Westminster Hall

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 20 January 2026

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of the NHS in preventing domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related deaths.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to open a debate on the role of the NHS in preventing domestic abuse and dealing with it when it presents to the NHS. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who, since we secured this debate, has been appointed as the violence against women and girls adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. I think we shall hear from her later. I also place on the record my thanks to Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, IRISi, Respect and, from my own constituency, Stroud Women’s Refuge, which have really helped me with this speech. I declare an interest: I am a working GP and sometimes need to deal with these issues.

On average, five people a week die as a result of domestic abuse in this country. Now, there are actually more suicides related to domestic abuse than homicides. Behind each of those statistics is a life lost and a family devastated. In far too many cases, there has been repeated contact with health services and there have been moments when the health service could have intervened. The NHS is the most consistent point of contact for people living with abuse. Each year, about half a million people seek support from the NHS in relation to domestic abuse and 85% of them ask at least five times before they receive effective support. That is not because clinicians do not care. It is really about recognition of domestic abuse and getting referral services that are easy to understand and well known in practice. If we are serious about preventing domestic abuse, we must be serious about the role of the NHS—not just in primary care, but across all mental health services, across maternity services, through emergency departments and through community care. It has to go right across the NHS and not just primary care. This is really a debate about making sure that we do not miss chances and that we provide meaningful intervention when people present with signs of domestic abuse.

The Government have committed to delivering on our promise to halve violence against women and girls by 2029, and I welcome the comprehensive strategy to tackle that. For too long, support services have been unable to support victims and survivors effectively. They have been without sufficient resources and, in too many cases, women and girls have not been able to access the support they need. Therefore I welcome the Government’s supporting victims through the largest ever investment of £550 million in victim support over the next three years and an additional £5 million each year from the Department of Health and Social Care.

I would like to say a few things about how GPs specifically are often the first port of call, and how presentation to GPs is incredibly important for recognition of this issue. I shall quote from Killed Women, an organisation for bereaved families of women who have been killed by men in the UK. It says about one woman:

“She had gone to the GP a few days before her death as she couldn’t take any more. She was only offered antidepressants. On the day of her murder when I spoke to her, she said they are not helping and she had had enough. She said the GP knew her situation but yet again she was failed there.”

That shows that simply giving out antidepressants is not the right strategy. We need to build support around women subjected to domestic abuse. Often, they present with mental health issues and will not give any details of their abuse. One thing that I teach GPs in training is that there is something called a hidden agenda. Women particularly will present to the GP but they will not say that they are being abused; they will have other symptoms. We must recognise that presentation straightaway, and there are ways we can recognise it. Sometimes the woman in question will present with a partner and not feel comfortable talking about the situation. I often ask the partner to leave the consultation and I speak to the woman individually, which can be an effective way to find out exactly what is happening. We need to be aware that women in this situation are often nervous and walking on eggshells. We also have to recognise that often there are physical injuries, often of different ages. We sometimes see women presenting in sunglasses to cover up a black eye, for example. The health profession must recognise all those symptoms.

As I have said before, there are very high rates of mental health problems. Women who are being abused often present with symptoms of depression caused by domestic abuse, so we need to ask those women whether anything is going on at home. Female survivors of domestic abuse are three times more likely to develop mental illness. There are also other high risk periods, such as when women are pregnant and they often have poor outcomes in those situations. We must also be aware, across the health service, that women might disclose domestic abuse. Health visitors are in an ideal situation to hear about that type of thing and must be aware of that potentiality.

In A&E, women often present with overdose, and underneath that there is domestic abuse. Midwives are often presented with this, as are mental health workers, and even gynaecology services as well as social services. Often women present to the health service with different symptoms, but that is a cry for help, which we must recognise.

What do we need to do to support those women? One thing I am delighted about is the concept of steps to safety. The Department of Health and Social Care will roll out a domestic abuse and sexual violence referral service across integrated care boards, giving GPs the tools and ability to identify and refer victim-survivors to support. What is important is that it is a simple service with one number. If it is not simple, it will not be used by health services, and that is incredibly important. It is also important that we make use of existing resources. I visited the sexual abuse centre at Gloucestershire Royal hospital recently. It is a fantastic resource with really well-trained staff who are available 24/7.

It is really important, particularly in practices, to have a safeguarding or domestic abuse lead who is totally up to date with what is available, because quite often services change and GPs themselves are not on top of that. So that is important as well. Can I also stress the importance of women’s refuges? In Stroud we have a fantastic refuge. It does not advertise itself, for obvious reasons, and the people working there are simply amazing, supporting women who have difficulties, and often their children as well. It is inspiring to see the work they do, and it is important that those services are available immediately if women feel in danger.

Can I also make a plea for support for the perpetrators of abuse? It is usually men that perpetrate abuse and they often abuse at least five times, so it is important to catch them the first time and institute really good treatment and management for them. There are often drugs, alcohol or mental health issues behind their problems, so we must deal with that before they continue to abuse. Although that is controversial, I think that is incredibly important as well.

What do we need for the whole of our health strategy? We need things to be co-ordinated. There is a suggestion that we have domestic abuse co-ordinators for a group of GP practices. As I said, I think we need to have leads in general practice, with one person leading who can keep up to date and keep reminding the other members of staff that that is really important. When we are training in primary care, it is important to train everyone. For example, the receptionists in primary care are often aware of the people coming in. They need training to detect domestic abuse so that they can inform the doctors. It is a whole team approach, with pharmacists, nurses and physiotherapists also needing to be trained and aware of the signs and symptoms of domestic abuse.

That training should be essential for everyone, but I want to step back from mandatory training. Many people in the health service find that irksome and a tick-box exercise. I do not want domestic abuse training to simply be a tick box where someone goes on an hour-long course every year and that is it. We need a more integrated approach and it needs to be part of an appraisal process so that every doctor, nurse and healthcare worker is aware and trained in domestic abuse—but without it being made mandatory so that it does not simply become a course that people must go on, but is instead properly integrated into the service.

Last of all—and this seems incredible in this day and age—we need to share data between all of the health services, for example, A&E, GPs and mental health. We often do not get any information from mental health. It is important that we get that data sharing up to speed because domestic abuse can present in many different situations in the NHS and it is important that everyone is aware of the risks. In terms of funding, the £5 million a year from the Department of Health and Social Care is a good first step, but we need quite a lot more than that to bring this service to the fore.

In conclusion, if we are serious about preventing domestic abuse and the deaths that so often follow it, then the NHS must be properly equipped to play its full role. There are three points that I would like to make. The first is on funding, and around training and investing in services that will really help in domestic abuse. Those steps to safety are key because it must be simple for women to access those services. It is also important that wherever a woman presents to the NHS, that the person they present to is trained to detect domestic abuse and aware of what is available for that woman. Finally, we must have a comprehensive whole-health plan for the NHS and tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. That must cover primary care, mental health, maternity and accident and emergency services—and I would like it to be published by 2027 at the latest.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. At the beginning of this debate my hon. Friend mentioned suicide. As we are talking about NHS services, and when we have women trying to take their own lives, I wanted to highlight the devastating impact of the deaths of two people from Portsmouth who took their own lives because of coercive control. Does my hon. Friend agree that all of the agencies across the NHS, our wider health service and our police need to be joined up to stop the loss of lives and that that is a public health issue?

[Dr Opher]

I know that my hon. Friend is invested in trying to help women subject to domestic abuse. Coercive control is very important as it often stops women presenting to healthcare workers. As I have said before, one key thing as a clinician is that we have to be brave and ask the man to step out so that it is possible to have a proper conversation. They can often resist that and can get violent as well. It is important that we take a brave view on this to protect women in general.

To conclude, if we get those three things right—funding, recognition, and a comprehensive and integrated care service—we can move forward to a service that repeatedly sees and recognises abuse and immediately steps in to stop it. That is the shift I am calling for in this debate, and it is one that could save many lives.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye— although I can see they already know that.

09:44

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate. He is a real champion for the NHS, and it is a benefit to all of us that he brings his former experience as a GP to bear in this debate.

The NHS has more contact with people experiencing domestic abuse than any other service and, therefore, it is vitally important that staff feel adequately equipped to comfort and reassure victims who take that brave step of reaching out for support, often for the first time. In turn, it is essential that victims can feel confident that when they confide in the NHS, the staff that they speak to have the knowledge to properly support them.

While NHS staff do receive the statutory general safeguarding training, it can be easy, as the hon. Member for Stroud has detailed, to miss the signs of abuse and the cries for help, especially when staff are tired from working extensive and difficult hours. As a country, we have so much to thank our NHS for—whether it be for the sacrifices that staff made during the pandemic, or for working additional hours to take care of our loved ones—so my speech is intended to ensure that staff have the tools they need at their disposal to help the most vulnerable, rather than critique their best intentions.

Victims are often hesitant to ask for support; they feel trapped by their abuser and fear the repercussions. The extent to which domestic abuse and sexual assault is known to the authorities is somewhat unknown. It is estimated that only 16% of people report their experiences to the police. One reason is mistrust of the authorities, which emphasises the importance of ensuring that those who treat victims’ injuries are prepared to provide them with the help and support they need. Of the 16% of people who do report an assault, only 2.6% of alleged offenders are charged or receive a summons. Even in cases where the offence takes place in public, the percentage of reported sexual assault offences that receive a charge is disproportionately low; fewer than 5% of reports on public transport resulted in a charge in 2025.

While death is tragically the end result of too many domestic abuse cases, there will have been a point in almost every single case where a step could have been taken to better support the victim. A report commissioned by Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse underscored that fact; of the 47 reviews of deaths related to domestic abuse published in 2024, 89% contained reports of an instance in which our health service had the opportunity to step in and do more to help. While domestic abuse training is mandatory in the social care system, the same training is not always made available to other NHS frontline services. That is clearly something that could be rectified, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how the Government might ensure that domestic abuse training is stepped up. Will they release the funds to ensure that every NHS frontline member of staff has access to mandatory domestic abuse training?

09:47

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate on such an important issue.

In 2022, 44% of victims surveyed by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner said that their first disclosure was to a healthcare professional. Unlike the criminal justice system, health spaces focus on wellbeing and recovery and are therefore a crucial front door for identification and referrals into specialist services, not just for the many women affected by domestic abuse, but the 105,000 children who, right now, live in homes where there is high-risk domestic abuse. We know that victims who reach out to police are just the tip of the iceberg, given that fewer than one in five ever contact the police about their abuse. Getting our response to violence against women and girls right in healthcare is key to unlocking our ability to properly tackle domestic abuse. For that reason, I was delighted to be asked by the Health Secretary to become his violence against women and girls adviser.

I worked for six years at the domestic abuse charity SafeLives and saw first hand the huge role that health could play. In the report “A Cry for Health”, we found that nearly a quarter of victims at high risk of serious harm or murder had been to A&E as a result of domestic abuse injuries in the year before they were able to get help. We also found that staff were worried about asking, even though it is required under National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, because they felt they would open a can of worms and, in some cases, make the situation worse. In some cases we found victims visited A&E 15 times before getting the help they needed. Health professionals were patching victims up and sending them back into the violent and controlling arms of their abusers.

Research from Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, as we have heard, has shown that in 2024, 89% of domestic homicide reviews had at least one recommendation for professionals in the health system—professionals who could have helped save the life of the woman who had been murdered. I have met families whose relatives were killed after repeated contact with health services. In SafeLives’ report on health in London, a survivor who was interviewed and who did disclose at A&E said:

“When I went to A&E the doctor told me we only do bones here, not that ‘relationship mental health stuff’. But didn’t offer to refer me to somewhere that did.”

This has to change.

In 2018, Elena was killed by her partner, Razvan. The month before her murder, she was treated in hospital for abdominal pain after using crack cocaine, but she left hospital with Razvan before she could be discharged. As a result, a child and family assessment was conducted, and they were visited at home together the day before she was killed. She was not seen alone. She was never seen alone. She was pregnant. Razvan was with her and never, ever left her side, and no one thought to question her on her own or spotted that she was subject to an extensive range of domestic abuse as well as sexual exploitation.

There are, of course, thousands of hard-working health professionals who do safeguard their patients, but it is clear that there is much more to do. I will always remember a senior GP who told me, honestly, after I asked why health did not share information when a patient was at clear risk of serious harm, “Well, I care more about the thud of an envelope with a GMC logo on it, than hearing that one of my patients has been murdered.” That is why the co-location of specialist domestic abuse professionals in all health settings is so important.

The “A Cry for Health” report found that when independent domestic violence advisers are located in hospital settings, they make a net positive saving of £2,050 per victim in health costs. They also lead to 84% of victims feeling safer, with 73% seeing an improvement in their quality of life. It is about their health and their wellbeing, which makes them both safer and more likely to recover. Hospital-based IDVAs also identify victims earlier, on average. It is a preventive measure, with their victims on average experiencing six fewer months of abuse than those engaging with local services. We can prevent abuse through the co-location of specialists in health settings.

We also know that co-location works in primary care settings, as the IRISi— identification and referral to improve safety—programme has demonstrated for decades. That is why Steps to Safety, announced in the VAWG strategy just before Christmas, as we have heard, is so welcome. The programme aims to ensure that by 2029 any victim or survivor in England can get the help they need through their GP. It will also ensure that each GP practice is linked to specialist support workers who can support victims to access their local specialist support services. It is crucial that the support is independent from statutory services and sits within those local specialist services, not generic services, if it is to be trusted by victims.

As well as supporting the Department to roll out Steps to Safety and to look at other areas and neighbourhoods to locate VAWG expertise, I will also be focused on improving VAWG commissioning in the NHS and on exploring links between alcohol and violence against women and girls. I am clear, as is everyone, that alcohol does not cause VAWG, but it can be a factor in escalation and serious harm.

There is much that I have not shared: mental health, maternity, links into family hubs and other community health settings, where we need to be exploring the role of health. We need to treat this as a public health epidemic if we are to reach our goal of halving VAWG. If anything, health has a bigger role to play than the police and courts in identifying perpetrators and in identifying and providing lifesaving support for adult and child victims. I am clear that the DHSC is serious about doing just this, and I am personally committed to doing everything I can in my role to help.

09:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate, setting the scene incredibly well and giving us all an opportunity to participate.

As always, I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective of what is happening. Unfortunately, the things happening in Northern Ireland are replicated, as shown in what other Members have said and what others will say after me. In some ways, things in Northern Ireland are even worse—the numbers of women being killed are at such a high level in proportion to the rest of the United Kingdom, and outpace what is happening elsewhere.

The Minister, who I am always pleased to see in her place, has a special interest in Northern Ireland, and because of that she will be aware of the stats, which are incredibly worrying. In Northern Ireland, the Police Service recorded almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents in the 2024 to 2025 period, translating to roughly 85 incidents daily. Almost 18,500 of those became crimes, although many incidents do go unreported. Call volumes, particularly around Christmas, highlight a consistent challenge for victims seeking help. There are about 15 incidents and 10 crimes per 1,000 people, which puts the stats into perspective. Although that is a decrease on the previous year, those numbers are still incredibly jarring.

One of the worst times of the year, as we all know as elected representatives, is Christmas and the new year. There is a strain on relationships, whether it is a combination of financial and emotional pressures, or everything just building up at that time of year. The Police Service of Northern Ireland received 1,407 calls in the period from 20 December 2025 to 2 January 2026, seeing a peak of 116 reports on new year’s day. There is pressure on the PSNI back home, and on the police here, to respond to quite difficult issues. I know the Minister always tries to be responsive to our requests, so has she had the opportunity to speak to the relevant police in Northern Ireland, to get an idea of what they are doing and how we can help each other?

In June, we had the absolutely heartbreaking murder of a young mother of two, who was pregnant with her third child; the ripples are still felt in our community. Young Sarah Montgomery’s murder simply should not have happened, and more has to be done in those cases. Sarah was the 27th women to be murdered in Northern Ireland since 2020, and the level of domestic abuse calls indicate that this remains a central problem.

In Northern Ireland, health and social care is a very important partner in the domestic and sexual abuse strategy for 2024 to 2031, which designates domestic abuse as “everyone’s business”—and it is everyone’s business. Health settings are often the only safe and trusted environment where a victim can disclose abuse, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned. When a victim goes into a health setting, people run to support to them, and there is nobody looking over their shoulder or listening to what is going on, and they may have an opportunity to disclose what has happened. It is really important to have that strategy in place, and we have it in Northern Ireland.

I will underline the particularly worrying trends from the Christmas and new year period. At that time of year, accident and emergency units are under incredible pressure. Back home, we have had problems with hospital wait times and ambulances queued outside hospitals, and the domestic abuse issue is clearly in the middle of that.

Roughly 30% of domestic abuse starts during pregnancy, so midwives and health visitors are trained to conduct routine inquiry and ask about safety at home. They do that, and it has enabled the issue to be raised incredibly. To catch abuse early, we need to empower those workers to report any concerns and ensure that support is offered. It is essential that NHS departments work together, but the pressure on workers to fulfil their calls and do their paperwork is immense. So I believe that time must be factored in for staff to be able to smoothly report any suspicions. We must know that, in these awful cases, the Government and their Departments have done all that they could.

I want to be clear: murder by domestic abuse can never be the fault of anyone other than the perpetrator. However, in our communities we must all ask ourselves, “Was there something more that we could have done?” I support a UK-wide review by the Minister to ascertain how we can know that we have done all we can, to our utmost and even a bit more.

10:00

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate.

Too often, domestic abuse is framed solely as a criminal justice issue when, in reality, it is one of the most urgent public health crises that we face. The NHS encounters victims and perpetrators far more frequently than any other service, yet the system consistently misses opportunities to save lives. As the British Medical Journal highlighted, fewer than 24% of domestic abuse crimes are reported to the police, meaning that the health service—not law enforcement—is the front line.

A recent review of domestic abuse-related deaths revealed that 89% of domestic homicide reviews contained at least one recommendation for the NHS—recommendations that occur again and again across cases, showing a pattern of missed signs, inconsistent responses and staff who suspect something is wrong but lack the training, systems or confidence to act on that.

NHS staff are uniquely placed to intervene in suspected domestic abuse. In my own career as an operating department practitioner working in theatres, I can recall many instances when we treated patients with what looked like run-of-the-mill injuries, but all was not as it seemed. A young woman came in for manipulation under anaesthesia of her nose after breaking it in a fall, but she became inconsolable when we told her that she could go home after the operation. “Can I not stay overnight?” she cried. As I talked to her more, we discovered that she was being abused at home by her partner.

I also want to highlight honour-based abuse; sadly, I encountered that many times in my career—from extreme female genital mutilation, to the woman undergoing an endoscopy for severe oesophageal pain, which turned out to be from her family poisoning her with battery acid, stripping the lining of her oesophagus and stomach.

Those suspicions are not always explored, despite clinical teams being highly skilled, compassionate professionals. The opportunity to intervene can easily be lost. Mandatory standardised domestic abuse training is essential. Experts estimate that delivering consistent training across the NHS would cost just £2.6 million per year, which is a tiny fraction of the entire NHS budget but has the big potential to save lives.

We also know that poor co-ordination between agencies is repeatedly cited in death reviews, with 35% of them calling for multi-agency working. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has stressed that domestic abuse deaths require accountability across entire systems—particularly the NHS, which must implement lessons from domestic abuse-related death reviews and participate fully in the new national oversight mechanism.

Preventing domestic abuse deaths also means understanding the complexities of coercive control—something that survivors, including the domestic abuse campaigner from my constituency, Samantha Billingham, have worked tirelessly to highlight. Coercive control is often invisible, yet it is one of the clearest predictors of escalation to serious harm and homicide. If professionals do not understand coercive control they cannot identify the danger. That is why social workers must receive mandatory specialist training in coercive control: they are often the first professionals to see patterns emerging across family, mental health, housing and safeguarding contexts, but too often their training does not equip them to recognise or challenge the dynamics of manipulation, isolation, surveillance or financial control that underpin domestic homicide.

The NHS must also embed specialist domestic abuse support directly into clinical settings. The Government’s upcoming measures, including the Steps to Safety initiative, aim to ensure that every part of England has dedicated NHS referral services for victims and specialist support workers linked to GP practices. These reforms are welcome, but they must be implemented at pace and be fully resourced if they are to prevent future deaths. Domestic abuse deaths are preventable when we train our workforce properly, when agencies work together, when we treat domestic abuse as a health issue, not just a crime issue, and when we equip professionals to understand the controlling patterns that escalate into lethal danger. It is the responsibility of all of us and the NHS to ensure that no victim is left unseen, unsupported and unheard.

10:05

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate, which has crucially focused on the important fact that prevention has to work across the NHS.

When domestic abuse escalates towards serious harm or death, what can the NHS do to stop it? For too long, we have talked about domestic abuse as if it happens outside public services—as if it starts and ends behind closed doors—but the truth is that the NHS is already in the story; it just has to connect the dots. The moment someone sits in a GP waiting room trying to keep their voice steady, the moment that someone turns up at A&E with an injury that they cannot easily explain, the moment that someone finds out they are pregnant at a maternity appointment and are terrified of going home, or wants to ask for help but cannot because their perpetrator is sat there with them—those are moments of contact with the NHS and crucial opportunities to save a life.

