Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Bus Manufacturing
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK bus manufacturing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses, alongside the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).
There were 694 more zero emission buses registered in Britain in 2025 compared with 2024, a 38% rise in the number on the road in one year. There were 167 fewer built in the United Kingdom in 2025 compared with 2024. When we need more zero emission buses, when operators and local authorities are buying more buses but there are fewer orders going to factories in Falkirk, Ballymena, Scarborough, Aldershot and across the country, we know there is a problem, and it did not start yesterday.
I applied for this debate, first and foremost, having been born and raised in a community that has seen immense benefit from the UK bus manufacturing industry. The goliath industrial site, which stretches across a large section of Glasgow Road in Camelon, has been the origin of Scottish-built buses for decades. A stone’s throw away is the sleek, relatively new modern site at Larbert, which hosts the global headquarters of Alexander Dennis. I had a welcome visit to Alexander Dennis’s “meet the fleet” exhibition last week for prospective bidders to Transport Scotland’s ScotZEB3 scheme. I tentatively await the outcome of that exercise and welcome Fiona Hyslop MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, writing to me earlier this month to confirm when the announcement of successful bids is to be made. I hope for an objective outcome that supports Scottish manufacturing.
Members of Parliament will recognise the inherent pride when they spot something built in their community when out and about elsewhere in the country. When the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s fantastic Bee Network was launched, I was proud to note that there were more buses built by workers in Falkirk than from any other place in the world.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Mellor, a bus manufacturer in Rochdale, does a superb job of producing the buses that Greater Manchester needs. Andy Burnham was the first in more than 40 years to retake control of our bus network in Greater Manchester, showing that with a publicly controlled local bus network, we cannot only improve facilities for passengers but secure contracts for local workers and British-built buses. Does my hon. Friend agree that is the way forward, particularly when we are considering Chinese-built buses?
Euan Stainbank
Franchising is certainly an opportunity for our British bus manufacturing sector. I will speak later about procurement and the opportunities it presents for us to go even further, and potentially correct some of the examples that are not as great as the fantastic work done by the Mayor of Greater Manchester in that regard.
This debate is unlike the last one held in Westminster Hall prior to the election in 2024. This is not a debate about the virtues of the current push to decarbonise transport. It is an immutable fact that the shift in demand from both operators and public subsidy is towards cleaner and quieter transport. For the UK manufacturing sector, we need to recognise that the transition to zero emission buses and away from diesel is happening. A business selling horses and carts at the beginning of the 20th century could have continued to sell the carts and might have done well in the short term, but eventually, if it did not transition to automobiles, it would have gone out of business.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech on a topic about which I know he is particularly passionate. He will be aware that Alexander Dennis has a base in my constituency of Harlow. Would he agree that the move towards zero emission buses is a massive opportunity to increase the skills base of our communities? We should welcome the opportunity that young people have in our constituencies to work on these revolutionary new vehicles.
Euan Stainbank
My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the issue we are debating today. This is an opportunity for our country to enable our manufacturers to compete within the market.
What British industry needs is not to see its renowned prowess for making diesel buses become a sentimental memory in communities such as Falkirk, but policy certainty and support to scale up and properly compete in the zero emissions market as we move towards the implementation of the ZEB mandate. International competitors have been able to scale up to meet the global market through state subsidy and clear procurement ambition. It is up to us to gather the political will to do the same, which I am sure we will hear articulated today.
Through both the mandate and voluntary targets for new registrations, operators are moving to prepare for new additions to their fleet to be fully zero emission by 2030, at the earliest. As that date approaches and diesel buses concurrently become a diminishing part of manufacturers’ order books, we must acknowledge that there is a short window before every new bus in the UK market will be zero emission. The year 2027, proposed by some during the passage of the Bus Services Act 2025 as the date for the ZEB mandate to come into operation, would, without thought, drastically narrow that window, and I was glad to see those amendments defeated.
However, the message we are hearing from our manufacturers is clear. If we now fail to get this right, we will not be talking about a British-led transition and we will not be talking just about a 35%, and rising, Chinese market share. We will be talking about transitioning to reliance on other places in the world to build the vehicles we need on our roads. We will be facing the reality of the long-term consequences of the price and security of supply being increasingly elsewhere and not here. We will have lost control.
That is why this debate is urgent. The Government, in my view, have the political temperament to deliver a new generation of British-built buses, and they have the proven ability to be bold on industrial policy, but too many missed chances by previous Governments and increasingly imminent deadlines for our industry mean that we need to be bolder. Sadly, taxpayer-funded schemes have contributed, rather than aiding a solution, to the problem of diminishing market share for UK manufacturers.
The initial ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional areas—scheme, touted proudly by Prime Minister Johnson’s Government, committed to 4,000 British-built buses by the end of the last Parliament. The scheme delivered just 2,270 buses, of which about 46% were built abroad. There was a material and harmful chasm between political rhetoric and delivery for UK manufacturers.
Scottish manufacturing fared worse recently in phase 2 of the Scottish Government’s zero emission bus challenge fund, the outcome of which was sending two thirds of ScotZEB2 orders to Yutong in China, while less than 20% went to Scottish manufacturers. That created an existential threat to 400 jobs and the Scottish bus manufacturing sector last year, with the First Minister being informed by the company in August 2024 that the outcome of the scheme appeared to show little regard for Scottish manufacturing, with unprecedented action being required in September to prevent the two factories from closing for good.
In addition, 130 jobs were lost in 2024, in part because of the aggravated issue of conditions being placed on Scottish Government funding, compelling adherence to advanced Fair Work First standards for employee remuneration, welfare and safety, while no such requirement was made of foreign manufacturers. I am all in favour of fair work standards being applied. The problem here is that they were not weighted in the procurement exercises, despite their being required only of British manufacturers. That created an unlevel playing field, tilted in the wrong direction.
We have heard testimonials to the origin of London’s public transport system in the labour of Scottish, English and Northern Irish workers, who now contend with, and are contradicted by, the rapidly increasing portions of Transport for London infrastructure coming from elsewhere in the world.
It does not have to be this way. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) alluded to, the Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region combined authorities, when franchising their bus networks, bought nationally. They chose to weight properly when buying buses, with procurement teams looking at what could be achieved when social value is appropriately weighted.
These successes and failures are largely down to how the schemes are set up. It seems entirely right to me that, because many are funded wholly with our constituents’ tax money, we should maximise the muscle of the state to make sure that as much of it as possible ends up benefiting our constituents, within the limits of our World Trade Organisation obligations.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In the Doncaster East part of my constituency, franchising kicks in next year. At the moment, routes are about profits, not the people who use them. With this being about buying British buses, I think we have an amazing opportunity also to think about accessibility on our buses and to make sure we are also thinking about people who have disabilities or need extra help when we build our British buses.
Euan Stainbank
For Members of Parliament, accessibility on our public transport network is always a key factor. At the “meet the fleet” exhibition, I was glad to see some of the new models coming out from Alexander Dennis—hopefully to be built at the Larbert and Camelon sites—which will provide greater accessibility for customers. It is important for all bus manufacturers to make that feature a key selling point when they are going out to the country.
Other countries have been able to do this and follow WTO or even EU free trade obligations. The German Government have recently started enforcing a 50% rule for contract value in procurement from the EU or countries with a free trade agreement, putting a cap on market growth of foreign competitors and, in practice, protecting jobs in the German automotive industry. The US’s Build America, Buy America scheme, introduced by the Biden Administration, mandates 70% local content for all rolling stock, and final assembly in the USA. Canada, while engaged in several free trade agreements, has introduced a Buy Canadian procurement policy framework that prioritises domestic industries.
If other countries can do it, so can we. When I have put to the Government the case for greater policy support for UK manufacturers, the very welcome forum of the UK Bus Manufacturing Expert Panel and the 10-year bus pipeline are often cited as the answer. The panel and the imminent 10-year pipeline will offer welcome certainty about the volume and source of upcoming demand, but we need alignment of policy to support our industry or we are in danger of providing just as much certainty to foreign competitors as to our own manufacturers.
The Government’s recent consultation on procurement reform is very welcome. I hope it did not escape the notice of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and in the Cabinet Office that substantial submissions were made by Alexander Dennis, Wrightbus and supply chain businesses that rely on the primary UK manufacturing sector. The UK manufacturing sector is clear on a way forward that supports it without significant structural legislative change. We need a stronger emphasis on social value, and I believe Ministers must now consider a 30% social value weighting and clearer local economic benefit expectations.
Social value criteria should be directly linked to key performance indicators that provide evidence of growing industry; job creation and retention; skills and metrics, including economic impact; taxes paid in the UK; supply chain spend; and UK gross value added to UK plc. Simply setting social value at 10% would continue to risk it being immaterial to scheme outcomes, as we saw in Scotland, and would be an inadequate tool to deal with rapidly diminishing British market share.
Will the Minister confirm in his summing-up what further action is being considered to encourage contracting authorities to maximise their portion of the 10-year bus pipeline through domestic content when it is published? In addition, what conversations has he sought with Cabinet Office colleagues on procurement reform to amplify the views of the manufacturing sector and supply chain businesses when the time comes to legislate?
The necessity to retain and grow our domestic capacity is increasingly essential when serious concerns are being raised across Europe about the security of some Chinese-built buses. Following concerns raised by myself and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, there is currently a National Cyber Security Centre and Department for Transport investigation into the risk of remote deactivation in some Chinese-built buses. I understand, through subsequent reports in the media, that the possibility of remote deactivation exists for 700-plus buses currently active on British roads.
Although the risk may appear abstract to some, this issue raises important long-term security, autonomy and dependability concerns for my constituents, operators and passengers. Our manufacturers currently comply with security regulations 155 and 156, verified by the Vehicle Certification Agency, which ensures that vehicle manufacturers implement comprehensive cyber-security measures throughout a vehicle’s life cycle and ensures that software updates happen safely and securely. Approval certificates, however, can be sought from other countries’ approval authorities through mutual recognition arrangements for non-UK verification.
I raised written questions prior to the interim reports of the investigation being reported in the media. I will repeat them here, considering the new information. Have the Government considered requiring UK VCA verification for any non-domestic manufacturers in the UK following those concerns? Following that, will the Government accept that national industrial security could and should be factored into any subsequent taxpayer-funded procurement exercises? If there is any degree of fallibility in security that cannot be adequately mitigated, the Procurement Act 2023 surely provides the powers for contracting authorities to disregard bids from non-treaty state suppliers.
Is that a power the Government would consider encouraging or mandating contracting authorities to use, if they are not satisfied with the security of buses coming from abroad? Although that would certainly be significant action, buses are the most used form of public transport in the country and are essential national infrastructure. We know that there are sufficiently credible risks to warrant Chinese-built buses being investigated. Without prejudicing the outcome of the investigation, which I understand is still on track, will the Minister provide us with as much of an update as possible on when we should expect the investigation to be concluded? This concern reinforces the need to move urgently to tilt the market away from increased reliance on Chinese manufacturers and towards self-sufficiency.
With 400 jobs and the very existence of a century-old bus manufacturing sector put in jeopardy in my community in Falkirk last year, the state of the UK bus manufacturing sector is a real and present issue, not only for my community but for our national industrial security and how we effectively execute a just transition, as we move towards the zero emission bus mandate for 2030 at the earliest. The transition towards clean transport has been, and will be, backed by billions in additional funding from this Government, who have shown the ability to be bold on industrial policy. We have a valued, well-paid and skilled workforce. At the same time, we have an existential challenge from foreign competitors. Too much taxpayers’ money goes abroad, and too many self-imposed targets were missed by previous Governments.
If we do not adopt creative policies from elsewhere to support our British industry, we risk losing those jobs permanently to Chinese manufacturing, and if that is done, it cannot be undone. If UK bus manufacturing fails, for as long as this country is subsidising buses we will be sending taxpayers’ money abroad, so we cannot afford the cost of doing nothing.
Deindustrialisation is not an inevitable process—a reaction to the UK sector losing market share. We have policy levers. We can increase social value weighting expectations nationally and locally to 30%; we can give clear guidance to contracting authorities on how the muscle in the Procurement Act can best be strategically deployed; we can clearly state the risks that kill switches could present; and we can back British buses.
My constituents and I hope to see buses being built in Falkirk for a long time to come. I want the same for communities in Ballymena, Scarborough, Aldershot and beyond. I believe this Government can make that hope a concrete reality, but to do that we need to make the right choices. We need to make bolder choices, and we need to make them now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. There are about half a dozen Members seeking to catch my eye, so they will have five or six minutes each. Colleagues should reflect on keeping their remarks brief—a copybook example of which will be provided by Graham Leadbitter.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the co-chairs of the APPG, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), on securing the debate.
I like to think I have a bit of an affinity with buses. For my entire time at high school—three years at Oban high school and three years at Biggar high school—every school day started and ended on a bus, as it does for many living in rural communities. At the age of 15, I volunteered at Biggar’s Albion works as part of a Duke of Edinburgh’s award, and helped to restore an Albion lorry. Albion was, of course, one of Scotland’s first vehicle manufacturers, and that included the manufacture of many buses. I do not know whether anybody here is old enough to remember that.
Although Albion is sadly no more, Alexander Dennis has been manufacturing buses in Scotland for more than 100 years and provides significant skilled employment. In Scotland, we recognise the importance of bus travel. The SNP has put in place a number of measures to boost bus use, including an extensive bus pass system, which includes free bus travel for under-23s. It has had positive social impacts and gives young and old people access to vital services and to education, employment and social opportunities. Increased bus use means steady demand for new buses to replace or expand existing fleets, and higher demand means greater opportunity for manufacturers.
In my former role as council leader in Moray, I had the pleasure of being a signatory of the Moray growth deal, which included the m.connect scheme—a combination of massively expanded on-demand bus services and expanded scheduled services over a large geography. It is well supported and well liked by the public and, again, more services mean more buses.
However, there are serious challenges for bus manufacturers—notably from cheap foreign imports, especially from China—and that raises questions about the current procurement rules. The UK-wide Subsidy Control Act 2022 has prevented the Scottish Government from directly procuring from a single supplier, which puts avoidable strain on domestic bus manufacture.
Protecting skilled manufacturing in Scotland is critical to building our transition to a green industrial economy. That is why the Scottish Government committed £4 million to retain more than 400 manufacturing jobs at Alexander Dennis through a furlough scheme to protect crucial skilled workers until work can recommence. It was because of that collaboration and determination, and a shared belief in the value and the future of domestic manufacturing, that the Scottish Government and Alexander Dennis were able to negotiate that deal. But the obvious preference for the company, the Government and, most importantly, those workers is to have a steady stream of orders and no requirement for such a scheme.
There are several key things the UK can do to support bus manufacturing. The Subsidy Control Act needs reworking. As the hon. Member for Falkirk said, social value weighting needs to be ramped up. As a councillor, I argued very strongly for that for a wide range of contracts, and I continue to do so today. It is perfectly reasonable to place weighting on local supply chain content, quality assurance, apprenticeships and much more.
We also need to significantly tighten up certification of buses to ensure consistently high standards, especially on issues such as cyber-security. There have been multiple investigations in various countries into so-called kill switches in imported vehicles and other technologies, so that is clearly of critical importance.
There is a particular irony in trying to grow an electrically powered bus fleet in the UK by shipping buses in large numbers halfway around the world using heavy fuel-powered cargo ships. The green credentials of such procurement arrangements are highly questionable. The whole carbon impact of manufacture and delivery needs to be considered. Work also needs to be done by the Government and power distribution companies to ensure that grid connections for new charging installations are carried out in a timely way. Bus operators will not procure modern EV buses if they have nowhere to plug them in.
In conclusion, there are several actions the Government can take to support bus manufacturing and manufacturing more generally. That would also give public authorities and Governments across these islands more tools in the box to support procurement that drives growth and skilled jobs in our manufacturing sector, and ensures a future for these well-known, well-liked companies.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I call the co-sponsor of the debate, Jim Allister.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the APPG for British buses.
As the representative for North Antrim, I have the privilege of having Wrightbus as the key manufacturing company in my constituency. It is remarkable that, having started in a domestic garage just after the second world war, Wrightbus is now one of the world leaders in technology, skills and innovation. Ballymena in my constituency will forever be grateful to Sir William Wright for his innovative foresight, which led to where we are today.
It was not always an easy road. Just a few years ago, after substantial problems, Wrightbus rose like a phoenix from the ashes under new ownership, generating 2,300 jobs and producing many, many hundreds of buses, with the ambition to produce more than 3,000. I recently visited the site again, and saw the most modern of the company’s buses, which thankfully take care of all the accessibility needs one could think of. I was encouraged by the enthusiasm of the new chief executive, who certainly has ambitious plans for the site.
It is important that we as a nation grab hold of the opportunity here. The industrial strategy talks about advanced manufacturing as a strategic growth sector. If we mean that—I certainly believe that the sector has that potential—we must twin it with the approach we take on procurement. There is no point saying that advanced manufacturing is a strategic growth sector if our procurement policy is letting it down.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Given that we have a growth policy that aims to support UK bus manufacturing, does the hon. and learned Member agree that it seems totally counterproductive that we subsidise overseas bus manufacturers to bring buses into the United Kingdom? We have such magnificent manufacturing bases in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England.
Jim Allister
Indeed, and the Chancellor is on record as saying that
“where things are made, and who makes them, matters.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.]
That is correct, and the Government need to get that message embedded in their soul.
I want to speak directly to the mayor of this great city—our capital city. In recent times, 479 Chinese buses have been put on our streets, with another 160 to follow—that is China, with the kill switches. I ask the mayor and TfL: where is the national pride in our capital city if we arrive and discover that the bus we are likely to get on was made in China rather than the United Kingdom? Other mayors seem to have had the vision and the desire to promote British-made products. That desire needs to catch flame here in the capital city, and I trust that it will.
Our procurement must be assertive and bold. There are the social value tools to make our procurement effective in assisting the production of home-made buses. We should be unashamed to do as other countries do when it comes to productivity. I hope that one outcome of this debate will be that those in a position to order buses reflect on where they order them from, and that we will see an interest in and accentuation of orders from within our United Kingdom. We have the means. We have the product. Let us build on it and make it even greater.
Finally, I want to raise a particular problem with production and exports in Northern Ireland. Sadly, under the Brexit arrangement, we are still under EU state aid rules. We see that in clauses 13 to 15 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which increase the level available for enterprise management incentives, enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts in Great Britain, but hold it down for companies in Northern Ireland. Why? Because of EU state aid rules. We also see it in the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, which again caps us under the EU state aid limits. How can we have a level playing field for UK production if, quite outrageously, one part of the United Kingdom is subject to a cap under EU state aid rules, which would not be there at all, of course, if we were properly part of the United Kingdom and had properly achieved Brexit? For Wrightbus, the workers in my constituency and the commonality of this United Kingdom, we must have that level playing field. That will then unleash opportunities for this great industry. It is time for the Government to liberate the bus building industry so that it can grow, including in Northern Ireland.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Good morning, Dr Murrison; I am delighted to serve under your chairship. I bring attention to my membership of Unite, and I record my appreciation for the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and for my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for securing this vital debate.
My hon. Friend and I both have Alexander Dennis sites in our constituencies, and we have campaigned together, representing the interests of the AD workers from Larbert in my constituency and Falkirk in his. Of course, being MPs from central Scotland, we are sadly no strangers to big industrial issues. Scotland’s only oil refinery operated in Grangemouth for a century until last year, when it was closed by its owners—a combination of a multinational company owned by a billionaire and a company controlled by the Chinese Government.
Eight miles along the M9 from Grangemouth is Larbert, which is my Alexander Dennis site. It is a huge local employer, and it is feeling the adverse effects of Chinese influence.
It is a well-known fact that Chinese buses and batteries currently have a substantial share of the market. Alexander Dennis workers and trade unionists have laid out the realities and issues that British bus manufacturers are facing. As is the case in many different industries, China is now able to overpower more established economies, and the position of European nations in a global trade context has dramatically changed.
Let us be clear: as a Government, we are not without power. Things can be done to help British business. The Government must be willing to intervene, impact and change the circumstances for British industry. It can be done. It was done, in December last year, when the Labour Government stepped in and saved the British chemical industry at Grangemouth. Our intervention saved 500 skilled and well-paid jobs on site, reversed the town’s industrial decline and boosted the local and national economy. That is the good that Government intervention does for British industry, British workers and British working-class communities.
I say to the Minister that, sadly, Labour Governments do not come around all that often, so it is up to us to be assertive and to create, at the very least, a level playing field. In fact, why not make it more advantageous for British companies to do business? Where things are made matters, and “Buy British” and Britain being “Britain’s best customer” have to be more than political slogans.
Things must be changed to make it easier for our companies to be competitive, and we know that the SNP will not do it. It is easy for them to duck responsibility and point the finger at Conservative Governments of the past who treated working-class Scots and Scottish industry with utter contempt. But we have had 20 years of SNP Government with zero industrial strategy. Equally bad has been their public procurement policy. If it is not buses ordered from China, it is ferries built in Turkey or Poland; it is NHS Scotland contracts going to France; it is Scottish Government cyber-security services being outsourced to the United States. Over £7.7 billion of Scottish Government expenditure—public money—has gone to foreign companies. Stronger for Scotland? The treatment of Scottish workers, including the bus industry, which we are talking about today, is a national scandal.
In finishing, I say to the Minister: go back to the Department and be bold, be transformative and put our workers, our communities and our businesses at the heart of everything that we do.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Good morning, Dr Murrison. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and my good friend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this important debate. Today we gather to discuss British bus manufacturing. We are here to highlight not only skills, the economy and transportation but, I believe, the integral role of all those dimensions to the security of our entire nation.
This industry is woven into every facet of our national life. It is part of the fabric of our island story, and I believe we must defend it. This is not just about vehicles; rather, it is about our British heritage, our skills and the future of our country. There are more than 4,150 highly skilled individuals directly employed, and more than 13,000 indirectly employed, in the supply chain of bus manufacturing throughout the United Kingdom. Bus manufacturing is a powerhouse of skilled jobs that trains and employs local people across 90 local authorities. Those jobs are not only skilled but more highly paid than comparable occupations, with salaries 20% higher than in other parts of the supply chain.
Sadly, we do not manufacture buses in my constituency of Romford, but local people are employed in all parts of the supply chain, and many more depend upon it.
Every day, local people in Romford, which is part of Greater London, rely on buses supplied by great companies like Ulster’s Wrightbus keeping our communities connected. In my borough of Havering to the east side of London in Essex—where my constituency is located—almost a quarter of journeys are made by bus, and across the whole of the Greater London region, buses enable more than two thirds of journeys.
