Westminster Hall

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 13 January 2026

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which follows an e-petition of 128,000 signatures that resulted in a Westminster Hall debate in June 2023. That was two and a half years ago and there has been a general election since then, so I thought it important that a new cohort of MPs be able to look at and debate this matter. After all, the wellbeing and safety of university students is an important issue that attracts thoughtful engagement across party lines. No doubt today’s debate will reflect a shared seriousness of purpose.

I was at university in the late 2000s. Although that feels like an increasingly long time ago, I still recall a phone call from one of my peers telling me that a mutual acquaintance, a 20-year-old involved in student politics, had taken his own life. Six years later, two more students at the college did the same, including one who had visited a GP only the day before and been told to take medical leave.

We should be clear at the outset that mental health struggles at university are not new. What has changed, arguably, is our understanding and recognition of them. Throughout the 2010s, there was a concerted effort to raise and tackle the stigma associated with mental health struggles through the work of many well-known names, as well as grassroots campaigners such as ForThe100, who live with the scars from a system that failed them and their families. They should all be applauded for those efforts, which have made such a positive difference.

Although there are ongoing debates about the so-called overdiagnosis of mental health issues and special educational needs, we should not lose sight of the impact. In each year between 2016 and 2023, there was an average of 160 suicides among higher education students in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics. Student Minds states that one in three students reported poor mental wellbeing at the end of the same period.

At its heart, this debate asks a question that is relatively simple but that has complex implications: are the health, wellbeing and safety responsibilities that universities owe to their students sufficiently clear, consistent and enforceable, or does the current legal framework leave too much uncertainty for students and institutions alike?

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very important speech. A few years ago, I and colleagues on the all-party parliamentary university group looked at these issues. What we found was a very inconsistent set of relationships between universities and local health services. Has my hon. Friend found that, too?

[James Naish]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Undoubtedly, “consistency” is a key word. It is about how we ensure that these issues are dealt with, through universities or associated support services, in a proper and consistent way, no matter where someone is at university. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend’s all-party parliamentary group came to that conclusion.

It is clear that more and more students are seeking to be open with universities about their mental health challenges and are seeking support. Over the past decade, the proportion of students disclosing mental health conditions to their university has risen sharply, from under 1% in 2010 to nearly 6% in 2022-23, and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the figure is rising yet again. It is also recognised and accepted by universities that poor mental health is associated with higher drop-out rates, poorer academic outcomes and weaker graduate prospects.

I welcome the work that this Government and the previous Government have done with the university sector to respond, including through the work of the higher education mental health implementation taskforce. However, although the scale of demand for mental health support from universities has risen sixfold, the law has yet to catch up with the very different set of circumstances and our increased understanding. At present, no statutory duty requires universities to take reasonable care to protect adult students from foreseeable harm. Instead, obligations arise in a fragmented way, through health and safety law, equality legislation, human rights law, contract law and voluntary guidance issued by sector bodies.

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

I am concerned about medical students. If they have problems at university, there is a duty of care for them; if they are outwith the university, at a general practice or in another clinical setting under the aegis of the NHS, there appears to be no statutory duty of care. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must sort that out, particularly in respect of the sexual harassment of students?

[James Naish]

I will go on to mention the British Medical Association and its latest survey and work on the issue, but my hon. Friend is right to make that point. The patchwork of duties does not amount to a clear or proactive framework for student protection. That needs to be addressed.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, as I do, that whereas there are duties of care on workplaces, prisons, hospitals and colleges, and owed by manufacturers to consumers, no duty of care is owed by universities to students?

[James Naish]

Yes. That comes as a surprise, without doubt, particularly to parents who find themselves in very difficult circumstances when their children are not well, or in some of the more extreme circumstances that we are thinking about today. I agree that the House needs to look at that. Most universities have wellbeing, counselling and mental health support services, which is fantastic, but we have to recognise that provision varies significantly in availability and quality.

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

My constituent Hilary’s daughter Phoebe took her own life at the University of Newcastle, aged just 20. Does the hon. Member agree that the level of pastoral care that universities do and do not provide is an important factor, not just for students but for their parents, in the choice where to go to university? Universities should be transparent and honest about the level of support that they do and do not provide.

[James Naish]

I absolutely agree. The reality, as I say, is that things have improved significantly. I am here today not to knock universities, but to ask the question whether, underpinning the provision that the hon. Member describes, there should be a level of legal obligation. Interestingly, a 2023 survey of 4,000 students by the suicide prevention charity CALM—the Campaign against Living Miserably—found that just 12% believed that their university handled mental health well. In response to the hon. Member’s point, I guess the question is “Yes, provision is important when you are selecting a university, but when you face problems, is that provision sufficient?”

The truth is that the lack of legal certainty results in some dangerous gaps. That is recognised by the higher education mental health implementation taskforce’s terms of reference, which were published only in December 2025 and which are clear that

“there is wide recognition among mental health practitioners, charities, those with lived experience and the sector that more could and should be done”.

I do not believe that I am flagging anything that is not already known, yet the sector and the Government have repeatedly said that a statutory duty of care is not necessary.

I beg to differ—that is why I am here—and so do my constituents Bob and Maggie Abrahart, who are here today, who lost their daughter Natasha to suicide at the University of Bristol in 2018. Both the county court, in May 2022, and the High Court, in February 2024, have ruled that the university caused or contributed to her death. In the Abrahart v. University of Bristol case, the court upheld a breach of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments, but it declined to find a general duty of care in negligence. Crucially, however, the judge emphasised that the question of duty was

“one of potentially wide application and significance”,

and therefore not one that the court should resolve incrementally through individual cases.

In other words, the courts have signalled that this is a matter for Parliament and Parliament alone to assess. It is not for grieving families to seek litigation after harm has already occurred, but that is what is happening in the absence of legislation: the law develops only after harm has occurred, through costly and traumatic litigation brought by those who are least able to bear the burden. That matters all the more because, as I say, the context of higher education has changed significantly. The proportion of students disclosing mental health conditions has increased sharply, and a significant number of students who died by suicide were already known to university support services. That, in itself, should indicate that more must be done.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Some 72% of students report that their mental health has suffered as a result of the cost of living crisis. One in five have considered dropping out because they simply cannot afford it. Given the ever-rising financial pressures on students, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to explore all avenues to protect students’ wellbeing?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cost of living has only exacerbated a problem that we knew existed, so it is right for this House to think very deeply about the question.

On a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) mentioned, it is worth noting that gaps are being recognised by more and more organisations. Last November, following a UK-wide survey of medical students, the British Medical Association issued a press release calling for stronger protections against neglect and specifically referring to sexism and sexual violence towards medical students. It urged the Government

“to bring forward legislation that introduces a statutory duty of care on higher education institutions for their students.”

We should be clear that a statutory duty of care would not require universities to act in loco parentis, nor would it require them to provide unlimited services or assume clinical responsibilities. Rather, it would establish a clear baseline that universities must act reasonably, with appropriate care and skill, when harm is foreseeable and vulnerability is evident, much as already happens in other regulated settings.

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

I have come to this place from the university sector, so I understand the points that my hon. Friend is making. I pay tribute to staff across the sector who are supporting students right now. My hon. Friend will know that the sector is under huge financial pressure, so does he agree that a statutory duty should come with statutory funding?

[James Naish]

Yes. Undoubtedly one of the universities’ biggest concerns is about how the duty would be implemented and what the implications would be. I am not shying away from the reality that there would be costs for universities, but the question is whether we should put the duty in place. My hon. Friend’s point is about how any such legislation should be implemented, as opposed to whether it is needed in the first place.

It is important to be clear that a statutory duty of care is not about exposing institutions to unreasonable liability. In fact, clearer statutory duties may benefit universities by reducing uncertainty, helping to focus limited resources on the services and support that will make the biggest and most important legal difference, and by providing a shared sector-wide benchmark against which wellbeing and safety interventions can be properly assessed and, when necessary, judged in a court of law.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As a Bristol MP, I very much appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has taken up the case on behalf of Natasha’s parents. I have had conversations with the University of Bristol about Natasha’s case, and also with the University of the West of England. One issue that comes up is where parents fit in, because students have a right to tell the university that they do not want their parents involved. They are treated as adults in that respect, which can put universities in quite a difficult position if they feel that the parents ought to know what is going on. What thought has my hon. Friend given to that aspect?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is right. What I am alluding to is the level of greyness that means that we see people falling through the gaps. Our responsibility in the House is to understand whether those gaps should continue to exist, for valid reasons, or whether a change in the law is required to ensure clarity for universities, parents and students.

I hope that in his response the Minister will address several questions. First, do the Government agree that the current legal position leaves duties unclear until after harm has potentially occurred? Secondly, do the Government accept that reliance on evolving common law places an unreasonable burden on impacted individuals to clarify law through litigation? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the case for statutory clarity, particularly given the calls from organisations such as the British Medical Association for stronger protections for students?

Finally, if the Government do not believe that a statutory duty is the right approach, how do they propose to deliver the clarity, consistency and accountability that students and universities both currently lack, given the mental health taskforce’s stated aim in December 2025 to

“fill gaps in areas where more consistency is needed”?

Surely there is no better way to ensure the consistent implementation of proactive measures than by ensuring a solid legal basis for that obligation.

This debate goes to the heart of how we balance autonomy with responsibility and independence with protection in one of the most important sectors of our national life. Provision for students has improved, but in reality the consistency of support and legal understanding remain poor, despite words to the contrary. It is down to this House, and this House alone, to determine what more could and should be done. I look forward to colleagues’ contributions and to the Minister’s response.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Llinos Medi.

09:46

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Diolch, Gadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate on the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities.

My constituents, Glyngwyn and Iona Foulkes, have been directly affected by this issue, as they tragically lost their daughter to suicide in 2020. Mared Foulkes was a conscientious and high-achieving second-year pharmacy student at Cardiff University. On 8 July 2020, she committed suicide after receiving incorrect exam results. This error led Mared to believe that she could not progress into her third year of studies. By the time the university had sent her the correct exam results, Mared had taken her own life.

Mared had had a clear career path since her time at Ysgol David Hughes secondary school. All she ever wanted to be was a pharmacist. She worked at local pharmacies during school and university holidays. She became a peer guide for other students, and she participated in voluntary work at a hospital in the Philippines during her time at university. Sadly, all her dreams and aspirations ended on receiving those incorrect exam results.

Many people assume that universities already have a clear legal responsibility to look after students’ wellbeing, particularly where risks are known or foreseeable. However, the extent of any such responsibility remains unclear, and guidance and best practice across the sector are inconsistent. Sadly, this inconsistency results in a postcode lottery in the quality and accessibility of mental health care and other services.

As public services and universities struggle, the line of responsibility becomes blurred and our young people fall through the gaps. Too many young lives have been lost to suicide, and I believe that something concrete now needs to be done to safeguard them.

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

As a pharmacist, I remember when this news came out. My entire sector shares the grief of the family for the loss of a potentially amazing pharmacist. Does the hon. Member agree that pharmacy is a little lesser because of it?

[Llinos Medi]

I totally agree. The importance of today’s debate is that Mared’s name is recorded here and is always in our minutes and in our memories.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I think we all fully appreciate the work that universities do to try to look after the wellbeing of their students. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of investment in public services—by which I mean the health service as well as others—can perhaps lead to tragic consequences, such as Mared’s, for students who have mental health issues or who have been sexually abused? Our public services need more investment so that we can scoop up these young people and look after them a lot better.

[Llinos Medi]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Better resources and funding for our public services would go a long way to help students who are feeling vulnerable, scared and unable to cope. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, we recognise that students’ independence and autonomy as adults is important, but it is also our role here to make sure that we put safeguards in place to balance their autonomy with the need to safeguard them at vulnerable times.

[Warinder Juss]

I am really sorry to hear the case of the hon. Lady’s constituent. When I first raised this issue in the House last May, I mentioned that over the previous 10 years one student had taken their own life every four days in England and Wales. When Natasha took her life in April 2018, she was at least the 10th student to have committed suicide at that university since October 2016. Does the hon. Lady agree that as parliamentarians we cannot just sit aside and do nothing on this matter?

[Llinos Medi]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I totally agree. That is why I appreciate this debate, where we can all share our experiences and make sure that, in our terms here, we make the change that we want to see.

As has been mentioned, universities try to roll out strategies and action plans, but that has resulted in a patchwork of different support services across the university sector that simply is not working for our young people. It has also led to differing approaches to responsibility and accountability for students’ welfare and wellbeing. The lack of clarity has real consequences and, as we have heard in Mared’s case, it can have an impact on the whole community, including the pharmacy community.

When things go wrong, students and families often discover far too late that there was no obligation to act, even where warning signs were present. I therefore want serious consideration to be given to the concerns of students and their families. I agree with Mared’s parents that the current legal framework is insufficient and that reform is urgently needed to clarify institutional responsibilities.

09:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate on the merits of a statutory duty of care in universities.

The pain of losing a loved one to suicide is unquantifiable, and it stretches out further than we can imagine. I could share any number of heartbreaking statistics: for example, according to a 2022 Student Minds survey, 57% of students reported mental health issues, and over the past decade in the UK a student has taken their life every four days.

Although statistics matter, sometimes they can distance us from the reality of what is happening, which is why today I would rather talk about one of my constituents. His name was Oskar. He was a student at Sheffield Hallam University, and he was living with the effects of a brain injury. When the university gave him a warning related to his course, he took it to heart and feared he was being kicked out. Oskar then attempted to take his own life. Despite having given explicit consent for the university to contact his parents in the event of medical concerns, his family were not informed of this attempt. The university later argued that the consent applied only to physical injuries, not to an attempt to take his own life.

After that first attempt, Oskar should have been supported into treatment. At the very least, his parents should have been told that their son was in crisis. But neither happened. When I spoke to Oskar’s parents Maxine and Gary, they were clear that Oskar would not have wanted to upset them or to burden them. He would have needed someone else to make that call, and he gave his consent for that very thing to happen. Oskar later took his own life at his student accommodation.

At the inquest, the university was defensive and obstructive. I am sorry to say that I have seen that again and again in different organisations, including in healthcare. It was clear that the university’s focus was on getting the case closed. Maxine described it as the most horrific experience of her life. Although there is guidance on how universities should respond to serious incidents, the institution argued that it was not required to follow it. That is precisely the problem: guidance can be ignored, but a statutory duty cannot. Parents like Maxine and Gary do not want to replace the work that has already gone into improving mental health support for young people. They are asking not for universities to become parents, but for a clear legal framework where there is currently a gap.

One hundred and seven suspected student deaths by suicide were reported in 2023-24. Oskar’s case, and the response, is not an isolated failure. The Government’s national review of higher education student suicide deaths for 2023-24 shows that the same weaknesses are being repeated across the sector.

More widely, reports were submitted for only 62% of serious incidents, and families were not involved in three quarters of investigations. When action plans existed, many lacked named owners and deadlines, and senior sign-off was unclear in 71% of reports. This is very concerning, because processes matter. It really matters that investigations are done properly and that action is taken on them.

University students fall into a legal grey area. They are no longer protected by the safeguarding frameworks that apply in schools, yet they do not benefit from the clear duties of care that exist in most workplaces. Too many young people sit in that gap at a point in their life when they are particularly vulnerable, and too often the consequences are devastating.

University is often a pivotal time in a person’s life. Students can gain lifelong friends, meet their partners and discover their passions—and their alcohol tolerance. It is often seen as a carefree period, full of independence and possibility, but for many it will be the first time that they are living by themselves. They are often in a new city, without networks of support and the people who know them best and would notice if something is going wrong. It can be really lonely.

When the warning signs appear, it is not always clear who is responsible for acting. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), one simple, practical safeguard would be for every student to nominate a trusted point of contact when they enrol, to be used in the event of a serious concern. That person might be a parent, but does not have to be. University students are adults and have the right to exclude their parents. They have the right to make their own decisions about how they live their lives. But such a safeguard would give them an opportunity to make a good decision, and would make sure that universities have a path to finding support for students in the event of mental health problems. Universities will contact families after the worst has happened, but why do they not reach out when there is still a chance to intervene, even when they have full consent to do so, as they did in Oskar’s case?

Although some universities have taken big strides towards increasing access to mental health support, others are lagging behind, and this is creating big inconsistencies across higher education bodies. At the moment, universities operate under a patchwork of guidance and general principles, which has left students, families and staff unsure where responsibility begins and ends. A clearly defined statutory duty would create consistency across the sector and provide assurance that basic, reasonable safeguards are in place for every student, regardless of where they study.

The pain of a loss by suicide never leaves us, and it causes a tidal wave of grief that ripples out. It is a sad truth that so many people will never fully realise how many people their lives have touched. It only becomes obvious when it is too late.

Suicide is a multifaceted issue, and of course the responsibility for students is not just on universities. Combating death by suicide requires a multifaceted and multi-agency approach, but it would be no bad thing if we all felt a little more responsible for one another. Establishing a statutory duty of care is not about blame. It is about responsibility, consistency and doing what is reasonable to protect young people before they choose a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

09:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for setting the scene incredibly well. I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate. Education is devolved; the Minister is not responsible for it, but the issues are the same for us in Northern Ireland. There is also the fact that 30% of Northern Irish students go to university here on the mainland and only 4% from the mainland study at our universities. The issue for parents in Northern Ireland, with 30% of their students on the UK mainland, is therefore pertinent to this debate.

I want to speak holistically about the needs of students across the United Kingdom, despite our differing education systems and educational devolution, because the issue that the hon. Member has brought to our attention today applies everywhere, irrespective of where someone lives in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that a statutory duty of care would clearly define legal obligations for universities, students and teaching staff so that they can follow up—a regulation, or a way of responding to every case brought to their attention. I want to address that, and I will also focus on what students and parents can expect, reducing ambiguity and uncertainty.

There is no doubt that the mental health and resilience of our young people is not where it once was. I am not saying that we were stronger back in the ’60s, or maybe even further back, but as an elected representative I have never seen anything quite like how it is today. Certainly, in my years as an elected representative I have seen it getting worse, more acute and more serious. That is probably where we are.

The landmark youth wellbeing prevalence survey of 2020 found that 12.6% of children and young people in Northern Ireland were likely to meet

“established criteria for a common mood or anxiety disorder.”

I know that we are talking about universities, but I have parents and constituents coming to me whose 10-year-old children have anxiety and mood issues. That should be a time of fun, with no worries or burdens hanging over their head.

The figure was noted as being approximately 25% higher than rates in other UK nations, so we in Northern Ireland seem to have a bigger anxiety issue. A 2023 survey by the Mental Health Foundation found that some 39% of young people aged 18 to 24 in Northern Ireland—nearly four in 10—reported that

“anxiety had affected their day-to-day life to a great or moderate extent.”

The 2023 Young Life and Times survey reported that

“45.2% of 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland had probably mental ill-health.”

It is clear that certainty and support are integral parts of education and must be a foundational principle.

My thoughts for the Minister are that even though education is a devolved matter, when it comes to discussing these issues it does not matter where someone lives, be it Edinburgh, Penryn, Bournemouth or Coleraine; the issue is the same. So can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can work on this collectively across the United Kingdom?

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity is required and that, in any statutory duty of care, account must be taken of the potential seriousness of the problem for those affected? Does he agree that we need to do it in a way that does not impose an extreme burden on universities to implement any statutory duty of care, so that it becomes a win-win for both students and their concerned parents?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right. The best way to approach this may be in a pastoral way, reaching out and noticing things—not that I am better than anybody else, but I do tend to see the person and perhaps see what the issues are a bit more deeply.

In Northern Ireland, results day for the transfer test—the cognitive abilities test, as it is known—is coming. Increasingly, parents who are considering which secondary school to choose for their children are not simply looking at academic grades, after-school clubs or links to vocational education. Parents are prioritising pastoral care for children as young as 11, because they are aware of the mental health pressure on their child from a young age. How much more pressure is there when they fly the nest and head to university? It can be a very lonely place. Sometimes, in life, the person who laughs the loudest and looks like the life and soul of the party is not necessarily without anxiety or mood issues. They could be the person who hangs their fiddle at the door, as my mother would have said: they seem like a person with no worries when they are outside, but when they close that door and go into their home, things can overtake them.

University is certainly the stage at which we advocate for independent thought and study, but independence is not the same as isolation. I believe that a duty of care would help to address drop-out rates. Precise figures for the number of Northern Ireland students who leave university due to mental health issues are not publicly available, because universities generally track overall drop-out rates in official stats but not the specific, self-reported reason for leaving. But one survey found that 29% students have considered leaving their course, with mental health cited as the most common reason. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who set the scene so well, cited an example of that.

None of us is looking for universities to take on parenting roles; it is not about that. It is about pastoral care, and that is where I would like to see the focus. Support is a different matter, and I hope that this proposal will provide a structure for greater student support to be a standard. I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and all those who are participating.

10:06

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. Currently, there is no general duty on universities to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to adult students. With much of the University of Wolverhampton in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, I have been working closely with the university’s director of student life and designated safeguarding lead to address this issue.

Campaigners are not asking for strict liability or for universities to take the form of a parent. They are asking for something fair and simple: where a university becomes aware of a foreseeable risk of serious harm to one of their students, it should take reasonable steps to reduce and prevent that risk. That duty of care is applied in workplaces and colleges, and higher education should be no exception.

After I raised this matter in the House last May, I got a response from the Minister for Skills, Baroness Smith of Malvern, who said that a duty of care may arise in certain circumstances, and that such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the facts and context of the case being considered, and would be dependent on the application by the court of accepted common-law principles. I became an MP to be a legislator. As MPs, we cannot absolve ourselves from our duty as legislators by saying that it is for the courts to clarify uncertainties in the law. It is for us not only to clarify the law, but to make it stronger and sensible.