The NHS absolutely has a duty of care to its patients: it must not just treat injuries but respond when someone is at risk. In domestic abuse, risk is not theoretical. The most recent national figures show that there are 108 domestic homicides a year. For the first time, suspected suicides linked to domestic abuse have overtaken intimate partner homicides. That is a flashing warning light for the health service. If suicide is preventable, domestic abuse-related suicide must be treated as preventable too.

A duty of care is real only if staff are trained and equipped to carry it out. If someone reaches out in the NHS and gets silence or disbelief back, or if a note is taken but there is no action, that can be the moment that they stop asking for help. In domestic abuse, missed moments can be fatal.

For the majority of victims and survivors, health professionals are the first—sometimes the only—person they disclose to. People often assume that a victim’s first call is to the police, but the first brave step for many survivors who disclose is often telling a GP, a midwife, a nurse, a health visitor or even their pharmacist. Our healthcare system is the frontline of support for victims of domestic abuse. Tragically, too many survivors are forced to seek help again and again before the system even responds. In fact, 85% seek professional support about five times before they finally receive help.

In Bolton, we see both the challenge and one of the solutions. We operate a system called Identification and Referral to Improve Safety, a specialist training programme that links GP practices directly with domestic abuse support services. IRIS is delivered by Fortalice, a local domestic abuse charity—I am incredibly grateful to Gill and her team for their hard work. Since it began in 2014, nearly 3,000 victims have accessed support, and 274 healthcare professionals were trained in the last year alone. That training matters, because it changes what happens in the room. It helps clinicians ask safe questions, spot warning signs and act so that when someone says, or their face or demeanour tells us, that they are not safe, the response is not panic or paperwork but support. We need that consistently, because Bolton has seen what happens when the system does not join the dots.

One case that has stayed with local services is the domestic homicide review of Margaret—not her real name: an 80-year-old woman killed by her husband in 2019. While the husband was in hospital, Margaret disclosed fear and abuse and said that she did not feel safe. Those concerns were discussed in a meeting between hospital staff and social workers, yet once her husband’s physical health stabilised, he was discharged home. Days later, Margaret was dead.

If a patient can say, “I am not safe,” and the NHS cannot act, the NHS is not yet safe enough. So how do we make it consistently safe? I have three practical asks. First, we need proper and consistent domestic abuse training—not a one-off e-learning module but trauma-informed training, refreshed over time for the whole team, including reception staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, who are often the ones who see the warning signs first. The Government have said that they will launch a mandatory safeguarding and learning programme that covers domestic abuse. That is welcome, but it must be embedded in day-to-day NHS practices.

Secondly, there must be sustained funding for evidence-based pathways, such as IRIS and the specialist services that it relies on, because referral routes work only if support exists and exists safely. The Government have set out an ambition that by 2029 there will be dedicated referral services for women and girls affected by abuse in every area of England. That is exactly the direction we should be travelling in. However, those routes must cover the whole NHS.

Finally, the NHS should establish a universal codeword scheme, so that a victim can ask for support just as easily as we can at pharmacies, a bar, a pub or even a restaurant. The NHS is our frontline and it absolutely needs to be well-equipped to spot, safeguard against and deal with domestic abuse, as it should have been doing for decades.

Domestic abuse thrives in silence and isolation. The NHS can be the opposite of that: a place where someone is seen, believed and connected to safety. Bolton has shown what is possible when services work together—when we connect the dots. Now we need our NHS to match that with consistency; every week we delay, more families will be left asking the most painful question of all. They reached out for help, so why were they still not safe?

10:11

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

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), not only for securing this debate but for all the work that he does in the NHS as a GP on the issue of domestic violence and abuse.

The NHS has opportunities to safeguard against domestic violence and, in the most serious cases, domestic homicide. Domestic homicide can be a consequence of honour-based abuse, which is particularly grounded in lived experience in my constituency in Leeds. Honour-based abuse is widely misunderstood, meaning that hundreds of victims are not being helped and perpetrators are escaping justice; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for highlighting it in her speech and in the work she did when she was in the NHS.

Honour-based abuse, a form of domestic abuse, is motivated by the abuser’s perception that other persons have brought, or may bring, dishonour or shame on themselves, their family or the community. It can take many forms and be complex to identify, but perpetrators of honour-based abuse often use methods of coercive control to force their victims to behave in certain ways, or to subscribe to certain beliefs. For some people, the concept of honour is prized above the safety and wellbeing of individuals, and to compromise a family’s honour is to bring dishonour and shame. That can be used to justify many types of abuse and even disownment or physical harm.

Honour-based abuse is frequently missed or misidentified within health settings. It is often framed as family conflict, particularly when it involves multiple perpetrators, rather than being recognised as domestic abuse and a form of violence against women and girls. This is particularly concerning because victims of honour-based abuse often have repeated contact with the NHS, including GPs, A&E departments and other hospital services, sometimes over many years. Those touchpoints present critical opportunities for early identification and intervention.

The point is tragically illustrated by the story of Fawziyah Javed, a constituent of mine who was a victim of domestic homicide. She had regular, ongoing contact with GPs and hospital services prior to her death. Fawziyah’s case highlights how risk can be present and escalating without being fully recognised or responded to within health settings, particularly where honour-based dynamics are not understood.

Fawziyah had such a beautiful and vibrant character that she could fill a room with joy just by her presence. She was full of life and soul. Helping others was so central to her being that she was well-known in the charity sector within Yorkshire. In December 2020, she married Kashif Anwar, but the marriage quickly became a prison of abuse. Despite reporting her husband’s abuse to police on two separate occasions prior to her murder, Fawziyah was failed on multiple levels.

The abuse of Fawziyah escalated. Ultimately, her abuser pushed her off the cliff at Arthur’s Seat while they were on a trip to Edinburgh. She died at the scene in the presence of female allies, who would later confirm that her dying words pointed to Kashif being her murderer. When Fawziyah died, she was 17 weeks pregnant with her baby boy.

Fawziyah had contact with the NHS during her pregnancy. Her family feel that there were missed opportunities to protect her during that time. A risk assessment was begun by one member of staff but completed by another, meaning that vital information might have been missed. Handing that assessment over when it was only partly complete undermined the seriousness of both the process and Fawziyah’s case. Her mother told me:

“This was a clear example of how systematic failures, lack of accountability and poor safeguarding practices can leave vulnerable women at risk. It is exactly why mandatory, trauma-informed Domestic Abuse screening and better training for NHS staff are so urgently needed.”

It is vital that healthcare professionals support and encourage the early identification of signs of domestic abuse. Routine sensitive questioning could help to protect people and potentially save lives.

When Fawziyah was pushed off Arthur’s Seat, at no point did her abuser dial 999. Instead, his first reaction was to call his father, showing how the family’s complicity helped enable the abuse. The failure to recognise the dynamics of honour-based abuse, and the involvement of multiple perpetrators, played a significant part in the tragic loss of a life. If her case had been recognised as the multilayered abuse it was, along with the honour dynamics involved, Fawziyah might have had a chance to escape the violence.

Domestic homicide reviews consistently identify health as a key agency, with recurring recommendations around improved identification of abuse, better information-sharing, professional curiosity and escalation pathways, especially in cases involving honour-based abuse and coercive control. I thank those at Karma Nirvana, based in my constituency, for their essential work on the issue, tackling misconceptions. I also thank Fawziyah’s family for sharing her story with me over many years, ensuring that we will strive for it not to be repeated and never to be forgotten.

Fawziyah’s story is a tragic reminder of why we must do more to recognise and address honour-based abuse and the impact it has on victims. Recognition, training and support in the NHS for victims of honour-based abuse are vital. I look forward to hearing the steps that the Minister intends to take to improve the situation.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

For the benefit of the large number of visitors in the Public Gallery, I say that we now move to the wind-up speeches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

10:16

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this vital debate.

In November 2025, Surrey police recorded 45 incidents of domestic abuse in my constituency, an average of 1.5 incidents every day. Let us be clear, those are not just statistics. Those numbers represent real people: mothers, daughters, sisters and children, experiencing some of the most harrowing abuses imaginable. I have met local organisations such as North Surrey Domestic Abuse Service, the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in Guildford and East Surrey Domestic Abuse Services to understand the support available to survivors.

What I learned is deeply troubling. The overwhelming number of women whose lives have been shattered by domestic abuse is staggering. Many victims face financial hardship, debt and isolation. Children grow up in fear, forced to endure violence in silence, their innocence stolen. Yet for some escape never comes. Gemma Devonish, a much-loved teacher at a local girls’ school in Epsom, was found with 54 stab wounds in her home in December 2024. Her boyfriend was due to stand trial for her murder but justice remains delayed, as the trial is yet to begin.

Aliny Godinho, a mother of four, was stabbed to death by her estranged husband in front of her three-year-old daughter while picking up her children from school in Ewell. Despite emergency accommodation having been arranged for Aliny in Streatham, her children remained at a school in Surrey. An examination of her husband’s computer revealed that he tracked her phone, accessed her emails and knew her new secret address.

Those tragedies are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of systemic failure. Recorded incidents are only the tip of the iceberg, because less than 24% of domestic abuse crimes are reported to the police. The NHS, however, has more contact with victims and perpetrators than any other agency. That places healthcare professionals on the frontline of the domestic abuse epidemic, not just for identifying and supporting victims but for monitoring potential abusers.

Let us consider the case of Emma Pattison, the beloved headteacher at Epsom college, and her seven-year-old daughter, Lettie. Both were shot and murdered by Emma’s husband and Lettie’s father, George Pattison. George legally owned a shotgun and held a valid licence. Before his last licence renewal, which requires a letter from a GP, he used an online consultation service to obtain antidepressants. The online doctor had access to his medical records but they were unaware that he held a gun licence, and the medication was never declared to his GP.

If medical professionals are a line of defence against abuse, it is unacceptable for them to be left in the dark about who owns a firearm. Mandatory medical markers would ensure that any health professional with access to a patient’s records could see if the patient held a gun licence. If necessary, the health professional could immediately notify the police.

That measure is overwhelmingly supported. A survey by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 70% of existing certificate holders in England and Wales believe that a marker should be placed on the medical records of gun holders. Among the wider public, support rises to 86%. Will the Minister commit to exploring the benefits of mandatory medical markers with colleagues in the Home Office?

The previous Government’s guidance for health professionals states:

“Domestic violence and abuse is so prevalent in our society that NHS…staff will be in contact with adult and child victims…across the full range of health services.”

Too often, however, staff feel ill equipped to support victims, and training opportunities vary widely across the country.

Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at all domestic homicide and abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% had at least one recommendation for health professionals or the health system. Its analysis also revealed that delivering training for healthcare workers at scale could cost as little as £2.66 million per year. Will the Minister review those recommendations and consider including them in the long-delayed workforce plan?

I welcome the Government’s announcement of the Steps to Safety initiative, which aims to better equip GP surgeries to identify and respond to domestic abuse and sexual violence. However, any initiative must be grounded in lived experience. The IRIS programme, a specialist domestic abuse training support and referral programme for general practices, has shown remarkable success; practices with IRIS are 30 times more likely to recognise and refer domestic abuse victims to specialist support than those without. Will the Minister review the IRIS programme to ensure that Step to Safety mirrors its success?

Finally, it is clear that we are missing a critical opportunity to use the NHS to detect and help victims of abuse earlier. Will the Minister set out a national plan to ensure that NHS staff across the country are sufficiently trained to spot the signs of domestic abuse? For Emma, Lettie, Gemma, Aliny and all other victims of domestic abuse, it is time to tackle this national crisis once and for all.

10:21

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate and his characteristically well-informed speech. His passion and knowledge as a GP bring a real benefit to this Chamber. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on her appointment as the Government’s adviser on violence against women and girls, and her excellent and impassioned speech. I am sure her ideas will be of great benefit to the Department and the Government as a whole.

This is a necessary debate, but it is also uncomfortable. The figures before us describe not merely a system under strain, but a system that is unfortunately failing too many women and children. If we are serious about change, we must be honest about responsibility and delivery. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for the experience she brought to her speech. Her discussion of honour-based violence, alongside the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was very prescient.

I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for telling us about her experiences. We were all interested to hear more about the IRIS system she mentioned in her constituency. As ever, I welcome the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) giving us a perspective from Northern Ireland. Sir John, despite the fact that you have not spoken in this debate, it is worth noting your campaign on Holly’s law, which would implement a mandatory register of abuse against domestic animals, because that abuse is often a precursor to or goes alongside the abuse of humans. Thank you for your work on that.

Abuse happens across this country, and none of us is untouched by it. In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, I think of the horrendous case of Alan Jermey, who strangled his partner Kirsty Wilson to death and set her alight as their two small children slept upstairs. Cases like that bring this issue home to all of us.

The Minister will know that the NHS has more contact with victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse than any other public service, which puts it in a unique position to intervene early. It also gives it a responsibility to deliver. The Department has set out ambitious plans around alcohol harm, neighbourhood health services and better access to support, and those ambitions are welcome, but ambition must be judged against outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a growing gap nationally between ministerial intent, which is welcome, and the frontline reality.

The Office for National Statistics found that 6% of women aged 16 and over were victims of domestic abuse, and the police recorded more than 1.35 million domestic abuse-related crimes and incidents last year. The consequences are often fatal. There were 108 domestic homicide victims that year, 83 of whom were women. Among adult female homicide victims, six in 10 deaths were the result of domestic homicide, almost all at the hands of a male partner or ex-partner. Domestic abuse is also a significant driver of suicide, as we have heard: between 2020 and 2024, 98 suspected suicides, including of children, followed domestic abuse. This is not a marginal issue; it is systemic.

The Government’s freedom from violence and abuse strategy is welcome but its impact will be undermined by persistent failures in delivery. Training remains inconsistent, referral pathways are unclear and staff lack the time and capacity to act. The evidence is clear. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in June 2025, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at domestic abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% contained at least one recommendation for healthcare professionals or the wider health system. Time and again, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, opportunities for intervention within the NHS were missed.

Yet, at precisely the moment when that learning must be embedded, the Government are reorganising the NHS, abolishing NHS England and cutting integrated care board budgets. Standing Together has warned that these changes risk weakening domestic abuse and sexual violence protection work at the local level, including in training, co-ordination and follow through. A system that is being restructured, distracted and under financial pressure cannot deliver the prevention we all want. In Surrey, the police receive around 19 domestic abuse calls every day—domestic abuse is now more prevalent than shoplifting—so these systematic failures play out in real time in our communities.

I want to briefly speak about a young woman who lived in my constituency, Skye Nicholls, who died in 2023 at the age of just 22 after nearly two years of coercive control and abuse by her ex-partner. I have spoken to her family and friends, who are campaigning for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse. One of them told me that, too often, the focus remains on visible injuries while psychological abuse is underestimated or dismissed, even though its effects often last far longer than physical harm. For family and friends, mental health support is frequently fragmented or absent, despite them often being the first to spot the warning signs.

Prevention does not begin at the point of crisis; it begins with early, trauma-informed intervention. NICE guidance clearly sets out how NHS staff should respond to domestic abuse, but guidance alone does not save lives. Women’s Aid’s 2025 report found that just over half of referrals into community-based domestic abuse services were rejected—nearly a quarter because services could not even contact the victim. When support is reduced to just phone lines and signposting, women unfortunately fall through the cracks.

Detection is really important. Accident and emergency is where the physical signs of this abuse are seen but, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, primary care is often the first point of contact. We must use the expertise of GPs and other primary care services and give them the time to effectively identify, intervene and support those victims.

The NHS cannot act alone. The justice system must also command public confidence, which is why the early release scheme for serious offenders, including rapists and murderers, is so damaging. It sends entirely the wrong signal to victims and undermines trust in the institutions meant to protect them. We as the Conservatives will continue to oppose that policy.

Under the previous Conservative Government, we introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, recognised children as victims in their own right, published violence against women and girls strategies, and invested significantly in victims’ services, mental health and suicide prevention, but we are honest enough to say that legislation alone is not enough. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has shown that only 6% of police-recorded domestic abuse cases result in a conviction, and only one in five victims feel confident reporting abuse. That demands competence and delivery, not the constant structural upheaval we are going to see in both the justice and health systems.

We made good strides in this area and I genuinely believe that the current Ministers in the Department are doing their level best to move it forwards. I think we all agree that there is much more to do, but where the Government are making those strides, we as the Conservatives will support them full-throatedly. I close with three questions to the Minister.

First, I welcome the Government’s announcement of a 5% funding uplift, but given rising costs and national insurance increases, how much of that is a real-terms increase and how much will go directly to frontline services for victims? Secondly, when will mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse training for all NHS staff formally begin? What will its roll-out look like and when will the entire workforce have completed it? Finally, what assessment has the Department made of the case for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse, to ensure that victims receive early, trauma-informed support?

We will not prevent violence against women by abolishing institutions, cutting local capacity and releasing dangerous men early. We will prevent it by enforcing the law, backing the frontline and putting victims, not systems, first.

10:30

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate and, as others have said, for sharing his direct experience as a practitioner—he is still a jobbing GP, among his other roles. His expertise was apparent throughout his speech.

As a Member of Parliament I have long talked about this issue, which is massive for me personally and as a constituency MP. All colleagues will be aware, through our casework, of how widespread domestic abuse is. It is one of the biggest issues for me in Bristol South. The number of women who fear injury or worse at the hands of their partners should keep us all up at night.

The Office for National Statistics estimates that well over 2 million women have experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales in the last year alone. Year on year, domestic homicides are present in all our constituencies. There were 108 domestic homicides in the year ending March 2024. Getting the right support early could help to prevent these needless and tragic deaths.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked the Government to publish a comprehensive plan for health. We now have a clear agenda for officials, as set out in the commitments in the violence against women and girls strategy. I will personally ensure that we make progress on that throughout 2026.

My hon. Friend asked for the Department’s contribution to the VAWG strategy to be increased in future budgets. I am happy to confirm that we are doing that over this spending review period. As well as the £5 million annual investment for victim and survivor support services, we are committing up to £50 million over the next three years to the roll-out of the child house model. In addition, the Department will provide dedicated funding for the Steps to Safety referral service for those affected by domestic abuse. I will address both those points later in my speech. My hon. Friend was also right to emphasise the importance of specialised NHS training on domestic abuse, which I will also pick up later.

Tackling domestic abuse has to become everyone’s business, as we have heard today, so the whole of Government are behind the agenda to prevent abuse and save lives. We saw before Christmas—if people had not recognised it before—the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to this agenda.

I spoke plainly from the Opposition Benches about how the cost of living crisis was impacting women, and I will not now sugarcoat that fact from my Government position. Many women face the impossible choice of staying in an abusive situation or destitution. My right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary is doing everything he can to support people back to work more generally, and particularly to help women to gain financial independence and keep them free of coercion.

While this work is all necessary, it is not sufficient. NHS staff will play a vital role in helping victims and survivors to access health, housing and justice. As we have heard, healthcare workers are often the first point of contact, offering support, treatment and rehabilitation. They have their eyes on those at risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made an excellent point about fragmented services, and I take the point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), that with recognition comes responsibility for delivery. We absolutely recognise that.

The support we offer must be consistent, responsive and easier to reach. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), said, the incidents we have heard about from colleagues this morning are not isolated; this is a systemic issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) said in her excellent speech, we need to join the dots.

Like all our public servants—teachers, social workers and the police—NHS workers already play an essential role in safeguarding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said, that includes dealing with so-called honour-based killings. For instance, partners are often asked to leave the room before a midwife asks a mother whether she feels confident that no one will try to hurt her or her baby. We take our duty of care towards survivors of abuse extremely seriously, because violence against women and girls is, as we have heard, a public health emergency.

GP surgery staff are at the frontline of our commitment to safeguard lives. Since we came into office, we have supported primary carers and GPs as the front door to the NHS, and we have recruited over 2,500 more GPs. We have since seen patient satisfaction improving, with the recognition that access is improving, and online consultations are ending the morning scramble for appointments, thereby supporting that frontline.

This year, we will work with all ICBs to help staff in GP surgeries to identify and support victims and survivors of domestic abuse and refer them into wider support services. As we have heard, the Steps to Safety strategy will, first, introduce training for all staff in GP surgeries, to help them to spot the telltale signs of abuse and give them the skills and confidence to offer support to affected people. Secondly, a specialist worker will advise GP practices on supporting victims and survivors to take their first steps to safety by linking them with local support services. Thirdly, we will learn from the excellent practice that is already happening locally—for example, in places like Devon, Cornwall, Birmingham and Solihull.

Support services could help women to escape their abusers and get back on their feet, whether by helping them to find housing, to get back into work or to put the perpetrators behind bars. We are rolling out this initiative from April, starting with 10 ICBs in the first year, and by 2029 any victim or survivor in England will be able to get the help they need by talking to staff at their general practice.

We are determined to ensure that services do not become a postcode lottery. It is a shameful truth that some of the most alarming health inequalities are those faced by victims and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who made an excellent contribution to the debate, to advise the Government. She will look at how we reduce the impact of alcohol on violence against women and girls, how we commission services to ensure that the right support is in the right place, and how we embed support into neighbourhood health services so that women and girls can be connected to the specialist support they need.

A lot of colleagues talked about training, including the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). We need to remember that health professionals are trained to identify and respond to all types of violence and abuse, using blended learning methods including e-learning, in-person training and supervision. National mandatory safeguarding training is being strengthened for launch in late 2026. We recognise that that needs to be done.