Buses are an essential lifeline for so many of our constituents. I use buses all the time; I jump on the 103, or possibly the 499, from my home down to Romford station on the way to Westminster. We have two very good buses in my community. They are provided by Transport for London, which comes under the Mayor of London. I entirely endorse the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim when he talks about the absolute failure of pride that the Mayor of London shows in our part of the country. British buses could be purchased and procured for use in Greater London, and yet Mayor Khan is going to China: shame on him. That is one reason why people in my borough would love to have the opportunity to not be under Greater London and be fully part of Essex as we have historically always been.
While our buses are essential for both the economy and transportation, that is only part of the picture. We ought not to forget that many British buses are made in Northern Ireland. That is a stark reminder of the severe damage being inflicted by the Windsor framework—a shameful betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland that is creating barriers between British people and businesses, and creating two internal markets in one United Kingdom. That is a national disgrace and must be brought to an end. We are one United Kingdom and all British people should be treated the same. The rules should apply throughout all parts of our great nation; we should not be separating Northern Ireland from Scotland, Wales and England. I look forward to the next Government—and I hope it will be a Reform UK Government—reversing the Windsor framework and implementing Brexit as the people voted for.
It is also a reminder of the continuing avenues for growth and job creation across the Union. Wrightbus is a prime example; the Ballymena company produces dozens of buses every year, employing hundreds of local people and supplying a quarter of buses across Greater London. That means roughly a quarter of bus journeys taken by my constituents are made possible by the entrepreneurial spirit and work ethic of the good people of Ulster. That is an incredible testament to the importance of the Union and showcases Britain at her very best.
By backing British bus manufacturing, we are not only calling on the Government to protect transport networks, the economy or even the Union, but also asking that they live up to their central responsibility to defend our national security. Under the zero emission bus regional areas scheme, which ended in 2024, 40% of buses were procured from abroad, increasing foreign influence in this native industry and divesting from the domestic skills base. Worse still, publications such as The Times, The Guardian and others have reported extensively on kill switches present in foreign-made buses, inserted by international competitors or adversaries of the United Kingdom, such as the People’s Republic of China. The very real risk of foreign disruption has been permitted for too long by successive—I am afraid to say—Conservative and Labour Governments and must be brought to an end. Keeping our bus manufacturing in British hands is no longer a patriotic preference or an economic luxury, but a national necessity. I call on the Government to keep our bus network in British hands, protect our people and create jobs across the kingdom that showcase British excellence. Let us ensure that we have the skills, investment and political will to back British industry making British buses: British made for generations to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I appeal to colleagues to be brief in their remarks so that we can get everybody in.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for securing this important and timely debate. I also say “happy birthday” to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk—I know that he says he is 25, but I am not so sure about that. Bus manufacturing is a significant sector in both Members’ constituencies, through Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for their dedicated efforts to support a highly skilled sector that employs more than 4,000 people across the United Kingdom and a further 13,000 in the supply chain.
The United Kingdom has a proud industrial heritage. It was known for its ability to build and build well, and companies such as our bus manufacturers keep that reputation alive. Engineering has been critical to our country’s success, and small steps, such as including engineering in the name of the current Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, would show this Parliament’s collective determination to highlight the role that engineering has to play in our future. That is a pet peeve of mine and something that the Tories and failed Reform have no idea about—in the past and in the future.
The United Kingdom can have a booming, home-grown economy at its centre once again. As an engineer and former lecturer, I am passionate about the future of UK manufacturing and innovation, but I am well aware of the need to harness potential through timely investment and the right strategies. A modern industrial strategy is required, but it must not be in name only. Any strategy must have the creation of a skills-based economy at its heart. It must be cognisant of the impacts of deindustrialisation in constituencies such as mine in Airdrie and Shotts, and it must commit to utilising skills that exist here in the UK to get Britain building and to ensure that major employers such as Alexander Dennis have a role to play long into the future.
This Government are committed to securing the future of industry and supporting bus manufacturers in their move to electric, but we must collectively go further.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Ensignbus, which operates in my constituency, is not a bus manufacturer per se, but it repurposes buses and is looking to get into the repowering of buses that have finished their natural life, usually in London, which will aid the switch to zero emissions. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging and supporting it in that endeavour, and in urging the Minister to look into what we can do as a Government to support enterprises such as this?
Kenneth Stevenson
Yes, of course I would. There is a major move towards making sure that cars in the future, such as Beetles etc, move to electric power. There is a move towards that in America, and we should make that move in the UK towards taking cars and buses that can be improved and moving them to batteries or even hydrogen—to non-fossil fuels.
In Scotland, the Scottish Government’s procurement is so deeply flawed that contracts are handed to Chinese bus manufacturers when the skills exist in our central belt. Investing in British bus manufacturing by supporting companies such as Alexander Dennis will not only get state-of-the-art buses on the road, but bolster national security, given the serious and widely held concerns surrounding where Chinese manufactured buses are controlled from and whether an action taken in China could bring electric buses here to a halt.
Too many fossil fuel-powered buses—more than 36,000—remain on our roads. Bus manufacturers here in the United Kingdom are prepared to meet the demand to replace them. Manufacturers are calling for certainty and security, and they are asking for Government buy-in. To think that a company such as Alexander Dennis was at risk of going under, and that the jobs of people in my constituency were threatened, when such potential exists to invest in and grow the sector is deeply worrying. Words must quickly turn into action in every part of the United Kingdom to get this industry back on its feet and contributing to our economy in the way we know that it can. That is why net zero emission bus funds, whether in Scotland or across the United Kingdom, must be accessible to British businesses. The potential to grow our economy through investing in British bus manufacturing is clear to see, and I hope to hear from the Minister how we will embrace that potential, deliver for UK industry, and protect and create jobs for years to come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Dr Murrison, and I say a special thank you to the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for highlighting this topic and securing the debate. There is a potential for UK-wide investment, which will pay UK-wide dividends. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. I know that he will give very confident and positive answers to our questions.
The constituency of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim encompasses Ballymena and is strongly linked to buses. He will be aware that I have supported and cheered on Wrightbus for many years and will continue to do so because, as he rightly said, bus manufacturing is a UK-wide project, which Strangford plays her part in. While primary assembly is done in Ballymena, the Northern Irish manufacturing sector is highly integrated. It is common for precision engineering firms in the Strangford constituency to act as tier 2 or tier 3 suppliers, providing specific components such as metal fabrications or electronic systems to larger manufacturers. As Members in this Chamber know, we need the small cogs as well as the big ones for the engine to power up, so there is a role for us all to play across many of our constituencies in relation to that.
The fact is that the reputation for Northern Ireland crafted vehicles is top class; it is no exaggeration to say that we are world leaders in the field. The hon. Member for Falkirk said that his bus companies are leaders in the field, and they are. It is a collective goal that we are trying to achieve. That we are world leaders is undoubtedly down to the investment and support of local bus makers such as Wrightbus. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim set the scene in relation to Wrightbus. He set out how it has advanced to where it is today, and told us of the key role that it plays. Its submission to the Business and Trade Committee made it abundantly clear how supporting the manufacturing sector can help others in the United Kingdom.
I find it so interesting that the global bus market is worth around $21 billion and that some 3 million buses are used for public transport. To meet global net zero goals, all buses—or at least the vast majority of them—will need to switch to zero emission alternatives by 2050. There is a great desire for the new, green-friendly electric buses. If a bus is going to last for 15 years, that commitment needs to be made now, so maybe the Minister can give us some idea of what is going to happen in relation to that.
As Members may know, the average lifespan of a bus is 15 years, which means that bus operators and local authorities are now making investments in the decarbonisation of their fleets. According to those projections, global sales of zero emission buses are due to rise from 112,000 in 2022 to 670,000 in 2027. That is massive—it would be a growth of six times in a period of five years. As a result, there is a major export opportunity for the UK bus manufacturers to sell zero emission buses in a growing global market.
To do that, Wrightbus needs Government support, not simply financially but promotionally. The Government must ensure that firms throughout Europe can order with confidence from this very niche but very successful firm. I believe that more can and must be done by the Government to provide that security, and that begins with investment in the facility. I am confident that every investment of time and money will pay dividends throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I thank hon. Members for the motion and give my wholehearted support once again, knowing that a rising tide lifts all ships. Northern Ireland has historically carried out high-level manufacturing in the air, in the sea and on land, and each of those industries has potential for so much more. I hope that, from today, we begin to realise that potential.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for leading on such a critical issue for his constituents. As of the third quarter of 2023, the UK manufactured only around 17% of UK buses, employing around 4,400 people while also supporting supply chains. That is undoubtedly an economic benefit, but it is also less harmful for our precious planet.
Transporting large goods from as far away as China obviously has a detrimental environmental impact. Britain should be at the heart of manufacturing electric buses for our own use, driving forward the green transition to halt climate change. In my constituency, which covers part of Glasgow, improving air quality has undoubted health benefits. Driving change does not happen by accident; it needs a strategy, a plan, hard work and investment.
The demand for electric buses will only continue to grow. I hope we can ensure that domestic demand is primarily met here. Alexander Dennis has faced significant issues over the last few years, and I hope they are temporary and resolvable. The future of bus manufacturing in the UK should be strong and positive, build on the existing manufacturing base and be supported by a strong domestic pipeline of orders.
There is no shortage of existing sites for the expansion of bus manufacturing in Scotland. Bus manufacturing companies seeking new sites need look no further than the advanced manufacturing district for Scotland at Glasgow airport in my own constituency, which has an ample supply of land, access to the White Cart river for water, good motorway connections and a developer and a local authority poised to construct low-carbon buildings at a reasonable cost.
Communities like mine in Paisley and Renfrewshire North need more and better buses, including slicker, smaller buses that can wind through our housing estates. The reliability and availability of buses and their routes comes up frequently on the doors of my constituency, particularly in Gallowhill, Ferguslie Park, Erskine, Renfrew, Penilee and Cardonald, where they are a lifeline to doctor’s appointments, work and seeing families and friends. My constituents need to know that more buses will be coming very soon.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this important debate. My contribution will be short; it will focus on the Government’s approach to securing the manufacturing jobs we have already in the UK, and how we can expand that number further.
My hon. Friend will be very happy that my Edinburgh constituents ride on buses manufactured in his constituency every day, so much so that since 2018 Lothian Buses has purchased 180 buses from Alexander Dennis. In 2018, Lothian Buses and Alexander Dennis unveiled a brand new 100-seater double-decker bus. Even stepping on these buses today, they feel state of the art, with increased driver safety and passenger convenience. In 2021, Lothian Buses started testing four Enviro400EV double-decker buses, which were the result of an electric vehicle partnership between Alexander Dennis and BYD UK. This kind of partnership demonstrates the work and innovation already under way in manufacturing to decarbonise the transport that we use across our cities every day.
Lothian Buses is the largest municipal bus company in the United Kingdom. It will come as no surprise to many of us that a municipal bus company, working with the same procurement policies and constraints as other bus companies, has supported local manufacturing. Ownership matters, and Lothian Buses demonstrates that municipal ownership leads to positive economic benefits for the people such companies serve. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether the Government have further plans to support or encourage municipal ownership to ensure that the decisions on services, standards and operations are always made for the benefit of passengers.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for bringing this important industry to the attention of the House.
The latest figures tell us that just 17% of buses used in the UK are manufactured here, which of course means that 83% come from abroad. Those figures are very much the wrong way round. What can we do to reverse them?
A number of trends have come together to make what was always a challenging market much more difficult. In particular, we have seen the shift to low emission vehicles on environmental and pollution grounds. That has created a major inflection point in the market. It is an opportunity for companies if they can get ahead of the curve—a chance for them to displace established players—but potentially a major setback if other companies get there first. In this sector, the competitive advantage clearly lies with Chinese manufacturers.
Research published in 2024 by the professional services firm KPMG on the economic impact of local bus services found that the sector invests over £180 million each year in UK buses. KPMG also estimates that around 53,000 people are indirectly employed through the industry’s supply chain, including those working for manufacturers, fuel suppliers, maintenance, parts companies and technology providers. That amounts to a major contribution, both to the economy and of course to employment.
However, the only solution to a long-term strategic problem lies in a long-term strategy. Under the previous Government, there was no industrial strategy worthy of the name. One arm of Government did not seem to know, or care, what another was doing. The need for environmentally friendly forms of public transport was clear a long time ago, but the move towards such transport and the subsidies to support it seems to have been carried out in isolation from policy relating to UK manufacturing. The Liberal Democrats welcome the present Government’s move to a more strategic approach, and I hope the Minister will tell us more about those plans today.
As Liberal Democrats, our approach would be, first, to establish a comprehensive industrial strategy in partnership with business, civil society, including trade unions and academia. Secondly, we would ensure that the principles of tackling the climate emergency, boosting living standards, spreading prosperity everywhere in the UK and growing the economy are at the heart of that strategy. Thirdly, we would seek to provide a strategic framework for effectively addressing the needs of economically disadvantaged remote or rural areas by collaborating with local, regional and devolved authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Fourthly, we need to work towards four key business priorities: a positive business climate; leveraging technology to supercharge the green economy; empowering small businesses to create prosperity in local communities; and boosting trade. Finally, we need to enable businesses to achieve these priorities by enabling the workforce of tomorrow with a training and apprenticeship programme, investing in key infrastructure, scaling digital innovation and technology adoption, and creating financial markets that work for all businesses.
Although the solution has to be long-term, there is the short-term challenge of keeping the bus industry that we already have afloat in the meantime. The businesses at Wrightbus and Alexander Dennis play a key role in their local economies, as we have heard from the local Members. I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of how we can bridge the gap between what has worked until now and how we need to operate in the future. We have a fantastic workforce and an amazing history in automotive manufacturing. Let us make sure that the industry continues to prosper in the future.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The debate comes at an apposite time. I was particularly glad to have heard from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who both made excellent speeches. Whether someone is in Ballymena, Aldershot, Falkirk, Scarborough or indeed anywhere that bus manufacturing is based in Britain, we want to see a thriving and successful UK bus manufacturing sector, because it is critical to local communities. I was glad to have visited Alexander Dennis when I was the buses Minister.
However, at the very top level across the country, we are seeing real damage being caused by the Government’s complete mismanagement of the economy, with rising national insurance, increases in business rates and self-created economic uncertainty. Those problems have been doubled down on when it comes to our bus manufacturing sector, but it is important to set out the fundamental issues affecting businesses right across the country.
As hon. Members have mentioned, the UK bus manufacturing sector directly employs about 4,200 people, with about 13,000 more in the supply chain. It is vital that we retain and grow that workforce. My fear is that the bus sector, and what is happening to it, is the canary in the mineshaft for manufacturing generally, and particularly vehicle manufacturing, in the UK. As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) noted, in the past year, just 17% of buses with new registrations were made in the UK. There has been a significant and rapid reduction over the past couple of years.
Buses are the most popular form of public transport, so we know that we will continue to need new buses in the UK well into the future, but many companies in the sector are facing huge challenges from increased overseas competition alongside technological change, so we must take the opportunity to ensure that we have companies that are able to compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace. It is not always a competitive marketplace—that point was made clearly by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Falkirk—but it is a challenging one for many bus manufacturers.
We also need to ensure that UK companies continue to innovate, so that they are at the forefront of technological change. We must examine the hard work of many companies, but especially Wrightbus and Alexander Dennis, the two companies mentioned by the proposers of today’s debate. Those companies have been through challenging times, but they have taken enormous steps to become technological leaders in the sector. Wrightbus in particular has announced enormous growth over the past few years. In 2019, it had fewer than 50 employees and went into administration, with 1,200 jobs being lost. It now provides more than 2,000 jobs in County Antrim, which shows the opportunities for UK manufacturing when there is growth.
At the same time, I recognise the issues noted by the hon. Member for Falkirk, which AD and Wrightbus both referred to in their respective financial announcements. The UK bus industry is facing huge financial challenges. It is vital that we understand the challenges those companies face and ensure that the business environment for them and other companies in the sector is as friendly, financially viable, pro-British business and pro-British worker as it can feasibly be. That means creating a sector that has the opportunity to grow, with technology that can rival that of any company around the world.
During my time as buses Minister, there was exceptionally strong growth in the bus sector, with a 44.6% increase in new registrations. That was driven most strongly by British-built double-decker buses, registrations of which increased by 173.6% during that time. We also became the largest market in Europe for electric and hydrogen-powered buses, under a scheme that was Government supported but local-authority led. None the less, councils have sometimes chosen foreign manufacturers over UK ones. Councils in Leicester, Nottingham, West Yorkshire, the north-east of England and Newport, and now, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned, the Mayor of London have chosen to buy foreign-made buses. That issue was raised today by Members on all sides, and it is one that I battled with when I was Minister. We want to ensure that existing companies in the UK can prosper. Creating the conditions for that is vital.
We must consider not only the work of UK companies but the challenges they face in the international context. Bus manufacturing is a global industry with manufacturers around the world, which is why the Minister is probably facing some of the issues that I faced when I was Minister. Clearly, one of those is social value, which we must do much more about. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned the figure of 10%, and I am sure that he is right. We must reflect on that, especially in the international context, and consider how to increase it. That is in the context of something that has only emerged in the past few years: increasing and broader concerns about cyber-security, technology and kill switches. When we put those two things side by side—social value and the security of our bus network, which provides the most popular form of public transport—we see that we have to ensure that we end up in the right place. I ask the Government to commit to reviewing their policies so that matters such as the regulation of equipment, the evaluation of security risk, and trade policy do not enhance the prospects of manufacturers from other countries to the detriment of British manufacturers, especially when taxpayers’ money is being used.
Chinese manufacturers are becoming a dominant force in multiple forms of transport. In 2025, BYD overtook Tesla to become the largest seller of electric vehicles, and Chinese electric bus manufacturing has been significant for some time. The International Energy Agency noted that in 2024, just under 50,000 of the 72,000 electric buses sold globally were sold in China, and that Chinese manufacturers have increasingly looked at exports to exploit the available overcapacity in domestic manufacturing. In 2024, more than 15,000 electric buses were exported from China—a 25% increase on 2023 alone.
Yutong, a Chinese company that is the largest bus manufacturer in the world, grew to take an 8.4% UK market share by the third quarter of 2025. It is clear that, while Chinese providers are present, we must ensure that all relevant trade practices are fair and that the technology being used does not create security risks. I am aware of the worrying reports before Christmas that, following an investigation in Norway, the Department for Transport was working with the National Cyber Security Centre to assess whether Yutong’s remote access to vehicle control systems, for software updates and diagnostics, was a security concern. I would be grateful if the Minister provided details on whether that issue has been looked into and, if so, what the results were.
We need to confront such difficult questions as we do not want to be in the position of enabling bus manufacturers from abroad to take advantage of our policies while making our own manufacturers uncompetitive. There is a risk of the situation worsening, given the Government’s enthusiasm for raising taxes on domestic businesses and particularly on domestic employment.
Will the Minister also consider other Government schemes that send money for manufacturing abroad? I am thinking particularly of the electric car grant: 90% of the vehicles covered by that scheme, and 100% of motorcycles, are built in other countries. This is British taxpayers’ money going abroad to subsidise manufacturing in other countries. We are talking about billions of pounds, so it is really important that we look at the issue. Earlier, it was good to hear Labour Back Benchers make strong points about British taxpayers’ money being sent abroad. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that
“where things are made, and who makes them, matters.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.]
The Government as a whole need to consider that; they would certainly have Opposition support if they wanted to address the matter more forcefully.
Overall, we know that the British public want comfortable buses that serve the public well. I am not going to dwell on the 50% bus fare increase, from £2 to £3, under this Government, as this debate is about UK bus manufacturing, but that manufacturing is driven by consistent growth and by what the people want: comfortable, clean buses, with people feeling safe on public transport that has a reliable and affordable model. I am confident that British manufacturers on both sides of the Irish sea can rise to the challenge of delivering what people want in our bus sectors.
As technology improves, we want to ensure that our manufacturers are not just protected as the best in the world but encouraged to compete right across the board, offering the jobs critical to local economies up and down the country. To do so, we must support businesses and their workers and ensure that our regulations and taxes do not place a burden that drags businesses down. I believe that that is the best way to ensure that British bus manufacturing remains competitive in the modern world. I really hope that the Minister reflects on some of the issues raised today, particularly the security concerns that have emerged forcefully over the last year, so that he sees what more can be done to support British bus manufacturing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for securing this debate, and Members on both sides of the House for their passionate contributions. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk a wheely good birthday—[Interruption.] I was particularly proud of that. Look on the bright side: he is one year closer to his bus pass.
It is clear from this debate that the UK bus manufacturing sector matters to our communities, our workers, our supply chains and our shared ambitions for cleaner, more inclusive transport across the country. I want to say at the outset that the Government share hon. Members’ commitment to ensuring that the UK remains a world leader in bus design and manufacturing.
We have heard today about the proud heritage and continued innovation of two major UK manufacturers: Wrightbus in Ballymena, which I was very pleased to visit, and Alexander Dennis in Falkirk, Larbert and Scarborough. Their names are woven into the fabric of our industrial story. They produce buses that serve communities the length and breadth of the UK and increasingly showcase British engineering abroad. I pay tribute to the workforce across the UK—the engineers, apprentices, designers and technicians—whose skills sustain the sector. It is precisely because we recognise the importance of that workforce that the Government are taking decisive, practical action to support the long-term health of the industry.
Last March, we established the UK Bus Manufacturing Expert Panel because we are clear that we need a new kind of partnership—one that brings together manufacturers, operators, local leaders and central Government. Over the past year, it has worked tirelessly, focusing on three central objectives: supporting the growth of UK bus manufacturing, developing a clear pipeline of future orders to give manufacturers confidence to invest, and prioritising passenger-centric bus design to ensure that the future bus is fit for the people who rely on it.
As that work draws to a close, I can already see the tangible difference it has made. For years, manufacturers have told us that the biggest barrier to growth is lack of visibility of future demand. There are too many peaks and troughs and too much uncertainty to justify investment in new production lines, skills and research and development. The bus order pipeline is well advanced in development, aggregating likely industry demand for the next decade. I understand Members’ desire for it to focus on UK bus manufacturing. I intend to publish the pipeline shortly. It will offer for the first time a national forward look at the buses that we expect local authorities and operators to need. That degree of certainty can be transformational, giving our domestic manufacturers the confidence to hire, innovate and compete globally.
Members have also raised the essential role of zero emission buses in supporting UK manufacturing. Let me be clear: we are committed to the transition to a zero emission bus fleet. Zero emission buses bring real, lasting benefits: cleaner air, quieter journeys, lower running costs and more reliable services for passengers. Through ZEBRA 1 and ZEBRA 2, the Department has supported the roll-out of 2,500 zero emission buses and the infrastructure that they need. That real investment is already translating into orders, the majority of which have been won by UK manufacturers.
