House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Transport questions, I wish to pay tribute to a former colleague, David Winnick, who died yesterday. David served as a Member of Parliament for 42 years, initially as the MP for Croydon South and then, notably, from 1979 to 2017 as the MP for Walsall North. He was a dedicated member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, including as its co-chair. David was also a long-standing member of the Home Affairs Committee. I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in sending our condolences to David’s family and friends, who are very much in our thoughts today.
Let us move on to questions to the Secretary of State for Transport, and may I wish a happy birthday to Lilian Greenwood?
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
On behalf of the Government, may I associate myself with your remarks about David Winnick and extend our condolences to his family?
Bringing Greater Anglia and other east of England train operators into public ownership will put passengers first. Since coming into public ownership in 2025, both Greater Anglia and c2c are delivering some of the lowest cancellation rates in the country, while new stations and upgrades across the region are improving reliability and accessibility as we move towards an integrated, passenger-focused rail network.
Peter Prinsley
I am grateful for that answer. Greater Anglia has consistently been at the top of the performance scale for our railway operators, but could the Secretary of State tell me whether the nationalisation of the railway will lead to the increased likelihood of a much better commuter service between Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge, which is presently only an hourly service, and what the prospect is of a direct train line from Bury St Edmunds to London?
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and those using rail services in his area. I can assure him that Greater Anglia continually looks for opportunities to improve service frequency. Services will be strengthened for customers and communities on regional routes, including in the Stowmarket area, in the new timetable from Sunday 17 May. As we work towards the establishment of Great British Railways, we will continue to look for further opportunities to strengthen services.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Nationalisation was supposed to put local communities in touch. Grimsby is the largest town in the east of England without a direct train to London. We have been campaigning for one for years, and now the Secretary of State has written to me to say that we are not going to get the train because of accessibility problems in Market Rasen station. It is ludicrous to spend £15 million on extending a platform that does not need to be extended and building a bridge that does not need to be built. What does the Secretary of State want me to do? Does she want me to get on my knees and beg for this train? Let me do so now—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have been campaigning for this for our local community for years.
Heidi Alexander
I think that is possibly a first for the Father of the House, and it underlines the strength of feeling that he and his constituents have about improved rail services. He is right; I did write to him on 17 March and confirmed that while we could run trains without major infrastructure changes, we would have to find additional funding to support the necessary service pattern changes. For LNER services to call at Market Rasen, significant upgrades would be needed to the station to enable safe and compliant operation.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are investing nearly £280 million to improve accessibility at stations through the Access for All programme. In January, 31 further stations were moved into delivery or design. I am very happy to say that, thanks to my hon. Friend’s campaigning, Dalston Kingsland station in her constituency is among those progressing as part of the national programme.
Dame Meg Hillier
You know that you are making your mark when Ministers name your station before you do—or one does, I should say. I am delighted that it has got to the next stage. I invite the Minister or the Secretary of State to visit Dalston Kingsland to see the impact of not having a lift at this station when, along the rest of the Mildmay line, stations are accessible. It is a key station for the world-famous Ridley Road market in my constituency. Will a visit be possible?
Keir Mather
On the subject of step-free access, I know that Network Rail is engaging with stakeholders to progress designs. I am happy to facilitate a discussion between my hon. Friend and Network Rail on plans to improve accessibility. I have also heard that the Secretary of State is keen to attend the visit that my hon. Friend outlines.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You have elevated me to heights I did not even know I could reach, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Minister for that answer to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). Not a week passes without some of us getting complaints about accessibility, yet equality law is clear. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is accessibility at all train stations for all disabled people that meets equality legislation? Quite clearly, at this moment in time it does not.
Keir Mather
In the Government’s published accessibility road map, we have pledged to continue the Access for All programme. That is alongside the fact that step-free routes, which the hon. Gentleman mentions, have already been rolled out to 270 stations so far. The Railways Bill, which is still making its way through this place, contains a legal duty to promote the interests of passengers with disabilities so that accessibility can be at the heart of our railway.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I know that driving test waiting times remain too high, but there are signs that we are starting to turn the corner thanks to the action that we have taken since coming into government. We are increasing examiner capacity, improving booking rules and using Ministry of Defence examiners to provide additional tests. We now have over 100 more examiners in post than in February last year, and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has delivered over 124,000 more tests this financial year than last year. We will keep the House updated as progress continues.
Brian Mathew
Young constituents in Melksham and Devizes who are waiting months for driving tests are resorting to paying premium prices for cancellation apps, often getting slots halfway across the country, just to get on the road. One 20-year-old told me that the costs of the wait killed his motivation entirely and that driving was becoming financially out of reach. Given that in rural areas such as mine driving is not a luxury but a necessity, will the Minister commit not only to reducing waiting times in rural areas but to reviewing the affordability of the testing system for young people?
Simon Lightwood
This Government will continue to do all we can to drive down the waiting times, and of course, we will always keep the affordability of driving tests under review.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I, too, have heard lots of stories from learners in my constituency about their long wait for driving tests, and waits for medical driving licences are also going up. I am delighted that this Government are taking the driving test backlog seriously. Monmouthshire residents will be relieved to know that I have heard that a new examiner is being trained up in Monmouth test centre as we speak, with another joining in Abergavenny soon. Will the Minister update me on what further steps the Department is taking to ensure that examiners are recruited, trained and out doing driving tests as soon as possible?
Simon Lightwood
The DVSA continues its recruitment campaigns for new driving examiners. Examiner capacity is rising, with 1,553 full-time equivalent examiners in post as of February 2026—that is an increase of 108 when compared with the number of driving examiners in February 2025. DVSA has also had difficulty in retaining experienced driving examiners, some of whom retire or leave the DVSA for other roles. We are encouraging them to stay, with exceptional payments of £5,000 to examiners in eligible roles, divided into two payments over the next 12 months.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The waiting time for driving tests has got worse since the Government took office. As others have said, it is critical that, whether for work or education, young people are able to get a test and have the use of a car to grow our economy and get their lives on track. Cabinet Office Ministers answered a written question from the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), saying that 26,000 people applied to become a driving examiner. Why are more of them not in training or in post?
Simon Lightwood
I continue to be flabbergasted by the comments from the Opposition. Let me just remind the House once again that the National Audit Office reported in December that the Department for Transport had had “limited involvement” in helping the DVSA tackle its waiting time backlog “up to mid-2024” and that
“DfT largely left DVSA to try and resolve the issue”.
The DVSA conducted more tests in December 2025 than during any December in the last 20 years.
Greg Smith
The reality on the ground is very different: people are waiting far longer for their driving test than they should have to, and that is happening under this Government. Waiting times have got worse by weeks since July 2024.
The Minister likes to talk about recruitment campaigns. The reality is that there has only been one recruitment campaign, which led to those 26,000 applications. In other parts of the public service, such as the police, there are constant recruitment campaigns. Will the Government now put driving instructors on a constant recruitment campaign?
Simon Lightwood
It is absolute nonsense from the Opposition. Let me tell the House what this Government have done compared with the complete inaction of the previous Government. We are changing the booking service to allow only learner drivers to book and manage their tests. We are introducing a limit on the number of times that learner drivers can move or swap their test to twice, and are making use of the Ministry of Defence to drive up the number of tests available.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Labour Government are providing £7.3 billion for highways maintenance over four years, doubling the funding provided by the previous Government by the end of this Parliament. Our long-term funding approach is already reaping results, with 15% more pothole prevention works carried out in 2025 compared with 2024. Effectiveness is monitored through annual transparency reports, incentive funding requirements and the new traffic light ratings system, ensuring that funding is used to deliver lasting, visible improvements for road users.
Clive Jones
Wokingham borough council is the lowest funded unitary authority. Between 2020 and 2022 when the Conservatives led the council, they cut the road maintenance budget by £2 million, although they seem to have no recollection of doing so. Now the Labour Government are cutting £43 million from the council’s funding for the next three years. What steps is the Minister taking to provide councils like Wokingham with the funding they need to maintain safe roads, despite being drained of cash by the Government?
Simon Lightwood
I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s numbers. Capital funding for highways maintenance has not been cut in Wokingham. Wokingham borough council is eligible to receive £28.9 million over the next four years as part of the £7.3 billion investment. That represents a clear year-on-year increase from 2024-25 to 2025-26, with funding due to continue to increase over the next four years.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
After months of struggling to spend the £895,000 given to Conservative-controlled Bexley council by this Government, the council is finally in a rush to resurface roads like Belmont Road in Northumberland Heath by the end of the financial year. Will the Minister confirm how much funding the Government will provide to my local council in future years to restore the condition of our roads across Bexleyheath and Crayford?
Simon Lightwood
By the end of this Parliament, we will have almost doubled the amount of money going to local authorities to tackle the pothole plague that we inherited from the previous Government. Of course, elements of that are incentives, so if local authorities do not follow the prescribed best practice, they will not receive all that incentive funding.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Can I declare my interest, having lost three tyres to potholes this year? What assessment has the Department made of the efficiency with which potholes are being filled? What on earth is it filling them with, because within weeks and sometimes days, a newly filled pothole is back again?
Simon Lightwood
That is exactly why this Government are putting record funding into tackling potholes—so that we can finally turn the tide on having to refill the same potholes time and again. With that long-term funding, councils can now finally turn the corner and prevent those potholes from forming in the first place.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
North East Lincolnshire council has received over £4 million. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned, the council seems to be struggling to get that money out the door and those potholes filled. Areas like Winchester Road have got absolutely disgraceful road conditions. Is the Department undertaking any monitoring of how much money is being spent and how much is going on these potholes?
Simon Lightwood
Under this Government, all councils must publish a statement on their website so that all local people can hold them to account on exactly how they are spending their money. Let me share an interesting fact with the House: Reform came out by far the worst in our recent RAG—red, amber, green—rating exercise, with a massive 25% of Reform-led councils rated “red”.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Road Emulsion Association research has found that 57% of UK drivers experience fewer and less severe potholes on Europe’s motorways compared with ours. That was confirmed by Office of Rail and Road benchmarking, which identified that the Netherlands’ strategic road network had double the high standard of ride quality than UK roads. Does the Minister agree that we should embrace good road practices from other countries, and what steps is he taking to ensure that our money is well spent?
Simon Lightwood
We are almost doubling the amount of money going to local highways maintenance to turn the tide. That is why a massive percentage of the road investment strategy—something like £8.5 billion—is going on repairing and renewing our strategic road network.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
To improve the unreliable services that plagued the rail network under the previous Government, and to improve the experience of using the railway, this Government are bringing services into public ownership and creating Great British Railways. This generational reform is already improving passengers’ experience of rail services, as cancellations are starting to fall after years of decline.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Inter-city rail fares in England remain eye-watering. London to Birmingham costs £72 on the day, London to Manchester £172 and London to Liverpool £179, but flying the same route can cost as little as £80. In Spain, rail reform drove up passenger numbers by 107% on comparable routes, with tickets as low as €12. The rail fare freeze is welcome, but fares remain unaffordable for many people. The Railways Bill promises powers to regulate fares, so how will the “reasonable” criteria be defined and enforced?
Keir Mather
Operational questions relating to how GBR designates fares will be a matter to consider once it has been created, but passenger affordability is a top priority for the Government. That is why, this year, we have taken the historic step of freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years. Had we not taken that historic decision, regulated rail fares would have increased by 5.8% from March.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In Fylde, we are blessed to have nationally and internationally significant events. The women’s open returns to Royal Lytham and St Annes this year, and the Lytham festival is going from strength to strength. Our Sunday rail services are important for these events, but they are often cancelled because of a lack of conductors at Northern Rail, which was nationalised back in 2020, as well as the inability to get staff to do overtime. Would the Minister be willing to meet me and representatives from Fylde to discuss how we can get extra and more reliable Sunday services to support our important tourism industry?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is correct to point out that rail services can serve as a catalyst for economic growth and as a way to connect more people to the culture that communities like Fylde have to offer. I will ensure that his request for a meeting with the Minister for Rail and representatives from his local council is passed on.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
In January, I was delighted to get confirmation that Ruabon station had progressed to the next stage of the Access for All programme. It is an absolute disgrace that disabled people and young mothers with prams can access the northbound platform only by climbing the steps and crossing the footbridge at the second busiest of Wrexham’s five stations. Will the Minister provide an update on progress in delivering a ramp at the station?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right in his ambition to ensure that accessibility is there for everyone right across our United Kingdom, including in Wrexham. I will ensure that the Rail Minister provides him with an update in writing on when the ramp is likely to be delivered.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Further to the pleading of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the train service—[Hon. Members: “On your knees!”] That makes two of us pleading with Ministers for that service, and I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) would happily kneel as well. I remind the Minister that LNER has been in state ownership for a number of years, yet it still cannot provide that service. There is an open access application from Grand Central Rail for a service to Grimsby, so will the Minister assure me that, given all our pleading, the Government will at least look sympathetically on that application?
Keir Mather
Although I might not have too much more to add on the question of LNER services, the hon. Member will know that open access decisions are a matter for the operationally independent Office of Rail and Road.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
We still do not know how or what the Government want to achieve with state control of the railways. They say that there will be simpler fares, but the public are seeing simply more expensive fares. They say that passenger growth is necessary, but there is no target for that growth in the Railways Bill. They say they want to reduce the taxpayer subsidy, but in written answer after written answer, the Minister refuses to say how they hope to achieve that. Is this lack of a plan why the Secretary of State has been reduced to trying to claim credit for the work of others? She has been left red-faced and community noted after posting on X about the phasing out of the old class 455 trains on South Western Railway. She said it was down to the
“progress...on your publicly owned railway”,
when it was actually delivered under a Conservative Government and by a private company.
Keir Mather
I encourage the shadow Secretary of State actually to read the Railways Bill, which his party has consistently voted against, where the reason we are pursuing nationalisation is laid out in black and white. It is for one thing and one thing only: to deliver better services for passengers, to ensure that the railway is run in the public interest and not for profit, and to leave behind the decades of misery and delay under the privatised system, which did not serve any of the travelling public across the United Kingdom.
Mr Holden
It is clear that the Minister is not prepared to agree with the Secretary of State, so I ask him whether he agrees with himself. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) on 23 March, he said that
“public ownership is expected to save taxpayers up to...£110-150 million every year...This is several orders of magnitude less than the costs of scaling up DfTO staffing in anticipation of establishing GBR”.
Keir Mather
The shadow Secretary of State talks about value for money for the British taxpayer. The national rail strikes under the last Government cost the taxpayer £850 million in lost revenue between June 2022 and August 2024. I ask him how that compares with the operational savings that will be achieved by the nationalised railways. They are an order of magnitude smaller than the cost of establishing Great British Railways, which unlocks all these benefits for the travelling public.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The road safety strategy envisages a safer future for everyone on the road, including targets to cut deaths and serious injuries by 65%, and 70% for children, by 2035. It promotes partnership working across Government, local authorities, police and emergency services, industry and others to save thousands of lives, ease pressure on the NHS and support the economy.
Helen Hayes
The Tulse Hill gyratory in my constituency is very dangerous. We see frequent accidents, near misses and, tragically, lives lost. We urgently need to see the transformation of the gyratory to make it safe for all road users, yet we are struggling because the availability of Transport for London funding for major junction improvements depends on there being substantial new development in the vicinity of the junction, which is not the case at Tulse Hill. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government, Transport for London, Lambeth council and the local campaign group “Transform Tulse Hill” can achieve our important goal of making the Tulse Hill gyratory safe for all?
Lilian Greenwood
I know that there have been multiple pedestrian casualties at the gyratory in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and action is needed to prevent future issues. Last week, I met TfL to hear about its new Vision Zero action plan, and partnership working with great local leaders, such as Mayor Khan, is vital to achieving our ambitious targets for reducing deaths and serious injuries. I was pleased to hear that TfL has introduced interim safety measures to slow traffic and improve visibility while longer-term redesign options are being developed. I know that TfL and Lambeth borough council are working closely together on a proper solution, but I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Yesterday, sadly, a young boy going to school on Snakes Lane East in my constituency was knocked down. He is receiving excellent treatment, and my thoughts are with his family, but this underlines a problem that we have in my constituency: Broadmead Road bridge, which crosses the central line, has been closed since 2024, and that causes chaos in traffic and heavy vehicles going down roads they would never normally go down. Many of my constituents are very fearful about the worsening road safety. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what we can do to get Broadmead Road bridge redone and reopened using money from both the Government and TfL?
Lilian Greenwood
I hope that the right hon. Member’s young constituent makes a speedy recovery. I am aware of Broadmead Road bridge and the difficulties faced. It sounds like a really strong contender for the forthcoming structures fund, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be very happy to talk to the right hon. Member about the possibilities in that respect.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
For HGV drivers, the ability to stop and rest is essential to our road safety, yet HGV drivers and freight sector representatives recently told my Committee that the long-known critical shortage of HGV parking spaces continues. The Government do not need another survey, so when can we expect a diagnosis of the causes of this problem and then a plan to deliver more HGV parking spaces on all parts of our network?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. Planning has historically been a barrier to the development of lorry parks. We have introduced a dedicated freight policy in the national planning policy framework to ensure that planning properly reflects freight needs, including parking and access to the transport network. Alongside that, our new national lorry parking survey will be published in the autumn and will give local authorities the evidence needed to deliver good-quality facilities in the right places.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The family of Mathew Hardy have set up a petition calling for the immediate forfeiture of driving licences upon a positive drink or drug test. They do this in circumstances where they lost their son just before Christmas. His partner is expecting a baby who will be born bereaved of a father. Does the Minister agree that the individual’s right to drive does not come before another individual’s right to life?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important case, and I send my condolences to the family in her constituency. Many people, including bereaved families, have raised with me how it feels when they see someone who has been arrested on drink or drug-driving charges being able to drive until their case comes to court. That is why suspension of licences is one of the issues covered in our motoring offences consultation. I hope that she, other Members and members of the public will respond positively to that proposal.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Bus services are vital for connecting communities to jobs, education and essential services. We have confirmed over £3 billion for buses over the next three years, including providing multi-year, long-term funding to give local authorities the certainty to invest in local services, and our Bus Services Act 2025 is giving local leaders the tools to ensure that services meet the needs of local people.
Juliet Campbell
Many residents in Beeston Rylands in my constituency have contacted me about the infrequency and unreliability of buses serving their area. This particularly affects elderly residents, as bus services can be a lifeline for that community. Will the Minister outline how the Government are working with regional mayors such as Claire Ward in the east midlands to bolster bus services in underserved areas such as Beeston Rylands?
Lilian Greenwood
We are committed to working with local leaders, including Mayor Claire Ward, to improve buses. We are providing the East Midlands combined county authority with £65 million between now and 2028-29, which can be used to increase bus provision across the local area. I know that Mayor Claire would be very happy to work with my hon. Friend to help plan bus networks that work for local people, including those living in Beeston Rylands.