The training will reinforce to staff their safeguarding responsibilities and support them in identifying and responding to victims of abuse. It will include training on the importance of recognising the impact of trauma and the cultural barriers to discussing abuse. It is the responsibility of employers to ensure that staff complete the mandatory safeguarding training. The Care Quality Commission assesses compliance with that requirement. The NHS England safeguarding team oversees this work, and has audited integrated care boards on completion rates. We will strengthen that work.

It takes immense bravery for survivors, not least the survivors of child sexual abuse, to come forward and tell their story, and we are doing everything possible to end the trauma of children and young people having to relive their ordeal over and over, by bringing a range of specialist support services under one roof in every NHS region in England. This is called the child house model. We have started to recruit the extra mental health workers we want by the end of this Parliament, to help survivors who still carry the scars of their abuse, and we are more than halfway towards our target. Whenever and wherever a victim or survivor contacts the NHS, it must be there for them with compassion, care and dignity.

The changes we are making to NHS England are to resolve many of the problems outlined by the Opposition spokesperson. We have huge problems with pathways as a result of layer upon layer of provision and bureaucracy have been introduced to the system over the last decade. There are confusing pathways, confusing levels of accountability, and massively increased costs with no improvement to the services received at the frontline. We need to support local delivery, where people present, and that is our intent with the changes. I was not aware that the Opposition were against the abolition of NHS England, but we will obviously make sure that we focus on service delivery as we go through the changes.

Our starting point is that women and girls who are victims of abuse are never responsible for the abuse. The perpetrators are responsible for it, but tackling it is everyone’s problem. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has started to deploy domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, building on best practice across the country, including in my own Avon and Somerset police area. It is why my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has introduced new measures to protect victims of stalking, and why my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is taking steps to challenge misogyny in the classroom.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the really shocking levels of killings, as well as abuse, in Northern Ireland. It is good to have that voice in this place. As he knows, I take a great interest in Northern Ireland, but we do not often hear about that particular situation there. I assure him that the Home Office, as the lead Department, has been working with all devolved partners to produce the strategy, and the Department of Health and Social Care is sharing learning, but we absolutely need to keep an eye on that to ensure that we support colleagues in Northern Ireland on this agenda.

We are working across Government, which is why I am determined that the NHS will do its part in halving violence against women and girls by the end of the decade. However, our strategy is not just a Government plan; it is a national endeavour. Everyone in this room or watching on screen has their part to play.

I want to end by speaking directly to survivors and anyone who may be trapped in an abusive relationship. This Government are on your side—and we have heard this morning a willingness across all parties to make this work. We have not forgotten you. You can get in touch with the Refuge national domestic abuse helpline, Women’s Aid or Respect—an organisation that works with male victims and perpetrators of abuse. Please get in touch with those or other specialist charities, or contact your local sexual assault referral centre. The Government are determined to make the strategy work and I am really grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to the debate.

10:41

[Dr Opher]

I thank the Minister and all those who spoke and brought their fantastic experience of this really difficult problem. Let me say two very simple things. We need to imprint on healthcare workers the idea “Think domestic abuse”, so that we do not miss it. If someone presents, we must have in the back of our minds the question, “Is this domestic abuse?” That will help to identify victims much earlier. After that, we need to enable them to be referred in a simple and effective process that brings them support immediately.

I thank everyone here, and you, Sir John, for chairing the debate.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Thank you for winding up. This has been a really important debate and I am so pleased that everyone was able to contribute. I hope that, had I spoken in the debate and not chaired it, I would have spoken with the same passion and insight that everyone has shown.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the role of the NHS in preventing domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related deaths.

10:42

Sitting suspended.

Temporary Accommodation: Out of Area Placements

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will call Josh Babarinde to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. Other Members may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge. There will not be an opportunity to wind up, sadly, as it is only a half-hour debate.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered out of area placements in temporary accommodation.

Thank you so much, Sir John; it is great to serve under your chairship. I have deliberately avoided the green suit that I know is not your favourite from my wardrobe, so I hope that you will afford me good grace in this debate. [Laughter.]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

It is a private joke, don’t worry!

[Josh Babarinde]

I am grateful for the opportunity to spotlight the challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness who are placed by their local authorities into temporary accommodation outside their local authority areas.

In many cases, out of area placements are both necessary and an appropriate means to safeguard vulnerable individuals. A clear example is survivors of domestic abuse, who may be forced to relocate to ensure their own safety. But too often, for placing authorities, “out of area” becomes shorthand for “out of sight and out of mind”. A scandal has unfolded across our country, in which homeless people are dumped from one place to another without the proper assistance that they need to address the causes of their homelessness, or other support that could help to get them back on their feet.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am absolutely incredulous that any authority should send a family way out of their area. I was shocked when I read about an example of this issue in my constituency, with a family whose child attended a special school being offered accommodation in County Tyrone, which is three hours away from where they live and from where their child goes to school. There is absolutely no way that that family could cope with that. The disruption to their children’s routine would have been severely detrimental. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that special consideration must be given for family units, and particularly to those with children who have particular educational needs?

[Josh Babarinde]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the scandal that families face in his own constituency, but what is even more scandalous is that that is not the exception; it is happening in too many places. Due consideration is not given for families with children with special educational needs. That consideration does not go far enough, and too many councils are not just failing when it comes to making those kinds of assessments but failing to uphold their wider duties of care, communications standards and accountability in following those people and their families wherever they are placed.

In Eastbourne, this issue particularly grew during the pandemic following the introduction of the last Government’s “Everyone In” directive, under which people who were experiencing homelessness were rapidly—and rightly—placed into temporary accommodation, including hotels and bed and breakfasts, in order to protect their health and public health more widely. Although that approach was formally stepped down by the Government after the first lockdown, many local authorities have continued to use that model.

While “Everyone In” was extremely well intentioned, it has since become an embedded, informal and unregulated practice that contributes to the sustained use of out of area temporary accommodation without the necessary support in place. Over the last couple of years, out of area placements in Eastbourne have increased fourfold, to the 209 that Eastbourne hosts today. As I have said in this very room before, out of area placements now account for 46% of all temporary accommodation placements in Eastbourne, with the majority being from Brighton and Hove city council. There are currently 178 placements by Brighton and Hove city council in Eastbourne, and 31 from other neighbouring districts, such as Hastings, Worthing and Rother, and a small number from London.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), this is not just a local issue but a national one. At the end of June 2025, 42,080 households were living in temporary accommodation outside their home local authority. That represents an increase of more than 10% since 2021. London accounts for a significant proportion of such placements, reflecting the acute pressures in the capital. I recognise the scale of the challenge there, but that pattern has clear consequences for other towns and cities across the country, which are increasingly expected to meet these needs without the resources, co-ordination or accountability that should accompany that expectation.

After years of sustained pressure and negotiation by Eastbourne borough council, our town has finally secured somewhat more consistent notifications from placing authorities when individuals are moved into the borough. Although that progress is welcome, serious information gaps remain. Too often, notifications are incomplete, with receiving authorities not provided with information on key risk factors such as histories of domestic abuse or other serious vulnerabilities. That leaves frontline services without the information that they need to keep those individuals, staff and the wider community safe. If a duty of care is to mean anything, it must include the timely sharing of appropriate and proportionate case details across local authority boundaries to ensure that safeguarding responsibilities can be properly discharged.

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

This is a really important debate. One element that is often not told is the number of out of area placements for 16-year-olds. Last year, 1,000 care-experienced children were moved away from home during the three months around their exams. Does the hon. Member agree that we should do everything in our power to ensure that people are able to keep their local connections as far as possible, and particularly those in that vulnerable group?

[Josh Babarinde]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight faced particularly by care-experienced young people. All the evidence tells us that such placements can have a scarring effect on individuals, pervading way into later life, which can set them up for disadvantage before they have even had a proper chance to begin.

Another issue is that local authorities do not routinely notify the receiving authority when a placement has ended. That, again, gets in the way of achieving a proper picture of the temporary accommodation landscape. The impact of that dysfunction is profound. Some people placed in Eastbourne from Brighton, who have gone on to live in Eastbourne, have had to make a 50-mile round trip to access support from their local authority, taking sometimes more than three hours by bus. Those people are often ripped away from their GP, mental health support, addiction services and schools, as has been mentioned already by hon. Members.

Tragically, we have seen the fatal consequences of the broken system. In January 2023, a 25-year-old man placed in Eastbourne by Brighton and Hove city council was found dead in the accommodation in which he was placed. In the month before his death, no welfare checks had been carried out by Brighton and Hove city council—a scandal. Last year, two more people died in Wilmington Square in Eastbourne within days of each other. In Newhaven in the neighbouring constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), 10 people have died in similar circumstances. That is obscene. It is immoral and it is not fair on anyone.

There is also a wider out of area homelessness issue in Eastbourne that is important to acknowledge. Alongside formal placements, Eastbourne has seen individuals arriving from outside the area voluntarily, including cases of people travelling from as far as the Isle of Wight to reside on the streets in Eastbourne. Those people often move in search of safety, support and services that they believe will be available to them. The reality, though, is that unmanaged and unsupported movement across local authority boundaries places additional strain on receiving councils and charities, particularly when there has been no co-ordination, information sharing or support from the originating authority.

I am very proud that Eastbourne borough council has been at the forefront of responding to the challenge. There are amazing officers like Jaime Wainwright-Jones who has pioneered person-centred, preventive and proactive models of support that are delivering extraordinary results. I am also proud of charities and initiatives such as Eastbourne Salvation Army, Matthew 25 Mission, Kingdom Way Trust, Eastbourne food bank, Warming up the Homeless, Feedbourners, Eastbourne Street Pastors, Change Grow Live in Eastbourne, Southdown, Citizens Advice Eastbourne, YMCA Eastbourne Foyer, BHT Sussex, Absolute Angels and Food4Thought. Those are just some of the organisations that have stepped into the breach.

I saw the work at first hand as recently as yesterday when I went to Matthew 25 and spoke with Andrea, Maria and Andrew from the team and volunteers about the impact of out of area placements on the town, on their services and, most importantly, on people. I spoke there with one gentleman who had been placed in Eastbourne by Brighton and Hove city council without the support that he needed. As we were having the discussion he piped up:

“They ended up dumping me here”.

It is inhumane. And I am concerned that that the issue at national level still lacks the urgency that it demands.

I raised the issue in a letter to the previous Minister who committed

“to further define where out of area placements are acceptable and expectations on placing and receiving local authorities.”

I am profoundly concerned that, despite the amazing work that the Minister has done to bring forward the national strategy to end homelessness, the commitment that the last Minister made has not been not met. I therefore call on the Minister to do four things: first, will she set out a clear timetable for clarifying and strengthening the guidance on out of area placements so that local authorities know what is expected of them, and so that people experiencing homelessness have the dignity and support that they deserve, as hon. Members have mentioned in their remarks?

Secondly, I appeal to the Minister to directly consult local government, especially Eastbourne borough council, so that the real experience of receiving councils when it comes to this scandal informs the guidance to come. Thirdly, I call on the Minister to clarify what sanctions exist to course-correct councils who fail in their duty of care and in their duty to co-operate with receiving local authorities. Fourthly, in the meantime, I ask the Government to make it clear to placing local authorities who, I believe, are failing people experiencing homelessness—such as Brighton and Hove city council—that their responsibilities do not end at the point of placement. The duty of care must follow the person. It cannot stop at an arbitrary local authority boundary.

Ultimately, this is about fairness to councils, empowering our support services and, most importantly, protecting the dignity of individuals experiencing homelessness. It is on those principles that I urge the Government to act further without delay.

11:13

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this debate, Sir John, on such an important issue. I was unaware of your views on green suits, so I shall try not to err in future. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for securing this debate. He and I have discussed this issue a couple of times, and he has written to the Department. I congratulate him on working hard to make sure this issue gets the attention it deserves. It is complex, but we set out our national homelessness strategy before Christmas, as the hon. Member mentioned, and we can make a difference. I will run through some of those areas and come to the points that he has raised.

As a Government we inherited a homelessness crisis, with both rough sleeping and the number of households in temporary accommodation more than doubling since 2010. Those pressures stem from years of underinvestment in affordable housing and overstretched local homelessness systems, and I am sure the hon. Member would recognise that. Insufficient truly affordable housing means that councils in England too often have to rely on poor- quality, high-cost options to house homeless households. That has a huge impact on families in temporary accommodation, which is at record levels. As of June last year, 132,000 households, including 172,000 children, were living in temporary accommodation. It is shocking to hear those numbers and that is why we are determined to put it right. Our national plan to end homelessness sets out how we will do that: committing to record investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services, and giving a huge boost to social housing because, in the end, the cause of all of this is not having enough homes that people can afford. Even though it will take time, our commitment to £39 billion of investment to build the social housing we need must be at the root of our response.

The scale of the crisis means we will need to make progress over time and there will be a transition period as the situation stabilises and services are able to move toward longer-term prevention, rather than moving to some of the crisis responses that the hon. Member set out. In our plan we set out that sustainable change to tackle the root causes of homelessness, including the delivery of 1.5 million new homes. In the medium term, while we are building the homes that we need, we are investing £3.5 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, which will help councils intervene earlier, keep people in their homes and reduce the number of households entering temporary accommodation.

In the short term, we are taking immediate action to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation through the £950 million local authority housing fund and, where it is needed, we are working to improve the experience of people living in temporary accommodation. I mention that because two important new goals in the national plan to end homelessness will help the situation that the hon. Member faces in Eastbourne. First, I want to see local authorities prevent homelessness and not end up in the position where they have to place people at all, never mind place them out of area. We will not be able to do that overnight, but if we can stop people becoming homeless in the first place, that problem will not arise.

Secondly, too many places that are using out of area placements to fulfil their homelessness duty have poor access to good-quality temporary accommodation in their own areas. Addressing that is a way to prevent the problems arising, before I get to the reasonable points that the hon. Member has made about what happens when authorities do need to place out of area.

On out of area placements, as of June 2025, 42,0000 households in temporary accommodation were placed outside their home district, with the majority placed in nearby regions. London boroughs accounted for the vast majority of those moves—placing 34,000 households out of area—and also received the highest number of inward placements from other boroughs. As a proud northerner, I sometimes hear from colleagues in the north of England about whether London is the cause of all of our problems. That is just not true; London is dealing with significant issues related to poverty itself. This is a huge amount of disruption for the individuals and families who are affected. We cannot accept it as inevitable, as I have said. We think our plan will help us get to the root cause of it, but we must act now to address poor practice in managing out of area placements to ensure that they are not used where closer, more suitable accommodation is available, and that, where they are used, there is collaboration between the placing and receiving authorities. That comes to the heart of the points that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has made.

The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that all temporary accommodation placements, including those out of area, must be suitable. That includes minimising disruption to schooling, healthcare, support networks and other essential services. The household’s circumstances, safeguarding and support needs must be considered, with links with schools, doctors and social workers retained wherever possible. The guidance does what I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne is arguing for; the question is why it is not working, if the guidance is already there. He mentioned a commitment to strengthen the guidance made by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali). That is restated by the homelessness strategy, and we will be engaging with councils. He has already written on behalf of Eastbourne, and I am in touch with councils week in, week out—including Brighton, which he also mentioned, on a number of occasions. I will be on the hunt for the areas where we need to strengthen the guidance in all my conversations with local authorities, which he will know are very regular at the moment because of the funding settlement.

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am heartened that a review of the out of area placements guidance is still on the cards, but I am disheartened not to hear a timetable for that. It feels as though not much has progressed since my letter and the response that I received in the summer. I wonder if she can share a timetable for when that review will take place and be concluded.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for his point, but I disagree that not much has progressed because we have published a national plan to end homelessness. As I set out before, the point of that plan is to increase prevention and, in the short and medium term, get better quality placements closer to home. We are working on that action plan now. I do not want to give him an arbitrary deadline for work on the guidance, but I am sure we will speak again on many occasions. It will be part of the action plan and the steps that we are taking, coming out of the strategy. I am happy to update him as we move along.

Let me make some progress in responding to some of the other points the hon. Member for Eastbourne raised. For example, we already require the authority to consider the suitability of the location for all members of the household. Housing authorities should, wherever possible, seek to place homeless households in their area, except where there are clear benefits for the person seeking assistance. I am pleased that the hon. Member mentioned those who are experiencing domestic abuse—we would all obviously see the benefit of an out of area placement, and I am sure he did not mean to imply anything other than that.

Where an out of area placement is suitable and necessary, good communication between authorities is vital, as we have heard. Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 requires councils to notify the receiving authority when they place a household out of area. We know that, across the country, notifications are not always made and, where they are made, the information provided is limited. That is not good enough; I expect all local authorities to ensure that placements and notifications align with duties under the relevant legislation. The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked about sanctions and so on. There are clear ways in which local authorities can be held to account for the decisions they make, such as the ombudsman, Parliament and other means. We will not succeed in our goals in the national plan to end homelessness without local authorities, so my role is to support them. Through the funding settlement and other things, that is what I am trying to do. If there are areas where local authorities have fallen down, there are clear routes through which they can be held accountable.

All services have a role to play in providing the right support, and I am delighted that we recently introduced an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill requiring local housing authorities to,

“notify…educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services…when a child is placed in temporary accommodation”.

Consent would have to be provided. That will ensure that schools and health services have the information they need to provide proactive, practical and pastoral support where needed.

The amendment a part of our strategy, as is our commitment to introducing a duty to collaborate, to ensure that notification and co-operation is happening as it should. To be honest with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I can imagine a number of reasons why they may not operate as they should, not least a decade and a half of austerity where local councils were stripped of the resources that they needed to do the job. That is the reality they face, but our job collectively is to provide the systems and processes to help them do it, notwithstanding the point I just made about accountability.

[Amanda Hack]

Could the Minister clarify whether that duty to inform also includes the 16 to 18-year-olds, who may well be placed by social services, rather than by homelessness teams?

[Alison McGovern]

My very dedicated civil servants are just mouthing to me that they might be in care, and therefore there might be requirements from that point of view. If it is okay with her, I will write to my hon. Friend with a detailed and full response, because the legal situation surrounding 16-year-olds is particularly important.

To conclude, temporary accommodation challenges are different across the country. Therefore, as I said, we need to respond to the realities that councils are facing. As part of that, in boosting the capacity that local authorities have, our emergency accommodation reduction pilots, backed by £8 million of investment, have effectively reduced the number of families with children in bed and breakfasts for more than the six-week limit by working with areas experiencing the highest pressures. That is the approach that I want to take on this issue. Receiving authorities must of course be able to work collaboratively with placing authorities, as we have said.

In the end, the heart of this problem is the people who are affected. I was disheartened to hear the hon. Member for Eastbourne report that somebody had said to him they had been “dumped”—how awful. We want people to feel that councils are there to support them if the worst happens and make sure they get back on their feet. That is why our emergency accommodation reduction programme, with a £30 million funding increase through the homelessness strategy, will help tackle poor practice and get us on the right road.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for raising these issues. As I have said a number of times, out of area placements should be a last resort. When they happen, they must be handled properly with full notification, safeguarding referrals and collaboration between councils. Overall, we are committed to tackling the drivers of homelessness, improving standards and ensuring that vulnerable households get the support they need.

This is a shared challenge, and I look forward to working with all local authorities, charities and Members across this House to deliver the long-term solutions we want to see. On behalf of all of us in this House, could the hon. Member for Eastbourne pass our sincere thanks to the charities, organisations and individuals he mentioned? It sounds like they are doing a very important job.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Priorities for water sector reform, HC 1001; Oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 9 September and 15 July 2025, on Reforming the water sector, HC 588.]

14:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and to open this debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

Like many Members across this House, I welcomed the introduction of the Water (Special Measures) Act last year. After years of public anger over pollution, rising bills and declining services in the sector, the Act promised a tougher approach to a failing water industry. It pledged to ban bonuses for failing bosses, bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers, impose meaningful fines and introduce independent monitoring of every sewer overflow. On paper, that sounded like progress. In practice, the Act has proved to be little more than a drop in the ocean.

The Water (Special Measures) Act was meant to turn the tide, but right now the sewage is still flowing and so are the excuses from water bosses. The Act was intended to strengthen regulation and restore public trust, yet in the months since its introduction we have seen companies complying with the letter of the law while confidence continues to drain away. When regulation is drafted so narrowly it can be complied with but the purpose is undermined, it is quite clearly not fit for purpose and not strong enough. That brings me to a central question of this debate: how do we ensure that the principles of the Act are properly enforced, and that water companies are genuinely held to account?

Nowhere is the failure of the current system clearer than the performance of Yorkshire Water, which supplies water to my constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough. The problems they face mirror those across the country, from poor customer services to rising bills and the persistent sewage pollution we see in our rivers.

Yorkshire Water was classified by Ofwat as “lagging behind” but my constituents are having to pay that price upfront. In October 2025, the Environment Agency gave Yorkshire Water a red rating for serious pollution incidents. Those incidents had almost tripled in 2024, leaving the company with one of the worst pollution records in the country. Despite this performance, customers have repeatedly been asked to pay more while receiving less. One constituent described their experience as:

“Probably the worst consumer experience I have had in my life”.