In April 2025, we provided a further £38 million to fund an additional 319 zero emission buses, again providing real opportunities for UK manufacturers. Alongside that, we have announced £15.6 billion over five years to improve local transport across some of the biggest city regions, and given local leaders the ability to allocate funding to upgrade and decarbonise their fleets. That is a long-term commitment to cleaner bus travel and, crucially, the domestic jobs and skills that go with it.
We introduced the Bus Services Act to deliver on our commitment to better buses up and down the country. Encouraging bus operators to upgrade, modernise and decarbonise their bus fleets is a huge part of that work. The Act will introduce a requirement that new diesel buses cannot be used on local bus routes in England, which will come into force not before 2030. We will confirm the precise date in due course, but of course we will consult manufacturers and other stakeholders. Right now, that measure is sending an unambiguous signal to the entire sector that the future is zero emission. It gives manufacturers time to plan the shift, it gives operators breathing room to prepare, and it supports the longer-term case for investment in the UK.
Understandably, Members want to see UK taxpayers’ money supporting UK jobs, and I note their ask for a target for UK-built buses purchased using taxpayer funding in this Parliament. Although I cannot mandate the purchase of British-built buses due to the Subsidy Control Act and our international trade commitments, we can do more to help UK-based suppliers compete.
When I launched the expert panel last March, social value was a key theme that emerged—how we could get best support for jobs, skills and local economic growth. UK manufacturers reported that bus procurements typically had just a 5% weighting for social value criteria and that the procurement design did not sufficiently secure social and economic value in the way we would expect. I took two actions in response to their concerns.
First, in an extraordinary meeting of the expert panel in July, I secured broad agreement from mayoral authorities that they would make social value criteria at least 10% of weighting—so far. I am pleased to say that that is now happening. Secondly, I challenged the expert panel to focus on meaningful social value, ensuring that procurement is designed in a way that best delivers real social and economic value that supports the Government’s missions.
A report is due to be delivered in February at the next expert panel meeting, which I will chair, detailing best practice and recommendations. I will strongly encourage mayoral authorities to apply that best practice consistently. Although I cannot legally require authorities to buy British, we absolutely can and are helping them take into account the full value that British manufacturers offer. I assure Members that we are working with Cabinet Office colleagues to ensure that the views of the UK bus manufacturing sector are represented as they consider changes to public procurement. We want that work to help deliver the Government’s industrial strategy and foster a resilient economy that supports British businesses and creates good jobs in communities across the country.
I also want to address the concerns raised today about the potential remote deactivation of Chinese-made electric buses. As the Prime Minister said in his Guildhall speech in December 2025, we will never compromise the UK’s national security. We will take tough steps to keep the UK secure while also pursuing secure economic opportunities when they are in the UK’s interest.
The use of terms such as “kill switches” is alarmist. It is a fact of life that modern vehicles, regardless of where they are from, are increasingly using software to support safer driving, improve diagnostics and provide a host of other services. Updating that software remotely is effective and efficient, as well as a key mechanism for rectifying security vulnerabilities. But we are not complacent. The UK has already implemented two new UN cyber-security regulations, requiring manufacturers to strengthen cyber protections, rigorously oversee software updates, and maintain real-time incident monitoring. We will continue to lead internationally on cyber standards, ensuring that wherever buses, British-built or otherwise, are running on the roads, passenger safety, data security and operational integrity remain paramount. Parliamentarians will understand that some of our response is sensitive and that it would not be wise for us to broadcast details. Rest assured that we will act to manage any risks.
I turn to other hon. Members’ comments. We talked about repowering, which I absolutely support. I was privileged to officially open the Wrightbus bus repowering plant, NewPower, in Ballymena. I see the potential of that as a stepping stone to decarbonising our fleets.
A few hon. Members raised the issue of bus procurement in London. My understanding is that more than 50% of ZEBs that entered service in London in 2025 were manufactured or assembled in the UK. To be very clear, TfL does not purchase buses—the operators purchase buses, and TfL sets the specification for them. However, TfL has absolutely committed, as did other mayors at the UK Bus Manufacturing Expert Panel, to explore the social value commitments that I mentioned. Other items will include price, reliability, the quality of build, delivery times and, crucially, after-sales service.
Today’s debate has shown what Parliament does at its best: coming together across parties to stand up for British industry, British workers and British ingenuity. Let me close with this message: this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring the long-term success of the UK bus manufacturing sector. We know how important the sector is to communities, from Falkirk to Ballymena and far beyond, and the pride that British manufacturers feel when they see their buses on our roads. With the right support, the UK can remain at the forefront of bus manufacturing for decades to come. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. Above all, I thank the thousands of skilled workers who keep this industry moving. I look forward to continuing this work together in the months ahead.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Given that it is his birthday, the hon. Member sponsoring this debate has quite a long time to wind up. He does not have to take the full 10 minutes.
Euan Stainbank
Thank you, Dr Murrison. I may take the full time; I may not. I thank all hon. Members from all four corners of the United Kingdom for coming to support our British bus manufacturing sector, which shows how important this industry is to many of us here today, especially those from Scotland. It was very apt, considering where the political focus has been, that two Scots kicked off today’s debate.
The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) used his experience as a worker at Albion, and then as a council leader, to demonstrate the value of bus services to our community. His point on the Subsidy Control Act was fairly made, as the Minister said. I appreciate his tacit admission, which I have not heard in many corners of Scotland, that social value is a way to correct these problems. I will be looking very attentively at the ScotZEB3 scheme to see how that is addressed compared with the ScotZEB2 scheme, which, from our constituents’ perspective, was substantially inadequate.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has an extensive history as a champion for Wrightbus. It was good to hear support for both Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus in relative parity throughout the debate from two corners of our great United Kingdom. I share his frustration about the conduct of some franchisees. However, I was rather glad to hear in the Minister’s response that social value is being doubled to 10%.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) brought his characteristic fire and worker-led perspective to the debate. He championed our community over the summer through some of the darkest times it has experienced up to the very welcome resolution in September, with the delivery of furlough. He has been a strong champion for the workers’ perspective.
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) powerfully made the point about the value of jobs. He reminded us that for every four jobs directly within the bus manufacturing sector, 13 are created further out in the supply chain. I welcome that perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson), who always brings to bear his wealth of experience in engineering, rightly raised the point that contracts and skills are incredibly valuable. I know that there are workers from Alexander Dennis and supply chain businesses in his constituency, and I hope for growth further down the line for him.
I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). There is a strong presence from our friends in Northern Ireland today, which reflects the importance of Wrightbus to his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) made a strong environmental case for buying British.
As a regular attendee at Murrayfield on match day, I am very well-acquainted with Lothian Buses. I recognise the orders they have made from Alexander Dennis, but, as for all franchisees, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) will be unsurprised to hear me say that when they come to buying new parts for their fleet, they should look closer to home.
In conclusion, I still wish to raise the point about social value and recognise the urgency of where we are at. A lot of comments were made about the market share, but the point I made at the top of the debate is that we are buying electric and zero emission buses to a greater extent—which is quite right; they are cleaner, quieter transport—but less of those orders are going to every corner of the United Kingdom and less of them are being built in this country, despite a rising demand. It is important to recognise our constituents’ unhappiness with that. One of the most common complaints that I receive from constituents in Falkirk is that despite the effort, labour and history of bus manufacturing within our community, it is not British-built or Scottish-built buses that are picking them up and taking them from our communities into the centre of Falkirk. That is an important matter to address for our industry.
Today’s debate has been a call for ideas, and I will reiterate a few that I put forward. I restate my ask for a 30% social value metric, on the basis that it would be a material intervention both from national and local funding to procurement. I am aware that the Minister has managed to secure substantial progress, which I recognise and welcome, but I will not stop asking.
On the Procurement Act, I recognise the concerns and comments made about remote deactivation by the Minister. I recognise there is a limit to what will be publicised on that, but I will look diligently at the outcome. There is a sense of frustration that what we have at this stage is interim rather than confirmed. Although remote deactivation has utility, there are clearly grounds for investigation, which could perhaps be shared within proportionate boundaries. We have the muscle in the Procurement Act, which was introduced by the Labour party to address non-treaty state suppliers. If a credible risk of remote deactivation is established, I would like to see an official Government response.
I look forward to the publication of the 10-year bus pipeline. Both that and the UK Bus Manufacturing Expert Panel are signs of tangible progress from the Government, in recognising and listening to the perspectives of the UK manufacturing sector. It is important to have a sustained pipeline and a clear road map that can be met by British industry. I am aware that Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus are prepared to meet the demand of the British sector.
Sadly in the last few years, too many of our constituents have seen market share going in the wrong direction, especially in the ZEB market, because of medium-term and long-term decisions taken by the previous Government. They did not stand up for the sector, creating a problem that we have inherited. I think that is a good round of the doors in the 10 minutes I had, and I have nothing further to add. I thank all hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK bus manufacturing.
Rural Broadband: Installation
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the time taken to install gigabit capable broadband on rural communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Broadband is now an essential part of daily life. Families, businesses and communities all rely on a good connection. The fact that most of us managed without it for most of our lives is irrelevant; times change, and we change with them. I recall family friends talking, when I was a child, about electricity coming to their village in the 1940s. We would not now think it tolerable for any village not to have a reliable supply of electricity, because the provision of electricity is a basic service—a utility that underpins almost everything in daily life. In many ways, that is what broadband is becoming.
I represent a beautiful Somerset constituency that is part rural and part urban. I can see the different issues that persist in different areas, and the gap in service between those who live in the town and those who live in the countryside. Last year, I conducted a survey of the rural areas in my constituency and asked residents to rate the quality of their broadband service. I asked them to give scores out of 10 across customer service, internet speed, reliability and value for money.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Under a previous Government, the DUP had funding from the confidence and supply arrangement, and we were able to boost the broadband in Northern Ireland exceptionally. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by their very nature, delays perpetuate the digital divide, causing rural areas to be perceived as lagging behind their urban counterparts in economic growth, productivity and access to essential services, and that in fact this could, and must, be easily remedied by investment and a good delivery strategy?
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Member anticipates much of my speech, and I thank him for that intervention.
Unsurprisingly, in my survey those in larger villages reported the best service, and those in the most remote rural areas reported the worst.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a really important speech, and I commend him for the survey he conducted. In Cumbria, many communities and homes that are within the scope of Project Gigabit are still going to be excluded from it because they are deemed too difficult to reach. The majority of those places will be upland farms, where the people are on less than minimum wage. Does the hon. Member agree that the people who produce our food and tend our beautiful landscapes have as much right to be connected to the internet as the rest of us?
Sir Ashley Fox
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who anticipates a section of my speech on farmers. I am going to make a little progress, if I may.
Those in the most remote rural areas of my constituency reported the worst service. For example, residents of Broomfield rated their service at 2.6 out of 10; in Lyng, it was 2.2 out of 10; and in Durleigh, it was an average of just 1.5 out of 10. When I am out on the doorstep, access to reliable broadband is one of the most noticeable gaps between the experience of those in towns and of those in small villages.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech that reflects what we see in my constituency, where more than 15,000 premises are still without acceptable broadband speeds. I wrote to the Minister responsible before Christmas, and when they finally responded to my letter, there was no answer for the nearly 10,000 premises from Willington to Delamere Park and beyond that are unlikely to be covered by a new framework contract. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must consider either reopening the voucher scheme or providing an answer on how those homes and businesses will get the broadband speeds they need for today’s digital world?
Sir Ashley Fox
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I agree with her and hope the Minister will respond.
We cannot expect businesses to survive, let alone grow, if they are cut off from the digital world that the rest of the country takes for granted. For farmers and small business owners, the issue is especially unfair. They are required to interact with Government agencies, with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and with banks almost entirely online, yet many are forced to do so with unreliable connections, painfully slow upload and download speeds, and constant disruptions.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On that point, farmers have been encouraged to diversify their businesses, and Stubbhayne farm in Southleigh has lost countless bookings because people who wanted to stay there found they could not use the internet in the farm’s bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That problem has now been resolved, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that such issues really affect businesses in rural areas?
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. He is right that time that should be spent running a business is often wasted waiting for files to load, forms to submit or video calls to reconnect.
My constituent Sue Felstead runs a restaurant at Greenway farm in Wembdon. She had ongoing problems with the farm’s internet service, which had a hugely negative impact on her business. She relied on broadband for the card machine, the music system and other devices, but had a download speed of only 2 megabits per second. That meant that customers who were waiting to pay by card could not pay their bill because the internet would crash, and that music would be cut off midway through a song. The issue got so bad that BT told Sue she would be better off using Starlink. That is an extraordinary thing for BT to tell her, and I hope the Minister will comment on that. In the end, it cost her £1,500 to have Starlink installed.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
In rural areas, there is often a double whammy. As a vet, I know from driving around in the night trying to find calvings or horses at 2 in the morning that there is also no mobile signal in places with very poor broadband. It is a problem not just in very remote rural areas: in my constituency we have issues in Sutton Scotney, South Wonston and New Alresford—a thriving market town that is in the bottom 10% for connectivity. This is not acceptable for businesses. It is not just inconvenient; it is holding businesses back.
Sir Ashley Fox
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Problems with internet connectivity and mobile connectivity often affect the same areas. This debate is specifically about broadband, but I would be happy if the Minister chose to touch on mobile signals as well.
The lack of reliable broadband is not just inconvenient; it is actively damaging to business.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
One of my constituents runs a company that develops semiconductor technology, but the listed building he is in was recently removed from an Openreach fibre-to-the-premises plan. Does the hon. Member agree that Openreach must be more transparent in decisions not to provide services, and that such delays to gigabit fibre provision risk making rural Somerset a less attractive place to set up cutting-edge businesses?
Sir Ashley Fox
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I have perhaps similar constituencies, in that we have one large dominant town and a hinterland of many small villages and hamlets. Those in the town often have a very good service, while those in the small villages do not.
A lack of reliable broadband limits productivity, increases stress and makes it harder for rural businesses to compete on an equal footing.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate. My broadband survey in Monmouthshire shows that communities such as Trellech, Llangwm and Mamhilad have really big issues with broadband. Will the hon. Member address the issues for people personally, not just for business? A man from my constituency got in touch with me whose wife was disabled. She sadly passed away in May, but he told me that because a lot of the management of her condition was supposed to be online, and online systems were used to get her health sorted out, that made life very difficult for him. I could give countless other examples. Will the Minister address the fact that we must prioritise rural broadband in Wales?
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point.
The lack of reliable broadband discourages innovation and investment, and pushes people towards cities and towns—not because they want to leave their beautiful, rural life, but because they feel they have no real choice.
The hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) anticipated my next point: it is not only businesses that suffer. Families struggle to access online education, healthcare services and remote work opportunities. Young people are placed at a disadvantage simply because of where they live.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
My semi-rural constituency is less than an hour from London, so people would think the broadband would be tip-top, but it is far from it. In some areas, speeds are less than 1 megabit per second. As we have discussed, this prevents businesses from holding online meetings and so on, but it also means that, for example, students cannot go home in the holidays to stay with their parents because they simply cannot complete their studies. Does the hon. Member agree that high-speed broadband is critical to this country’s infrastructure and that the Government have a duty not to leave rural communities behind?
Sir Ashley Fox
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point, and I agree with her. That is why I started my speech with a reference to electricity being rolled out to the last few villages in the 1940s. We would think that was extraordinary nowadays. The Government certainly have a duty to roll out broadband to the whole country.
The previous Government had a good record on rolling out gigabit broadband throughout the UK. In 2018, full-fibre coverage stood at 6% of UK households; today, the proportion is 78%, which is a remarkable transformation. But the Minister will be aware that we need that to go up to 100%, and I hope he will outline how this Government will complete the journey.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is being so generous with his time. In North Shropshire we were really excited because we were included in Project Gigabit, which was going to roll out fibre broadband for 12,000 properties—mostly easier to reach ones, but it would have been a significant improvement none the less. Freedom Fibre, which had that contract, has handed it back, having connected only around 3,000 properties, and we now have to wait for Openreach to get around to it, despite the fact that, in the meantime, everybody has to pay BT for pretty poor broadband, come what may. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Project Gigabit roll-out has been a shambles in some areas, and that the Government need to prioritise those areas that were promised an improvement but have been let down yet again, to make sure that they get their connections sooner rather than later?
Sir Ashley Fox
I think the word “shambles” is harsh; I would say that “patchy” is a more accurate description. Going from 6% in 2018 to 78% today is an achievement, and the hon. Lady should give some credit for that. The Conservative Government made a deliberate and strategic choice about the future of digital infrastructure. We chose a pro-competition, pro-investment regulatory framework that was designed not to crowd out private capital but to attract it, and that choice has delivered real results across the length and breadth of Britain.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. He is making an important point about the previous Government’s achievements and strategies in this policy area. Since then, communities in Cheshire and Warrington have not seen a single new publicly delivered broadband connection in more than two years. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government must move faster on this important issue?
Sir Ashley Fox
Yes, I agree. We are waiting for the Government to respond to a consultation. I will now make some progress so that the Minister has time to respond.
The objective of the previous Government was simple but ambitious. It was to reduce reliance on a single incumbent network and instead create the conditions for alternative network providers to emerge, scale and thrive. The results—that transformation from 6% to 78%—speak for themselves, but we cannot be complacent because, if we are serious about closing the digital divide and ensuring that gigabit connectivity reaches all rural communities, we must continue the momentum. That will depend on a stable, competitive regulatory regime that gives investors the confidence to commit capital for the long term. It will also require action to remove the remaining barriers to roll-out, including planning obstacles that can cause unnecessary delays, particularly in rural areas.
In Somerset, we have had particular issues with the roll-out. Airband was contracted to roll out fibre-optic broadband to more than 55,000 homes in Devon and Somerset. In the end, it descoped thousands of properties, committing to deliver only 27,000 homes, which is fewer than half of its initial target. More than 3,000 properties in my constituency were descoped. While Openreach has now taken up the contract for the majority of those properties, my constituents are still being left with unacceptable delays.
Many villages are still looking at waits until 2030 for the roll-out of broadband, and I worry that some might have to wait even longer. Openreach has shared with me its concerns that there is a shortfall in funding from the last spending review, meaning that there is a risk that the Government do not meet their 99% gigabit-coverage target by 2032, which is already an unacceptably long time for my constituents in remote rural areas to wait to be connected. It would be intolerable if it were to be delayed further.
Will the Minister clarify in his response whether he believes he has sufficient funding to meet the 99% target? When will the Government bring forward their statement of strategic priorities for Ofcom, which is a critical step to shape the next phase of the UK’s digital infrastructure journey? The Minister will know that the consultation on this ended in September; we await his Department’s response. This Government are quick to issue a consultation, but they seem rather slower to act.
My constituents in remote rural areas feel let down by this Government. They have had to deal with the family farm tax and the uncertainty that has created. They have had to deal with the sustainable farming incentive being withdrawn without any notice whatsoever by an utterly incompetent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As such, this issue of rural broadband is very important if my residents are to have confidence that they can live, enjoy life and run thriving businesses in the remote rural areas in Somerset. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. First and foremost, I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for securing today’s debate on the impact of the time taken to install gigabit-capable broadband in rural communities, and for once again drawing to the attention of the House the importance of delivering fast and reliable digital connectivity to them.
I also thank all other hon. Members across the House who have persistently championed the cause of improving rural broadband, and not least for their gift of anticipation when it comes to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
May I intervene, seeing that we have been so generous on interventions?
Mr MacDonald
We have heard about the 78% and the 99%. In north-east Skye we have 3% gigabit availability, and in south Skye we have 4.5%. We are dealing with enormous levels of depopulation among our young, with the number of children under the age of 15 at school halving in the last 15 years. A large part of that is because the place is an internet desert. Can the Minister reflect on that?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for making that point, and I am very happy to engage with him both individually and with my colleague, the Minister for Digital Economy, on the particular experience of his constituents.
The contributions we have heard today from across the House again highlight just how essential connectivity has become to daily life. We have heard about its centrality to work, education and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said, to healthcare, online banking, farming, running a business or simply staying connected with friends and family.
The Government recognise that delays in broadband delivery can be particularly frustrating for rural residents, who often have fewer alternatives than urban residents, and for whom a slow or unreliable internet connection can have a deep impact on their quality of life and economic opportunities. Our mission is to ensure that 99% of premises can access a gigabit-capable connection by 2032. According to the latest figures from the independent website thinkbroadband.com, over 89% of UK premises already have access to a gigabit-capable connection.
Through Project Gigabit, we are targeting precisely the communities that have been highlighted in today’s debate. Commercial roll-out would not otherwise take place for these communities, and public investment is therefore essential. As at the end of September 2025, over 1.3 million premises in rural and hard-to-reach communities across the UK had been upgraded to gigabit-capable broadband through Government-funded programmes. In addition, over 1 million premises are now included in signed Project Gigabit contracts worth £2.4 billion in total.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
There is a persistent issue in the Stainton and Thornton area of my constituency, which residents have raised with me. Would the Minister commit to meet me to discuss this issue?
Kanishka Narayan
I know my hon. Friend is a deeply committed champion for his constituency, so I would be very happy to meet him—both on my own and with my colleague, the Minister for Digital Economy—to look at the issues in his constituency.
We are making good progress on delivering these contracts. We have already celebrated the completion of the first three Project Gigabit contracts in Northumberland, Teesdale and north Dorset, which marks an important milestone in our programme. These early completions show that the programme is working, and rural communities are beginning to see the benefits of this investment.
The majority of premises receiving Government funding for broadband upgrades continue to be rural. Between April 2024 and March 2025, 89% of the premises benefiting from our interventions in this sector were in rural areas, including proud farming communities. We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that these communities receive the gigabit-capable connectivity they need and deeply deserve.
I also recognise, with honesty, that there have been delays to subsidised roll-out across Devon and Somerset in particular, as a result of premises being descoped from contracts under the earlier superfast broadband programme, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgwater.
When suppliers encounter financial, operational or technical challenges, I know that rural communities feel the impact the most, and as a proud representative of rural communities in south Wales, I feel it, too. I want to reassure hon. Members that we are closely engaging with Connecting Devon and Somerset, and with suppliers, to establish a clear path forward.
Following the announcement in 2025, descoped premises, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, were made available for suppliers to bring forward proposals under the gigabit broadband voucher scheme. Several suppliers expressed interest, and I am pleased to say that approximately 3,000 premises are now included in approved voucher projects. Around 8,500 descoped premises remain without confirmed commercial or subsidised plans. However, these premises are now being considered for inclusion in the Project Gigabit contract with Openreach. We expect to finalise the amended scope of that contract in the spring. The hon. Member feels that work is urgent, and I do, too.
Approximately 3,100 premises in the hon. Gentleman’s Bridgwater constituency are currently included in the Project Gigabit contract delivered by Openreach, and my hope is that this intervention will deliver gigabit-capable connections to homes and businesses across the constituency, such as those in Nether Stowey, North Petherton and Westonzoyland.