Mr Mohindra
South Oxhey was previously served by three buses per hour operating across two routes, but since last July that has been reduced to an hourly 328 service, which is sometimes cancelled leaving a two-hour gap between buses. The Minister has previously stated that the Bus Services Act 2025 will provide local authorities with the tools to manage bus services, but what steps will the Department take to hold bus operators to account on this issue?
Lilian Greenwood
It is for local authorities, who have been given both the funding and the tools, to decide what works for their local area. Obviously they can have bus enhanced partnerships with local operators, but they can also consider franchising when they feel that that is necessary in order to provide the services that local people need. I know that Hertfordshire is one of the places that is piloting franchising appropriate for rural areas.
Claire Young
Those transport authorities that delayed tendering for post-July bus services because of the lack of Government criteria for using finding are now going out to tender, but market information suggests that costs are shooting up due to the war in the middle east. Will the Secretary of State meet me and local representatives to discuss how the Government can support bus services during this crisis?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member raises an important point. We recognise that the increased costs for bus operators, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can have an impact on services. My officials are in contact with operators to understand better the impact of increased fuel costs as a result of the crisis in the middle east. I am sure that the Minister responsible for roads and buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be considering that issue further and will be happy to hear from her.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In York, we are ambitious to see modal shifts that get people out of their cars and on to buses, but we have an affordability problem. The mayor has a very generous transport budget, but only 6% can be spent on revenue. Will the Minister look at the ability to transfer capital funding into revenue, so that we can really boost our buses?
Lilian Greenwood
We in the Department work extremely closely with all our local mayors, including the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire. I know that my hon. Friend had a meeting with him only yesterday, and we would be happy to work with him to look at how we can better support bus services across that whole area.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
National Highways has assessed the status of the land and is taking steps to improve its condition, including replanting substantial numbers of trees, protecting ecological sites and creating new wildlife habitats.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I thank the Minister for his response the other day to my written question, which made clear that the trees would be replanted alongside the A14. I have surveyed that area in recent weeks, and it is real mess. The land has simply not been maintained after the environmental land-management schemes were put in place, so it is reassuring to hear that the trees will be replaced. However, there are other problems with some of the schemes: some of the buildings that were compulsorily purchased have not been maintained and have become dilapidated, National Highways is ransoming access to the land to local developers by charging a 30% shared value increase, just so that developers can gain access to the A14, and we have dangerous at-grade junctions. Will the Minister meet me to discuss some of the problems that we have with access to the A14 in Huntingdonshire, so that my constituents can be reassured that we are working hard to ensure that that road works as it should?
Simon Lightwood
On the specific topic of trees, it is an absolute scandal that something like 600,000 trees died as part of the previous Government’s road schemes—some 90% of the trees died at that particular scheme—but of course I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the individual issues that he raised.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
This Government are taking significant action to make journeys safer and smoother, while helping motorists to save money. We are investing £27 billion in motorways and trunk roads, and a record £7.3 billion to fix potholes and resurface local roads. We have extended the fuel duty freeze, launched a fuel price finder and introduced a £2 billion grant to support motorists who want to go electric. I know that events in the middle east will be unsettling for many, but I can assure the House that we have strong and diverse fuel supplies in the UK, and we will stand by the British people in the face of international turbulence.
Charlie Dewhirst
Anyone who has been to the pumps in the last couple of weeks will have felt the pain of price rises. I do not blame the Secretary of State for that—obviously, international events have taken over—but can she guarantee the House that there will be no further rise in fuel duty for the remainder of this calendar year?
Heidi Alexander
The Government have already taken significant steps to keep the costs of motoring low, extending the fuel duty cut that was due to end this month until September and launching the fuel finder tool. Together, those measures will save motorists £129 compared with previous plans. We will monitor developments in the middle east closely, and I repeat what I said in my original answer: we will stand by the British people in these times of international turbulence.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The costs of motoring are going up for everyone later this year because of the choices of this Labour Government. A set of motorists who are too often forgotten are those who drive our heavy goods vehicles and light goods vehicles; as the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), said in an earlier question, they are suffering because of their rest facilities. In particular, we are seeing increasing fuel thefts from our hauliers. Freight crime is an incredibly serious matter. Will the Secretary of State set out clearly what she is doing with urgency to support our hauliers, who keep our economy quite literally moving, and to get the facilities they need that will not just give them good rest space, but keep them safe?
Heidi Alexander
Secure, high-quality parking facilities and truck stops for HGV drivers are a part of that. I know that my colleague the Minister for Local Transport, formerly the Roads Minister, has met colleagues in the Home Office a number of times so that haulage firms and logistics companies can be sure that their vehicles are safe and their fuel supplies are secure.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
This Government believe in better buses across the UK, and half of the £1.4 billion local authority bus grant resource funding is going to support services in mayoral strategic authorities. Altogether, they will receive more than £11.5 billion of consolidated funding up to 2030 to improve and deliver better local transport services and modern infrastructure, and that includes £1.6 billion for Greater Manchester.
Mrs Blundell
As the Minister knows, since my election I have been campaigning for an express bus service from my constituency to Manchester city centre. Following key improvements to the network across Greater Manchester, a consultation that I did across my constituency shows that we still need the introduction of that express bus service. What conversations are taking place between the Department for Transport, the Treasury and our transport authorities specifically to prioritise closing gaps in bus provision and to ensure that there is sustained, long-term funding for buses to make that possible?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is a great champion for local transport. This Government are committed to supporting improved bus services, and at the spending review we confirmed more than £3 billion in long-term funding until 2028-29. We believe that local leaders are best placed to make decisions about services in their areas, and this funding includes £133.5 million for Greater Manchester that the local authority can use to expand the Bee Network, as she suggests. Of course, we very regularly meet Mayor Andy Burnham to discuss that.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Part of my constituency falls in the West of England mayoral combined authority, which oversees some local bus services. Although recent Government funding has been allocated to improve bus transport across the authority, much of it appears to be concentrated on getting people in and out of Bristol, rather than around the surrounding towns and villages. If the Government are committed to driving economic growth, should they not recognise the importance of investing in reliable rural transport networks to enable such communities to grow and thrive?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Rural communities also need access to good public transport, which is why we are exploring the ways in which we can better support rural bus services. As I mentioned earlier, there are five pilots looking at the possibilities of franchising in rural areas, which I know will be of interest to people, including Mayor Helen Godwin.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
My Department continues to engage with a range of aviation stakeholders, including the Civil Aviation Authority, to better understand the impacts of the loss of access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service. This includes the practicalities, costs and benefits for industry and the taxpayer if we were to rejoin.
Mr Carmichael
I think I can speed things up there, because I can tell the Minister exactly what the impact has been. Since we lost access to EGNOS, the number of cancellations to island communities has trebled, which in turn has put up the cost of tickets, and occasionally air ambulance flights are unable to get in. That has been the cost of coming out of EGNOS, and it is about time we found our way back into it. Will the Minister meet me, and perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), to find a way of progressing this without any further delay?
Keir Mather
I would be very glad to meet the right hon. Member and our colleague. I understand the important role that EGNOS played in ensuring that we had those vital connectivity links to the Scottish highlands. That is why we intend to review the role that technologies such as EGNOS can play, to ensure that our airspace is resilient and fit for purpose, especially for remote airports that are more susceptible to adverse weather conditions. I am very happy to take that conversation forward with the right hon. Member.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Some 40% of flight diversions from Stornoway, Benbecula and Barra airports in my constituency could have been avoided if we were part of EGNOS, which was shamefully abandoned during Brexit by the Conservatives. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, this has huge social and financial implications —schedules are cut, and people are considering not just their travel arrangements but their living arrangements, because without 21st-century connectivity we cannot live 21st-century lives. I urge the Minister to consider the costs and benefits of rejoining EGNOS, and by all means to meet me and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as well as some Cornish MPs who have raised this issue.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his repeated and consistent advocacy on this issue. I am cognisant of the fact that air connectivity in the Scottish highlands is not a “nice to have” but an absolute necessity. As well as meeting the two Members, my officials would be keen to engage with a variety of stakeholders as part of the review, to obtain evidence on the benefits of the EGNOS solution. That evidence will be critical to ensuring that the Government work out their future position carefully and that any future decision delivers value for money to the taxpayer.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are clear that open access will continue to play an important role on the reformed railway under Great British Railways, which will oversee a network designed to deliver better outcomes for passengers. Existing open access operators, such as Hull Trains, will be able to continue running under their current access agreements, serving communities including Beverley and Holderness.
Graham Stuart
As the Minister knows, before Hull Trains, Hull and east Yorkshire were a forgotten part of the rail network. Hull Trains put that right, connecting the great port city of Hull, and indeed Beverley, directly to London. It is also one of the most popular train services in the whole country. I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said, so will he meet me—and perhaps colleagues—to discuss the future of open access and Hull Trains, to ensure that it is safeguarded into the 2030s and beyond, as I know he wants?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his request for a meeting, which I will make sure is reflected to the Rail Minister. I understand the importance of the contribution that Hull Trains makes, both to the east riding of Yorkshire and across the country. Under the Railways Bill, it is absolutely right for GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, to ensure that we can make best use of the network, but we are also very clear that where open access represents best use, those trains will get on the network. Hull Trains has a very important part to play in rail connectivity in the United Kingdom.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
We are empowering the Mayor of the West Midlands to deliver the better, more reliable connections that communities in Dudley need and deserve. Mayor Richard Parker is already putting the £2.4 billion in more flexible, integrated funding that we are providing to good use, delivering on transformative local priorities such as metro expansion, bus franchising and light rail.
Sonia Kumar
For far too long, communities across the Black Country have had to put up with poor transport links. That is why the long-awaited opening of the metro station later this year is such welcome news for people and businesses in Dudley, even after delays. This key investment will help bring visitors to Dudley High Street and drive the renewal of our town centre, but our area desires one more project. What further investment will the Department for Transport commit to bringing to Dudley? Will the Secretary of State commit to attending the opening of the metro? I am happy to treat her to some orange chips from Dudley.
Heidi Alexander
The metro’s expansion represents a major boost for growth in Dudley and the west midlands, delivering fast, affordable and reliable connections to Birmingham, Wolverhampton, the Black Country and beyond. Together with the Dudley interchange, it will transform local transport, unlocking access to jobs, education and new opportunities for the community. I very much enjoyed my last visit to Dudley and the Black Country Living Museum, and I will certainly ask my office to check my availability for the opening of the metro.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
National Highways targets the most serious potholes for repair within 24 hours. Under the new road investment strategy, published today, it must keep 96.2% of road surfaces in good condition and resurface around a quarter of its network over the next five years. In addition to National Highways’ work on the strategic road network, Lancashire combined county authority is eligible to receive £268 million in highways maintenance funding over the next four years as part of our £7.3 billion investment in local roads.
Sarah Smith
My constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden are blighted by potholes, which cost them hundreds of pounds, but to add insult to injury, twice recently the Reform-led county council has come out and repainted our road markings before coming a day later to complete resurfacing works on the same bit of road. Lancashire county council has had record levels of funding from this Government, with £100 million confirmed over two years. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that the council is refusing to update residents on its repair times and whether it is meeting their demands and requirements?
Simon Lightwood
It is not acceptable for this Reform-led council to refuse to provide basic information to my hon. Friend’s constituents. As I mentioned earlier, 25% of Reform-led councils have been rated red—the lowest rating. It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that Labour councils have come out on top. I hope that her constituents will keep that in mind when they go to the polling stations in a couple of weeks.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The scourge of potholes is pretty universal, but will the Minister join me in encouraging all my Spelthorne residents who have a complaint about a pothole to report it via the Surrey county council website? Reporting potholes is the only way to get them sorted.
Simon Lightwood
I absolutely agree that constituents should report potholes to their local authority. The good news is that by the end of this Parliament we will have almost doubled the amount of funding to allow those councils to get on top of this pothole plague.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The Government are today announcing one of the biggest ever investments in England’s major roads. That £27 billion spread over five years is a down payment on better motorways, smoother journeys and less congestion across the country. We will finally kick off dualling the A66 between Cumbria and north Yorkshire and unlock private investment to deliver the transformational lower Thames crossing. We will renew and repair our main highways with a record £8.4 billion of investment. But that is not all. Today I am giving the green light to 16 local road schemes that previous Governments left in limbo, including the Norwich western link, the Wigan east-west link, the A650 Tong Street in Bradford and the A259 south coast road in Brighton. We will get these projects built, strengthening local economies and breaking down barriers to opportunity. For too long, this country failed to tackle its crumbling infrastructure. This Government are putting our money where our mouth is, with fewer potholes and quicker journeys. We are building a road network that people and businesses can finally rely on.
Emma Foody
The Secretary of State and others in this place will be aware of my campaign for investment in the Moor Farm roundabout. The current situation causes misery for local people and is choking investment not just in my constituency, but across the north-east. I have held debates, asked questions, and had meetings with Ministers and National Highways. In fact, I have spoken about it more than 50 times in this place, but I am feeling lucky today. Does the Secretary of State have any update on my campaign to secure the crucial upgrades?
Heidi Alexander
I am delighted to confirm that improvements to the A19 at Moor Farm have been included in the pipeline of schemes that we have asked National Highways to develop for construction. I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents, and for making such a strong case for this scheme in particular.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In September last year, the Secretary of State told the House:
“I know the importance of the fuel duty freeze”.—[Official Report, 11 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1031.]
That was when diesel and petrol were significantly cheaper than they are today. Why is Labour hiking fuel duty by 5p a litre this September?
Heidi Alexander
We have extended the fuel duty cut, which was due to end this month, until September, and we have launched the fuel finder tool. Together, they will save motorists £129 compared with previous plans.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
At the Budget last November, the Government announced a comprehensive review of public charging costs, which will examine what is driving higher prices and potential measures to make public charging affordable for all users. The review is set to report this autumn.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
An October 2024 Active Travel England analysis of case studies found that walking and cycling schemes typically generate a benefit-cost ratio of between 3.5:1 and 19:1. Given the plans for significant devolution of transport funding, how will the Government ensure that local authorities deliver consistent standards and improvements to streets and routes to enable walking and cycling, and the huge accompanying economic and health benefits?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the benefits of active travel. This Government are so enthusiastic about that, and we have set out £626 million of active travel funding to support it. Very shortly we will publish our cycling and walking investment strategy, which will guide local authorities on how best to spend the money.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have ambitious plans in England, and a record £7.3 billion investment and clear standards to ensure that councils fix roads properly for the long term. Only Scottish Labour has a plan to build on this approach and to end the pothole plague north of the border.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
I have visited Stanmore station, and I understand the difficulties that are presented to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. We are investing in the Access for All scheme nationally and, as he has indicated, Transport for London is investing in his constituency too. We are ambitious in this space, because the railway should be there for everyone. It should be an inclusive service that we offer to the entire country.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend remains a great champion for this project. The Government are delivering on devolution. We are providing the Lancashire combined county authority with £641 million in this spending review. The decision about whether to progress this scheme as a local priority is one for the authority. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue engaging with it with the same enthusiasm with which she engages with our Department.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question, but I reassure the House that, in our many conversations with airlines and airports in recent weeks, we have not been told of any immediate disruptions to jet fuel supply. However, we will continue to monitor the situation closely, and work with airlines and jet fuel suppliers to understand what mitigations may be required should any disruptions arise.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Heidi Alexander
I sympathise with the frustration of local residents. I am as keen as they are, and as I know my hon. Friend is, to see services start on that section of infrastructure. I know discussions continue between Chiltern and the trade unions on operational arrangements and the preparatory works to trains and stations. I assure him that, as soon as we have a start date, he will be the first to know.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests showing that, last summer, Hull Trains paid for 32 teenagers to travel to London to attend my parliamentary summer school.
This time last year, I was advocating for more connectivity for my constituents by backing the application from Hull Trains for a service between Sheffield and London King’s Cross via Worksop and Retford. Despite my disappointment at the refusal, I am keen that companies such as Hull Trains continue to make open access bids. How will Great British Railways ensure independent oversight, and what resources will the Office of Rail and Road be given to guarantee transparency and independence in the decision-making process?
Keir Mather
GBR will have responsibility for ensuring that it has the capacity to run services that are paid for by the British taxpayer and that it is tasked to operate. Outside that, it will decide on the best use of the network. Open access can play a vibrant role in that system, which could include services from my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Nawaz has been in touch with me with real concerns about the financial impact that roadworks are having on his small business. He may be entitled to compensation if the roadworks are caused by gas or water companies, but not if they are works by telecoms or electricity companies. The impact on local businesses and constituents is the same whether roadworks are for cables or for pipes, so could the Department look at that discrepancy?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady will know that roadworks on local roads are the responsibility of each local highway authority. As she says, there are some specific routes for businesses to claim losses when the works are carried out by utilities such as gas or water companies. If she has proposals for a wider scheme and would like to write to me about them, I will consider them.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State tell us what the Government are doing to address the problem of number plate fraud? Number plates are being falsely registered to wrong addresses by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, vehicle number plates are being cloned, and false number plates are being used, all of which is contributing to an increase in petrol theft from our forecourts. What are the Government doing about it?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member is right to raise this question, which a number of my hon. Friends have also raised. The DVLA is working very closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and, as he will know, alongside the road safety strategy we have a consultation on motoring offences, which includes proposals for tougher penalties for those displaying illegal plates.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Rail users at Hitchin and Arlesey stations in my constituency have to put up with services that simply are not reliable enough. I am glad that, after pushing the operator, Ministers and officials, we have been able to drive up driver recruitment and secure crucial investment to upgrade the back-up signalling capacity that has caused a lot of disruption over the past 12 months. With the operator coming back into public ownership later this year, what further steps can we take to finally give my constituents the rail service they deserve?
Heidi Alexander
Thanks to my hon. Friend’s steadfast support, major works are under way: renewing electrification, installing axle counters and improving drainage to prevent flooding. Those upgrades will boost Thameslink’s reliability, including for services to his constituency. I can also tell him that driver numbers have risen by 50 since July 2024. We will continue to press Govia Thameslink Railway to strengthen performance and cut cancellations.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I continue to hear from residents and businesses about the timetable changes at Berwick-upon-Tweed station, in particular the loss of many direct services from Berwick down to London. What economic assessment is the Department undertaking of how those changes are working?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is right to reflect on the fact that a reliable and frequent train service is important to economic growth. I would be happy to speak about the detail of those particular changes with the Rail Minister and come back to him, including on whether there are any potential mitigations we could bring in.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Heugh Street bridge in South Shields was closed over four months ago by the council, as it deemed it to be unsafe. It was used by over 5,000 vehicles per day and the closure is damaging my local economy. The council is currently unable to give any timescale for reopening the bridge and I am led to believe there is no funding for it to do so anyway. Can my hon. Friend the Minister please assist us in any way at all?