Against that backdrop, many were rightly shocked by comments from the Yorkshire Water chief executive when she suggested criticism of the company reflected

“a level of expectation from customers that’s much higher”

than it had been. With water bills expected to rise by as much as 41% over the next five years, and a hosepipe ban that was imposed from July to December, my constituents are entitled to ask how low does she think their expectations should be? If expectations are too high, then perhaps the problem is not the public but the leadership of Yorkshire Water.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Liberal Democratic party for all they do on water issues. That cannot be taken away from them: they are to the fore. Other parties may be a wee bit annoyed at that, but they are so active it is incredible. Well done.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the private companies do not appear to be tied to doing the right thing for the public as a whole, but to doing more for their investors? The ability to freeze bonus payments as a penalty should be used, and the consultation with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must allow this measure to be implemented in a quick and cost-effective manner, as a matter of urgency. Does he agree that is one thing that could be done?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is a pleasure to take an intervention from him, as always. I completely agree with what he has outlined and the characterisation of the way that the water sector is, frankly, morally bankrupt. There is no interest in the public good. That is why my party has long been calling to see these companies reformed, where they have to put public benefit interest first rather than corporate shareholder responsibilities.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member and alongside him I wish to put on record on behalf of my constituents what an absolute disgrace Thames Water is. In a desperate attempt to secure their investments, avoid special administration and keep the company within the private sector, Thames Water’s creditors are trying to strike a deal with Ofwat that would see them polluting our waterways for up to 15 years. That is a shameless attempt that proves that they cannot be trusted to put the best interests of their customers or the environment ahead of their own purses. Does the hon. Member agree that Ofwat ought to reject that deal and use the powers it has been granted through this Act and put Thames Water into special administration?

[Tom Gordon]

The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. Water companies are trying to get away with doing grubby deals by the back door. Across the board—it is not just Thames Water and Yorkshire Water—the sector is not operating as it should, so we need proper wholesale reform of the water companies’ models.

If the expectations are too high, it is perhaps not the public who have the wrong end of the stick, but the leadership of Yorkshire Water. Clean water is not an unreasonable demand, but the bare minimum that we should be able to expect. My constituents can see the consequences of Yorkshire Water’s failure at first hand; they need only to go out into our wonderful countryside across Harrogate and Knaresborough, where the River Nidd, Crimple beck and Oak beck have all been affected by sewage outflows and overflows.

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

In my constituency, the River Avon and its tributaries are central to our natural environment and to leisure and tourism—the visitor economy. It is a disgrace that our waterways are still being polluted. Does my hon. Friend agree that water management data must be transparent, and that the Government must introduce monitoring of the volume, not just the duration, of sewage overspills?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very pertinent intervention. I have been to Stratford, and it is a lovely place. No community should be blighted by sewage at the hands of these water bosses. The point about volume, and not just hours of sewage dumping, is key.

The River Nidd, which once brought joy to families in Harrogate and Knaresborough, is now treated as a health hazard. Every year, kids are taken to hospital after playing and swimming in it. Dogs routinely fall sick and have to go to the vet if they dare go swim in the lido. That is not progress, but decline. Things are not getting better; they are still getting worse.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. In 2024, storm overflows at Harbertonford waste water treatment works discharged into the Harbourne river for more than 3,500 hours. In other words, raw sewage was pumped into the river, which flows into the glorious River Dart, for 40% of the year. As of this morning, the same storm overflow has been activated since 11 January. Does my hon. Friend agree that South West Water must not be allowed to get away with that?

[Tom Gordon]

That is another fantastic example of how poorly water companies across the length and breadth of our country are performing. It is entirely unacceptable. My hon. Friend and many other Liberal Democrat colleagues have done a fantastic job of holding the water bosses to account. Her constituents are very lucky to have her, and I am sure she will continue to do that.

Last summer, I took part in the Knaresborough bed race, which ends with participants crossing the River Nidd after running around town, up and down hills, with kids on beds. It is a fantastic event. If Members have not seen it, they should google it—even better, they should come and watch it. Hopefully, I will get a place to do it again this year. But in recent years the river crossing at the end has become contentious. There was talk of scrapping it altogether because of the danger of having to cross the river when sewage overflows have been pumping. Locals advise those competing in the race to drink a can of full-sugar Coke at the end in the hope that it will kill off any bacteria and nasty things that they may have swallowed during the river crossing. When that is the best piece of advice that people can give to those competing in a sporting event, something has gone very wrong. The regulation of the water sector is completely failing. No one should have to fear sickness from their local river in 21st century Britain, but that is Yorkshire Water’s legacy in my constituency.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about Yorkshire Water, which also serves Dewsbury and Batley. In 2024, there were at least 346 sewage dumps in local waterways in Dewsbury and Batley, lasting over 1,000 hours. That equals 1.5 months of continuous sewage discharge. Discharges around Batley beck, the River Calder and the River Spen are blighting our waterways and our community. In addition, sewage is backing up into streets and people’s homes because of a failure to maintain pipes or design the system correctly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that water companies have been getting away with almost murder for too long and must be held accountable? Customers must not have to pay any longer for their failings and their profiteering.

[Tom Gordon]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of Yorkshire Water. All too often, we hear that there will be investment and improvement, but it is frankly too little and often too late. There has been a lack of investment in infrastructure over decades, which has left the system creaking at the seams. I completely agree that we need to get a proper grip of the issues that I have outlined.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I will add another name to the catalogue of water company disasters: Southern Water. In Rudgwick in my Horsham constituency, residents have complained for almost 20 years about effluent backing up into bathrooms, footpaths covered in soiled loo paper and having to keep children and pets indoors. Yet over the last decade, average Southern Water bills have shot up from £262 in 2016 to £702 today. Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that residents are paying vastly more with absolutely nothing to show for it?

[Tom Gordon]

That is a damning indictment of the state of water companies across the length and breadth of this country, especially at a time that is hard financially, when people have to tighten their belts more than ever before and are struggling with the cost of living crisis. That is what jars people: when they see their water bills going up more and more but they still have to deal with the grim situations that my hon. Friend outlined so eloquently. That is not an isolated story; it is a reflection of systemic failures across the industry and our country.

Since the introduction of the 2025 Act, Thames Water’s financial position has, as we have heard, continued to deteriorate, while sewage discharges persist. In the south-east just a few weeks ago, we saw repeated outages that left households without even the basic service of being able to turn on the taps. When water companies repeatedly fail and nothing visibly changes, the message to the public is clear: accountability is missing.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous. As the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Minehead, I represent two water companies, Wessex Water—who are no angels—and South West Water—who I have been chasing for several months in order to get a meeting on behalf of a constituent whose bakery was flooded to such an extent that she has now had to shut up shop and go home. I am supposed to be meeting them on Monday, but it has taken at least four days to get a time out of them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that these companies are able to literally stick their fingers in their ears when people raise concerns on behalf of their communities?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I do not envy her having to battle just one water company, but two. She has her work cut out for her—some of us are now breathing a sigh of relief in comparison. The problem is, as she outlined, that there is no accountability. It often takes public pressure, campaigning or us in this place banging the drum to talk about these issues to get those meetings set up and problems fixed when it is a basic obligation that water companies should already provide.

Since the introduction of the 2025 Act, we have seen issues across the country. The failure of water companies is a source of frustration and distrust in politics. People feel that the legislation that was passed is simply not working, or that we got it wrong. One of the most high-profile elements of the Water (Special Measures) Act was the commitment to block bonuses for executives at failing water companies. Water companies are upping their game and thinking about the way that they structure their payments to try and circumvent these measures and the bonus ban. Ofwat investigated Yorkshire Water last year, but said that it did not breach the legislation or regulatory guidance on executive pay. The payments made to the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, Nicola Shaw, through the offshore parent company Kelda Holdings were what they called “fixed fees” for group-level responsibilities and funded by shareholders. While technically that might not constitute a breach of the ban, it is a demonstration of how open to exploitation the system and the legislation are. Rather than a bonus ban, we have ended up with a bonus rebrand.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Last year, it emerged that Thames Water was planning an enormous additional compensation package under the guise of a management retention plan. After being grilled by those of us on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and an understandable public outcry, it announced that it would no longer go ahead with that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any water company setting its moral bar lower than Thames Water should take a long, hard look in the mirror?

[Tom Gordon]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. I thank him and the Chair of the EFRA Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is also here today. The work that they have been doing in highlighting the issues endemic to water companies across this country could not have come sooner. The fixes that they have highlighted in their reports are important for driving this conversation as we look towards the future.

Turning back to Yorkshire Water, in the past two years, those payments—which were apparently not bonuses but rather “fixed fees”, or whatever Yorkshire Water called them—totalled more than £1 million, on top of the near £700,000 annual basic salary, at a time when pollution incidents were rising and trust was collapsing. Yorkshire Water’s chief executive has since said that it was a “mistake” not to disclose those payments and not to have been more transparent. Well, that is too little too late when Yorkshire Water has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. My message to Yorkshire Water is simple: it can rename a bonus to a “fixed fee” and apologise for getting caught out, but the stench of sewage still clings to it, and to the bosses at Yorkshire Water.

I remain concerned about the overreliance on fines as a primary enforcement tool. In recent years, we have seen Yorkshire Water and many other companies facing record-breaking fines, but the problem remains: the lack of accountability that they face, even when such astronomical penalties are imposed on them. Simply put, we cannot fine our way out of failure when customers end up footing the bill.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his impassioned speech on this very important subject. My constituents in the South Cotswolds will be deeply disappointed by this White Paper. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get literally upstream of this question, and address the question of water company ownership? When we look to Europe, we see models such as mutual or public-benefit ownership working much more effectively. Does he also agree that the profit motive does not sit well with an essential public utility?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting across that argument, and I completely agree with her. She has outlined the case and the reasoning very well.

Moving on to today’s water White Paper, it is right that we recognise that the current regulatory system has failed, that Ofwat has not provided the hands-on oversight required, and that prevention must replace crisis management. Proposals for a new regulator, stronger inspections and greater transparency are a step in the right direction—if long overdue—but a White Paper and those new proposals will only be as strong as their enforcement.

I want to press the Minister on three specific points. First, will the Minister confirm that the new regulator will have an explicit duty to close remuneration loopholes, so that executives cannot simply comply with the letter of the law while undermining its purpose? Secondly, will the Minister commit to ensuring that criminal liability for water bosses is not merely theoretical but actively pursued where there is evidence of serious or repeated environmental harm? Thirdly, will the Minister set out how enforcement action will target decision makers, not just balance sheets, so that customers are no longer left paying for failure through higher bills? Those are the tests that will determine whether today’s White Paper represents a genuine reset or simply another missed opportunity.

Ultimately, this debate is about accountability. Pollution on this scale is not an accident; it is a result of decisions, incentives and failures of leadership. When executives are rewarded while rivers are polluted, that is not mismanagement; it is environmental vandalism. Nicola Shaw remains in post despite rising bills, collapsing trust and one of the worst pollution records in this country. In any other industry, that level of failure would end in resignation. So today I say clearly: Nicola Shaw, do us a favour and go.

A new regulator must come into post and go further than we have seen with Ofwat. Water bosses who preside over illegal pollution should not just have their bonuses blocked; they should face criminal consequences for their environmental damage and harm. No more hiding behind corporate structures, no more excuses and no more polluting with impunity: if they poison our waterways, they should answer not just to shareholders but to the full force of the law.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Timings-wise, we will stick to approximately five minutes per person at the moment, which should make possible one or two interventions as well.

14:49

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Dr Allin-Khan. I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing such an important debate on a crucial topic, which concerns people across the country.

I am grateful to take the opportunity to speak today about the River Tyne, which holds great sentimental value to me, as I know it does to so many people who call both Northumberland and the wider north-east home, and have been raised in the area surrounding it. I, along with many of my constituents, have deeply fond memories of exploring and enjoying the astonishing diversity of nature that the River Tyne has to offer. It is a natural landmark, central to community life, to local economies and to the identity of the region, along with some of Northumberland’s other great rivers.

With that in mind, I will take a moment to highlight the incredible work of the Tyne Rivers Trust and the Wylam Clean Tyne organisation, both of which are dedicated to improving the wellbeing of the region’s rivers and communities—from Alston up to Kielder and beyond—through education, practical conservation and environmental activism. The protection and development of the Tyne’s waters establish it as one of the best salmon rivers in England. It houses a diverse range of animals and plant life, and it is worth millions to our local economy. Importantly, it also acts as a third space for local communities looking to access the positive effects on wellbeing associated with spending time in and around nature.

It is a devastating fact that the previous Government allowed our river to be flooded with an unregulated torrent of sewage. They were a Government who saw environmental protection as an inconvenience, not a responsibility. They underfunded regulators, scaled back monitoring and weakened the enforcement of environmental standards. They allowed water companies’ profits to soar, bosses to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses, and household bills to increase. They left my constituents with a River Tyne that is unsafe and in decline, not because of natural change but because of political failure and political choices.

I strongly welcome the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Act, which reflects our mission to clean up our rivers and bring accountability to water companies. I agree that, in order to bring about the necessary long-standing reform, it is fundamental that the plans are effectively enforced, and that funding and resources back regulators so that they can apply the new legislation consistently and effectively. I would like to hear from the Minister how rural communities, including those in my constituency, can be supported by the Act specifically. Northumbrian Water must be held accountable, having made over 3,000 sewage dumps into the Tyne in 2024 alone. It must be held responsible for what must be significant investment in the infrastructure of overflows and the rebuilding of public trust.

I also want to emphasise, as often as I can, the importance of working in partnership with communities across my constituency, particularly rural communities. The expertise of the organisations that I mentioned will be crucial to the conversation that Northumbrian Water and local government could have if they are serious about understanding and tackling the problem. They, alongside farmers and land managers, are vital stewards of our environment. Supporting sustainable land use, reducing run-off and improving soil and water management must be done collaboratively, with practical support, funding, clear guidance and long-term certainty. This Government understand that environmental recovery and economic growth go hand in hand. Clean rivers do not just enrich our environment; they support tourism, angling and farming, and they build a sense of local pride. Protecting the Tyne is not a barrier to prosperity; it is part of building a greener, fairer and more resilient future.

I will touch on the impact of the clean river on young people. Tyne Green in the town of Hexham or the banks along Wylam and Prudhoe are all venues for young people to get to know the river and enjoy it. There have been some fantastic initiatives on river safety pioneered by my friend and comrade, Angie Scott, who is a Northumberland county councillor for Prudhoe. As we try to clean up our waterways, it is important to ensure that young people maintain not just access to them but an understanding of them. I should be grateful if the Minister would speak about that.

14:53

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing this welcome and—particularly in my constituency—timely debate on regulation, public trust and customers’ experience.

I am participating on behalf of my constituents in East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages. Many people will know that Sussex and Kent were at the epicentre of the recent outages, despite the guidance we had on the Friday before the taps were turned off that it would be elsewhere. Today is another opportunity to welcome the new powers in the White Paper and talk about how we hold the regulator, Ofwat, to account. I put on the record my huge thanks to the Minister and her team in DEFRA for listening to me on behalf of my constituents and holding these companies to account.

What has happened over the weekend is clear. I will go through my list of experiences. Before the boundary changes, in August 2020, hundreds of homes were affected in my patch and in East Sussex. In November 2022, 30,000 people were affected, including in my part of the world, and in Kent. In December 2022, in Uckfield and in Crowborough in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), 16,000 households were affected. In June 2023, thousands of homes were affected again across the Mid Sussex district. In January 2024, Sussex and Kent homes were affected by the impact of Storm Henk. Then Sussex and Kent were again affected in November 2024, and again in January 2025.

Dr Allin-Khan, you will be interested in this. I met today with Karen McDowell, the head of Sussex integrated care board, to consider the impact on the Queen Victoria hospital in East Grinstead. I thank its leader Abigail and her team for their stoicism during the outage. In the midst of the sanitation issue, with a norovirus crisis and a flu crisis in our local NHS, when we did not have water across my area, people from Surrey, where they declared an emergency, were being sent to my local hospital for treatment. It is absolutely outrageous.

People are now turning to the point of compensation. If this is caused by a storm and an act of God, that is one thing. The Minister knows that this is about a bulk supply issue linked to South East Water. Ultimately, if there is any break in service and if licence conditions are broken, it is ultimately my constituents who cannot function.

Today’s written statement mentions the need for a

“joined-up regional water planning function and framework to improve local decision making and delivery.”

I recognise the need for a broader debate on the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, building on the Environment Act 2021, to make sure that there is a proper answer.

My constituents are turning at the moment to what this means in terms of compensation. The break in service is absolutely front of mind. As I have spelled out, this is not the first time. Unless there is leadership and structural change, I truly believe it will not be the last.

Let me give the example of the Ashdown Park hotel. There are 50 staff members living on the site. It was closed for days, with no response from the Saturday of the outage through to the reopening. Birthdays, spa days, treats and celebrations were all destroyed, with frontline staff left trying to explain.

I urge my constituents and those watching today to sign up to the priority list. Many vulnerable people, particularly in our villages, were left waiting for water. I know that is an issue that both the shadow Minister and the Minister are particularly worried about.

There are also the needs of livestock. Horses need to drink 5 to 8 gallons of water every day. This situation has been tearing out people’s hearts and souls. They have been so worried. For me, these outages are a moment of crisis in the water sector. I have people cancelling their direct debits at the same time as larger bills are falling on their mats.

I am conscious that many people want to speak, so I will come to a conclusion. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on something that matters to me deeply. I ask the Minister to work with me on behalf of my constituents to hold the leadership—the chair, the chief executive and the team—to account. I hope that this new vision, with this White Paper, turns into action, change and accountability.

Colleagues have spoken about the opportunity for shareholders to do what they can. NatWest Group holds a large stake in South East Water. In today’s Telegraph, it notes that it wants the company to be held to account for supply issues, and for those issues to be “fully resolved with urgency”. Other shareholders also say they want this addressed and they want resilience in the services. So do we, so do our constituents, and so should everyone.

14:59

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.

Cleaning up our rivers is one of my top priorities, and I am delighted that the Government agree and have introduced more legislation and action on enforcement in 18 months than the previous Government did in 14 years. I was incredibly pleased to serve on the Bill Committee for the Water (Special Measures) Act—the subject of this debate—with some of the other Members present. The Act sets out, for the first time, a ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, and will ensure that the CEOs of water companies can even face criminal charges and imprisonment.

In Wales, Dŵr Cymru is our not-for-profit water company. However, I am afraid that being not for profit has not stopped it dumping sewage into our much-loved rivers. In 2023, we had a massive 2,383 sewage-dumping incidents in Monmouthshire. In 2022, the then chief executive took home £332,000, and a further £232,000 in bonuses. More recently, Ofwat stepped in and stopped the company paying out £163,000 in bonuses from customers’ money, so that was a step forward.

[Caroline Voaden]

In May 2024, an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in my constituency left 17,000 properties under a boil water notice for as long as two months. Although the incident is the subject of legal investigation, I would like to highlight my constituents’ frustration that the then CEO, Susan Davy, later picked up a share bonus of £191,000, bringing her total package for that year up to £803,000. Ofwat banned six water companies from paying executive bonuses, but I was shocked to see that South West Water was not one of them. Does the hon. Member agree that that is a clear illustration of why Ofwat must be replaced without delay, as it clearly fails to adequately protect the public interest?

[Catherine Fookes]

Our White Paper, published today, deals with the reform of Ofwat, so hopefully we will see an end to that kind of behaviour. In fact, I was just about to say that a total of £9.7 million was paid out in executive bonuses and benefits to water and sewage company executives between 2022 and 2023. The Act will stop bonuses for poor performances.

Let me move on to my favourite topic: our wonderful rivers, which we seek to protect with the Act. I would argue that in Monmouthshire we have some of the finest rivers in the UK. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), but they are much nicer than the River Tyne. The majestic Wye—the birthplace of tourism in the UK—the babbling Usk and the meandering Monnow are all wonderful rivers. They give us our sense of place, they provide recreation in the form of walks, kayaks or swims, and they are a magnet for tourism. They are the backbone of our local economy.

I will never forget the awe I felt when I first saw a flash of blue go past me as I was kayaking down the River Wye, as I saw my first ever kingfisher. It was an incredibly exciting moment. Rivers know no borders, and the Wye runs through four counties and two countries, so we must co-operate to manage it across borders. Fortunately, that is now possible given that we have two Labour Governments working together.

When I was growing up, my parents had no problem with letting me go and cool off by dunking myself in the chalk streams near my house. The only issue was the mess that I made when I came back inside. Now, though, parents have to be fearful of letting their children go in the river. The only thing on which I really agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) is the fact that dogs are now getting seriously ill in our rivers. A wonderful, usually bouncy, sprollie named Tess recently fell seriously ill with E. coli after swimming in the river, only recovering after many weeks of antibiotics.

We all want waterways that we can swim in, and water that is safe to drink and available to us, and we want it at an affordable price, so I am delighted that our two Governments in Cardiff and here in Westminster are working together. I am so grateful to the Minister for all her work and for supporting me in a meeting with the Wye Catchment Partnership and the Welsh Government, which resulted in £1 million for the River Wye action plan, which is just the start of the Wye’s recovery. I also thank all the non-governmental organisations and citizen scientists—the Welsh Rivers Union, Friends of the River Wye, Save the River Usk and the Wye and Usk Foundation, to name but a few—for all their work to help to clean up our rivers.

I am pleased that as well as the Water (Special Measures) Act, the White Paper has been published today, and it aims to overhaul the water system and strengthen regulation. It is the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The Deputy First Minister has confirmed that, following the Cunliffe review, the Welsh Government will publish their vision for water reform in Wales later this year, setting out the next steps and inviting views from others. I welcome the fact that there will be a shared transition plan, co-designed with the UK Government, that sets out the route to a new water system in Wales, and that interim arrangements, including a strategic policy statement for Ofwat and other regulators, will provide clarity during the period of transition.