Although 3,400 premises in Bridgwater were descoped from the previous superfast broadband contracts, almost half of those premises have since been connected through a supplier’s commercial roll-out, without the need for public subsidy. The remainder are included within the scope of the current contract change discussions we are undertaking with Openreach.
A healthy, competitive broadband market is fundamental to achieving our national gigabit ambition. Commercial delivery has been and will remain the backbone of the UK’s digital transformation. The majority of gigabit-capable connections have been delivered entirely through private investment. The Government’s role is to create the right environment for such investment to continue at pace. That is why we continue to work in close partnership with both industry and Ofcom to support the roll-out of fibre networks across the UK, including in the most rural and hard-to-reach areas.
Our approach is designed to complement commercial build, not to replace it, ensuring that public funding is targeted only where the market cannot deliver on its own. In July last year, we published a consultation on our draft statement of strategic priorities to Ofcom, setting out the Government’s view on the importance of promoting competition and maintaining a stable regulatory environment that gives investors confidence. A predictable and proportionate regulatory framework is essential for suppliers to continue investing billions in our fibre networks. Ensuring that regulation is not lifted prematurely is central to protecting our consumers, which is why competition must be properly established before we can relax regulatory safeguards. That is the approach needed to deliver long-term benefits.
I know there has been a question about where the Government are in this process. Our draft statement set out our position on infrastructure sharing, which has become one of the sector’s most important enablers of competition. In particular, Ofcom’s physical infrastructure access product has allowed over 100 alternative networks to roll out fibre using Openreach’s ducts and poles, lowering barriers to entry and helping to accelerate competition. We have asked Ofcom to provide greater transparency on how PIA pricing is calculated and set, because transparency is the underpinning driver of confidence for investors.
We are reviewing responses to the consultation on our draft statement of strategic priorities, and we will set out the Government’s conclusions in due course. I of course note the hon. Member’s comments, and we are all hoping for pace as well as rigour in the response to the consultation.
Sir Ashley Fox
I referred to Openreach’s comments to me. It said that it did not believe there is sufficient funding in the spending review for the Government to meet their target of 99% by 2032. Does the Minister believe he has sufficient funding to meet that target?
Kanishka Narayan
Openreach has not made that representation to me. The Government are squarely focused on reaching the 99% target, and we are doing all we can to make sure that all providers are in a place to do so. I am happy to engage with Openreach if it wants to make a representation to me.
To ensure that the commercial market can continue to deliver as fast as possible, the Government remain committed to removing deployment barriers. Whether that is done by reforming wayleave processes, improving access to land and multi-dwelling units, enhancing the co-ordination of street works or accelerating planning decisions, every barrier we remove helps the industry to build networks faster and more efficiently.
Even with the scale of commercial investment and the ambition of Project Gigabit, the expectation is that some remote premises will remain too expensive to reach with gigabit-capable fibre in the immediate term. We are therefore continuing to consider what more we can do to enable high-quality alternatives for those in the “very hard to reach” category. The satellite market is developing at pace. We expect to see more competition in that market imminently, with rapidly improving terminal equipment, higher speeds and falling costs for end users. We continue to monitor and support the development of that market, recognising its role in connecting the most remote communities.
I am conscious of the points made on mobile connectivity, not least those made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). With increasing 5G coverage from mobile network operators, fixed wireless access is becoming an increasingly viable connectivity option. Ofcom estimates that fixed wireless access delivered over mobile networks is already available to 96% of UK premises, with wireless internet service providers offering fixed wireless access to around 8% of premises.
I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. In response to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), I want to flag that, since Building Digital UK and Freedom Fibre mutually agreed to terminate the Project Gigabit contract for Cheshire, we have launched a new procurement for Cheshire. We expect it to be in place by the spring, and we will be sure to let her know of its progress.
Let me be clear that, although challenges remain, the Government are acting. We are committed to working at pace with suppliers, local authorities, communities and devolved Governments to ensure that progress continues. Rural communities must not and will not be left behind as we work towards our goal of 99% gigabit coverage. Given that the hon. Member for Bridgwater brought up wider support for rural communities, I put on record that this Government are squarely on the side of rural communities across the UK, which were abandoned by the previous Government on trade negotiations and farming funding and were not given appropriate representation.
Question put and agreed to.
Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered women’s safety while walking, wheeling, cycling and running.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Violence against women and girls happens in every corner of life: in our homes, in our workplaces, on the internet and in public. Whether we are commuting or exercising, women and girls across the country risk harm just being out and about. The threat of harm hangs over women’s decisions and moulds them. Those cycling home from work may weigh up whether to take the direct route home or the safer route—the one that is lit and busier, but not too busy.
In preparing for this debate, I was contacted by a woman who led a female running group in Hampshire for more than 11 years. She said:
“During that time, there was not a single week when women in my group, or I personally, did not experience some form of unwanted attention while running…This ranged from so-called ‘micro’ incidents, like sarcastic clapping, comments about our bodies, unsolicited advice shouted from passing vehicles, through to more serious incidents, including being filmed while warming up, having objects thrown at us, and one time being physically assaulted…Unfortunately, these experiences were not isolated or rare—they were routine.”
Women’s fear and experiences of harassment are often minimised—I saw that in the responses to my announcement of this very debate on social media—but when women have to do an unspoken risk assessment of their route every time they want to walk to the shops or take a run, it is a chronic weight around the neck of society. It is a fear that men do not have to live with day in, day out. As one of my Lowestoft constituents put it:
“Would a man, when running in the dusk or dark, every time they saw a member of the opposite sex heading towards them feel a slight fear and feel a sense of relief when they have passed that individual?...Would a man tell their partner or friend in advance of their route and the time they would be back? Would a man cautiously look behind them every few metres to see if they were being followed?”
The threat of harassment and assault is enough to force women to lead smaller, less free lives, withdrawing to the safety of being behind the front door.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, the timeliness of which should be obvious to us all. She alluded to notifying people of this debate via social media. Does she agree that, particularly among younger males, part of the problem is the internet and the manifestations of unhealthy lifestyles online? We need to tackle that so that young males understand and appreciate that they should aspire to proper relationships between males and females.
Jess Asato
I thoroughly agree. Women are often filmed while running, and girls are put off exercise by the way that men create this material, which can go viral. We have seen recently that men have been using smart glasses to film women in public spaces going about their everyday lives. Those women have then been harassed, with everything that goes with that, simply for being in a public space.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
To build on the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Girlguiding has found that two thirds of girls say they are put off exercising and going out because they fear some of the things we are describing. Given that we are debating potentially removing social media from young people, does my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) agree that it is even more important to ensure that other activities that we want young people to take part in are equally available to girls and that they do not feel scared? Otherwise, they will face even more inequality and stigma.
Jess Asato
I absolutely agree. I firmly support the idea of a social media ban for under-16s, partly because of the huge impact it has on girls and their body image, which obviously affects the way they think about taking part in sporting activities, often in public. We also know that many of those girls are catcalled and whistled at as they come home from school, not just by boys their own age, but often by grown men. That has a chilling effect on their decision to engage in sport and other activities.
Last year, I was glad to invite Dr Caroline Miles, who researches the abuse of women runners, to meet the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), to discuss the issue in front of us today. Alongside her colleague Professor Rose Broad, their research found that 82% of the women they surveyed had safety concerns while running, and 68% had experienced abuse while out running, but only 5% had reported it to the police. Of those who experienced abuse, 91% received it verbally, 29% were followed and 10% were sexually flashed—that is illegal. Indeed, very recently, a man exposed himself to a woman on the seafront in Lowestoft when she was out on her daily walking route, which has had a profound impact on her sense of outdoor safety.
The university researchers also looked at the 81 offences recorded by Greater Manchester police and Merseyside police in 2021 and 2022, and they found that more than 40% were sexual offences. They identified three areas where they think the Government could go further: improved space design, police training and challenging societal attitudes.
I am glad to see that the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy, launched just before Christmas, says:
“Well-lit streets, accessible transport, and thoughtful urban design can deter violence and reduce opportunities for harm”.
We now need to see national design guidance reflect the concern about violence against women and girls. The strategy states that tackling VAWG
“must be embedded in the training of every officer as a fundamental requirement.”
Yesterday’s policing White Paper sets out that the College of Policing, with the new national centre for VAWG and public protection, is currently developing a
“programme for frontline officers that focuses on the core skills needed to respond across crime types like domestic abuse, sexual violence, stalking and harassment.”
I hope that includes harassment outdoors. The training should learn from the best practice that already exists across a number of forces, such as the Jog On campaign, as part of which undercover female officers posed as joggers to catch perpetrators. It is vital that we encourage women who are harassed while out running, cycling or walking to report it, and that we ensure that, in reporting it, they feel that they will be taken seriously.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case. On the issue of reporting, I raised a written question with the Department for Transport last summer on what it is doing to improve reporting mechanisms for women cyclists who had been harassed or intimidated. At that stage, there was a suggestion that it might be covered by the VAWG strategy. There is an admirable focus on women’s safety on public transport, but does she agree that we need to do more to make sure that reporting mechanisms are amenable to women and girls who suffer abuse and intimidation?
Jess Asato
I absolutely agree, and it is one of the reasons why I took those University of Manchester researchers to meet the Safeguarding Minister. I hope that, given the VAWG strategy is a living, breathing document across a 10-year period, we can make sure this is in future versions of the strategy. It is incredibly important.
The long-term programme of awareness, training and behaviour change at the heart of the strategy aims to drive a societal response that empowers victims and deters perpetrators. In the medium and long term, that will drive the change we wish to see.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech on this important subject. As well as reporting, I am sure she agrees that it is important to gather intel from women about where they do and do not feel safe. Will she, as a fellow East Anglia MP, welcome Norwich Cycling Campaign’s women’s safety audit? It has just been launched to hear from local women about their experiences, whether it be of harassment or of safe cycling routes. I encourage my constituents to take part. Does my hon. Friend recognise the value of such community-led initiatives?
Jess Asato
As a fellow East Anglia MP, I praise Norwich Cycling Campaign for its women’s safety audit. I am sure it is a model that many local areas should follow.
In the medium and long term, of course, we want to see real change. A poll conducted by the Cycle to Work Alliance in 2024 found that safety concerns deter 45% of potential cyclists from commuting by bike. Although this is obviously broader than harassment, there is certainly a gendered element to it given that women are three times more likely than men to fear cycling to work.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Will she join me in congratulating Newbury Road Club, Newbury Velo and West Berkshire Spokes, which organised a glow ride in October last year as part of Cycling UK’s “My ride. Our right” campaign? If we had segregated cycle lanes, it would help to improve all cyclists’ safety on the roads, including women.
Jess Asato
I would obviously love to congratulate Newbury Road Club and the other organisations that are highlighting Cycling UK’s “My ride. Our right” campaign, and that have been very active in this discussion about women’s cycling safety. I will come on to segregated cycle lanes.
In these dark winter months, safety concerns can often be at their greatest. Research by Sport England’s “This Girl Can” campaign found that 72% of women worry about their personal safety when it is dark and change their behaviour as a result. That has knock-on impacts. As one of my constituents wrote to me,
“if women feel unsafe or intimidated in these spaces, we lose more than just an exercise route—we lose a vital lifeline for our health.”
Indeed, to protect themselves, women are forced into more expensive, less healthy options to get around, such as driving, and the many benefits of active travel, including long-term public health savings, are lost. A study by Finnish researchers found that active travel reduces absences from work, and Transport for London found that people who walk to their high streets spend 40% more in local shops. That is also replicated for those who cycle to our local high streets.
Cycling requires the physical environment to reflect the needs of women and girls to be safe. Cycling UK found that 45% of women say that direct, traffic-free paths to town centres would encourage them to cycle more, and 39% say that physically separated cycle lanes would make the biggest difference. Polling from Cycling UK in 2018 also found that 50% of respondents in London saw a lack of separate cycle lanes as a barrier to cycling. Thanks to large-scale investment in a network of cycling and walking infrastructure in our capital, the same survey in 2025 saw that concern halved. That model ought to be replicated throughout the country.
I therefore look forward to the Government’s cycling and walking investment strategy later this year, and I hope to see that investment in infrastructure explicitly reflect the real barriers that women and girls face, particularly given that the gender gap in cycling has widened since 2018. Nine in 10 female cyclists have experienced abuse while on the road, and 63% said it occurred at least once a month. As a result of these experiences, over 20% of those women said they had given up cycling temporarily or permanently. I hope to see a target and a plan in the strategy to reduce the gender gap in active travel.
There is a wealth of organisations in this space, and I am sure the Minister and her Department will be encouraged to continue to consult meaningfully with these organisations in preparing and implementing the strategy. Like all of us, I want to see my girls, my children, grow up with the freedom to enjoy the outdoors, live healthy lives and travel safely wherever they want.
Our constituents rightly demand that freedom, and we must answer their call. We must be able to live in a society where women do not need to walk down the street clasping their keys in their hands or pretending to be on the phone to someone to protect themselves. Girlguiding’s latest girls’ attitudes survey found that 68% of girls aged 11 to 21 have changed their everyday behaviour in the last year to avoid sexual harassment. Of that 68%, 12% say they have changed where they exercise and 11% say they have changed the type of exercise they do. I will not stop fighting for a society in which that 68% becomes 0%.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. At the moment, I advise that there should be an informal time limit of five minutes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine.
I am a cyclist. I love cycling; I have always cycled, ever since I cycled to school as a six-year-old. I have cycled throughout my life, including as a university student, and I still cycle today. I see cycling as a means of transport. For me, it is not a sporting activity; it is very much my choice of transport.
However, recently in Bath I was about to cross a road, turning to the right, and I stopped, and the driver next to me pulled down his window and commented on my skirt. Me? I mean—I am a 65-year-old woman, and he was commenting on my skirt. I was so shocked that I wanted to get away, and then I nearly went into a car—I made that mistake because I was so shocked. Cycling is not a very safe mode of transport anyway, but being harassed makes it even less safe.
Women want to cycle, yet today only one in four cycling trips are made by women. That is not because women do not want to cycle. Almost 60% of women limit how much they cycle because of safety concerns. As we have heard today, one in five women have stopped cycling altogether after feeling intimidated by drivers, just as I felt intimidated by that driver in Bath. This is clearly more than just a personal issue; it is a public policy issue.
We must build the infrastructure that makes women feel safe, visible and supported on the road. Too often, women are forced to choose between two unsafe options: dark, isolated roads, or busy roads without protection. If we had built well-lit, segregated and visible routes, especially for evening and night-time travel, far more women would feel sufficiently safe and confident to cycle.
Cycling UK’s “My ride. Our right.” campaign calls for women’s safety to be embedded in all transport and safety strategies, including the upcoming cycling and walking investment strategy, and I echo that call today. The new cycling and walking strategy must include measurable targets that improve women’s safety, including clear goals to increase the proportion of cycling trips made by women. The draft strategy already recognises that investment in well-lit, safe and high-quality walking and cycling routes increases people’s feelings of personal safety. Of course, that includes the personal safety of men and boys, and of all children, but it is particularly important for women.
Such improvements support the Government’s work to tackle violence against women and girls. Cycling UK urges the Government and Active Travel England to update design guidance LTN 1/20, strengthening standards for lighting and night-time safety, and introducing gender-responsive safety audits for all new active travel schemes. I very much hope to see those measures in the final cycling and walking investment strategy.
Right now, the UK lags behind many of our European neighbours, and I would say that includes the number of children who are allowed to cycle at an early age to school. There are a lot of things that we can do to encourage young people at school to take up cycling; I myself became a lifelong cyclist because I started early. However, in Britain fewer than one in five people walk, wheel or cycle on an average day, compared with more than one in four people across Europe. Now is the time to change that.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this important and timely debate.
Put simply, women are not safe running, walking, cycling or even just existing. We are not safe in our own homes; we are not safe in pubs, bars, restaurants, at school or at work; and crucially, for the purposes of this debate, we are not even safe at the gym.
Girls are at risk, too. How many of us here today have stories that start with our wearing school uniform? When I was at school, men in cars slowed down beside me, men in white vans asked me where I was going, and grown men followed me and asked to wear my glasses; I am not wearing them today.
As the daughter of a prison officer, I was educated early, not in confidence but in caution. My dad would say, “Don’t take your phone out when you are walking home. Don’t listen to music on a walk home. Stay alert. Cross the road if a man’s behind you. Walk with your keys between your fingers.” All of that does not just disappear when we grow up.
Only last week, when I was going for a run in Bolton, I shared my location with my family over WhatsApp, just in case. “Just in case”—those words tell us everything. I wear a running vest with a phone pocket. I clip my SOS fob to my clothes. I plan my route as if I was carrying out a risk assessment, and that is the point. Men do not make contingency plans to exercise, but we absolutely have to.
When it comes to exercise, women are constrained by the hours that we can safely be outdoors. Even in daylight, safer does not mean safe, and after dark many women feel pushed indoors. Here is the bitter irony: a lot of us can only exercise when it is dark, because we are primary caregivers. We do the school runs, and we care for our elderly or disabled relatives, or our children with additional needs. Society relies and depends on that care, and then acts surprised when women’s lives are more restricted and when we are forced to pay for safety. For many women, a gym membership is the price of feeling secure enough to exercise at all. Women-only spaces in gyms are growing, and that is progress, but where is the acknowledgment that many women are paying simply to do what others can do for free—exercise without fear?
Let us be clear: this is not a confidence gap; it is a safety gap that is rooted in our environment and systems. In winter, nearly three quarters of women change their outdoor exercise routines for safety, and over four in five say they feel unsafe in parks at night. I know that most of us avoid parks altogether.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
In the southside of Glasgow, we are lucky to have some wonderful parks and green spaces, but I often hear from women in my constituency who do not feel safe going through them. The Light the Way campaign, led by Radio Clyde, is campaigning for better lighting in parks, including in Queen’s Park in the southside. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to that campaign, and in encouraging councils to make park lighting a priority so that women can feel safe in their own spaces?
Kirith Entwistle
My hon. Friend makes the important point, which I will come on to, that well-lit spaces would make a world of difference for so many women and girls.
The safety gap that I mentioned earlier is also written into our transport patterns. In Greater Manchester, women make less than a third of all cycling trips. When women are asked why that is, they talk about traffic danger, harassment and intimidation. One Bolton resident told me that routes can feel pleasant by day but unusable after dark, and that one incident can be enough to stop women from cycling altogether.
Women’s participation in outdoor exercise is already lower than men’s, but the safety gap widens again for women from ethnic minority backgrounds, who face higher levels of harassment on the streets. Black, Asian and minority ethnic women are nearly 20% less likely than white women to exercise outdoors regularly, and half as likely to cycle to work. If we bear in mind both the ethnicity and gender pay gaps, we are also less likely to be able to afford a gym membership.
In Bolton, I am proud of the grassroots work that is making a difference, including Horwich Ride Social’s women-only rides, Krimmz girls youth club’s glow rides and the United We Run campaign, which gives thousands of Bolton women access to the Her Spirit fitness app. These initiatives, while brilliant, are also a warning sign. Women should not need safety in numbers. It is time that we address women’s safety properly, as we should have done for decades. That starts by building routes that we can actually use—the well-lit, connected routes that were mentioned earlier—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft said, treating harassment as public safety, making it easier to report and making it clear that it will be taken seriously.
Finally, we must put women’s safety into transport planning from day one, and ensure that progress is measured so that we can check whether the gender gap in cycling and walking is closing.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this important debate.
I am passionate about women’s safety, especially in semi-rural areas such as Frome and East Somerset. This is not an abstract policy discussion. As has been discussed, it is about the constant calculations that women make every day: “Do I take the longer, better-lit route? Do I run before dawn, or wait until daylight? Do I walk home, or pay for a taxi that I cannot really afford?” These decisions are so ingrained that many women barely register them any more. But this should not be accepted—it is not normal. No one should have to limit their freedom of movement because they feel unsafe.
Last year, I met a constituent called Holly who had been the victim of repeated incidents of flashing when she was out walking in her village in Somerset. As a result of talking to Holly, I launched a survey in my constituency to hear directly from women about safety in rural areas. With nights getting darker, I wanted to understand how safe women feel when getting to work, socialising or simply going about their daily lives. The responses were sobering. Women spoke about being followed on dark country lanes with no street lighting, waiting for buses on isolated roads with no shelter or CCTV, giving up running and cycling altogether because it simply did not feel safe, and above all, the constant vigilance required just to get home.
Rural areas face particular challenges. Public transport is limited and street lighting is sparse or non-existent. Communities are spread out and mobile signal is often unreliable. The scale of the problem is clear: UN Women UK found that 71% of women have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces, yet most never report it because they believe nothing will be done. The Government are right to call violence against women and girls a national emergency. I know that members of the Government are committed to this issue, but there is currently a glaring gap between Government Departments on planning policy.
Just days before publishing the new strategy on violence against women and girls, the Government also published a revised national planning policy framework, with no reference to women, girls or gendered safety. That omission matters. The places we build determine whether women feel safe walking home, waiting for a bus or going for a run. Planning policy is one of the most powerful tools we have to prevent harm before it occurs. A place cannot credibly be described as “healthy” if half the population feel unable to use it safely after dark.
We know what works: good lighting, clear sightlines, active streets, safe transport routes, and design that considers how women experience public space. Without explicit national policy, women’s safety becomes a postcode lottery. I put it to the Minister that if we truly believe in a whole-society approach to ending violence against women and girls, women’s safety must be designed into our streets, paths, transport networks and public spaces, not just bolted on as an afterthought.
Will the Minister talk to colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office about the importance of this joined-up thinking? Women are not asking for the impossible; they are asking for the freedom to move through their communities safely. Let us commit to making that a reality.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for considering such an important topic.
I am an avid runner, having taken part in the Great South Run and a 4.5 km MyWay to raise awareness of male suicide. I am pleased that I will also be running with On the Tools 7K and hope to be one of the women MPs running the London marathon this year. It is a brilliant form of exercise for mental health and wellbeing because it gets people outside and clears the mind, but clearing the mind is difficult when worried about safety.
Women and girls should feel safe when exercising in public, yet for so many that is not the reality. When I leave the house, I say jokingly to my kids, “If I’m not back in 45 minutes, send the police.” But that is not a joke. Studies have found that 70% of women have experienced an intimidating incident when running. A rise in social media and online abuse and videoing is making that worse.
Constituents have contacted me out of concern for the safety of women and young girls who run and jog in Portsmouth. They talked of their 15-year-old daughter, who loves going on runs. Despite doing what she felt were all the right things, such as going out only in daylight hours, she had been catcalled and verbally harassed on multiple occasions. The parents were not only distressed for their daughter but worried about her reaction. She was taken aback at first but then insisted on shaking it off, believing that reporting it would just be a waste of police time. Like her parents, I feel that she should not have to put up with that.