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. This sounds like a scheme that could benefit from the structures fund.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Government are rightly focused on bus services, but can I urge them to also think carefully about safety in bus stations? We have a big problem at Skipton bus station at the moment and there is no CCTV. I encourage the Minister to focus on local authorities and mayors to get obligatory CCTV in our bus stations to keep people safe.
Lilian Greenwood
The Government have committed to a number of ideas to improve the safety of the travelling public, especially women and girls, and that includes looking at safety in bus stations. I will ensure that the particular issue the right hon. Gentleman raises is examined.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I again thank the ministerial team for what they have done to get the midlands rail hub project so far along so quickly, with funding now unlocked for the west and central sections, but the east section is dragging ever so slightly behind. Will they look again at whether the south Staffordshire line can be included in rail hub east, to unlock the wonderful benefits of cross-regional travel via that line for my constituents and those in Uttoxeter and Derby?
Heidi Alexander
I was grateful to my hon. Friend for his time a couple of weeks ago, when we discussed this matter. He is right to highlight the transformative benefit of the midlands rail hub expanding capacity into Moor Street station. I will come back to him on the potential around the south Staffordshire line.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Labour Mayor of York and North Yorkshire is tinkering with the Department for Transport’s highways funding ratio, reallocating about £4 million from North Yorkshire to the city of York. When North Yorkshire council has already lost the rural services delivery grant, how can the Minister think that is fair?
Simon Lightwood
The Department continues to give funding that is devolved to local leaders. It is up to the democratically elected local leaders to decide how to spend it. Funding is allocated for the whole of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to deal with that.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on local government reorganisation.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for the—[Interruption.] I am always happy to be at the Dispatch Box; I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to set out the latest steps in local government reorganisation.
For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The Government’s aim on local government reorganisation is simple: clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. We are getting on with delivering that aim.
Yesterday the Secretary of State announced the next steps on local government reorganisation in six areas of England. He has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, to implement proposals for 15 new councils in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth; Norfolk; and Suffolk. In addition to the Isle of Wight, that will see 16 councils operating across these areas in place of the current 44. The proposals are supported by two thirds of councils within these areas and many local communities. They will help to expand key towns and cities, deliver housing and growth, and simplify public services for residents. We will bring forward the secondary legislation to implement the proposals for the new local councils in due course.
On East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, we have carefully considered the four proposals submitted alongside the views expressed during the consultation, but no final decision has been taken at this stage, reflecting the need to address a number of important matters. Proposed modifications will form the basis of a further technical consultation to be carried out after the May local elections, which will allow councils and partners to provide focused views before any final decisions are taken. Taking the time to get this right now provides the strongest foundations for delivery, supporting improvements to people’s lives in the places where they live and enabling councils to operate effectively from day one.
We have set out the timetable, with elections to new unitary councils taking place in 2027 ahead of them going live in April 2028. Reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and we will continue to work with councils to see that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at heart.
Sir James Cleverly
People will ask whether this is an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism or an act of gross incompetence and stupidity, but I can inform the House that it is both. There is no mandate for this; there was nothing in Labour’s manifesto. It is an imposition from Whitehall. If the Government were so proud of this work, why did they try to sneak it out in a written ministerial statement and have to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to justify their decisions?
Unlike the hon. Lady, I have spoken to local government leaders in the areas affected. They were presented with a plan and told to comply—the outcome was predetermined. This is a stitch-up. Labour is redrawing boundaries from the centre and overriding local identity and local consent to maximise party political advantage.
The Government have announced £63 million for this transformation, yet it turns out that that is the same £63 million that they have already committed to deal with the consequence of their botched attempt to cancel local elections. How can they now claim that that money will fund wholesale reorganisation?
The Government are telling well-run councils to subsidise poorly run councils. Money that should be filling potholes will actually be filling black holes; resources that should be for collecting waste and supporting vulnerable residents will instead be diverted into restructuring and bureaucracy. Estimates point to a borrowing requirement because of these changes running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially approaching £1 billion, all to fund their vanity project, and the cost will fall on local people.
I have some questions for the Minister. How can she claim that this reorganisation is locally led when it is being imposed on communities? Why are Ministers determining the boundaries rather than the independent boundary commission? What estimates will be made of the total borrowing requirement? How much money has been set aside for the inevitable judicial reviews that will flood out after this announcement?
This is not reform, but vandalism; it is not empowerment, but imposition. It is local people who will pay the price for this Government’s incompetence and arrogance.
Alison McGovern
Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not saying what he really thinks about the proposals; I am glad that he had the opportunity to do that. He asked about proposals being locally led. Of course, all the proposals have been put forward by the areas they affect. Residents and others had their chance to feed into the consultation, and we weighed those consultation responses alongside other factors that he will be aware of. He mentioned some of them, including finances.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Boundary Commission. Officials have engaged with it extensively. I have met it to talk through the process, and I am confident that it can do the work needed to make the process a success. Finally, on finances, I have spent the past six months or so listening, day after day, to councils that have deficits caused by a failure in the special educational needs and disabilities system, a failure in children’s care and a failure in adult social care, presided over by a Government of which he was an active part, so if I was him, I would be cautious about lecturing other people about council borrowing.
Mr Speaker
Just to let people know, normally Front Benchers would not speak during an urgent question, but for those whose constituency is affected by this issue, and who have direct involvement, there is a dispensation today.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s move to reorganisation, which will benefit cities such as Exeter. Yesterday, the Minister may have seen official communications from Devon county council that said that reorganisation will
“put the lives of vulnerable people at risk”.
Notwithstanding the fact that, according to Ofsted, children’s services and SEND services in Devon have been failing for many years, does the Minister agree that such comments are irresponsible and not true? Should reorganisation happen in Devon—I hope that it will—will it not be up to authorities to ensure that services are safely and effectively moved to new structures?
Alison McGovern
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I have been working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), and other Ministers in the Department for Education to improve our children’s services. We will ensure that we do that through this reorganisation process. Nothing matters more than the fortunes of our kids, and it is up to us in central Government and local government to work together to deliver good childhoods for all of them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is deeply disappointing that this matter is being addressed today through an urgent question, and was not addressed yesterday through a proper statement from the Government. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where that strengthens communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top-down.
In recent months, I have spoken to local government leaders across the country, and their really clear and consistent message is, “First, trust us. Secondly, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system,” which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs. While the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity—even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability—they fail to address those fundamental issues. In the case of Sussex, the Government have essentially dismissed the local proposals, and have instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that that approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her Department fully assessed the financial consequences of the proposals for reorganisation in those areas and across the country? Will she commit to a cross-party piece of work, carried out with local leaders, on creating a fair, adequate and long-term funding settlement for councils?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for those points. On the announcement process, we followed the precedent set by the previous round of reorganisation in 2021, under the previous Government. In relation to Sussex, it is really important that we get this right. We had concerns about the proposals not sufficiently addressing the criteria, particularly on economic growth, service disaggregation, community identity and financial sustainability. We will work quickly with Sussex, so that we can enter into that period of intense discussion and consultation after the local elections. That will not affect the overall timings of the programme, with new unitaries going live in 2028.
The hon. Lady also mentioned working with local government on its overall finances. Having just dealt with the fair funding review, I can honestly say that in the months since I was appointed, I have spent most of my life talking in detail, along with Members from across the House, about financial sustainability for councils. I have no doubt that she and I will engage on the subject many times in the future.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I genuinely welcome the fact that my hon. Friend stresses the need for locally led decision making. She will know that there is widespread support across the Thames valley for a foundation strategic authority for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, and that a bid along those lines is with her ministerial colleagues at the moment. She will also know that there is genuine concern about a different proposal, wholly unacceptable to local leaders, that is being mooted. Will she reassure me and colleagues across the House that when it comes to FSAs, MSAs, SDSs or any initialism that she chooses, there will always be priority given to locally led decision making?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for making his way through the alphabet soup of devolution. I will make sure that the Minister for devolution hears his points. She will have read his letter and I am sure will respond to it. The next stage of our plan is to make sure that all places in this country have a plan for growth, and we will listen to what he says as we move forward.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Lincolnshire is such a huge county geographically that there is no enthusiasm for abolishing districts. Be that as it may, the Government are determined to override local residents. There is a rumour coming out of the Labour-controlled City of Lincoln council that the Government will go with a Greater Lincoln. That would be a disaster for West Lindsey, and would leave Gainsborough out on a limb and carve us out of the county. Before the Minister makes any final decision, will she please meet me, so that I can put to her the concerns of West Lindsey district council? We could live with the central Lincolnshire idea—the whole of Lincolnshire—but not Greater Lincoln.
Alison McGovern
I am always glad to meet the Father of the House. We will just make sure that it is done within the process for taking decisions.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
How does the Minister expect local authorities in Essex to be ready for elections for unitaries in a year’s time, while at the same time undertaking local government reorganisation, creating a new Greater Essex integrated care board for the NHS, dealing with unprecedented demand for social care, and implementing the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? As Essex county council has said, the breakneck speed of change across the board is simply unmanageable. Will the Minister even now rethink this proposal, and call off elections for the new unitaries next year?
Alison McGovern
We are committed to the timetable that I have just set out to the House. We are working very closely with colleagues right across government on reorganisation, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to address the issues that the right hon. Member has mentioned. I have already responded to the point about the importance of children’s services.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Eighty-four per cent of the people in Christchurch voted against being forced into a unitary merger with Bournemouth and Poole, and they are still living with the consequences of that merger; a formerly debt-free council is now burdened with enormous debts and inefficiency. This year, the Minister agreed that it could increase its council taxes by even more than 5%. That is what happens when areas are forced into unitary reorganisation, against the wishes of the local people.
Alison McGovern
I think it is safe to say that people have a range of views on this topic. I am happy to listen to them all, but in the end, we need to move forward and improve services.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The children with SEND in my constituency are being let down and ignored by the too-large Lancashire county council. Those of my constituents who are also served by Blackpool, a much smaller unitary, are getting the SEND services that they deserve and need. Does the Minister agree that making things smaller and getting away from the two-tier system helps our constituents by making services better, and looking after our children and our elderly?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the most important people in this—the people who are the future of this country, our children. I was very pleased to meet her and representatives of Blackpool only recently to hear about the work that they are doing.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my interest as a serving county councillor. May I thank the Minister for seeing through Norfolk Conservatives’ self-serving scheme for a mega-council for Norfolk? The three-unitary model will ensure that my residents get the efficiencies of joined-up services, and that decisions are still made as locally as possible. The Conservative county council will throw yet another strop, but the Conservatives will be gone in May, and the transition work needs to start now. Can the Minister confirm that adequate funds will be made available to cover the cost of authorities transitioning, and will she rule out expecting them to make cuts to services to fund the transition?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting on the record his point of view, which is different from others that we have heard this morning. I can confirm that we are supporting councils through the transition. If he has any specific concerns, he knows that he can come straight to me.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I inform the Minister that the previous Conservative Government listened to the people of Essex, and the MPs and county and district councillors for Essex, and cancelled any plans for LGR? That is because county government in Essex predates the Norman conquest. It is more embedded in our history than almost anything else, except perhaps our churches and ancient buildings. Nobody in Tendring district or Colchester city wants to live in an amorphous area called “North East Essex”. What is more, people there know that this upheaval and reorganisation will cost public services, inflict damage on continuity and push up council taxes—and it is good for us, because we will simply blame this wretched gerrymandering Labour Government.
Alison McGovern
Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not having an opinion on this subject. I hear what he is saying. Close to me is the county of Cheshire. It was reorganised some years ago, and nobody would say that Cheshire no longer exists. We will move forward with these proposals. In the end, there is nothing that we politicians like more than discussing the architecture of power, but our job is to never lose sight of the wellbeing of the residents we represent.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When the hon. Lady achieved her present promotion, I wrote to her to explain why the independents, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Greens on New Forest district council had co-signed, with me, a letter to her predecessor, explaining that out of the four options on offer, the one option that they should not choose was the only one to split up constituencies and interfere with boundaries. The only thing it had going for it was that Southampton city council, led by Labour, wanted to do a land-grab across constituency boundaries. I entered into this process in good faith, and I was prepared for the possibility that, out of the four options, the one selected might not be the one I preferred, but the one thing I thought that the Government would not have the sheer effrontery to do is choose the one option that was disastrous and went against their own criteria. I am ashamed of this, and I bitterly regret supporting Hampshire being part of the first tranche. I should have known better.
Alison McGovern
I do hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I respect his views. The five-unitary proposal offered financial stability, balanced with care for rural and urban needs, and it creates the building blocks for successful devolution. I understand that we will respectfully disagree on some of these proposals, but I none the less thank him for sharing his opinion so clearly.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Government’s approach to devolution and local government reform has been chaotic and costly; the delay of the mayoral election in Norfolk and Suffolk is costing our counties £50 million in investment funding. Can the Minister confirm that the Government believe that the three-unitary model for Norfolk can be delivered sustainably, and can she guarantee that funding will be there to ensure that is the case?
Alison McGovern
We think that this option reflects Norfolk’s communities and local identities, and the proposal also had wide support, which is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on the need for investment in this country. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed to secure investment for housing, public transport and across a whole range of other areas, which we need to help this country grow. Our record on investment is a strong one.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak from the Back Benches on this issue, which has profound consequences for my county and my constituency.
I am appalled by the Government’s proposal to break up the great county of Essex into five unitary authorities. That is simply not acceptable. My constituents do not want this at all and they were not part of any engagement. Will the Minister tell my constituents across Witham how much more they will pay in council tax—she has already said that she has been forensically looking at the finances—and outline the impact of council tax harmonisation? What level of Government grant funding will there be for each new council? How much of the countryside will be at risk? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) has already mentioned the impact on social services and education. What about planning? This will lead to a major upheaval in Government planning policies. What does that mean for Essex and my constituents? How on earth can the Minister justify to constituents across Essex county why they should pay more in council tax for a policy they simply do not support?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Lady for setting out her views and concerns in the way that she has done. I will happily write to her with further detail on the finances, because there are issues with previous decisions in Essex that are of great concern to me. As I mentioned before in relation to Cheshire and other counties, the counties remain—they are part of our history and our culture; we are looking to have effective unitary authorities.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your dispensation to speak on behalf of my constituents.
Not once in six years in this House have my constituents written to me saying that we need to cleave West Sussex in two, with two educational catchment areas, two different highways authorities, two social care services and two expensive town halls and council offices. Will the Minister, at this late stage, listen to my constituents, reject the proposals put forward by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to cleave our ancient county in two, and join me in saving West Sussex?
Alison McGovern
Well, it’s always worth a try! As I mentioned in response to others, this is not about the identity of our historic counties; it is about effective councils. If I may say so, the hon. Member’s point on what his constituents write to him about gives the game away. The reason we are doing this is to improve services and deal with the things that people really care about, and to make sure that councils are able to give people a good quality of life, wherever they are in England.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is absolutely right: Essex has existed since before the Norman conquest, and during those years, everything from the River Lea to the North sea was part of the great county of Essex. Yet today, the people of Havering and my constituents in Romford are not included in any discussion or any consultation; they have no meaningful way of participating in discussions about how we want to go forward. Does the Minister agree that it is time that the people of my borough were given the right to also become a unitary authority, free of the control of the Greater London Authority and City Hall? Will she at least allow Havering to become part of the ceremonial county of Essex so that our identity as part of the ancient county of Essex remains strong?
Alison McGovern
It is good to hear somebody on the Opposition Benches speaking in favour of reorganisation. The hon. Member raises an important point about ceremonial counties. If he would like to write to me about it, I will respond, as he would expect.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There was only one voice demanding the sacrifice of part of the rural New Forest district—it was Labour in Southampton, wasn’t it?
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Following on from the reference to Lincolnshire by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I warn the Government that this will come back to bite them. It is over 50 years since northern Lincolnshire was put into County Humberside, and it is still an issue that divides local opinion. We have two unitaries that were carved out of Humberside when it was put to death: north and north-east Lincolnshire. They both want to stay the same. As the Father of the House said, we do not want change in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister get on with making a decision so that we can have the certainty we need?
Alison McGovern
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, given that I grew up in the Wirral where for many years people have been in a heated debate about whether it is Cheshire or Merseyside. I will take account of his views as we move forward.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Labour is causing chaos in local government in East Sussex. After firing the starting gun on tearing up our local government boundaries—something that no resident in East Sussex wanted and that was not in its manifesto—the Government now will not let us out the blocks. My residents are absolutely clear that they do not want to be lumped in with Labour-run Brighton and Hove city council, which will dominate any new unitary authority, sucking up all the money, resources and attention. Is it not true that the only reason the Government are not letting us get on with an East Sussex proposal is because they want to help out their Labour mates in mismanaged, disastrously-run Brighton and Hove city council?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for putting his views on the record. As I have said on Sussex, it is important that we get it right. We want to ensure that we achieve our objectives on economic growth and ensuring that services can be delivered well. We will move forward quickly, but this next intensive period of consultation will not affect the overall timetable.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The criteria for choosing the Government’s preferred options for local government reorganisation seem to have been applied differently in Surrey than in Hampshire and Essex. Will the Government release their reasoning behind it? Let me be clear: when it comes to Hertfordshire, I do not want any reorganisation at all, but if this is forced upon us in Broxbourne, I favour the four unitaries option. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this so that I can put forward my case for my constituents, as it was wrong how many colleagues found out yesterday about their options from the media?
Alison McGovern
There were a couple of questions there. I have met the hon. Gentleman before and, in compliance with the process we are undergoing with reorganisation, I will happily meet him again. He has put his views clearly on the record and they will be taken into account.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The local government reorganisation consultation for Devon closes today. It has had many responses that have all been completed in good faith. Can the Minister reassure Devonians that responses to the consultation will be digested and taken fully into account, especially in the light of the strength of feeling against the plans put forward by the Labour-controlled cities in Devon to expand into Devon’s beautiful green belt, which is surely a land grab to deliver the Labour Government’s housing targets?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for putting her views about Devon on the record. I reassure her that the views of the consultation are taken fully into consideration and that our team at MHCLG have worked extremely hard to do that, and I want to use this opportunity to thank them for doing so.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As the Minister well knows, the consultation for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire closes today, and I urge all my constituents to have their say and ensure that they fill that out by midnight tonight. The Minister knows my feelings clearly about option E and Huntingdonshire unitary authority because she sat through my half-hour debate on the topic, but can she reassure my residents that the feedback given will be taken on board? At the moment, there is a real fear locally that Huntingdonshire will be split in two, and that the identity and character of our historic county will be lost forever in favour of the northern half of Huntingdonshire being merged with Peterborough in option D. Option E is very much the option that the district council wants to go for. Can she reassure me that Huntingdonshire will not be split in two?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his question but for giving me the opportunity to hear him speak about the wonders of Huntingdonshire on a couple of occasions. I cannot comment on those proposals specifically, but he has never shied away from putting his views on the record, and he has done so again today.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the Minister referred to the importance of local identities. As she knows, in the local government reorganisation, my Spelthorne constituency will be subsumed into something called “West Surrey”. I am very much looking forward to meeting her on 22 April to make representations about why it should be called “West Surrey and South Middlesex”, to take account of Spelthorne’s special circumstances. If she is to commission her officials to do any research work in advance of that meeting, may I recommend a book called “The Real Counties of Britain”, written by Mr Russell Grant, which would set the context for our discussion perfectly?