I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for all their work so far on this vital issue. I hope the Minister can assure me that the UK and Welsh Governments will continue to work closely on our water courses as, of course, rivers do not heed boundaries.

15:05

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this important debate and giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents, who are utterly fed up with Southern Water and a system that is failing them at every level.

My constituents are being hit with a 53% increase in their water bills—the largest rise of any water company in England or Wales—at a time when household finances are already under enormous pressure. What are they getting in return? Outages, sewage dumping, hosepipe bans, leaks and a provider that can act with impunity but cannot get a grip of its failed services.

Against that backdrop, my constituents were rightly furious to learn that the CEO of Southern Water received a £1.4 million annual pay package last year—nearly double what it was the year before—despite the company being banned from issuing bonuses, and after zero improvements in service delivery or environmental performance. It beggars belief and is frankly indefensible. My constituents should not have to pay for Southern Water’s failures, yet that is exactly what is happening. Bills go up and services do not get better.

There are repeated sewage leaks into the River Itchen, the precious chalk stream that runs through my constituency. In the latest Environment Agency assessment, Southern Water was handed a two-star rating after causing a shocking 269 pollution incidents in 2024, including 15 that were classified as serious.

Meanwhile, water outages in my constituency have become commonplace. Just before Christmas 2024, residents in Chandler’s Ford and Eastleigh were left without water after a massive outage, with almost 60,000 homes across Hampshire affected. I raised the issue of outages at Prime Minister’s questions last April and was assured that action would be taken. What exactly has changed? That is why I am so disappointed that the Government’s water White Paper, published today, does not go further and fails to deliver the fundamental change needed to protect rivers such as the Itchen.

People in Eastleigh are fed up with tough words from the Government while bills rise, sewage continues to flow and water company executives continue to cash in. We need a new ownership model in which water companies are mutually owned by customers and professionally managed, with full transparency, including the publication of the volume of sewage dumped into our rivers, not just the duration of spills, and a new regulator that can finally get to grips with this crisis.

15:08

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.

I would like to start by thanking the Minister for all her support. I do not think we realised that we would spend so much time on the same Zoom calls with a vast collection of characters from across Kent and the water sector. I also thank the Secretary of State, who came to Tunbridge Wells last Wednesday to announce an unprecedented review into South East Water’s licence.

It has been interesting to hear Members talk of their local water companies and how surreal it is that they are able to continue with such appalling performance while patting themselves on the back and rewarding themselves with eye-watering sums of money. I have news for everyone here—hold my beer—because South East Water is the worst in the entire country.

At the end of November, the water went out in Tunbridge Wells, and South East Water got off to a good start by setting up a bottled-water station in another town. When we pointed out that Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells are different towns, bottled water stations were then set up in the right town, although we had to point out where they should be. That outage lasted about two weeks, with a week of no water and then a week of a boil notice.

South East Water handled the communications so poorly that, naturally, my constituents were quite fearful of the quality of water and whether they would be able to drink it. That space was then filled by bad actors and we had to ask the Cabinet Office to intervene to help us with the disinformation. South East Water’s crisis management and communications during that outage were absolutely appalling. The Minister will agree with me that through all of the Zoom meetings we had daily, the qualities on display among the representatives from South East Water were extremely poor. Yet when they were called to the Select Committee in January, they gave themselves an eight out of 10. [Laughter.] I did mention to Members that these are literally the worst people. They are gangster capitalists, as I will go on to explain.

While the CEO was at the EFRA Committee giving himself an eight of 10, the water was going off again in Tunbridge Wells. At the exact moment he was saying there was a plan and everything was going to be okay, I got a text from my mother-in-law, who lives at one of the highest points in Tunbridge Wells. We are all water experts in Tunbridge Wells now, and the water goes off first on the high ground, because South East Water cannot pump it uphill. I immediately rang South East Water and was asked where I had got that information, so I was informing the water company that there was a major outage in Tunbridge Wells.

I then picked up the phone to the borough council, which picked up the phone to Kent county council, which runs the resilience forum. That was the chain of the passage of information to get the local resilience forum stood up, rather than South East Water understanding, knowing what was going on, getting a grip of the situation and communicating effectively to local partners.

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making a speech that I feel I could make. I feel deep sorrow for him and for his constituents. Given the amount of outages, it is very surprising that the crisis communication does not get any better. Water companies should be experts in it, but are clearly not. My concern is that even when we give them information that we believe is true, when they offer information back it very often is not true. I have asked, “Has the water station that you’ve said has been set up in my patch actually opened?”, and got the answer, “Yes.” I then told people in good faith but it turned out it had not. That is a fundamental problem, is it not?

[Mike Martin]

I offer two examples—surreal is the only word for them. I was standing at a water station in Tunbridge Wells, speaking to South East Water, and I was told, “The water station is open.” I looked around, and it definitely was not open. The problem is that South East Water has a contractor that sets up the water stations that either is incompetent, is mendacious or lies—or all three—so the company does not have a grip of what is going on.

I have another utterly surreal example. I think the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) was in the meeting with the Minister when the Minister said, “There seems to be a problem in Cranbrook, according to my briefing. Dave Hinton, could you speak to that?” For Members who do not know, Cranbrook is in the borough of Tunbridge Wells but not in the constituency. Alongside me was the chief executive from the borough council, who said, “What’s the problem in Cranbrook?” He immediately thought he had a problem to deal with. Dave Hinton, the CEO of South East Water, said, “Oh no, there’s no problem in Cranbrook. I think it’s absolutely fine. Where did you get that information?” The Minister asked her official where the information was from, and in a moment worthy of the best episode of “Yes Minister” the official said dryly, “Minister, we got that information from South East Water.”

These people are utter gangsters. They gave evidence to the Select Committee, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and immediately afterwards the chief water inspector for England and Wales—God, he warms your heart if you are in the middle of a water crisis, I can tell you—came and rubbished their evidence. South Easter Water said the crisis was unforeseeable; the chief water inspector said, “No, not only was it foreseeable but we told you what you needed to do in the weeks and months preceding the outage. Had you done that, the crisis wouldn’t have happened.” To my mind, that is negligence. In the first crisis in December, people had to receive lifesaving treatment because a dialysis centre got knocked out. South East Water is a hair’s breadth away from a corporate manslaughter charge. These people are gangsters.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

The disasters involving South East Water in my hon. Friend’s constituency are frightening. In my constituency, Thames Water managed to put water in the wrong town, and the residents of the small town that was affected could not go and find it because they had no transport. Thames Water did not tell anyone that the water was there. In fact, had it not been for the local supermarket telling people that there was water in the car park, no one would have known. What I find really scary about my hon. Friend’s comments—I am sure he will agree—is that gangsters seem to be acting in my area as well, because Thames Water seems no different from the company he highlights. We need to look at this more seriously.

[Mike Martin]

My gangsters are worse than my hon. Friend’s. She makes a powerful point.

[Mr Carmichael]

All this talk of gangsters makes me think my hon. Friend must be styling himself as the Eliot Ness of the water industry. His point about the Drinking Water Inspectorate is particularly important today, as we hear about the changes proposed in the White Paper. The DWI does exceptionally high quality work. Does he agree that we must not lose that output when we fold it into the new super regulator?

[Mike Martin]

I am well over my time, and I need to get to the point of my speech, but I get incredibly passionate when defending my constituents’ interests and their right to clean water. The White Paper is out today. My challenge to the Minister, whom I count as an ally in this fight, is this. What measures contained in the White Paper would have prevented the outages in Tunbridge Wells? She will, of course, give me an answer from the Dispatch Box, but I ask her to reflect honestly on that.

I also ask her to think about debt, which the Government do not speak to in the White Paper. About £70 billion of debt is held across the water industry, much of it by shareholders in water companies that pay out 10% interest. Financial engineering got us into this mess, and we need a bit of financial engineering to get us out of it and to lower interest rates on that debt. I ask the Minister to speak to that.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

The passion is very welcome, but in the spirit of trying to be fair and make sure everybody gets at least five minutes, we are now on a strict time limit, with no more than five minutes for the final two speakers. I call Josh Newbury.

15:17

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and giving those in positions of power in our water industry a chance to hear hard truths and take accountability. Although the state of the industry and the morally questionable behaviour of many companies is a talking point for some, I know that he has been a dogged campaigner on this for many years. In fact, I am sure I saw a photo somewhere of him wading in the River Nidd, such is his commitment to getting up close and personal with the issues.

Speaking of getting up close and personal, those of us who are members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have had—I hesitate to say the pleasure—the task of grilling the bosses of nine water companies as part of our inquiry into reforming the water sector. We have dived into many of the issues that we are hearing about, such as sewage overflows, compliance with environmental laws, support for vulnerable customers, the impact of flooding and outages, and, of course, the atrocious corporate culture and disconnection from the principles of delivering an essential public service that has taken hold in much of the water industry. That work has reinforced for me just how bad things have got, how far public confidence in the water industry has been damaged and how necessary robust reform has become.

What I have heard from my constituents is echoed across the country: a sense that accountability is an afterthought, that communities are left to pick up the pieces when things go wrong, and that bosses can get additional compensation regardless of how their company performs. That is precisely why the Water (Special Measures) Act is so important. It rightly strengthens the powers available to regulators and makes it clear that persistent failure—environmental, operational or corporate—must carry real consequences. It reflects a clear Labour principle that essential public services must work in the public interest and not simply for shareholder return.

Crucially, the Act marks a decisive shift away from the regulatory complacency of the past. In the year from July 2024, criminal prosecutions of water companies rose by 145%—a clear sign of meaningful progress. However, enforcement needs to be felt not just at operational level, but at the top. It is impossible to justify the need for customers to tolerate sewage in our waterways, botched responses during outages and poor communication, while senior executives still receive substantial payouts with impunity. That disconnect is corrosive. It undermines confidence not only in individual companies, but in the whole system, regulators included. That is why I believe that the true test of the Act and the newly released water White Paper will be whether they drive a genuine shift in the industry—one in which transparency and consumer trust are central to how success is measured.

Some companies, as we have heard, have sought to repackage rewards under labels such as “retention payments”. The public do not distinguish between a bonus and a retention payment. They see only failing senior execs continuing to be rewarded. The boss of South East Water is set to receive a £400k bonus just for staying in his job, despite, as we have heard, the company leaving thousands of households in Kent and Sussex without water for days and issuing some of the worst crisis communications I have ever seen. Last month, the BBC picked up on the comment I made on social media that David Hinton should do his job or go. Having heard him in front of the EFRA Committee, I absolutely stand by that.

Ofwat is currently responsible for enforcing the Act. Enforcement has often been too slow and remote from customers’ lives, and that cannot be separated from how the regulator has operated. The Committee took a long, hard look at Ofwat and found a regulator that was too cosy in dealing with water companies and too bureaucratic in dealing with customers. A regulator that is slow to act, overly procedural and reluctant to challenge company behaviour will never deliver the cultural change that the Government are determined to secure.

It is important to recognise that not all regulators have failed. During a recent Committee session with South East Water and the drinking water inspectorate, the response from the DWI was, as the Chair of the Committee has said, incredibly useful. It was clear that it is doing very effective work, despite having fewer than 60 staff. As we move towards a new single regulator, we have to preserve the DWI’s culture, expertise and robustness. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister can set out what the Department will do to make sure that the few examples of where the current regulatory system is working well are preserved rather than thrown out with the bathwater.

I welcome the measures set out in the new water White Paper, such as an end to companies marking their own homework. An MOT-style regime for water assets will finally move us from crisis response to prevention. The new water ombudsman, with its legally binding powers, will be customers’ advocate when things go wrong. Our communities want action. They want to know that when rules are broken, consequences will follow. The only way to change behaviour in a broken system is to change the law, and I am confident that we will continue to see tough action from this Government where the last failed so miserably.

15:22

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on bringing to the Chamber an issue that has sparked vivid examples of the complete and abject failure of our privatised water companies. I welcome this debate, although the news that it brings is very disappointing, is it not? Our rivers are, of course, precious. The Tone runs through and unites almost all parts of Taunton and Wellington. It is a lifeline for biodiversity, for families and countryside lovers and for the whole natural world. When rivers are healthy, our communities and our nature flourish, but when they are polluted, we all suffer.

That is why the recent revelations about Wessex Water are infuriating. Just a few weeks ago, we learned that the company’s former chief executive officer, Colin Skellett, received a £170,000 bonus from the Malaysian parent company, YTL Utilities. Despite a Government ban on bonuses, the current CEO and chief financial officer received £50,000 in additional payments through the same route. Those payments came after Wessex Water’s criminal conviction in November 2024 for pollution that killed more than 2,000 fish, and after the company was fined £11 million for additional sewage failures. That is all in the context of the £4.25 billion paid out by Wessex Water to private shareholders since privatisation. I cannot think of a more graphic failure of the Conservatives’ privatisation programme. Imagine if that £4 billion had been invested in our rivers and infrastructure over that time. That is exactly the kind of behaviour that the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was meant to prevent, but companies are getting around it by using parent company fee payments, fee payments generally and complex corporate structures to circumvent the rules.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) warned that that would happen and pushed for a stronger regulator. We called for Ofwat to be scrapped and replaced with a regulator with real teeth. We also called for a new ownership model for water companies, for the public to be brought in through public interest companies, and for mutual ownership so that customers have a stake in the ownership and profits are reinvested in the company rather than going to private shareholders on the other side of the world. Many bill payers in the Wessex Water area would be surprised to find that that is where the money they pay ultimately ends up.

The fundamental problem is that while executives are exploiting loopholes to line their pockets, rivers are getting worse and dying. Customers are paying through higher bills, and communities are watching their local rivers fill with sewage. I checked just before coming to the debate, and north of Bradford-on-Tone and in Heron Gate and Lower Henlade in my constituency, sewage works are pumping sewage into the River Tone right now. Water company bosses should not be rewarded for that kind of behaviour through whatever corporate sleight of hand they are attempting to use. That is as real in my constituency as it is anywhere else.

As so often happens, volunteers have come to the fore. They banded together, and the Friends of French Weir Park and I applied for and got bathing water status to try to improve the water quality of the river, but we need investment.

[Tom Gordon]

My hon. Friend highlights the involvement of the fantastic community groups that have had to pick up the pieces of this broken system. Does he agree that, in an ideal world, we would not need organisations such as the Nidd Action Group in my constituency, even though the work they do is fantastic?

[Gideon Amos]

That is absolutely right. Water companies should be run in the interest of the public, not of the private shareholders’ pockets. That would be a welcome reform for communities in Taunton and Wellington and, no doubt, across the country.

In Taunton and Wellington, Wessex Water needs to reform and put this right. I welcome the action it is beginning to take, but we need real investment in the River Tone to improve bathing water quality, and water quality generally. Our sewage works must get the investment that they need. The Government must close the loopholes whereby bonuses are paid in all but name, and we need to ban the parent company payments that circumvent those rules. We need to strengthen enforcement powers, give regulators teeth and hold companies accountable so that communities such as mine can have confidence that the water they pay for comes from a company that is set up and run in the interest of the public, not private profit.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Tim Farron. I thank everyone for keeping to time.

15:28

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

It is as privilege to serve under your guidance, Dr Allin-Khan. I say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and leading it so ably. I also make a little apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for clearing my throat while he was speaking. I was not doing so to make him shut up and sit down—I am not the Speaker. I genuinely had a frog in my throat.

I remember the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 well. I genuinely enjoyed being on the Bill Committee with Members here and others. There are lots of good things in it, but overall the Liberal Democrat view was that it felt like incremental change when more radical reform was needed. All the same, it included some real positives, including provision to ban bonuses for the senior executives of failing water companies. Yet, as we have heard from multiple sources, water companies are now making a mockery of that legislation.

We have heard about some of those already, but let me run through some examples. Southern Water’s chief exec’s pay has doubled to £1.4 million via a “two-year long-term incentive plan”. Wessex Water’s chief exec and chief financial officer both got an extra £50,000 undisclosed from its parent company. As we have heard, Thames Water tried it on—21 senior managers were set to be paid a total of £2.46 million in retention payments. In perhaps the most explicit example, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the chief executive of Yorkshire Water received £1.3 million from the holding company, Kelda Holdings.

Those are clear and obvious examples of water companies trying to perhaps abide by the letter of the law, if they can get away with it, while completely and utterly flouting the spirit of it. It is totally predictable. Outrageously, Ofwat have either signed off many of these cases or just shimmied and said, “None of our business. We’ve got no powers to do it”—a reminder that it is high time it was abolished and replaced with a more powerful regulator.

[Mr Carmichael]

Thames Water first paid out bonuses it said it would not recoup, and has subsequently said only that the payment of bonuses is paused. My hon. Friend knows that I am a nasty, suspicious and cynical person, but I am pretty sure the senior management, the chief executive and the chair of that company are heading for the door one way or another at some stage. I suspect that one of their last acts before they leave the office will be to press “pay” on those bonuses. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that happens, we can agree that whatever the good intentions behind the Water (Special Measures) Act, they simply have not worked, and we need to build a consensus on how to regulate these things more effectively?

[Tim Farron]

My right hon. Friend is neither nasty nor cynical; he knows Thames Water only too well. Well intentioned though the Act may be, it is clearly full of holes, and the water company chief executives and others are finding ways through them.

We contrast all of that with the fact that in 2024—the last time we had comprehensive figures—the water companies between them dumped sewage in our waterways for a duration of 3.6 million hours. My patch of Westmorland is now the third hardest-hit constituency in England for duration of sewage spills. In 2024 alone, there were over 5,000 sewage discharge incidents, amounting to more than 55,000 hours of raw sewage released into our rivers and lakes, from the Eden to the Eea and from the Kent to the Crake. In just the first 20—no, 19 and a half—days of 2026, there have already been 424 hours of sewage discharge into Westmorland’s precious waterways.

At the same time, water companies across the country are shamelessly slithering around the bonus ban. Their bonuses and dividends are being paid, for the most part, by bill payers. Indeed, water companies are wading in colossal debt, often incurred to pay those bonuses and dividends. In just 2024, £1.2 billion was paid out in dividends, mostly out of debt. In my communities in Westmorland, 11p out of every pound we pay on our water bills goes just to finance debt. Thames Water is even worse: customers are paying over 30p in the pound simply to service the company’s debts.

My message to industry leaders is this: bonuses are meant to be paid to folks who do a good job. If you are leading a company that actively pollutes our lakes, rivers and seas, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not doing a good job.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right to discuss the problems of sewage in our waterways, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and I, and the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), have all experienced in recent weeks, it is not just about sewage in waterways; it is about freshwater supply. Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief executive of South East Water should also go for failing to deliver tap water to our taps?

[Tim Farron]

I imagine that that is item 1—indeed, probably items 1 to 6—on the job description. If they cannot fulfil that obligation, then go they should.

The Government brought in the Act to stop bonuses like this being paid, but they are clearly not effectively enforcing that ban in practice. Although I am critical of the Government, my main criticism is reserved for the water company bosses themselves, who have the nerve to go looking for ways to get around the bonus ban to enrich themselves, often out of bill payers’ money. I tell water industry bosses this: your customers see you, our constituents see you and your hard-working frontline employees see you. Your authority is diminished because your integrity is diminished. That proves the Liberal Democrats right: we need far more radical change in our water industry.

So we come to the White Paper released by the Government this week. Having rejected our 44 amendments to what is now the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, the Government soon conceded that they needed to do more and launched the independent commission into the water sector, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe. The commission reported last July, and this week’s White Paper draws from its report. It is meant to be a step towards a more far-reaching water Bill, perhaps in the coming parliamentary Session, and there are welcome elements in the Government’s trailing of it. For example, it is good that they want to borrow the Liberal Democrats’ plan for a single unified regulator to bring financial and environmental oversight together.

I want quickly to add to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and others that the Drinking Water Inspectorate is doing a good job. We should not level it down to the level of the rest of the regulatory sector, but level the sector up to the inspectorate’s level.

It is good that the Government want to make regulation more proactive through the work of a chief engineer. However, the disaster in Kent and Sussex over the water supply, the financial failure of Thames Water, the failure of all water companies to prevent sewage dumping and the decision of water industry leaders to stick two fingers up to bill payers and Parliament by dodging the bonus ban all tell us that we will never solve this crisis while we maintain the current ownership model. The Liberal Democrats demand that our water companies be transitioned to being mutually owned public benefit companies, so that money raised in the water industry is reinvested in our infrastructure, and the main motivation is not the profiteering of people who are often probably not even resident in this country, but the quality of our water supply and sewage removal systems and the benefit to the customer. We are therefore bitterly disappointed that the Government have no plans to change the ownership model at all. As a result, the White Paper looks like yet another missed opportunity.

Water UK has welcomed the White Paper, which ought to really worry the Government because it is the water companies’ trade body. Of course it is delighted that the Government continue to protect the water companies from the fullest scrutiny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) pointed out, we are measuring the duration, not the volume, of sewage. I said that sewage was dumped for 3.6 million hours in 2024, and that is all I can say, because the duration of spills is all we are allowed to know, but the volume of sewage going into our waterways is surely even more significant. There can be long trickle or a swift deluge, yet the Government refuse to enforce the measurement of volume, despite Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill that would have allowed them to do that.