She is not alone. Others have reported aggressive behaviour, bunching around them as they are running, stepping out in front of them, throwing things and saying, “Why don’t you just smile at me, you grumpy cow?” We do not want our girls to experience that brazen misogynistic behaviour any longer. It is upsetting but not surprising that women and girls have to deal with such harassment, with the added mental load of worrying about their safety, from such a young age. If we socialise our young girls simply to brush off such abuse, we are harming society as a whole. As we know, low-level harassment of women can be a gateway to more serious crimes. We need to take this persistent and common harassment more seriously. We do not want women and girls to feel that they are unable to participate on the grounds of their gender.
Although I welcome the Government’s strategy to build a safe society for women and girls, using a whole-society approach, and the VAWG strategy’s prioritising of prevention by getting to root causes, such as the normalisation of women and girls’ feeling unsafe while walking, wheeling, cycling and running, it is vital to tackle this by working across Government Departments. We must join up the Home Office, the Department for Transport, MHCLG, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and many others, so that our young women and girls feel safe when they are outside exercising.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is again a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for setting the scene so well and giving us a chance to speak on the matter.
The situation in Northern Ireland for women’s safety is incredibly worrying, and of course it is equally concerning for the rest of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Lady and others have said. The stats speak for themselves back home, and I want to be here to represent others and have that conversation.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft mentioned smart glasses. I confess that until last Wednesday, when I was watching TV, I did not even know there was such a thing. They can contain a concealed camera, almost requiring a close-up inspection. I am not sure what can be done in relation to that, but if there is a problem, as there clearly is—there were many examples in that TV programme—maybe the Minister can give us an indication of what can be done.
There has been an increasingly negative perception of safety in public places, especially among women. One we always associate as most notable is the tragic and heart-rending murder of Sarah Everard, who was walking home in London when she was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a policeman—of all things in this world. The horror that lady must have felt is inconceivable, when she expected protection but got the very opposite.
The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency has revealed that in Northern Ireland significantly more men report feeling safe than women—68% of men compared with only 27% of women—which is a devastatingly low figure. Shared public spaces are also widely used for the likes of running, walking and cycling. A separate survey by Queen’s University Belfast found that only 43% felt safe walking alone on a public street or on public transport. Official crime statistics show that sexual offences in Northern Ireland have risen significantly over the past decade and remain a serious concern tied to women’s safety in public places.
I want—we all want—to live in a society where individuals, and women in particular, do not fear being out in public. There are some fantastic helplines, such as Strut Safe, where a volunteer stays on the phone with a caller and chats until they get home. That is something that can really help. It is sad and unfortunate that such services must exist, but we are grateful that they are there and are taking extra steps to protect the public while they are in public. Many universities have those kinds of services. I know the Minister does not have responsibility for education, but perhaps she can tell us whether she has had discussions with an Education Minister to ensure that girls are safe in school and young women are at universities.
Policing and community safety partnerships back home, and others, have noted an increasing number of women looking to obtain a personal alarm for their own safety. I know the Police Service of Northern Ireland do that, so if ladies want an alarm, they can get one. It makes a high-pitched noise that would sometimes distract the person involved, which can be helpful. They can carry it out in public with them should they feel unsafe. That demand reflects the argument that women are simply afraid and that more must be done to ensure that fear is not there.
I have noticed that in my constituency, and maybe it is the same in others, that with the sports club we have, whether karate, judo or boxing, many young girls and women are taking up those sports simply so they can protect themselves. Let us remember, and I will try to be very careful with my words, that when a man approaches with intentions that are wrong, we know where he is vulnerable—kick him hard in a certain place and his fervour will leave him right away. Young girls and women are getting their protection in the karate, judo and boxing clubs in Newtownards so they can protect themselves, which has to be good news for the clubs in my constituency.
There is clear evidence of too many women in Northern Ireland and further afield feeling unsafe walking, running or cycling in public spaces. We must invest in better infrastructure, lighting and policing, alongside better community awareness and safety initiatives. I look to the Minister, as I always do. I know her intention to help us all in our request to make public spaces across the nation feel safe, accessible and welcoming for all women, whether in a group or alone.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for giving us the opportunity to speak in such an important debate for our constituents, but many of us in the room will also be speaking from personal experience and for those people who are close to us.
Walking, wheeling, cycling and running are sold to us as sports that are easily accessible, particularly walking and running because there are no monthly fees and many will have the equipment accessible at home—pop your shoes on and off you go—but for women it is nowhere near as accessible as it should be. We hear the phrase, “Everyone has the same 24 hours” a lot, particularly on social media, trying to shame people for not going for a run, going to the gym or choosing to bike to work instead of taking the bus. I know many women who actively choose not to exercise at night because they feel unsafe; suddenly, those 24 hours are limited to when it is light outside. If someone works in an office or during the winter, the hours available to them to go for a run or a cycle can feel even more restricted.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
In my constituency we have one of the best cycling networks in the UK. However, the lighting is absolutely shocking in some places, because over the years Hertfordshire county council has changed it to LED lighting. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a whole-Government approach to this at all levels, and that we should encourage local councils to think about that when they are designing their lighting systems?
Amanda Hack
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Some 58% of women say that their cycle journeys are limited because of safety concerns and the infrastructure provided. As somebody who has run fairly regularly for a number of years, being hassled has sadly been a daytime as well as a night-time experience.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
As the hon. Member rightly alluded to, catcalling, being followed or being shouted at by passing cars is a frequent experience for many women who go out running. In my constituency, there are many poorly lit paths and parks, which limits where women feel safe to go out for a run. Does the hon. Lady agree that women should not have to choose between doing the exercise they love and their safety?
Amanda Hack
Absolutely. That is why this debate is so important. We should not be restricting access to exercise because we do not feel safe.
It is frustrating that I have been catcalled both running on my own and with buddies. What was saddest for me was during covid. My 10-year-old daughter had just got on to her big bike and was faster than me while I was running behind her, and we had comments from a car. Thankfully, she did not really understand what had been said, so I will not repeat it here, but I can guarantee that they knew exactly what I thought of their disgusting behaviour. It changed my approach to life, however, and we did not do that again. We both went cycling together instead.
This is what we have to do all the time. We are constantly compromising on what we can and cannot do, and when we can and cannot do it. Whether it was a poll on a Facebook group for Leicester and Leicestershire runners, or my running trainer trying to learn more about his female clients, the comments were inundated with women sharing their experiences. We have to start changing the way that we feel. It is no surprise that 20% of women never walk at night, and that 48% of women in the UK feel unsafe while out running according to SportsShoes. That is shameful, and we have to change it.
It has been really good to see the Government take such a strong stance on violence against women and girls, but this problem is embedded in our infrastructure. As a councillor, I saw part of a bus route being cut. I then demonstrated to the bus company what they wanted us to do: to walk along an unlit path on dangerous roads, to get from where the bus would stop to the place of business where people needed to go to work. These things are baked in, and we have to change them for everybody.
Footpaths and cycleways must be built with women’s safety in mind, not with cost-cutting measures putting in fewer lampposts and less lighting, or weaving cycle lanes well away from well-lit main roads because it is cheaper. Those compromises should not be taken. Too often, cost savings prohibit women. Safer streets for us to get to work and exercise on would have huge benefits. If someone cannot drive, and public transport where they live is not very reliable—as it is in North West Leicestershire—cycling can help open up more doors to work, education, and seeing family and friends.
Helping us to feel safe while running, walking and wheeling would mean that women are far more likely to exercise, helping to ease some of the strain on our NHS and other services by keeping women fit and active.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for introducing the debate in such a compassionate way. As a wannabe runner—I cannot claim to be a runner—on behalf of myself and also my son and daughter, who are both keen runners, I want to thank all the people who have been talking about running.
In Edinburgh the gold standard for active travel routes were our canal path and converted railway tracks. Across the city, converted railway tracks offer routes away from busy roads and are used for thousands of journeys every year. In my constituency, a national cycle route runs alongside the Water of Leith—the route that used to be the Balerno branch line—and provides a space for active travellers to enjoy a quiet and beautiful route away from traffic. I use the route regularly and feel incredibly lucky to be able to enjoy it as I travel through my constituency. It is one of the things that defines my constituency.
I said the routes were the gold standard. That is because in 2021, the brutal death of Sarah Everard so far away from Edinburgh heightened an ongoing conversation about women’s safety in public spaces. In Edinburgh, the safety of our active travel routes came to the forefront. At this point I have to thank Councillor Mandy Watt, who showed amazing leadership and quite quickly allocated around £500,000 to light some of the routes through our parks. Routes along old railway lines and canal paths that offer enjoyable, smooth, green and quiet routes during the day change in the darkness. Even with lighting, without the passive surveillance found in busier public areas, I know that women often feel unable to use those routes, or feel unsafe when they do so. You, Ms Jardine, will know that from Roseburn path in your constituency.
During the winter when it is dark, often from around 3 pm to 9 am in Edinburgh, those routes become less accessible. This has a significant impact for those who rely on them to travel to work or for leisure. The last Edinburgh walking and cycling index showed a 7% difference in the perception of safety between men and women, with women feeling much less safe. In many cases this prevents women from integrating active travel into their daily lives—we have heard about that from other speakers. But it also pushes women who had previously walked or cycled to stop, and that is not good for them and not good for us or our economy. It is worth pointing out that all of us want to live in a town, city or village where more people walk, run or cycle. It is a tragedy that often these investments and changes can be so controversial, because it is something we all aspire to. It is about how we do it.
Too many women face harassment. One study in Edinburgh showed that around 20% of women cyclists stop after experiencing a single event of harassment. Unsafe routes decrease women’s ability to travel easily around the city, and no doubt reduce the mental and physical benefits that come with active travel. Ensuring safe routes in busier areas through the creation of separate, well-maintained cycle lanes on roads, for example, are one way to ensure that those who feel unsafe using our canals and former railway tracks are still able to actively travel during the winter months and at night. I want to thank the InfraSisters in Edinburgh who have run a fantastic campaign over many years—I am sure you are aware of their work, Ms Jardine.
As walking and cycling routes reach the city centre, it is vital that we have the correct architecture and infrastructure to ensure women’s safety in busier areas as they travel home or to work. In a public consultation in 2023, up to 80% of women who responded stated that they had experienced harassment, abuse or violence in public spaces in Edinburgh. Some people might think 80% is an exaggeration—I did when I first read that stat—but when we speak to women we find that it is absolutely not. I was ashamed to hear some of their experiences.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the hon. Member not absolutely shocked at how much this behaviour is normalised, and that we accept it as normal? When my male partner’s sons do not realise what happens, we continue to normalise it. Is it not time that we stopped?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. As a cyclist in Edinburgh, I have been verbally abused by drivers. On my social media pages, I am also often criticised for encouraging more people to walk and cycle. However, that is very different from abuse based on someone’s gender, which really goes to the heart of who they are, rather than simply what they are doing. I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.
The feeling of safety among women in Edinburgh varied seasonally, and according to lighting and the presence of passive surveillance from other citizens. Variation was also found between different groups, with disabled women and BAME women more likely to experience some form of harassment. That is in Scotland’s capital city; it is absolutely shameful.
There are seemingly small things that we can implement to improve the situation. Providing multiple points for road crossings, improving street lighting and increasing on-street passive surveillance can make a difference, and we now integrate those things into our urban design in Edinburgh.
The safety of women on public transport deserves a debate of its own, but ensuring that women can safely access public transport, either by walking and cycling, should also be actively considered. We must look at the routes between communities and key public transport hubs, ensuring that they are safe and, above all, well lit—bus stops, in particular. All those small changes can improve the safety of women as they walk around our city centres and outlying neighbourhoods.
I will quickly give two examples. Lighting was recently installed in Hailes Quarry Park in my constituency, which has made such a change to local travel. Colinton tunnel, which I am sure you are familiar with, Ms Jardine, and which is 120 metres long, also had lighting added. I thought nothing of it—it just used to be a dark tunnel —but many women came forward to say that having lighting in place had transformed the way they walked along that route. It was cheap, easy and transformational.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) not only on securing the debate but on her fantastic opening speech, which really set the scene.
Violence against women and girls, including sexual harassment and assault, affects millions of women across the UK. It affects what we say, what we wear and what we do. It affects how we live our everyday lives and—as we have heard from many hon. Members in the debate—whether and where we walk, cycle and run. In what I think was a national survey, 20% of women said they would never go walking at night. Local research undertaken by the West Yorkshire combined authority and the University of Leeds produced similarly stark findings. In a survey of users of Myrtle Park in Bingley, in my constituency, they found that 48% of respondents would not feel safe at night.
According to the Office for National Statistics, over 15% of women and girls in Britain feel “very or fairly” unsafe in parks during the day. It is a scandal that women feel unsafe while walking, wheeling, cycling or running. As we have heard, it is also harmful to our health and wellbeing. Increasing active travel by 50% in England would result in 1.8 million fewer GP visits and 4 million fewer sick days, so it is vital that we provide safe opportunities for women and girls to participate in active travel.
The Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, has led the way on this issue, by not only publishing her safety of women and girls strategy but going on to commission and produce specific guidance called “Safer Parks”. The guidance sets out in detail how to address the inequity of access to parks, promoting the need for them to be designed in a way that makes women and girls feel more secure. I have been briefed on the research, and interestingly the most obvious things—such as lighting the path through the park—do not always result in people feeling safer, because they are in the spotlight and fear that attackers are hiding in the shadows. It is really important that we do the research and get the design guidance right. We must also address the different barriers that exist for different groups, and generally increase the number of people using the parks—that is something that makes us feel safer. The guidance was trialled in Bradford last year, and will hopefully inform planning of how we improve safety in parks for women and girls across West Yorkshire and beyond.
Like the West Yorkshire combined authority, Bradford council is treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves. I recently met the council to discuss the safety concerns of women who visit Myrtle Park. I will continue to engage with the council, the Friends of Myrtle Park—a fantastic community group—and the local councillor, Susan Fricker, who has been a really strong advocate on this issue.
I have also been pleased with some of the initiatives by West Yorkshire police. The Jog On campaign is dedicated to tackling the harassment faced by female runners and joggers. It seeks to raise awareness of inappropriate behaviour, provide education—including through active bystander training—and take enforcement action against individuals who persist in targeting runners with unwanted behaviours such as catcalling, horn-pipping or sexualised comments. At my request, Jog On recently attended the parkruns in both Myrtle Park and Roberts Park in Saltaire, in my constituency, encouraging and advising women who enjoy parkrun, but who may want to go out and run at other times of the day and week.
Women and girls must feel confident to get out and about on their bikes. They must also feel safe in our parks and green spaces and along our canals and greenways —I am campaigning for the Wharfedale Greenway in my constituency, and I will highlight that it must be designed with the safety of women and girls in mind, following the excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) about Edinburgh. I hope the Minister will encourage the sharing of these positive initiatives from West Yorkshire and Bradford and, with colleagues, ensure that local authorities have the funding and guidance they need in order to secure the safety of women and girls in all our public spaces.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on running. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing it and for her constant work on this issue.
Running should be available to everyone as a form of exercise, stress relief and mental regulation, but it simply is not; it is available only to people who feel safe to do it, and the reality is that too many women do not. Put plainly, 70% of women say they have experienced an intimidating incident while running. Two out of three women have faced harassment. Those are not isolated experiences; they show a pattern that forces women to adapt their behaviour. Women change their routes, avoid running in the dark or stop altogether. That is not freedom; it is women adjusting their lives because of the behaviour of men.
I am a member of a running club, and there are many running clubs in my constituency, which make women feel safer because there is safety in numbers. I pay tribute to those clubs—particularly the all-female ones, such as the St Pol Striders—for creating these spaces, but they should not be relied on, and women should not have to do things differently.
Men who make women feel unsafe have to face consequences, because serious offenders begin with acts of harassment. If we want to prevent worse crimes, we cannot ignore the early ones. We need to make reporting easier and the follow-up stronger. We need systems that take women seriously when they come forward. I represent a constituency with large rural areas, so simple solutions such as better lighting or planning just cannot be relied on. Fundamentally, it comes down to how seriously these complaints are taken.
I am reminded of two very similar incidents about five years apart of men exposing themselves to female walkers, which happened while I was a councillor. In one, the police did not take the act very seriously at all—I suspect that the policeman spent more time complaining to me about people posting about the crime on social media than he did following it up—and in the other they did. Things have changed in West Yorkshire, not out of the ether, but because of leadership. Alison Lowe, our deputy mayor for policing, has really changed how things are looked at, and that has made a huge difference.
Fundamental to good outcomes is an institutional recognition of the problem. We need our police to lead from the front, take victims seriously and be proactive in their information and support. Running should be for everyone; it should not depend on gender, postcode or the time of day. If we want more people to enjoy the benefits of running, we must make sure women feel safe enough to take part. That means consequences for harassment, proper lighting, easier reporting and support for the communities that bring people together.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Before I call the final Back-Bench speaker, I should say that I would like to call the first Front-Bench spokesperson at 28 minutes past 3.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for her assiduous campaigning and for bringing this important issue to the Chamber.
This is a problem suffered by women but caused by men—not all men, of course—and men must be the main part of the solution. Women’s spaces are being constricted. Women are forced to take exercise in more public places and to avoid footpaths and canal towpaths, and parents of daughters will have had those conversations with them. However, when they move into those more public places, which are better lit and supposedly safer, they face intimidation, catcalling and the like. That is a total outrage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) said. If it were happening to men, I can assure Members that it would be dealt with very rapidly.
Women are adapting their behaviour, but it is men’s behaviour and attitudes that need adapting, confronting, changing and—yes—on occasion prosecuting. Many men and boys do not even know they are doing anything wrong, but they are intimidating women, and shrinking their status and freedom as citizens. We therefore need a multifaceted approach, and that of course is what the Government are taking through their VAWG strategy, encompassing education, public education, police and criminal justice system work, and more.
This is clearly not something that can be prosecuted out of existence, but part of the challenge is to defeat the defeatism, and more can and is being done. If we mention catcalling, people instinctively say, “That can’t be dealt with; How could you prosecute it?” However, as we heard in relation to the Jog On campaign, it is possible for police to take action.
I want to touch briefly on the work of Warwickshire police in Rugby. They have a safer neighbourhood team that carries out VAWG walks; an enhanced policing initiative on Friday and Saturday nights that promotes Ask for Angela; and Project Vigilant, in which officers are trained to detect predatory behaviour. They have also set up a working group that looks at surveys from the parkrun and walking groups to get data so that they can work out whether they would like to carry out an operation similar to the Jog On operation carried out by Surrey police. They also do a lot of education in schools.
We need to ensure that there are no no-go areas for women and girls in our society, and to commit to work more to tackle the misogynistic, predatory behaviour of some men and boys. They need to be the people who feel worried and intimidated when they go into public spaces—or any other spaces—with the attitudes we have talked about and perpetuate them.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this important debate. As hon. Members have set out, the abuse and violence experienced by women and girls in public spaces is horrifyingly prevalent and should be called out for what it is: a national emergency.
I want to pay tribute to hon. Members from across the House for some of the things they have said this afternoon, and particularly to the hon. Member for Lowestoft, who started the debate in such a wonderful way and really set the tone. She highlighted things that we all know, as women, but that, shockingly, still need highlighting. She spoke about women having to choose either the most direct or the safest route home, and about the unspoken risk assessment we all do—those words rang true to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) spoke about her personal experience of harassment while cycling, and about the importance of encouraging children to start cycling early. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke about the things we do “just in case”, and that really resonated with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) talked about her constituent, Holly, and her call for women’s safety to be designed in—that is really important, and I hope the Minister listens to that call. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) said that women are “constantly compromising” in what they do, and that also rang very true to me. I also highlight the hon. Members of the other gender who spoke up so passionately and convincingly when they said that men’s behaviour needs to change and that they would champion that. I thank them very much for speaking out about it.
A UN Women UK study found that 71% of women of all ages have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces in the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said. That figure increases to a shocking 86% for women aged 18 to 24. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry confirmed, in black and white, what women already knew—that it is common for us to feel unsafe walking or running in our own streets, and that as women we often actively change our daily routines to avoid very real threats, as highlighted by Members across the House.
It also found that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are not prioritised to the same extent as other serious offences. Women have felt that to be true for far too long. A University of Manchester study found that more than two thirds of women runners experience some form of abuse while running, most commonly verbal, with just 5% of them reporting such incidents to the police. That is plainly unacceptable in Britain today.
Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to implement all 13 of the inquiry’s recommendations without delay. The sense of insecurity among women worsens during the winter months as the lack of safe routes on dark evenings greatly restricts women travelling for work or leisure.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Richmond Park in my constituency is a very popular spot for runners and cyclists, but as my hon. Friend points out, it is so much darker during the winter months. Our dedicated police force, the Royal Parks constabulary, has recently been completely scrapped, leaving the park unpatrolled and even less safe. This means women are choosing not to run in the park at all, which reduces their options for safe running and cycling routes in the winter months. Does she agree that investing in neighbourhood policing, including the policing we used to have in the royal parks, is critical to women feeling safer?
Marie Goldman
My hon. Friend’s intervention is very timely. My Chelmsford constituency is in Essex, and Essex police has just announced that it feels it will have to scrap numbers from the force, which is very concerning indeed. She also highlights the importance of women feeling safe, particularly in parks. In Chelmsford, streetlights were left dark and unrepaired by Essex county council for years, leaving many women feeling unable to take the most direct and quickest route, which was through the park, from the station to their home, at the end of the day.
As a county councillor, I campaigned hard for the lights to be fixed. I am pleased that they were eventually fixed, but that was with the help of Liberal Democrat-run Chelmsford city council. It is hardly surprising that inadequate street lighting and a lack of safe paths to facilitate active travel are widely reported to be significant barriers to women walking in their communities.
A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the last two years found that chronic underfunding of active travel across England is undermining efforts to get people walking, wheeling and cycling, instead of driving, with just 2% of the total transport budget spent on infrastructure to support active travel. It sometimes seems that we are putting our money in the wrong places.
It is disappointing to note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath did, that the UK lags behind its European counterparts, with fewer than one in five people walking, wheeling or cycling on an average day, compared with more than one in four across Europe. The report highlights that this failure has locked in more congestion and contributed to worsening air quality, making it harder to reduce emissions while also limiting growth. Members might wonder why I mention that, but we also know that higher levels of pollution intersect with racial and wealth inequalities, with the most racially diverse and the poorest parts of our towns and cities suffering the most.
There is even evidence that equal exposure to air pollution does not mean equal health outcomes for women and men. For example, some studies have shown that women experience more harmful effects from air pollution than men. More research is needed, but at the very least that demonstrates the necessity of inclusion when considering the importance of prioritising active travel.
