believe that intervention alone will save 23 billion litres of water over 10 years. Building new houses to the highest potential for water efficiency leaves room for further growth in the future. There are quite a lot of exciting things happening in this sector. [Interruption.] I am now being coughed at, which I think means that I should shush.

I again thank the hon. Member for Horsham for securing this debate. I am sure it will not be the last time that we talk about the importance of water scarcity. We all have a role to carry the message that water is a precious resource, which is necessary not just for us but for farmers and the environment. I look forward to continuing the debate on this subject in future conversations about water after Christmas. Merry Christmas.

16:06

[John Milne]

I thank the Minister for her response. I guess it is quite a challenge being a water Minister at a time when we seem to have endless droughts, but there we go—I will not blame her personally. This issue is a great big challenge for Government, because we are discussing changes that need to be made 20 or 30 years in advance. Let’s face it—Governments of all kinds have not been the best at that kind of long-term thinking. I very much appreciate her words today.

I also thank hon. Members for all their contributions today. If there is one thing that this debate has shown us, it is how diverse water stress is; it is creating different problems locally, everywhere. However, we need there to be national attention on it.

My simple message at the end of this debate would be that we have neglected this issue for far too long. We have taken water for granted and we simply cannot afford to keep doing so. I hope this debate will contribute to there being a greater focus on this very important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered water scarcity.

Creative Education

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

16:09

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered creative education in schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I welcome the Government’s curriculum and assessment review, which recognises the need for a broad and balanced curriculum and recommends the removal of the English baccalaureate, allowing greater space for arts subjects. At present, far too many children do not have access to these opportunities. Research from the Arts and Minds Campaign reveals that participation in arts subjects at GCSE has fallen by 42% since 2010, even though 90% of young people want to study a creative subject. The decline is sharpest in the most disadvantaged communities. School leaders in socially deprived areas are almost 50% more likely to report being unable to find specialist arts teachers, and one in four schools does not have the funding to run creative GCSEs at all.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and sorry to intervene so early in the debate. I want to make a point about outdoor education, which is also about enrichment and helping young people to be resilient and to have better outcomes. Is he aware that among state schools in wealthier postcodes, 52% of young people get an outdoor education residential opportunity while at school, while in the poorer areas, only 18% have this opportunity? Does he think that the Government need to be aware of this and fund access to outdoor education experiences for children, wherever they are from?

[Dr Opher]

I totally agree. In fact, there is evidence that creativity outside is even more effective for people than inside. This is clearly about access to natural spaces.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on creative health. There is really strong evidence that creativity reduces mental health problems in children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate; he is right to do so. Creative education is so important. Creative education will give thousands of children the opportunity to thrive, and will be the tool that gets them the careers for the future. Those children who have special educational needs must have additional opportunities so they are not left behind, and must have the opportunity also to succeed. Does he agree that helping those people who are less well-off educationally and at a disadvantage is important, and that the opportunity is here, in the creative industries, to do the best for them?

[Dr Opher]

It is interesting that creativity is particularly important for children with special educational needs. Indeed, there is some evidence that including creativity can actually make them attend school on a more regular basis.

I have visited loads of schools in Stroud over the last 18 months, and one common theme has been the rise in mental health problems in young people, who are under countless assessments and the pressure of living in a 24/7 social media world. I do feel that this is pushing a lot of children to the brink, and that creativity may be a way of repairing that. One in five young children has a probable mental health condition, and this figure is rising every year. As a GP, I have been using art to treat mental health in children and adults for about 26 years, quite often with really spectacular results. The lack of art subjects has contributed to this pandemic of mental health problems. The Southbank Centre just across the river is doing a project as we speak around introducing creativity to children who are on the child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists. It will be quite exciting to see whether that can make them better as well.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the role of community-based arts organisations is central to supporting our schools? I hope he will also support my campaign to turn Reading Gaol into an arts and heritage hub, which, one day, in showing the possibilities of an arts-based education, may be able to support local schools across the Reading area.

[Dr Opher]

I know that my hon. Friend is incredibly supportive of the developments in Reading. I commend him on that.

Because I am a scientist, I thought I could provide some reasoning on why the creative arts can help. They help on three different fronts. Biologically, they can influence physiological symptoms of anxiety—they reduce anxiety. Psychologically, they can improve self-expression, confidence and, probably most important, self-esteem. That is because often when we do a creative thing, we feel that it came out a little bit better than we anticipated. It is the same for children. There is good, strong evidence that the creative arts build self-esteem in children, and in social terms, they build connections and a sense of belonging.

I want the Minister to join me in a campaign to make teaching children how to play musical instruments available in every primary school. I shall talk a little bit more about music. In Stroud, schools such as Bussage primary school are leading the way by making sure that every key stage 2 child has exposure to musical education. Last week, we had a roundtable in the House of Lords with a group called Rocksteady, which takes rock music into local schools. I was really impressed by what I heard. Not only were the effects of the group’s work really impressive, but there was a measurable reduction in pupil absence rates. It had an effect on the whole school, and made everyone feel better.

In Gloucester, we have the Music Works, where quite deprived children can learn how to DJ, to play the drums or guitar, or to sing. That has been transformative for many children. There are other examples, such as the fantastic Big Noise in Scotland. Some big organisations, including the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, the English National Opera and the Royal Opera House have big programmes that reach into schools. There is some evidence that they can teach the teachers, which is one of the problems I will explore.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

SoundStorm is a multi-award winning lead partner in the music hub in my constituency. It has helped more than half a million young people since being founded in 2002, but like any publicly funded body, it is worried about future funding, so I welcome the Education Secretary’s commitment to working through music hubs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must continue to support music hubs in their work to teach teachers and get music into schools, so that kids at all ages can have a great music education?