It feels like the Government, in failing to enforce the 2025 Act and stand up to the water companies in their new water White Paper, are content merely to make tentative steps to be better than the dismal record of their Tory predecessors—which is not a high bar. The British people need this Government to be a lot more than just a bit better than the Conservatives. They need radical reform of this failed ownership model and of inadequate regulations and enforcement. The Liberal Democrats will offer that reform.

15:37

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to speak in this important debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and for his opening remarks. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber.

Today’s debate once again reinforces what everyone here and the public know: the water industry needs fundamental reform—work that the Conservatives started. Because of the Conservatives, 100% of storm overflows are now monitored, compared with just 7% in 2010, when the last Labour Government left office. We now know the scale of the problem and can start holding water companies to account more transparently and, importantly, with an evidence base for incidents such as illegal sewage spills.

Our landmark Environment Act 2021 delivered our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account. We had our ambitious plan for water, and strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters. The last Government brought in measures to ban executives from receiving bonuses where water companies are found to have committed serious pollution incidents. That is why it was so disappointing to see the current Government simply recycling and repackaging some of those measures, while leaving out major improvements, such as the water restoration fund, when they introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act.

Existing measures to allow Ofwat to change the conditions of water company licences in the Environment Act 2021 were already sufficient to ban bonuses for executives where that was deemed necessary. Although the Opposition supported and constructively scrutinised the Water (Special Measures) Act, that primary legislation, despite the measures it included, was not necessary to enforce a ban on bonuses in the first place. During its passage, we tabled many sensible amendments, including ones to ringfence funding from enforcement fines to a dedicated water restoration fund, to guarantee that companies fixed locally the environmental damage they caused; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules, on which MPs would have been given a vote; to reduce consumers’ bills if their companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sadly, the Government failed to support those amendments, and very much missed an opportunity to increase accountability through them.

I am sure the Minister, for whom I have great affection and respect, will reassure us that the Government have set out all their plans to improve accountability in the water industry in the water reform White Paper published today—although I have to say that that is nearly six months after the water commission published its final report, which the Minister said the Government would respond to promptly.

We need only look at the example of Thames Water, which we have heard about a bit today, and which is still in a precarious financial situation, to see that we really cannot afford to delay wholesale reform much longer. It has been wrung dry of capital, and it has failed to invest to expand its supply and clean up sewage spills. Alarmingly, the interim financial report showed that between the end of March and the end of September 2025 its debt, as a percentage of company equity, increased by £833 million—a 5% increase. All of that is only heightened by the fact that Thames Water has had £123 million pounds of enforcement fines because of Ofwat’s findings last May.

His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we do not want to see Thames Water fold, because although water supply would continue, there would be a serious risk of higher bills for consumers and the issues facing the company would not be solved. Strangely, the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company, and both they and Reform seem happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government are taking action to help find a market-based solution for the Thames Water rescue deal?

When it comes to water supply, we need only look at recent events in the south-east, which we have heard about today, to see directly how urgently customers need changes to regulation. In recent days and weeks, we have heard powerful testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and other colleagues. Communities across Sussex and Kent have faced terrible impacts, with tens of thousands of homes left without water supply, medical procedures cancelled, some hospital appointments moved online, schools and libraries shut, hospitality businesses having to close their doors, and farmers and horse owners fearing they will not have enough water for their livestock.

On the subject of animals, water companies have been saying that they have no duty to provide water for them. As a medic, Dr Allin-Khan, you will be very familiar with the fluid requirements of a person, but to put it in perspective, the average 500 kg horse needs 25 litres of water a day, and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres a day. That is a hell of a lot of water that the companies are not providing when we have outages, creating animal welfare issues and pressing local communities. Farmers, animal owners and local communities have had to step in, roll their sleeves up and help each other out—it should not be like that.

Given the clear need for wholesale reform and accountability for water delivery and quality, can the Minister provide any clarity today as to when we will actually see tangible, beneficial changes to the quality, but also quantity, of fresh water supplied to households, medical establishments, schools and businesses? One aspect the Government have articulated is that the regulatory system will see reform, with some of the current bodies abolished and merged into one. The Opposition accept that that is necessary to improve the current state of the water industry, but can the Minister confirm that the Government are working at pace to provide a new regulatory structure that genuinely improves regulation and delivery; to provide clarity as to how that regulator will be organised to efficiently deliver its responsibilities; and, as we have heard from colleagues, to ensure that standards that are currently working better—such as in the Drinking Water Inspectorate—are not worsened by regulatory reform?

His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have always maintained that we will support serious efforts to continue the last Government’s work in holding water companies accountable and improving our water sector. Ministers have said that they will not tolerate any attempts to work around the ban on bonuses and will instruct Ofwat to enforce fines and other penalties if it finds the rules have been broken. Ofwat has said it is considering updating its company reporting requirements for next year’s performance-related executive pay assessment to ensure that there is greater transparency around exactly what renumeration companies receive and, as we have heard today, why they are receiving that payment.

The Opposition fully support the Government in seeking to enforce the law and ensuring that executives do not receive unfair bonuses where water companies have been found to commit criminal breaches and are not delivering a good service. We would also support genuine efforts by the Government to hold water companies to account and build on the work of the last Conservative Government to improve water quality. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline exactly how the Government will ensure existing laws are properly enforced. I am sorry to say that, so far, the meaningful reform that they have promised, and that is rightly expected, has under-delivered when it comes to the change that we need. Their response to the Cunliffe review, although slow in coming, is now their biggest opportunity to make sure they get this right. We need not just words, but action, and sensible measures that the whole House can get behind.

15:46

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate. I am particularly delighted he has done so today—great timing—since today we have published our new vision for water.

These are once-in-a-generation reforms to our water system, delivering tough oversight and real accountability, and putting an end to water company excuses. This Labour Government are doing away with water companies marking their own homework and are holding them firmly to account. From an MOT-style approach for water companies’ pipes and pumps to no-notice inspection powers, we are creating a system where customers get the service they deserve and bosses have nowhere to hide. We have already taken tough action on the worst performing water companies, while protecting customers by doubling compensation for those impacted by supply interruptions.

There are a few more treats included in today’s White Paper, among them a new chief engineer to bring technical expertise to the new regulator for the first time in 20 years; new performance improvement regimes, so that any water companies falling behind in finances, environmental standards, drinking water quality or operations will face tough consequences; and dedicated supervisory teams to replace the current one-size-fits-all approach and give the new single regulator a thorough understanding of how each company operates; no-notice inspections; mandatory water efficiency labelling; accelerated roll-out of smart meters; regional planning to bring together councils, water companies, farmers and developers to deliver joined-up plans to tackle river pollution, water resources and housing growth; and senior accountability to ensure water bosses are directly accountable for the service that customers receive.

[Mims Davies]

My constituents, particularly businesses, want clear understanding around compensation, but the area that interests me is the chief engineer role. The guidance that was given to her fellow Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh) before the recent 16,500-property outage in East Grinstead and the villages was that it would affect Sussex Weald and Crowborough. How can this new chief engineer help us to get South East Water to be clear about what is already going on?

[Emma Hardy]

I have huge sympathy and support for the hon. Lady and her constituents in the situation that they have faced in the last few weeks and I understand the urgent need for compensation, not just for her residents, but many of the neighbouring constituencies. She mentioned that it is the first time that Ofwat has ever done an investigation into whether a company is still complying with its licence to operate. It is looking at the customer part of the operation licence to see whether or not the company is complying; that is the first time that has ever been done. The Consumer Council for Water is visiting the Tunbridge Wells area to hear direct testimony from people about how they have been treated and how the situation has impacted them. I share the love expressed in the Chamber for the Drinking Water Inspectorate, particularly for Marcus Rink and all the work he does, and the inspectorate is looking carefully into that matter as well.

One of the things that we promised in the Water (Special Measures) Act were powerful new customer panels to ensure that customers are at the heart of company governance. Some first accountability sessions will be held in spring 2026, requiring customers’ views to be taken into account in company decision making and allowing those customers to hold companies to account—one of the many things that was in that Act.

While we are on the situation that the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) faced, I will mention the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), whom we spent rather a long time with over the last few weeks. It is outrageous; my heart sank when I saw Tunbridge Wells and its residents being impacted again after the awful situation that businesses faced in the run-up to Christmas. I am keen for them to receive compensation as quickly as possible. He is right to point out the concerns that we all had about the disinformation that was put out. The need for clear communication to everybody about what is happening is incredibly important.

There are many things from the water White Paper that I would like to highlight. I hope we get a chance in Parliament over the coming weeks to look at some of that in more detail. There is a section on debt at the bottom of page 26 of the White Paper that states:

“We will therefore consider how the regulator can work with companies and investors to ensure companies do not accumulate unmanageable levels of debt”.

There is a direct reference to debt in the White Paper. It is also worth pointing out what it says in the section called “Putting Customers First”. Page 31 mentions

“increasing public access to water for recreation and wellbeing”',

something that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) is really interested in. That is because of the love that there is for the Tyne and how beautiful it is—we want to see people having access to it.

The White Paper mentions the powerful new customer panels as well, and also looks at regulators strengthening the “customer measure of experience”. That is one of the metrics used to judge water companies and we want to strengthen that metric of experience.

Another thing that comes up in debates on agricultural pollution is the effect that it has on the beautiful and stunning River Wye, and which I know is a huge source of concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). On page 35, we talk about how we will

“consult on reforms on how sewage sludge use in agriculture is regulated and whether this should be included in the Environmental Permitting Regime..”

One of the big focuses and challenges is what the difference would be, if these measures were all in place. One of the many key things is about prevention rather than cure—I know you will understand that analogy very well, Dr Allin-Khan. It is about getting companies to fix things before they break. Around the country, we have too many examples of things breaking before companies recognise that they should be fixed. The MOT work, the engineer and the resilience standards are all about understanding where the problems are and getting in there and fixing them first. Fundamentally, that is cheaper and better for customers, because it costs less to fix something before it breaks and creates a disaster somewhere.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am interested to get the Minister’s view on this subject of the relationship between the Department and companies. She may be aware that the Department is currently appealing to the first-tier tribunal a decision of the Information Commissioner requiring them to disclose information to Democracy for Sale, an organisation run by investigative journalists. DEFRA’s defence is that they have to have a safe space when talking to water companies about these things. I am not expecting her to comment on live legal proceedings, but will she reflect on that, and interrogate her officials when she returns to the Department about whether it is appropriate for the Department to defend such cases where, in this case, the party receiving the obvious benefit is Thames Water?

[Emma Hardy]

As the right hon. Gentleman has noted, I cannot speak about live investigations, but I will reflect on what he outlines.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) mentioned livestock and its importance, something that came up a lot during our many calls. Yes, we need adequate water for people, but there have also been many animals in distress.

We will carry out pilots across the country to look at the new regional regulatory structure and how we are going to make it work. That is a massive opportunity for Members across the House to get involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) was talking about rural communities being supported and ensuring that we have emergency provisions for livestock. In relation to the River Tyne in particular, I encourage him to speak to his water company and find out exactly when it will upgrade those storm overflows, so that he can see tangible progress in his area.

We have also doubled the funding for catchment partnerships, which is great news where we have those, particularly in rural areas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire for her work on the Bill Committee and for the work that she continues to do in championing the River Wye. She is quite right that rivers do not obey geographical boundaries, so we have to work together. I put on record my thanks to the Welsh Government for all the work they have done. We have worked together on many different measures and will continue to do so.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase for his work on the EFRA Committee. He is right that there should be clear consequences for failure, and he will be pleased to know that following the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Environment Agency is on track to deliver 10,000 inspections in the year ’25-26. That is a massive increase on the previous year’s 4,600 inspections; we are more than doubling inspections of water companies. We are also doubling compensation because, sadly, we have seen that the doubling of compensation for customers who face supply outages or receive boil notices is desperately needed.

I would like to be in a situation—as we will be when we implement all these measures—where we do not need to compensate customers because we are not continually seeing failure. But until that moment, I will continue to work hard, push on and deliver the changes that the industry so desperately needs.

15:57

[Tom Gordon]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. It has been a privilege to hear from Members from across the House and the country. They have shared examples about their water companies, and the failures and systemic issues that are pervasive across the sector.

In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his determined campaigning on this issue over the years and in the run-up to the general election; it came up time and again when we were candidates, and those Liberal Democrats who were elected to this place owe him a great debt of gratitude for banging the drum. I also thank everyone who intervened—I cannot rattle through everyone in the time I have, but I look forward to seeing the water White Paper and to chewing it over in depth and with more time, hopefully in the main Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

County Durham: Cultural Opportunities

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]

16:00

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

That this House has considered cultural opportunities in County Durham.

I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this debate to the House. To many, culture is an add-on: a luxury for when times are good or a line item to be trimmed when budgets are tight. In County Durham, we know better. For us, culture is the thread weaving through our communities. It is our history, our pride and our future. It does not just inform what we do; it defines who we are.

To understand why culture matters, one must look to the history of the Durham miners. They did not just extract coal; they built entire communities. They created a welfare state long before 1945: out of their own pockets, through subscriptions and solidarity, they built the institutes, the schools and the libraries that stand today as monuments to self-improvement and collective dignity. They knew that a person needs more than just a wage; they need a sense of belonging. They knew that they had to nourish the mind as well as the body.

That culture lives on in the newly refurbished Redhills—the pitman’s parliament. My constituency office is in Redhills and I never fail to be struck by the fact that it was built by the pennies of pitmen. It is a beacon of working-class heritage and culture. That spirit is reflected in the continued success of the Durham miners’ gala, the big meeting, which was first held in 1871. It has survived strikes, wars and the closure of pits to remain the largest celebration of trade union culture in Europe. From the blessing of the banners at the cathedral to the brass bands on the racecourse, it is a reminder that although the pits might be gone, our solidarity is permanent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, who I spoke to before the debate, for recognising the cultural attachments that we all have. I know she is aware that County Durham and Northern Ireland share deep-rooted cultural parallels, largely shaped by their industrial heritage, strong community identity and significant historical migration—many families from Northern Ireland are in Durham, and vice versa. Does she agree that to make the best of such areas’ attractions, we must fully fund tourism and investment? That will not only preserve the past, but provide a future for her people.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I could not agree more. I will go on to talk about the diversity in Durham, with the Irishmen, those from Northern Ireland and those from Scotland who came to the north-east to work in our shipyards, our mines and our steelworks. We need to remember that heritage and culture—and, yes, it is something for tourists to enjoy as well.

Alongside the proud heritage of the mines, left to us by those miners, we also have the legacy of rail, left to us by the pioneering spirit of George Stephenson and others.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech about the rich cultural heritage of County Durham. Does she agree that a key part of that cultural heritage is the history of the Stockton and Darlington railway, of which we celebrated the 200th anniversary before Christmas, and which runs through my constituency? Would she join me in encouraging Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and other cultural partners, to continue to celebrate that heritage railway, so that we can attract tourism and investment in the future, and the industrial heritage that we are proud of?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Once again, I could not agree more. Of course, it was the railway that took the coal from Newcastle down to London. That built the wealth of this country, so we have to remember where it started. Those tourism opportunities need to be encouraged by our county council.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend mentioned where it started. In Shildon we recently unveiled a world origin site plaque, showing that the world’s first commercial railway started in the Bishop Auckland constituency. Does she agree that we should do more to celebrate some of the world firsts in the wonderful place we are lucky to represent?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

As my hon. Friend knows, I had the privilege of listening to someone from the history group in your constituency—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Lady to address the Chair.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I am sorry. They were talking about exactly that. Again, that is an opportunity for people across the country and the north-east to visit the rich culture of our area.

All that heritage has blossomed into our modern culture. In Durham, we see the brass festival blending our colliery roots with global performers. We see it in Durham Pride, which for years has sent the message that everyone is welcome in our county. We see it in the life-changing work of TIN Arts, which tirelessly ensures that disability is never a barrier to creativity.

Let us not forget the talent emerging from our university, schools and streets. Last year, I saw the energy of bands such as Jam Tub, a trio of young lads embodying the DIY spirit typical of the north-east. Beyond the city, our culture thrives at the Bishop Auckland food festival, local fairs and agricultural shows.

[Sam Rushworth]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Bishop Auckland. On Friday, we are having a big meeting for people helping to launch our bid to be the town of culture. Does she agree that culture is what people do together? That is what makes County Durham such an incredible and vibrant place: the people who do stuff together. That is why we need Government support to do more together, particularly for the rising generation.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

That is a valuable point. Last year, Durham applied to be the city of culture but, unfortunately, came second to Bradford, which had a fabulous year as the city of culture. I wish my hon. Friend success with Bishop Auckland’s bid to be the town of culture.

Such events are the social glue that keep our rural and ex-mining communities resilient, yet today it can sometimes feel that culture in Durham is in retreat. We have been told that Lumiere, which transformed our streets into a world-class art and light installation, bringing millions into our economy, has turned off the lights for the last time. We have always been proud to say, “It started here. It started with us,” so losing it is a devastating blow to our prestige and our economy.

A few years ago, Rocking Horse rehearsal rooms was unceremoniously turfed out of its city centre location, as the landowner simply wanted to build some more industrial units. Even though the owner of Rocking Horse, Rich, has managed to relocate outside the city, there is now no dedicated recording space in the city of Durham for non-students. What am I supposed to say to bands such as Jam Tub when they tell me that the cost of equipment and space is prohibitive? There is also a huge lack of venues for new up-and-coming bands to perform in. To follow their dreams, they are often left with no choice but to leave the north-east.

Sadly, the new administration at Durham county council views culture through a lens of division. It has grandstanded over Durham Pride, claiming that it has saved money by cutting funding, while branding that key annual event, which brings thousands of people to the city, as “political street theatre”—I do not know about you, Ms Vaz, but I love a bit of street theatre. We cannot let the divisive views of other parties diminish the importance of such events to many people in our communities.

Pride is about dignity and equal rights, self-affirmation and an acceptance of ourselves and each other, as well as a shared remembrance of our struggles and victories achieved together. When events are made to feel like political targets by the council that should be their champion, our communities become less cohesive.

The north-east is populated by people with diverse histories. I think of migrants from Scotland and Ireland who came into the region to work in our shipyards, mines and steelworks, and, more recently, migrants from further afield working in our NHS. We should be embracing new cultures, with their food, music, language and dance, and new traditions. That is how we build community and inspire creativity. Grandstanding and division do not build a culture; they tear it down.

At the heart of the city, we have the astonishing Durham cathedral. It sits atop a stunning peninsula at the centre of the UNESCO world heritage site. We are rightly proud of that jewel in the north-east’s crown, but for a resident in Sherburn village or Willington, or someone further afield in Stanley, Crook or Newton Aycliffe, that grandeur can feel a world away if their local community hall is shut or the community group has run out of cash. Those are not simply things that would be nice for communities to have: if centres close or groups struggle for cash, where do we tell people to go for their music classes, art groups or dance classes?

Under the coalition Government, education reforms removed the arts as core subjects in the curriculum. The effects of that are clear: the north-east has the lowest entry rates for music and performing arts, and whole areas of the north-east have schools with no students at all applying for music. If young people cannot access art through schools, and their opportunities in the community are limited, where will that spark of inspiration come from that will produce our next generation of artists, performers, writers and musicians? The answer cannot be, “You can participate if you can afford it.” Cultural opportunities should never be left as a preserve of the rich.

I do not want to paint a picture of total decline. I recently heard from Dr Stephen Cronin, chair of the Durham fringe, which was launched in 2021 by volunteers and is now the north-east’s largest recognised fringe. By using alternative spaces, it ensures that creativity remains workable and rooted in the community. Stephen is putting together a fringe academy to give young people a chance to learn the trade of the arts.

Stephen’s message was clear: culture does not always need multimillion-pound capital grants for shiny buildings. We need to look beyond the usual suspects for funding, and grassroots groups like the fringe do the most with the least. They do not need cathedrals of glass and steel; they need consistent support to keep the lights on in the hall and to feed those shoots of creativity. They need a Government, a region, and a local authority that provide fertile soil—[Interruption.]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. We will suspend for a vote in the House.

16:13

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:25

On resuming—

[Mary Kelly Foy]

We are delighted that culture in Durham has been backed by our North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness. She shared our dismay at the loss of Lumiere, having backed it with nearly £250,000 of funding. She has long advocated a tourism levy—a small £2 per night charge that could bring £20 million into our region’s culture. She has also backed the Women of the World North East festival, celebrating the achievements of women while tackling the inequalities that still exist. But we cannot rely on the mayor’s office alone; we need our schools, colleges and local authorities to be fully engaged in offering real opportunity in music, art, performing and sport. Those miners knew that a century ago, and it is reflected in the motto of the newly refurbished Redhills:

“The past we inherit, the future we build.”

As the residents of County Durham know today, culture is essential for our wellbeing, but unless we support it, it will die on the vine. What value do we truly put on culture? Does the Minister agree that culture should not be the preserve of those with the deepest pockets? What can we do as a Government to ensure that culture remains a contested space and is able to spring and flourish from the grassroots? What can we do to get young people to see that there is a future for them in performing arts and music, by engaging our schools, colleges and community spaces? How do we make sure that in our communities bands such as Jam Tub have a place to play, that Durham fringe can continue and that the recently rehomed Durham folk festival can survive and flourish?