Alison McGovern
By reading such a book, I hope that I might be able to see the future! [Laughter.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting me, and for allowing us this pre-meeting so that we can make best use of the time.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will appreciate this question. Labour-run Southampton city council has huge debts, and Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh has £800 million-worth of debt. Given the proposal for them to be merged, will the Government do anything about that debt, or will they allow the new council to fall immediately?
Alison McGovern
As I have said to other Members, local authority debt is a serious concern for the Government. We will work through the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions in the transition process, and I am happy to provide him with more technical detail on that. The overall picture of local authority debt is not a happy one. It arises from policy failure emanating from this place, and we have a collective responsibility to put it right.
Mr Speaker
Well, this will be a very interesting connection! I didn’t realise Strangford was up for reorganisation.
Jim Shannon
We slogged through 10 years of reorganisation and restructuring in Northern Ireland, and not a penny was saved. Indeed, if anything, prices and rates have gone up—this year, the rise in rates has been exceptional. I say gently to the Minister that perhaps it is time to consider and learn from what Northern Ireland has done and where it has gone wrong, so that we can do better here.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure whether you are being dragged into a devolved matter, Minister, but go ahead if you are happy to answer.
Alison McGovern
It would not be the same if I did not get to answer the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, before and throughout my time in Government, I have always considered what is happening in Northern Ireland to learn lessons from it. I thank him for making that point.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 23 March will include:
Monday 13 April—Debate on a motion on SEND provision and reform. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 14 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill.
Wednesday 15 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Thursday 16 April—General debate on the Modernisation Committee’s first report of the 2024-26 session on “Access to the House of Commons and its procedures” and the House Administration’s response.
Friday 17 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 April includes:
Monday 20 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message to the Victims and Courts Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message to the Crime and Policing Bill.
Tuesday 21 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
I can also announce to the House that the state opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday 13 May 2026.
As is usual, the current Session of Parliament will be prorogued ahead of the King’s Speech and this time will be used to enable logistical and security preparations for the state opening of Parliament.
The date of Prorogation will be confirmed in due course.
John Lamont
I begin by echoing your remarks, Mr Speaker, about our former colleague, David Winnick. I pay my respects to him.
We must all condemn the antisemitic arson attack against the Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on Monday morning. It was a sickening attack on the Jewish community. Antisemitism has no place in our country, and we must stand together against this hatred and intimidation.
Today is Purple Day—the international day of epilepsy awareness. It is an important opportunity to raise understanding of a condition that affects many people across the United Kingdom. I ask the Leader of the House to join me in recognising the work of charities, campaigners and clinicians who support people with that condition.
May we also take a moment to remember Saleh Mohammadi, aged 19, who was a talented wrestler, and all those executed by the Iranian Government? Their courage must not be forgotten. Every Member of this House should stand in solidarity with the people of Iran in their pursuit of freedom, justice and dignity.
We all want to see the conflict in the middle east brought to an end as quickly as possible, but with rising oil prices, the Government must clarify what they are doing to control inflation and pressures on household budgets. Before the general election, the Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300. I ask the Leader of the House whether that promise still stands, and when he expects the Chancellor to come forward with her next inevitable U-turn on fuel duty.
With less than 50 days to go until much of the country goes to the polls, the former Deputy Prime Minister and former deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), has given a damning assessment of the Government and the Prime Minister. She said that Labour is “running out of time”, that it is not delivering change fast enough and that it represents
“the establishment, not working people.”
She also described some of the Labour Government’s policies as “un-British”. Does the Leader of the House agree with that assessment, or is the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne wrong?
There are also, of course, critical Scottish Parliament elections. The smart way to stop the SNP majority is to vote Scottish Conservative on the peach ballot paper. The SNP is distracted by independence and divisive issues while people face rising prices, weak growth and job insecurity. John Swinney now proposes another push for independence, admitting nobody knows his tactics. Meanwhile, the Labour Government are failing to deliver change. They have abandoned the oil and gas industry in Scotland and broken promises to pensioners and farmers. The Chancellor is driving up bills while increasing debt.
Labour’s repeated U-turns show a Government in chaos, and that chaos is now out in the open, with the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, calling for the Prime Minister to go. Mr Sarwar and the Prime Minister have not spoken in over a month, so I ask the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister has been banned from Scotland. Has the man supposedly leading the United Kingdom been told not to venture past Carlisle or Coldstream? Is that how weak the Prime Minister has become? Scotland, a place that the Prime Minister visited several times during the general election campaign, is now a no-go area for him.
What of the rest of the Labour Government? Have they also been banned from Labour’s campaign in Scotland? This week, Anas Sarwar said:
“I’ve been open about saying that this is an unpopular UK Labour government and we have an unpopular prime minister, that’s a statement of fact.”
Does the Leader of the House accept that fact? Will this unpopular Labour Government help the Labour campaign in Scotland by staying away, or will they help the SNP by getting involved? The Scottish Conservatives offer a clear alternative: responsible spending, economic growth and lower taxes for hard-working families. This election is about stopping an SNP majority—something we have done before and something we will do again.
Finally, on Tuesday, the official Opposition lost some of our precious debating time because the Chancellor decided to make a statement. Unfortunately, the statement did not announce anything new, and what there was had already been briefed out to Chris Mason at the BBC. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House for another half-day Opposition day debate before the end of the Session?
Mr Speaker, as we approach the Easter recess, may I wish you, the Leader of the House and all Members and their staff a very happy Easter?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the shadow Deputy Leader of the House for his questions; it is always good to see him in his place. First, I join him in his remarks on the terrible attack in Golders Green. I hope the whole House will join us in condemning this attack on Jewish community ambulances; it was an horrific antisemitic hate crime, and we stand in solidarity with the Jewish community.
This week marked nine years since the murder of PC Keith Palmer, who died protecting this House. His courage and commitment will never be forgotten, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with PC Palmer’s family, friends and colleagues. We thank the police and security officers who keep us and this place safe today.
I join the shadow Deputy Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to David Winnick. With a distinguished tenure of more than 40 years, he was unwavering in his commitment to his constituency, and I am sure Members will join me in sending our condolences to David’s friends and family.
I have just announced that the King’s Speech will take place on Wednesday 13 May. At its conclusion, this parliamentary Session will have seen the delivery of over 50 Bills. Through that legislation, we are improving renters’ rights, changing planning laws to streamline the delivery of new homes, bringing our railways into public ownership and strengthening employment rights. We are delivering on the changes that we promised, and we will continue to build on that in the next parliamentary Session.
I join the shadow Deputy Leader of the House in wishing all Members a very happy Easter. It will be particularly special for the newly ordained Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to take the role. I hope that all Members will be able to spend some time with their families and in their constituencies during the recess.
Let me turn to the specific remarks from the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. I join him in recognising the important work of the charities, consultants, families and others involved in the battle against epilepsy on national epilepsy day. I also join him in standing in solidarity with the people of Iran. Of course, we hope that the conflict will end soon but also that it ends justly.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House asked about the cost of living. We are already bringing down energy bills by £120, and I am sure the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will keep the House updated. As this international crisis unfolds, we will need to take careful stock of what is happening, particularly to energy bills, and we will not only keep the House updated but, if further action is necessary, we will take it.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House referred to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the former Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have just read out a list of this Government’s achievements in the first Session. She was at the heart of many of those achievements, so the divide that he seeks to create is not one that exists in reality.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House talked about letting people down, including pensioners. Pensioners will next month see a considerable rise in their state pension as a result of the triple lock, which we are committed to keeping, unlike the Conservative party.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House also talked about the situation in Scotland. I can reassure him that there will be plenty of support for our colleagues and plenty of opportunities for campaigning north of the border, where the choice is a very clear one: to continue with the failure and underachievement of the SNP Government or real change under Scottish Labour. That is the choice, and there will be plenty of opportunities for every member of the parliamentary Labour party and of the party to be out making the case for that change. In terms of what he said about the Scottish Tories, it was great to see him finishing on a joke.
Mr Speaker
May I say to the two Members who came in late, please do not stand to ask a question as I do not want to embarrass you both?
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
On Friday, I met my constituent Andrew Mackay, whose wife, Katy, passed away at the end of September. Like Andrew, Katy was a retired civil servant, having worked for Border Force for over 40 years. Nearly six months later, Andrew is still not receiving his widower’s pension. Despite his repeated calls for updates, his only contact from Capita, which administers the civil service pension scheme, has been confirmation that it has received the necessary documents. After more than 80 years of combined public service by him and his late wife, Andrew feels badly let down. I have previously written to Capita and, following my meeting with Andrew, I wrote to the Minister, but could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Capita and what can be done to hold it to account?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that this issue has created immense feeling among hon. Members across the House, and concerns about Capita have been raised by many hon. Members during business questions and at other opportunities. The delays are simply unacceptable and they must be resolved as a matter of urgency. I note that Capita representatives are currently appearing before the Public Accounts Committee to discuss the matter, so I hope that not only can some light be shed on what is happening but that progress can be made. If my hon. Friend gives me the details of the specific case he raises, I will ensure it is raised directly with Ministers.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Mr Speaker, I echo your tribute to the late David Winnick.
I join Members from all parts of the House in condemning the attack in north London—this House stands united against antisemitism. I am grateful for the Government’s swift commitment to replace the ambulances, which was an important gesture.
I welcome the confirmation of the date for the King’s Speech. As the Leader of the House knows, I will not be present as my first baby is due in a few weeks’ time so I will be on leave, but I hope it all goes well—[Interruption.] Well, as well as it can.
On Iran, it is clear that Trump’s reckless war is causing death and destruction in the region, and that it is having repercussions for everybody across the world. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has made a couple of statements on this issue already. She addressed the particular problem facing heating oil customers and has offered some reassurances that there will be broader targeted support in the weeks to come, but may I bring the House’s attention to another group who have not yet been spoken about: district heat network customers?
Community-based district heat networks are often tied to a single supplier. Customers often live in blocks of flats, usually in cities, and at the moment they are not covered by the Ofgem price cap. Having been a district heat network customer myself, I know that customers are sometimes protected from global supply shocks, but that depends on the network, where the heat comes from and the contracts that the supplier has signed up to. Because they are not protected by the Ofgem price cap, those customers will be extremely worried about what the latest events mean for them, so will the Leader of the House organise for the relevant Minister to come to the House to reassure those customers about what support will be put in place for them in the forthcoming energy crisis?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Government’s response to what happened in Golders Green.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of heat network suppliers that commercially contract for fuel that powers heat network. As he said, they are not subject to the domestic energy price cap. New regulations came into force in January to allow Ofgem to regulate heat networks, giving it the power to investigate and intervene where heat network prices charged to consumers appear to be disproportionate or unfair. We are committed to supporting those who need help most with energy bills during the crisis, and the Chancellor outlined our early steps on that, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.
On a personal level, I wish the hon. Gentleman and his partner well over the next few weeks—we look forward to hearing good news. May I also say that it is something of a mystery that the names Alana and Alan have not made a comeback as a popular child’s name? I leave that with him.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the remarks made by the Leader of the House concerning our colleague David Winnick?
The Leader of the House has just announced that the Crime and Policing Bill will come back to us for consideration of Lords amendments on 14 April. It will return to the Commons massively expanded and including measures to restrict protests, which were inserted in the Lords. Those measures were snuck in in the same way that a predecessor Conservative Home Secretary did with the Public Order Bill of 2022-23. As this Government seek to restrict the campaigning methods that the suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement used, will the Leader of the House confirm that he has spoken to the Chief Whip and Mr Speaker, who have been written to by dozens of MPs? Will he confirm that if the Government will not withdraw the relevant clause, there will be a full debate and a dedicated Division on this proposal for Members of this House?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am always conscious of the importance of providing sufficient time for parliamentary scrutiny, and I appreciate my hon. Friend’s lobbying on this matter. As I have just announced, we will have a full day after the recess to consider Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, so my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his case. What is called for a Division is a matter not for me, but for the Chair.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the two weeks after Easter. I note that yesterday the House rose early when the Government business finished. We could have had a three-hour debate in Backbench Business time if that had been made available. I also note that we are not being given any time in the week after Easter, other than half a day on the Monday when we come back.
In Westminster Hall, the debates on Tuesday 14 April will be on hidden credit liabilities and the role of the Financial Conduct Authority. On Thursday 16 April, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, followed by debates on the housing needs of young people and the NHS federated data platform. On Tuesday 21 April, there will be a debate on the merits of the independent national revision body on overseeing wheelchair provision. On Thursday 23 April, there will be a debate on access to education and training for young adult carers, followed by a debate on gambling advertising.
I remind the House that Government Parliamentary Private Secretaries should not put in bids to the Backbench Business Committee. I am aware that the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) became a PPS after she submitted her bid, and I am grateful to her for arranging for someone else to take on her debate. In addition, may I urge the House to respond to the Modernisation Committee’s consultation on Backbench Business time and petitions?
We had a lively debate on potholes in Transport questions. We have all had the dreadful experience of having a tyre go when driving over a pothole. The pothole is reported and the workforce from the council come round, pour some pitch into it and roll it, but then it rains and the pitch is washed away. In Harrow, we have a unique solution to that. We have a Pothole Pro—affectionately known as Pothole Pete—that recycles the surface and cements a layer to ensure that it cannot be removed. That means that it is far more efficient and effective. Will the Leader of the House commend this to councils up and down the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and for the commitment of his Committee to this place. He and I have discussed on a number of occasions how best we can use time in this place. As he has said, the Modernisation Committee is looking at that now, and I echo his request that Members take part in that consultation and put in a submission.
I cannot make a promise that I am unable to keep. Timings over the next few weeks will be somewhat uncertain, because we will be depending on messages that might or might not come back from the other place, but I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.
The issue of potholes has been raised with me from across the House on a number of occasions and, I note, it was raised this morning in Transport questions. We are investing £24 billion in maintaining and improving motorways and local roads across the country. As my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has said, drivers are fed up with the state of roads, and the extra funding that we have provided is for potholes and road maintenance; it is not to be diverted elsewhere. As for my reaction to Pothole Pete, I will draw it to the attention of Transport Ministers and seek their views, rather than give my own.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last week, I had the pleasure of holding a chess tournament at the Royal School Wolverhampton in my constituency, bringing together primary and secondary school pupils to socialise and compete for individual and team medals. I even managed to play a couple of games myself. Chess is invaluable to young people, helping them to develop intellectual and emotional skills such as problem-solving, resilience, patience and concentration. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the outstanding work of the Chess in Schools and Communities charity—without which the event would not have been possible—and the Royal School for hosting the event, and will he please ask the Secretary of State for Education to advise us on when the funds earmarked to develop chess in schools will be made available via a tender?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question—I know that he is both a keen advocate for chess and a keen player. I join him in commending the Chess in Schools and Communities charity for its work in teaching chess to young people, and the Royal School Wolverhampton for hosting the event. I will raise his specific question about funding with the Department for Education and get him the answer he needs.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
This morning’s papers report that my two national health service trusts are the worst in the country. One of the more stupid proposals of the management of one of those trusts was a plan to downgrade Goole and District hospital in my constituency. Under the leadership of the former chief executive, one Jonathan Lofthouse, those underperforming trusts repeatedly lied to me, so the House will not be surprised to hear that we had some robust conversations. Mr Lofthouse was then put on gardening leave at the astonishing salary of £285,000 a year. I would have sacked him out of hand; instead, he is now NHS England’s director of turnaround and recovery for my region, the very body tasked with fixing the failing trusts of which he was a cause. This is the institutional rewarding of failure, and it is by no means the first time. Can we therefore have a debate on the national health service’s habitual strategy of failing upwards managers who have let down our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am shocked by the suggestion that anyone should lie to Members of Parliament—that is entirely unacceptable. The right hon. Gentleman has put on record his concern about that, and I have no doubt that he delivered his concerns in a robust manner. He tried his very best to give as much detail as he could in the limited time we have this morning; I suggest that either he seeks an Adjournment debate on this matter to give further voice to his concerns, or if he wants a meeting with Health Ministers to make his case, I will arrange one for him.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
As the current Youth Parliament draws to the end of its term, can I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your continued support of our Youth Parliament? Earlier this week, I met Bobby Forbes, who is Cumbria’s Member of Youth Parliament. Yesterday, the Select Committee that he chairs published a report on reform of personal, social, health and economic education. As this Government are rightly extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, could the Leader of the House please explain to us as Members of this Parliament how we could discuss the recommendations of the Youth Select Committee’s report?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. The Youth Select Committee is an excellent initiative, and this Government continue to take steps to ensure that young people’s voices can be heard in our democracy, not least in the dependence we placed on the voices of young people when we drew together our national youth strategy. If I may, I will share my hon. Friend’s question with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which works very closely with the Committee. I also recommend that she applies for a Westminster Hall debate, so that all MPs have the opportunity to discuss the report’s recommendations and the good work that I hope is being done in their constituencies to promote the voices of young people.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My office has seen an increase in my constituents coming to me because of an uptick in visa processing delays—visas for which they are often paying an increased fee. I really do worry about the sustainability of the Home Office’s processes, particularly in the light of the immigration reforms that this Government are making. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an update from the Department about what it is doing to address those delays?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw the hon. Lady’s concerns to the attention of the Department, and ensure either that she gets an update individually or—if appropriate—that the House gets an update.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Currently, the rules and standards for taxis vary across the country, and they can operate in completely different areas from where they get their licence. Government action to tackle that will take a step forward next week when the consultation ends. Derby taxi drivers have worked with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) to push for higher standards, greater safety and a level playing field for taxis. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging drivers and passengers to take part in that consultation? Will he ensure that there is parliamentary time to hear from Ministers about next steps, once we have the results?