[Dr Opher]

My hon. Friend has made exactly the point I was coming to about the role of music hubs. There are 43 music hubs in the UK, delivering something like half a million lessons and interventions up and down the country. Their reach is incredible, taking in about 90% of schools, although there is an issue in that they sometimes charge for their lessons, which I shall come back to.

I welcome the upcoming launch of a new national centre for arts and music education, to support the delivery of high-quality arts education in schools and ensure that high-quality arts education is open to all. I would welcome further information from the Minister on the plans for that establishment.

Creativity in education does not just mean musical or visual arts. Recently, I met Tash Alexander, the inspirational director of Head Held High, which ran a comedy and performance workshop for teenage students in London schools; I also met one of the graduates, Ro. What really struck me about the programme is the way it uses creative expression to build confidence, especially among children who do not always thrive in more traditional learning environments. One aspect of creativity and the arts is that they often really suit people who do not get on very well at school. They are made to feel a failure, whereas actually they can make fantastic artworks or music. We must give them that opportunity. That is the real power of a creative education—it reaches young people differently and gives them a space to discover who they are. Despite Tash’s excellent work over the last 12 years, funding is a challenge all the time. I urge the Department for Education to meet her and discuss how we can continue to fund that programme.

One of the main barriers to creativity in education is that teachers are not qualified or do not have experience of teaching the creative arts. The less creativity there is at a school, the less likely the teachers are capable of teaching it. One third of school leaders cannot find specialist teachers, for example, so big national organisations may have a role to play in taking them under their wing, showing them how to teach and giving them the confidence to teach. That is one big problem.

Another problem is cost. Half of all parents cannot afford extracurricular arts activities. As a result, children’s creative futures are increasingly dictated by family income, not by talent or passion. It is already mandatory that looked-after children are provided with free musical instruments. Should that be extended to those on free school meals? Could we use the pupil premium for music lessons? Libraries can lend instruments easily and musical hubs provide the organisational ability to spread teaching through a school.

Groups such as the Ed Sheeran Foundation and the Nicola Benedetti Foundation are supporting music education, and we could perhaps use them more, particularly with less advantaged children. Creativity should never be a postcode lottery. It should not be a luxury for families who can afford instruments, lessons, dance shoes or even theatre trips. If we are serious about tackling inequality, we must rebuild creative opportunities into the heart of every child’s school experience.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Every child deserves a broad curriculum that values creative subjects alongside the core skills, but financial education from an early age is also vital. In communities in rural coastal settings such as mine, we face specific barriers to allowing children to access these important subjects. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to examine the barriers and include these subjects as part of our offer to children across the whole of the UK?

[Dr Opher]

That is very true, and it comes back to the capabilities and confidence of the teachers, particularly in smaller schools. My children all went to smaller schools and they were lucky to have an inspirational music leader, but not every school has one. We can go further; we could have a world-class curriculum, but it cannot be world-class if we sideline the arts. All schools need the resources, staffing and flexibility to deliver meaningful creative education. I believe that the curriculum review provides that flexibility.

To finish off, I have requests of the Minister. I would like the Government to consider funding free music lessons for all less well-off children, and teacher training in the arts for all teachers. I would like them to expand the arts in the curriculum and offer all children in primary schools musical instrument teaching by the end of this Parliament. For the sake of our young people’s wellbeing and our future creative industries, we must restore creativity to its rightful place in our schools.

16:23

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for allowing me to say a few words in this important debate. I will keep my comments brief.

Art is intrinsic to humankind, whether it was our forefathers painting in caves or, as stated in the United Nations article 31, a child’s right to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. We are all born hardwired with the capacity to enjoy, love and learn via art and creativity. I firmly believe that talent is everywhere, but unfortunately opportunity is not.

In my Leicester South constituency, De Montfort University is undertaking a 25-year study called Talent 25, tracking the impact of arts, culture and creative activity on young children’s development, including their educational outcomes. The programme offers babies aged three to 12 months free workshops in music, storytelling, messy play and creative activities. Their five-year interim findings are positive, demonstrating how participation in the arts has helped those children to build strong relationships and improve their mental resilience. It also helped to develop coping mechanisms during covid, which is when the study started.

The Education Endowment Foundation shows that participation in the arts at school has a positive impact on other academic outcomes. Music helps to improve children’s mathematical skills, drama helps children with their English literacy. and participation in structured arts activities increases cognitive ability.

We live in polarising times. If children can experience other people’s art and culture from a young age, it will foster harmony and resilience against the many who wish to divide us along ethnic lines. For example, spreading greater understanding of black stories through arts and culture could have avoided a lot of ignorance surrounding the Windrush scandal abomination; Opal22 Arts in my constituency is doing that excellently. An understanding of Islamic art—its architecture, calligraphy and poetry—would help different cultures in our great nation to understand that we have much more in common than dividing us.

Sadly, as the. Member for Stroud pointed out, research has shown that children living in poverty are even less likely to have access to arts education, meaning that the kids in greatest need of the enrichment and hope given by the arts are the least likely to receive it. That increases the divide between the richest and the poorest in our society. In 2016, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) brought forward a Labour manifesto that would have invested £160 million in arts education via an arts pupil premium. I urge the Government to do the same, because when we invest in our future generations, we not only ensure that they are fully furnished with the skills needed to live harmoniously in society, but build their confidence and wellbeing.

16:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for opening this valuable debate on creative education and for his thoughtful suggestions and campaign work. I also thank other colleagues for their contributions, which have included interesting comments about outdoor education and the importance of community-based arts organisations. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for his campaign work on Reading Gaol, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for his campaign on musical instruments. The Government have invested £25 million in the last year on funding for musical instruments, and I will say more on that later. Finally, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) reminded us of the benefits of the arts to the wider curriculum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is a great advocate for creative education, especially music. I understand that he is a keen flautist. I attempted to play the violin and viola at school, but I suspect that the joys of playing music were felt only by me, and not by anyone forced to endure my performances. None the less, music education gave me, like so many children and young people, a chance to build confidence, make friends and explore my creativity—although I would rather forget my rockstar phase, even if I maintain that Standard Deviation was a great name for a band.