The same goes for road safety more generally, and the Liberal Democrats have for some time been calling for an updated road safety strategy, so we welcomed its recent publication by the Government. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I also welcome the publication of the pavement parking consultation outcome, albeit five years on. Although it might seem strange on the surface, women are likely to be disproportionately affected by the inaccessibility caused by pavement parking.
Women are more likely than men to be disabled and have mobility or visual impairment issues. We are more likely to be accompanying children and wheeling prams, and we are more likely to be carers, as was pointed out earlier. I was therefore pleased, in the autumn, to table an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would have enabled local authorities to enforce pavement parking laws more easily. Pavement parking is not just a minor inconvenience; it puts people in harm’s way, impacts their sense of dignity and limits their access to public space. It is easy for the casual observer to dismiss some of those small changes as trivial, but they make a genuine difference in improving women’s sense of safety and inclusion.
In Chelmsford, Make Space for Girls has been doing great work to build inclusive infrastructure, which is so important for creating environments where women feel safe. The project enables girls and gender non-conforming children to design their own play spaces, and it is just as much about creating safe, comfortable physical environments as proving to these children that they can enact change in their own communities and hold power to shape their own futures. That is important, because although street lighting and safer paths play an essential role, those issues are ultimately symptomatic of the broader problem that faces our country. That is why initiatives such as Chelmsford city council’s women’s safety charter, through which local premises commit to a range of training to ensure that staff consider and prioritise women’s safety as standard, are also necessary.
Finally, the fact remains that women who are victims of violence are incredibly likely to be known to the men who attack them. We must therefore focus our efforts on tackling the societal attitudes that lead people to look away from, excuse and sometimes justify violence against women and girls. We have a responsibility to change that. It cannot be that, in a decade’s time, women are still fearful of walking our streets because of who may be lurking in the dark. We owe it to future generations of women to act. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and, I believe, Members from across the House will continue to press the Government to do so.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) not just on securing this important debate, but on the powerful way in which she opened it. It can be described only as a sobering debate that requires the Government’s full attention, and that must come not just from the Department for Transport but, as others said, from other Departments, too.
I thank the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for sharing their personal experiences. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should have to face what they described on the streets of this country.
I equally agree with the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) that so-called low-level offences should be stamped down on incredibly forcibly. He is right—I have long argued along similar lines—that it is essential because so-called low-level crimes lead to more serious and potentially fatal crimes in the future. It is therefore absolutely essential that they are clamped down upon incredibly hard.
The method by which anyone, and particularly women, chooses to travel should not be dictated by how safe they feel. Everyone should feel safe walking, running, cycling, wheeling, driving or riding a horse—we had a good debate about horse riding last week, and it should have been added to the title of this debate, because it is incredibly important in rural communities such as mine.
It is clear that the challenges of securing women’s safety are an obstacle to an array of activities that women might want to do, but feel unable to do so. It is incredibly concerning that, according to Cycling UK, 23% of women cite harassment or intimidation as a reason not to cycle. The data on running is even starker. Research published in 2023 found that almost three quarters of women in the United Kingdom change their outdoor activity routines during winter, with many doing so because they feel unsafe.
Separately, survey data from SportsShoes.com, which is not a website I was particularly familiar with until I began my research for this debate, found that 48% of women had felt unsafe while running, compared with 36% of men. Similarly, 70% of women had experienced an intimidating incident while running, including 22% saying that they had been followed and 21% reporting that they had been beeped at by someone in a car. Such behaviour on the streets of this country is deeply unacceptable.
Even though it is challenging to point to a single source, data from a variety of organisations highlight that a considerable number of women experience behaviour that is not acceptable—indeed, it is clearly despicable—in our society. The idea that someone who is merely trying to run or cycle should be followed or harassed is clearly wrong and must be stopped.
Therefore, to address both the safety of women while cycling, wheeling, walking or running, and concerns about harassment, we must make sure that we embed enforcement as the underlying principle of safety strategies. That must involve having sufficient numbers of police officers located in the areas where women feel most unsafe. That is a challenge, given that we are currently seeing a reduction in the number of police officers on our streets. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) gave a particularly stark example. The thought that a park such as Richmond Park, which is so suited for walking, running, cycling and all sorts of activities, is no longer to be policed should horrify all of us in this House, no matter what political party we belong to.
Improving the safety of women should also involve following up on incidents properly. For example, a small minority of drivers demonstrate truly unsafe behaviour and put women at risk. We have strong rules about what constitutes dangerous driving, and those rules must be enforced where people have broken the law. However, the rules for dangerous driving must apply equally to those who behave in an unacceptable way by verbally abusing people, beeping their horn or whatever it might be.
To do that, we need effective funding for our police forces, which is why my party has specifically said that we would provide £800 million to deploy 10,000 new police officers in hotspot areas where crime is most likely to occur. I appreciate that hotspot policing might be less impactful for groups such as cyclists, who travel much greater distances than other people, but in urban environments or in places such as Richmond Park, which we have already heard about, there are often particular locations and areas that dissuade people from running and walking. The more we can do to target those locations—where crime, particularly crime against women, is more likely—the more we can instil trust and a sense that such activities are safe.
Therefore, can the Minister say what cross-Government work has been conducted by her Department to prioritise the safety of women and girls when they are engaged in active travel and to feed into the Government’s strategy on preventing violence against women and girls? Also, can she make a commitment that her Department will engage with local police forces to ensure that they are monitoring areas where women feel most unsafe?
Also, I understand that the consultation for the third cycling and walking investment strategy says that
“Investment in well-lit, safe, high-quality walking, wheeling and cycling routes increases feelings of personal safety, as well as improving road safety”.
I think we can all agree with the sentiment and the principle that we want particular areas to have improved lighting, in order to improve safety. As with many aspects of road safety, targeted measures that focus on the most dangerous areas will rightly have support from Members across this House.
I am aware that issues such as improved lighting form part of the much broader calls for clear targets on what organisations such as Cycling UK describe as high-quality cycling infrastructure, which are made alongside calls for appropriate levels of spending. That is all important. And from our time together on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, I know the Minister is a long-standing supporter of active travel in general and of cycling in particular.
There is always a difficult balance to be drawn between making our roads safe for cyclists and making them too difficult for other modes of transport to use, or even prohibiting other modes of transport. Nevertheless, I hope the Government can find the appropriate balance by making cycling safer for women without making it more difficult for those same women to use their cars for other journeys.
One request from Cycling UK and a range of other road safety organisations is to improve understanding of the 2022 changes to the highway code. These organisations have been clear about welcoming the changes as an important step in improving the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, but the knowledge gap remains in the public’s awareness of these changes.
All in all, as I said at the start of my remarks, this needs a whole-Government approach. The safety of women cannot be put on the back-burner or into a footnote; it must take centre stage across multiple Government Departments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s commitments this afternoon on how she will be leading that in the Department for Transport and across the whole of Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for raising this important issue and congratulate her on her appointment as violence against women and girls adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. I look forward to working with her to help to drive forward the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.
I imagine that every woman here today will have recognised the issues under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) all described vividly what those issues mean for women in our daily lives. The fear of male violence is so normalised that it is easy to forget that it is anything but normal. I am pleased that many men, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), and indeed the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), are also committed to ensuring that the situation changes.
As we have heard, women remain under-represented in cycling due to persistent safety concerns: 58% of women feel that their cycle journeys are limited by such concerns, and more than a third say that roads do not feel safe. Harassment, intimidation and poorly lit routes all contribute to a sense that cycling, particularly in the evening, is simply not a safe or viable option. Research conducted by Dr Caroline Miles and Professor Rose Broad at the University of Manchester found that, over a two-year period from 2021 to 2022, 68% of women survey respondents said they had experienced abuse while out running, but only 5% of those women had reported the abuse to the police.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) have both referred to the excellent research by the University of Manchester. One of the most shocking findings of that research, which I discussed with the researchers last year, was that 19% of women runners had been followed and 7% had been flashed at. Does the Minister agree that, while women are often taking measures to mitigate the threat, whether through smartphones, special safety apps, or even changing their routes, the real answer ultimately lies in more visible policing, more CCTV, better lighting—crucial for local communities—and in tackling at source, as the violence against women and girls strategy does, the misogyny in our schools and workplaces?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. The scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and that is why this Government are treating it as a national emergency, but the most important change is a change in the behaviour of men, frankly.
The Government published our strategy to build a safer society for women and girls last month, and have set out a range of actions to prevent violence and abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims. Giving women the confidence to report incidents is essential. The strategy includes an ambitious aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, which will require us to take a transformative approach to the way that we work across Government and with other partners. I can assure the shadow Minister that Ministers regularly come together from all Departments to discuss the action that we need to take.
Turning to active travel, in December we announced that we are allocating £626 million over the next four years for local authorities to deliver walking, wheeling and cycling schemes—enough for 500 miles of new walking and cycling routes. That is in addition to almost £300 million of funding that we announced in February 2025.
In November, we launched a consultation to develop the third cycling and walking investment strategy, which recognised the need to address the barriers to active travel, including for women and girls and proposed two new objectives to support the long-term vision for active travel: ensuring both that people are safe to travel actively and that people feel it is an easy choice. The consultation closed on 15 December; we are looking carefully at all the comments received and the final strategy will be published this spring.
Since its establishment in 2022, Active Travel England—ATE—has worked with local authorities to help them to make walking, wheeling and cycling a safe and attractive choice for everyday trips. That has included overseeing £435 million of investment to deliver more than 400 miles of routes and hundreds of safer crossings and junctions.
ATE has commenced a project focused on the need to design streets better for women and girls and to support local authorities in the delivery of that. The organisation is working with Living Streets and with Footways to pilot an approach to developing walking network plans. Through that project, women have highlighted issues with walking, including—these will be very familiar to hon. Members—poor lighting, isolated routes and limited visibility, which strongly shaped their willingness to walk and influenced route prioritisation. Those findings will inform an important part of the evidence base for planning walking networks that work for everyone. I welcome the examples of good practice highlighted by a number of hon. Members, including Members from West Yorkshire.
This year, through ATE, we have provided £2.5 million to Cycling UK to deliver the Big Bike Revival, which is now in its 10th year and has reached more than half a million people. The Big Bike Revival programme helps people across England to get back on their bikes and experience the many benefits of cycling. Since it began in 2015, more than half of participants have said they now feel safer cycling and 49% of participants have been women. Women who have taken part in the programme have described being made to feel comfortable, having their confidence and self-esteem boosted, and feeling empowered.
Last October, Cycling UK organised “My ride. Our Right”, and approximately 60 women-led glow rides took place across the country to increase the visibility of women’s cycling and demand better infrastructure. In my constituency, the cycling groups Women in Tandem and Pedals organised rides and are doing great work to give more women the confidence to ride a bike especially, or including, after dark. As Women in Tandem says, cycling should “feel liberating, not intimidating”—hear, hear!
We know that good street design can contribute to helping women to feel safe when walking, cycling and running, and enables safe access to public transport. We are currently working with MHCLG to update the manual for streets, which was first published in 2007. That will include advice on aspects of street design that can help to improve personal safety and perceptions of safety: how safe is it, and how safe does it feel?
Anna Sabine
I thank the Minister for giving way. It may be that she is coming on to this issue but, while everything she is saying on active travel is fantastic and I recognise the point about the manual for streets, does she recognise that if the overarching framework, the national planning policy framework, does not pay regard to women’s and girls’ safety, it is much harder to enact those subsets such as active travel?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. As I said, we are working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure we have a coherent approach.
I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, for our proposals to tackle pavement parking. Of course, the issue is not just safety on the street, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West highlighted, but having the opportunity to walk, wheel, cycle and run in our green spaces and parks, on canal towpaths and on greenways. Natural England’s “Green Infrastructure Planning and Design Guide” offers detailed guidance on creating accessible green spaces and, for teenage girls specifically, emphasises the need to design spaces that are not only safe and inclusive but also comfortable and welcoming. Sport England is also running campaigns challenging prejudice to make clear that sport is for everyone. That has included the “This Girl Can” and “Let’s Lift the Curfew” campaigns; the latter included 320 local events in October to amplify women’s voices and overcome barriers that prevent women from being active outdoors.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for raising this important issue. It has been wonderful to see the level of contribution and the interest that has been shown in the debate. I look forward to continuing to work with her, with other hon. Members here this afternoon, and with my colleagues across Government to take further action on this important issue and ensure that for our daughters the opportunity to go out and walk, run and cycle is different from how it perhaps has been for our generation. We can, must and will do better.
Jess Asato
I thank all Members who contributed and the Minister for her remarks and ongoing work on this issue, which forms a key part of the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls. We all very much look forward to working with her to improve women’s safety in this area. I finish with this quote from the Belonging Forum:
“When women feel unable to move freely in public spaces, this limits opportunities for connection, reinforces isolation and undermines a sense of belonging.”
We must work to tackle that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered women’s safety while walking, wheeling, cycling and running.
Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I will call Luke Taylor to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for consumer energy bills.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Jardine. This morning, hon. Members may have caught the same package on the breakfast news as I did. It followed Ukrainians on the outskirts of Kyiv who had been without heating for more than two weeks. They have suffered in conditions unthinkable to those of us in modern Britain, with temperatures in some places dropping to minus 20° overnight. The pictures —of children with frozen faces wearing four or five coats, and grandmothers slipping on sheets of ice that had formed on the floors of their apartments—were heartbreaking.
I hope that hon. Members will indulge my making that aside at the start of my remarks; as I watched those scenes, I could not help but feel alarmed at the sense that Russia’s targeting of Ukrainian energy infrastructure mirrors the shockwaves it has wilfully sent across Europe’s traditional energy mix since it first crossed the Ukrainian border nearly four years ago. Those shockwaves were amplified in the UK when they collided with the unstable economic conditions wrought by Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, whose impacts are still rumbling on today.
We are fortunate in this country not to suffer temperatures consistently way below 0°, and especially lucky not to have to contend with that while bombs rain down on our heads. But the reality of the dangers of cold is present everywhere, and our cost of energy crisis is forcing people to live without heating mere miles from where we stand today, in the world’s sixth largest economy.
It is always innocent, ordinary people—from Kyiv to Kilburn and everywhere in between—who suffer because of huge energy price shocks: ordinary people such as the pensioners in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, who are living in homes that are sealed shut against the winter, their windows “boarded up” with blankets and towels as they try desperately to keep inside what little heat they can afford.
In the Chamber last week, I mentioned an incident in which I knocked on the door of a resident who answered in a coat and scarf—not because she was going out, but because she did not have the heating on inside; it was around 3° or 4° outside. It happened again yesterday, when I was out canvassing in Worcester Park. I have heard from households that now avoid using their ovens, not out of choice but out of fear of what switching them on will do to their finances. Local hospitals prepare for influxes after cold snaps, because the cold weather thickens blood and causes clots and heart attacks in older people. Anyone who has experienced true cold—awful, core-shaking cold—can only dare to imagine what it feels like for children and older people, whose temperature regulation is developing or fading.
The End Fuel Poverty Coalition estimated that 4,950 excess winter deaths in the UK were caused by living in cold homes during that first chaotic winter of 2022-23.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Over 6,000 households in my constituency are living in fuel poverty. The warm homes plan will deliver targeted support for those living in fuel-poor households and provide them with the means to upgrade their homes with insulation, solar panels and heat pumps. Does the hon. Member agree that we should prioritise measures that improve energy efficiency and sustainability to cut fuel bills for years to come?
Luke Taylor
Absolutely, and I will come on to the package that the Government outlined last week. It was very welcome, but we need to go further on immediate measures.
More than 12 million households are struggling with high energy bills today. It is not just the cold, but what creeps in with it: the damp and mould in children’s lungs and the reliance, for some families, on heating that produces dangerous carbon monoxide, which presents a threat to life and limb. Let us be clear: in parts of Britain where fuel poverty is all too common, we are at risk of letting one generation slip away slowly, sitting lonely in their homes, shivering, while we raise another forever stunted by a cold childhood.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward; it affects everybody in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. About 39% to 40% of households in Northern Ireland are classed as being in fuel poverty, meaning that they spend more than 10% of their income on energy just to keep their homes warm. Those stats are significantly above historic measures, and many working families do not qualify for Government assistance. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government must do more. Does he agree that very little action has been taken to ease pressure on working families, and that more must be done to adjust thresholds so that those families are eligible for support and assistance?
Luke Taylor
The hon. Member highlights the gap between families who are eligible for support and those who just cannot quite make ends meet. Clearly, there is a challenge in making any measure completely comprehensive and ensuring that those in need get the support they require.
When Beveridge wrote of his five great evils all those decades ago, he had in mind specifically the kind of poverty that we are talking about here—not just in material terms, but in access to living conditions that make a higher quality of life possible. In the decades since, we have clung to the findings of his report while slowly letting the meaning of those words decay, assuming that things such as freezing to death in one’s own home were evils conquered by the “white heat” of revolution. We were wrong, and squalor, by means of poor housing, insulation and lack of warmth, is back in Britain. It is here, not just in the homes of the poorest and most vulnerable, but all too often in the suburban houses of middle-income families and in urban flats where young people raise kids.
That is to say nothing of parts of rural Britain, where very old, pre-modern insulation in housing is still the norm. For too many families and pensioners I meet, across neighbourhoods, ages and even incomes, this is the single most pressing issue in their lives. We do not need a new Beveridge report to tell us that—not that we are wanting for heartbreaking statistics. We can see it with our own eyes and hear it with our own ears, and we feel it in our bones when we knock on doors in our constituencies, time and again, day in, day out.
When an issue gets to the heart of people’s quality of life in such a huge way, the state has a duty to cut through the roadblocks, take the lead and do something about it quickly. This Government, however, have taken too long to do so. The announcement last week of the warm homes plan is welcome; we Liberal Democrats have been pushing for it for years. Many organisations working in this space, such as the MCS Foundation, are relieved to see it finally outlined.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
As somebody who suffers enormously from the cold—as anyone can see from my hands, which are already white—I really appreciate my hon. Friend for bringing this point forward. The warm homes plan is incredibly welcome, but I am worried about the order in which it suggests interventions. The idea that we should be putting solar panels and heat pumps before insulation and air tightness worries me, having spent 25 years in the building industry.
I am also very concerned about the focus on specific technologies rather than on aims. The real solution must be to cut the cost of heating our homes. There are innovative solutions, such as the Luthmore electric boiler, developed by an innovative firm in my own constituency; a gas boiler can be taken out and the Luthmore boiler plugged straight in. However, we risk pandering to those who can afford to put these measures in, while the most vulnerable are left exactly where they are, in damp homes. I assume my hon. Friend agrees with me.
Luke Taylor
I wholeheartedly agree. As an engineer by background, I think we need to focus on the outcome and the goal, rather than prejudicing the tool. While air-source heat pumps are suitable in many cases, they rely on air tightness and insulation, which may well be a barrier to quick implementation.
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
A constituent of mine was having energy retrofit work carried out by Consumer Energy Solutions under the energy company obligation 4 scheme, which seeks to lower heating costs. That firm has recently gone into administration, and the work will now not be finished. The ECO4 scheme has been extended, but the Government have not clearly committed to introducing better protections for customers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government urgently need to ensure greater consumer protections against installers’ incompetence and incompletions?
Luke Taylor
I agree 100%. Whenever we have novel technologies, there is a rush to fill the space; unfortunately, cowboys may well get there first. The Government have a huge role not only in encouraging quality installation but in protecting against that vacuum being filled by disreputable traders.
On the subject of the home upgrade programme, as with most Liberal Democrat policies we urge the Government to steal it. It would complement and, frankly, complete their own strategy. I invite the Minister to take this opportunity to outline specifically how the delivery of that strategy will work. As we Liberal Democrats have said, without a clear replacement for the ECO programme or future homes standard, we face losing skilled installers and risk long delays for the kind of ambitious programme of insulation that we need. That is not a theoretical loss: homes with lower efficiency standards are actively dangerous to people’s health. We will hold the Government accountable for their legally binding targets, but I encourage them to remember that full disclosure of the practicalities of implementing the strategy would help all of us work harder to tackle fuel poverty.
In fact, the Government should be working more closely with new projects such as the Citigen network, which I recently visited in London, or with local councils such as my own in Sutton, to see how new alternative heat sources are already making a difference to people’s lives. We can and must be more ambitious. We must surely now recognise that the scale of the crisis is so severe that tinkering with infrastructure investment, while useful for the future, does not solve the problem for families shivering and cutting back every single day.
To genuinely rescue people from the cold, we must tackle the real cost of energy now. That is why we need a social tariff to provide targeted energy discounts for vulnerable households, including those on low incomes and in receipt of personal independence payment. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been calling for the renewables obligation levy to be removed from people’s energy bills and instead funded by a proper windfall tax until April 2027—after which the Government should develop a new way of funding RO contracts, implementing Liberal Democrat proposals to move them on to a contracts-for-difference model. That would decouple energy prices from the wholesale gas prices and ensure that ordinary people across the country can benefit from cheap renewable energy.
I am sorry not to see any Reform MPs here, although it is not a surprise; it was written down here in my notes. They deserve to be told once again that net zero does not mean higher energy costs. How we fund our energy transition is a political choice. They are choosing to remain wedded to the very system that has left us so vulnerable and Britons literally freezing to death in their own homes, rather than making sure that the fat cats pay their fair share towards keeping people in this country alive.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In addition to the absence of Reform MPs, the absence of Conservative MPs is also striking. It was during the Truss-Kwarteng mini-Budget that borrowing was pushed up by £60 billion because of the energy price guarantee that was a consequence of Government dependence on Russian gas. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we need in this country is energy independence, so that we have energy security and can be the custodians of our own destiny?
Luke Taylor
I could not agree more: energy security is national security. It sounds like a trite cliché, but it is so absolutely true when we look at the dangers around the world today.
The Minister has heard my arguments and the arguments made by other colleagues who intervened. The Minister will have seen, like the rest of us, the findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published earlier today: that the number of people living in the most extreme form of poverty has reached its highest level since records began. In addition to my other asks this afternoon, I ask the Minister to simply look us in the eye and tell us why, when people are freezing, the Government are not moving faster?
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this very important debate.
I have seen at first hand how urgent the cost of living pressures are for many of my residents. Just last week, I hosted a cost-of-living coffee morning in my community, bringing together energy providers, water companies, banks and local support groups. It was a practical example of how joined-up, accessible support can make a real difference to residents in Portsmouth, particularly when people are helped to understand what they are entitled to and how they can access alternatives.
I want to say a huge thanks to all who attended, be they residents or stakeholders, including: Advice Portsmouth, Centrica, British Gas, HIVE Portsmouth, IncomeMax, Octopus Energy, Nationwide, Switched on Portsmouth, Portsmouth Water, the Energy Ombudsman, E.ON Next, Utilita Energy, Southern Water and NatWest. The drop-in highlighted so many issues, which is why I welcome the Government’s excellent warm homes plan—a plan that will improve energy efficiency, reduce energy bills, cut carbon emissions and tackle fuel poverty through a mix of grants, loans, local delivery and updating of standards.