I was a personal injury and clinical negligence solicitor for more than 30 years before I became an MP, and I find it shocking that the common law does not impose a duty of care on universities to exercise reasonable care and skill for the wellbeing, health and safety of their students when they are teaching them or providing education-related services. That also applies to taking reasonable steps to prevent injury, including psychiatric injury, when such a statutory duty exists in prisons, hospitals, primary and secondary schools, and colleges or further education. Duty of care in negligence also exists in other situations: doctor to patient, solicitor to client, manufacturer to consumer, and one road user to another. There are well-established principles of negligence that state that, where a duty of care exists and that duty is breached, resulting in injury and/or financial loss that was reasonably foreseeable, negligence has occurred.

I will bring the tragic case of Abrahart up again. In Natasha’s case, there was reasonable foreseeability of Natasha’s health suffering and her having a psychiatric disorder, but it was held that the university was not negligent because the university did not owe Natasha a relevant duty of care. In October 2017, university staff became aware that Natasha was struggling and was experiencing anxiety and panic attacks in response to oral assessments. In February 2018, a university employee received an email from Natasha, saying:

“I’ve been having suicidal thoughts and to a certain degree attempted it.”

At that time, Natasha had been diagnosed with chronic social anxiety disorder, but the university continued to mark her down on her assessments. The court confirmed that there were other ways of eliciting information from the student rather than having oral assessments. It concluded that, had there been a duty of care in existence, there would have been a breach of that duty, and the university would consequently have been negligent for its actions.

Natasha’s claim succeeded only under the Equality Act 2010 on the grounds of disability discrimination, because the university failed to make reasonable adjustments based on her disability. However, there are other reasons—to do with legal costs and time limits—why, in order to achieve justice, it should be possible to pursue a claim in negligence where a university has been negligent.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is not adequate for us to have to rely on a determination that someone is suffering from a disability because of mental health issues. In some cases, there will be a history, engagement and a diagnosis of a disorder, but in many others, it could be that the student suddenly feels themselves to be in that situation. There is not always a long pathway to suicide; it could be triggered by a particular event. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that relying on the Equality Act is not adequate in the cases of these students?

[Warinder Juss]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I agree. There will be cases where a student is vulnerable and action needs to be taken, but where that student may not have been diagnosed with a disability. It does not feel fair that in those circumstances the university should not take any steps to deal with the student’s vulnerability.

It cannot be right that there is currently no duty on universities to take reasonable steps to protect the welfare of their students and prevent them from suffering harm when it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to act will result in harm. Establishing such a statutory duty of care would ensure that the law in this country was brought in line with the position in other common-law countries, like the United States and Australia. More importantly, it will give clarity to judges to ensure that justice is achieved and there is access to justice. Universities will also be given clarity about their responsibilities, so that they can take appropriate action to prevent the loss of young lives in their institutions.

A statutory duty of care for universities would define expectations, embed accountability and promote prevention. It would not burden universities unnecessarily, but would align them with the responsibility already expected in other sectors. This is about fairness, clarity and saving lives, and Parliament must act to close this duty gap. Students and their families deserve better, universities need certainty and the courts need clarity. As parliamentarians, let us make that happen.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Back Benchers’ speeches must end by 10.30 am so that we can move on to the wind-ups.

10:14

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on setting out the case for a statutory duty of care so well.

Students face an array of intersecting pressures throughout their student journey. One is the cost of living. York is one of the most expensive places to be a student, not least because of the lack of supply and the cost of accommodation. That bears down on students, who have to take on more responsibilities, often working full time alongside their studies. Having to dedicate more of their time to surviving compromises their studies, yet universities seem quite impervious to understanding those cost pressures by putting mitigation in place, whether by providing accommodation or by supporting students who do not succeed because they have to spend more time on their work.

Transport pressures also bear down on students, as does the array of challenges that young people face today, including social media, violence and sexual violence, and we have talked about the interplay of neurodivergence and mental health. It is really important that there be a statutory duty of care on universities to provide holistic support around a student.

We must also recognise the challenges facing international students, who have not yet been mentioned in this debate. They are from another jurisdiction with different mental health models, but they also face challenges with their immigration status, which I have come across in York. We need to look at the system. An Iranian student today who would not be able to return to Iran because of the situation there must be able to change their status here. There are many intersections for international students, which we must take on board.

In 2015, York had a real surge in the number of students who took their lives. I congratulate the universities and the wider community on looking at how they could put mitigation in place, but 1,108 students have since taken their lives across the country. Therefore, this situation does permeate the sector.

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

As near neighbours with universities in our constituencies, my hon. Friend and I see a real patchwork of support at universities across the country. Does she agree that a statutory duty would bring universities on a level playing field with hospitals, schools and employers? I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students, and this is something that we have long called for. Does she not think it is time that we brought forward the statutory duty to support all those students?

[Rachael Maskell]

I agree. We must legislate in this place; that is why we are here. I particularly want to thank the student unions, because they are the people who are making the case, day by day, to the employers and the universities about the need to provide that statutory duty and the necessary services.

I want to address a different issue that has not been raised in the debate, around mental health services. We know that they are in crisis and, as a result, they are not responding to needs. Often, somebody will have a relationship with their mental health service at home but not when they move to a new area. We need a better transition for people who are neurodivergent, but also for those who experience mental health challenges, to ensure that they are properly engaged with those mental health services. The problem we have is that it is always somebody else’s problem, so we need to ensure that those mental health services are provided through a different model. Particularly within the student setting, I encourage a primary rather than secondary care model, because often the thresholds are in the wrong place for proper engagement. In the primary care setting, there can be a partnership formed between the university, the GPs and professionals to ensure that those services are timely.

My final point is about students who do not succeed in their studies and the welfare services that are wrapped around those students. There must always be a second chance for a student. Perhaps they do not get the scores they need; perhaps their relationships with some of their lecturers and professors are not, shall I say, cordial. As a result, conflict can often arise. We always need a second chance for a student so that there is another avenue to pursue and another opportunity ahead of them. That is what a statutory duty of care will confirm for students.

10:19

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see a constituency neighbour in the Chair, Sir Christopher. My constituency has three universities: Bournemouth University, Arts University Bournemouth and the Health Sciences University. They are committed to achieving zero suicides, and have a joint strategy intended to ensure that no person loses their life. I would like to put on the official parliamentary record the names of Paul Millgate, Callum Jewell and Alec Channing. Their lives were lost, as was the love that they gave to their families.

Universities provide significant support for student wellbeing, but it is worth reflecting on what needs to go beyond that. My constituents are benefiting from studying at Bournemouth University and the duty of care that it provides. Bournemouth University is going as far as it possibly can to provide this care, but as we have heard in this debate, introducing a statutory duty of care can achieve two important things: first, a level playing field between the higher education sector and other sectors, and secondly consistency in the standards of care that students and staff can expect across the whole country. It is great that we have fantastic constituency examples of universities that care deeply for their students and staff, and that exercise that care deeply, but we need to make sure that every staff member and student benefits from that type of care.

That is particularly the case because education opens doors for so many young people. I am a fervent fan of apprenticeships and am pleased that the Government are moving towards further investment in apprenticeships, but university will still be a place of great educational importance for our young people. I am also pleased that many of them do not regret their decision to choose a degree. Indeed, last year’s student experience survey showed that just 11% of undergraduates regretted their decision to take a degree.

We must ensure that every undergraduate’s experience is the best it can be. In introducing a statutory duty of care, we need to think carefully about what this would be. There must be clarity on what duty of care means in a higher education context, and it has to intercept with and make sense alongside existing safeguarding responsibilities, health and safety law and anticipatory duties under equality legislation. I am confident that it can, for it must. We also need to think about who would monitor and regulate compliance. Would it fall under Ofsted, the Office for Students, the Department for Education or a new regulatory body? Universities need clear expectations and pathways for managing risk.

We also need to recognise the critical importance of funding, which has been touched on in this debate. In April, I spoke about the shortfall that Bournemouth University was facing of around £15 million to £20 million, which has now more or less closed. In the view of the Office for Students, 24 higher education institutions are at risk of closure. That is a desperate situation for many institutions and our higher education setting. If we are to put this duty on universities, as I think we should, we should also think carefully about what the funding will be.

I will give a short example of what Bournemouth University does. There is a university retreat that provides self-defined crisis support for students, Monday to Saturday from 2 pm to 9 pm on the Talbot campus. It has no thresholds to access, so student mental health support is available in the here and now. For students whose needs may be more complex—or not complex enough to allow them to access healthcare support at hospitals or GPs—this service from the university provides face-to-face support, particularly in crisis moments. It provides those who are stuck on long waiting lists with immediate access to the support that they need. Critically, that is funded by Dorset HealthCare and is delivered in collaboration with it. Any duty that we provide should provide additional funding through our NHS pathways, alongside higher education institutions, so that we can get the very best for our students.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. In particular, I am looking for the answer to the exam question: is it the Government’s intention to bring forward a statutory duty of care? What would that mean, and how would it be resourced?

10:23

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate.

As the Member for the City of Durham, I am immensely proud to represent a world-class university. For many students, coming to a city like Durham is not only a period of excitement, discovery and personal growth, but one of vulnerability. They are away from home for the first time, facing academic pressures far beyond A-levels and dealing with situations that they may not have had to deal with before, from problematic landlords to issues with utility suppliers, difficulties getting medication under shared care agreements and loneliness. They face situations that can pile on the pressure and exacerbate existing anxieties. For some, that vulnerability is even greater. Just yesterday, the Unite Foundation reported that well over a quarter of care-experienced and estranged students face financial concerns that directly damage their mental health. That number is over and above that of their peers who do have a family support network in place.

We are witnessing a crisis of scale. Higher Education Statistics Agency data shows that the number of students disclosing a mental health condition has increased by 480% since 2011. Office for Students statistics show that 25% of undergraduates in their final year have experienced sexual harassment, and we know that that is a tragically under-reported figure.

Some argue that because students are adults, a legal duty would make universities risk-averse, but I disagree. There is no need for a duty of care to be in loco parentis, where every move is monitored. It would be a duty to provide a professional standard of care, at the same level that we would expect from an employer or healthcare provider. If a student stops attending lectures for weeks on end, or their work shows signs of severe distress, a clearly defined process outlining how the university can and should support the student would potentially help with pressure points before they turn into emergencies.

Currently, student safety is a postcode lottery, and support varies widely between institutions. A statutory duty would replace this patchwork with a single national baseline and would help to give consistency, providing a floor below which no institution can fall. It would provide clarity on data to empower pastoral teams to involve emergency contacts without fearing that they are breaching GDPR, and integration to ensure better data sharing between the NHS and universities.

Alongside that, we must be mindful of the concerns raised by the University and College Union. Although a duty of care would be a huge step in the right direction, we need to be aware of the context in which this new responsibility would be introduced. A statutory duty of care would help to close gaps in accountability and would lead to earlier intervention, but there is already a funding crisis in higher education.

Imposing a duty of care on universities will not work if already overstretched staff and underfunded pastoral teams are expected to pick up the pieces. In fact, there is a risk that introducing a duty of care and thinking that that is job done could lead to more problems for students. If a duty of care is to be introduced, it must also come with the resources and funding to ensure that universities can deliver the training that their teams will need and that they can dedicate their own resources to already creaking mental health support teams. Of course, they need to ensure that their own staff are working in a safe environment.

A student’s safety should not rely on the terms and conditions of their specific university, but we cannot rely on passing legislation without the proper funding to allow universities to deliver the best support for their students. We owe it to every family to ensure that when a young person leaves home for higher education, the sector and the Government work hand in hand to ensure that they are protected by a properly funded, well-regulated and easy-to-understand statutory standard of care.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Phil Brickell, who has one minute.

10:29

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I will focus on recent goings-on at my local institution, the University of Greater Manchester, where over the past year there have been credible, detailed and publicly available allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption involving senior executives and the university’s Centre for Islamic Finance. Greater Manchester police’s major incident team has investigated.

The first detailed reports emerged in February 2025, but it was only in December that the Office for Students finally confirmed that it was opening an investigation into governance at the university. Students, staff and taxpayers are all entitled to ask why it took 10 months. Why did it take a police investigation to trigger regulatory action, and why did that happen six months later? How many students were left exposed while the Office for Students hesitated?

The delay is indefensible. The OfS’s condition E governance requirements exist to protect students and ensure public confidence in the sector, yet these allegations raise questions about whether governing bodies were aware of, or fully understood, commercial arrangements that appear to benefit insiders at the expense of the institution.

When millions of pounds are potentially being paid out in opaque deals, we must ask: were students served, or were they being treated as a revenue stream to be monetised without proper oversight? People across Bolton are watching events at the university unfold, wondering out loud what the regulator is doing and when it will act. They are crying out for certainty, which is why in my letters to the OfS chief executive and the Education Secretary I have called for urgent, transparent action—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

10:30

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.

I acknowledge the families who have suffered the devastating loss of their loved one at such a young age. In particular, I recognise Natasha Abrahart’s parents for their campaigning to prevent other families from enduring what they experienced. I am grateful for the time that they spent with me to share Natasha’s story and their concerns about how universities support students in crisis. It is because of families like theirs that we are having this debate today, and we owe it to them to get it right.

Although much of this debate has rightly focused on mental health support, universities have a broader duty of care to their students. It encompasses physical safety, appropriate academic adjustments, protection from harassment and ensuring that institutional practices do not place unreasonable pressure on vulnerable students. The Liberal Democrats believe that universities should be held accountable for the support that they provide to their students as part of those duties.

We have heard a lot of numbers and statistics about students’ mental health challenges. In the interests of time, I will not dig into those further. From the many meetings that I have had with universities and student organisations, it is clear that many care deeply about those studying with them and want to provide the best support to all who need it, but we also know that demand is rising and not all institutions are meeting what we might expect.

The question is how we ensure that support services are available, timely and fit for purpose, and that students know how to access them. Also, how do we ensure that institutional practices, from assessment methods to accommodation standards, properly support student wellbeing? Support can come in a number of forms, catering to different student populations and localities, among other things, but I hope we would all agree that there should be a consistent approach across all universities to ensure that support is available when and where it is needed.

That is where the university mental health charter, devised by the charity Student Minds, could have an important role to play. Signing up to the charter is currently voluntary for universities, and just over 100 of the 165 have signed up. All universities are being asked to sign up by the end of this year. That should be encouraged, to ensure a base level of support for all students from the start of their higher education experience.

To address universities’ duty-of-care responsibilities, a voluntary aspiration must evolve into a rigorous accountability mechanism. That means not just mental health services, but ensuring that institutional policies and practices properly support student wellbeing. Universities must not only sign up to the charter, but demonstrate that they are adhering to a full strategy, with clear standards, regular independent assessment and consequences for non-compliance; providing details and evidence of direct signposting of services to students; dedicated individuals responsible for ensuring that well-structured welfare checks are carried out; and timely delivery of services when needed.

I was going to give a couple of examples from the University of the West of England, as I have been really impressed by its leadership on the issue. It does not have a one-size-fits-all solution, which is food for thought for other institutions and the Minister. However, in the interests of time I will just encourage the Minister to look into that. Importantly, the university’s approach is not just about counselling; it is about co-ordinating work across the institution to ensure that students with mental health conditions receive appropriate academic adjustments where necessary, that assessment practices are flexible when needed, and that support wraps around the whole student experience.

As others have said today, it is important to recognise that universities cannot solve this problem alone. We need much stronger partnerships between universities and NHS mental health services. Students should not fall into gaps between university counselling and clinical NHS provision when they most need support. When students move away to university, they often lose the continuity in NHS services that may have supported them at home. The student mental health agreement, which facilitates the sharing of information, with consent, between universities and NHS services, must be implemented consistently across all institutions.

Finally, the area that is perhaps hardest to address is the cultural change required among students, families and staff across universities. It is vital that students who are suffering feel comfortable and safe to disclose any issues they may have in order to seek and access the support and services they need. We can only do so by continuing to talk.

We owe it to the families of those young people who are no longer with us to ensure that we adopt a system-wide approach to providing the best access to support and services at universities, as well as bringing about much-needed cultural change to prevent further tragedies in the future.

10:37

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on leading it; I also pay tribute to the families who have brought their tragic stories to hon. Members, which have informed the debate. That is how serious problems, such as the lack of consistent safeguarding for students, are brought to public awareness, and it is how change happens.

The themes that have come up today show a clear pattern and demonstrate the challenge across the whole United Kingdom. The main theme was the lack of consistency in safeguarding and care. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe was eloquent in making his case that deciding the law through litigation, not legislation, causes uncertainty and distress for families. Equally, some of the difficulties that exist—such as the need to recognise that students are adults with their own autonomy and responsibility, while parents obviously want to help their children in young adulthood—were also set out well.

University should be a rich and rewarding experience for every student. University is when so many young people have a chance to grow, learn more about their passions inside and outside the lecture hall, and decide what they want to do in future. It is when many young people begin to discover who they want to become.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

Here with us in the Public Gallery is John, a constituent of mine from Nailsea. John’s beloved son Max devastatingly lost his life to suicide in 2017, at just 23. Max’s mental health difficulties emerged while he was studying for an economics degree at the University of Edinburgh. Tragically, Max is not alone. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a crisis of care in universities, and that we need a funded statutory duty of care to protect other students like Max?

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that very sad story. I reiterate that I know the bravery that it takes for families to share these stories, and the importance of hon. Members repeating them so that we can fully understand this problem. Although my party’s position is not yet fully established on whether we need a statutory duty, we certainly need to do a lot better than we are right now.

As well as being an exciting time, university can be when young people are at their most vulnerable. Universities have several legal duties, including health and safety legislation to ensure that they minimise accidents and injuries on campus. There is the basic maintenance needed to ensure that buildings and public spaces are safe, and in recent years we have seen universities take more seriously the task of offering mental health services to students and making sure that there is help available.

The proportion of students with a mental health condition has increased from less than 1% in 2010 to 5.8% in 2022, and the Office for Students has recorded an average of 160 suicides a year among students between 2016 and 2023, which is an extraordinary statistic. Like other colleagues here today, I have been contacted by constituents whose families have been affected by this awful trauma. One told me about a relative who committed suicide as an undergraduate. Legal proceedings against the university found that it had failed to make the changes needed to support the student in question. As we have heard today, my constituent is not alone, and so many others have not had the help that they needed during a critical time in their life.

These are often complex cases, but universities are obliged to find ways of addressing common problems experienced by students struggling with their mental health. Some students need help to cope with the stress of workloads and exam pressure, moving away from home for the first time, losing touch with friendship circles and family, as well as financial pressures, as we have heard during this debate. In those moments of crisis, universities can and must help.

It is also very much the job of universities to make their campus as safe as possible from criminal behaviour. The Office for Students found that 14% of surveyed students reported being a victim of sexual violence, and one in four students reported being a victim of sexual harassment. While this obviously reflects wider social problems, universities must still put in place sufficient preventive security measures and offer support for victims of these very serious crimes.

[Warinder Juss]

Many hon. Members have mentioned the need for universities to have extra funding to meet this statutory duty of care. Does the hon. Member agree that it is not always an issue of funding, but can be one of mindset? In Natasha Abrahart’s case, the matter could have been dealt, with without the need for extra funding, just by finding another way to elicit that information from Natasha rather than exposing her to oral assessments when the university was aware that she was suffering from chronic social anxiety disorder.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. In these debates, the first response is so often to say that it is a question of money. However, the reality is often that we need proper structures, policies and accountability in place so that institutions perform as they should. As the debate has shown, we also have a much wider culture to address. Some of the culture change we need reflects a wider cultural change in society, but some of it is very specific to universities and the work they do to make sure that they meet their duty of care. I therefore agree with the hon. Member.

Universities have a responsibility to protect their students from discrimination, intimidation and extremism, but that is not what has happened over the last several years. The last Conservative Government passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was introduced to ensure that universities are safe for the free exchange of ideas and intellectually honest debate. That legislation is still not properly or fully enacted. Students wanting to challenge ideas such as radical gender ideology still risk being threatened and punished for their opinions.

At the same time, universities have tolerated protests and encampments that have left Jewish students feeling unwelcome and unsafe. Antisemitic chants such as “From the river to the sea” and “Death to the IDF” have been met with silence from too many universities. The protests that I am talking about have cost £2.6 million in security and clean-up costs across the country since the 7 October attacks. Despite the brazen mass display of antisemitism at those events, only 49 students at 17 universities have been investigated, and even fewer have been punished.

Just last week, the United Arab Emirates placed restrictions on its citizens to limit the number who come to study at British universities, due to concerns that they might be radicalised by the Muslim Brotherhood on our campuses. Islamists are finding more ways to infiltrate British universities and institutions to spread their ideological poison undeterred. Just as we must in all our public institutions, we need to take on and destroy that evil in our universities.

There is no single clear statute in law that sets out a positive duty of care for universities, but parents have a reasonable expectation that universities will protect and support the young people they are entrusted with educating. That is why my party welcomes this debate. I personally welcome the contributions from everybody who has attended, and I thank Members across the House for engaging so constructively as we work to make universities safe for everyone.

10:45

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I recognise the profound pain felt by families who have lost loved ones in higher education. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his constituents Bob and Maggie Abrahart, whose tireless work for better student support has inspired so many. I want to acknowledge all the families who have campaigned with courage and determination, including those from the LEARN Network—Lived Experience for Action Right Now—who continue to work alongside us to drive change.

Our duty now is clear: we must turn grief into learning and action. The Government share the determination to do just that. We want safer campuses and better support for every student. Our approach is to act on the evidence and work with the sector to embed best practice and strengthen institutional accountability. Members should be in no doubt that this Government believe that change in that regard is needed.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who highlighted Mared’s story: the tragic loss of the life of someone who had a bright future as a pharmacist ahead of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted Oskar’s story. I recognise that improvement in higher education is needed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the UK-wide nature of these concerns and the growing prevalence of mental health conditions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) raised important issues about general duties, to which I will turn later. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted the link to the cost of living pressures that many students face, and the issues for international students.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) spoke about the tragic stories of Paul, Callum and Alec, and highlighted the really good practice taking place at Bournemouth University, which is part of the answer to what needs to change. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) highlighted the brilliant work of the Unite Foundation, which I know well, and spoke about cohorts such as care-experienced students and estranged students. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) rightly highlighted governance concerns and the centrality of accountability.