The Government are clear: high-quality arts education must not be the preserve of the privileged few. Arts subjects are important pillars of the rounded and enriching education that every child deserves. As my hon. Friend highlighted, creative education also benefits children’s wellbeing.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

Very briefly. I cannot take too many interventions because I am short on time.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Does the Minister agree that a creative arts education opens up multiple opportunities and careers for young people that do not necessarily involve being on a stage or creating music? The creative industries need intelligent engineers to make the lights and sound work, so a creative education can open many doors to exciting careers in the creative industries.

[Olivia Bailey]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. The creative industries unlock so many skills for the wider economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud spoke powerfully about the important subject of children’s mental health. We are providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, so that every child and young person can access early support. Schools can also play a vital role by promoting good mental wellbeing and providing effective early support to pupils who may be struggling, and we are clear that creative activities can be part of their approach. For example, our targeted support toolkit gives education staff guidance on the use of creative and arts therapies to support pupils’ emotional wellbeing.

Access to the arts starts with the curriculum, as was rightly said. All young people should have the same opportunities that my hon. Friend and I did to develop their creativity and to find their voice. That is why one of our first actions in government was to launch an independent curriculum and assessment review. We will improve the arts curriculum through clear and rigorous programmes of study for music, art and design, and strengthened curriculum content for dance in physical education and drama in English. We are legislating so that academies will be required to teach the reformed national curriculum, including arts subjects, ensuring that creative education is not subject to a postcode lottery.

However, curriculum reform alone will not be enough to ensure that all children have access to a high-quality arts education; we also need to support our schools and our teachers. That is why in March we announced our intention to launch a new national centre for arts and music education. I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud the additional detail that he requested: this new centre will help us to support schools in the teaching of music, art and design, drama and dance, and our intention is to establish it by September 2026, appointing a delivery partner for the centre through an open competitive procurement that we will issue in the new year.

The centre will also be the national delivery partner for the 43 music hub partnerships across England, which offer whole-class ensemble teaching, music instrument tuition and instrument loans, as well as continuing professional development for teachers. This Government continue to support that crucial programme, with grant funding of £76 million secured for this academic year and longer-term funding to be confirmed in due course.

For some pupils, particularly those facing disadvantage and with additional needs, the barriers to accessing music education can be particularly significant. That is why we are investing in a music opportunities pilot, backed by £2 million of Government investment and £3.85 million of funding from Arts Council England and Youth Music, with targeted support for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds or with special educational needs and disabilities. The pilot offers pupils across primary and secondary schools the opportunity to learn to play an instrument of their choice or to sing to a high standard by providing free lessons.

We also recognise the importance of specialist training in supporting young people to pursue the most advanced levels of arts education, including through means-tested bursaries through the dance and music scheme. That is why this Government continue to provide generous support to help more than 2,000 students access specialist music and dance education, committing £36.5 million for this academic year. Future funding for the scheme will be announced in due course.

In concluding, I would first like to take a moment of the Chamber’s time to pay tribute to the late Michael Harper, a vocal coach and champion of under-represented voices in the arts. Working with institutions such as the Royal Northern College of Music, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and the English National Opera, Michael was a passionate advocate for music education in every region of the UK. It is people such as Michael and his husband Tony—friends to many of us in Reading and in the Labour party—who recognise the transformational impact that access to the arts can have on children and young people. We remember him fondly.

This Government are committed to ensuring that all children can access and engage with high-quality arts education. I thank, once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for bringing forward this debate, and all the teachers, volunteers, music trusts and arts education advocates who work tirelessly to give our children a love for the arts. Creative subjects such as art, music, drama and dance are a vital part of a rich, broad school experience and must not be the preserve of a privileged few. While my violin playing was patchy and Standard Deviation never got our big break, I want every child to have the same opportunity to discover their love for the arts.

Question put and agreed to.

Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

16:34

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of Network Rail timetable changes on rural communities.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the first passenger railway services in our country. Railways have transformed transport and trade, connecting towns and cities and accelerating economic and social change in our country. Our railways are often the subject of fierce debate. Of course, the Labour Government have taken the decision to nationalise them. We can debate the rights and wrongs of that decision, but there is one thing that is undoubtedly now true: decisions made about our railways will now be the responsibility of the Labour Government and them alone. They will need to account for their decisions.

In five days’ time a new Network Rail timetable comes into force. London North Eastern Railway claims that the timetable will “provide more trains” and “thousands more seats”. I am afraid that for my constituents it does the exact opposite. It will have a terrible impact on our rural communities, such as those I represent.

Berwick-upon-Tweed station sits just outside the Scottish Borders, but it serves thousands of the people who live there, as well as those in North Northumberland who rely on train services for work and pleasure. The timetable change means that the number of LNER services from Berwick-upon-Tweed will be dramatically cut to just one every two hours. Services from the station connect the Scottish Borders and North Northumberland to our key cities: Edinburgh, Aberdeen, York, London and many other parts of our United Kingdom. Berwick-upon-Tweed is in the top 30% most used stations, used by thousands of passengers every single day.

Many areas will benefit from the change. Newcastle station, for example, has seen a dramatic increase in its number of trains. Peterborough will see its number of trains to London surge, as will York. So what are we witnessing? Rural communities and small towns are losing out for the benefit of large cities. Indeed, it has been a stated aim of the Government that the timetable changes are about securing more high-speed train services between London and Edinburgh. Those cities already have good train services and other public transport options. It is simply not fair or acceptable that my constituents should see a service that they have come to rely on cut in such a way.