Finally, will the Minister pass on my invite to the other Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), to come to Durham and see what we have to offer, while also seeing what we need? I am sure that my hon Friend will be left feeling assured that our county is a place to invest in culturally, to help the talented people here chase their dreams without them having to leave for pastures down south.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I thank Sir Nic Dakin for stepping in on behalf of the Minister.

16:31

[The Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Ms Vaz. I am pleased to respond to this debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing it.

My hon. Friend has spoken with great passion, conviction and authority about the flourishing of the arts and the challenge to the arts in her constituency. She is right that culture should never be just the preserve of people with the deepest pockets; it is in the veins of all of us. She is also right to identify investing in the future with young people and what happens in schools and activities around them, and in the community, to build the culture of the future. She is right to invite the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) —she was with us for most of the debate, but unfortunately had to leave us—to visit the city of Durham. I am sure that the Minister will put that in her diary as soon as she is back.

We have heard with great passion about the deep-rooted cultural identity of County Durham—a place where the miners historically did not just extract wealth from the ground, but invested it back into the minds of the community through libraries, schools, halls and community events. Many of those survive today and have been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham in her speech.

The Government are backing the vision for investment in grassroots arts with more than just warm words. Last year, we announced the £270 million Arts Everywhere fund to support our venues, museums and libraries. In 2024-25, we provided over £500 million in grant-in-aid to Arts Council England. I am pleased to confirm we have increased ACE’s core budget for 2025-26 by over £7.6 million.

In County Durham, ACE has invested almost £2.5 million since 2023. That is a massive vote of confidence in local creativity and includes over £2 million of annual funding through ACE’s national portfolio programme, which supports eight organisations in the county—including TIN Arts, which my hon. Friend alluded to in her speech. That organisation is doing vital work in inclusive dance for those with learning disabilities. Beamish Museum, a recent winner of the Art Fund museum of the year, is also a joyous and immersive site shaped by the very community stories my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham highlighted.

The support for the national story is mirrored in our investment in the physical health of the county, with £2.79 million provided by Sport England in 2024-25. That has funded everything from a leisure centre in Bishop Auckland to walking football initiatives, ensuring that culture and sport remain visible and valued parts of everyday life.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about the closure of community spaces and the future of local celebrations, and she was right to do so. We recognise that local government is the backbone of culture. Durham county council receives more than £500,000 annually from ACE as a national portfolio organisation. That supports the Durham book festival—vital as 2026 is the National Year of Reading—and the Durham brass festival, in its 20th year. Although I understand that last year was Lumiere’s final edition in that format, the council is seeking a “fresh approach”. I wish it luck in building on the legacy of 1.3 million visitors. I commend to it my hon. Friend’s comments in this debate as a purpose and reason for taking things further and ensuring that that legacy is a true one.

The Pride in Place programme is targeting up to £20 million each for neighbourhoods like Spennymoor, Peterlee East, Stanley South and Crook North and Tow Law. Crucially, we are also investing in the next generation. We have invested almost £1 million for better youth spaces in Durham, £900,000 for a Young Futures hub and Local Youth Transformation, and more than £500,000 for five Durham-based charities since 2024 from the enrichment partnerships pilot.

I heard the concerns about local bands lacking rehearsal space. That is a very real issue—not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency but around the country, but she puts her finger on something that needs attention and addressing. Our new industrial strategy includes a music growth package of up to £30 million specifically to support the grassroots sector. We know that a sustainable music scene is the bedrock of the entire industry. Furthermore, through the creative places growth fund, we have provided £25 million to the North East combined authority. That empowers the fantastic local mayor, Kim McGuinness, to turbocharge the creative sector right across the region, including the communities struggling outside the UNESCO site.

Looking to the future and towns and cities of culture, County Durham’s 2025 city of culture bid was a remarkable achievement and we gave it, as a runner-up, £125,000 to sustain that momentum. However, we also want our towns to take centre stage. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said:

“There is so much for us to be proud of in the towns we’re from—from the rich, local history to unique festivals and celebrations. They have shaped our national story for decades. Now it’s time they take centre stage and showcase the unique stories they have to tell.”

Our new competition for the town of culture is designed for places exactly like Bishop Auckland. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) knows well his area’s cultural might—from the Faith Museum to the world’s greatest collection of 17th-century Spanish art outside Spain. The other Minister need not go to Spain—she could simply go to Bishop Auckland. We welcome bids from all towns in the country and County Durham in particular. Expressions of interest are due by 31 March 2026.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham pointed to the fact that culture is sometimes seen through a lens of division. It is to her great credit that she has not done that today. Indeed, she has reminded us of the glue that culture is within our communities. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) and for Bishop Auckland—and, of course, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who finds joy in the whole country. I am sure there is something that he particularly enjoys in County Durham.

Areas selected through the Pride in Place programme will receive dedicated support from the communities delivery unit. With the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the CDU will work in partnership with neighbourhood boards and local authorities to provide access to place-specific data guidance and capability support tailored to local needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor drew attention to the heritage railway route, the Stockton and Darlington railway, and I understand that he met my colleague Baroness Twycross, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling, in December to discuss its potential world heritage status. I welcome his advocacy and support for an important component of local heritage, but I must reiterate Baroness Twycross’s explanation that we are not considering adding new sites to our existing tentative list—our pipeline of potential world heritage nominations—outside of the UK’s formal review process. The next review is expected in 2033, and I hope that he will be here to see it.

To conclude, from the £400,000 for emergency repairs at Ushaw to the £2.79 million for Sport England for local leisure, we are investing in this part of the country at every level. The culture of County Durham, with its brass bands, mining banners, railways and art—of course, I loved the mention of its steel heritage as well; I would, wouldn’t I?—has remained the golden thread binding its communities together. The miners of Durham built for the future. Today this Government are doing the same, ensuring that whether we are in the shadow of Durham cathedral or at the heart of a former coalfield, we have access to a rich, vibrant and inclusive cultural life.

In this debate, we have heard many examples of the vibrancy of that culture in 2026. The opportunities to be seized by the cultural and creative industries across the north-east are vast. County Durham, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham reminded us and as was reinforced by colleagues’ contributions, is a cultural powerhouse that is open for business. We stand ready to work with local leaders and communities to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to experience and participate in arts and culture across County Durham.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I thank you again for stepping in, Sir Nic—what a talented person you are.

Question put and agreed to.

ADHD Diagnosis

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

16:45

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ADHD diagnosis.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. This debate is about how pathways to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis might be improved, including by offering screening in schools, so that people can access the right support in good time.

We all have a pretty good idea of what ADHD means, but I am here because a 19-year-old constituent of mine, Matty Lock, took his own life in September 2023. He was diagnosed with autism at the age of 14, but he and his parents, Christine and Richard, who are here this afternoon, did not know about his ADHD until much later. In Matty’s memory, Christine and Richard have set up the Matthew Lock ADHD Charity, and they have been part of the independent taskforce. One of the things that the taskforce has done—this has been accepted by the NHS—is to highlight the proven link between suicide and ADHD. The prevalence of ADHD is 10 times higher among men attempting to take their own lives.

Let me say a few words about Matty. I knew him because he was very interested in politics. He had become a town and parish councillor, and he had campaigned hard with me for some time. Those of us who knew him through politics believed that he would be in this place before much longer. It is very, very sad that that was not to be.

Matty was known on television as “The Vac Mat” for his repairs of vacuum cleaners and his advocacy of domestic appliances on “This Morning”. He was everywhere in the community of Maghull—clearing up and playing his part. He was a real, strong advocate of the community that he grew up and lived in.

Matty’s ADHD was linked to how hyperactive he was. We know that people with ADHD are restless, lack concentration, are impulsive, act without thinking and always talk over others—actually, as I go through the list, I can think of nearly 650 people in this place who have a lot in common with that description.

What is the impact of having ADHD? We know that it leads to a significant number of school exclusions and very high drop-out rates. We know about the link with addiction, and that the prevalence of ADHD among people in prison is five to 10 times higher than among people outside. Sadly, we also know about the link with suicide.

NHS figures suggest that about 700,000 people are waiting for a diagnosis, and that many of them have waited for several years. Nearly two thirds of those people have been waiting for more than a year. The economic cost is estimated to be about £17 billion a year.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech that has affected us all. In November 2025, NHS Surrey Heartlands integrated care board in my constituency paused assessments on the Right to Choose pathway until April 2026, which has caused major disruption. My constituent’s daughter does not know when she will be seen or if she will be seen at all. I have talked to the ICB and I know that there has been a massive increase in referrals for ADHD, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must set out plans to improve local NHS provision of ADHD assessments?

[Bill Esterson]

The example of the hon. Member’s ICB is typical of ICBs around the country. The purpose of this debate is to raise the issue with the Minister and highlight how important it is to improve diagnosis and speed up how quickly people can get access to treatment and medication.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Last year, a number of constituents contacted me because they were similarly concerned that Coventry and Warwickshire ICB decided to pause new ADHD referrals for those 25 and over so that it could prioritise children on its waiting list, which was at a really critical point. I recently met the chief executive of the ICB, who confirmed that referrals for adults will restart in May. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must get the balance right so that children and adults with ADHD get the diagnosis and support that they so desperately need?

[Bill Esterson]

It is good news that we are seeing some progress in my hon. Friend’s ICB. I profoundly hope that NHS staff in other ICBs around the country are watching this debate and will follow the lead of her ICB in improving the access that is needed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. He has outlined the waiting lists, which are no better for us in Northern Ireland—they are over a year, and up to six years. The issue about early diagnosis is that every child with ADHD has a different level of ADHD. The diagnosis is really important because it enables the education system to respond for that child specifically. Does the hon. Member agree that for an educational programme to be tailored to a child, it must be absolutely right, which can be done only if there is early diagnosis?

[Bill Esterson]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Member. It is important to realise that everybody is different and that we all need different support. That is very true in school. When we call for diagnosis, we need to take great care around what we mean. Diagnosis is a means of getting support, getting the right treatment and getting the right medication, if medication is right—it is not right for everybody. ADHD is a spectrum and that individual, tailored support in school, and indeed in adult life, is an important part of what we are discussing.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Bill Esterson]

I will give way to both my hon. Friends in a moment.

A key element of the discussion is that we have to be really careful what we are calling for. That situation partly explains some of the delays: at the moment, a specialist is the only person who can give a diagnosis because of the complexities that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just referred to.

[Mr Rand]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I met Matty on a number of occasions, like many who sit on the Labour Benches representing the north-west, and he certainly made a lasting impression on me from the few opportunities when we met.

We know that when faced with lengthy waits for an NHS diagnosis, some people with ADHD turn to shared care, receiving a private diagnosis before their care transfers back to the national health service. I have a constituent who tried to do that for her son, but her GP refuses to accept the private diagnosis and provide treatment, meaning that my constituent now faces huge treatment costs, yet just a few years earlier her other son secured a shared care arrangement with the same GP practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to address some of the inconsistencies in ADHD care that are caused by long waiting times?

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, because one of my asks to the Minister is to iron out those inconsistencies.

[Perran Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, and thank the parents of Matty Lock for being in the Public Gallery for it. A couple of years ago, my son was diagnosed with ADHD while he was at university. To my shame, I always thought that his behaviour was simply a case of mischief or laziness. Does my hon. Friend agree not only that it is a case of early diagnosis, but that we need to increase awareness of ADHD—and neurodiversity more broadly—among parents, guardians, medical professionals and Government?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he has made a very good point. My son has been diagnosed with ADHD—belatedly, like so many—but we were told early on that having a diagnosis would not help him. How wrong that was, because the diagnosis was the key to getting support and understanding what we were dealing with, both for him and for us as his carers. There is a lot of misinformation around, and getting that right is key, but yes—

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Member. Education, health and care plans are not supposed to depend on or require a formal diagnosis of ADHD but, in practice, that is how local authorities apply them. Families are far more likely to be challenged by the local authority if they do not have that diagnosis but, in my own area of West Sussex, the predicted waiting time for assessments has now risen to four and a half years, which is virtually an entire secondary education. Does the hon. Member agree that that Catch-22 situation requires urgent action from the Government?

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Member is making the same point, which is that we need to clarify and have consistency across the country. That is, again, something that I hope will come out of the work that the Department is doing. I know that it is carrying out its own review and drawing on the work of the independent taskforce.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Bill Esterson]

I am going to give way. I am conscious that I am at 11 and a half minutes and a lot of people who want to speak. If Members intervene on me from now on, could they please keep it brief? I will give way to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) first.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Based on UK-wide estimates, about 83,000 people in Northern Ireland are likely to have ADHD, yet it is clear that many remain undiagnosed, particularly women and girls. Does the hon. Member agree that there is an urgent need for clear, consistent and properly resourced diagnostic pathways across all health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, and that a UK-wide source is needed for an even approach right across the United Kingdom?

[Bill Esterson]

It is a very well-made point, repeating what colleagues have said. I hope that professionals in Northern Ireland will have heard his point too, and will act on it while we are waiting for the Government to get to the UK-wide approach.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I have similar stories of incredibly long waiting lists, my local ICB closing waiting lists and my constituents’ general difficulty in accessing support. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have already had a two-part report with recommendations on dealing with ADHD, and that there is plenty in there that could be implemented while further evidence is sought?

[Bill Esterson]

I do agree. Various Ministers’ answers at oral questions last week referred to the ongoing work. I know we are due a response in the summer; this is my opportunity to say directly to the Minister that sometimes, when Governments say they are going to respond in the summer, that is a very loose term. I hope that, in this case, it means early summer. Perhaps the Minister will come back to us with a bit more clarity on when he expects to respond.

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

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with giving way. Oddly, I was told by a Scottish Education Minister on the BBC recently that a diagnosis was not required in Scotland either to get the right support—we all know from our experiences that that is not the case. In Fife, we have more than 40,000 children waiting for neurodevelopmental assessments and there are no pathways at all for adults. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we get this right across the United Kingdom, and that the Scottish Government also need to get their skates on and take some action?

[Bill Esterson]

Let us hope that someone from the Scottish Government is listening to the debate and acting on my hon. Friend’s request. We were talking before about the importance of supporting children to avoid stigma in education and ensure that support is in place, that staff understand and that they can improve their chances at school and beyond.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this incredibly important debate. He is right to raise the issue of ADHD waiting lists, and the Health Secretary is right to commission the review, which is needed, into rising demand. Does my hon. Friend agree that the right response is to understand and then fix the system with empathy rather than—as I often see in my constituency—blaming parents who are simply doing the best they can for their children?

[Bill Esterson]

It is a good point, and we have to get away from that very inappropriate approach that I am sure all of us have come across from time to time.

I want to say a few words about alternatives to diagnosis. I mentioned briefly that, at the moment, typically a specialist psychiatrist carries out the diagnosis process, yet there are many GPs and other health professionals who would very willingly step in and be in a position to carry out that diagnosis. I wonder whether—and this comes out of the independent taskforce report—there is a big opportunity to speed up waiting times through the use of GP diagnosis and expanding the role of GPs and other professionals who want to specialise in ADHD. That might also be a way of overcoming the problem we heard before about the shared pathway challenge between private clinics and GPs in prescribing.

There are undoubtedly a number of challenges in moving this forward and addressing the very lengthy waiting lists, and their consequences for people. I hope that the Government will pick up these challenges and address the recommendations of the taskforce in a timely fashion. It makes sense to improve the ability of GPs and other professionals to assess and support the management of ADHD. It also makes sense to improve screening in schools. Another recommendation is to extend training for GPs on to an extended role pathway, and shared care between specialists and GPs. All these changes can enable cuts in waiting times and improve life chances and prospects for many people.

I decided to put in for this debate in Matty Lock’s memory, but looking around the room at how many hon. Members are present, I can see that this has touched so many lives across the entire United Kingdom. Whether it is for Matty, for anybody who has been profoundly affected, for the loved ones—for Christine and Richard—or for so many other people, we have a duty to act. We know what is needed and how we can address these concerns. If the Government are minded to respond, we can build a system that supports people living with ADHD, and the people who want to care for them and improve their lives.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I ask hon. Members to remain standing. I will call the Front-Benchers at 5.23 pm. I am afraid I am going to impose a two-minute time limit, but you can do it as Olivia Dean says, by being “nice to each other”, or I can put impose a hard limit. We will start with the soft two-minute limit. I call Rachael Maskell.

17:04

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

Thank you, Ms Vaz. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I will be brief. In York, we know that children are waiting for two and a half years to get an ADHD diagnosis. Adults are not even on a waiting list; they are literally in a car park. They fill in a form and then they go no further, although I am assured by services that if people face a crisis, the services will be there—although I am less than convinced of that. In York, therefore, we have been thinking about how we can reconfigure services.

This is my specific ask to the Minister. We know that, over a child’s life, the local authority is the controlling mind in providing holistic support for children, particularly those with special educational needs, yet we have a segregated service in child and adolescent mental health services. The two services are not integrated and, as a result, we are not looking at a child holistically. We are seeing them in two sections: their mental health and their holistic needs. That does not work. Therefore, I ask the Minister: can we bring those services together, at least through a formal partnership? If not that, can we put the controlling mind under the director of children’s services, to ensure that they can deliver for that holistic need?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said so eloquently, we need to ensure that the functional needs of those children are met. A diagnosis, of course, is an important part of that pathway, but when we are talking about people across a whole spectrum of needs, a diagnosis only partially describes the needs of an individual.

If we are able to build the holistic support that a child needs, we can ensure that a child gets the security they need in a timely way, integrate that with the rest of the work being done on SEND by the Department for Education, and ensure that we really see the integration and transformation that this Government can bring.

17:04

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this debate and for raising awareness of the case of Matty Lock.

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and as one of the openly neurodiverse Members of this House: I have dyspraxia, dyslexia and—surprise, surprise—ADHD.

As someone with personal experience, I know how transformative a timely diagnosis and the right support can be—something I unfortunately did not receive as a little girl. I was often considered disruptive and described as having little focus, lazy and not meeting my potential. I was moved to the “naughty boys table”, aged seven, away from my friends. Even though my handwriting was atrocious, I struggled to read and I had very difficult emotional dysregulation, a lack of attention and fidgeting, no one would ever have considered back then that I was neurodiverse.

It has been many years since I was at primary school, but I would have hoped that the situation would have progressed. Unfortunately, it is hard to hear, again and again, about parents and children battling a system to get their needs recognised. It is troubling to hear from constituents who are in similar situations to what I experienced in the early 1990s, and about the barriers they are currently facing in accessing ADHD assessments, medication and therapeutic input. Those are not isolated cases, as we have heard. For both children and adults, waiting several years has become routine.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In the last few weeks, I have visited two alternative learning projects in my constituency. One is the Wheels Project, which gets children working on restoring cars. The other is Enemy of Boredom, which is a brilliant thing, getting children video gaming while learning at the same time. What is amazing is that they do only half a day a week there, but it transforms their experience of mainstream education. They are much better when they get back to the classroom, because they have had focused attention on something they love doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to do more of that?

[Olivia Blake]

Absolutely. Just to go back to myself again, in a very ADHD way, I did art and drama alongside sciences. I became a scientist before I came here, but without the art and drama I would never have succeeded in science. I think it is really important that we work with people’s strengths, because the alternative to not doing that is huge. We have heard about suicide rates, prisons and unemployment among young people, and young people being blamed for being unemployed even though they have ADHD and have gone through a system where they are not getting the support they need. The ADHD taskforce has all the answers and should be looked at urgently by the Government.

17:09

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this important debate.

Delays and problems relating to ADHD diagnosis are not just a marginal administrative issue, but a profound failure of our system to meet medical needs early, effectively and equitably. For too many children and adults, long waits for diagnosis can negatively shape their entire life trajectory, harming their educational attainment, mental health, employment prospects and personal relationships.

NHS estimates suggest that 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, including nearly half a million children and young people, yet demand continues to vastly outstrip capacity. In September 2025, over 60% of both adults and children had been waiting more than a year for an ADHD assessment.

In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, Rachel reached out to me rightly outraged at an 18-month wait for ADHD assessment, with Kirklees council working through a backlog from November 2022. Another constituent, Laura, has spoken about her difficulty accessing medication even after diagnosis. The pressure on councils has been increasing on all fronts, with funding decreasing at the same time over the 14 years of the previous Government. I am not blaming the councils, but they do need support.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He makes the point very strongly that long waiting times mean that children are being left behind. As we have heard, it was revealed last week that many integrated care boards are capping the number of assessments without telling GPs or patients. Does the hon. Member agree that a child’s access to diagnosis and support should not depend on where they live or whether their parents can afford to go private?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree. We hear the phrase “postcode lottery” a lot, and we should not have a postcode lottery in our country for access to essential healthcare and educational services. Everybody should have equal access to the support that is available to other people, without having to go private.

The consequences of these delayed assessments are stark. Families are pushed towards private assessments they cannot afford, entrenching a two-tier system that makes a mockery of the NHS’s spirit of free care at the point of use by rendering access contingent upon income.

The Justice Gap also reports that around 25% of prisoners have ADHD, with many entering the system having not been diagnosed. They are more prone to reoffending.

I will conclude to give time for other colleagues to speak. I urge the Government to look at this issue holistically, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and provide support for children, adults and offenders. I believe that investment would render a greater return.

17:12

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak as chair of the APPG on ADHD. As someone from a neurodiverse—or, as we call it, neuro-spicy—household, I understand the difference that support can make and the consequences when it is missing.