The warm homes plan is vital because consumers have been let down by previous Governments, and by rogue tradies, so many times. We must think about trust. That is why I have been meeting with Checkatrade, the Department for Business and Trade and the sector, to ensure that our tradies’ reputations are not let down by cowboy builders and shoddy outfits when we bring about the reality of our warm homes plan. Although I welcome the warm homes plan, warmly, I ask the Minister to outline how it will build trust and complement local, community-led initiatives to ensure that energy bill support and home efficiency measures meet the people of Portsmouth’s needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, I think for the first time. We could probably have done with a longer debate given how many people intervened at the start, but I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to debate an important issue, which I know lots of Members across the House have an interest in.
I associate myself with the hon. Member’s remarks about the situation in Ukraine. Last year, when I attended the G7 Energy and Environment Ministers meeting, I met the then Ukrainian Energy Minister. I was struck by the sheer scale of what she was facing every day, such as sending energy workers into the field to repair broken transmission lines and substations—not just facing the risks that any worker faces in situations with high voltage cables, but also facing the risk of Russian drone attacks and bombs. I could not be clearer in condemning the actions of the Russian regime and what they are doing in targeting infrastructure at this time.
As I draw this debate to a close, I want to reaffirm that tackling the affordability crisis is this Government’s No. 1 priority. The main reason that bills are so high, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam alluded to, is the wholesale cost of gas and our exposure to price shocks caused by our dependence on fossil fuel markets. We are working to bring down, for good, the cost of energy by taking back control of our energy system through our clean energy superpower mission. Thanks to our decisions, last year was a record year for wind and solar power, and we have embarked on the biggest nuclear building programme for half a century. Already in 2026, the Government’s seventh contracts for difference auction secured an incredible 8.4 GW of new offshore wind capacity across Britain—enough to deliver energy for more than 12 million homes. That is what it means to deliver on lower bills, good jobs and energy security. I have to look at the Opposition Benches, which are empty this afternoon, and think about the work that those Members could have been doing in government over the past 14 years to take us to a position where we would have been less reliant on fossil fuels and not facing such fuel shocks. I suppose it is no surprise that they did not turn up to defend their record.
Notwithstanding the concerns voiced by hon. Members this afternoon, which I share, energy bills are starting to come down. In real terms, Ofgem’s price cap was lower in 2025 than in 2024, but we know we need to go further. The Government’s intervention at last year’s Budget will help people deal with cost of living pressures, by taking an average £150 of costs off energy bills from April 2026. By closing the ECO scheme and providing Exchequer funding to reduce the cost of the renewables obligation for domestic energy suppliers, this Government are turning a corner by putting more money in people’s pockets in 2026.
At this point, I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who raised the issue of an ECO project affecting one of his constituents. I ask him to send me the details of that case in writing, so that we can investigate it fully. In addition to the £150 off energy costs, we have expanded the warm home discount scheme this year, so that more households will benefit from its support. That means that up to 6 million households will receive a £150 rebate on their energy bills this winter. In Sutton and Cheam, over 2,800 households received the warm home discount last winter; we expect that to increase significantly this year. Under the expansion across London, for example, 950,000 households will benefit from the warm home discount this winter. That is money going on to people’s energy bills and bank accounts, now. I recognise how important that support is to households across Britain over the winter months. That is why we have proposed continuing the warm home discount scheme for a further five years, up to winter 2030-31.
A number of hon. Members raised the warm homes plan, and I will address some of those issues in a moment. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said we needed an ambitious plan; that is precisely what the warm homes plan that we announced last week is. Reducing bills is not just about discounts, whether that is £150 off costs or the warm home discount; it is also about transforming an ageing building stock into comfortable, low-carbon homes that are cheaper to heat and fit for the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) highlighted, the warm homes plan is a vital step in the Government’s mission to address the long-term issue of energy affordability in this country. It is the biggest ever public investment in home upgrades and will help millions of households benefit from solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) talked about the priority afforded to different measures. I reassure her that we are not suggesting that insulation is not important. I am sure she has read the warm homes plan and will have seen the pages that deal specifically with insulation. Insulation plays an especially important part in the local government schemes we are running. With the offer of consumer loans and the work we are doing with finance organisations, there will be an opportunity to finance the retrofit of homes.
The hon. Lady highlighted how technology is changing. She talked about the electric boiler, which I have seen myself. We have been looking at lots of different technologies that could deliver and have already made changes, for example, to the boiler upgrade scheme, which is now offering heat batteries and air-to-air heat pumps as well as traditional heat pumps. We are always on the lookout for new technologies.
Sarah Gibson
I was aware that the Minister had seen the boiler I mentioned. I welcome the warm homes plan immensely, but I have a slight worry about it. There is the old saying that doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome is a sign of madness. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) highlighted that the previous scheme failed to do the right things at the right time, due to a lack of scrutiny and accountability. I have not seen anything in the warm homes plan that talks of an overview to ensure that a heat pump is installed only when it needs to be, since airtightness and insulation would be more appropriate first.
Martin McCluskey
To address those points: the warm homes agency, which is part of the plan, is there to provide advice and guidance to consumers from the start to the end of the retrofit journey. That is about increasing the level of advice and guidance available. I understand that retrofitting a home is challenging and that people need advice and guidance to do it effectively, as the hon. Lady noted.
As for oversight, there has been a problem in the past, as we saw with the number of issues around the ECO4 programme. The warm homes plan states clearly that we will consult on the protection available to consumers through the course of this year. As the Minister responsible, I never want to see an issue like ECO4 again. We need to make it as easy as possible. We should ensure that problems do not occur in the first instance, but when they do there must be proper adequate redress, so that there is confidence in the system. We cannot expect people to make these changes without confidence in the system.
The warm homes plan will roll out upgrades to up to 5 million homes by 2030, saving households hundreds of pounds on energy bills and helping lift up to 1 million families out of fuel poverty by 2030. We are providing £5 billion of targeted support for low-income households, which will receive free upgrades, including heat pumps, solar panels and batteries. That includes additional funding for the very successful warm homes local grant, and the warm homes social housing fund for local authorities and social landlords to upgrade homes for those on low incomes and in social housing. Those upgrades can provide a significant saving for a typical household of £550 a year on their bills. Alongside that, we have allocated £5 billion to a new warm homes fund, almost £2 billion of which will go to the provision of low or zero-interest loans. That will make it easier for more people to meet the up-front costs of upgrading their homes in order to benefit from lower bills.
About 30% of private rented sector tenants live in fuel poverty. We are introducing new minimum energy efficiency standards for the private rented sector and the social rented sector, which will save renters hundreds of pounds a year and ensure that they have decent, warm homes. I am confident that the landmark plan that we have announced will make people across Britain better off, secure our energy independence and do right by future generations by tackling the climate crisis.
One of the effects of the affordability crisis has been to increase consumer debt, which remains at a record level. Reducing debt not only helps those in debt but cuts the cost of managing debt for all consumers. I recognise the need to tackle that problem, and I have been working closely with Ofgem to do that. In November, Ofgem published an updated debt strategy that set out its near-term actions and priorities in supporting suppliers to reduce debt in the sector. It includes proposals for a debt relief scheme to tackle the debt that some consumers built up during the energy crisis; that could reduce aggregate debt.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for arranging the coffee morning and the energy support event. I believe that many Members are doing similar things; they have received a lot of support from energy suppliers and other organisations. She said that she has had conversations with Checkatrade and with people in the building trade. I said a moment ago that we are ensuring high levels of consumer protection to protect not just consumers but those in the building trade. Whenever I meet them, they ask for reliable regulation and standards that they can adhere to. The vast majority of builders, who are maintaining a high standard, do not want their reputation trashed by people who are not meeting those high standards.
The energy system is changing. We have more clean power and innovative tariffs, such as time of use tariffs, and the use of technologies such as heat pumps and electric vehicles has grown. That means that we need solutions fit for 2030 and beyond. Ofgem is currently conducting a cost allocation and recovery review to look at how costs on energy bills can be recovered in the future, and it is considering factors such as efficiency, fairness, meeting our net zero commitments, ensuring growth, and how we pay for our energy system. I am keen that that ensures that progressivity is at the heart of the way people pay for their energy.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke about a social tariff, which I know a lot of hon. Members would welcome, but I am always thoughtful about how we make sure that is properly targeted. For that, we need reliable data. We have just launched a kick-starter project with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which is about accurately finding reliable household income data and properly targeting energy interventions—I would be happy to discuss that in more detail with the hon. Gentleman. It is vital to ensuring that energy costs and bills reflect the changing market.
We are bringing energy bills down for everyone with the actions that we will be taking in April, and we will continue to search for other ways to do so. We are lowering bills through the delivery of the Budget’s bill reduction measures. We have expanded the warm home discount, and are delivering the record-breaking warm homes plan. We are working with Ofgem to future-proof how costs are managed, and are taking action to fund a cleaner, more secure energy system. We will achieve bill savings while taking back control with home-grown clean power. That is the route to cheaper energy in the long run. Every wind turbine that we turn on and every piece of new technology that we adopt helps us reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, including gas, and ensures that we get costs down in the long run. That is the only way to protect the British people and bring down bills for good. That is what the Government’s clean energy mission is all about.
Question put and agreed to.
Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling the digital exploitation of women and girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Online abuse and digital exploitation are extremely prevalent in the modern-day world. The targeting of women and girls in online spaces is growing into a market where legislation is not keeping up with the speed of the digital world, so much so that the world’s richest man considered it acceptable and a matter of free speech to have his personal artificial intelligence platform undress women without their consent. That is shameful.
There is a growing difference between in-person exploitation—including sex trafficking, grooming, domestic violence and coercive control—and digital abuse and exploitation of someone’s image, where victims are often not known to perpetrators. In most cases they may not have any knowledge that they are even being exploited, and these crimes often happen in a highly organised manner.
In Lancashire, the police and crime commissioner conducted a survey of 4,800 people on violence against women and girls—otherwise known as VAWG—which asked about digital abuse. Half of the women surveyed, 51%, said they had experienced unwanted or inappropriate messages or images online. Only 12% of those women reported it to the police or any official body. Only a third of survey respondents felt confident that the police would act if they reported an incident, and just 8% trusted the wider criminal justice system to deliver any kind of justice.
Research by the domestic abuse organisation Refuge states that almost every survivor they have supported was subject to some form of technology-facilitated abuse. Some 95% of survivors of technology-facilitated abuse said it had impacted their mental health. I work closely with many organisations in Preston that tackle VAWG, many of which I am pleased to say are here today to observe the debate: the Foxton Centre, Lancashire Women, Hope Prevails Preston, Girls Who Walk Preston and Trust House Lancashire. We are also talking about stalking and abuse. Most of us would think about conventional stalking, where a perpetrator knows the individual or there is often a real-life link between them. The digital world has transformed the ways in which perpetrators utilise online tools to commit intimate partner abuse and coercive control.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is an incredibly difficult subject to address, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing it incredibly well. As a grandfather of three beautiful granddaughters and having seen how the online world has made so many women and girls vulnerable to despicable attacks, I certainly share his concerns, and I believe that we must do more to ensure that safety is paramount. Does he agree that not only do we need to make it digitally impossible to carry out exploitation, but we must ensure that our young people are taught the dangers of image sharing, which can lead to image replication online? The Department for Education, in co-ordination with parents, has a key role to play in that.
Sir Mark Hendrick
I totally agree. In fact, I have just been discussing with some of our visitors from Lancashire what needs to happen in schools so that young people are aware of digital exploitation and the damage and distress that it can cause. I hope the Minister, who is in her place, will look at ways in which the Government could facilitate legislation so that, in future, many of these digital crimes could be included in the statute books and not be regarded as things that the police can do nothing about.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that consent is vital, teaching about consent and seeking consent is imperative, and that the influencers and politicians who say that is too woke and is unnecessary are actually putting our children in danger?
Sir Mark Hendrick
I totally agree. Without getting too much into the politics of this, there is a very right-wing argument about what free speech means. When I first came to Parliament in the early 2000s, the then Prime Minister used to talk about rights and responsibilities. We all believe in rights, but they need to be balanced against responsibilities. The idea that somebody can print or send a person’s image and not take responsibility for the consequences is ridiculous. A lot of the current free speech arguments do not give that balance. We need to make sure that the young people and older people who are carrying out these acts know fully what they are doing, are willing to take responsibility for it and that the legal system is equipped to deal with it.
As I said, research by Refuge showed that almost every survivor it supported was subjected to some form of technology-facilitated abuse. When we talk about stalking and abuse, most of us think of conventional stalking, but the digital world has transformed the ways in which perpetrators use online tools to commit intimate partner abuse and coercive control.
In relationships with coercive control as an element, technology is often used to stalk, track and watch a partner’s location at all times. If this were carried out in person and a perpetrator physically followed an individual, that would cross the threshold for criminal prosecution. However, doing the same thing through a device in the digital world has become normalised and is not considered criminal.
This encourages perpetrators to use technology to facilitate abuse as it is more convenient and often evades prosecution. Tech devices, such as Ring doorbells, AirTags and cloning devices are used to track and further stalk victims. In-person stalking is facilitated by the introduction of such devices. Lancashire constabulary has acknowledged the increasing use of social media and messaging apps in coercive control cases. All police forces in the north-west report a year-on-year increase in digital elements in VAWG cases.
We are also seeing the rise of non-consensual intimate image sharing, often referred to as revenge porn. These images are often shared digitally on websites. The person in the image does not have ownership of that image, meaning that it is almost impossible for it to be taken down at the victim’s request. The Revenge Porn Helpline recorded 22,275 reports in 2024, which is a 20.9% increase from the previous year, and 412,000 intimate images have been reported since 2015. We have also seen an increase in online stalking, often through social media, catfishing and doxing, to share personal information such as addresses, workplaces, children’s schools, benefits and immigration status and much more.
The issue of digital abuse is even more severe. Perpetrators are often unknown individuals or organisations, utilising online means such as dark web markets and unregulated servers. Strangers obtain images of women and monetise them. Some of the images are obtained or created to order, and there is increased use of AI to create deepfakes, undress victims and attach false bodies to victims’ faces.
There is also a market for perpetrators to obtain lists of leaked passwords, which can then be used to hack into victims’ personal accounts, where personal photographs are often kept. Widely used dark web servers are monetised to exchange explicit images of women and girls. That represents a significant shift from earlier patterns, where such images were more commonly shared in private by an intimate partner in their social circle.
In the majority of cases of digital abuse, the victims and perpetrators are not known to each other. The threat to share images also happens to under-age boys and girls, including threats to share falsified, AI-created images. That has led to suicide attempts, and, tragically, the completion of suicide in some cases.
One of the most concerning developments in digital exploitation is under-the-radar abuse, where victims have no idea or knowledge that their private images have been accessed, copied or distributed without their consent. We are aware that the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, even of children, has led to perpetrators planning to gang rape some victims in those images. Currently, there is no legal definition of technology-facilitated abuse, and I hope that the Minister will address that point in her remarks. It means that it is almost impossible to prosecute, leaving victims without the ability to seek justice before the court. That situation should not be allowed to happen.
Prosecutors have to rely on other legislation that is often outdated and does not take the growing digital world into account. That results in short sentences and no real justice for the victims. The difficulties of prosecution lead to a lack of understanding by both prosecutors and the police, as well as continued offences and reoffending, which pushes victims into stressful situations, contributing to mental health complexities. The volume of cases put to prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service is remarkably low, and convictions are even lower. Although we are seeing an increase in the reporting of digital abuse, it often leads to victims feeling disappointed and isolated, as the criminal justice process fails to deliver meaningful outcomes.
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is outdated, and the police are still having to apply the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when considering seizing and examining devices. That is also outdated, as mobile phones and cloud-based storage did not exist in the way that they do today. Unfortunately, in some cases, victims need to collate their own evidence, as police forces do not have adequate training or an understanding of the severity of these issues. For example, a member of Girls Who Walk Preston, who is in the Public Gallery, has had a stalker for the last six years who the police have been unhelpful with, because she has not received death threats. The stalker lives under a different police force and refuses to admit that their accounts belong to them. The victim has been forced to collate her own evidence, to prove that the accounts do in fact belong to the stalker. That should not be necessary. It is an outrage, and she should not have to endure it.
I supported a constituent who has been stalked at work, which again fell under a different police force. There is a clear gap in how different constabularies understand and can prosecute those cases. While the picture has been improving in that regard in Lancashire, it is not a country-wide push.
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Is it not also imperative—I think the Government have done some work on this—that women being stalked know who their stalker is? Sometimes they do not know, and it means that they could be at a bus stop, and their stalker could be behind them without them knowing. I am glad that the Government have done some work on that. It is important that, as technologies change, we have the legislation to keep up with them.
Sir Mark Hendrick
I totally concur; my hon. Friend makes some very strong points.
The examples that I just mentioned highlight the need for consistent and mandatory guidance for all police forces to recognise digital abuse and online stalking, and not just take it for granted that there is nothing they can do about it. I call for national mandatory education for all police forces to recognise and deal with victims of digital abuse and exploitation; exploration of a legal definition of technology-facilitated abuse; and the provision of up-to-date legislation for the prosecution of offences, modernised in line with an ever-evolving digital world.
I welcome the commitment from the Minister to work with technology companies to stop online predators and the spread of explicit images stolen through hacking. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to enact, through the Crime and Policing Bill, a new offence of taking or recording an intimate photograph or film without consent. I would be happy to support the Minister in any way to achieve this objective, working with my own local police force.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called to speak. I will call the Front Benchers at eight minutes past 5, so will Members please keep their speeches to about two and a half minutes each?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) on securing this very important debate. In 2018, I introduced the upskirting Bill, the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill. At the time, an alarming number of men did not consider it harassment or an offence to upskirt a female. Too often, behaviours such as upskirting are dismissed as a laugh or as not that serious. I reject that entirely.
These are not victimless acts. We know that these kinds of violations often cause long-lasting psychological harm to the victims. We must also recognise the strong link between online and offline abuse. After all, it was the offence of upskirting that first led to Dominique Pelicot’s horrific crimes being brought to light in 2020. We know that if perpetrators get away with lower-level offences, they move on to more serious crime.
The law must move as fast as technology does, but it feels as if we are constantly on the back foot in reacting to novel uses of technology that harm women and girls, for example the recent rise of AI-generated indecent images and deepfakes. We must develop more proactive measures, because by the time we legislate against one form of technology-facilitated abuse, another seems to emerge.
It is for Ofcom to hold social media companies to account, but in my view it is currently failing to treat the digital exploitation of women and girls with the seriousness that it deserves. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for a dedicated online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online. I hope that the Government will take that seriously.
Another example of technology developing faster than regulation is the rise of covert filming using smart glasses. Across social media, footage is being uploaded of women who have been filmed without their consent. Often, it has been taken outside nightclubs and gyms, when women are out walking or running—as we heard in the earlier debate—or on beaches, violating the privacy of women without their even being aware that they are being filmed.
The Government must send a clear message to the tech sector that women’s safety is not optional. If they are serious about tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls, we must create a safer online environment, backed up by strong legislation and enforcement.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
It is a beyond fantastic pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing such an important and extremely timely debate. As we have seen over the past weeks, months and years, the exploitation of women and girls comes in many forms; the digital landscape does not automatically protect them from physical harm. We have seen recently how easily predators can sexually exploit women and girls through deepfakes on social media, and how these actions are actively promoted by platforms. That exploitation can also translate into the exploitation of physical insecurities, which can lead women and girls down a dangerous and unattainable path.
Unrealistic body standards in advertising are not a new phenomenon, but AI has deepened the problem. It is beyond the pale: it now enables girls to be exposed to imagery promoting body types that quite literally defy the laws of physics. Such content is not something that they stumble on; it is actively pushed at them through targeted advertising. Once a social media platform identifies a user as a girl or a young woman, the algorithm begins promoting harmful material directly into their feed.
A recent Government report found that 19% of girls aged between 14 and 16 had been exposed to harmful content promoting extreme thinness—nearly three times the figure reported by their male classmates. A leaked internal report from Meta went further, indicating that its eating disorder-related algorithm is more likely to target users who have previously engaged with content about body dissatisfaction. That is a malicious example of how these companies, which by the way are fully aware of these risks, continue to exploit the insecurities of women and girls.
Some of the most distressing cases of deepfakes and technology-facilitated sexual abuse have resulted in women losing their job, their reputation and even access to their children. These incidents send an appalling message that perpetrators can wield overwhelming power over their victims. They confirm the very fears that many survivors live with every day.
If social media and AI companies are willing to stand by while their algorithms amplify content about dangerous eating disorders and give abusers free rein to harm women and their children, we must act. This is a significant fight, but one that I and many of my colleagues are absolutely committed to continuing. If we are not vigilant, we risk allowing our digital world to be shaped by the misogynistic impulses of figures like Elon Musk and the wider manosphere, rather than building an online world that safeguards and protects women and girls.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The argument for urgent and robust regulation to protect girls online has been won, thanks in no small part to the grit and resilience of survivors who have spoken out, and of the Minister herself, who is a formidable force in this area.
I began campaigning on this issue in defence of 14-year-old girls. Being 14 is tough: your hormones are wild, your body is changing, you take risks and you are desperate to belong. It has not been that long—although it is longer than I care to state to the House—since I was 14, so I do remember it. Some people advocate for an imaginary time gone by, filled with innocence, skipping ropes and cross-stitch, but that world was not real for most girls. Most 14-year-old girls will take risks, will keep secrets, will have a crush or 10, and will say mean things they should not say. That is part of growing up.
What we have allowed to happen to our girls, through the explosion of unsupervised stranger contact and self-published content, is utterly appalling. It is not normal, and we must take action now. I will outline as quickly as possible why I think we must take action to ban any form of stranger contact for under-16s online and why self-published content and functionalities that publish unregulated and unvetted content need to be banned for under-16s, to stop the exploitation.
The first meeting I had when I was elected was with the headteachers of secondary schools in Darlington, about online safety. I wanted to hear what the real issue was in Darlington and how severe it was, because so many parents had raised it with me. The results from the first forum, in which a thousand pupils came forward, were worse than I had feared: 60% of girls had known someone who had been bullied or blackmailed online, 53% of girls had been contacted by somebody lying about their age, 49% had been asked for pictures or personal information, compared with 28% of boys, and over 70% had been contacted by a stranger. One 14-year-old girl told me that they had been added to groups of strangers and that extreme content was then shared. That was on an app where you are not supposed to have contact from strangers.