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

Just one Network Rail station, Tiverton Parkway, lies in my very large constituency. Like many other rural parts of the country, we are dogged by totally insufficient transport. Does the hon. Member share my view that if proper, predictable timetabling in rural areas is a lever for social mobility, unpredictability is very much a barrier?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Many rural communities depend on train services, bus services and public transport links because there are no alternatives. If the timetables, trains and services do not run on time, they have an even greater impact because there is no alternative compared with what happens in larger towns and big cities where, if one service does not turn up, people can jump on alternatives without too much trouble. For our constituencies—I think my constituency might be marginally bigger than the hon. Lady’s—it has a disproportionate impact.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If there is a change in the rail service and how it works, there has to be something to take its place, at least in the short term in the rural communities that he and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) represent, and in those that I represent as well. There must be a bus service that can fill the gap and at least help to get people from A to B. I think in particular of those who have health appointments and those who have to get somewhere by a certain time. If the bus service is not there, that is a problem for those of us who live in rural areas and do not have a car. We really need to have a bus service to fill the gap.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes another excellent point. The argument put forward by Network Rail and LNER is that there will be alternative services, but it involves connecting to other trains. As I will go on to describe, if someone is disabled or an older person, the idea of making a connection is in itself sometimes daunting, and if they miss the connection the consequences can be far greater compared with the consequences for those of us who are perhaps more frequent travellers.

I use Berwick-upon-Tweed station regularly to travel to Westminster. The trains are well used and busy, so the decision to reduce services and make travel more complex does not make sense. Since the final timetable was published in September, I have been pleased to work cross-party with the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), whom I am pleased to see in his place. We met with Network Rail and LNER in September, so that they could explain why they had taken the decision to cut the number of services, on which our constituents rely.

I would like to thank Councillor Rosemary Mackenzie of Berwick-upon-Tweed town council for her campaigning on this issue, and Councillor Carol Hamilton from the Scottish Borders council and Councillor Richard Wearmouth from Northumberland county council for their work.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The Largs to Glasgow line is a well-used service, especially in the more rural parts of my constituency. I have recently received many complaints from constituents on a range of issues: serious disruption with trains running late, being severely delayed, signalling issues and loss of power to the track. Does the hon. Member agree that that is just not good enough from the SNP Government, and that ScotRail and Network Rail must work together to ensure a timely and accessible service for all passengers, with a reliable timetable?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. She will know that I am familiar with her part of the world, having been brought up there. I know that beautiful stretch of railway particularly well, with a view of Arran and Millport, up to the west of Scotland. Her key point is the catastrophic failure the SNP is making of Scotland’s railways. ScotRail is run by the Scottish Government and is not doing a good job. When we are trying to encourage people to make that modal shift on to public transport, if the train does not turn up or turns up late, they will not want to make that shift again. The hon. Lady makes an important point and highlights why the SNP is letting Scotland down so badly.

To make matters worse, LNER’s punctuality at Berwick-upon-Tweed station is far from outstanding. In the latest performance period, just 65.6% of services there arrived on time. We now face a number of services being dramatically cut, and existing services turning up late a third of the time.

I particularly want to raise the impact on those who are disabled or older, as I mentioned in response to an earlier intervention. Having to change trains halfway through a journey can be frustrating for all of us, as we are on edge waiting to see whether we will make our connection. But as one of my constituents, Elizabeth Johnston, said, for disabled passengers direct services are not simply a convenience; they are often the only practical and dignified way to travel long distances.

Wheelchair spaces on trains are also extremely limited. These changes will further limit disabled passengers’ choice. They could be forced to wait several hours for the next available service. Just one missed connection can leave a wheelchair user stranded without accessible facilities. I do not find that situation acceptable. A significant number of my constituents travel by train for work.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

I represent a rural constituency in Wiltshire. Our local college has had to reduce the timetable for its 16 to 18-year-olds, given that they can no longer rely on trains that are constantly delayed. That causes issues related to deprivation, which was highlighted in recent Government statistics as being caused by lack of access to work and skills.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Talk of social mobility often focuses on urban and city areas, but those of us who represent rural constituencies know that social mobility is a big problem. Arguably it is even greater in our areas because, as the hon. Lady highlighted, if the bus or train does not turn up, it is not just a matter of waiting for the next one; it is a matter of not being able to get to work or access an important college course that opens up many other opportunities.

One of the strengths of the east coast main line is that it makes travel through our key cities relatively easy and time efficient. Today one can travel from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London in just over three and a half hours. Under the new timetable, services will take longer and be less frequent. Trains will inevitably be busier. In the Borders, we are trying to attract more young families to live in our communities. Regular, reliable train services are an essential part of making the Borders an even more fantastic place to live.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He mentioned Berwick train station, which is in my constituency. Although the initial timetable change began in 2021, it is true that it has been brought in now.

I want to highlight more regional travel. It is good to be working cross-border and cross-party on this issue. Does he agree that, at a review point hopefully coming up in the next few months, we should focus on Berwick’s burgeoning and developing night-time economy as well, and that it would be a shame to miss that opportunity for later evening and weekend trains?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to my neighbour for his contribution and for the cross-party, cross-border working we have secured on this issue. He is right that the consultation took place back in 2021. There was great opposition at that point and then there was a further, much smaller, consultation. I think a lot of people assumed the views they had submitted in the earlier discussion about the timetable changes were in some way captured. I do not think many of our respective constituents understood that whole timetable change was possibly going to happen again. There was not much awareness that these changes were back on the table.

The night-time economy is an important issue not just for Berwick, but for all our constituents who enjoy going to Edinburgh—and Newcastle—particularly around festival time in Edinburgh. I know that a lot of my constituents enjoy going to Edinburgh in August when the festival and fringe are on, and to be fair to the train companies they often put on additional services for people coming back. However, that should not be a once-a-year occasion. We should recognise that such travel is happening much more often, and people should be encouraged to do that through much more frequent late night services.