The Government remain committed to improving students’ health and wellbeing. Since the previous debate on this matter, we have published the findings from the national review of higher education student suicides. That landmark review examined serious incident and prevention of future deaths reports, identified patterns and risk factors, and looked at institutional responses in depth. The sector’s response was notable. Many universities engaged openly and honestly, showing a clear commitment to share lessons and learn together.

To ensure that the review’s recommendations are turned into action, we have extended the higher education mental health implementation taskforce, which brings together students, families and the sector to work with and challenge institutions to improve student mental health and wellbeing services.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

Last week was the seven-year anniversary of the death of one of my constituents’ sons, Kieran Patel. Unfortunately, the House has not given me time to do justice to his story. His mother Manjo was in touch with me last week and shared the horrific experience of the loss of her much-loved and talented son, who was a medical student at Southampton University. We have heard many horrific stories of potential that has been cut short today.

Manjo and other family members left behind would like to know that the action that the Minister is outlining will take place with urgency. The Minister has pointed to a number of previous reviews, debates and discussions. Can he confirm that the Government are seriously looking at a statutory duty and all possible levers to ensure that no parent has to experience a tragic loss like Manjo’s again?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that. I welcome his intervention, given that he has not had a chance to mention Kieran’s story and Manjo’s experience as his mum in a speech.

We want to move fast, which is why we published updated terms of reference for the taskforce just last month. They set out the priorities for the taskforce for the next phase of work, which includes exploring the most effective mechanisms for holding the sector to account. We have also recently appointed Professor Sir Steve West as the new higher education student support champion, to maintain momentum on these matters. Sir Steve will steer the taskforce through the next phase of work.

Although universities play an important role in creating supportive environments, they are not, and should not become, substitute mental health services. Mental health care rightly sits with the NHS. The Government recognise that and the pressures on services, which is why we are recruiting 8,500 additional NHS mental health staff by the end of this Parliament.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East highlighted, many universities are already delivering to bridge the gap, providing counselling, wellbeing services and crisis support, while working closely with local health partners to ensure that students get the right care. The taskforce will shortly publish a report showcasing five successful higher education and NHS partnerships. Those examples will demonstrate how greater collaboration can transform support for students while helping to drive efficiencies across health services. I urge universities that are not already part of such partnerships to study those models and explore how they can forge an approach that works for their local context. To stress it again: the taskforce is looking at how to better hold institutions to account and will make recommendations accordingly.

[Phil Brickell]

Can the Minister confirm that the taskforce will look at the effectiveness of the OfS as the regulator for the sector in driving better student outcomes and preventing student harm?

[Josh MacAlister]

The taskforce’s job is to look at the whole system that sits around universities, and the OfS is a crucial part of that, so it will be in scope of that work.

Let me turn to the question of a statutory duty of care. As has been highlighted in this debate, higher education providers have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinary competent institution. In carrying out those duties, they are expected to act reasonably. In addition to general and common-law duties, universities also have explicit statutory obligations. For instance, under the Equality Act, they must make reasonable adjustments for disabled students, which includes those with qualifying mental health conditions. Providers should plan ahead to remove barriers and act promptly when there are signs of mental health deterioration.

Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance makes clear what good practice looks like. Student-facing staff should be trained to recognise signs of mental health crisis or deterioration and should know what steps to take, including helping the student to access support. Where a severe or urgent condition is apparent, reasonable adjustments should be made without waiting for a formal diagnosis or medical evidence. If a student has no diagnosis but staff are concerned, for example because of disengagement, missed deadlines or marked changes in behaviour, staff should consider whether the Equality Act criteria may be met and whether adjustments are appropriate.

We also need to be clear about what introducing a statutory duty would mean in practice. It is not just a question of drafting; it would require defining a minimum legal standard for universities, which risks becoming a ceiling rather than a floor. I draw Members’ attention to some of the evidence provided in the 2023 Petitions Committee hearing on a statutory duty of care, at which a number of stakeholders expressed a range of concerns and scepticism about the unintended effects of a statutory duty of care. A ceiling rather than a floor could drive providers towards defensive compliance and litigation, instead of focusing on what really matters: spotting problems early, making timely adjustments and learning from serious incidents. When we talk about the risk of unintended consequences, this is what we mean: confusion about boundaries, reduced ambition and the risk of resources being diverted from proactive support.

Almost all students are adults. Introducing a special statutory duty for them could be disproportionate, when the evidence shows that students in higher education have a lower suicide rate than others of the same age in the general population. That is not to minimise the problem at universities, which I recognise, but to highlight the need for a proportionate response that strikes the right balance.

We will continue to monitor the evidence, listen deeply to bereaved families and hold providers to account. Right now, the fastest and most effective route to support safer campuses is for universities to embed the recommendations from the national review and best practice identified through the taskforce’s outputs, to strengthen their partnerships with local health services and to ensure full compliance with duties that already exist. Together, I believe we can ensure that higher education remains a place of opportunity, enrichment and safety for every student. I know that those views are wholly shared by my noble Friend Baroness Smith, the Minister for Skills.

10:56

[James Naish]

I thank the Minister for his response. I pay tribute to those in the Public Gallery, and I thank everybody for coming; the debate will not have been easy listening for some, so we appreciate their presence. Secondly, some hon. Members were not able to contribute, including my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), chair of the all-party parliamentary group on universities. I thank everybody for joining, even if they were not able to make their points.

We heard from hon. Members from across the country—from England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland—and from the great university cities of Durham, York, Edinburgh, Leeds, Birmingham and Bournemouth, among others. I thank them all. There were some emotional speeches, but the overall sentiment was clear: universities have made good progress on the practical elements—although they need to be funded properly to provide the necessary services—but there is still a place for legislation.

The word “consistency” was used numerous times. I push the Minister to think carefully about how we can ensure a level of consistency across hundreds of different organisations across the country without taking a statutory approach. We heard about incorrect exam results and failures to act on appropriate consent, and a range of other examples. A statutory level would ensure certainty across the whole of the United Kingdom. There is a gap between public expectation and reality. When things fall apart, it leads to confusion, anger and a loss of trust in some of our greatest institutions, which are among our great national assets. We should not take it for granted that we can allow that to be self-managed.

I push the Minister and the Department to monitor the effectiveness of the mental health taskforce. The taskforce acknowledges that there are gaps and that more needs to be done. It may be that the gaps cannot be closed without taking the step that we have talked about today. I hope that there will not be groupthink in the Department, but that this matter will be constantly asked about and discussed. As I said, surely there is no better way to ensure the consistent implementation of protective measures than a solid, legal basis for that obligation. I believe that that stands as the cross-party sentiment of MPs here today. I hope that the Government will go back and look once more at this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities.

Academic Technology Approval Scheme

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Academic Technology Approval Scheme.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher; I wish you a happy new year, although we are probably in the dregs of when we can say that. I welcome the Minister for what I hope will be a constructive half-hour debate. I will start by briefly setting out what ATAS is, because if I have learned one thing in the last few months, it is that it has quite low salience—including, I regret to say, in the Foreign Office. If this debate achieves nothing else, I hope it resolves that.

ATAS, known properly as the academic technology approval scheme, is a system by which additional checks are carried out on international students and researchers of certain nationalities, or those working in security-related fields. It is clearly an incredibly important process, and one that exists in some form in most other countries where advanced research is taking place. ATAS checks are most commonly needed when individuals will be studying, researching or working in subject topics that could be used to develop advanced conventional military technology or weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

There is an obvious reason why it is important to get ATAS right. The type of research that, in the wrong hands, could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction is also the type of research that is critical for making many non-military advancements. For example, biophysics research in molecular medicine involves groundbreaking discoveries in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases that can change the lives of millions of people. Creating novel chemical materials could revolutionise food packaging and how it is recycled.

We all know that we need better energy systems and sources. Buses now commonly run on hydrogen, a move that in Scotland, I am proud to say, was supported by experts in the school of chemistry at the University of St Andrews in my constituency. And then there is artificial intelligence. We know that it is having a huge impact on how we live our lives, and I want to ensure that the best and brightest are here in the UK working on it, ensuring that the development of AI includes the necessary guardrails to prevent its abuse. Those are just a few examples of research subjects that could require ATAS approval for an international student or academic.

My point is that if we want the UK to be a world leader in research and development, which is key to the Government’s modern industrial strategy, then we need to attract the brightest and the best. We cannot do that if the security checks needed to process their visas are not working.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for always bringing forward incredibly important subjects, both to Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House. Universities back home, such as Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University, have many ATAS students and researchers who study in sensitive areas such as science, engineering and technology. Many of the funded research positions have been delayed or even unfilled due to ATAS processing times having a significant impact on the system. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done for clearance to be secured in a timely manner so that advantage can be taken of vital research postings?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Member always manages to touch in advance on the key topics that we will raise in the debate, and timescales in relation to ATAS is certainly one of the things that I will touch on.

I turn to the time it takes for ATAS checks to be carried out. I am grateful that the Minister wrote to me last week confirming a standard timeframe of 30 working days—six weeks—to process applications. That seems quite reasonable for something technical that we clearly want to get right. The problem is that that response timescale is not exactly everyone’s experience. I have had casework for academics and students coming to the University of St Andrews with delays of up to six months, an experience that is shared by the Russell Group of universities, which reached out to me in advance of this debate.

Processing delays are not anything new, but there are a few elements that I want to pull out. Most postgraduate programmes of study and research programmes have defined start and end dates, which is particularly true when grant funding is being utilised. Missing those start dates due to ATAS delays means that research students miss the start of their course, and that research projects might need to delay their start dates or begin without key personnel. The University of St Andrews will not make a formal offer without ATAS being completed, and the student cannot apply for their visa without receiving a formal offer from the university. These are the different roadblocks on the way to getting approval.

Sir Christopher, can you imagine securing the funding for groundbreaking research and attracting the best global talent, only to find, days before the project is due to start, that you still do not know whether you can go ahead? You find yourself having to go back to the finance provider to ask for leniency and change contract dates and funding arrangements—all while worrying that the funding might ultimately be withdrawn. That could jeopardise your chances of receiving future support, or mean that the individual in question gives up on the process and secures employment elsewhere.

Although I am relieved to know from my conversations with the University of St Andrews that it has managed to deal with the stress of these concerns—but not the losses themselves—I have been told by the Russell Group about other universities that have experienced researchers and students withdrawing applications and going to other research-intensive nations instead, and about large research and development businesses withdrawing from university-led projects because they could not wait any longer for applications to be approved.

I therefore ask the Minister whether the 30-day standard period is a reasonable reflection of capacity. Would a 40 or even 50-day target perhaps be better? Then universities and applicants could plan accordingly. Could that be put into a formal, service-level agreement, so that universities, applicants and funding providers could manage expectations? There are naturally peaks to the number of applications for review over the summer, given that the academic cycle, even for non-taught research, tends to start in the autumn. Could the Government be taking steps to prepare for that? Could extra resources be put in place? I understand that the highly technical nature of the checks being carried out means that there is a need for scientific experts, who are already in high demand in Whitehall. Does the Minister feel that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has sufficient scientific capacity to meet demand? Is that something that engagement with the university sector and the specialists we have here could resolve?

I have mentioned casework, because for MPs that is a huge part of our job. Visa problems, Department for Work and Pensions issues and HM Revenue and Customs delays are the bread and butter of our inbox and the work that our constituency staff do. It is a question of trying to find out the problem and what can be done to unstick whatever is stuck. But frustratingly, we cannot do that with ATAS. There is just one email address, for use by universities, MPs, students or anyone else who needs to get in touch. I am not sure that I have ever received a response from it. I am not surprised—it must be absolutely inundated.

Surely there must be a better system. I would rather we did not have delays with visas or pensions, which my team have to chase up on constituents’ behalf, but this is at least something that we can do and that can give some answers as to why things are moving slowly and when an answer can be expected. Will the Minister look into an MP hotline for ATAS or a dedicated email address for use by registered universities? We can of course get in touch with the Home Office, as ATAS delays stop visas being processed, but this does not help at all, with UK Visas and Immigration officials left as in the dark as everyone else over the status of an ATAS check. Like us, all they can do is wait.

The opacity of the system was thrown into sharp relief for me towards the end of last year by one particular piece of casework. My constituent, an academic at the University of St Andrews, was applying for his visa to be renewed. This was all completely routine, but tragically, after his having submitted all the information and with the ATAS checks under way, his father unexpectedly took ill and passed away. He naturally wanted to travel home to Syria to see his family, pay his respects and, as the eldest son, arrange and play a part in his father’s funeral. He immediately contacted UKVI and asked for permission to travel.

The next developments, I understand, are outwith the remit of the Minister and are not why we are here today, but they are worth noting. There does not seem to be a Home Office exemption to allow time-limited bereavement travel, even where evidence of death has been provided; and the UKVI escalation process, while effective, is still slow in consideration of the cultural norms for burial soon after death in many countries.

All of that means that my constituent had missed his father’s funeral before any answers were received. He still wanted to return home to be with his family and pay his respects as soon as possible, and this is where we return to ATAS, because he was told that if he left the country, he would need to start his visa and ATAS applications all over again. That would require him to incur significant cost and uncertainty and risk serious disruption to his ongoing academic responsibilities. The only option, we were told by the Home Office, was to try to get his visa renewal through as quickly as possible. That left one big stumbling block: the inability to directly contact, chase or otherwise check in with ATAS over his security checks. This was without knowing how long the current waiting period was, and without ATAS having any guidance or grounds for expedition in compassionate circumstances.

My team are a pretty resourceful bunch, and they tried everything they could think of. They obviously emailed the public email address, and we wrote to the FCDO. We rang the FCDO helpline, and I was told on that phone call that the FCDO did not know what ATAS was and whether it was part of its remit. That is a bit worrying. When it was explained, we were told that surely this was the responsibility of the Home Office. It went on.

There is a positive ending in this case. Although my constituent missed the funeral and the initial mourning period, his checks did go through and his visa was renewed. He was able to see his mother and sister and pay his respects to his father. I am not convinced that anything done by my office—or indeed by me, because I did try to speak to a couple of FCDO Ministers in the House—did anything in that regard.

I know that the Minister will point out that in the end my constituent’s ATAS checks were done within the six-week processing window. It is true that this is not one of the cases of terrible delay that I referred to earlier, but it clearly demonstrates the need for escalation routes for MPs or sponsoring universities, transparent processing timeframes, and a compassionate travel route or other allowances for bereaved applicants—or at least knowledge of what the process can and should be and whether indeed it is possible at all. Above all, there should be some form of knowledge or oversight within the FCDO, given that nobody seemed to know that ATAS existed or was an FCDO responsibility.

Something called the academic technology approval scheme might sound incredibly dry, but I hope that this debate demonstrates that it is incredibly important. It is important for our industrial strategy, medical breakthroughs, securing our energy future, and supporting our universities and our security as a nation. It is also about people. These issues are not minor. Roughly a quarter of the University of St Andrews’s skilled worker visa applications last year involved ATAS checks, and a tenth of the ATAS students had their start days impacted. As proud as I am of the university, I know it is not the only top-level research centre in the UK. If we add up those figures, we are looking at thousands of delays and research projects impacted, as well as time and money lost. I hope that the Minister will set out how we can address these issues and bring ATAS and its processes into the light.

11:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the Minister of State who oversees this area within the Foreign Office, is unable to attend the debate, so I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on his behalf.

It is fundamentally important that there is feedback to the Government and Government Departments on where things could be improved and on where Departments could be better joined up. Sometimes, perhaps unintentionally, things can fall through the cracks. Sometimes there may be system dysfunction, but sometimes it may be the fault of an individual—it could be a training issue or someone who is new to the role. I am not saying that I know all the details, but it is important that we continue to maintain the best possible service for all our constituents and for the whole country. I also appreciate the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always an important voice in our debates. A number of matters have been raised to which I will seek to respond.

It is important to reflect on the point that the hon. Member for North East Fife made about our need to attract the brightest and best to our country to support our economy and be part of international research teams. As part of Britain being a global and outward-facing nation, that we are looking to those teams to bring the best knowledge and insights from across the world. Having global talent and working together is part of the United Kingdom’s success as a science and technology superpower. In a similar way, UK talent goes abroad. Sometimes research teams operate and work in this country and then in other countries. That is part of our work and how we grow our economy, but we must also look at where we might work together on sensitive matters that underpin our security.

Recognising the importance of ensuring that we continue to attract talent was also part of our work last year on how we not only secure our borders and control immigration, but widen routes for attracting and supporting talent, particularly where our economy needs to grow in new ways, supporting our future competitiveness in areas of the economy. As the hon. Member acknowledged, it is important to get the balance right between attracting talent and ensuring that we have the right checks in place. Many new technologies have both civilian and military uses, and we are in a more complex world. As proliferation risks grow, research intended to do good can, in the wrong hands, lead to the transfer of sensitive skills, knowledge, networks, relationships and technological capability. That is what ATAS is designed to prevent. Once sensitive knowledge is shared, it cannot be recovered.

I therefore welcome today’s debate on the academic technology approval scheme. It is important to recognise that ATAS is a national security vetting process, not a routine administrative check. It exists to protect the United Kingdom from the unlawful transfer of sensitive knowledge and technologies that could also contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction or advanced military capabilities. It is important that we remain open to global research talent while rigorously protecting our national security, and that we ensure that security and openness strengthen each other when done well.

The demand for ATAS is a sign of the importance of growing areas of research in our universities. Demand has increased sharply in recent years as the scheme has expanded to reflect the growing and evolving threat landscape. Applications have risen from about 17,000 in 2017 to approximately 35,000 last year. Despite that growth, the vast majority of applications—about 98%—are processed within the 30 working-day service standard, and many are resolved more quickly. Some applications may be more straightforward and present no security concerns, but where cases are more complex or potentially high-risk, there may be a requirement for additional security checks, not all of which are within the FCDO’s or the Home Office’s control. That can take more time—sometimes more time than we might like. I recognise that decisions taking longer than the standard timeframe can have a personal impact, particularly if there are compassionate circumstances that have an impact on applicants and create uncertainty for universities.

Work is under way to look at faster triaging, providing surge support for more complex cases, and IT improvements, and there is ongoing engagement with universities. That is important, because we recognise the challenge. As with other visa circumstances with universities, which might do their own checks for international students, it is important that we recognise that universities and students have start times, and it is important that we do not push into a backlog or create issues just before university term time begins. We continue to do work to smooth that by supporting universities in how they do their checks and looking at how ATAS certificates might need to be issued in advance of visas being issued by the Home Office. The Home Office continues to work with the Department for Education and universities to improve that.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The Minister has just mentioned the Home Office. I suppose part of our frustration as a team was that ATAS responsibility sits within the FCDO rather than the Home Office, and that there is a lack of knowledge and understanding. I am very pleased to hear that work is ongoing. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the House is properly updated in relation to that work? Will it take on board some of the suggestions I have made? The key frustration for me and my team is that we are used to being able to get some answers, but with ATAS that feels very, very difficult to do.

[Seema Malhotra]

I do understand the importance of that. There are other issues that in my previous role last year in the Home Office, I experienced when working alongside other Departments, including the DFE and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

The hon. Member has also highlighted the relationship between Foreign Office-led processes, some of which may lead to and require checks being made outside the Foreign Office. I take her point and will relay it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who oversees this area. I am happy to work with him on it, because I am interested in how Foreign Office-led services and delivery can be the best they can be, and whether there are further lessons to be learned.

We will consider how we can keep the hon. Member for North East Fife and the House updated on where the improvements that we are already working on can lead to change, not least in responsiveness to Members of Parliament, which I take very seriously, as does my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I appreciate the feedback; I continue to believe that it is important that Government continue to learn. We are like any other organisation, in that the continuous improvement of our operations should be a matter of concern to all of us. In this case, it certainly is.

I emphasise that ATAS sits within a much broader Government commitment to supporting research, innovation and international collaboration. Our approach is to combine openness with responsibility and to continue to work closely with universities to improve guidance, streamline communication and ensure that applicants understand ATAS requirements early.

It is not always the case, but sometimes applications are put in very close to the mark. There can also be an assumption that, where there is a 30-day working standard, it will all happen within 30 days. I do not know the details of the hon. Member’s case, although I know that she is very assiduous in raising cases for her constituents, but it is important that we make sure there is that communication and that there are clearer routes for institutions to raise concerns, improve transparency on processes and strengthen engagement with the sector.

At the same time, the Government continue to invest heavily in research and development. In a sense, we are a victim of our own priorities. The increase in demand for ATAS is a reflection of the Government’s own priorities and our recognition that it is important to attract talent in the shorter and the longer term. Work is going on through association with Horizon Europe, long-term funding in AI, clean energy and the life sciences, with deepening science and defence partnerships across regions including the Indo-Pacific, over which I oversee some of our work. ATAS supports that ambition by ensuring that the UK’s research environment remains secure and welcoming to global talent, in good faith. We want to support that work in the UK and internationally.

Before I conclude, I want to make some remarks about the constituency case that the hon. Member highlighted. I very much appreciate that communication with the FCDO has been part of, and a driver for, today’s debate. It is regrettable that the hon. Lady experienced that difficulty and did not receive clear information about her inquiry at an earlier stage, particularly given the sad circumstances. I am grateful to her for the support that she gave her constituent and for telling us that he got a positive certificate and, importantly, was able to spend time with his family in those very sad circumstances.