I want to address an elephant in the room, because there has been a lot of talk about the overdiagnosis of ADHD. I understand why that question is asked, but the evidence does not support it. The NHS ADHD taskforce has been clear that ADHD is “under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated”. Diagnosis rates are well below what the prevalence suggests, and some trusts are so overwhelmed that, as we have heard, they have paused new referrals, not because demand is inflated but because services cannot keep up. When ADHD goes undiagnosed, it does not disappear; it shows up elsewhere, including in health services through higher rates of co-existing conditions and crisis-driven care. Untreated ADHD costs more than £13,500 per affected person each year. Early diagnosis and treatment save money and reduce the burden on the NHS.

ADHD shows up in our schools, and children with ADHD are more likely to be excluded, miss school or face bullying. Many have literacy challenges and other conditions that compound when support comes too late. It also shows up, as we have just heard, in the criminal justice system. One in four people in prison have ADHD, compared with one in 20 in the general population. Without support, people are more likely to develop risky coping strategies, including substance misuse. Diagnosis is not a magic bullet, but it is a starting point. It shifts people from blame to understanding, and it only works when followed by support across education, workplaces and public services.

That brings me to the key issue: we still do not have a clear national picture of how long people are waiting for an NHS diagnosis, and I would like to put that to the Minister.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I now have to impose a hard two-minute limit.

17:15

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this debate. He knows my links to his constituency, and I am certain that his moving tribute to Matt will be appreciated by Matt’s family, his Labour family and everybody that knew and loved him.

ADHD affects people of all ages, backgrounds and communities, yet too many are stuck on waiting lists for years, during which time their needs go unmet and their wellbeing deteriorates. In the limited time I have, I want to make three points. First, on barriers and gatekeeping, I have received so many cases of schools refusing or postponing referrals, adults reporting GPs minimising symptoms, and community paediatrics increasingly rejecting referrals even when evidence is clear or a private diagnosis exists. Such gatekeeping practices do not protect services; they merely protect delay and lead to wider mental health problems in the long term.

Secondly, on the right to choose, I am sure we all have cases in our mailbags where constituents have been forced to obtain a private diagnosis because of waiting list delays, only to find that the NHS rejects the assessment, will not provide the medication they need or will not play fair on the shared care agreement. That is wholly improper.

Thirdly, I assisted an individual whose referral to adult services was not made before community paediatrics stopped prescribing as he transitioned from childhood to adulthood. Due to excessive waiting lists, this person has been without ADHD medication since March 2025, which is indicative of a system that is not working properly. Will the Minister address the systemic barriers to the ADHD pathway?

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I am so sorry.

17:17

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for highlighting this hugely important issue.

My inbox, like many people’s, is full of parents with children who are struggling, especially those who have comorbidities. Their combined conditions make them doubly disadvantaged, and their unmet needs cause significant harm to their physical and mental health, hugely increasing their complexity and meaning that their years of education are not used to maximise their potential.

In Warwickshire, there seems to be a Catch-22 with ADHD waiting lists. Coventry and Warwickshire ICB’s waiting list now stands at more than 7,500 children—a 10-year waiting list for some. The ICB often does not accept ADHD referrals for under-sevens, despite the evidence showing that this early period is when interventions are most impactful. Potentially, the earliest a child can expect a diagnosis is at 17, after their entire educational career.

The adult waiting list, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), has been closed since May 2025. It is due to reopen this year, which we very much welcome, but this provides a very narrow assessment window for when a child can get through the waiting list and not be considered an adult. To further complicate issues, for children who have been referred for general neurodiversity assessments, there is difficulty in ensuring a consistent pathway back to ADHD assessments and the waiting list. I would welcome a defined pathway so that children and professionals have certainty that they will receive the support they need.

17:19

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

A number of colleagues have spoken movingly about the individual circumstances of their constituents. I want to speak about individual circumstances, as I was diagnosed with ADHD last year.

I recently bumped into a friend at an event who had also been diagnosed. I am one of those people with ADHD who takes medication, and she asked me, “When you first took your medication, did you get emotional as well?” The answer was yes, I did. I got emotional for the same reason so many people with ADHD become emotional the first time they take their medication. They realise what so many other people have been able to live like for so many years. They realise that they are not lazy or stupid but just a bit different, needing a little extra support. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) is correct that diagnosis is a gateway to support, not an end in itself.

When I speak to people with ADHD, I hear that the difference that diagnosis and support make is almost a universal experience. Many describe it as life-changing, and I certainly do. I am keen to make this point. It is so good to hear from colleagues who are willing to share their experiences. In these discussions it is important to recognise that an ADHD diagnosis is not a problem to be managed or a game of numbers; it is about supporting people, identifying a challenge and finding resolve and support for something that otherwise might have been treated as disruptive behaviour. Instead, we can support them to be their best and most productive selves.

Briefly, in the time I have left, I want to turn to the number of young people with ADHD not in employment, education or training. Will the Minister touch on whether the independent review of mental health conditions, ADHD and autism prevalence will interact with the review from the Department for Work and Pensions on NEET rates?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Getting in the two remaining speakers will squeeze the wind-ups. Mr Esterson, you had a fair bit to start with. Maybe the Front Benchers could not use their full time.

17:21

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

Thank you, Ms Vaz, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Too many people in Warrington South are being failed by the system that is meant to help them. Demand for ADHD assessments has risen sharply, with waits of up to six years. As someone whose ADHD was diagnosed when I was an adult, I know at first hand how difficult it can be to navigate a system that often does not join up or listen properly.

Ahead of this debate, I asked constituents to share their experiences of seeking an ADHD diagnosis. Adults told me that they waited years for assessment, only to be pushed through mental health pathways that did not fit and prescribed medication that made things worse. While waiting, some self-medicated with alcohol or drugs, not to escape but simply to cope. Years of masking, burnout and misdiagnosis have taken their toll. Parents told me that their children were identified early in nursery or reception, but support stalled because schools are restricted in what they can do without a diagnosis. By the time the referrals are finally made, children are already struggling, falling behind or believing they are lazy or stupid.

I heard from women diagnosed in their 40s, 50s and 60s, after a lifetime of being treated for anxiety or depression that never quite made sense. Teachers contacted me too—experienced, committed professionals who want to help but are trying to meet complex needs in classes of 30 or more children, with limited support and resources. They told me that diagnosis means very little if there is no capacity to act on it. In Warrington, concerns about waiting times came up again and again. Misdiagnosis, problems in education, workplace breakdowns, mental health crises and families forced into private care, if they can afford it, while others are simply forced to cope until they cannot cope any more.

When Ministers point to frameworks and data improvements, I say that those things matter but do not help the child struggling in school today or the adult in crisis being told to wait until the next decade. This is not about ADHD being over-diagnosed; it is about a system that consistently under-treats and under-supports those who have it. We desperately need more specialists, more appointments, more assessments, and waiting lists that are measured in months not years.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but time is up.

17:23

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this important debate. He spoke powerfully about the long and agonising waits that many people have to endure to get an ADHD diagnosis, but I want to focus on what happens next. For many people, receiving a diagnosis is not the end of the fight; in many cases, it is the start of a new one.

Time and again I hear from people who, after finally securing that elusive diagnosis, encounter a set of new barriers that prevent them from accessing the treatment they are entitled to. In January 2025, local medical committees in Suffolk and Essex advised GPs to stop delivering ADHD treatment under shared care agreements. A survey by Healthwatch Suffolk of people’s experience of the changes to shared care found that only 40% had received prescriptions or monitoring from their GP. Of those, 69% said that their GP had already stopped or would soon stop providing support.

Most received only two or three months’ notice that their shared care agreement was ending; some had no notice at all. Patients are left in limbo: they have been diagnosed, and maybe even stabilised on medication, and they are suddenly told that their shared care agreement is ending. In some instances, people are left with no access to medication whatsoever. I have received letters from terrified parents and families, panic-stricken at the prospect of being left without the medicine that they need to function every day.

I look forward to hearing the Goernment’s response to the ADHD taskforce recommendations and I welcome the launch of the independent review into the prevalence of and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. Reducing waiting times for an assessment and diagnosis is critical, but that work will be rendered futile if we do not also address the crisis of timely access to medication and support. For too many of my constituents—and I am sure for the constituents of many Members across the room—the hardest part of their ADHD journey did not end with diagnosis; it simply began there.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Thank you. All colleagues got in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Adam Dance.

17:25

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I declare interests as vice-chair of the ADHD all-party parliamentary group, and as someone with ADHD. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this important debate. It is good to hear and see so many Members here today—we have seen that with the time limit; I think we could have spoken for a good two to three hours on this.

The most important thing this debate has done is highlight the importance of ADHD diagnosis. It makes me so angry when I hear the media or politicians talk about a “crisis of overdiagnosis”. As the NHS ADHD taskforce report tells us, the evidence is clear:

“ADHD is under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated (including with medication).”

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

I think my hon. Friend would agree that the Minister needs to hear that in places such as Dorset whole conditions are being ignored. We have the same situation as Suffolk; shared care agreements for ADHD, bariatric services, eating disorders and gender dysphoria are being cancelled, and whole cohorts of people are not being given GP services. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is outrageous?

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree. We have seen this issue across the board with lots of conditions, and I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning it.

Higher diagnosis rates over recent years reflect greater awareness, not an overdiagnosis crisis. As someone with severe ADHD, I can tell Members the life-changing difference that an ADHD diagnosis can make. That is why I am standing here today. But I am one of the lucky ones: too many people with ADHD are not having their needs identified or supported. That is the real crisis. As of March 2025, over 500,000 people were waiting for an ADHD diagnosis. In Somerset, the average wait time is around two and a half years, if someone is lucky.

Like many hon. Members, I see first hand the dire consequences of the crisis. A constituent who I cannot name reached out to me about her son who, like many nowadays, went through school without having ADHD diagnosed, despite his family constantly fighting for support. The bright lad recently left school without qualifications, but he was dismissed by his teachers as “challenging.” The lack of support left him vulnerable and hopeless. Now he is suspected of getting mixed up with county lines gangs, which is something that we see far too often.

It breaks my heart, because my constituent’s case is not exceptional. Around 25% of people in our prisons have ADHD—although, that is probably an underestimation. As I found out in a response to a written question, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold data on the number of people in prisons with ADHD. I have heard from so many people, including those who are not able to work or have come out of prison, who said that if they had their ADHD identified and got a little bit of help, their life could have gone so differently.

For those interested only in the impact on state finances, the estimated economic cost of not identifying and treating ADHD is around £17 billion to the UK economy, although I think that is seriously underestimated. That is why it is important that we identify people’s needs early, and that is why I have put forward a Bill calling for universal screening for neurodivergence in primary school-age children. That is a cost and time-effective way to identify every child’s needs early and put in place non-medical interventions that do not require diagnosis, such as changes to teacher training. It would also provide high-quality data for medical references where necessary. That last point is really important. At my SEND roundtable, a local paediatrician told me that a huge barrier to formally identifying and supporting needs early is the lack of high-quality data, information sharing across the sector and non-medical interventions. I hope the Minister will tell us whether universal screening of neurodiversity will be considered in the important review of ADHD and autism or the schools White Paper.

We cannot just stop identifying needs early. For many with ADHD, a formal medical diagnosis is vital, as it opens treatment pathways, accommodation at school or work, and state support. That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to provide greater funding to integrated care boards so that they can accept and treat new ADHD patients. We especially need greater support for community-based projects and services for those living with ADHD. In Somerset, we are getting new programmes, but we need the funding to roll them out and to recruit and retain more professionals in the NHS to diagnose and support ADHD. Will the Minister reassure us that any reforms to clinical pathways for ADHD will not see communities and the ICBs that serve them lose any funding and support? Will he also update us on the progress that NHS Digital has made on the NHS improvement programme?

17:30

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for getting so many MPs here to talk about such an important topic. His tribute to Matty Lock was truly epic. The only thing I am sad about is that we could easily have filled a 90-minute debate. Perhaps he can take note of that for the next time that he applies for such a debate.

Time is short, so I will skip to the most important questions. This debate is about ADHD diagnosis, and there is no disagreement among Members on both sides of the House about the challenges that we face. We have seen the numbers go up, so the question is: what are the Government prepared to do about it, and how can the House work to facilitate them in that?

Before the general election, the previous Government worked with NHS England to establish the independent ADHD taskforce, with the aim of developing a data improvement plan. As we have heard, there have been two iterations of that. The Minister confirmed in a written ministerial answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on 17 November that the Government are considering those recommendations. Will the Government respond to the taskforce’s recommendations today? If not, when will they do so? If so, will they take on all the recommendations, or will they challenge some?

I commend the Government on commissioning their own independent review into autism and ADHD. They are often linked and there can be co-morbidities, which are important to consider. As we have heard, there is no distinct timeline for that—summer is a long period of time—so I would be grateful if the Minister can set out exactly how the Government define “summer”. How will that intertwine with the work that the taskforce has already done? Will that work get superseded, or will the two pieces of work dovetail together?

Finally, I want to talk about accountability and delivery. I understand that NHS England has identified reducing long waits for ADHD assessments as a priority in the medium-term planning framework. With NHS England set to be abolished, it is unclear how those priorities will be maintained and enforced. Will the Minister confirm that reducing the long waits for ADHD assessment will remain an explicit national priority for the NHS? How will the Government enforce that, given that NHS England is being taken away, and ensure consistency across integrated care boards?

I welcome the acknowledgement in a recent written answer that data on ADHD waiting times at ICB level is currently not held centrally, but that there is an intention to publish it in 2026 or 2027. That transparency matters, so will the Minister confirm that the plans to publish ICB-level ADHD waiting time data will continue regardless of the structures of the NHS after the change? Will he provide an indicative timeline for the delivery? Is it 2026 or 2027?

Will the Government publish more data about Right to Choose that shows what is and is not successful, and what is good practice and what can be improved? That is one of the ways to deal with the postcode lottery. At the heart of this debate is the fact that behind the numbers is a person, a child or a family seeking answers, support and stability. It is our duty in this House to hold the Government to account for delivering that for all across the nation.

17:34

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing what is, by all acknowledgement, an important debate on ADHD. I thank other hon. Members for their valuable contributions today, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for sharing personal experience that has been invaluable to this House. In this debate, we have heard moving testimonies and I want to thank all hon. Members who have shared personal and family experiences. I personally express my welcome and my deepest sympathies to Christine and Richard, the parents of Matthew Lock. I thank them for being in the Public Gallery for this debate, and thank them for all the invaluable work that they have done with the Department and with NHS England to raise awareness of the issues surrounding ADHD and suicide through the charity that they set up in Matthew’s memory.

We have learned, through this debate, the intersection between ADHD, other mental health conditions and suicide risk. Every suicide is a profound tragedy that leaves families, friends and communities devastated. That is why, in addition to our approach to ADHD, mental health and autism, we are committed to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England, which aims to address the risk factors contributing to suicide to ensure that fewer lives are lost. We will work across Government to improve support to those who are suffering, and those who have been bereaved by suicide.

We know that people with ADHD have co-occurring neurodevelopmental conditions. We must not only intervene early but assess people with suspected neurodevelopmental conditions—about which I will say more later—and ensure that, following diagnosis, people have the right support to meet their needs, including their mental health needs. The Government have already taken significant steps to stabilise and improve NHS mental health services but, of course, there is so much more to do. Transforming the system always takes time but we are committed to delivering a new approach to mental health.

The 10-year health plan sets out the ambitious reform that we wish to undertake to make the system fit for the future. In line with that, we will go further to ensure that NHS mental health services deliver the care that people deserve and rightly expect. The publication of the “Staying safe from suicide” guidance in 2025 means that all mental health practitioners must now follow the latest advice in understanding and managing suicide. Associated training is now available to all NHS and non-NHS mental health staff.

Following the tragic loss of their son Matthew, Richard and Christine have been keen to ensure that other families are made aware of the increased risks of addiction and suicide that are associated with ADHD. NHS England has worked closely with Richard and Christine to revise content on the nhs.uk website, and has included separate, tailored content on ADHD for adults, children and young people. The website also specifically highlights the increased risks of suicide and addiction in those with ADHD, it signposts anyone who might be struggling to find urgent help and support, and has updated wording to reflect lived and clinical experience. I extend my thanks again to Richard and Christine for all their input to that work. I invite them into the Department to meet me alongside my colleague, the mental health Minister, to see how we can go further faster.

We know that too many patients are facing long waits to access services including ADHD assessments and support. I know that such issues are affecting our constituents up and down the country, as has been reflected in this debate, and I understand the devastating impact that that has on individuals and families. Lord Darzi’s report laid bare the growth in demand for ADHD assessments nationally. That has been so significant in recent years that it risks completely overwhelming the resource available. I thank everyone who has taken part in sharing evidence for Lord Darzi’s report, and with the subsequent ADHD taskforce established by NHS England. We know, from the taskforce’s report, that there are quality concerns with assessments. There has been rapid growth in remote assessments and in use of the independent sector. We are urgently looking into those concerns. That is why work is currently underway to improve ADHD services in both the short and long term to meet the needs of those waiting for an assessment, or those needing treatment for a diagnosis.

[Dr Evans]

On that point, the Minister mentioned the taskforce. It did produce its report, with its recommendations, and the Government have not yet responded to those recommendations. Will the Minister give a timescale for when he is looking to do so?

[Dr Ahmed]

I have met the chair of the taskforce: we discussed the outcomes, and the need—as the hon. Member mentioned in his remarks—for work on those outcomes to dovetail with the prevalence review. I think that would be the most appropriate way to provide a holistic response. We, of course, respect the findings of the report, which is an excellent scientific piece of work looking at the data underpinning the diagnoses.

[Dr Evans]

To clarify, if it is going to dovetail, is he suggesting that the recommendations will come out in the report in the summer, all in one lump, or will we see the recommendations of the taskforce come out before we see the full report of the newly commissioned work?

[Dr Ahmed]

At present, the hon. Gentleman will have to ask my colleague the mental health Minister about the specifics, but my understanding is that the prevalence review will be a wider piece of work that will be partly informed by the ADHD taskforce report. It would be better to respond to them as a combination rather than as individual reports.

The House will know that on 4 December 2025 the Secretary of State announced the launch of the independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. It will bring together the most respected researchers, clinicians and voluntary organisations in the country, alongside, crucially, people with lived experience, who will be directly engaged to scrutinise the evidence and support the development of recommendations. Part of that will be about how we address and label reporting, and I would expect that we come up with a better definition and a better way of reporting than we have at the moment.

The Government’s 10-year plan sets out the core principle of early intervention and support, and will make the NHS fit for the future. Through the NHS medium-term planning framework, published in October 2025, NHS England has set an expectation that local ICBs and trusts improve access, experience and outcomes for ADHD services over the next three years.

I heard the call from hon. Members for much more integration between community mental health services, GPs and other healthcare bodies. It is our expectation that through the NHS reform Bill and the disbanding of NHS England, as well the production of independent health authorities and strategic commissioning, the health service will be better able to serve the needs of children requiring assessment for mental health conditions and ADHD. We will end up having a helicopter view, which is currently not possible.

[Olivia Blake]

The review highlighted the lack of cross-Government working, so I wonder whether, for example, Access to Work could be looked at. Self-employed people currently have to wait six months to access it, and it is obviously a form of early intervention that gets people the support they need to stay in work.

[Dr Ahmed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her very valid point. It is important to mention that we expect that the prevalence review will align with the review that the Department for Work and Pensions is carrying out on employability and other issues affecting disability.

NHS England is working with ICBs that are trialling innovative ways of delivering ADHD services and is using this information to support systems to tackle ADHD waiting lists and provide support to address people’s needs. I understand that it is increasingly clear to patients and staff that the current highly specialist ADHD assessment model needs to evolve quickly. Moving to a more generalist service model could improve care and reduce waiting lists. That was one of the taskforce’s key recommendations.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Approximately a quarter of the prison population—22,000, give or take—have ADHD. Will the Government commit to an impact assessment of what savings the Government could make, and how many people’s lives could be improved, by assessing people either before they commit a crime or after?

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister knows that he has two minutes.

[Dr Ahmed]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have a lot of things in my purview, but prisons are not one of them. However, his point is well made. We expect that such sub-groups would be investigated and interrogated during the prevalence review.

I do have only two minutes, Ms Vaz, so I will move on quickly and not test your patience. In the longer term, we recognise the need to understand the factors behind the rising demand for services. We recognise that ADHD and autism frequently co-occur, which is why it will be important for the prevalence review to look at the conditions holistically as well as individually.

I acknowledge the impact that delays in accessing assessments and diagnosis are having on people, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central for tabling this important and timely debate. I hope that the actions I have set out today, including the prevalence review and how it will dovetail with other reviews and other Departments, will provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend and other colleagues that we are taking these matters extremely seriously, and with a parity of esteem with any physical health condition or issue. I hope that all hon. Members’ constituents start to feel that progress very soon.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Bill Esterson, you have a few seconds to wind up.

17:44

[Bill Esterson]

In that case, I will thank all who have taken part and given their own testimonies and experiences. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) described the benefits of treatment and medication in exactly the same way as a constituent of mine did—mentioning the difference that comes from recognising that they can live their life the way that others do. I thank the Minister for what he said about Richard and Christine: that they have already had an impact. I just make a plea to him for early implementation of at least some of the findings ahead of the final response.

17:45

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