We currently have a Labour Government that seem totally and utterly obsessed with net zero at all costs. These timetable changes could make people more likely to opt to fly from Edinburgh or Newcastle because that service is more frequent, more reliable and quicker. That makes the changes even more nonsensical at a time when the Government say they want to encourage more people to use our railways.

There is also the impact on tourism. People come to the Scottish Borders from far and wide. We have some of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom there. The changes will inevitably affect tourism in the Borders. Day trips will become harder. People may choose alternative destinations. That will make it even more difficult for our local tourism and hospitality businesses, which are already suffering thanks to the decisions of this Labour Government.

We have seen progress on improving rail connectivity in the Scottish Borders over the last decade. The Borders Railway connecting Tweedbank and Galashiels with Scotland’s capital has been a success, but we need that to go further to connect with Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle. We have also seen the reopening of Reston station in Berwickshire on the east coast main line, which continues to grow in success. That has all been part of a joined-up approach to improve rail connectivity right across the Borders. The timetable changes stall that progress. In fact, we will go backwards.

I was struck by the fact that the Secretary of State said last month that she wants a railway that is fit for the future,

“one that rebuilds the trust of… its passengers”

and regenerates its communities and restores reliability. These timetable changes will not do anything to achieve the Secretary of State’s ambitions.

I will now consider solutions. Last week, I met the Rail Minister Lord Hendy. It was a productive and considered meeting and I thank him for that. He undertook important work on behalf of the last Government in relation to the Union connectivity review, so I know he is a man of great experience and is a good appointment to his role. As he said to me, any timetable is never the final one. We need to see changes to the timetable to get more services to stop at Berwick-upon-Tweed. I will not stop fighting for better rail services for my constituents and for the thousands who cross the border to use Berwick-upon-Tweed station.

Working with residents, local councillors and others, we will demonstrate the real-world negative impact that these changes will have and why it matters for local people in our rural communities to have good quality, reliable public transport. I am sure that—as we have already—we will hear examples from hon. Members from across the UK of how their communities will be negatively impacted by timetable changes or unreliable train services. For connectivity, for economic growth, and for our communities, this is bad news for the Borders. It should not have happened in the first place, and we need to focus all our efforts on restoring services so that residents in rural communities have access to the public services that they deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

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

16:50

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

I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this important debate.

I begin by recognising the dedication of Network Rail staff. They work extremely hard to keep services moving safely. I know that local teams may sometimes dread seeing my name in their inboxes; I contact them so often because I frequently raise questions about transport in South East Cornwall. Their continued engagement with me matters, and I thank them for it.

I have serious concerns about my local transport routes, but we are seeing improvements, with new speed safety cameras, pedestrian crossings, better road safety measures and barriers put in place since my election. That progress reflects years of effort by many residents and community organisations in South East Cornwall.

Rural transport has always been a challenge for my area. As a rural and coastal area, that reality can often mean isolation for many, and difficulty when accessing essential services. In South East Cornwall, many residents look to Plymouth to attend healthcare appointments or go to school. For them, travel often relies on the Tamar crossings—either the bridge or the ferry. That creates an additional financial hurdle that is not faced in most other constituencies. Rail services help to bridge that gap. They are vital for residents who do not or cannot drive, in providing independence for them. Maintenance works are necessary to keep that network safe for passengers and staff, and those works will always need to take place, but my concern is the timing of some of them and the suitability of alternative services on offer as timetables change. As we speak, work is being carried out to cut back overgrown trees and shrubs, meaning that buses are replacing trains between, for example, Liskeard and Looe. In more urban settings that may be straightforward; in a rural and coastal setting it can be very difficult. Bus timetables have also been unpredictable for many of my communities.

I have been working with residents in Saltash in particular to look at unreliable bus and train service connections, cancellations, and buses failing to turn up. Those issues have an impact in my area beyond the frustration of a few minutes’ delay. Local residents have reported missing appointments, or not being able to get to work and wages being docked because of that, to me.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

The new East Midlands Railway timetable will remove a second morning train between Matlock and Derby, significantly impacting commuters in the Derbyshire Dales. That will jeopardise employment and students’ education. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging EMR to find a solution that would ensure that the early morning train can continue to run between Matlock and Derby?

[Anna Gelderd]

I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s calls for those services.

Cornwall is unique and its geography calls for tailored solutions. I thank the Government for their support of my calls for those tailored solutions. Will the Minister look closely at how replacement services in rural and coastal constituencies are designed, and look to co-ordinate timetables around the needs of communities such as South East Cornwall? The alternative travel options available need to reflect our lived experience of a lack of other alternatives. I would like to work further with the Department and with Network Rail to share that local evidence and support that improvement.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

16:54

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

It is a joy to continue serving under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Stuart—I am thoroughly enjoying it, and I hope you are as well.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing a very important debate, which I think would have been even better attended if it had not clashed with the Railways Bill. This issue matters hugely to so many of us, but I am sure it also matters to many Members who are in the main Chamber. He made a really strong case for rural rail services in his beautiful constituency, as did the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), who made a really good speech that highlighted the issues affecting her lovely part of the world.

The major timetable update that we expect on 14 December is a source of significant worry for many of us in rural communities. Although there are some exciting developments that I am sure the Minister will list, we fear that the changes will be overwhelmingly urban and intercity focused, just like those introduced in May. They offer far too little to the rural communities that the Liberal Democrats now represent so comprehensively from Wick to Penzance, with Oxenholme pretty much halfway.

Rural rail routes suffer from limited frequency, infrastructure constraints and, ultimately, a lack of investment in tracks, stations and rolling stock. On the Lakes line, the Furness line and the Cumbrian coastal line, we see hourly services if we are lucky, whereas it is closer to every two hours on the Settle to Carlisle line. This has a negative impact on commuters, on school and college students, and on our vital visitor economy, which serves 20 million people, provides jobs for 60,000 and is worth £4.5 billion to the economy every year.