The hon. Lady said that when we knew about the situation and it got to the team, the application was expedited and the process was completed within, I think, 14 days. That is important to us. I have seen such work previously in the Home Office, so I know that it will have been important to those teams too. That was well inside the published service standard, and it shows what can happen when we mobilise teams in compassionate circumstances. Where there are lessons to learn, it is important that we do so. I appreciate that there was a delay in the correspondence that the hon. Lady received over the Christmas period, but we continue to try to improve our service standards in relation to correspondence. That is a priority matter for the Department as a whole.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I put my thanks on the record—it is great to hear that the case was expedited as a result of our actions—but what I have tried to illustrate today is that we had no real knowledge of that or of how to achieve it, so I am grateful to the Minister for that update.

[Seema Malhotra]

Sometimes our processes mean that we or the Home Office may contact the constituent earlier than we respond to the Member of Parliament. Sometimes it is joined up, but sometimes there is a slight delay. It is very important that we ensure that the constituent is updated so that they can make arrangements, but I appreciate that there was a slight delay in the correspondence sent to the hon. Lady to make sure that she was fully informed.

This has been an important debate. I recognise that feedback is important as we continue to join up. The data shows that ATAS, which is a vital part of our security protections, operates strongly. Cases may take longer where there is significant demand, but the security of the United Kingdom requires careful and proportionate judgment. Where we can continue to improve our operations, we will certainly endeavour to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Airport Drop-off Charges

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]

14:30

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to make the case for ending airport drop-off charges altogether, or at the very least introducing a free grace period, and for clear, consistent signage at all airports so that passengers know exactly what they are being charged and how to pay. I have received significant casework on this issue, and I know that colleagues across Greater Manchester and across the country will share my concerns. The current system is unfair, confusing and punitive. It does not work for passengers, and it is time for a change.

Manchester airport is our international gateway. It is the third busiest airport in the United Kingdom, and a vital engine for the north-west’s economy. It should be a source of pride, not stress, yet the regime for dropping off and picking up passengers has become overly complex and, for far too many people, deeply unfair.

Let me start with the current rules. Outside each terminal, the tariff is £5 for up to five minutes, £6.40 for up to 10 minutes and £25 for up to 30 minutes, with a maximum stay of 30 minutes. Since last spring, the airport has operated a barrierless automatic number plate recognition system. If people forget, or if the process is unclear in the rush and stress of a drop-off, they are liable for a parking charge notice of £100, which is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

I do not dispute the fact that airports face operational pressures. Forecourts are constrained spaces and congestion causes delays and emissions. The aim of a barrierless system is to keep traffic moving, but we have to be honest about the human reality. A parent unloading luggage at 5 am or a carer helping an elderly relative to the terminal door is not thinking about an online payment later that day. They should not receive a penalty notice in the post just because there is no clear or simple way to pay at the time.

There is a wider issue with value for money. The RAC has shown that UK drop-off fees have increased across many airports. On a cost-per-minute basis, Manchester is among the worst, charging £1 per minute for the first five minutes. That is hard to justify and is out of step with passengers’ experiences elsewhere. A member of my staff shared his experience from a recent holiday he took via Kraków airport, for example: the drop-off and pick-up area offered eight free minutes, then a small fee of 5 złoty—about £1—per four minutes thereafter, with simple rules, clear signs and visible ways to pay.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing today’s important debate on drop-off charges. My long-suffering and complaining Slough constituents have been on the case about extortionate drop-off charges—not to mention excessive parking charges—at our nearest airport, Heathrow, as well as at Gatwick. I have consistently raised with Heathrow the issue that there is a disproportionate expense for merely spending a few moments on its premises. Does my hon. Friend agree that, without a direct western rail link to Heathrow or sufficient alternative public transport from Slough, passengers are being forced into a corner and into paying excessive charges? Does she agree that that must stop?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree.

I want to discuss the realities in Bolton. There is a direct rail link from Bolton to Manchester airport; a typical journey time is about 36 to 45 minutes and, at off-peak times, a single ticket can be found for anywhere between £4 and £9. There is also a direct coach from Bolton interchange, which takes about 65 minutes; generally, prices range from £6 to £12. For many travellers, these options work, and we should promote and protect them, but they do not work for everyone. For a family of four with two large suitcases and a pushchair, or for people catching a very early flight or arriving back late at night, public transport is not always practical.

For those who drive, the maze of choices remains problematic. The airport provides a free drop-off at JetParks with a shuttle to terminals. That works for some people, but it is further away, involves a transfer and is simply not suitable for those with mobility needs or heavy luggage.

We should also reflect on governance and accountability. Manchester airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, which has a unique ownership structure combining public and private shareholders. Manchester city council owns 35.5%, IFM Investors owns 35.5% and the nine other Greater Manchester councils, including Bolton, together own 29%. That public stake brings with it the responsibility to treat passengers fairly.

What should the Government do? Many of my constituents would say that the answer is simple: scrap drop-off charges altogether, or at least introduce a short free period for pick-ups and drop-offs. I recognise that all airports differ in size and layout, and one solution may not fit all, but there is a clear and proportionate role for Government in setting expectations around fairness, transparency and consumer protection.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech; I am grateful that she has secured this debate. Airports are imposing drop-off charges primarily to increase profits, despite their stated claims of environmental benefits. On the point about transparency, when I inquired of Heathrow how many cars are using its drop-off point each year, it declined to answer. It said that the data was classified as “commercially sensitive”. If it truly believes that raising drop-off charges has a positive impact on customers’ transport decisions and provides environmental benefits, why is it reluctant to share that data?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I totally agree. Later in my speech, I will be asking for more detail about what happens with drop-off charges, as well as other information that we need from airports, such as how many people have had fixed penalty notices.

Secondly, there should be national guidance on simple and consistent signage at all airports for parking charges and fees. Thirdly, the barrierless system for dropping off and parking should come with clear payment prompts at the point of exit and, where possible, a reasonable reminder rather than an immediate penalty for first-time non-payment.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. I must say that I love Manchester airport, but not these charges. A constituent of mine, who is an Uber driver, makes countless trips to Manchester airport every week. He was recently fined twice for not paying drop-off charges. He tried to pay, but the website kept crashing. The airport failed to send him a reminder before the penalty and fined him straightaway, although it was its fault and he was not responsible. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is deeply unfair for hard-working people to pay the price of faulty tech that the private companies fail to fix?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my fellow Greater Manchester Member of Parliament for raising that issue. I will come on to the similar experiences that my constituents have had.

I was talking about barrierless systems for drop-offs. I believe that airports should publish data on the number of drop-off penalties that are issued, how many are cancelled on appeal and the reasons why. The Government’s position is that although airport parking charges are

“a matter for the airport operator as a commercial business”,

the Department for Transport

“expects car parking at airports to be managed appropriately and…consumers to be treated fairly”.

Too many passengers feel that that expectation is not being met.

I want to speak directly about the human element, because that is where my office’s casework has been the most compelling. The stories that we have been told follow a very clear pattern: people acting in good faith, anxious to get loved ones to the airport on time and unaware that payment cannot be made on site, and then being shocked to receive a penalty notice days later when they believe that they have done everything right. The stress and frustrations are real, but they are avoidable.

One constituent contacted me after dropping his wife at Manchester airport and leaving after noticing that there were no barriers or pay stations. He then received a £100 fine in the post for not having paid. He was stationary in the drop-off area for just one minute and 10 seconds. If there had been a pay station, he would have paid. Instead, he went home and then received what he felt was an entirely disproportionate fine for being there for less than two minutes.

Another constituent contacted me after he tried to pay online in good faith but was unable to do so because of problems with the website. He did not see the signage and was made aware only after the fact that he needed to pay. Despite trying to pay the £6.40 charge, he was unable to do so and received a £100 fine instead. That does not feel fair or reasonable.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a system that relies too heavily on people remembering to make an online payment after their journey, rather than being clearly prompted to pay at the time. A short free window in which to park, clear exit prompts and a one-time reminder invoice would entirely prevent many of these cases.

Airports are the front door to our country. That front door should be welcoming, efficient and fair. It should not depend on whether a tired or stressed driver remembers to make an online payment later that day. It should reflect the reality of places such as Bolton, where rail can be a good option but is not always practical.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I should declare an interest, because Manchester airport is my local airport and is used by many of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme. In fact, I was there on Sunday: my poor wife had to wait because the flight from Northern Ireland was delayed. The first thing she said to me was not “Hi, love,” but “Don’t forget to pay.” That speaks to the impact that these charges have on marital harmony.

To be serious, this unfairness speaks to a lack of consistency across the United Kingdom. More importantly, it makes the case for a direct line between Stoke-on-Trent station and Manchester airport, which would benefit my constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend will support my calls.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am so sad that my hon. Friend’s wife was not able to say “I love you” at the point of greeting him. I hope she has made up for it.

[Adam Jogee]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. In the interests of getting home safely, I should say that my wife quite often says “I love you,” and I am very grateful to her for doing so.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Point taken.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful clarification. His serious point is one that I think a lot of people here would agree with, and I am sure the Minister has heard his appeal for a train line from his area to Manchester.

The cost of a taxi plus a forecourt fee can push travel beyond what many families can afford. With modest regulation, better design and a willingness to learn from our European neighbours, we can manage traffic without turning airport forecourts into what feels like a penalty for helping someone we care about.

14:39

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate, the importance of which is reflected by the number of Members who have turned out—some of them from further afield than Greater Manchester. There is clearly a pattern of airport operators looking to maximise every aspect of income from the land that they own.

In Greater Manchester, we are very proud of Manchester airport. It was built and grown by the local authorities, and they remain an important shareholder of the airport, as well as the wider group, which includes East Midlands and Stansted airports. The benefit of that, particularly during those 14 long years of austerity, was that the airports were providing a dividend payment to the local councils to fund local public services.

With that in mind, Manchester airport has a bigger responsibility than just paying dividends. It has an important economic role to play in our city region and the whole of the north of England. As has been said, it is a gateway to Britain for those coming in. Their experience on arrival and when being collected by loved ones will really shape that experience. We are very proud of it and it is vital to our economy. It is a significant employer that drives economic growth, and it is a thriving hub supported, by and large, by the public.

The charging policy was introduced in 2018 and was controversial at the time. I may have a slightly different view of charging policies, perhaps because from a local government finance point of view all streams of income are welcome, but I think the principle of payment has been settled for most people. However, I strongly believe that any payment system must be fair for those who pay it. In far too many people’s experience, the system at Manchester airport is not one of fairness.

Many years ago, there was a campaign in Oldham against the weekly payment stores where people go in to buy a washing machine or TV and then pay a set weekly amount. At the time, the campaign was against BrightHouse. BrightHouse’s business model relied on people not being able to afford the weekly payment. If they could not make the payment of, say, £20 a week for a washing machine, they could not make a £19 contribution if that was all they had; BrightHouse wanted either full payment or no payment. It would reject the £19 and then charge a penalty on top. For every normal person, that is not a fair way of doing business, but for BrightHouse, the business model relied on it. That is how it made its money.

We need to be careful, when looking at any system, to make sure that it is not built on inherent unfairness as a way to generate money. This is not about whether £5 is a fair charge to pay; it is about what happens if someone does not pay, and whether the penalty is proportionate.

[Afzal Khan]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about fairness. I am concerned about these charges, because someone I know took one minute extra while trying to get out of the airport, and he was lumbered with a £60 fine. That is not fair.

[Jim McMahon]

That is the point. For the sake of a £5 fee, the penalty could be a full day’s wage for a low-paid worker. Is it a fair penalty to take away a day’s pay from somebody for going over by a minute? Most people would say that that is not a fair response.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Doncaster Sheffield airport in my constituency is about to open. I want there to be access for everybody, and I want everyone to feel that they can use it. For some people, it is not optional but essential to get really close to the terminal because of their disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in principle, whatever regime we have in future must take into account those people who need to be close and give them a grace period without having to pay, so that they can get on their plane and go on their dream holiday or work trip?

[Jim McMahon]

I think so. It is not just about being fair; it is about being reasonable. We have all dropped loved ones off at the airport. We know how stressful it can be, and we know that the family member giving the lift normally tries to fit it around other things as well. Sometimes they will be dropping people off in the early hours of the morning. They rush to the airport, drop their loved ones off, say their goodbyes, make sure they get on the flight nice and safely, a bit upset perhaps that they are leaving, go home, maybe go to bed, and wake up in the morning—and before they know it, the day has taken over. It can be very easy to miss the deadline to pay. If it were extended from 24 hours to, say, 48 hours, most people would eventually say, “Hang on: I should have made that payment.”

It cannot be that every organisation relies on an app. In my town, the hospital and the leisure centre now have apps to pay, and so do some supermarkets. There are so many apps, and keeping track of them can be very difficult, so some people will have to search out how to make the payment. That is where the idea of reasonableness really comes in.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

A lot has been made of transport links to airports. At Edinburgh airport, we have excellent links—it is the end of the tramline and there are special buses—but if people are being picked up or dropped off, they have to pay £6 for the first 10 minutes and £1 for every minute after that. That is difficult for people on a fixed income. The holiday may be the big thing of the year, but if the flight is late they face bigger charges, so the principle of fairness does not seem to apply. Taxis also have to pay the charge, so there is an extra cost there too. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me?

[Jim McMahon]

Many people ask their loved one to send them a message when they land or when they pass through the terminal ahead of collecting their baggage, but in Manchester airport there have occasionally been delays in getting the luggage off the plane and sent through to the terminal, or the conveyor belt has not worked in sending the luggage through, so faults with the airport or airline delays can lead to a penalty.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jim McMahon]

I will make some progress, because I am mindful of the time.

On reasonableness, of course an app can be used if it is a convenient way to pay, but why not have a simple contactless payment system at the lay-by where the luggage is taken out, so that people can tap in there and then? Then they would not have to wait 24 or 48 hours to pay online. With a lot of these things, if the lived experience of those using the system had been thought about when it was brought in, it would have been designed very differently.

In November, we met the managing director of Manchester airport, Chris Woodroofe. We raised those points and put forward a number of requests. The first was for payment on site, so that people can pay not just on an app, but when they are at the airport.

Secondly, we asked for an end to the system that allows charges to be racked up. For example, there may be separate lay-bys for arrivals and departures, so it is very easy for someone not familiar with the airport to pass through the arrivals terminal drop-off point, realise that is the wrong place to be, drive around the block and eventually get to the correct location. If they do that, the system charges them twice because they have passed through one before they get to the other. That could be easily resolved using technology.

These organisations do not have the legal powers that local authorities have, but rely on contract law in enforcement. Many airports have confusing road networks that rely on roundabouts, with one-way systems through the terminals to drop off. In contract law, for a contract to be fair, those entering into it must have the right to decline it. How can they have the right to decline if they are charged at the moment they enter the place where the signs advising them about the contract are, with no way to reverse or pull out? Those dropping off should have the ability to say, “Now that I am aware of the charges, I don’t agree and will find a different way of dropping off.” Some airports have a bus that enables drop-offs further afield. Some people may not have been aware of that before they arrived, but may choose to use that.

Although I am personally sympathetic to the idea that charges can be realistic, Manchester should not follow Gatwick airport and go from £5 to £10, or even close to it. Most people would find an airport’s charging £10 to drop off completely unreasonable and unfair.

[John Milne]

Gatwick is precisely the airport that I was going to raise. It jumped to £10 in very short order, over a couple of years. That is an enormous amount of money for something that takes a couple of minutes. The objective is allegedly to cover the increase of business rates and to fund airport expansion. Does the hon. Member agree that the public should not have to bear the cost of an airport’s expansion? It benefits private companies financially, but puts pressure on public services, trains and transport and means that people are parking all around the airport. Does he agree that that is unfair?

[Jim McMahon]

Logic says that business rates are derived from the commercial value of the asset. The opposite is true of Gatwick—if it commercialises a lay-by, the business rate liability probably goes up—so I am not sure that that quite solves their problem.

This debate has been important, and I express my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for securing it. We are very proud of Manchester airport and the airport group that it operates, but we are determined to see a revision to the ability to pay, how to pay and the grace period—from 24 hours to 48 hours—and I hope that we see progress.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members keep their interventions shorter, we can have a very loose six-minute time limit and get everyone in.

14:55

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate.

In many countries, a quick kiss and fly really is quick and really is free. At Amsterdam Schiphol, the kiss and ride drop-off is free. At Paris-Charles de Gaulle the first 10 minutes are free, and at Madrid-Barajas the express departures car park gives drivers 10 minutes free. Meanwhile, here in the UK we are normalising the idea that dropping off and saying a hurried goodbye at the airport comes with a bill. Bear with me here: kiss and fly? More like kiss and buy.

At Gatwick airport, which serves so many of my constituents in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, the drop-off fee was hiked to £10 for 10 minutes—a 43% jump from £7. That hits everyone: the parent, the friend taking someone to an early flight and taxi drivers trying to earn their living. It is true that Gatwick offers free drop-off in the long-stay car park with a complementary shuttle, and that blue badge holders are exempt, but we all know that that option adds time and complication, and is not always practical at unsocial hours.

We should be clear about responsibility. Most airports in the UK are private businesses, and drop-off charging is a matter for the owners to decide and manage. That is certainly true at Gatwick, where the increased drop-off charge has been explained on the grounds of growing financial pressure on the operation. However, the extra costs place a burden on my constituents using the airport, and I urge Gatwick always to keep them in mind when analysing the numbers and ensure fairness, the importance of which the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) eloquently highlighted. It is easy to assume that people can use the train or bus as an alternative, but that is often not the case for the elderly, the disabled or those who simply cannot transport all their luggage by hand.

Gatwick has said that the drop-off charge increase has not been taken lightly and follows a number of cost increases, including a more than doubling of its business rates by this Government, from £40 million to more than £80 million per annum. It is relevant to note that Heathrow has also increased its drop-off charge this month, although far more modestly, from £6 to £7. Unfortunately, that is what happens when the Government pile ever more taxes on our businesses: those costs inevitably find their way back to the consumer in some shape or form. If Ministers would like to see the trend of extra charges and surging prices reduce, I say gently that they might consider not continually taxing businesses. Rethinking the damaging business rates hike would be a good start and would give British businesses, including our airports, room to breathe.

14:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, Ms Vaz, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for leading today’s debate on this matter. It is an important issue, as others have said and will say after me.

Back home, this has been a topic of conversation with my constituents. Air travel has become much more usable and cheaper than it has been in the past, but that means that many people travel through Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport—they are all used. I have heard numerous complaints from constituents about changes to pick-ups and drop-offs at airports in Northern Ireland, so it is important for me to be here and to get our perspective across.

I share other Members’ concerns about drop-off charges. They seem a little drastic and unfair, and many people have complaints about them. The traffic wardens in Newtownards are very zealous—even evangelical—and they get their money. We get complaints about parking tickets on private land, and by and large we have been able to fight them, but people cannot fight the CCTV at Belfast City airport or Belfast International airport.

I fly out of Belfast City airport on Mondays to come here, and I go back on Thursdays. It is a great airport and has had some recent updates; it covers mostly regional flights, but some are international. According to my constituents, the drop-off area has a minimum price of £4 for up to 10 minutes. It used to be that there was no charge at all. Is it a revenue earner for the airport? I suspect it is, but the staff may tell me differently. If people stay longer, the charges increase as follows: it is £6 for 10 to 20 minutes, £20 for 21 to 30 minutes, and £25 for 30 to 60 minutes. If people’s planes are delayed, they had better not forget their cards, because they will be digging deep that night.

Similarly, at Belfast International airport, it costs up to £3 for 10 minutes. If someone’s car stalls on the way round, they are in trouble, because the price will increase. Airports have CCTV everywhere, and people cannot get away with dropping somebody off, because the airport has them on CCTV. They can expect a £60 fine. If someone thinks they can do it the sharp way—perhaps the car is still moving as they jump out—it does not matter, because they will be fined

One thing that annoys me greatly at the airport is flight delays and cancellations. What happens to the person who thinks, “I’m just going to pick them up,” and then looks at the screen and says, “Oh, it’s 15 minutes late”? Guess what? They owe more money.

[Adam Jogee]

Further to the hon. Gentleman’s description of the situation at Belfast City airport, I found out on Sunday, when my mother-in-law dropped me off from the long-stay car park, that it is free for the first 10 minutes. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made about accessibility is important, because the long-stay car park is further away and there is no canopy. We all know about the liquid sunshine for which Ulster is well known. [Interruption.] Liquid sunshine, not rain. If someone is not as able-bodied as others, or if they have children, bags and all the rest, it is more difficult for them to get into the terminal. The accessibility point extends not just to the east midlands, but right across the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing his experiences of Belfast City. It is a good airport, by the way. I am just saying, “Follow the rules, and make sure the timings are right.” The planes are sometimes cancelled, and more often than not they are delayed, which seems to be a fact of life now. Some may say that the clue is in the name: “drop-off”. The plan is not to be there for long, but we all know that it takes a little time for people to get their cases, say goodbye to loved ones or pay taxis. It has been argued that the first 10 minutes should be free, which is fair. If drop-offs and pick-ups are made financially inaccessible for people, they will double-park and potentially cause congestion, which poses a safety risk.

One thing that strikes me is that Belfast international airport has a 15-minute free drop-off in the long-stay car park. It is only a short walk to the terminal, but it does not suit everybody. There is £3 to £5 fee for less than 10 minutes. There is certainly a case for the fees to be regulated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Sometimes we can use compassion and understand that it is not always easy for someone to drop people off and get on their way. To give an example, one of my constituents moved to Scotland for university when she was 18. She has been living there for nine years now and is working as a nurse. It is always lovely when she comes home, but saying goodbye is the hardest. She tells me that she wants to say goodbye—she wants to give people a hug and a kiss, and to say cheerio—but guess what? The clock is ticking, and that long goodbye could be a very costly one.

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

My hon. Friend mentions compassion and understanding —and the lack of it. He reminds me that many years ago, when I was on the Transport Committee, we met a certain chief executive of Ryanair who is not noted for his compassion and understanding. He made it absolutely clear to us MPs that he did not care—I will not use the expletive—if passengers had to crawl over broken glass to get to the airport. Compassion and understanding need to be shown by the airport operators, because they certainly will not be shown by Ryanair.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely.