Sir Alan Campbell
Taxi and private hire vehicles play a vital part in local transport, connecting residents to the local economy and enabling businesses and residents to reach wider transport networks. I certainly join my hon. Friend in encouraging local authorities, taxi and private hire vehicle businesses and passengers to participate in the consultation before it closes. We also have the Minister with responsibility for these matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), sitting next to me.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I endorse your tribute to the late David Winnick? I had occasion to observe him in action in this House for the first 20 years of my time here, and I can certainly confirm that he was a strong character with an independent mind. That is the best tribute one can make to a resolute Back Bencher.
May I appeal for a debate in Government time on the importance of the credibility of consultation processes, bearing in mind that we have been through one for local government reform and our contributions seem to have been overwhelmingly ignored? It would be a shame if people felt that there was no point in participating in a consultation process because the outcome had been predetermined on party political grounds.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman says about David Winnick. He was a man of independent mind, and as a former Whip, I can attest to that.
On the wider matter of consultations and reviews, I hope that the public do not get to a situation where they believe that their views, having been given, do not count. The reality is that in some cases people will give their views and they simply do not get the outcome that they want. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are keeping under review the number of consultations and reviews. At the appropriate time, I am sure that Ministers will want to bring forward their views, and perhaps we will have a debate on the matter.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents, Cassie and Ryan Claydon, suffered the loss of their unborn child, Matilda, at 36 weeks. Like every parent in England and Wales who goes through this trauma, they were required to attend the registrar’s office in person to register the stillbirth. Sitting in a waiting room with new parents and babies made the grief even harder than it needed to be. I am supporting their calls for the parents of stillborn babies to be able to register remotely, as they can already in Scotland. Will the Leader of the House advise on the best way to secure that change, and will he join me in crediting the campaign led by Cassie and Ryan?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter and for how he has done so. I am sure the whole House will join me in recognising Cassie and Ryan’s campaign for this change after such a devastating experience. I understand that the General Register Office is considering options for registering births and deaths over the telephone or online to minimise the burden on bereaved families, but I will make sure that Ministers in the Home Office have heard my hon. Friend’s question and that he gets an update.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I will bring up one more time the state of our roads, particularly in Hampshire. I was a horse vet before I was elected, so there is probably not a single road I have not driven down. Thankfully I had a 4x4, because I genuinely needed that for the roads, not just the farm tracks. Where I live in Shawford, they are not just potholes, but craters; it is like driving on the surface of the moon. Hampshire county council, run by the Conservatives, is saying that it has no money to fix the potholes. I know that council budgets are not the remit of central Government, but potholes have become such a problem. Is there the opportunity to have a debate or a review, so that we can have some emergency funding to fix these roads? It is not fair that our constituents need to pay for financial mismanagement.
Sir Alan Campbell
We are investing £24 billion in maintaining and improving motorways and local roads across the country, and a record £7.3 billion for councils over the next four years, but in some cases questions need to be directed towards councils on how they are using that money. As I said previously, the Secretary of State is very keen that it is spent in the right way, but I appreciate the concern of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and, indeed, of the farmers he previously worked with. I am quite sure that they will all be keen to learn about the action we are taking not only to tackle potholes, but to tackle vets’ bills.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Yesterday I was very sorry to be absent from the very powerful Adjournment debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who is seeking justice for our nuclear veterans after previously covered-up information has proved that there was radiation fallout. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows that this is the longest-running scandal in British history. May I plead with him that, in preparing for the new Session, he advocates for a one-year special inquiry to be included in the King’s Speech?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on these matters, and I thank her for that. I will not speculate on what might or might not be in the King’s Speech, but I will certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the Ministry of Defence.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Morgan McSweeney resigned from the Government in disgrace over his role in the Mandelson scandal. The key word is “resigned”—he was not made redundant. I have been asking the Cabinet Office whether he has received a taxpayer-funded cash payout from the Government as part of his deal for exiting No. 10. I asked a named day written parliamentary question the day after he resigned, and the question was ignored. I asked another named day written parliamentary question that was due an answer on Monday, and it was ignored. I raised a point of order on the Floor of the House yesterday, and I have still heard nothing. It is a straightforward question: either he did receive a cash payout for leaving No. 10, or he did not. If he did, how much was it? The Government have had six weeks to provide this information, and I have made three formal attempts to get them to do so. Does the Leader of the House think that is acceptable?
Mr Speaker
Order. We still have a lot of Members to get in. The hon. Gentleman is clearly riled by this issue and keeps raising it, so he might be better off applying for an Adjournment debate.
Sir Alan Campbell
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly echo what you have just said about applying for an Adjournment debate, if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants. He will know that my very strong view is that Members of this House who ask reasonable questions—indeed, any questions—should get an answer wherever possible. I will follow up on his behalf and see if we can get the answer he seeks.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
As Members across the House will be well aware from their own constituency caseloads, the performance of Capita in administering the civil service pension scheme has been disastrous. May we have a debate in Government time on the decision to award Capita the Synergy contract for shared services across Government Departments, which is worth up to £950 million—notwithstanding Labour’s manifesto commitment to bring about the biggest wave of insourcing for a generation? With respect, could I prevail on the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to meet urgently with the Public and Commercial Services Union, whose members are worried that they will face similar delays in receiving their own salaries and will find themselves unable to pay their rent, mortgages and other bills?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister. The payroll contract was signed following a robust 12-month procurement process, but it was undertaken prior to the recent issues with Capita’s administration of the civil service pension scheme. Whether it is pensions or payroll, our priority is to ensure that we get continuity of service and value for money for the public.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Can we have a debate about the rise of the far right across the whole UK? There is barely a constituency in the country that is not touched by its poison, hate and misinformation as it tries to continue to divide our communities, but on Saturday we fight back. The Together Alliance—an alliance of political parties, trade unions and cultural organisations—will take to London’s streets with the message of love, hope and unity in what will be the biggest ever march against the far right we have ever seen. I am pretty sure that the Leader of the House will want to wish this endeavour well, and maybe we will even see him along with us on Saturday.
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that people make their voices heard with their concerns about the far right. It is important that we stand up to the division that the far right seeks to bring not just to our local communities, but to our nation, particularly in the run-up to local elections. It is important that we expose not only that, but—where the far right is present in local government—its record, which is invariably appalling.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) may call me Pothole Pete after this question. Residents in Bracknell Forest are frustrated about potholes, so I welcome the fact that Bracknell Forest council has committed over £7 million to fixing local roads in this year’s budget, backed by millions of pounds of support from this Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that this shows how a Labour council and the Labour Government can work together to address residents’ priorities and deliver better roads across the borough?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I agree that where councils are doing it right—in this case, a Labour council is doing it right—it is important that their record is out there. As I have said, our record funding settlement over the next four years will enable local authorities to fill millions of additional potholes. This is not just about throwing money at the problem; it is about making sure that the money is spent on fixing roads. Where good local councils, such as my hon. Friend’s, have such a record, I hope residents, if they are going to the polls in May, appreciate that situation.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I represent Salisbury hospital, which has one of the eight specialist spinal units in the country. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). We are very concerned about the Government’s plans to commission spinal services through integrated care boards, which directly contradicts a recent report advocating a national strategy as the best way to maintain specialist nursing numbers and avoid a postcode lottery for treatment and outcomes. Will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to give a statement to the House on the rationale behind this decision, which has massive implications for a very vulnerable community of patients?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are concerns across the House about the way that spinal injuries have been treated in the past. I am pleased that he paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who has an exemplary record in this regard. Because people, including my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman, are concerned about this, if he wishes to meet the appropriate Health Minister, I will help to arrange a meeting for both of them, and for other Members if they are interested.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
In January, 15-year-old Jordan Kerr went to the aid of a person who had collapsed on the platform at Drumchapel train station. Jordan administered CPR—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—having learned that skill in the Army cadets, and ultimately helped to save the passenger’s life. Will the Leader of the House join me in offering our thanks and congratulations to Jordan and wish him all success in his campaign to have a defibrillator installed at Drumchapel station?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. Over 110,000 defibrillators are registered in the UK, and over 30,000 have been added over the past two years, many as a result of local community-led action. I join her in offering our sincere thanks to Jordan for his lifesaving actions—and I also thank those involved in the Army cadets for the fantastic work they do in training young people—and in wishing him all the best with his campaign to install a defibrillator at Drumchapel station.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent Michael is autistic and actively psychotic, and he has a confirmed lack of capacity. His parents have power of attorney. His chronic medical problems include cysts deep in his chest that could burst at any time, bowel disease, myopathy and sleep apnoea. His family contacts me with increasing distress as Michael has not washed or changed his clothes in eight months, refuses food, makes direct threats of violence to his mother, forbids his parents from using the phone, and compels his father to drive him around town after midnight. A multidisciplinary team decided on 3 March that a court of protection application was needed, but no agency accepts responsibility for filing. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to ensure that his proposed reforms to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 address cases where capacity assessment has been made? All the professionals agree on the course of action but no statutory agency will act, leaving his elderly carers at risk of violence in their own home.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very concerned to hear about the case the hon. Lady raises and will certainly draw her concerns to the attention of the Health Secretary.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Tommy’s Lounge in Huddersfield is a dedicated drop-in support hub for veterans and their families. It provides peer support, mental health signposting and community connection. However, the service is facing a funding shortfall. The Government have announced Operation Valour to build a national network of recognised veteran support centres. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers what emergency funding is available for established community veteran support organisations such as Tommy’s Lounge, and how the Government will ensure that existing services are not lost while the Valour framework is rolled out?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and commend everyone at Tommy’s Lounge for their work supporting our veterans. I will raise it with the Veterans Minister on her behalf. Operation Valour is a cornerstone of the Government’s veterans strategy, the first in over seven years. It will better connect local services, charities and national services, but she is absolutely right to draw attention to what happens while those services are being rolled out.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Government have designated April the Month of the Military Child to recognise the unique demands and pressures on the children of service personnel, particularly in times of heightened international tension and when we have military personnel deployed on operations overseas. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging all Members to pay particular attention to whether they have sons and daughters of service personnel in their constituency, to focus on them and understand them as much as possible, and to see what provision is being made for them in schools?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is particularly significant at this time of international conflict. The House will take note of what he says. I certainly join him in saying that where there are children of military families—and, indeed, friends and family who will be concerned—MPs should do everything they can to ensure they get the full support they need.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
In Bolton West, my constituents are concerned that proposed funding for a section of link road called Park Avenue has been trumpeted as unlocking a further 4,000 homes near Westhoughton. The link road will only take traffic so far, causing congestion elsewhere. My constituents do not object in principle to new house building, but developers have a track record of building homes first and then completing infrastructure as an afterthought. In the meantime, my constituents continue to endure what is now a decade of frustration with insufficient roads, school places or GP capacity. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of an infrastructure-first approach to local development?
Sir Alan Campbell
For too many homeowners, as my hon. Friend says, the experience of living on a newly developed housing estate has been tainted by the consequences of unadopted infrastructure. We have recently concluded our consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework and we will publish our response in due course. I will ensure that the House is kept updated.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Following roadwork infrastructure improvements in Ilkley, many residents and local businesses have been struggling since the middle of January due to utility works that are taking place on the middle of the A65. Following many a meeting with Bradford council’s traffic management officers, it seems that the traffic management plan that was signed off initially did not mandate that the work was undertaken round the clock 24/7, including weekends. This has led to huge inconvenience, so may we have a debate in Government time on how, to start with, we can have better traffic management plans that cause the least disruption for residents and local businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope that Bradford council has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which will obviously be shared by his residents. I invite him to apply for an Adjournment debate to raise not just this specific issue, but the wider issue of utility works going forward.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The majority of businesses on our high streets add great value to our communities, but there are some where criminality takes place, and that is putting people off visiting their local town centres. Where premises are host to illegal activity, councils can issue closure orders prohibiting access, but those orders can only be made for a maximum of three months before dodgy businesses are allowed to open and operate again. Would the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that local authorities have additional means, set out in statute, to bear down on illicit activity that really harms our high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are committed to reviving our high streets. The Home Office is in the process of establishing a cross-departmental taskforce to develop a strategic, long-term policy response to things like money laundering and illegality to ensure that our high streets are fit for purpose. I will make sure that Ministers have heard her concerns and that when the taskforce begins its work, she gets regular updates.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
A constituent of mine experienced several instances of sexual harassment within the Church of England’s diocese of London between 2017 and 2020. Within that timeline, she was also raped by a church worker after she was coerced by the Church to report historical abuse. Through a series of written questions, I learned recently that the Church of England body responsible for managing safeguarding risks is also responsible for managing reputational risks. It strikes me that those two objectives are incompatible. Does the Leader of the House agree?
Sir Alan Campbell
It certainly sounds that way. Sexual harassment—wherever it takes place and whoever is responsible—is entirely unacceptable. If the hon. Gentleman seeks a meeting with the relevant Minister to address his concerns, I will ensure that he gets it.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Not for the first time at business questions, I am raising the Arthur Terry Learning Partnership, which is a multi-academy trust in the west midlands that runs six schools in my constituency, and 24 in total. The trust found itself in significant financial distress at the start of this year, leading to nine days of strike action across a number of schools. The new leadership at the trust is working hard to rectify that; it has taken great strides, and the strikes are now paused. The major blockage for the trust now, though, is servicing a debt that was accrued under previous leadership. Will the Leader of the House secure a meeting for me and other affected Members with the Department for Education to discuss what we can do about how that debt is restructured, with the aim of saving up to 23 teachers’ jobs?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to continue to raise these matters on behalf of his constituents. I will do everything I can to ensure that he gets that meeting with the relevant Minister.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
My constituents share the same hospital trust as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who raised a number of issues earlier. I certainly share his concerns and criticisms. It is important to my constituents to be reassured that, despite the failings of senior management, frontline services are still being delivered. Last week, I visited the renal unit at Grimsby hospital, which is operated by Nephrocare. The unit has an excellent manager, Renata Jaworska, and the service it provides was clearly well received by the patients I spoke to. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the provision of services by companies similar to Nephrocare, which clearly provide an excellent service within the structure of the NHS?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, and I join him in thanking Renata and all the hard-working staff at Nephrocare. The Government are committed to improving our healthcare, and our 10-year health plan will fundamentally rewire and future-proof our NHS. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate, not only to highlight the good news in his area, but to look at what the future might be.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The right of tenants and residents in social housing to manage their own estate is an important one. Many tenant management organisations deliver excellent services for their residents. However, that is not the case for residents of the Loughborough estate in my constituency, who have been badly failed by the Loughborough estate management board for many years, with poor repairs and maintenance services and truly shocking conditions on the estate. The mechanisms to resolve those issues are within the control of the very organisation that is failing residents. The renewal ballot for the LEMB is now more than a year overdue, and a recent annual general meeting was held outside the rules, with many residents denied entry. Can we have a debate in Government time on resident and tenant management organisations, and changes in the law that may be needed to ensure that, when things go as badly wrong as they have on the Loughborough estate, steps can be taken quickly to intervene?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question on behalf of not just the Loughborough estate, but her wider constituency. Many tenant management organisations provide excellent resident-led housing services, but when they go wrong it is right that they are held to account. We are reviewing the relevant regulations and guidance with the help of an expert steering group, and we will set out our next steps once the review concludes. I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears of my hon. Friend’s concerns and that she gets an update when those next steps become clear.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
A small business owner in my constituency who relies on Facebook and Instagram to market her flower business has had her accounts disabled and advertising blocked after she was mistakenly flagged as spam by the system; she has heard nothing back. All the while, we know that scam and spam adverts—many powered by artificial intelligence —litter social media platforms. Will the Leader of the House make time to consider the importance of social media to British businesses and the responsibilities of the social media companies to support legitimate businesses and tackle scammers? If the Government are pulling the AI Bill, will legislation come forward urgently to tackle AI-powered scams?
Sir Alan Campbell
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise his concerns about what has happened to his constituent. He is right that it is vital for many small and medium-sized businesses to be able to access social media. I will not speculate about what will happen in legislation, but I am sure that Ministers will have heard his concerns.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
In recent weeks, I have heard from many fathers in my constituency concerned about the attitude they have encountered from the Child Maintenance Service and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, including assumptions that they are trying to shirk payments, absence of support when ex-partners cut off their contact with their children, and accusations being recorded without their side even being heard. Yes, there are manipulative and abusive men out there, but most dads are not like that and deserve to be treated fairly, not with prejudice. May we have a debate on the experiences of fathers in dealing with our family courts and the CMS?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to the House. I am sure that colleagues will have heard similar from some of their constituents. The Child Maintenance Service plays a vital role in supporting families, but the Government are clear that it can do more to deliver a fair and trustworthy service. He may know that last week there was a Westminster Hall debate on the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of the relevant Minister.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is six weeks since, at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the case of my constituent who had three family members killed in a dangerous driving crime by a foreign offender, after which the Prisons Minister refused to act to prevent the offender’s deportation. I requested a meeting with the Minister on behalf of the family, who, as victims, want to explain the impact on them, but a month on there has been no reply. Will the Leader of the House use his office to remind Lord Timpson of the importance of timely responses to such requests?
Sir Alan Campbell
Lord Timpson is a truly excellent Prisons Minister. I do not know the detail of what may have gone wrong in this case, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to his attention.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I had the pleasure of visiting the newly opened Pens Meadow SEND school in Dudley. That fantastic and long-awaited school has transformed opportunities for local children, families and staff, and stands as a testament to the vision of the headteacher, Marie Hunter. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the school and thanking Marie and her team, and will he grant time for a debate on improving SEND provision in the Black Country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. We will reform the SEND system, because we need to transform the life chances of every child with additional needs. We have already committed £4 billion to make every mainstream school in England an inclusive school. I join her in welcoming Marie Hunter and all of the staff at the new Pens Meadow school. I have just announced that there will be a debate on SEND on the first day back after the Easter recess, and I hope that my hon. Friend can make her case then.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
This week, I was shocked to hear about the unacceptable living conditions that my constituents are enduring at Haynes Park Court in Hornchurch. Leaseholders and tenants paying substantial service charges report rat infestations, black mould, damp and water leaks, alongside concerns about antisocial behaviour throughout the estate. Despite repeated attempts to engage with the managing company, London and Quadrant, about these issues, residents feel ignored, neglected and completely let down. Does the Leader of the House agree that housing associations like L&Q must be held to account? Will he make time for a debate on improving living conditions for my constituents and others who are facing similarly appalling conditions at the hands of housing associations that are failing in their duty to local residents?
Sir Alan Campbell
Housing associations are required to deliver on the regulatory standards set out by the social housing regulator. Referrals can be made to the regulator where there are concerns that registered providers are not delivering on the proper standards, but I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears the hon. Member’s concerns.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
When I went campaigning with Paul Godzik, Suzanne Grahame and Siobhan Paterson, three outstanding Scottish Labour candidates in the Holyrood elections, I was often asked, “What’s the difference between Scottish Labour and the SNP?” Well, let us try this one on for size. I joined the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Grangemouth in December as she announced £120 million to save 500 jobs on site and the future of the UK chemicals industry. Let us compare that with the SNP Government announcement yesterday. They have decided that they are going to buy more buses built in China than in Larbert and Falkirk. I know how I feel, but what does the Leader of the House make of the SNP abandoning Scottish workers, communities and industry?