Connecting to local buses, which hon. Members have mentioned, becomes precarious when even small timetable changes can blow apart entire journey plans. In Grange-over-Sands, buses and trains coincide at exactly the same time on each hour, and predictable lateness on both roads and rail mean that there can be no certainty of interconnectivity. People seeking to get home to Cartmel, Flookburgh, Allithwaite and Lindale live with the daily anxiety of not knowing whether they will make their connection. On the Leeds-Settle-Carlisle line, villages in Yorkshire and Cumbria miss out because passenger services to rural communities have been downgraded. The 13.37 service from Carlisle to Leeds, which passes through my constituency, has been converted into a semi-fast service, so it misses out most of the intermediate stations. By working with local campaigners, we have thankfully secured additional stops at Garsdale and Ribblehead, but Armathwaite, Lazonby, Langwathby, Dent and Haughton are still bypassed, leaving those communities with a four-hour gap in southbound services in the afternoon. The Government would never tolerate this sort of thing in an urban community.

An additional example of rural and northern communities being overlooked is the network closures in January during the Clifton bridge work—something that will impact pretty much everybody on the west side of the country. Passengers changing at Oxenholme between the Lakes line and TransPennine Express services to Manchester airport face waits of almost an hour in both directions, but that is not the half of it, because Avanti has chosen not to serve Oxenholme at all. This is hardly a surprise to many of us, because whenever there is a problem with the track in Scotland or Cumbria, Avanti almost always chooses to cancel all services north of Preston anyway. We are used to Avanti treating Cumbria, north Lancashire and Scotland as if we do not exist, but as predictable as this is, it is not acceptable.

If Avanti’s normal London timings had been maintained as far as Oxenholme, the connection with the Lakes line could have continued. Alternatively, TransPennine Express, which is still operating, could have taken over those timings, but it sadly declined. Even if its trains could not continue beyond Preston, a simple Preston to Oxenholme shuttle would have kept a reliable interchange in place and still provided four trains per hour to Manchester.

With years of west coast main line upgrade work still to come, the lack of planning for rural connectivity cannot be allowed to continue, and the upgrades do not promise enough for the main line in the rural far north-west of England. I think it would be fair to conclude that we saw that most acutely with the derailment on the southbound track at Shap on 3 November. It was not a laughing matter, and we were very grateful that no one was seriously injured, but that derailment has surely got to be a wake-up call for Network Rail.

[Rachel Gilmour]

I have three nuclear facilities in my constituency: Hinkley A, B and C. David Peattie, the chief executive officer of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, has referred to the horrible incident at Shap, because the NDA runs nuclear waste on trains on that rail line. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there had been nuclear waste on that train, the situation would have been even worse?

[Tim Farron]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The horror was even closer to happening than that: nobody was hurt and the train remained upright between the tracks, but it was about eight minutes off being hit by the northbound train going in the opposite direction, which would undoubtedly have led to catastrophic loss of life. I do not want to pre-empt the ongoing investigation by the rail accident investigation branch, but we cannot help wondering whether the failure of this Government and the previous Government to fund the upgrades necessary to ensure the resilience both of the line and of the embankment between Warrington and Lockerbie could have played a part in that terrifying near miss.

There is much to welcome—the Liberal Democrats welcome the expansion of contactless fares into more rural and suburban areas of the London commuter belt, as well as the improvements on some rural midland lines—but we are urging the Government to establish a nationwide tap-in, tap-out ticketing system, which would be simple, modern and fair. It is time to end the regional lottery that passengers face across our network. We also continue to campaign to reverse the cuts to the restoring your railway scheme, which was scrapped by the Chancellor in last year’s Budget. That scheme would have delivered genuine social, economic and environmental benefits to rural areas that are too frequently cut off from public transport. We want to see smaller rural stations reopened and a UK-wide Network Rail railcard introduced, making rail travel more affordable, tackling regional inequalities and simplifying the system for passengers.

[David Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is drawing to a close—and focusing on timetable changes, which are the subject of this debate.

[Tim Farron]

Well, even the best timetabling is meaningless, Mr Stuart, if you cannot make it to the platform to catch your train. The Government have effectively scrapped the mid-tier section of the Access for All scheme, which is meant to end the barriers to access for people with disabilities and mobility issues. If the mid-tier scheme is scrapped, only mainline train stations will ever be made access-friendly for disabled people, which is outrageous. I have an example in my constituency: the platform at Staveley station on the Lakes line, which passengers have to stagger up 41 steep steps to reach. I ask the Minister to reopen the mid-tier scheme, to support not just Staveley but all rural stations.

Rural communities deserve a railway system that recognises them as equal partners in our national network, not an afterthought. The solutions are not beyond us. With the right priorities, the Government could transform the experience of passengers right across the country. We call for a nationwide tap-in, tap-out system to extend the planned best price guarantee across all digital and physical sales channels, to ensure that passengers are offered the most cost-effective ticket available. We call for electrification as standard for new line. We call for ambitious targets to expand battery and hydrogen technology, where appropriate, including for freight. The Government should also grab the low-hanging fruit and invest in passing loops, such as the one proposed for the Lakes line. That would be a relatively inexpensive way to double capacity on so many of our rural lines—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

And on timetable changes?

[Tim Farron]

And to ensure safe and reliable onward travel, Mr Stuart.

The reality is that when someone’s train comes in, if they cannot get to their next destination they are utterly snookered. That is particularly the case in rural areas where stations are unstaffed. At night, that often creates not only inconvenience, but a lack of safety, particularly at this time of year, particularly with late-night services curtailed and particularly for those who are travelling on their own. I will finish by simply saying that railways should work for all, urban and rural alike.