The platforms say that adults should no longer be able to contact under-16s, but it is obvious that it is still happening. It is easy to pass through: recent analysis of the ban in Australia showed that a lot of children had drawn on moustaches and coloured in fake beards in order to pass the facial recognition age verification test. I urge the Minister to look into that and to offer her support for a more rigorous ban.
Obviously, strangers should not be able to contact under-16-year-old girls. The secondary point about enforcement is quite clear, but there is also a point that has not yet been made to the House, about self-publishing and online safety. Where we see self-published content, we see an organised criminal network of people grooming children through links and through more enticing content that might lead them into a darker space that is even less regulated. I urge the Minister to support work to address that.
Finally, we need to address the deep imbalance in who pays the price for online extortion with images of girls. Girls who make a single mistake are made to suffer a permanent price. That is obviously wrong. Their image could be circulated at any time. The threat of it is unbearable: it can be used anywhere and shared with any number of people throughout their life. That is brutal enough, but as one girl in the forum said to me, “It’s so wrong. The girl’s always blamed. She’s totally responsible.” Can the Minister outline how we can do more to support girls who are victims and survivors?
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this debate. It could not be timelier, because today represents a significant day for the constituency and community that I represent.
Three years ago, Holly Newton lost her life at the hands of her ex-boyfriend in Hexham. She was a much-loved daughter, granddaughter and sister, a loving friend and a talented dancer. She was just 15 years old. Her ex-boyfriend had become increasingly obsessed, coercive and controlling in the lead-up to her murder, attempting to isolate her from friends and relentlessly bombarding her. Three years ago, he used Snapchat to track her movements before fatally stabbing her. The exploitation of technology was used as one of a range of tools to abuse Holly and ultimately to end her life.
Devastatingly for her family, this abhorrent act of violence against Holly and the abuse that preceded it are not recognised as domestic violence, as Holly was under the age of 16. Micala, Holly’s mother, experienced a horrifyingly similar lack of support or acknowledgment of her own experience of domestic abuse as a teenager. Without recognition for domestic abuse victims under the age of 16, the system will continue to fail children across the country.
I support the family and the campaign for Holly’s law, which would change the age of recognition and the development of relationship education for all young people. It is a critical flaw that we are not legally recognising victims when we know that they exist and that perpetrators in the realm of digital exploitation and abuse are themselves increasingly under the age of 16 or 18. I thank the Minister for the time she took to meet us last week, when we discussed the next steps for the campaign and addressed potential routes to reform.
Technology is being weaponised against women and girls at a speed that far outpaces our systems to safeguard and support victims, prosecute perpetrators and intervene in cases before warning signs escalate into fatalities. I want to touch briefly on a case that my office has been working on with another constituent for well over a year. Not only has she suffered the most appalling digital violation, but she has been a victim of systemic flaws when it comes to this form of abuse. She discovered that her partner had spent several years taking non-consensual intimate photographic images of her and had posted them to websites and forums online. He was arrested, but while he was in custody he refused to share the PIN to access his device.
The investigating force did not have the technology required to effectively review the device, which was key to the perpetrator’s activity. It had no way to prove where the non-consensual images came from or prove their existence with any electronic footprint on the suspect’s devices. With only circumstantial evidence based on who had access to the images, and with the suspect denying the accusations against him, the police could not meet the evidential threshold required for the CPS to charge. After being released, he was free to go straight back into the community, holding the very device that could be used to further perpetrate abuse, which he did. He turned to AI nudification apps to continue to produce non-consensual imagery of the victim and cover his digital tracks in the process.
Investigation resources, appropriate technologies and the boundaries of the evidential threshold have all conspired against this innocent woman whose life has been devastated by digital and domestic abuse. I urge the Minister to look proactively at a cross-departmental approach to ensuring that our commitment to tackling digital exploitation is effective and addresses the systemic gaps.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but to get everyone in we will have to go down to two minutes each.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this important debate.
With increased access to the internet, the exploitation of vulnerable children, predominantly young girls, has become easier for predators. Over the past few years, we have seen the rise of deepfakes on social media: the National Police Chiefs’ Council estimates that they have increased in prevalence by 1,780% between 2019 and 2024. Let me be clear: the toxic culture of misogynistic behaviour online is not banter. It is not free speech. It is abuse.
We know that the victims of online misogyny, abuse and exploitation are predominantly women and girls, so I welcome the Government’s bold action in making it a criminal offence to create or request the creation of non-consensual intimate images. How we respond to online abuse defines what kind of society we are and what kind of society we are prepared to be. We should be a society that stands up for dignity and equality for all women and girls.
The speed at which these images can be produced and shared is truly alarming. I worry that without social media platforms taking more responsibility to remove this content from their sites, we will never truly be rid of it. There needs to be more emphasis on stopping the predators who create the images and on ensuring that such images can be removed swiftly from sites to protect women and girls. That needs to be backed by legislation.
The answer should never be for girls and women to log off or stay quiet. Exploitation of women and girls online is not inevitable; it is a failure of choice and a failure of systems. If we have the power to design these systems, we have the responsibility to make them safe.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this hugely important debate.
At the start of the year, many of us were horrified by the ease and speed at which thousands of women and children had their bodily autonomy violated, simply for existing online, but we should not kid ourselves that this was a one-off or an isolated scandal. Digital abuse of women and girls is not an anomaly; it is systemic. Only a few weeks ago, it was reported that Meta’s smart glasses are being used to secretly film women without their consent. This is not accidental misuse; it is foreseeable harm. Before these technologies are embedded in the fabric of everyday life, we have a duty to regulate and legislate so that women and girls do not become the tragic cost of a tech revolution that prizes innovation over safety. We must be proactive, not reactive, because the ways in which women and girls are degraded and denied bodily autonomy online are constantly evolving.
We must enforce safety by design, and it must mean more than administrative box-ticking. Tech firms must be able to demonstrate that they have seriously considered the harms their products may cause, and that they have meaningfully mitigated those risks. There is so much more I could say on this, particularly in the case of Grok and Meta’s smart glasses. Even a moment’s serious reflection would have made it glaringly obvious that these technologies could be exploited. This failure has already cost thousands of women and girls their sense of safety and dignity online. We must take a firm and sustained approach, and fully empower Ofcom, so that this moment of technological progress does not become a major step backward for women’s safety.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The recent horrific stories about Grok and other AI-enabled abuse have highlighted a trend with which far too many women are very familiar. The online world, for all its benefits, has also brought new opportunities for them to experience exactly the same degrading abuse that they are all too familiar with in day-to-day life.
There are three really important lessons for us all to take from the Grok case. First, given the platform's consistent inability to act on its own before being pushed, we need to continue to be proactive in taking on tech firms. Secondly, the fact that we were able to deliver such fantastic action so quickly teaches us that when tools can be delivered robustly and with confidence, change is possible. Thanks to the brave testimony of many women, many of whom knew that in speaking up they would be making themselves targets for abuse, we were able to drive robust action from Ofcom and get X to back down. Thirdly, if we are to continue to keep pace with developing risk factors, we need to find quicker ways to legislate. The Online Safety Act 2023, for all its strengths, took far too long. We have to get comfortable with more principles-based legislation or secondary legislation options to ensure finally that we can do far better to keep women and children safe online.
Across Government, we need to make sure that our own services cannot be used to enable people to perpetuate abuse. I have been working with one woman who, having escaped domestic abuse and relocated to my constituency, now finds herself unable to reject a simple planning application because, in doing so, the local authority requires her to be comfortable publishing her full name and address online. This important democratic right cannot be denied to women fleeing domestic abuse, of all people. I welcome the chance to talk further with the Minister, after this debate, about what wider work we can do across Government to put this right and to ensure that none of our services, online or offline, are enabling women to be anything other than safe in their homes and thriving in their lives.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this important debate. I speak today as the MP for Portsmouth North, but also as a former teacher, a mum of three young men and a victim of this crime.
In Portsmouth, our residents live much of their lives online for work, study, information, and socialising, but the reality for many users is worrying. In 2023-24, of the cyber-crimes reported in Portsmouth, 34% were online bullying or harassment, 30% malicious messaging, 10% stalking and 8% sexual offences. Disgustingly, that number includes 60 cases involving images of children. Most of the victims were women under the age of 45, and their perpetrators were known to them, yet only 13% reported these crimes, leaving too many to suffer in silence or to be told that their complaint did not meet the threshold.
The digital revolution has brought opportunity, but it has also brought new and relentless forms of abuse. UN Women warns that AI deepfakes, grooming and image-based abuse are escalating. The recent use of AI to generate non-consensual sexual images, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston noted in opening this debate, shows how quickly technology can be weaponised, and how tech giants are complicit.
Let me be clear: this is not about blaming girls or young women, or boys and young men. It is about responsibility, consent and respect. It must be clear that technology does not remove consent, and anonymity does not remove accountability. Women and girls should never have to navigate fear, shame or harassment just to live their lives.
I welcome the strengthening of the law and the introduction of the long-awaited VAWG strategy. I am proud to be part of a Government who have presented it and will deliver it, but we all know that laws alone are not enough, because technology moves quickly. We need stronger enforcement, safeguarding at the source, and education for young people and their parents about respect and consent online as well as offline.
There must be joined-up Government working, taking young people, their parents and whole communities with us, so that we can change the landscape and the culture, ensure that young women and girls in Portsmouth and across the country are safe online, and give victims the confidence they need to come forward.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Thank you very much, we managed to get everybody in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Marie Goldman.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this very important debate.
All of us here recognise that rapid technological change is creating new risks and contexts for the exploitation of women and girls. The speed, anonymity and ease of communication provided by social media, combined with increasingly sophisticated AI tools, have led to new forms of sexual abuse emerging at alarming rates.
In 2025, the Internet Watch Foundation discovered 3,440 AI videos of child sexual abuse, a vast increase on the previous year, when only 13 such videos were found. That is why this debate, and our swift action, are so important. Far more needs to be done to keep women and girls safe online, and doing so is becoming at once more difficult and more urgent by the day. If we do not act swiftly, we cannot be surprised when new technologies exploit our lack of urgency.
Lola McEvoy
Does the hon. Member have any observations on the fact that technology has always outstripped legislation, and that this is actually about accountability and the enforcement of regulation?
Marie Goldman
Absolutely, and that has always been the case. Equally, we need to learn from the fact that it has always been the case and not be surprised when these things happen. We must not wring our hands and say, “There is harm being done—what could we possibly do about it?” We need to think smarter than that and bring in legislation that is much more forward-thinking and adaptable, and enables swifter action.
As hon. Members have already pointed out in this debate, digital abuse and exploitation are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls. Research from Internet Matters found that 99% of new deepfakes are of women and girls. Moreover, according to the Revenge Porn Helpline, 98% of intimate images reported to its service were of women and 99% of deepfake intimate image abuse depicts women. It has also been discovered that many AI nudification tools do not actually work on images of boys and men.
We have now reached a point where AI tools embedded in major platforms are capable of producing sexual abuse material, demonstrating serious failings in our current framework. X’s AI tool, Grok, is a case in point. We have talked about this many times before. Grok facilitated the illegal generation and circulation of non-consensual sexual images, yet Ofcom’s response was, I am sorry to say, woefully slow. The executive summary of the violence against women and girls strategy states that it will
“ensure that the UK has one of the most robust responses to perpetrators of VAWG in the world.”
I agree with that intention, but we must recognise that Ofcom’s response was not wholly robust. We must do something about that; we owe it to women and girls in this country to act sooner and stronger. We need more effective legislation and a regulator with the capability and confidence to take appropriate and, crucially, swift action.
I welcome the move to make the creation of non-consensual intimate AI images a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, but that will be effective only if online platforms and services are held accountable under that Act. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called on the National Crime Agency to launch an urgent criminal investigation into X, which should still happen, and to treat the generation of illegal, sexual abuse material with the seriousness it demands. We must act decisively when social media platforms refuse to comply with the law.
It is also time that we introduce age ratings for online platforms and limit harmful social media to over-16s. How can we expect to tackle violence against women and girls when the next generation is being drip-fed misogynistic content on social media?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is right. Does she agree that online pornography remains an issue that needs to be tackled? The statistics show that more than 50% of young boys aged 11 to 13 have already seen porn, and that it is shaping their minds about what consent is.
Marie Goldman
There are so many aspects to this problem. What we, the parents, saw in the fledgling days of social media is not at all what our children are seeing now. We need to recognise that and act against it. What our children see online is already affecting their worldview. Internet Matters research from 2023 found that 42% of children aged nine to 16 had a favourable or neutral view of the well-known misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate, and that older teenage boys were particularly susceptible. That is incredibly worrying. Decisive action to tackle the digital exploitation of women and girls is needed across the board. Online harm is genuine harm, and we must treat it as such. There is a lot of work to do, but I am keen to work cross-party to get it done. I hope the Minister is too.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Digital exploitation does not affect women and girls exclusively, but, given that four in five victims of online grooming are girls, it is an issue that we must focus on. As MPs, we are all aware of the risks and threats that women face in the online sphere. It is no surprise that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that only 9% of girls feel safe in online spaces. The accounts of stalking given earlier are terrifying, especially those using Ring doorbells, which are designed to keep people safe; that they would be manipulated in that way is horrific. The case of Holly that involved Snapchat in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) is frankly horrifying.
There is no doubt that the complexity of the online world has resulted in significant digital exploitation. At this very moment, online content is being produced that takes advantage of women for financial gain. That is particularly worrying given that, according to Ofcom’s 2025 report on the time people spend online, women are spending more time than men across an array of websites. The issues around the digital exploitation of women and girls are particularly prominent on social media sites: over half of girls and women report receiving sexist comments about themselves online. This is a problem on an industrial scale.
The recent Grok sexual imagery debacle brought this into sharp focus. It demonstrated the dangers posed to women who had not even engaged with the technology. People merely used an existing image to take advantage of the technology and spread it using the power of social media. I welcome steps to stop it, but are we equipped to handle the changing digital landscape in the future? The Online Safety Act introduced key changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and criminalised sharing intimate images of another person without their consent. The Government are now adding provisions to the Act to make it a criminal offence to create non-consensual intimate images. Do the Government believe that that will be sufficient, and that Ofcom has the necessary powers to stop this abhorrent practice?
What I have seen from the Government so far is a reactive approach to AI and how it relates to women and girls. The technology is undoubtedly here to stay, but given the uncertainty of its development, is the Minister confident that the Government’s approach is sufficiently agile to prevent people from taking advantage of the technology to exploit women and girls?
As we have heard, AI is only one part of the problem: social media is driving much of the digital exploitation of women and girls. Data from 44 forces provided to the NSPCC showed that the police recorded 7,263 “sexual communications with a child” offences in the last year— a number that has almost doubled since the offence came into force in 2017-18. Data from the crime survey of England and Wales showed an increase of 6% in child exploitation offences compared with the previous year, and that comes on top of evidence that these platforms are linked to the fact girls are twice as likely as boys to experience anxiety. Recent data shows that girls who use social media at the age of 11 report greater distrust of other people at the age of 14.
The problem is only growing. Every day that the Government delay is another day that millions of girls are left at risk. We do not need further reviews or consultations; we need a ban on social media for under-16s. It is time to grip this issue.
Lola McEvoy
Will the hon. Lady elaborate on her definitions of “social media” and “ban”?
Sarah Bool
In terms of social media, I mean platforms such as Facebook and Snapchat; I am not talking about WhatsApp, which is a communication platform that many families use, although we have to be careful how it is used, because images can be shared on it.
A ban is about ensuring that children cannot access these platforms. The issue has been raised at different levels. The problem is the content that children can see, and especially the way the algorithms are used. I recognise that the companies also need to take responsibility for what is being accessed and how people are accessing it, because this is going on at a scale larger than any parent could imagine. This is not the social media that we grew up on, where we used to post a little note on a wall for our friend’s birthday or upload photos from a night out—that is definitely not what children are seeing.
Lola McEvoy
My problem with the hon. Lady’s argument is that we have constantly said that our legislation is lagging behind technological advances, but the proposed solution is to name a number of platforms where there is evidence of exploitation, crime and damage. I agree that we need to do that, but is it not better to make evergreen legislation, as some Members have argued, than to have a list of examples that somebody else has come up with?
Sarah Bool
I agree, but we need to take action now on the ones that we are aware of. Our legislation absolutely needs to be much more agile for the future, and I am not saying that a ban will be a silver bullet, but it will protect many girls from digital exploitation. That is why I am asking the Minister to follow the policy set out by the Conservative party, which was accepted in the House of Lords, and prohibit those under the age of 16 from using social media. If we do not put our children into those arenas, they will be far less likely to experience the opportunities for exploitation that stem from the internet and target the young and the vulnerable.
If the Government support those measures, they could move fast and take action without delay. Let me be clear: the challenges posed by digital exploitation will not vanish if we prohibit the use of social media, but that would be a bulwark against the dangers that social media poses, particularly to young people. If we allow people to access these platforms when they are more mature and more educated, we can hopefully achieve reductions in exploitation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
As others have said, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing the debate, and to all Members who have spoken.
From the get-go, I want to set out my stall and talk about exactly how I feel about this issue. If someone makes their money through harming women, and if part of their business model is sharing terrible, sexualised, faked images of people like me—well, I am not really allowed to say what I think about that, but I want to make it completely clear that it is totally and utterly unacceptable. Discussions like this are essential, especially as we know that the technology is developing more quickly than we can write legislation.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) asked why we cannot ban these things now. I remember the Online Safety Act going through Parliament, and I have to say that it is a triumph of hope over experience to think that I could just say, “Ban it now,” and that by tomorrow it would be banned. If only I wielded such a great ban hammer, I would be banning stuff all over the shop—no one would be listening to their phone out loud on the train any more. But that pace of change is not one that legislation easily keeps up with, and I say to other hon. Members who have spoken that we need to find backstops and ways to make our legislation more agile, so that it can change without having to go through some of the processes we have—I gave 10 years of my life to the Online Safety Act.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not enforcement that is really lacking? Should legislation make enforcement the prime tool?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. She is absolutely right that we need to make sure these things are enforced. To Members who spoke about pornography, I would say that there are reasons to be cheerful about the enforcement by Ofcom. I could dance a jig because Pornhub has reported a 77% reduction in traffic since age verification stopped young people being able to access it so easily. We are in the foothills of what that legislation can do. Where pornography companies have not been undertaking age verification, Ofcom has issued £1 million fines, and changes have been made to companies’ roles in the UK, so that they meet our laws. So there are reasons to think that there is some enforcement, but I absolutely agree that we need to grapple with the agility, scale and scope of that enforcement.
I must come to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. Before I came to the debate, my colleague the Minister for victims was telling me how amazing my hon. Friend and his office have been in Preston in handling online abuse. People in our constituency offices often do not get praised for these things, but I hear that my hon. Friend has a legend working in his office.
My hon. Friend talked about the importance of education in this space, and about this being a country-wide push for change, and I could not agree more. The Government have invested in this issue, and it will be an absolutely fundamental part of the violence against women and girls strategy.
The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection will do exactly what my hon. Friend talked about, so that the good standards, for example, in Cheshire—it is not far from him, and the anti-stalking practices are amazing and world-leading—are the same for people in the west midlands and everywhere else. My hon. Friend used the example of stalking legislation and making sure there are standardised systems and standards that police forces have to live by, which will absolutely include upskilling, when policing the digital elements of these crimes, whether it is domestic abuse or online. Stalking online is as illegal as stalking in real life—just to be clear, they are the same crime.
My hon. Friend talked about the richest man in the world. I am not sure there are many people in this building who have quite such a claim against the richest man in the world as me. What happened is unacceptable, and anyone who has existed online will know about the Grok outcry.
Some hon. Members mentioned Meta glasses. If I had been in the meeting where they floated the idea of making Meta glasses, the very first thing I would have said would have been, “These are going to be used to abuse women.” Why is that not being baked into the design of such products?
One of the things the violence against women and girls strategy has absolutely committed to is working on safety by design. In the car industry, we now take safety features for granted. If we are talking about what it was like when we were kids versus now, my dad used to put us in the back of the car and purposefully go round the corners fast so that we would smack into the window. These things are not acceptable now.
We have to go on a journey with this technology. To me, a Ring doorbell is such an obvious way to stalk somebody, as is an AirTag. I see cases again and again. It does not matter what the new technologies are; perpetrators of these abuses will find a way to use them for that purpose, so we need to design in safety functions. On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) about planning, I will take that away and work with him.
The Government obviously took a strong stance—I felt pleased about this—against Grok. We can see that when we stand together and people speak up, we can make change in this area, but we need to make sustainable change. We absolutely are always looking at legislative changes. As people have said, there have been a number of those. There is the issue of Grok being added into the Online Safety Act, so that there can be accountability on that basis.
In the Crime and Policing Bill, we are also banning nudification apps. I have also had it shown to me that they do not work on men and boys, which I am glad about for men’s and boys’ sake, but if you are designing something that will nudify only women, you have a problem. I do not know who I can talk to, but there is something wrong with you. Have a word with yourself; otherwise, we will have a word with you. The ban will target firms and individuals providing and supplying tools that use AI to turn images of real people into fake nudes.
There is a raft of other legislation that we are putting through and that we hope will shift the dial. Obviously, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made a very clear commitment to ensuring that we make it impossible for children to take and share naked images of themselves—we will make it impossible for them to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and others talked about children being taken from social media and on to other platforms. I have to say that encrypted spaces are the most dangerous for child abuse imagery. But to the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, who was talking about that, I say this: 91% of all child sexual abuse images are self-made; they are made by children themselves. People have groomed them—exploited them—to make those images. It may be their peers.
We will not stop this just by looking at the issue of new AI. There is an issue with where our children can go and who has access to them. I agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment. We have to make sure that we get this right. Even with the 10 years of work on the Online Safety Act, and with the level of detail and, I have to say, the arguments that went into it, it still has all the gaps that we are talking about, so we need to make sure we get this right and legislate in a way that can be agile for the future. That is why I think the Government need to take the time—not too much time, I agree—to make sure we do that.
Others talked about accountability and whether anyone ever actually gets punished for these things. As part of the work we are doing in the Home Office, we are expanding the use of covert officers to address violence against women and girls, and improving the capabilities to counter and reduce the highest harms. We operate a similar system with regard to child abuse online. We are now doing that also for women and girls online, recognising the level of organised crime that is behind this. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about people who are asleep and being filmed, like Gisèle Pelicot. These issues deserve a police force specifically looking at the covert aspect, and that is what this Government are doing.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I call Sir Mark Hendrick to wind up the debate extremely briefly—in about 5 seconds.
Sir Mark Hendrick
Thank you, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister and all my colleagues for an excellent debate. I think we had a brilliant response from the Minister. I am sure she is determined to ensure that the digital space can be as safe as possible for women and children, and for everybody else as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling the digital exploitation of women and girls.