The moral of the story involving the young lady, who happens to come from Newtownards, is: “Don’t get too emotional at the airport, because the clock is ticking.” People might find that £3 or £5 has become £10 or £20. If they reach for a hanky and cannot find one, they are in deep trouble.

Airport drop-off fees are increasingly becoming a burden on ordinary passengers, taxi drivers and local residents, and that is not to mention the extortionate air fees. When flying from Belfast to the mainland, we pay the highest flight charges in the whole of the United Kingdom. We might be on the periphery of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we are an integral part of it, and we should be shown fairness when it comes to prices.

We recognise that airports need to manage congestion and maintain facilities—I understand that—but the charges must be fair and transparent. There are calls to look at them again, and I look to the Minister for a positive response that will encourage not only us regular travellers but, more importantly, constituents of mine who are regular travellers, who tell me about the airport charges all the time. It is time to address them.

15:06

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate.

I have heard much about this issue from many of my constituents in Mansfield, and they all make the same point again and again: people feel as if they are being unfairly charged for simply dropping someone off at the airport. They are not asking for special treatment or favour; they are simply trying to drop off a partner, parent or child. That often takes no more than a few minutes, yet this basic act now comes with a significant charge at many airports, particularly for those on lower incomes. Let us be clear: this is not about parking, and it is not a premium service. It is a fee for stopping a car long enough for someone to get out, unload their suitcase and say goodbye.

Two of my constituents who wrote to me on this topic, Emma and Keith, commented on what this looks like at East Midlands airport, which is close to Mansfield—many of my constituents fly from there. At East Midlands airport, drivers are charged £5 for up to 15 minutes in a drop-off zone, with a number of extra charges for additional minutes. As Emma and Keith made clear, the problem is not just the price, but the whole system under which they are charged. At East Midlands airport, there are no barriers or ticket machines. There is no way to pay by cash or card, and one might not realise that one has incurred a charge. Drivers are recorded by automatic cameras and required to pay later, either online or by phone. Crucially for many of my constituents, the payment has to be made by midnight the following day. If drivers miss that deadline, they will be hit with a parking charge of £100.

Many of my constituents have pointed out that the system penalises people who do not have a smartphone or access to the internet—particularly older people, as we have seen with automatic number plate recognition systems and cashless systems in some car parks in my Mansfield constituency. Some people do not use apps, and others might not feel confident about paying online. Some people might not even realise that they have to pay, or that they have been charged, until a penalty notice arrives through the post.

This is not modernisation—at least, it is not a modernity of which I would approve—but exclusion. Working people feel it the most, including parents dropping off their children and families trying to save money by giving lifts, as well as disabled passengers and older travellers who need to be dropped off close to the terminal entrance. For many of those people, being dropped off is not a convenience but a necessity. We should be honest about the market: airports are effectively local monopolies. Someone living in Mansfield cannot shop around for somewhere else to drop off at East Midlands airport. There is no cheaper accessible drop-off option. They either pay the charge or do not use it.

That is why this debate is important, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for securing it. We need to consider regulation, because if airport management is not prepared to act, we should be prepared to do so. My message to airport management is very simple: stop the excessive charges, end the punitive enforcement and ensure that systems for payment work for everyone, not just for those with smartphones and digital confidence. I say to them: act now, or MPs like me will look to compel them to do so.

15:11

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate. We have had unanimity across the House, with a real feeling of injustice at the rising charges that we see at almost every airport that has been mentioned today. It should be of concern to all of us, and indeed to our constituents. Many of us receive letters and correspondence about this issue; I certainly do, given my constituency’s proximity to both Heathrow and Gatwick.

I will focus on three themes, two of which are directly related to the drop-off charges issue and one of which is a slight shoehorning of another issue that I feel passionately about, which corresponds to the topic of today’s debate. The first issue is about the rising cost of the charges, particularly for people who have no realistic alternative to get to an airport. The second is about the transparency and fairness of the payment processes themselves. The third is about the wider enforcement and security consequences of poorly designed payment systems involving ANPR, and about the insecurities in our ANPR system.

I am the Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath. Camberley, our main market town, is 19 miles from Heathrow airport and about 45 miles from Gatwick, but we have incredibly poor public transport systems to take us to those airports, so people rely on driving and therefore incur the £10 charge, for example at Gatwick, which my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned. These are not lifestyle choices; they are structural necessities, driven by poor public transport infrastructure as we come out of central London and head towards the shires in the likes of Surrey.

I absolutely welcome the recent introduction of a fantastic new express bus service from some of the villages in my constituency to Heathrow, but its connect only three of the communities in my constituency to the airport, so lots of people are left beyond that system. For those people, driving is the only realistic option. Of course, the lack of choice disproportionately affects the disabled, people with young children, older people and those travelling to or from regional airports, where public transport systems are even more limited than in my area. That all reflects the wider national picture. The Business Travel Association has been clear that public transport is frequently not a viable substitute for accessing airports, and that pricing people out of kerbside drop-off does not make it suddenly accessible.

That leads me to my second point, which is about the fairness and justice of the payment systems themselves. The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made a series of excellent points, and I have been a victim of exactly the situations to which he referred. I have driven around the loop at Heathrow airport and incurred the charge that he mentioned, purely by accidentally turning the wrong way. I appealed to get my money back, but I did not get it. Then I had to go and park in a multi-storey car park, so I felt doubly aggrieved, and nobody ever got back to me when I called the number.

The problem is that the system seems to be baking in penalties as a form of revenue-raising. I do not know whether that is entirely fair, but that is how people feel and that is the perception. Why do people feel like that? Because the companies involved are not making it straightforward by issuing clear signage and they are not making it easy to make payments. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden talked about some of the scenarios in which people go to airports, such as late at night or early in the morning, and they often do multiple other things during the course of the day, so it is easy to forget the act of payment.

That leads me to my third point, on ANPR. Because of the increasingly punitive nature of some of the costs, we are seeing a huge rise in the use of ghost plates and in number plate cloning. Constituents of mine have received fines from both Gatwick and Heathrow airports because their number plates had been cloned, perhaps by taxicab companies that are apparently seeking to avoid the repeated application of charges at airports. If the system is driving increased criminality to avoid fines, we have a problem that needs to be explained, because the costs and inconvenience are falling back on constituents. That issue is perhaps not something people will have considered—I think it is the first time it has been raised today—but it is really important.

Although the previous Aviation Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), said that there was no intention to review the process, I urge the Government to look at it again. There need to be proper, fair payment systems and a cap on how much airports are allowed to charge, because I do not want to have any more constituents writing to me about it.

15:16

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate, which holds such importance for my constituents.

My constituency is proud to be the home of East Midlands airport—part of the Manchester Airport Group —from where about 4 million people fly each year. Before I focus on the drop-off charges at the airport, it is important to understand them in the context of a wider local problem. The closest train station to East Midlands airport is East Midlands Parkway, which is a 10-minute drive away. The only bus service from East Midlands Parkway is dial-a-ride only—that is, it is an on-demand service, not even a regular bus service.

For those who might not have experienced an on-demand service, a passenger basically rocks up at the train station and rings a number, and there might be a bus available. That is how it operates. It is very good, but the reality is that when someone is going through the stressful scenario of going on holiday with a couple of kids in tow, they are going to get a taxi. The taxi will have to use the rapid drop-off option, so despite travelling via public transport, the passenger will still have to pay the drop-off charge to get to the airport.

Some 91% of travellers to East Midlands airport travel by car, leaving just 9% travelling by public transport—a proportion so much lower than for every other passenger airport in the country. The drop-off charges seem so unfair because our choices to get to airports are pretty limited. People are also parking in villages near the airport, including in Leicestershire. I was chatting to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) yesterday, and he said it was a problem in his constituency too. Essentially, to avoid parking at the airport for any length of time, people will get a taxi from a village outside the airport and make their way there, thereby avoiding the weekly charges. Given that there are hardly any alternatives to travelling by car to the airport, we need to look at the infrastructure around our airports, as people feel they have no choice but to drive or get a family member to drop them off.

Raising drop-off prices, as we have seen many airports doing, does not mean that my constituents or others who travel to East Midlands airport are suddenly able to magic up a bus or train to get them there. People want the convenience of being dropped off close to the departure gate, and airports know that. Let’s face it: it is a cash cow. It is an easy way to make money. As has been stated, East Midlands airport has recently been made barrierless, which means that someone can only pay online or by using an automated phoneline by midnight the following day. When dropping someone off early in the morning or late at night, it can be really easy to forget. I am sure we all have examples of that.

As the airport is in my constituency, I get a lot of casework on this matter that I then field to other MPs, because it generally does not come from my constituents. I was contacted by someone who returned home just after midnight, having dropped off a loved one at East Midlands airport, and they had just 24 hours to pay. Thankfully, they remembered, but they felt it was so unfair that they had such a short time to pay. It is possible to set up an account to take automatic payment, but that simply will not be accessible to all, and setting up an auto-payment for a single or twice-yearly event is not worth while.

What other service operates a system in which it is impossible to pay at the point of sale? It feels like the system is set up in the hope that people will forget, with fines of £100 if it slips their mind—although, of course, there are no reminders. The fine is reduced only if it is paid within 14 days. Coincidentally, 14 days is the length of many family holidays, which is ironic.

I have raised the issue directly with the airport and requested that a pay terminal or a simple QR code be put in the terminal building. That request was refused, based on fraud issues. Yet such options are common practice. Just yesterday I used the QR code at my local train station—which happens to be operated by the very same parking company. If the company can do that at Leicester train station, it could do it at East Midlands airport with no trouble. That is where regulation could bring merit, with clearer payment methods, reminders and limits on parking charges—not radical ideas, just basic consumer protections.

I wrote to APCOA parking to request data on the number of parking charge notices issued prior to and after the introduction of the new system at East Midlands airport. I was refused that data, which is not a good sign. Companies that are privately fining individuals should be subject to data-access rights relating to the schemes they operate. Ultimately, the current system of airport drop-off charges is unfair. When we factor in inadequate transport infrastructure, the case for regulation becomes even stronger.

15:21

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate for airport communities.

Residents in my constituency know very well the impacts of airports, with Heathrow on our doorstep. The recent decision to increase the drop-off charge at Heathrow from £6 to £7 has been met with increasing frustration. Another issue mentioned in respect of the impact of airports on nearby villages is displacement. All too often, significant numbers of vehicles park in and around the Heathrow drop-off zone. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were here, he would vividly describe the impact on Heathrow villages of the antisocial parking of people who are avoiding drop-off charges.

In my constituency, given the nearby bus routes and the Elizabeth line connection at West Drayton, people are clearly getting around drop-off charges by parking in and around airport communities, causing a huge amount of frustration and nuisance. That has led to local authorities, such as Hillingdon and many others, introducing controlled parking zones, which charge residents significant amounts to park in their own streets to avoid the impacts. Even then, CPZs are only as good as the enforcement. We have a massive issue with parking enforcement, particularly out of hours, at evenings and weekends. People park in streets and neighbourhoods, often blocking residents’ drives, and there is no enforcement activity. There is also a significant increase in unregulated car parks popping up on private land, where people sell parking at competitive and preferential rates, leading to significant impacts on local communities.

I agree that airport charges could support alternatives that discourage people from driving to the airport, along with the related impacts, but all too often we do not see the investment following the charges. In Heathrow’s case, the transport funds that the airport hold are unspent, and a large amount of investment has not been put back into improving local bus routes. Bus connections from my community to Heathrow are incredibly poor, both for airport visitors and for staff, who have to take indirect routes to get there by bus, on infrequent services and undercapacity routes. The smaller, infrequent buses make it difficult for people with luggage to travel.

With the introduction of the Elizabeth line, we have seen a really positive improvement in transport connections, but it is ultimately the taxpayer who has led investment on that route. There is concern and frustration that as Heathrow potentially expands—a lot more will be said on that should proposals come forward—it will again be the taxpayer who continues to fund public transport options, rather than Heathrow airport making an adequate contribution.

As has been said, self-employed people who work for Uber, and other app-based drivers to the airport, have reported feeling increasingly squeezed by the increasing charges. They are struggling to make ends meet given the cost of living crisis and the increasing charges that they and their customers have to bear. They feel under-engaged and under-consulted by the airports; as important stakeholders, they clearly should be engaged and consulted.

I hope that the Minister, in considering the many issues raised today, will also consider the role that could be played by better guidance and regulation on charges. In particular, will he look at the options for making it clear that the funds raised through such mechanisms must be spent on alternatives to driving to the airport? There has to be transparency about the funds raised and how they are spent because, as many Members have said, it is very hard to get that information out of the airports. There should be a duty and responsibility on airport authorities to collaborate on issues like transport displacement with the local authorities in which they are based.

Lastly, there should be real clarity in the design and communication of any measures. Like others, I recently drove to the airport to pick up a friend who had missed the last train and drop him off at a different tube line. It was incredibly difficult to work out exactly what is and is not within the drop-off charge zone, and where the ANPR cameras are and where they are not. The signage and communication are incredibly poor, both before and after the journey to the airport. I hope the Minister will consider those points and ensure that if drop-off charges are to continue, they work for local residents and the surrounding communities.

15:25

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate.

What should be a simple act of kindness—giving someone a lift to an airport, as we have all done—is increasingly being met with extortionate airport charges. This is neither fair nor reasonable, and it is why we believe the Government must now look seriously at regulating the fees. For constituents like mine in West Dorset, who live in a hugely rural area with limited public transport, where many villages do not even have a reliable local bus service, let alone a direct rail link to a major airport, it is increasingly painful. For my constituents to get to Exeter, Bristol or Bournemouth airports, let alone Heathrow or Gatwick, means driving, booking a costly taxi or, more often than not, asking a family member or neighbour to help.

If we want to drop someone off, we have to use the airport system and pay its charges. At Bristol, that now means £8.50 for 10 minutes, or £30 for an hour. Bournemouth airport promotes what it calls a passenger pick-up offer of up to 90 minutes to meet and greet friends, for the small fee of £6. For many people, that £6 will be spent on merely five minutes’ activity. For families who are already paying inflated air fares, baggage fees and taxes, it is just another hidden cost added to the journey.

The charges have risen rapidly across the country, far beyond inflation. Gatwick now charges £10 for just 10 minutes—double what it charged in 2021. What began in 2007 as a £1 security-driven charge at Birmingham airport has become a nationwide revenue stream. Airports often justify the increases by citing environmental goals or the need to encourage public transport use, but unless the charges are accompanied by serious, accessible and affordable public transport investment, they do not change behaviour; they simply extract more money from those who have no alternative.

The charges hit some groups particularly hard, including disabled passengers, people with reduced mobility, parents travelling with young children, and those from rural areas who are least able to use public transport and most dependent on car access. Although airports have duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments, statutory provisions for blue badge holders do not apply in private car parks, and many people fall through the cracks.

The Competition and Markets Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority previously concluded that there was insufficient evidence of harm in surface access charging. That assessment is now out of date. Since 2016, charges have risen sharply. Free drop-off zones have all but been removed, and on-site payment options have been closed in favour of online or phone systems that are confusing for most.

As people try to avoid the charges, police have reported increased dangerous behaviour, with cars stopping on motorway hard shoulders to pick up passengers. That is unsafe for drivers, passengers and emergency services and is a direct result of an unfair pricing system. It is also worth remembering, as has been highlighted, that these charges are not normal across Europe. Passengers at Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol, Frankfurt and Madrid do not pay to drop off loved ones. If it can be done there, it can be done here.

Airports argue that they face financial pressures, particularly from business rates, which were recalculated after the pandemic. We Liberal Democrats sympathise, and passing the bill directly to passengers through drop-off fees may be the easiest lever to pull, but it is not the fairest or most effective one. The Department for Transport has previously said that it has no plans to monitor or limit parking fees at airports, and I believe that position is no longer acceptable.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear that we want to reduce the environmental impact of flying, but it has to be done in a way that is fair and effective. We support investment in zero-carbon flights, reforming aviation taxation so that frequent flyers pay more, taxing private jets, improving rail alternatives and banning short domestic flights where fast rail options exist. What we do not support is offloading the cost of climate policies on to families, friends, disabled people and rural transport.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I rarely intervene on another spokesperson’s speech, but this raises a question: if the Liberal Democrats want these expensive policies and say that consumers should not pay, who should pay?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity to clarify my point. It is not about whether the consumer pays; it is about whether the airports are using the revenue they claim they are generating to support climate policies for that purpose, or whether it is simply another revenue stream for them. Airports and providers must use the money correctly, rather than just levying another tax on passengers.

Regulation could take several forms. There could be a cap on drop-off charges linked to inflation. There could be a requirement for a free short-stay grace period. There could be mandatory exemptions for disabled passengers and carers. There could be greater transparency on how revenues are used and whether they genuinely fund sustainable transport.

What we cannot do is to continue to allow airports to exploit their control over access to extract ever higher fees from consumers who have no meaningful choice. It is time we recognised that airport drop-off charges have become unfair, unregulated and disconnected from their original purpose. I hope the Government will act.

15:33

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I join all other contributors today in congratulating the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. We often say, “This is an important debate,” and most of the time in this Chamber we do not mean it, but on this occasion I think we do.

Through some very articulate speeches, building one upon the other, the debate has exposed two significant problems with the current state of affairs in drop-off charges at our airports: first, whether we should be charging in the first place; and secondly, if we accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) that it is okay to charge for drop-offs, whether the process of charging is itself fair. Frankly, I was taken by surprise on this point, which was raised repeatedly. At multiple airports, the charging mechanism is itself unfair, as it does not give the opportunity of point-of-service charging—a barrier at which the customer pays—but instead requires customers to pay after the event by what are, at times, very complex mechanisms.

I was a barrister a very long time ago. There is a health warning on my legal advice, but this matter was first settled in 1877 by Mellish LJ—I do not have this at the back of my memory; I looked it up—in Parker v. South Eastern Railway Company. When parking somewhere, the terms and conditions are typically on a board. A provider seeking to rely on those contractual terms has to take reasonably sufficient steps to draw them to the consumer’s attention for the contract to be established, and it must be at or before the point at which the contract becomes established.

The reason why that triggered my memory is because, in my day, I learned about a very famous judge—Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls—who developed the argument in Spurling v. Bradshaw in 1956. He said that the principle covers typical, expected terms and conditions, but if there are particularly onerous conditions as part of the standard terms, the level of notice has to increase to a commensurate degree.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s considered thoughts on this issue. I wonder whether a requirement not to pay now, but to pay later and by a circuitous route, would constitute an onerous term when dealing with a consumer, as these contracts almost always are. If that is the case, has a contract been established at all with any of the people dropping off at these airports? I cannot give legal advice, and I am very out of date anyway, but consumer rights groups should explore this issue with a test case—a group action would run to many millions of pounds if it were proved successful. That is the point about whether charging is fair.

[Jim McMahon]

Throughout the whole conversation, the thing that keeps coming to mind is: why would the airports not want to provide a payment option to pay there and then at drop-off, if not for the fact that they would raise less revenue because they would not be able to charge a penalty if people miss the 24-hour window?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the kind of evidence that a judge would assess to establish whether sufficient notice had been given and how onerous a term is.

The second part is about whether the travelling public accept that this is a reasonable charge and has become the norm, as the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton asserts. An awful lot of people do not feel that it is fair in principle to charge for this service, because no real service is being supplied. People are occupying a bit of tarmac for one or two minutes. It used to be free, so the feeling of value is limited at best.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about a hidden charge, and he was absolutely right. As passengers, we are incredibly price-conscious when it comes to buying our flights. We will wear only one pair of socks for the entire holiday in order not to pay for baggage. We then get lumped with paying a tenner for being dropped off, and it is a hidden cost—it is not in the headline price of the flight.

I totally understand the reaction of many that this is unfair, and that the market is not working. The communal reaction is that we must regulate. Perhaps we should, but before we do so we need to understand why airports are raising these charges. I am sorry to say that in many cases it is because this Labour Government are forcing them to do exactly that.

If Government policy increases costs for airports, the airports, as rational commercial organisations, will seek to recover those costs from their consumers, because there is no one else—ultimately, the consumer always pays. This Government have increased employer national insurance contributions, levying more than £900 in additional tax for every single employee on the books. They have raised business rates enormously and have increased environmental targets, which also have significant cash consequences. All of it comes for the consumer.

I will not deal with national insurance contributions because we all know how impactful that change has been, not just to pubs but right across the private sector.

[Danny Beales]

I am just a bit confused. The hon. Member suggests that drop-off charges are the responsibility of this Government. At Heathrow, the charge is £7, but it was £6 during the 14 years of the last Government, so proportionally—following his argument—90%, or whatever the maths says it is, of the cost came from the last Government and only 10% from this Government. I do not exactly follow the logic of his argument.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The logic is not exact, but if you increase costs, you cannot be surprised if prices go up. Essentially, that is the point I am making.

On business rates, Gatwick has had the worst increase. According to the Financial Times, its business rates have increased from £40 million a year to £90 million a year, so the Government have increased Gatwick’s costs by £50 million every single year. Where do they think that money will come from? It will come from the consumer via drop-off charges, other additional charges or increases in the landing rates applied to airlines—such increases would go on to the consumer through increased air fares. It is therefore financially illiterate for the Government to very substantially raise the cost of doing business—particularly for airports, with their increased business rates—and then complain when these companies raise their charges.

There are additional costs on airports, which I will briefly talk about, because of environmental and net zero targets and requirements. Many airports have directly cited those costs to explain why they are raising charges. Many of them, including Bristol, Heathrow and Gatwick, have said that they are trying to raise drop-off charges to force passengers to use alternative modes of mass transport. That would be fine and well if additional public transport were available for those people being disincentivised from using their car.