17:03

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this debate on an issue that matters greatly: ensuring that transport, in this case on the railways, effectively serves rural communities. It is particularly important to me, as a rural MP representing 336 square miles of rural Buckinghamshire, that these timetable changes work in the interests of rural communities in Buckinghamshire and across the whole of our precious United Kingdom.

The mindset of Government must always be passenger-focused. Whatever form of transport someone is using, we should ensure that the priority is providing the service that best helps most people. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the proactive steps that he is taking, and arguing for, to ensure that people in the borders are effectively served by the timetable and that communities like his are not cut off because of timetabling changes that have resulted in the removal of services.

Unfortunately, in our communities we have too often seen transport policies from the Government and from Labour councils that are more focused on helping them to raise revenue or penalise drivers, for example, as opposed to serving local residents. Those concerns have only hardened as rural areas across the country have been squeezed and treated like a cash cow by the Government. As the Government continue to expand their ever growing control over the railways, it is essential that the changes they implement consider rural areas at their very heart.

Although I acknowledge that the Government had a wide array of elements to examine, it is interesting to note the absence of any mention of rural areas in their response to the consultation on the Railways Bill, which is having its Second Reading debate in the main Chamber right now. There was only one reference in the impact assessment, which noted

“fewer services in rural areas”.

The Government’s lack of consideration as to how their reforms may impact particular areas does not instil confidence about how the new organisation will treat rural communities.

The Government claim that Great British Railways will play the critical role in establishing timetables as we move to the new system. I stress that I have no contention with the idea that a unified body can play an important role in setting timetables. The Williams-Shapps plan for rail was born out of chaotic timetabling in 2018 and specifically recommended that its version of GBR should set the timetables. However, much remains to be answered about how effective the new body will be in serving rural areas and setting the timetables that serve rural areas. There is nothing that means intrinsically that it will inherently help those locations. In fact, other policy decisions, such as those on the bus fare cap, have seen the Government make travelling more expensive for rural communities rather than cheaper. There are real risks that nationalisation may result in timetabling that serves the organisation itself rather than the passengers who use the network.

[David Smith]

I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman, on this auspicious day of the Second Reading of the Railways Bill: would he characterise the fracturing of rail services in this country over the past 20 years, specifically in relation to timetabling, as a success for rural areas?

[Greg Smith]

Chiltern Railways serves my constituency and Buckinghamshire more widely, on both the Chiltern main line and the Aylesbury branch. The Aylesbury branch in particular is a very rural service; it stops at a number of very small stations, often village stations, between Aylesbury and Marylebone. For a very long time, it was the gold standard of railways: the reliability was high, the fares were not too bad, and lots of my constituents praised it. Only in the post-pandemic era, when services have not been put back on as most of us would have expected, have standards slipped on the branch line.

When we debate the timetabling of rural services on the rail network, it is important that we do not lose sight of where the real challenges have come from. Am I going to stand here and say that everything about the way the railways were privatised was absolutely bang-on perfect? No, but I will defend the principle of having private sector risk to drive up standards and to improve competition, rather than the one-size-fits-all nationalisation model that the Government are proposing—the delivery model of which is being debated in the main Chamber right now, although I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to spend his afternoon in this debate and not that one.

The Minister may well say that nationalisation will not lead to timetabling that serves Great British Railways more than it serves passengers. However, without sufficient safeguards in the system, it remains a possibility that the timetabling proposed will not match the needs of commuters and other passengers. The example of Berwick-upon-Tweed station that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk mentioned demonstrates the role that services play in connecting our communities to locations across the country. A reduction in service hurts not just Berwick, but the surrounding areas on both sides of the England-Scotland border.

I hope that the Minister will consider what more the Government can do to ensure that rural locations are served better by transport links. Rural areas of the United Kingdom absolutely depend on those links, and it is essential that the Government prioritise them.

17:09

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and a pleasure to see all hon. Members at this Westminster Hall debate on the impact of the timetable change on rural communities. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing the debate, and everyone else on their contributions.

The hon. Member rightly raised concerns about the impact of timetable changes on rural communities. Timetables are the core product of the railway, ensuring that local, regional and inter-city communities are connected. On the east coast main line, the first major timetable change in more than 11 years will go live in a matter of days, on 14 December. It will deliver 60,000 additional seats per week and will improve journey times between London and Edinburgh by 15 minutes, unlocking the benefits to passengers of the £4 billion invested in infrastructure and new rolling stock on the route.

After a number of delays over a number of years, including delays in addressing stakeholder concerns, it was left to the Rail Minister to take the decision to implement the timetable. Relying on the Rail Minister to decide on timetable changes is not, frankly, a sustainable way to make decisions for an efficiently run, evidence-based and demand-led railway. It highlights the urgent need to reform our railways.

Building a timetable is a very complex task that requires balancing a number of competing demands. Balancing high-speed inter-city services with local and regional connectivity while also giving space for freight; ensuring stopping patterns are balanced with faster journey times; matching capacity to forecast demand and growth; ensuring sufficient infrastructure, power and rolling stock are in place to operate the services; maintaining a reliable service that is not prone to disruption—the list goes on and on.

Given how busy the east coast route is, the trade-off between stopping patterns and faster journeys is and will remain a common theme along the route. That is particularly important for rural communities, who quite rightly seek greater connectivity to support their local economies. Berwick-upon-Tweed station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), is an example: some 20% of passengers travel to London King’s Cross or other mainline stations south of Newcastle. That compares with around 52% of passengers who travel to either Edinburgh or Newcastle.

I remain confident that the changes to the east coast main line timetable better align the train service to the journeys passengers make, while retaining the key early-morning LNER trains to London. Furthermore, nearly all tickets to London will be interchangeable on other services, even for passengers having to change trains for LNER services at Newcastle. Additionally, while my hon. Friend may rightly point to fewer LNER services at Berwick-upon-Tweed in the new timetable, the service level is comparable to similarly sized destinations with a similar draw for tourism.