Sir Alan Campbell
First of all, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the record of this Government in supporting workers at Grangemouth. He is also absolutely correct in his analysis and condemnation of the record of the SNP in this case and in many others too. The reality is that the SNP Government are, and have been for some time, letting down Scottish workers. It is disgraceful that they are making decisions without due regard to what is best for Scottish workers. I hope that they have heard my hon. Friend here today and that his constituents and people more widely reflect on that when they get the opportunity to do so in just a few weeks’ time.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Two people a day are diagnosed with cancer during or right after pregnancy, yet their maternity leave cannot be deferred. That means that mums are missing out on precious time bonding with their baby—time they will never get back—as they undergo urgent and necessary treatment. It is clear that legislation must be changed to properly support mothers with cancer, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the merits of allowing mothers to defer maternity leave until their cancer treatment is complete?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is a very interesting question. It brings together two things that the Government are determined to do: to make sure that we provide the very best support for people suffering from cancer, and to make sure that we support parents, particularly new parents, if this should arise. I do not know the answer to the hon. Member’s question what can be done, but I will bring the matter to the attention of the relevant Minister and see whether the Department is about to bring forward something that might address it.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The latest Department for Education performance tables rank Rochdale sixth-form college as the No. 1 sixth-form college in England. It already scored highly on exam results, but it is now first in England for A-level progress, applied general progress, academic progress and, crucially, progress for disadvantaged students in both A-levels and BTECs. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the students and staff at Rochdale sixth-form college on proving that Rochdale students really are a class act?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to the House. I join him in congratulating everyone at Rochdale sixth-form college, including all the students, on their exceptional, fantastic achievement. Our education reforms will ensure that the country’s education system delivers opportunity for all, and we have invested £800 million extra in further education for 16 to 19-year-olds. I shall certainly draw to the Education Secretary’s attention the success in his constituency, and long may it continue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Naimi, a young Baha’i in Iran, was tortured into giving a false confession that was later broadcast on state media. He has been subjected to severe beatings, interrogation, and mock executions, in which he had a noose placed around his neck. All this happened in an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detention facility. This has serious implications for the wider Baha’i community in Iran. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what representations the Government have made to the Iranian authorities regarding Mr Naimi’s case, and to raise concerns about the treatment of Baha’is and the use of false confessions in Iran?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue, and I thank him for that. We strongly condemn the repression of religious minorities in Iran, notwithstanding the grave uncertainty about what is happening now. This issue will continue, whatever the outcome of the situation there. The case that he raises is concerning. I will make sure that he gets a response from the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office on what it has done, and what its intention is. On a personal note, may I wish the hon. Gentleman happy birthday for yesterday?
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
At Jameson Road landfill site, the stink is only getting worse. It is making the lives of my constituents unbearable, yet the crooks responsible at Transwaste still have not gone back to Yorkshire, and have set up a new company called Transwaste NW, presumably to hide their dodgy activities. Will the Leader of the House assure me that this Government will not allow firms like Transwaste to evade accountability for their crimes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I can, because this is a very concerning matter. This week, the Government published their waste crime action plan, which sets out a zero-tolerance approach to waste crime. I understand that the Environment Agency is considering all regulatory options to reduce and prevent any impact on the people of Fleetwood, and it has been clear with Transwaste about these expectations. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call out Transwaste today. The Environment Agency will continue to hold it to account, and will work closely with the local council.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent host excellent tourism hotspots and venues, and my constituency plays a key part in that. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the businesses in Burton and Uttoxeter that won in this year’s Visit Staffordshire tourism awards, including: Uttoxeter racecourse; Denstone Hall farm shop and café; George Lowe and Lowe’s on Carter Street; and the Duncombe Arms in Ellastone?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone in Burton and Uttoxeter on winning the Visit Staffordshire tourism awards. It just goes to show what a fantastic community my hon. Friend represents. I am also advised by my Parliamentary Private Secretary that Staffordshire is a lovely place. I am absolutely sure that the awards to which my hon. Friend refers are well-deserved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will get everybody in, but may I remind Members that business questions should pertain to the business of the House, and that it is customary to ask the Leader of the House to grant Government time for a debate or a statement? We appear to have had a run of questions to which the business has not really been that relevant.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Last week, I was delighted to welcome £20 million of long-term Pride in Place funding for Heavitree East and Whipton in Exeter. This funding will be transformational for those communities, after years in which they have felt left behind by the last Government. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the most exciting aspect of Pride in Place, which is that it is designed to give residents a full say in how the funding is used in their community, and might there be a debate in Government time on community engagement?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in celebrating receipt of this funding. We have committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 neighbourhoods, and we have begun to set up neighbourhood boards, so that local people can decide for themselves how best to spend the money. He may wish to apply for a Westminster Hall debate on this important programme when we return after the recess.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Recently, residents in Shiremoor and Cramlington have been contacting me about significant delays to post deliveries. Some report letters arriving once every 10 days. This is having a real impact on constituents, and in one case, a delay in receiving post resulted in an interruption of disability living allowance for a child. Given that Royal Mail has stated that there are no widespread issues, what steps can Members take to hold Royal Mail to account, so that I can ensure reliable postal services for my constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
Last week, a well-attended Westminster Hall debate addressed the declining performance of Royal Mail. It reflected falling confidence among Members of the House, and the increasing anger about service failures, as described by my hon. Friend today. It is clear that there is cross-party support for improving the situation. I hope that Royal Mail hears that message loud and clear, and I will also ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are raised directly with the Department, because things need to improve.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Yesterday’s announcement by the Government of an increase in the number of youth hubs, and the confirmation of the new locations, which include one in my constituency, is such incredible news. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this wonderful news for West Dunbartonshire? It will go a long way towards breaking down barriers to opportunity for the young people of my constituency. Will he also arrange for a statement on this matter after the recess?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is indeed wonderful news. We are working hard to make sure that young people are supported. Youth Futures hubs will bring together services for young people, so that they can access opportunities and get the support that they need in their local communities. The national youth strategy is about empowering young people. It was written by, effectively, young people, and it puts them in the driving seat when it comes to designing local youth services. Should my hon. Friend seek a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, I am sure that other colleagues would want to take part and praise what is happening in their area.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Heritage is devolved, and the Scottish Government have not yet provided a replacement for the listed places of worship VAT reclaim scheme, causing significant distress and uncertainty for places of worship in my constituency. Angus Robertson has justified this by saying that the UK Government did not inform them that the scheme was ending. It has since been established that they were first informed about the change by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in January 2025; that gave them a year and two budgets to replace the scheme. Instead, in their most recent budget, they cut Historic Environment Scotland’s funding. Can we have a statement on the subject after the recess from a DCMS Minister, so that Scottish Members from across the House who have raised this matter during business questions can call on the SNP to drop the political posturing and deliver a scheme for Scottish places of worship?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a regular attendee of business questions, and I know that many share his appreciation of the importance of places of worship in communities. The reality is that we gave the Scottish Government the largest funding settlement since devolution began, and we gave them notice of what we were going to do, so he is absolutely right: the SNP needs to stop posturing on these matters, stop the political point scoring, and get on and deliver.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My constituents have been let down by poor bus services in Leeds South West and Morley for too long, so I am delighted that all buses in Leeds will be brought back under public control next year. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging my residents to complete my better buses survey, so that we can make sure that the Weaver Network actually works for us, and will he grant a debate in Government time on the importance of publicly controlled bus networks?
Sir Alan Campbell
Our Bus Services Act 2025 is letting local leaders in communities like my hon. Friend’s take back control of services. I join him in encouraging his constituents to complete his survey and make sure that their voices are heard. I also recommend that he applies for what I am sure will be a popular Westminster Hall debate.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
There are 461 looked-after children in Telford and the Wrekin, and I want to see every one of them given the care, support and opportunities that they need to thrive. I am grateful to the organisations large and small, and the residents across Telford, who have helped me in my efforts to deliver an Easter egg to every looked-after child in Telford. They include Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service, Housing Plus Group, Sophie’s Sweetcheeks, Dawley Social Club, the Outpost and many more. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking these organisations, wish every child in care across our country a happy Easter, and grant Government time for a debate on corporate parenting?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend describes how strong his local community is; people there are coming together to make sure that looked-after children get the support that they need. That is certainly the hope and intention of this Government. I thank everybody involved in those efforts, and I wish them a happy Easter. When we return, I will certainly give consideration to my hon. Friend’s request.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Sunderland is a happier place than Mar-a-Lago at the moment. Perhaps that is why the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is visiting today, having called on the UK to do all we can to support the US and Israel’s war on Iran. But I am here to stand up for Sunderland, not for Donald Trump, so can I impress on the Leader of the House that my constituents do not want to be drawn into a war that is not our own, and that they are concerned about rising petrol prices? Will he make ample time after the recess for these views to continue to be heard, and will he ensure that the Government continue to make decisions solely in the British national interest?
Sir Alan Campbell
What a contrast—from celebrations after the local derby last Sunday, to the approaching dark cloud of the arrival of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I thank my hon. Friend for raising concerns on behalf of his community. We are responding to the crisis in the middle east with the calm, level-headed leadership that the situation demands. We are entirely focused on our national interests. That is in stark contrast to Reform, which does not know, from one day to the next, what the national interest actually looks like. I know that the good people of Sunderland have a strong sense of community, and the good sense to reject policies of division.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
The clocks change this weekend, and at a stroke we will have light in the evenings. We could have light at evenings all year round if we adopted Churchill time; it would also cut bills, reduce road traffic accidents and boost the hospitality industry. Given that this is a cross-departmental issue, how can I best get traction on this, so that we can be the Labour Government who really light up everybody’s lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but I am afraid I have to disappoint her. The Government believe that the current daylight saving arrangements represent the optimal use of the available daylight across the UK, so there are no plans to introduce double summer time or any such changes.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Government are committed to effective cross-departmental working, yet my constituent Suzi has had tremendous problems getting different agencies to work together simply to get an effective wheelchair delivered to her home. Does the Leader of the House agree that cross-agency working needs to improve, and will he arrange for a statement to be delivered to the House on the progress that the Government are making?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, let me express my sympathies for Suzi. We talk about many issues in this place, and it is easy to forget sometimes the impact on people’s lives in our constituencies. I agree with my hon. Friend that cross-departmental working is important. If he provides me with the case details, I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Minister.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Long Eaton Town Deal Board has been accelerating towards delivery of so many projects—a new events field, a new office space, a pair of beautiful bridges across the Erewash canal, and a stunning rebuild of our town centre. So many have contributed, but none more so than our board chair, local business leader and proud champion of Long Eaton Richard Ledger. Last week, Richard was awarded the freedom of the borough of Erewash for his immeasurable service to our patch. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating him on this award, and will he consider granting time to discuss the importance of such awards for our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend on congratulating Richard Ledger and the successes of the Long Eaton Town Deal Board. As he knows, through our Pride in Place programme, we are helping communities to take back control. This goes to show what can happen when communities are in the driving seat, have the resources that they need, and have fantastic individuals like Richard Ledger, who can make best use of the resources and show leadership on these matters. Should he wish to apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject, I am sure that he and other Members could use it to speak about the good things that are happening in many of our constituencies.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Residents in Vernons Mews in Nuneaton, managed by Marston management company, are facing homelessness for the third time following a prohibition order that was first issued in August 2025 by Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service. For months, I have been working cross-agency to tackle myriad issues, yet a temporary fire system installed back in August 2025, which the fire safety crew deemed inappropriate for the residential building that it is in, is still in place and there are no permanent solutions. May I join the call for Government time to be given to the issues of tenancy management companies, and will my right hon. Friend please update me on what further steps can be taken to address these failures?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise that concern. As she points out, similar concerns were raised earlier. I am sorry to hear of the issues faced by her constituents and I understand her frustration. We are committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agents to drive the standard of their service. I will make sure that Ministers are aware of the case. I hope that they will be able to provide her with an update on our plans, but I have also listened to her call and that of others for time to hear further about these matters.
National Savings & Investments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I would like to make a statement regarding National Savings & Investments. On 18 December 2025, NS&I notified the Treasury of an operational failure to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who had passed away. The result of that failure is that not all savings were identified by NS&I and paid to the beneficiaries of their estates as they should have been. Specifically, processes failed to comprehensively trace some customer holdings where they were spread across multiple profiles or systems.
Hon. Members will be aware of historical challenges in financial services in this regard. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority took enforcement action in 2018 against Santander relating to the tracing of accounts following notification that a customer had passed on. That received significant attention at the time. However, what is now clear is that NS&I and its suppliers did not respond to those warning signs as fully as I and, more importantly, their customers, would expect, and nor did the last Government act.
Bereaved families, whose loved ones held accounts with NS&I, will rightly be anxious about this news, so let me turn to the action that we have taken and the further steps that we are putting in place today. Since being notified, the Treasury has ensured that external advisers, including EY and legal experts, have been engaged to identify the scale of the errors. Through this work, NS&I has reviewed over 34 million customer records. That work is ongoing, but it points to up to a maximum of around 37,500 customers, with up to £476 million in deposits, being affected. Three quarters of cases relate to the period between 2008 and 2025. The number is likely to fall in future, but although it represents less than 0.2% of NS&I’s customers, that is still far too many.
NS&I is not regulated by the FCA, but the Government expect it to live up to the same standards as regulated deposit-taking banks. It is therefore right that NS&I is apologising today. The Government’s priorities now are threefold. First—and immediately, to ensure that the problem is no longer taking place—NS&I has received written assurances from its customer-facing supplier Sopra Steria that the causes of the tracing issue have been addressed and will not affect customers going forward. Its previous supplier, Atos, has also committed to full co-operation, given that it was responsible for handling bereavement cases until 2025.
Our second priority is to ensure that we reunite beneficiaries of those customers who have passed away with any funds that NS&I holds. Those deposits belong to customers. Returning them in no way represents an additional liability to the taxpayer, and for the avoidance of doubt, let me spell out that those savings are 100% safe. The issue is about tracing and not the security of any funds, but it is important, none the less. NS&I has put in place a dedicated programme team and hired an additional 100 staff. I have asked it to publish a delivery plan in May detailing how they will take forward the work to reunite funds with their owners. This will cover: the number of cases affected; how NS&I will proactively contact representatives of estates to ensure they receive the funds that they are due, including interest on savings; and the compensation that, where appropriate, will be paid.
There is no need for individuals to waste money on a claims management company or solicitor. I reassure people that the onus is not on them but on NS&I to act—to contact estate representatives and to reconnect beneficiaries with the money they are due. Further information is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week. I will also ensure that MPs have a dedicated means of contacting NS&I to raise any constituency cases directly.
Dealing with bereavement is always challenging, and I am sure that we all recognise that finding out, as party of that, that such errors have been made could be distressing. We are committed to ensuring that NS&I supports those who have experienced a loss by making the process for reuniting beneficiaries with their money as easy as possible. We also recognise that there may be tax implications for affected estates and want to avoid bereaved families facing disproportionate disruption and administrative costs as a result of the error. We are exploring what support we can provide and will set this out alongside NS&I’s delivery plan in May.
Current NS&I customers can access their accounts as normal. Any wishing to trace old accounts can use the tracing services direct through NS&I or the My Lost Account website. Because in the past some searches have focused too narrowly on searching for specific accounts, I have also instructed NS&I to make it simpler for people to search for all the accounts or products that they might hold.
Our third priority is institutional. NS&I plays an important role, helping the public to save and providing a material contribution towards Government financing. The organisation must continue to play that role while addressing the tracing issues that I have laid out today. It must also complete what has been a challenging business transformation programme. The programme was put in place back in 2020, but with little progress made in the previous Parliament, as the recent Public Accounts Committee report has set out. This Government have appointed David Goldstone, former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, to support NS&I to bring the programme back on track.
With all this in mind, I also want to make sure that NS&I has the very best leadership in place. Effective from today, I have appointed Sir Jim Harra—former first permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—to take over as the chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start for NS&I’s next phase of development. I also recognise the 22 years of public service of his predecessor Dax Harkins at NS&I.
As well as providing leadership to the organisation, Sir Jim will undertake a review over the next three months to spell out in detail the background to the tracing problem and to set out what lessons must be learned by NS&I. I have discussed this with Sir Jim and am confident that his extensive experience will help guide NS&I in the months ahead. I will ensure that Sir Jim’s review is shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees upon completion.
NS&I holds over £240 billion of savings belonging to 24 million customers. It is an organisation that is valued by those saving with it and by this Government. I repeat NS&I’s apology to its customers and reiterate that every penny of their savings is safe, and—as always—they are 100% guaranteed by the Treasury. I commend this statement to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. This scandal affects tens of thousands of people, and it could end up costing taxpayers many millions of pounds. NS&I is supposed to be as safe a place as anywhere for people to put their savings—a place where savers can trust that their money will be looked after. As we have heard, 24 million people do so. It is also a savings scheme that the Government can use as a benefit to taxpayers, borrowing to provide funds for the running of the country. It needs to be demonstrably secure.
In reality, bereaved families have been short-changed, with NS&I losing track of investments, delaying transfers and withholding premium bond payments. Customers have faced a complete breakdown in communication at the most difficult time, adding stress and worry. In the breaking newspaper reporting today, we have heard how people have had to chase up their own cases, only to be told that they would have to wait a further six to nine months for a resolution. Some families have also had to call in lawyers to obtain money that is rightfully theirs, and there are examples of bereaved family members receiving letters incorrectly addressed to their dead relatives. NS&I has in the past tried to blame some of these failures on covid and the outsourcing of staff, but whatever its excuse, this is unacceptable and a complete failure of management.
NS&I is letting down its customers, and complaints have more than doubled in just over three years. At the same time, the digital transformation of NS&I that was meant to cost £1.3 billion has now ballooned to £3 billion. Is it any wonder that the Public Accounts Committee was damning about the digitalisation plan, calling it a “full-spectrum disaster” and concluding that NS&I is “over-confident” and
“has no workable plan, and no idea of eventual cost.”
If the Public Accounts Committee could see it, why have this Government been sitting on their hands? Poor performance and a botched digital transformation mean that NS&I is short-changing savers at a time when raising money for the Government has never been needed more.