However, I do not agree that we should penalise passengers by using the stick of increased charges to force them to use a less convenient mode of transport to get to the airport. Instead, we should lure passengers to airports by providing a method of public transport that is even more convenient than using the car. That is where the Government have gone wrong, because they have incentivised airports to use the stick of payments or costs to beat their own customers without providing an attractive alternative to car use.

I fear that I am running short of time—I see that I have one minute left—so I will not do the peroration where I say, “Aren’t the Conservatives wonderful? We are re-evaluating our environmental policies to get rid of the target of net zero by 2050, which is driving the transition at such a pace that it is increasing costs unrealistically, and we should be focusing on the consumer rather than on interest groups.” However, I hope that in the time available to him the Minister will show that he takes seriously what is genuinely an important issue that affects many millions of people around the country. It is an unfairness in plain sight. This is his opportunity to assure all our constituents that they have been listened to and that the Government are taking this issue seriously.

15:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate. As she so clearly and eloquently expressed, this issue affects many of her constituents, and indeed many airport users across the country, as other hon. Members have outlined. I commend her commitment to advocating for those impacted by what can sometimes be unfair and disproportionate airport drop-off charges, and I will engage closely with the points that she and hon. Members of all parties have raised.

Turning to the specifics of her speech, my hon. Friend clearly set out how airports are nodes of economic productivity. They are essential to UK growth, but they are underpinned by the lived experiences of people in the communities we serve as Members of Parliament. She spoke powerfully about the impact on people with disabilities, young families and those who need to be dropped off in the middle of the night, including on their ability to use airports, if parking charges are not set in a way that is fair and proportionate. I thank her for doing so.

My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and others subsequently spoke about the underpinning principle of fairness being required within the system. Whether through apps or websites, the rules must be clear and transparent, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), also spoke about. The rules must also be easy to navigate, regardless of when someone drops off a passenger or when they come to pay the charge.

I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). His point about the fairness of penalty charges for non-payment was well made. It is incredibly important that there be transparency about that aspect of the charging system, and airports must express it clearly to their consumers. That point was buttressed by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme, who used the specific example of a failure to pay a fee for staying an extra minute ending up in a £60 fine. That goes to the heart of the fact that there are people who serve the economies connected to our airports—particularly taxi drivers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) mentioned. It is really important that we make sure that those people are at the heart of designs for parking systems at our airports.

Important points were also raised about airport signage being clear, and I will take those away. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) made valuable points about rural connectivity and access to airports. My hon. Friend noted that a dial-a-ride service can work very well in certain instances, but consumers cannot always trust a bus to show up when they need it to so that they can get to the airport on time, often at night. I understand the concern. We need to make sure that surface access across our airports, whether for people who live in rural or urban communities, is improved. That is a key priority for me as Aviation Minister.

[Lee Pitcher]

Does the Minister agree that there is an opportunity for franchising in certain areas? I am working with South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority at the moment, to put in place a Doncaster East super loop that includes the airport and improves services, so that our residents can get to the airport safely and quickly.

[Keir Mather]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is a virtuous circle of economic prosperity to be created through multimodal access to airports. Rail provides an incredibly important piece of that puzzle and it is hoped that increased powers in the Railways Bill, including more control of the provision of passenger services, will allow us to cluster economic focus to the areas that need it most.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) raised issues to do with East Midlands airport. Although the airport uses a proportion of its car parking revenue to fund public transport, cycling and walking access options, including its local electric bus service, that does not negate his important point about fairness. He mentioned the penalty fee being incurred by midnight of the next day if someone fails to pay their fee on time. His point about transparency and consumers being able to know when that fee is approaching is incredibly important.

My hon. Friend also raised an incredibly important point about accessibility. For older residents or people who do not have the same digital literacy as others, navigating smartphone apps and websites to pay that charge can be very onerous indeed. I will certainly be taking that point away.

[Jim McMahon]

Part of the issue is that there is a starting principle that does not accept that taking a car to an airport is legitimate on the grounds that people should cycle or take the train, the tram or the bus. If that alternative is available, fine, but for most people the ability to see off loved ones safely and say goodbye is a very important part of the experience.

[Keir Mather]

That point is incredibly well made. Too often, when we discuss aviation policy in this place, we fail to recognise that the people who use our airports may well be making emotional journeys with their loved ones and dropping people off to travel around the world and explore new opportunities. They deserve to know that they can do so in a context where the airport is providing them with a good quality service.

I also want to reflect briefly on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden about our airports being a gateway to the United Kingdom. That is an incredibly important and useful lens through which we can view some of these policy considerations.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), pointed out that travel to Bristol airport is a real challenge from his Dorset constituency. I visited Bristol airport a couple of weeks ago, and I got to see the fantastic local bus service that they are pioneering there. He raised a very good point, building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton: if someone has to go a longer distance they will be taking a car and will therefore need to access that drop-off zone. We need to think realistically about the impact on the constituents he represents.

The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, raised the principle of fairness that lies behind the mechanism for payments of charges and how, in an opaque system where the rules are not clear, that can cause difficulty for people paying. Where is the fairness in that system? The point is well made. I will leave to him the legalistic determinations about how it relates to certain principles of contract law, but I am happy to explore the issue further with him.

My hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for West Dorset made important points about accessibility. The CAA enforces the rules on accessibility at airport car parks, including through the Equality Act 2010. Passengers with a disability or reduced mobility are legally entitled to special assistance free of charge when they fly from UK airports. Many airports, including Manchester, offer exemptions from fees for blue badge holders. That is not to say that there is not still enormous work to do to make the system fairer and more transparent. I am always happy for hon. Members across the House to write to me with specific instances of where they feel the framework is not serving the needs of passengers with disabilities. I will happily look into that for them.

Finally, the hon. Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for West Dorset and for Broadland and Fakenham raised taxation. In the autumn Budget, His Majesty’s Treasury announced a redesigned transitional relief scheme worth £1.3 billion in support to airports over 2026-27 and 2028-29. That caps airport bill increases at just over double by 2028-29, compared with the larger increases that there would have been without support. The Labour party’s view is that airports do not exist completely separately from the public services on which their workers depend. People need to travel to airports on the strategic road network, and workers at airports need to be able to access the NHS. It is incredibly important that airports should play their part in contributing to the public finances, but we want to ensure that is done proportionately. I am always happy to have conversations about that with hon. Members.

[Jim McMahon]

Gatwick was given as an example, but it is worth bearing in mind that it paid out £600 million in shareholder dividends.

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

In the time remaining, I want to turn to the actual operating model of these parking charges. Most UK airports are privately operated and have the commercial freedom to set their own fees for the services they provide, but the Government expect fees to be set in a way that is both fair and proportionate. Well-designed parking facilities help to manage traffic flows and improve accessibility and local air quality. At the same time, airports must encourage passengers to use public transport options where possible.

Although all that is being considered, I am sure that some hon. Members in the Chamber will be disappointed to hear that the Government do not believe that it is their role to dictate parking prices from Whitehall. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure; the Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability.

We support the continued success of our world-leading aviation sector, but we must do so in a way that delivers a green, more sustainable future. Airports should use their surface access strategies to set clear targets for sustainable travel and offer positive and practical incentives so that people do not drive to airports, but instead to use public transportation. When airports develop those strategies, they must clearly set out their approaches to parking and drop-off charges, and they must use their airport transport forums to plan future transport options in consultation with local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip made that point powerfully.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden said, many airports, including Manchester, offer a range of parking options, including free drop-off zones for passengers and public transport, but it is important that everyone who needs to can access our airports. Some parking options and public transport alternatives may not always work for passengers with accessibility needs. Although airports such as Manchester offer exemptions for blue badge holders, I want to push that further.

More than anything, today’s debate has highlighted the importance of fairness and transparency. It is essential that passengers can easily find information about parking and drop-off options so that they can plan their journeys and make the right, informed choice. We expect airport parking and drop-off charges to be clear and accessible, both online and at the airport itself. Airports must also make it easy for their customers to pay the relevant fee in a timely manner before proceeding to issue penalty charges for failure to do so. I was disappointed to hear Members across the House give examples of where that has not been the case for their constituents. I undertake to remind airports, including Manchester airport, of their obligations.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made the very good point that the notice of the charge was situated beyond the point at which someone could reverse out. Will the Minister undertake to remind Manchester airport that any notice of a charge has to be at a place where people can decide not to accept the charge?

[Keir Mather]

It should be incumbent on all airports, including Manchester airport, to provide transparency, clarity and ease of access to information about parking charges, so I will happily raise that when I next meet Manchester airport representatives. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden needs no support in being a champion for her constituents in this space.

Importantly, airport users are protected by consumer law. Most airports have contracts with private parking operators, which must belong to a trade association and follow the sector’s new code of practice and appeals procedure. If drivers feel that signage is inadequate or that they have been treated unfairly, they can appeal through those services.

More widely, we recognise concerns about poor practices among some private parking operators. That is why the Government have consulted on proposals to raise standards, in preparation for a new code of practice and compliance framework. Responses are now being analysed, and we will publish our response in due course. I am cognisant of the pressure that this creates on local communities, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned. He also mentioned ghost plates, which we are taking real action to tackle through the road safety strategy.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden on securing the debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. The debate has shone a light on drop-off and parking charges at airports, and reinforced the Government’s expectation that airports manage the arrangements with fairness and respect. We will continue to work to ensure that they do so, and I encourage Members across the House to join us in those efforts.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Yasmin Qureshi, you have two minutes to wind up.

15:56

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the debate, and I thank the Minister for his response. He will be reassured to know that I was not expecting the Government to dictate car parking charges at airports. What I wanted was an assurance, which I think he has given, that he will work with the airports and explain to them the challenges we face. I want them to come forward with a better way of dealing with people who come to the airport, and with the drop-off charges, the signage, the payments and all the issues that we have discussed. I thank all my colleagues again for attending and taking part in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges.

Arctic and High North

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

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

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Arctic and High North on UK security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am delighted to introduce this debate and emphasise the importance, as we have seen in the past week, of the Arctic and the High North to UK security.

The UK’s geographic position, distance from fighting in Ukraine, and Russian airborne or drone incursions in Estonia or Poland can lead to people feeling that the threat from Vladimir Putin is someone else’s problem. However, we sit at the gateway to one of the most vital pieces of real estate on the planet: the High North and the Arctic. That gives us outsized importance, but also puts us at potential threat. The Harvard Arctic Initiative’s new report on power shifts and security in the region highlights how the rules-based order is being challenged in the Arctic, just as it is elsewhere around the world. Melting ice is opening new shipping routes and unlocking potentially vast reserves of oil, gas and minerals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is right to bring up the issue of melting ice: whether it be climate change or simply that the ice is melting, it is a key issue that cannot be ignored. The melting ice makes us more accessible, but we have forewarning, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Does he agree that it is past time that we, as NATO members, took the Chinese and Russian threat in this area much more seriously, and that we must immediately enhance cold water capabilities and ensure that our strength and ability is equal to any threat that may emerge from any country?

[Graeme Downie]

I totally agree. I will cover those points about the challenges that we face in the Arctic from both those powers.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech; I thank him for securing today’s debate. A recent article in The Guardian highlighted how UK-based companies continue, shamefully, to be part of the supply chain for Europe’s imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia. While I am pleased that the UK has committed this year to transitioning towards a ban on the provision of maritime services for vessels carrying Russian LNG, does he agree that the UK should work with its European allies to phase out dependency on Russian LNG entirely and to identify where we continue to have high dependency on an adversarial and unreliable Arctic in the High North?

[Graeme Downie]

I absolutely agree that we must do more on all those points. Russia seeks to dominate the Arctic routes militarily and economically, while China positions itself as a near-Arctic state investing in infrastructure and shipping lanes to secure influence over future trade corridors. We must understand our geography and prepare ourselves to reflect our position as a frontline country in a new, unstable and increasingly violent world.

We must help the British public to understand that what Vladimir Putin chooses to do anywhere will harm their lives on a daily basis. When he illegally and brutally invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was our most vulnerable constituents who paid the price through increased energy bills. Any action he takes in future will hurt the same people the most, and it is the first duty of Government to protect them.

The subsea cables and energy assets in the North sea are not abstract; they are national lifelines underpinning energy supply, jobs and our digital economy. Disruption to those systems would have immediate consequences for households and businesses across the UK. I have asked written questions of both the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about steps to defend physical energy and infrastructure assets. As a senior member of the energy industry put it to me, “If a Russian submarine appears next to one of our installations, who do I call?”

We know that Russia understands the importance of the High North and Arctic because we are seeing a new and unprecedented military build-up. There have been reports of new air bases in Murmansk, increased deployment of air defence systems and a new fleet of ice-capable vessels for Arctic power projection. Vladimir Putin is not retreating; he is acting deliberately to rebuild what he sees as a large Russian empire.

During a recent visit to Estonia, I heard that Russian land and maritime forces, cyber-capabilities and other hybrid tactics threaten the Baltic nations. Estonians were also clear that peace in Ukraine, while of course welcome and something that we should all be working towards, would not end the threat to Europe. Putin will not exist as a quiet European neighbour. As he sees it, he must maintain Russia’s prestige by joining the global competition alongside the US and China. He will not allow Russia to be seen as a secondary power. He will redeploy and reinforce in what he sees as his sphere of influence.

As the upgrades that I mentioned made clear, one of Putin’s priorities will be in the UK’s own backyard of the High North. The peace that we all want to see in Ukraine would not reduce the threat to the UK; it could increase it, and we must be prepared for that. That brings me to the action in the north Atlantic last week to seize the Russian-flagged tanker, Marinera. I fully support that, and hope that we see additional action in the future over the Russian shadow fleet. That demonstrated the effective co-operation between the US and the UK and the increased capability that we can bring to bear. However, it also comes with warnings. First, the UK must show that it can defend its interests in the area alone as well as with our allies.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

My hon. Friend continues to make an excellent speech. The Trump Administration have shifted both words and power to highlight the challenge in the Arctic and the High North from Russia and China. However, the United States drew down its peripatetic air force deployments across the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap over recent years.

Europe and the UK have not covered the GIUK gap with fixed deployments, despite its proximity to our borders. As my hon. Friend made clear, that is something that we must do independently to protect Europe from Russia and maintain our open sea lines of communications. Given the UK’s nuclear submarine enterprise and our leadership role in the joint expeditionary force, does he agree that the UK and Europe must take the lead in protecting and securing the Greenland and Iceland gap?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. Those are two points I will come on to, as to why the UK must act independently but also with our European allies in the High North and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in particular.

We must always remember that Putin will respond to actions, not words, and we cannot afford to sleepwalk unprepared into a geopolitical High North and Arctic. Secondly, as with any bully, Putin will feel the need to retaliate after the actions last week, but it might not be against the big kid of the USA; he could act against the UK. That is not something that should make us scared, but it should highlight that we must be ready for a response from Russia in one domain or another and make sure that we are able to respond and defend ourselves effectively.

I commend Ministers for initiatives to strengthen our armed forces, including raising the service pay, bringing housing back under public control and strengthening industrial partnerships across the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned, we have also increased investment in the joint expeditionary force working with High North allies. In both visits to Estonia and the US, that was mentioned as something that the UK should continue to do to implement effective security measures as actions, not merely words.

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

The hon. Gentleman talks about our High North allies. I have just been next door with Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s Minister responsible for energy and mineral resources. Given that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Denmark is a founding member of NATO, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the security of Greenland is a matter for all of NATO and not a matter for unilateral action from the United States?

[Graeme Downie]

I could not agree more. The UK’s position should be very clear: Greenland’s future is to be determined by people in Greenland and absolutely no one else.

Initiatives in the UK must be matched with urgency and sustained funding. We must see a clear path to the 3.5%, plus the 1.5%, of defence spending agreed at the NATO summit in The Hague. We need a defence investment plan as quickly as possible, and one that commits the UK to force development that will truly give Vladimir Putin a moment of pause. Failure to do both those things will leave the UK and our people at risk.

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

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could encourage the Prime Minister, or indeed the Minister, to move forward more quickly in committing to increasing expenditure on our defence forces.

[Graeme Downie]

I believe that that is what I did—or I certainly hope that is what I did. I would certainly like to see things move much faster, and in a way that is much clearer about the UK’s defence posture and intentions.

However, to justify that action, the British people need to understand the threat that we face, and that must start from the very top of Government and carry on continually. More effective defence spending is, in some ways, the ultimate in preventive spending. The cost of not being prepared will lead to increased instability and hybrid attacks on the UK, or encourage future Russian aggression in Europe, all of which will increase the day-to-day costs of Government and the bills of ordinary people. It could also lead to an armed conflict with Russia that would be truly devastating for our country and the world. Acting with strength now is the only way to prevent those awful consequences.

With the increased threat to the High North, the Arctic and the North sea, I also ask the Government to consider the increased use of assets on the east coast of the country, such as Rosyth or Defence Munitions Crombie in my constituency. That would improve response times and resupply capability and deterrence posture, and such a move would demonstrate that the UK is serious about defending its northern approaches and critical infrastructure.

We should value our relations with the US, but Europe must also show that it is able to respond alone, or with only limited US support. In a piece last week, titled “Greenland is Europe’s strategic blind spot—and its responsibility”, Justina Budginaite-Froehly of the Atlantic Council said that Europe must have a

“presence capable of monitoring the GIUK gap”—

my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead referred to that earlier—

“and denying Russia and China the ability to encroach further on the Arctic region.”

Action is already being taken by both Norway and Denmark, while across Europe Poland is laying mines and digging trenches in preparation for a Russian invasion; Germany has recently confirmed £50 billion of spending on new conventional military equipment; and we have had instances of Russian aircraft encroaching on NATO airspace in Estonia, with Estonia triggering article 4 consultation from NATO as a result.

The UK must match the urgency of our European allies. I come back to the point I made at the very beginning: we are not a country distant from conflict. Just like Estonia or Poland, the UK is a frontline nation—that frontline is in the High North and the Arctic.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate, and I commend him on his speech. He has listed a large number of instances across Europe of hybrid warfare and, in many cases, physical attacks by Russia. In the UK, we have also seen Russian-sponsored attacks on Ukrainian drone suppliers. On his broader point, the British public need to be aware that that war is already on our borders.

[Graeme Downie]

Once again, I could not agree more. Going back to the poisonings in Salisbury, the UK public need to be very aware that Vladimir Putin is now a threat to our shores—he has been in the past, and he will be in the future. It will be the most vulnerable people in the UK who will pay the price of that aggression, which is why we must ensure that we respond with force and clear action, not merely words.

Vladimir Putin’s regime is undoubtedly a criminal enterprise masquerading as a Government, and its aggression must be met with strength. Putin’s ambition is clear: to dominate and rebuild Russian influence across his perceived empire, and he reacts to action, not mere talk. Delay is not defence. We cannot wait for threats to emerge before we act. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the UK Government are doing to meet those threats today.

16:13

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

It is a delight to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this debate and for all his work as chair of the Labour back-bench defence committee. In an article published last week, he stressed the critical importance, in these volatile times, of strengthening the UK’s armed forces, preparing for the possibility of war and showing that although we do not want conflict, we are ready to fight to defend our freedoms and indeed our prosperity. He is absolutely correct and is speaking about an area with which he is all too familiar.

Geography really matters. Some members of the SNP may not be interested in defence, but, given Scotland’s geographical position, our adversaries are interested in Scotland because of what it offers to the UK, Europe and NATO defence.

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

Given that one of the UK’s core NATO responsibilities is securing freedom of operation in the GIUK gap, can the Minister reflect on what an SNP-led independent Scotland would mean for that task? At a time when hostile states exploit political fragmentation, does he agree that a party that opposes the nuclear deterrent, has turned away defence-related industrial investment in the Clyde and has even restricted medical aid to Ukrainian soldiers by classifying it as military support would weaken rather than strengthen our collective resilience in the High North?

[Al Carns]

The reality is that this is not about politics. This is about sincerity around our national security decisions. An independent Scotland would weaken not just the security of the UK—of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—but the whole European security architecture and NATO as a whole. At this point in time, a worse decision could not possibly even be fathomed.

Some comments were made earlier about whether we have a frontline with Russia. The reality is that we do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned, it sits in the north Atlantic. When it comes to being scared of Russia, last time I checked the military dictionary, that word definitely did not exist. If someone from industry sees a Russian frigate or submarine near the CNI, I can guarantee that there will be a Royal Navy, NATO or European submarine or frigate very close by.

Although much of the current attention is focused on Ukraine, being ready to fight means being alert to every danger. We must continue working ever more closely with our allies to address emerging threats wherever they may arise. Today’s debate is a welcome opportunity to discuss a part of the world that is becoming increasingly contested by the major powers.

Having been largely inaccessible to navies in the past, the High North and Arctic are changing at an unprecedented and accelerating rate. Global warming is transforming the Arctic from frozen expanses to a 21st-century geopolitical hotspot. As melting ice opens up new sea routes, the established security balance across the top of the world will be fundamentally reshaped forever. Routes between the Atlantic and Pacific will become increasingly navigable for more of the year, bringing the continents of Asia, Europe and North America closer than ever before.

Competition to exploit the region’s valuable natural resources is growing, too. China is extending its activity in the Arctic, having recently sent more icebreakers and research vessels to probe its expanses and declaring itself a near-Arctic state. We are under no illusion about how the changing Arctic environment poses new challenges, both commercially and militarily.

Russia remains the most acute danger to the security of the northern near Atlantic, and its operations within a more navigable Arctic are an increasing part of that threat. It is sobering to realise that Vladimir Putin controls more than half of the entire Arctic’s coastline. The increased militarisation of Russia’s Arctic territory, including investment in bases and air and coastal defence capabilities, is of increasing concern. For example, Russia has established a new northern joint strategic command, reopening cold war-era bases above the Arctic circle, including a fully operational base on Franz Josef island and another on Kotelny island.