TransPennine Express introduced five additional services post covid; that will increase to eight in the new timetable. Berwick, with 147,000 passenger journeys to London each year, will have two hourly services to and from King’s Cross with additional trains in the morning. That is comparable to Harrogate and Lincoln, which have annual passenger journey numbers to London of over 250,000 and 275,000 respectively.

Other inter-city services provided by CrossCountry and TransPennine Express will offer at least hourly services each way from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Edinburgh, Newcastle and cities in Yorkshire. CrossCountry will continue to offer hourly services linking Berwick-upon-Tweed with Birmingham, Bristol and destinations in Devon. Despite these complexities, no timetable is ever the final one, as the Rail Minister told my colleagues. There is always scope for improvement, investment and growth. Passenger and economic needs change, and the railway will always need to adapt.

However, it is only fair to allow the new east coast main line timetable to settle in and embed. Once established, potential tweaks to stopping patterns or the wider timetable may be possible. Before I move on, it is worth noting that customers travelling from Berwick to London can purchase tickets from the same range of fares, regardless of whether they are travelling on a direct service or changing at Newcastle or York.

Under the Government’s plan for growth, it is not solely the reliance on rail services that will underpin growth in local communities, particularly in rural areas. The Government’s integrated national transport strategy is a critical piece of the jigsaw. It will focus on creating a transport network that works well for people wherever they live across England, including those in rural areas, and will empower local leaders to deliver good transport for their areas.

[David Smith]

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. I may be slightly gazumping him—he may be coming to this—but one key thing that has not come out in the debate so far is investment. Ultimately, we all realise that the east coast main line is overused and very stretched. I thank the Government for the £3 billion of extra investment in the first year of our Government compared with the previous year. My key question for the Minister is: can rural lines be considered? The Northumberland line in south Northumberland has been a great success; we need something similar in north Northumberland. Could that investment go to rural areas as well?

[Simon Lightwood]

This Government remain ambitious for our rail and have set up fantastic objectives in the Railways Bill. I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard exactly what my hon. Friend has said about further investment in the rail system. Of course, by addressing the main barriers that people face in accessing good transport, such as reliability and integration, we will improve access to opportunities and services, drive economic growth and create sustainable—rather than environmentally impactful—journeys that connect all our communities.

Devolution also has a role to play, whether that is in the form of local economic growth initiatives or by helping to shape local and regional transport networks across all modes of transport. Another key part of the new approach to devolution is funding. We have listened to what local government needs and are working to simplify funding to help local authorities to deliver on their local priorities. Multi-year, consolidated funding settlements will give local transport authorities greater freedom and flexibility to make the strategic decisions that best impact their local areas.

Let me return to the railways, and specifically the work of reform that we are carrying out. Great British Railways will be established to be the directing mind when future timetables are designed. Above all, it will be more responsive to local needs. GBR’s geographic business units will bring today’s infrastructure management and passenger services together in a single local team to manage track and train together, providing a locally focused face of the railway and a single point of leadership for local leaders.

Local stakeholders will have a role in providing evidence to Great British Railways to support the case for how future timetables can be designed to support local and regional GDP growth. They will have a say on how investment is prioritised to ensure that our railways continue to grow in terms of both revenue and capacity for more journeys, as well as supporting the high levels of performance that passengers rightfully expect. Through the rail reform agenda, local communities will be able to set out their aspirations for more stops or faster journeys, work with Great British Railways to identify the priority areas for investment and agree plans for sustainable growth that can and will be delivered. That is how this Government, the Department for Transport and Great British Railways will better serve rural communities.

As for the comments from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), I find it difficult to take lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to our railways after the complete mess they left our railways in. He did touch on buses. On the bus fare cap, the previous Government had allocated no further funding beyond the end of the last cap. Despite the terrible fiscal inheritance, we managed to sustain a £3 bus fare cap and will continue to do so until March 2027. On top of that, just a couple of days ago I announced £3 billion—a billion pounds over each of the next three years—which is going directly to local transport authorities in order to improve buses in any way they see fit. That could include further concessions on bus fares. Crucially, rather than being a “Hunger Games”-style competition for bus funding, the new formula includes an important element on rurality, recognising the distinct challenges that our rural communities face. That has been built into the funding formula.

Today’s discussion was an opportunity to reflect on the importance of timetable changes and their impact on rural communities. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions.

17:19

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. We have demonstrated the importance of rail services to the rural communities that we collectively represent.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I have two points of concern. We again heard from the Minister about the importance of the inter-city connection—the London to Edinburgh service. That may well be an admirable aim of the Government, but they need to be clear that the consequence is that the rural communities in between are being left behind. That includes Berwick-upon-Tweed and many other places, which will be sacrificed for that high-speed connection. We can debate the worth of that link between London and Edinburgh and elsewhere, but that is the direct consequence of the policy.

Secondly, I think the Minister said that 147,000 passengers used the Berwick station, compared with 250,000 that use Harrogate. We need to remember that Harrogate is a much bigger centre of population than Berwick. It is a bigger town in itself and the catchment area for those who use the station is significantly bigger in population terms. The 147,000 people using Berwick travel much further to get to that station—it is a much bigger catchment area and a focal point for a much wider area. People will travel from Hawick in the south of my constituency all the way to Berwick to use that service. The figure of 147,000 is much more significant than 250,000 in a relatively big place in Yorkshire.

I will continue this campaign to persuade the Government and Network Rail that we need to get services back to where they were at Berwick. I am sure I will have the support of others; I certainly will have the support the community. I know how strongly the constituents I represent feel about this issue. I know how strongly people feel in Berwick-upon-Tweed and in North Northumberland. The fight will go on.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of Network Rail timetable changes on rural communities.

17:22

Sitting adjourned.