NS&I is an arm’s length body overseen by the Treasury. Specifically, it is an Executive agency of the Chancellor, so it is concerning that the Minister has today admitted that NS&I notified the Treasury of these operational failings on 18 December last year. It has apparently taken a breaking news story in The Daily Telegraph for the Government to make a statement today. Can the Minister please explain why it has taken him over three months to come forward with this statement? He also says that the previous Government failed to act. That implies that there was something to act on. Can he set out what actions he has taken between coming to power on 4 July 2024 and 18 December 2025?
I have some further questions for the Minister. What provision has been made for compensation and who will pay for it? Where bonuses have been paid to senior staff over the period of poor performance, will they be recovered? On that note, we have seen reports that the chief executive will be resigning as a result of this issue and the botched digital transformation process. Can the Minister confirm whether he has resigned, or has he been sacked? Can he confirm whether the chief executive received bonuses over this period of poor performance? Finally, what confidence do the Minister and the Government have that this is the true depth of the problem affecting bereaved families? What work is he doing to identify whether this might be the tip of an iceberg? I am not trying to imply that it is the tip of an iceberg, but I ask the question to ensure that this is the limit of the problem.
People have been let down. While NS&I has apologised for the mistakes, it will be of little comfort to those thousands of people who have lost out. The Government need to act swiftly and the families need to be compensated. The Opposition will work collaboratively with the Government to ensure a swift resolution.
Torsten Bell
I welcome the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. I obviously absolutely agree with him that customers deserve better and they deserve reassurance. I have tried to provide that today by setting out what we are doing, and giving everybody reassurance that their savings are 100% safe and are guaranteed by the Government.
The hon. Member asks why we have come to the House today. This has been the intention for some time. As he says, we were notified in December. During that period, we have reviewed the over 34 million cases of customer records, as I mentioned, and have put in place the process to ensure that we have fixed this problem as we go forward, so that we can provide the reassurance for customers that I know we both want. I have also put in place the change of leadership that I have set out today, about which the hon. Member asked. I can confirm that the former chief executive of NS&I has resigned today and that he did not receive a bonus last year.
The hon. Member asked about the cost to taxpayers. There has been some deeply misleading reporting over the course of the last 24 hours, so I want to be absolutely clear: the money we are talking about returning to estates belongs to those estates—it is their money. The returning of people’s money to them is not a liability to other taxpayers; it is the right thing to do, and that is what is going to take place.
The hon. Member asks whether it would have been reasonable to have expected the previous Government to act. I am sure that he would rightly note that NS&I is operationally independent; I think the challenge comes given that it became clear in around 2018 that there were significant problems in this area—I mentioned the Santander case in particular—and there was widespread coverage at that time; within NS&I, people realised that this could pose problems for them.
The hon. Member has taken an excellent tone today. I was less impressed to read the comments of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), in the Telegraph, in which he talked about a “staggering failure of oversight”—he was the Treasury Minister in 2018 when the Santander case came forward! As often, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has shown better judgment than his superiors. Then again, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has also talked about
“incompetence on a staggering scale”,
which is an irony given that he, too, was a Minister in the Government carrying out the incompetence to which he refers.
I broadly welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has conducted himself today. It is absolutely right that we provide the reassurance to taxpayers and, most importantly, to savers with NS&I; I hope that I have done so today.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am glad to see that he is stepping in, and I am pleased to hear that National Savings & Investments will focus on reuniting bereaved families with their money, which it holds after things went badly wrong. How will he and the Government raise awareness with savers of the fact that they do not need to use claims management companies and that they can rely on NS&I putting things right?
Torsten Bell
As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He is absolutely right—the priority for us is to ensure that people are reunited with their money and that they do not incur costs in trying to get it back. That is why I have been so clear with NS&I over the past few months that it makes sure that it understands the problem it is dealing with and that it needs to set out a delivery plan as soon as May for how it will reunite people with their money. That will involve contacting representatives of estates in the first instance, and that is what people need to rely on. As I said, I want to be clear with the public today that the onus is not on them; the onus is on NS&I to contact the people whose funds deserve to be reunited with them, and that is what we will all be focused on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the action he has outlined that the Government are already undertaking. He will know that customers often choose National Savings & Investments because it is Government-backed, and because that provides them with extra reassurance that their savings will be safe. The news that the money of tens of thousands of people was essentially lost for a period of time will be a hammer blow to trust in that institution, and the fact that these cases involve bereaved families makes it particularly damaging.
To restore trust in the institution, it will be vital that justice is served comprehensively and swiftly. Will the Minister confirm the estimated timeline for identifying and contacting every family affected? Have the Government committed not only to reimbursing or returning the money that the families are due, but compensating them fully to reflect the distress that has been caused? He has already mentioned interest; will he confirm that all that interest will be returned? Will legal costs also be reimbursed? Some of the bereaved families resorted to legal action to get what they believed they were owed, and I am sure that they will feel that they are entitled to be reimbursed on that as well. Will the Government now carry out a full independent investigation to fully learn the lessons of what happened and ensure that there will be much stronger oversight of the system going forward?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his questions —let me try to do justice to them. He is completely right that one of the reasons customers choose NS&I is that they trust the institution, but they also know that it has that 100% Government backing. It is important that we are all clear with everybody that that remains in place, that no funds have been misplaced and that everybody will be entitled to every penny of their savings.
On rebuilding that trust, that is why I have put new leadership in place. Sir Jim’s review will lay out those lessons. He is an interim chief executive, and we will be recruiting for a permanent replacement, so he is in a position to give us the full truth about what he sees. He is an experienced public servant and public sector leader, so we should look to his review. As I say, I have asked him to report in three months’ time. I will ensure that the appropriate Select Committee Chairs have that review. It will set out the lessons that we need to learn.
The hon. Member rightly asks about compensation. As I set out in my statement, we will ensure that the appropriate compensation is paid along the lines of how the FCA encourages best practice. That will include compensatory interest where funds have been withheld from estates for longer than they should have been, and that will be done automatically. People who have more complicated cases will as always be able to go direct to NS&I to have them considered on a case-by-case basis.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for providing an update. Many families across the country will be incredibly anxious about this news. Can he tell us a bit more about how he will hold the new executive and non-executive teams to account, to ensure that lessons are learned and there are no more systems failures in the future? Beyond the two Select Committees he mentioned, how will he keep the House up to date?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the anxiety that I am sure some people will be feeling, but it is more than that: we are talking not just about any old savings, but about bereavement cases. We do not want issues to be dragged back up in historical cases—as I said, 75% of them took place between 2008 and 2025, but there are also older cases, too. I appreciate that that will be difficult for many people, and it is our job to ensure that NS&I provides as much support as it can for those people.
On the new leadership, I have been absolutely clear that we will see a delivery plan in May setting out the full timeline for rectifying the errors. As I said, on a longer timeline—although only three months, so there is not long to wait—I am asking Sir Jim to give us his wider review of the lessons from this and for the future of the governance of NS&I.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the actions that the Government are taking to restore trust in NS&I, and to take the appropriate compensation measures. I was in the Treasury for a while, and I had conversations with the previous chief executive—the one prior to 2023. Like the Minister, I took advice from my officials on what assurances I could have from NS&I on the delivery of programmes to transform the IT infrastructure, and I was given those assurances. I welcome the appointment of Jim Harra, who I think is an excellent public servant and is very well placed to understand the nuances of this issue. Will the Minister review the mechanisms by which his officials keep on top of what is happening at NS&I, so that he can be absolutely sure that when things go awry, they are brought to his attention and he can make the necessary interventions? I do not think that that happens currently.
Torsten Bell
The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister for some duration, so he brings experience on these issues. He is right to say that, when it comes to an Executive agency such as this one, Ministers’ job is to receive assurance and provide strategic direction, so let me just say a bit about how we have been thinking about that. In terms of assurance, I have asked in the shorter term for written attestation not just from NS&I but from the providers that do most of the customer-facing work in that organisation. I have asked for assurances from the current provider that we will not see any such mistakes going forward, and, as I said, I have asked Atos—the previous provider—to provide attestation that it will co-operate fully, given that it was the provider throughout the entirety of the last Government, until 2025. I hope that that gives the right hon. Gentleman some assurance about how we are seeking assurances.
More broadly—this is a slightly separate issue, but I think it is relevant to the question of the organisation’s leadership—the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the challenges in the transformation programme, which started in 2020 but has gone far too slowly and over budget, as the Public Accounts Committee has made abundantly clear. We have already put David Goldstone, the former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, in to support that programme of work—we need to ensure that it is back on track. We will update the Select Committee—and the right hon. Gentleman, if he would like—about that process of work.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Sadly, I have administered the wills of two relatives in the past year, both of whom held NS&I accounts, so I know acutely how difficult and emotional that time can be. I have two questions for the Minister in that regard. Can he assure my Carlisle constituents that any moneys owed to them and their families will definitely be paid, and can he give an assurance that NS&I will handle these cases very sensitively, taking into account the distress that many families will be experiencing?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is completely right. I am sure that she speaks for many people today. The experience of administering estates is challenging for us all at the best of times, and it is of deep regret to me—and, I am sure, to everyone at NS&I—that we are putting anybody through complications. I can give her the reassurance that everybody will be paid all moneys due and held by NS&I. We will make every endeavour to reconnect people to their funds. That will include, as I say, directly contacting the representatives of estates, who will have contacted NS&I in the first place to notify it of a death. Were that not to be successful, we would then put in place a chain of contact below it. The details will be set out in the plan in May, but I can give a reassurance that that is already being worked through. We will use the time between now and May to continue to examine the data that NS&I holds—I have said that we are reviewing over 34 million cases—to ensure that we have the absolute best contacts and are able to go as soon as the delivery report plan has been set out.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the question of distress. I can absolutely give her the reassurance that everybody involved understands how they should be handling matters. As I said, for the Treasury’s part, that includes recognising that there will be worries about the implications for some estates of taxes due. I will set out how we intend to address that in May.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for making this statement today, and welcome the appointment of Sir Jim Harra, who did indeed have an excellent record at the head of HMRC, as interim chief executive.
I think we ought also to have a word of praise for the consumer affairs team at The Daily Telegraph, who have drawn welcome attention to unwelcome statistics, such as £116 million in unclaimed premium bond prizes, £3 billion spent on digitisation and £43 million spent on consultants for doing we know not what. Given that the Financial Ombudsman Service can award only token sums by way of compensation for maladministration, can the Minister assure NS&I savers that, when it comes to the question of compensation that must be paid to them by NS&I, there will be some dedicated method whereby those who are already severely out of pocket can have speedy resolution of their claims and recompense?
Torsten Bell
Let me try to take the right hon. Member’s questions in turn. I would think of compensation as two buckets. There will be automatic compensation relating to the withholding of funds. The FCA provides guidance on how that should be administered, and we will ensure that is put in place in full. More complicated cases—he has given examples in which the deprivation of funds has had implications—will be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than by using the FCA formula that I have mentioned.
I am keen to praise journalists where we can, but I am afraid that, in the case of The Daily Telegraph in recent weeks, praise needs to be caveated. It is important to raise cases brought up by members of the public, but some of the reporting I have seen in the past 48 hours has been incredibly inaccurate. I will give the right hon. Gentleman two examples. The Daily Telegraph has published a piece claiming that 160,000 cases relating to NS&I have been brought to the Financial Ombudsman Service, when in truth that number is in the hundreds. That was printed on the front page of the newspaper without basic fact-checking taking place. Today, the paper has talked about taxpayers’ money being used to reunite people with their funds. That is entirely inaccurate for the reasons that I have set out. I worry that that will have worried some MPs and members of the public. It is important that we raise questions of customer service, in which NS&I has fallen short, as I have said, but we should not be blind to what has been inaccurate journalism in the past 48 hours.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I have very fond memories of the National Savings & Investment savings account that I held as a child—I regularly paid money into it at Little Lever post office. I understand how important it is for the Government to right historical failings at NS&I, and to reassure my constituents. I commend the Minister and the Treasury for the decisive action that they have taken, including the appointment of a new NS&I chief executive who is well respected across this House. What more can the Minister say to assure savers in Bolton West that NS&I will get to grips with the issues that he has mentioned today? In the light of his comments about false reporting in The Daily Telegraph, and given the extreme sensitivity around bereavement and funds, what more are his Department and officials doing to dispel the false information that has been put out by newspapers?
Torsten Bell
I am sure that many Members across the House, and many people across the country, share my hon. Friend’s experience of early engagement with NS&I. The brand has very high awareness and support for exactly the reasons he gives. On his question about an assurance that there will be change, I hope that I have set that out. The most important thing is putting in place new leadership and ensuring that we have spent the time with external advisers involved in recent months to understand the problem in detail and to set the path to putting it right. He will have heard what I have said about some of the media reporting. I hope that my statement has laid out the facts on the implications for taxpayers and the nature of the problem we are facing.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the way in which he has addressed the House. I want to pick up on the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). The administration of a deceased loved one’s affairs is a lengthy and difficult process at the best of times. It will come as a tremendous shock to many of our constituents to learn that matters that they thought were settled are in fact not so. We can also all think of examples of public agencies that have promised tact and sensitivity, but have not always followed through in practice. Will the Minister look at individual cases that we might raise with him as constituency Members, and will he meet with groups of Members who have constituents affected by the issue?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that administering the affairs of deceased family members or friends is always challenging, both emotionally and administratively. That is why it is so important that we get this right, now that we have set out the scale of the problem. On his specific question, I encourage him to support constituents. That is why I have said that I will require NS&I to put in place a direct method of communication for MPs who wish to raise constituency cases, and obviously I will be happy to meet him or anybody else who has constituents affected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his very thorough responses.
Resident Doctors: Industrial Action
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the proposed industrial action by resident doctors.
Yesterday evening, the British Medical Association called its latest round of strikes for 7 to 13 April, immediately following the long Easter bank holiday weekend. The announcement came just hours after its resident doctors committee rejected an historic deal that would have boosted pay, created jobs, improved career prospects and put money back in the pockets of its members. This was deeply disappointing after months of highly constructive and good-natured talks between the Government and the leadership of the RDC. In that context, the fact that the BMA’s immediate response was to call such extensive strike action, rather than return to the table, speaks volumes about what we are up against.
I will set out how we have reached this regrettable position. Since the start of this year, the Government have been holding extensive and intensive discussions with the BMA resident doctors committee leadership, who engaged in good faith. I have spoken personally to or met with the chair several times, and those engagements were, of course, on top of the near-daily dialogue that his team held with officials from my Department.
Together, we got further than many thought possible. As a result of our discussions, a landmark deal was put formally to the full resident doctors committee on 22 March. Based on our engagement with the BMA officers, we were optimistic that it would be received positively, although I was aware of the officers’ preference that it should be a deal over two years rather than three years, and that they had expected the independent recommendation of the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration—the DDRB—to come out slightly higher than it did. Regrettably, despite the deal having been designed with and supported by the BMA leadership, the committee itself rejected it yesterday.
I will run through what the RDC has unilaterally rejected on behalf of the 81,337 resident doctors in this country. The headlines of the deal are: reform of the pay structure, so resident doctors would benefit from more frequent pay rises at each stage of their training; pay rises over three years baked in, linked to the independent DDRB recommendations, as requested by the BMA; and reimbursement of Royal College exam fees from April this year, which resident doctors currently pay out of pocket. They can be as much as £2,200 for psychiatry, £2,300 for paediatrics and £3,700 for ophthalmology. Other headlines are: contract reform for locally employed doctors to ensure they also benefit from greater job security, equal opportunities for pay progression, and improved terms and conditions; and up to 4,500 more specialty training places created over the next three years, including 1,000 for this year’s applicants.
Alongside the deal, the Government have just passed the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, so that domestically trained resident doctors no longer compete on equal terms with overseas graduates for specialist jobs. The Act will reduce the competition ratio for jobs from almost 4:1 to almost 2:1. The deal also follows the 28.9% pay rise already delivered by the Government.
As a result of the proposed package, resident doctors would have seen an average pay rise of 4.9% this year; starting pay for new graduates entering the profession this year would have been nearly £12,000 higher than four years ago; the lowest-paid foundation year ones and foundation year twos would have seen a pay boost of at least 6.2% and 7.1%, respectively, this year; and there would have been 1,000 more resident doctor jobs in a matter of days from this April.
Along with pay decisions that I have already taken, the package would have meant that, this year alone, resident doctors would have been, on average, 35.2% better off than four years ago. There are not many, if any, professions in our country for which that is true. The DDRB recommendation is 3.5%, which is significantly less than what is on offer as a result of pay structure reform.
The BMA has pointed to the war in Iran as reason to reject the deal. I will spell out the consequences of what this country is facing. The Government want to see de-escalation and a swift resolution to the conflict, with a negotiated agreement that puts tough conditions on Iran, specifically in relation to its nuclear ambitions. However, we are planning on the basis of a prolonged conflict, because that is the prudent thing to do. In that eventuality, there would be an impact on the economy and on the public finances. Were that to happen, a future offer to resident doctors would not look better than what is on offer today.
The Government’s tolerance for costly and disruptive action that undermines a critical public service is fast diminishing. In three years’ time, I do not want resident doctors to look back on this moment with regret as they turn down three years of guaranteed pay rises, more money in their pockets through reimbursement of exam fees, and more jobs. The BMA is choosing more strikes. As a direct result of its decision, and despite our best efforts, resident doctors will be worse off. Indeed, on the very day that 1,000 more specialty training places would have opened up for resident doctors with this deal, the BMA will be on strike, demanding more job opportunities.
Let me turn to the impact on patients and the NHS. Yesterday, the British social attitudes survey revealed that patient satisfaction has increased for the first time since before the covid pandemic. Dissatisfaction has seen the sharpest decline since 1998. Patient satisfaction with access to GPs has gone from 60% when this Government came to office to more than 75% today. Wating lists are the lowest they have been for three years, four-hour performance in A&E is the best for four years, and ambulances are arriving faster than they have for half a decade. All of this has been achieved despite the BMA’s strikes, so I want to reassure patients that the NHS’s recovery will continue.
In the most recent round of strikes, the NHS team pulled together and delivered 95% of planned elective activity. I am confident that we will see the same outstanding efforts if further action is taken. But to the BMA, I say: we can achieve so much more, and the improvements can be so much faster, if you take this deal and stop your strikes. Strikes have a significant financial cost. Every penny spent on keeping the show on the road during strikes is a penny that cannot be spent on improving staff pay and working conditions or better care for patients. The impact on the other staff working in the NHS, who are left to pick up the pieces, is severely felt.
So I am asking the BMA’s resident doctors committee to reconsider. I will meet again with its officers. I also repeat my offer to meet with the entire committee, who have thus far refused to meet me since I became Secretary of State. Indeed, they are the only group of people I have offered to meet who have declined, which I find extraordinary in these circumstances. The deal on the table shows what we can achieve when we work together. In contrast to my predecessors, I have shown good intent from the outset. I have listened to the complaints that resident doctors have about their working lives—I agree with them, and I want to work with them to improve their working conditions as we improve the NHS.