In the north Atlantic, Russian submarine activity is nearing the highest levels since the cold war. Changes in the region directly impact us and our security here in the UK, as one of the Arctic’s nearest neighbours—whether it is from increasing threats or damage to subsea electricity or telecommunication cables in the Baltic sea or from the increase in Russian activity in the key Greenland-Iceland-UK gap involving surface and sub-surface vessels and aircraft.

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

As climate change opens new routes and access to resources, and as we are one of the Arctic’s closest neighbours, how are the Government working with allies to strengthen our collective security in the region in the face of climate change to ensure that the UK is able to protect our long-term interests alongside other partners from non-Arctic states?

[Al Carns]

As my hon. Friend will know, we have various multilateral treaties, including working with the JEF and NATO to ensure that any implications from global warming are carefully considered and that security recommendations are put in place to deal with them should they arise.

NATO has made it clear that defence of the High North is a key strategic imperative. The addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance has significantly strengthened NATO’s hand in the region. Indeed, Nordic countries have spent decades managing Moscow’s interests in the High North, and they bring valuable experience to help counter the threat that Putin’s forces present today. As part of the UK-led joint expeditionary force, we are working alongside them to enhance collective security across Northern Europe.

We have assets across all three main services and interoperability with our allies that can project force deep into the High North. For example, a recent agreement between Britain and Norway will see our commando forces, led by the Royal Marines, operating in Norway all year round to defend NATO’s northern flank. They will take part in Exercise Cold Response, the largest military exercise in Norway this year, with a 40% increase in Royal Marine activity. I know the exercise well: in 2022, I took part in it as the chief of staff of the UK strike force, operating a multinational fleet, dozens of ships, aircraft and thousands of forces across the Arctic. I spent time during my 24 years—many of it unhappy, in a snowhole—in the Arctic as part of the Royal Marines, as a mountain leader.

We train hard for those operations in the Arctic. We have some of the best troops in the world, and we work exceptionally hard with Norway and Sweden and with Finnish forces. What is more, we have established the littoral maritime response force, with dedicated personnel, ships and helicopters operating in the High North. We have bought new generation anti-submarine frigates, have just completed a huge deal with the Norwegians to ensure interoperability across the Type 26 fleet, and have launched the groundbreaking Atlantic Bastion programme to protect the UK from Russian undersea threats. It is all part of widespread and regular operations involving our armed forces to maintain operational readiness across northern Europe.

The MOD keeps Russia’s military posture in the region under continuous review and conducts wider strategic monitoring with our allies. Of course, we recognise that Russia is an Arctic state with a legitimate presence, but we have to be clear that we will protect, and if necessary assert, our rights to safeguard security and international law. That includes honouring the integrity—

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I too was at the meeting of the APPG for Greenland, in a room nearby where we heard from Greenland’s Minister for business, mineral resources, energy, justice and gender equality. In addition to my hon. Friend’s important points about the military strength and prowess of this country and others, and about our alliances, does he agree that we need to send a very strong message about international law and the international rules-based system? That would give reassurance to the High North and Arctic countries, particularly Greenland, at this moment.

[Al Carns]

I completely agree. I think our Prime Minister has done exactly that, but the only people to decide the future of Greenland are those in Greenland, and NATO as a whole provides a collective security agreement for Greenland and other countries in the High North.

We cannot be naive about the challenges that we face. For example, the threat of damage to subsea electricity and telecommunications cables is an ongoing concern and underlines the importance of really close collaboration and interoperability with our European partners. Very simply, there can be no global security without security across the Arctic and northern Europe.

Let me move on to the points about Greenland. The past few weeks have seen an increasing focus on Greenland in the context of Arctic security, but the UK has been absolutely and utterly clear: the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes, and no one else. Greenland, Denmark and the United States have worked closely since the second world war to ensure that this key territory is protected from various aggressors. That will always continue. Security in the Arctic must therefore be achieved collectively with NATO allies, including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN charter—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order.

16:23

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:48

On resuming—

[Al Carns]

Security in the Arctic must be achieved collectively, with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN charter on sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. These are universal principles and we will always defend them.

It is worth noting that we completed Exercise Tarassis, one of the biggest exercises in the High North, late last year. The next set of exercises in the High North is known as Lion Protector. We have a JEF chiefs of defence meeting coming up at the end of this week. Cold Response will take place, and is already under way, with a 40% increase in the Royal Marines deployed in the High North. They will be there all year round.

The RAF continues to patrol in the High North with various types of aircraft. Some bilateral outstanding agreements, such as the Lunna House agreement, have established interoperability like never before across our naval forces, particularly with Norway.

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

Prior to our brief interruption, the Minister described a part of the world that is undergoing considerable change and turbulence, not least from climate change. Will he reflect on how UK procurement and military doctrine might have to go to a similar scale and rapidity of change in order to respond to, and reflect, the challenges of an increasingly liquified Arctic that is no longer in a frozen state?

[Al Carns]

For a long time during the cold war, a large proportion of our time was predisposed to looking to the high north-east and north-west in the Atlantic and the High North. It is a case of relearning some of our old lessons, and ensuring that our capability and technological mix is adapted into our doctrine, training tactics and procedures. For example, some of the work now going on in Exercise Cold Response is not necessarily about training; it is about actual mission set planning to prepare for the worst-case scenario, and that is how we are seeing it evolve through time. That will continue through the Lunna House agreement and various agreements we have with Sweden and Finland as part of the NATO alliance, so it will continue to get stronger. Importantly, we will never forget the JEF either, which is a super-important geopolitical alliance.

Politically and environmentally, the Arctic is in absolute flux. Rising temperatures are remoulding landscapes and turning centuries of certainty on their head. As the region grows increasingly contested, it is more important than ever for Britain to collaborate with like-minded states to uphold international law and strengthen our collective security. That is precisely what we are doing. We are working intensely with our partners to monitor threats, bolster our forces and stand up for our interests. As we boost defence spending to 5% of GDP over the next decade, protecting the stability and security of the High North and Arctic will be integral to our plans. That is how we will keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

Question put and agreed to.

16:52

Sitting suspended.

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

16:55

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of reforming Northern Ireland’s political institutions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Vaz. I was talking briefly to colleagues on the way over here and I said, “This time a year ago, almost, we had the exact same debate.” That was a 30-minute debate on the reform of the institutions of Northern Ireland, and I was absolutely petrified of causing any controversy, so I did not take any interventions. This will be a 60-minute debate and I would much rather we have a conversation—rows, warts, fights and all, in good faith and in good spirit—and try to come together. I am really pleased to see colleagues in the Chamber from across the House; that really means something to me.

My motivation for this debate is not based on party politics. I feel that the people of Northern Ireland are looking at us, and they are calling for something better. I am not questioning the bona fides of any representative. I think that every single one of us is here to represent our constituents across Northern Ireland in good faith, and every single one of us does that as best we can. However, where I feel we run into difficulties is that we have a system of government that enables or permits—whatever we want to call it—collapse, and that becomes a difficulty. I do not need to rehearse the reasons why. My colleagues from Northern Ireland understand fully how we arrived at this situation and the system that it is based on.

Governing under the constant threat of collapse discourages long-term decision making; it entrenches short-term decision making and paralyses reform. Probably one of the best examples that we can give of that is that we are currently attempting to set a three-year budget for Northern Ireland, for the first time in at least 10 years, and it is extremely difficult to do so. Unfortunately, with the historical muscle memory of what has happened with our governance before, there is a real risk—and a concern and a worry among the public—that we simply cannot have difficult and challenging conversations that really challenge party positions in such a way that there is no fear of collapse.

I do not need to tell colleagues around the table today the price of collapse and constant interruption of government. Such a situation would not be acceptable anywhere else in the UK. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and we should be treated as such. It would not be acceptable in a mayoralty anywhere in the north of England. Likewise, in the Republic of Ireland, this situation simply would not be tolerated, either after an election or during the course of a Government, where, to be fair, there is a real comparator, in that they have to form coalition Governments.

We are not exceptional and we are not unique in being asked to govern with people who have completely different views from ours. Many, many Governments around the world do that. I think that nearly 30 years after the Good Friday agreement being signed, the public at large—we all serve at their pleasure—are simply saying that enough is enough. The evidence is now overwhelming. I used to say to people 10 or 15 years ago that reform was a niche Alliance party talking point. I do not think we really reserve that luxury any more. I am not picking on any colleagues, but there are colleagues here from the SDLP and from other political parties who really have gone some way to advancing those arguments about reform of our institutions, and have expounded on those points very well.

We are not the only ones making this point. People within Unionism are saying the same thing. When it comes to people living in Northern Ireland, right across nationalism, Unionism and people like me who are neither of those things, there is now a real groundswell of opinion. We have seen constant evidence in polling from various surveys that shows people in Northern Ireland simply do not want to have this system any more.

I do not feel that I am better than anybody else because I do not designate as Unionist or nationalist—part of me is Unionist and part of me is nationalist, but all of me is united community. I feel strongly about that point. We need to bear in mind going forward that the desire for reform is not the preserve of any one political tradition or viewpoint in Northern Ireland, or the solution offered by them. It is felt right across the political spectrum.

The Assembly has now spoken. Just before Christmas, for the first time, it formally backed Alliance’s call for institutional reform. It is not symbolic; it is a historic milestone, and Members across the Legislative Assembly acknowledge that the ability of any single party to veto decision making is untenable. Misuse of mechanisms such as the petition of concern has damaged trust and stability, and reform is now necessary, not optional.

I remember the previous collapses. In December 2019, whenever we were convening all-party talks on how to restore the institutions, there was a viewpoint that it was not the right time to have a discussion about how to reform them. I did not agree with that at the time, but with hindsight I understand why those points were made and why some held those views.

I understand that it is simply not good enough for me to say, “I want these changes done tomorrow in this prescriptive way, and that is the end of it.” That is not how we will move forward in any meaningful way, if no one gets what they want. That was what the entire Good Friday agreement was about.

To colleagues who might take the position that this pulls at the fabric of the Good Friday agreement to the point where it breaks, I would dispute that completely and utterly. It was not good enough to simply have the agreement signed to enable peace. That was very much hard-won and hard-fought and something that we need to jealously guard, but it is not enough any more to say to people that we can forgo the difficult job of governance.

I want this to be a positive and productive conversation. I am willing to hear different viewpoints and to accept that others will disagree about how we do this, but where there is consensus, we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to say that enough is enough. We need to honour them and their wishes. The reforms remain modest but are essential: removing the ability of any one party to block the formation of an Executive, replacing parallel consent with arrangements that encourage genuine cross-community participation, and restoring the petition of concern to its original purpose of protecting rights, not blocking progress. We have seen, even in recent weeks, how veto mechanisms continue to be abused. That is not safeguarding democracy; it is corroding it. These reforms would not dismantle power sharing. They would make it workable. They are the bare minimum.

To Unionist colleagues in particular, I want to make a plea, or at least make my own views known and quite plain. I completely understand why some people in the community, given the different political make-up across Northern Ireland, now see discussions about reform as being couched in some sort of ulterior motive of majoritarianism and exclusion. It would trouble me greatly, to my core, to the extent that I would not participate, if any Government or Administration simply excluded Unionists because they did not feel that there were enough of them to—in a crass way—make up the numbers.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The hon. Member very piously tells us what would offend her, but of course it did not offend her in December 2024 to be a cheerleader for the Secretary of State railroading through a protocol that treats Northern Ireland as a colony of the EU, and to continue support without cross-community consent on a basis of majoritarianism. There is quite a gaping void between what she is saying today and what her party did in December 2024.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for making his point. I see where he is coming from. I believe that Brexit was a fundamental act of self-harm. I think it caused damage to relations, and certainly I think that most people in Northern Ireland—Unionist, nationalist or other—regret Brexit. I completely understand where Unionist colleagues are coming from, because there is a difference, and it is incumbent on all of us to work to ameliorate and patch up issues that pertain to this day in terms of the operation of the protocol, but I do not want to get sidelined on that.

In conclusion, I want people to understand that this is a genuine and heartfelt appeal for constructive work. We are now calling on the UK and Irish Governments to no longer sit back and wait for that crisis and collapse. That is not the time to have these conversations at all. We are calling on the Secretary of State to immediately convene a process of institutional reform, to engage the co-guarantors of the agreement in both Governments, and to move beyond the delay and prevarication that are simply not honouring the wishes of Northern Ireland.

People who are Unionist, nationalist and other voted for a Government, and we simply cannot sit here and say that we do not see fit to provide one for them. This is not controversial. This is not new. It is not part of other polities—it is not part of anywhere else in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. I simply ask that we try to move forward today in good faith and in accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, who simply want to have a Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Please stay standing while I see who is bobbing. I hope to take the wind-ups at 5.33 pm.

17:05

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I confess that I have not been in Westminster Hall for a while; I was watching the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to see exactly when I should stand up. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing the debate, which is an important part of the conversation as the case for modest Assembly reform builds.

The Social Democratic and Labour party has been working quite intensively to find common ground and take this conversation beyond campaigning and graphics and into the realm of the possible. I welcome the indications from the Prime Minister last week, when I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions, that the UK Government are freshly open to engagement. There had been a fairly hands-off approach.

I restate the SDLP’s frustration that the Executive parties have made not a single step towards reform. In spite of election campaigning, there is nothing in the programme for government. I welcome the Assembly’s acceptance of an SDLP proposal to take some of this issue on through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, but if anybody wants to see an example of an issue being slow-walked, it is that committee’s discussion and inquiry over the past year.

As with the agreement that created the institutions, we accept that parties are approaching this issue from different places and at different paces. As with that agreement, it is also clear that we will not come to a conclusion without some sort of facilitation. I will not spend much time on the need for reform: the periodic collapses, the quagmire and stalemate on public policy, the daily draining away of public confidence, this week’s failure to agree a multi-year budget and the feedback from Baroness Hallett in the covid inquiry last week all ably make the case, as did the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

The flaws are by culture and by design. There is much recrimination about some of what is in the agreement, but hon. Members need to be reminded that we were trying to end a hot war and resolve a centuries-old conflict, which the agreement very largely did, in spite of what my colleague Mark Durkan memorably called the “ugly scaffolding”.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that much of the work that was achieved in the Belfast agreement was undermined in St Andrews in 2007, when there was a change to how the First and Deputy First Ministers were elected? Rather than being a co-post, it became a divided office.

[Claire Hanna]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Those subsequent changes, particularly at St Andrews, have distorted the institutions away from a place of consensus and towards veto, brinkmanship and power struggle. There is a lot in the agreement that the SDLP would like to revisit—not least strand 2, which has shockingly underperformed—but the immediacy and urgency of this issue means that we have to focus on where common ground can be found.

I agree with a lot of what the Alliance party has suggested but, bluntly, I do not think it is achievable. I do not think that it is possible to get there from where we are now, although we were very open to a lot of those conversations, not least on mandatory coalition and designation. As a party that is anti-sectarian, centre-left and for a new Ireland, we have never fitted neatly into any binary, but it is important to recognise both where we are as a society and where we want to get to.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

There is a real point there: people who may be in what we would term a Unionist or nationalist party may not really regard themselves as those things. That is a really positive and legitimate challenge. As the hon. Lady herself says, even her party does not fit neatly into boxes, and I certainly know Unionists, in Unionist parties, who would also feel the same. Does she think that the current set-up gives no latitude to reflect the views of people who may be Unionists or nationalists?

[Claire Hanna]

Clearly, we are a more pluralist society. I am unashamedly a new Irelander, and that is an important part of my identity. That is a factor in our politics, as is the legitimate position of Unionists, so we cannot wish it away. We cannot say, “I don’t see colour or designation,” but for so many of us it is clearly not the primary identifier. Many of the reforms can take effect even without going into what, as I said, my colleague called the “ugly scaffolding”.

The proposals we are making are keyhole surgery. They are not a lobotomy or amputation; they do not fundamentally undermine the principles of power sharing. I remind hon. Members that of course the agreement is not an ornament to sit on the mantelpiece; it is not a relic. It is a toolkit, and it envisaged change. It has been changed on the Floor of the Assembly, and it allows for that.

We want to put down some modest proposals, some of which I have advanced through the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and its excellent 2023 report on the existence of an Assembly. We propose the election of a Speaker by a two-thirds majority. Two thirds exists elsewhere in the agreement, for example in the threshold for calling an election, and I do not think anybody could say that the election of a Speaker oppresses or suppresses any community. Mike Nesbitt of the Ulster Unionist party and Patsy McGlone of the SDLP both achieved that threshold during the stalemates. That would allow an Assembly to exist, even if an Executive does not.

On Executive formation, we would call, first, to rename the joint office of the First Minister, reflecting the fact that one of those Ministers cannot order paperclips without the other, and restoring the intent and joint nature of that office. Ideally, we would then move on to the reforms that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) suggested around St Andrews.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

What does the hon. Member think of the Alliance party’s suggestion that there could be three First Ministers? Would that not make things even worse?

[Claire Hanna]

Bluntly, my view is that the agreement is trying to salve, resolve and manage a centuries-old division—a society that has been divided into two tribes. It is not my belief that creating a third tribe is the solution to that, but I understand that it is important that all parties feel that they are represented.

As I have said, on joint First Ministers, there are plenty of possibilities for further reforms. I think both the DUP and Sinn Féin have, at times, said that they would be very relaxed about the creation of an office of joint First Ministers; in fact, at different times they have used the phrase “joint First Minister”. As I say, the SDLP has been looking for consensus.

We would propose appointing the Justice Minister through the d’Hondt formula as well. It is worth saying that if we are talking about people’s votes counting equally, there have been times when the Alliance party, for example, had far fewer Members than the Ulster Unionist party or the SDLP, but was gifted an extra Ministry. Those distortions exist under the current rules. I do not believe in the principle that a Unionist or a nationalist is not fit to be the Justice Minister, and I think that Ministry should return to the d’Hondt formula.

Another modest proposal is a reform of the St Andrews veto within the Executive that allows a single party to prevent items even coming on to the Executive agenda. That could be progressed further with legislation for joined-up government, potentially something like the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 that exists elsewhere in the UK.

Meaningful reform is going to need a process, weight and urgency. If we limp along to the next election, there may not even be an Assembly that comes back after May 2027. Certainly, people’s belief in the primacy of politics and in the ability of the Good Friday agreement to solve their problems is ebbing away with every stagnant day in the Assembly. I have written to the other party leaders asking them to join me in the meeting that the Prime Minister has indicated he will have, and I hope that we can find some consensus.

17:13

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We have had a catalogue of reasons why there need to be changes to the arrangements for government in Northern Ireland. We have had collapses, difficulty in getting a three-year budget, the fallout and the use of veto powers by the parties.

The thing that strikes me is all these things have happened under different Administrations in Northern Ireland over the last 22 years. When the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists were in power, the Administration collapsed about five times—

[Claire Hanna]

Who collapsed it?

[Sammy Wilson]

Well, it was collapsed by the parties that were in power at that stage, because they had the ability to keep it running—but they did not. It collapsed again when the distribution of seats changed. It collapsed for a number of reasons, but the important thing is that those arrangements were put in place to safeguard minorities. The Alliance party and the SDLP, which are now calling for reform, were the keenest to have that consensus requirement in the Belfast agreement.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

rose—

[Claire Hanna]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way in a moment. They are now proposing that consensus be removed and—here’s the thing—that we go to majority rule, albeit with a weighted majority of 66%. That is not reform; that is retreating to something that they condemned in the first place, and that they said required the arrangements in the Belfast agreement to be put in place.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the right hon. Member confirm whether he believes that the Assembly has or should have responsibility for international affairs, which is included in the Windsor framework, and can he outline where cross-community consent for Brexit was demonstrated?

[Sammy Wilson]

I find it rather odd that the hon. Member has talked about how dysfunctional the Assembly is but wants more powers for it. Either it is dysfunctional or it is not. If it is functional and she wants more powers for it, why do we need the changes?

Let us look at the words that are used. “Reform” is one, and I have noticed that another phrase—“keyhole surgery”—has come in. Of course, these are all euphemisms for removing the very safeguards that were required when nationalists were in the minority. That is why they were put in place. Now the arithmetic in the Assembly has changed, and we find that those parties that believed there should be safeguards for minorities no longer require those safeguards and want to revert to a form of majority rule.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I am really glad that the right hon. Member is making this point, because there is a bit of an idea out there that this is about not protecting minorities. Does he not agree that the make-up of Northern Ireland is very different and that everybody is a minority, and therefore everybody—Unionists, nationalists and people like me who are neither of those things—deserves protection?

[Sammy Wilson]

If that is the case, the requirement for consensus rather than majority rule is even stronger, yet the proposed changes would remove those safeguards.

The difficulty of getting the three-year budget through has been mentioned. I served in the Assembly for a number of years; I was Finance Minister in the Assembly for a number of years. In the first year after I took over, we had an immediate 3% cut to our budget, and then we had a 2% cut year on year, under the coalition Government that existed at that time. We got a three-year budget through, despite the fact that the two biggest spending Ministers were outside with the unions protesting against any cuts.

How did we do that? Instead of thinking we could just drive it through, as the current Sinn Féin Minister is trying to do, we had hours and hours of negotiations, compromises and so on to get it through. That might be difficult, but that is no reason to remove the requirement for consensus and the safeguards for minorities. We now have a cabal in the Assembly of nationalists, republicans, the Alliance party and a bunch of individuals, who form a majority and would be able to drive things through if it came to a majority vote.

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

My right hon. Friend is rightly alluding to the issue of consensus. Does he agree that the one fundamental building block to making any progress is some form of consensual approach to how we make politics in the Assembly work? I am not talking about vetoes, but we cannot make progress unless there is agreement among the divided communities that make up Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, and we have seen how divisive some of the decisions made in the Assembly have been, whether on cultural issues or economic issues, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) pointed out. Alarm bells should ring if we are considering removing the fabric that is there to ensure proper discussion before final decisions are made.

I notice that there is not a great deal of interest in this debate from parties other than those from Northern Ireland—and selfish interest, as well. I do not care what has been said; this is selfish interest. In fact, we are now told that the Irish and British Governments should come together and try to force through the changes that the new majority cabal wish to impose on the Assembly. I think that is wrong, we will be opposing it, and there is certainly no logical, political or community reason why the changes that are being demanded should be made.

17:20

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I commend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. That is probably where the consensus largely ends, although I suppose I could agree with her—indeed, I would put it much more robustly—that our system of government at Stormont has lamentably and demonstrably failed. The Executive eventually scraped together what passes for a programme for government; they now cannot agree a budget, and we have individual Ministers locked in litigation, one with the other. Of course, all that is against the background of the Executive almost more often being down than up.

The elephant in the room, to which no one has been prepared to refer, is this question: why is this system of government not working? It is very simple. If the only form of devolution we can have is one based on the prerequisite that a party that does not even want Northern Ireland to exist, never mind succeed, must be at the heart of the Executive, it should not be a surprise to anyone that that Executive stumbles and fails. You cannot say, “We will make a success of Northern Ireland, yet we need an all-Ireland.” The very raison d’être of Sinn Féin is, first, not to believe that Northern Ireland should even exist and, secondly, to ensure that it is not a success. There is no better place from which to make sure it is not a success than from the inside of Government. That is the fundamental reality.

Day and daily in Northern Ireland, we hear very clearly from the so-called First Minister that everything they are doing and everything they are working towards is about getting a referendum to destroy the United Kingdom and take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. If we create a system where those with that motivation, who have no desire to make Northern Ireland work, must be at the heart of government, and we cannot have a Government without them, it should not be a surprise that the system fails. It is not rocket science.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Actually, I agree: I want Northern Ireland to succeed and I do want to be a success for Northern Ireland. Does the hon. and learned Member not agree that the constant collapses are destroying the premise of a successful Northern Ireland and we should do everything we can to stop that happening?

[Jim Allister]

If the hon. Member had been listening more carefully, she would have understood why it is failing. It is failing because at its heart is a party that does not want Northern Ireland to succeed and, if it has the levers of power, will never permit it to succeed. That is the fundamental point.

What do we do? It is quite clear to me that the Executive is the failing side of devolution in Northern Ireland. It is the Executive that has collapsed multiple times. We need to distinguish the various strands of devolution. We have the Executive devolution, we have legislative devolution, and I suppose we have the scrutiny side of devolution. The latter two have actually worked, within limits, relatively well. The lamentable failure is on the side of the Executive.

If the only type of Executive that can be formed has at its heart a party that wants Northern Ireland to fail, the obvious answer is not to have an Executive of that type. We should sustain the legislative devolution and the scrutiny and pass the Executive powers to the central Government, but we should make their Ministers pass their legislation through the Assembly and make their Ministers’ actions subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly. Indeed, it would be far more vigorous scrutiny than at present, because at the moment the scrutineers who sit in the Assembly Committees scrutinising Ministers are members of the same parties that they are scrutinising. If Assembly Members were scrutinising Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office, it would be a lot more vigorous, I assure you.

If we are to get government that works, we have to face the reality that the current system is incapable of working. It will never work, because of the fundamental flaw that at its heart is a party that thinks that Northern Ireland should not even exist, never mind succeed. We have to circumvent that. If we cannot have an Executive that allows those who want Northern Ireland to work to govern, Executive powers must be vested where they will not be subject to that restraint and that flaw.

We should keep the part of devolution that is working. If we ever come to the point at which we are capable of forming a workable Executive, we should restore it, but we cannot go on as we are, limping from one crisis to another. Stormont is now a byword for failure in Northern Ireland. People just roll their eyes and laugh at the very thought of good government coming from there. We are only going to take politics further down the longer we cling to a system that is lamentably and totally failing. Let us get some new thought, which needs to be focused on getting an Executive system that can work. It does not need to be perfect, but I want to be very plain: flawed British rule, subject to the restraints of Stormont, would be preferable to destructive, malevolent Sinn Féin rule.

17:27

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for the way she presented the case. It is important that we do that in a measured way.

I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for 12 years before I came to this place. Each of these institutions, whether it be the one here in Westminster or the Northern Ireland Assembly, has its complications and should be challenged. There is no doubt that we have yet to find a perfect political institution; that is a fact of life. Do I want to see some changes at Stormont? Yes, I do. Although I am not an apologist for the Northern Ireland Assembly, I want to highlight that there has been delivery. Has there been much delivery, and has it been at the pace that I want to see? No. I would have liked to see a greater pace.

I should have welcomed the Minister to his place. I wish him well in his role, and I hope that he will be able to give us some encouragement.

Nobody denies that there is much work to do to demonstrate the effectiveness of these institutions in making a positive difference to the lives of people across Northern Ireland, but to say that there has not been progress over the past 12 months is not only inaccurate but facetious. I do not want to overstate the Executive’s achievements but, just to give two examples, it is worth noting that Stormont has delivered significant investment in early years and childcare: 14,500 children now benefit from a subsidy that has slashed childcare costs for working parents. That is positive, because we can see the difference to people. My constituents have benefited from it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend is outlining some of the benefits that have flowed from devolution, flawed as it is. Without denigrating the Minister, does my hon. Friend think we would have got those things if it had been down to the Northern Ireland Office, or did devolution deliver in the absence of the NIO?

[Jim Shannon]

That is the issue; my hon. Friend puts it well. It is better to have it in the hands of local people.

[Jim Allister]

On the childcare point, the childcare money was Barnett consequential. It was of the order of £50 million, but Stormont chose to spend only £25 million of it on childcare, so in fact under devolution we saw a diminution in what was available for childcare.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not going to get into a row, but under devolution we have seen the delivery of childcare. People see that in my constituency and every constituency in Northern Ireland, whether they like it or not. I tell you what: my constituents like it, and that is the point I want to make.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to have a functioning Government in Northern Ireland, because the local growth fund and what the UK Government have done on that for Northern Ireland demonstrate that only Northern Ireland can look out for itself? We cannot expect others to keep doing it for us. That is why we need to change how we do things.

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with the principle of what the hon. Lady says; there are things that we can take advantage of through having a working Assembly. Another way we have an advantage is the £100 winter fuel payment and the medication payment provided for our elderly.

There are certainly barriers to delivery, but one of the major ones, and the most important need for reform, is the unelected death grip of Europe on Northern Ireland. That is the reform that I, and probably most Members with a Unionist point of view in this Chamber, would like to see. There is an irony in those in certain parties raising concerns about democratic wellbeing, while Members faithfully went through the Lobby to vote for the continuation of arrangements that undemocratically foisted on us hundreds of areas of law governed by a foreign jurisdiction, without any role or input from them or those that they represent, in the formalisation of the EU interference in British Northern Ireland.

Let me be very clear. The DUP is not opposed to improving how devolution works from day to day. There are changes we need to see, and discussions need to take place on how that would happen. As has been the case since 2007, we are committed to increasing efficiency, transparency and accountability within the institutions. The DUP has supported the reduction of the number of Government Departments, special advisers and Members of the Legislative Assembly per constituency, and supported the creation of an Opposition.

However, in the here and now, the focus should clearly be on delivering the bread-and-butter issues and improving the life of everyone in Northern Ireland. That is what the electorate expects, and it is what the DUP is committed to achieving. Any programme of reform or any agreement should be led by the local parties with a primary role for the AERC, and be fully accountable to the Executive and the Assembly.

I am running short of time, but let me be clear: any reform of the Northern Ireland Assembly must be a cross-party reorganisation, and must begin with the removal of EU and, I believe, Irish interference in order ever to have the buy-in of the Unionist people and the nationalist grouping. That is the immovable foundation of democracy and democratic institutions in Northern Ireland.

To move forward, we must put the quality of our constituents’ lives above achieving political gain, regardless of how people live their life. In the interim, my party and I will continue to prioritise people over point scoring. I hope that that is replicated across all parties, but I have my doubts. What is my duty? My duty is to my constituents, to my country, to my wife and to my boys—my children.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

It is possible that there may be another vote shortly, so we will start with the wind-ups.

17:33

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this important debate. I recognise that I am new to this portfolio, and those who have spoken before me know far more about it than I do, so I am still in listening mode.

I have found many of the arguments compelling, if contradictory. I invite the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) to intervene on me to explain her answer to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), if she wants to do so, because I would have liked to hear her answer. Maybe she can do so later.

I begin by reaffirming the Liberal Democrats’ full, unwavering support for the Good Friday agreement. It transformed Northern Ireland by establishing institutions robust enough to bridge the deep sectarian divisions, an achievement that endures today. The Northern Ireland of today is not the Northern Ireland of 30 years ago, but maintaining the agreement does not mean preserving those institutions in aspic—quite the opposite, in fact.

As a former sub-dean at University College London’s faculty of laws, I feel compelled to cite the warnings of its constitution unit, which in its recent work on Stormont reform highlighted how the current arrangements make institutional collapse all too possible and any recovery politically costly. The question we are therefore compelled to ask is whether strand 1 institutions are still fit for purpose in today’s Northern Ireland, and, if not, what reforms are necessary.

Time does not permit an exhaustive list of the potential merits of reform, but three stand out clearly. The first is greater stability. Allowing the formation of the Executive to proceed when a party entitled to nominate the First Minister or Deputy First Minister refuses to do so would prevent a single party from vetoing Government altogether. That principle already applies to other ministerial posts, and would strengthen, not weaken, devolution and power sharing.

The second is more effective decision making. Continued use of parallel consent and an overly lax triggering mechanism for a petition of concern has repeatedly blocked budgets, the election of a Speaker and legislation, even where there is overwhelming Assembly support. Replacing parallel consent with a weighted majority and restricting petitions of concern to their original purpose of protecting vital interests would still provide minority safeguards, absent the danger of deadlock. I would like someone to intervene on me on that point to explain why weighted majority does not give protection to minorities—because surely it does give some protection.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation we have, whereby Governments can simply go without being formed, would be anathema anywhere in the home counties, whether it is a local mayoralty or a regional district within GB? Surely to goodness that would not be tolerated in the UK—and Northern Ireland is indeed part of the UK.

[Mr Kohler]

I entirely agree. Compelling as many of the arguments are from all sides, a situation in which governance is not happening cannot be right and cannot be the solution. Surely, compromise must be reached.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman asked why weighted majorities do not give the protection that the consensus requirement gives. There are two reasons. First, it depends at what level the weighted majority is set. Secondly, if the weighted majority were seen to be used in a way that prevented changes or things getting through, we would have exactly the same arguments about the weighted majority: that it should be reduced and reduced in order to free up any logjam. That is why consensus is much more important. It recognises that there are nationalists and Unionists, and that their interests have to be safeguarded.

[Mr Kohler]

That is helpful. The current 60:40:40 system strikes me as one that does protect minorities, while the danger of the consensus is that you get tripped up by hold-outs. That is what I see happening from my perspective outside.

[Claire Hanna]

The hon. Gentleman asked me to intervene. Unfortunately, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would not take my intervention, and I am sad about that. I was seeking to clarify whether his party’s position had moved from being the quite radical one—more radical than my position or that of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood)—of ending mandatory coalition and to a 90-Member Opposition. Did the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) understand that from the speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim?

[Mr Kohler]

I do not know. I would like to hear from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I am happy for him to intervene.

Retaining the current arrangements comes at a real cost, both socially and economically. Political deadlock has hindered reforms in health and social care, while the ongoing divisions drain public finances through duplicated services, higher policing costs and lost investment. Those pressures have been compounded by Brexit. Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the EU, yet the previous Conservative Government’s approach has created persistent problems along the border, in Stormont and across the economy—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, but I have to call the Opposition spokesperson now.

17:38

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to speak for very long, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate, which has largely been conducted in a very civil manner and has aired some very interesting positions.

The position of the Conservative party is that we are very much open to supporting political parties in Northern Ireland in reforming their institutions, but we stand by the principles of the 1998 agreement, in that we think that ideally any change must come from Northern Ireland itself.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Does the hon. Member agree that the concept of Northern Ireland working is absolutely key and fundamental; that a system of government that collapses plays straight into the hands of those who are not particularly interested in a prosperous, progressive and inclusive Northern Ireland; and therefore that anybody who cares about Northern Ireland should be very interested in engaging in these conversations?

[Alex Burghart]

It is dangerous that the hon. Lady encourages me to hurry through my speech to get to the point that she has raised but, given that my speech is highly flexible, I will try.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Five minutes flexible.

[Alex Burghart]

Five minutes flexible. We very much hope that, as the institutions in Northern Ireland mature—they are coming up to 28 years old—we will have greater opportunity for a system in which collapse, which is never desirable, is not possible. In any functioning Parliament around the world, it should not be in the hands of one party to bring that process to a close.

I intend to take the remarks of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley about the home counties in the spirit in which they were uttered, but Northern Ireland, although it is as much a part of the United Kingdom as the home counties, is not the home counties. The home counties do not have the same recent political history as Northern Ireland, and the 1998 agreement was set up to reflect that. However, one of the things that binds everyone in this room together is that we genuinely all want the best for the people of Northern Ireland. We may have different ideas about how that can be done, but I think that that, as a motivating force, will ultimately enable a position in which stronger institutions are capable of delivering for people, whatever community they come from.

Several Members have raised the point that people in Northern Ireland are frustrated with their public services lagging behind those in other parts of the United Kingdom; we have health waiting lists now far longer than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and court delays. I should put on record my deep concern about the current barristers’ strike; I worry very much about what backlogs will emerge from that.

Ultimately, we must nurture a world in which there is the tough political negotiation and the ability for compromise that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) described. We can imagine him as Finance Minister, being able to have those tough conversations and get to a conclusion; that is ultimately what we all want. If there are things programmed into the current institutions that are preventing those sorts of conversations from happening now—conversations that happened years ago—we should certainly look at them.

I have not heard it before, so I was intrigued by the suggestion from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) that the Northern Ireland Office should, essentially, run things and then be interrogated by the Assembly Members in Stormont. I think the existing—and any aspirant—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be utterly terrified of that prospect, but I have no doubt that it would provide a high level of scrutiny, because it would be possible for all political parties to unite against the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Probably the most pertinent subject—raised by several Members—at the kernel of this problem is majoritarianism. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley was quite right to say that those who are non-affiliated should be considered in that argument. In recent months we have seen, in the way Belfast city is being run, the threat of majoritarianism. Sometimes, when one community has complete control over a council, it starts to do things that will deliberately antagonise another community. That style of politics is to be resisted and avoided. I hope that the combined good sense of the people in this room will ultimately lead us to a position where we have more effective political institutions in Northern Ireland, which enable the people there to get the services that they so richly deserve. I am sure it is possible. I look forward to working with everyone here over the coming years to see what possibilities exist.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. If he could leave a minute or so for the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) to wind up, that would be very helpful.

17:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing the debate. She referred to the fact that she secured a similar debate only a year ago, and it is a tribute to her consistent campaigning and relentless focus on this issue that we are back here again. I knew then, as I know now, that her ambition is for Northern Ireland to be as strong as it can be for the people of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) has just said, I have no doubt that she shares that ambition with everyone in the Chamber.

It is important to note, as the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) said, that in the nearly 30 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, it has not stood still. Thanks to the St Andrews and Hillsborough castle arrangements, the Executive have responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. The “Fresh Start” agreement provided for an official Opposition for the first time. The New Decade, New Approach agreement provided for important changes to the petition of concern.

I know that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, and everybody advocating for evolution in Northern Ireland’s institutions, recognises the importance of reaching across the aisle, just as the architects of the original agreement did. They knew the importance of building a coalition of support. That support must come from not just the parties themselves, but the public as a whole. It was the Northern Ireland public who voted so decisively for the historic agreement 30 years ago. Let us be clear: any changes must work in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, not just the parties. In my mind, I ask whether it can command the widest possible support and if it improves the lives of the people in Northern Ireland. Fundamentally, as others have said, that is what we are here for: better outcomes for the people we serve.

It is important to place the debate in its full and proper context. Although the Assembly and Executive are not perfect—I dare say some would say that about our Parliament, too—as others, including the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), noted, the Good Friday agreement remains a landmark achievement for Northern Ireland. Indeed, I said in a recent debate that it is one of the finest achievements of the previous Labour Government. We would not be stood here nearly 30 years later if it were not for that Labour Government and the Conservative Government who came before them, particularly through the work of the then Prime Minister John Major. He helped to change the approach to bring about peace, as did those in Northern Ireland—politicians and not—who came together to give peace its chance. Without everyone—and I mean everyone—we would not be here looking at nearly 30 years of peace and prosperity.

Of course, no system is perfect, and that is certainly true of the strand 1 institutions, which for almost 40% of the time have not been functioning. I know that government is hard and power sharing even more so, so I pay tribute to those Ministers who are working day in, day out to address the serious challenges of bringing down waiting lists, tackling the cost of living crisis, driving higher standards in our schools and unlocking the potential of economic growth. I am encouraged when I see the Executive coming together to deliver on the issues that matter to the people of Northern Ireland. Yes, it is imperfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. All of us know that. That is why we approach these debates with humility and determination. Any proposed changes must deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for encouragement, and I will always encourage debate among those who want Northern Ireland to succeed. I am pleased that we are having today’s debate because it is healthy for a society to consider changes and improvements that might be made—indeed, we are reforming the House of Lords—and I also know how strong and genuinely felt calls for the reform of the institutions are, particularly from Alliance and the SDLP, as we have heard today. Many among the Northern Irish public will share that view. The 2024 Northern Ireland life and times survey clearly shows support for the Good Friday agreement as a whole and for its further evolution. I agree with the 68% of people in Northern Ireland who think that the Good Friday agreement remains the best basis for governing Northern Ireland. That is a remarkable vote of confidence in an agreement that is nearly 30 years old and continues to deliver for Northern Ireland.

I acknowledge the recent Assembly motion that called on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process between the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government. The UK Government’s position is clear. The Prime Minister said last week, regarding the Northern Ireland parties, that

“we are always happy to discuss any proposals for reform that would lead to a consensus.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 259.]

However—this is evident from some aspects of today’s debate—I do not see a shared view on institutional reform among the political parties or, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland.

[Claire Hanna]

Does the Minister acknowledge that at the time of the Good Friday agreement, the parties did not arrive together at consensus, and nor did they with the likes of the St Andrews agreement, when things were distorted? Does he agree that it is unusual for all the parties to arrive at a fully formed agreement, and that a degree of facilitation is required?

[Matthew Patrick]

I agree that those parties did not come with a consensus already, and about the importance of their working together and finding consensus between them. In the vein of what I have just said, I welcome the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is considering reform of the institutions.

[Robin Swann]

I heard the Prime Minister refer to the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in the Chamber last week. Does the Minister realise that that has met only 12 times since 2024? It is not a Committee that is doing a lot of work or delivering a lot.

[Matthew Patrick]

The work of the Committee could be quite important. It could provide an opportunity for agreement on these important issues in the future, and I welcome its work. I have met the Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland and there is consensus on the need to improve public services that people rely on. I know it is a priority for them, and indeed it is for this Government.

[Jim Allister]

The Minister has talked several times about consensus. Can he therefore explain why, when given the opportunity to live by the fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement and cross-community consent, his party eschewed and dismantled that when it came to this question: should people in Northern Ireland, for the next four years, be subject to laws in 300 areas that they do not make and cannot change, and which are imposed on them by the EU treating Northern Ireland as a colony? Why did consensus not matter then?

[Matthew Patrick]

The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a point about cross-community consent in the Windsor framework. The democratic consent vote is premised on cross-community support, and if the vote does not obtain cross-community support, that will require an independent review, and it will mean that the next vote is in four years rather than eight years. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this happened in December 2024. Ultimately, I would say that it is right that such a change to trading arrangements that addresses the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland should rely on a majority in the Assembly.

I turn to public service transformation. I am immensely proud that, through the last spending review, the Government secured a £19.3 billion settlement for Northern Ireland, which is the largest settlement in the history of devolution. The funding was secured so that the Northern Ireland Executive can deliver the public services that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. If that was not enough, a further £370 million was secured through Barnett consequentials just before the new year. I believe that that funding provides the basis—the very foundation —through which the Executive can transform public services in the months ahead.

[Robin Swann]

The Minister knows that I have challenged the Secretary of State about the transformation fund that was set up when the Executive came back two years ago. Does he agree that it is lamentable that that money is still not completely spent and not completely allocated? A committee has been formed to assess the best projects, rather than actually getting on with supporting the Ministers who want to make transformation a real thing.

[Matthew Patrick]

I will briefly come to the hon. Member’s point in a moment, but I wanted to touch on some of the improvements that we are seeing. I pay tribute to the Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, and his commitment to transformation, under which we are seeing waiting lists to start to fall. My hope is that we can go further.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the transformation fund. We have reaffirmed our commitment to the £235 million fund, £129 million of which has been allocated to six projects that I believe can transform public services. The £61 million for the primary care multi-disciplinary teams will enable a crucial shift from hospital treatment to preventive care. There are other things that I wanted to mention, but in the interests of time I will skip forward.

I once again thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for securing this debate. I recognise and entirely respect the strength of feeling on this issue and the views that people in the Chamber hold. It is a conversation that rightly continues. Any reforms must command the widest possible support, and the people of Northern Ireland must be at the heart of any proposed changes.

The Good Friday agreement showed us that when people put their differences aside, and put the public interest first, we can achieve great things. I am committed to helping the Executive to realise their ambitions for a stronger Northern Ireland. As we look forward to the future and the hope of improved public services, I take a short moment to step back and reflect on how far we have come. When the agreement was reached 30 years ago, people could never have dreamed of having a debate on such a topic. Such a sea change is remarkable—I pay tribute to all who played a part in it—and 30 years on, I, too, believe that a further shore is reachable from here.

17:55

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).