But when it comes to making a deal, the reality is that it takes two to tango. The BMA has until next Thursday to reconsider before we have to call time on the extra jobs, and the focus of the NHS and my Department turns to minimising the disruption from this unnecessary and unwarranted strike action, which would also consume the money set aside for this deal. But there will be a cost to the NHS, to staff and to patients. This was an historic opportunity, developed in tandem with the BMA leadership. I urge the committee to reconsider. I urge the BMA to call off its industrial action. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Only yesterday he was boasting about progress in the NHS. Today we are back here again, facing more strikes, more disruption and more uncertainty for patients—quite the contrast. In opposition, he made resolving these strikes sound straightforward: “Just get around the table. Just negotiate. Just sort it out.” He repeatedly stated that the power to stop the strikes lay in the Government’s hands. Well, the power is now in his hands. He has had every opportunity to prove it, and yet here we are again. Not so easy after all, is it?
The Government came into office promising to end these disputes. Instead, they have conceded heavily on pay, at enormous cost, and still failed to make it work. The Secretary of State says a comprehensive deal was on the table, developed with the BMA leadership. Despite that, we still face further strikes, so what exactly has this strategy achieved? After all the concessions, all the cost and all the disruption, there is still no resolution. If, as he says, the BMA leadership helped to shape the deal, why did it not secure the support of the wider committee? This morning, the chair of the BMA’s resident doctors committee said that all the Secretary of State needs to do to avoid these strikes is come back with a better offer. That was the Secretary of State’s argument in opposition, too. He has now had every opportunity to test that theory in government, and it has not worked, just as we warned.
There is also an irony here that will not be lost on the public. The BMA says that a 3.5% pay rise for doctors is a “crushing blow”, yet it is offering its own staff just 2.75%. While it demands more from the taxpayer, it will not even meet its own standard for fairness. The inconsistency is obvious and hypocritical.
The Government’s own position on affordability no longer seems to add up. In October, Ministers were clear that anything above 2.5% would have consequences for wider NHS commitments. They said that every additional 0.5% would cost around £750 million, yet we are now beyond what they previously said was affordable, so what has changed? Were those warnings overstated, or are other parts of the health budget now going to pay the price? The Secretary of State even pointed to global events as a reason for future constraints. That is a long way from “just negotiate and sort it out”. After repealing minimum service levels, the Government cannot now be surprised that patients are once again exposed to greater disruption.
Labour promised to end the strikes. It paid a very high price, and it still did not get the result. Ultimately, it is patients who are caught in the middle of all this, but it is unfair on others in the NHS, too. Consultants are left picking up the pieces yet again. Other doctors and NHS staff are expected to carry the burden and keep services running—they do not get to walk away. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair.
The Secretary of State says he may now have to call time on the extra jobs he announced. Were those jobs ever truly secured, or were they always conditional on the BMA accepting the deal in full? When he says that strike action will consume the money set aside for this deal, is he not really admitting that his own approach has ended up burning through the very resources he said would improve pay, jobs and conditions? What is the cost of this latest round of strikes expected to be, and where will that money now come from? What assessment has he made of the impact on patient safety, consultant morale and the training progression of junior doctors? What is his plan to end this dispute, rather than simply manage the next round of disruption?
Patients need certainty. The NHS needs stability. That is why we have been clear that doctors should not be allowed to strike and that minimum service levels must be restored to protect patient safety.
Wes Streeting
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his response and questions. Beneath some of the criticism of the Government was a consistent message about the unreasonable and unnecessary position of the BMA, but let me address his criticism none the less.
The shadow Secretary of State accused me of “boasting” yesterday about the progress this Government are making on the NHS. For once, I cannot say we are following the pattern of our predecessors, because of course, they did not make any progress. From the moment they entered government, we saw the NHS begin to slide in the worst direction, to the extent that we went into a modern health emergency—the pandemic—woefully underprepared, leaving our country more damaged as a result. I am proud of the progress we are making. We know that what we have seen in terms of results and patient satisfaction are grounds for optimism, not cause for complacency. What we are trying to do as a Government is absolutely essential for the country, to give it back an NHS that is there for people where they need it, when they need it. That is why the BMA’s position is both disappointing and self-defeating for all of us.
The shadow Secretary of State talked about the approach I took in opposition. There is a difference between the approach that this Government have taken and the approach of our Conservative predecessors. We have always been prepared to get around the table; we never close the door. As I said from the other side of the House, the power to end strikes does sit with the Government when they are willing to compromise, willing to negotiate and willing to treat the workforce with respect. That is what this Government have done, in contrast to our Conservative predecessors, which is why it is so disappointing that with a deal available—a good deal—the BMA is turning away.
The BMA should reflect not just on the contrast with the past, but on the contrast with the future. There is no more pro-NHS, pro-doctor Health Secretary or Government waiting in the wings. I am not even sure that the alternative is a Conservative Health Secretary; that person may well come from Reform UK—the party whose Members occasionally turn up and sit in the corner, when they can be bothered and when they are not flouncing out in a hissy fit. Catch them on a good day and Reform Members may even say the quiet bit out loud: they do not believe in the NHS. They do not believe in it as a public service free at the point of use, and they are certainly not going to treat the BMA or resident doctors with more respect or generosity than a Labour Government. I think the BMA needs to reflect on that.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about affordability. One of the great things about the deal that we agreed is that it is affordable because it involves productivity gains—not just the productivity gains that we have already achieved in the NHS, the target being 2% and the reality that we have achieved 2.7%, but the productivity gains built into the pay structure reform.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the jobs. I will be honest, and I am sure NHS chief executives will want to say more about this. The fact is that I and Jim Mackey have had to do a considerable degree of persuading and arm-twisting to persuade NHS trusts to create additional specialty training places, because they have not been convinced of their necessity or utility. Part of their reservation has been about the conduct of resident doctors and the BMA. I have had a hard job to do to sell that. Those jobs will not materialise if the BMA rejects this deal, I am afraid. There is a not a “something for nothing” culture here.
I say to the crab people who still believe that they are pursuing a really effective “bank and build” strategy that they should look at what they are confronting now, and look their members and their colleagues in their eye. This is not bank and build any longer; this is a high-and-dry strategy, and it is not going to work. That is why it is important that we end this dispute and that we do it together, in the spirit of partnership. There is still time to do that—there is still a week. The door is not closed; the offer is still there, and I urge them to take it before it goes.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I share the frustrations of Ministers and of the Government. I know that they have worked really hard on this. Dr Fletcher of the BMA has also worked hard, and I am sure that there is a deal to be done somewhere. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, to prioritise UK graduates, was very welcome, but I wonder whether we can also do something to fix the foundations of medical careers, by devising a much better system than the crazy foundation lottery that sends a doctor from Norwich to Belfast and a doctor from Belfast to Norwich. That would be a great expression of good will. Meanwhile, I am sure that my colleagues in the NHS will work around this strike—our patients will be safe—and I am sure that our NHS will continue to improve under this brilliant Labour Government.
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his support in trying to influence a more constructive approach, for the advice that he has given me and members of the resident doctors committee, and for the experience that he brings to these exchanges. He is right to praise Jack Fletcher for the constructive approach that he and his officers have taken. It has not been easy, but I know that officials have enjoyed the constructive engagement, and I thank enormously the officials who have worked tirelessly on this. I think all those involved in the discussions, on both sides of the table, are disappointed by the outcome, and that is why I urge the BMA to seize the offer before it is too late.
My hon. Friend talks about other changes, such as to placements and rotations. I think that BMA officers recognise my desire to not only do this deal, but to create a new business as usual with the BMA, where we have people around the table on a regular basis looking at what we can do to improve the health service for patients and staff and to make real progress on those issues. We cannot do that if we are in conflict. That is the tragedy of the position we find ourselves in. I think we have built trust through engagement and dialogue with the BMA committee officers. It is only disappointing that members of the committee are not prepared to get around the same table as me, because if they did, they might realise the sincerity and the opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
People across the country will be extremely concerned about the prospect of further strikes, having faced so much disruption already in recent years. It is important to recognise that the strike is a symptom of an NHS still coming to terms with the damage caused by the previous Conservative Government. Doctors are burnt out from working in high-pressure environments under poor conditions—often trying to save lives on corridors with no space or privacy. However, we all know how difficult public finances are, and that is now being compounded by Donald Trump’s reckless war in the middle east. Therefore, a further 26% pay rise is not affordable or realistic at the moment, and it is time the BMA recognised that.
There is much more the Government could be doing to support both staff and patients. The BMA has a mandate to strike until August, yet patients struggle to get GP appointments and suffer months of pain while stuck on waiting lists. How will the Secretary of State stop the situation dragging on throughout the year and causing yet more harm to patients?
We must also show staff and patients that things will get better. Lib Dem plans to recruit and retain more GPs, offer one-to-one midwife care and fix the social care crisis would offer the NHS the hope that is needed by easing pressure on staff and patients. Will the Secretary of State consider fixing crumbling hospitals as a priority, to give staff and patients the working conditions and dignity that they need and deserve?
At Shropshire’s major hospitals, it is common to see ambulances queuing up outside, unable to offload their patients, while staff inside are struggling to cope with patients in corridors. Will the Secretary of State commit to ending the misery of corridor care by the end of this Parliament? I welcome his intention to build additional training places, but will he outline a timetable for publication of the workforce plan, because that is critical for the future of our NHS?
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support. I really hope that resident doctors appreciate that this is a party with a spokesperson who supports the NHS and wants to see it improving, but, even from the vantage point of opposition, is clear that what the BMA is demanding is unaffordable. We know from experience that it is easier to make promises in opposition than to have to deliver them in government, so when an Opposition party is also saying that the demands are unaffordable, resident doctors should accept that. [Interruption.] Thank you for the noises off from the Conservative Front Bench.
I reassure the Liberal Democrats that we are committed to ending corridor care by the end of the Parliament. I am really impressed by some of the progress that we have seen recently in some hospitals: Queen’s hospital in Romford has shown it can be done and other hospitals are showing real progress. We are determined to put the foot down on the accelerator. We will absolutely see capital investment to improve the NHS estate. We have 2,000 more GPs now than when we came into office—the highest number of GPs on record, in fact—although there is more to do.
Let me give this commitment to the “Agenda for Change” workforce. So much of the oxygen and airtime has been consumed by doctors, but 1.5 million people work in the NHS, many of whom will never be paid as much as the lowest paid doctor. They have been overlooked for too long, and we are determined, through the negotiations and discussions that we are having with “Agenda for Change” unions, to put that right. That will be my focus for the future of the workforce.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the GMB’s parliamentary group. The week after next, there will be another strike, when GMB members of the BMA’s own staff go out on industrial action, as has already been referenced. Their employer’s offer is 2.75%, which is lower than the 3.5% for doctors that the BMA called a “crushing blow”. Does the Health Secretary agree with the GMB union when it says:
“These strikes have laid bare the BMA’s ongoing hypocrisy”?
Wes Streeting
It is frankly breathtaking hypocrisy. It rather looks like doctors in their ivory tower saying one thing, and lecturing us about what is and is not affordable, but when it comes to how their subs are spent and how their own union behaves towards its own staff, not being prepared to pay them. I have been very complimentary about the officers who have been engaged with Ministers and my officials in recent weeks to try to get this deal over the line; so have BMA staff. I am stunned by the BMA’s unwillingness to practise what it preaches. I will not be joining resident doctors on the picket line. I should have declared, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am GMB member, so if there is one picket line that I will be visiting during the doctors’ strikes, it may well be that one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
This is clearly the wrong move again. It is really stark; we keep hearing from patients across the country about how much they want the NHS to improve, but this is another blow to them, and they may even wonder if it is safe to go into their local hospital during the strike period.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the Committee and talking about corridor care. The really interesting thing about that session was that the hospitals that have turned things around did so because of leadership from the top. Their executives and board members were going into hospitals out of hours and on weekends to speak with resident doctors, nurses and patients, to see what things were like on the ground. When was the last time the Secretary of State did that? This is not a “gotcha” moment—I have not done that recently, but I want to. If we are to lead a change in culture in the NHS, we should all show how we would do it, and should urge board members and executives to do the same, in every hospital across the country.
Wes Streeting
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is absolutely spot on. I am relieved to report that I was doing exactly what she mentions only last Friday; I was walking the corridors of Queen’s hospital in Romford. I was there in January as well, seeing the worst of the situation. I have been spending time on the frontline in the places that were under the most pressure, just as I did last winter. I went along, not to look down my nose at people, but to listen, and to see at first hand what was happening, why it was happening, and what we need to do differently. The team at Queen’s hospital can really take pride in what they have achieved, but we have to sustain that progress. Last week, there were no trollies on the corridor, and in February they saved 10,000 corridor hours. That is thanks to brilliant frontline staff and senior clinical leadership on the front door, and we will see that again during strikes.
There is a certain irony about the fact that during resident doctors’ strikes, urgent and emergency care improves, because we have more experienced, senior clinical decision makers in urgent and emergency care. There is something to learn from that. I do not say that to denigrate resident doctors for a moment—they are learning and building their experience, and we do not want to lose that—but we are seeing that improvements can be made, and have to be made everywhere. We have to see this as a priority, because corridor care can never be the safest care, and it is never dignified care.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One thing we have not yet heard is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the motivation of the BMA committee members who are so militantly rejecting a deal that he evidently regards as generous. As he says, they are refusing even to sit down and talk with him. What is behind that? Why are they behaving in what appears to be an unreasonable and extreme way? To what extent does he think they represent resident doctors?
Wes Streeting
If the committee had ever taken me up on my offer to meet the entire committee, I might be able to answer the question, but since it has never done so, I do not know. It is for resident doctors to decide, based on what I have set out, if the committee’s rejection of this offer is reasonable.
Given the material benefits that the offer would bring to resident doctors in a matter of days—an additional 1,000 jobs and significant pay uplifts—and what that would mean for the next few years, I have to be clear that this is our best and final offer. We cannot go any further. If I may say so, we are at a point where the public would judge that we have gone as far as we can; I think quite a lot of people in the country who are watching would say that we have gone further than we should. I do not take that lightly. Resident doctors should not look a gift horse in the mouth, and I hope that they will make those representations to their committee.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his robust view and position on the BMA. In reference to what was said by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), on the inflationary pressures that we will feel as a result of the conflicts in the middle east, do the figures for the three-year deal use the inflationary projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England? If not, given that this is all about pay, and that the BMA will always come back for more—I think it is being unreasonable at the moment—does the Secretary of State agree that we need new rules around minimum service levels if we want to have a reliable NHS in this new world?
Wes Streeting
Pay structure reform and future pay are linked to the DDRB, which is an independent pay review body; its recommendations are one of the things that the BMA wanted the deal to be shaped around. The Government’s position on minimum service levels has been clear.
The hon. Gentleman sets out an alternative position from the Conservative party. I think the BMA should look at that, and judge whether it would be better to do a deal with this Government and move forward constructively. Does it honestly think that if it hampers NHS progress, and goes on endless strikes over the coming years, it will have a better Government to work with at the end of this? I do not think so.
I ought to say one final thing, which we should take really seriously. I have been thinking about this issue in the context of the covid inquiry report, and where we are in terms of threats to this country, the war in Iran, and the war in Ukraine. This country was more exposed during the pandemic than it might have been if the NHS had been in better shape. This country faces some serious threats in the world, and the NHS is not in good enough shape. In that context, we have to start thinking about whether the actions of the BMA are tolerable.
Coastal Erosion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Jenny Riddell-Carpenter will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These must be questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Member, and not the Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I am pleased to present the sixth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “Erosion of trust: the impact of coastal erosion on communities”. I will start by talking about not policy or funding, but people and their stories—stories that our report rightly sought to share.
Ten weeks ago, I told the House that we had lost four homes to coastal erosion in the village of Thorpeness in my constituency. It is with great sadness that I tell the House today that the number has now risen to 11. That is 11 family homes lost to the sea this winter. We have a 90-year-old who is displaced, with no home to go to. We have an 88-year-old who lost her family home, which was full of memories—all now gone. Too many have lost the only home that they owned, and so many of them are now relying on the generosity of friends, quite simply because no other help is available.
Of course, this is not just about Thorpeness. This story is repeated across the country. The sea does not stop for these homes. Happisburgh, Hemsby, the East Riding, the Isle of Wight—all those places and more are losing land and properties to the sea. The realities of climate change and rising sea levels mean that we can no longer ignore this crisis. The Environment Agency predicts that within 80 years, more than 10,000 properties could be destroyed by or lost to the sea, along with 180 km of road.
This report is the first output from our inquiry on climate and weather resilience. We heard from local authorities, scientists, community groups and residents living with the daily reality of coastal change, and the message was consistent: coastal erosion is not just an environmental issue, but a housing issue, a public health issue, a mental health issue, an economic issue and, above all, a human issue.
People spoke about grief. They told us that this is not just about the loss, but the years leading up to it. They told us about anxiety, isolation and the strain on families and communities. They told us about a sense of injustice—a sense that they are bearing the cost of a problem that they did not create, and that systems that do not properly support them. We also heard about trauma tourism; people are flocking to visit erosion sites and demolished homes, filming the belongings that were left behind, and sharing those stories online. It is difficult to overstate how distressing that is for those going through that loss. This report makes it crystal clear that the human impact must be properly recognised in policy and funding decisions. Crucially, communities must be part of those decisions. For too long, they have been talked about; it is time that they were talked with.
We also found that the system is failing people from the very start—from the moment they buy their home. Coastal erosion is not consistently disclosed in property transactions, despite the fact that the data exists and is publicly available. Madam Deputy Speaker, if my home were about to fall into the sea, I could sell it to you legally today, with no duty to tell you about the risks. That cannot be right, and it certainly should not be legal. Our report therefore recommends that coastal erosion be treated as material information in conveyancing. As for insurance, there is simply no equivalent to Flood Re for coastal erosion. That leaves families exposed and unsupported. If we can make schemes like Flood Re work —which it does—we should be exploring how we can do the same for properties facing erosion risk.
At present, the coastal erosion assistance grant provides £6,000 towards demolition costs for homes that need demolishing because of the coastal erosion threat. That amount has not increased since 2010, and demolition now costs around £35,000, and often more. This winter in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal, the cost reached as high as £50,000. On top of that, eligibility for the fund is restricted to those who bought their home before 2009. In Thorpeness, residents who bought after that date face the prospect of paying for the privilege of demolishing their own home. The council stepped in, because it could see that that was plainly wrong, but that cut-off is arbitrary, out of date and unfair. The Committee’s report makes it clear that this fund must be reviewed.
I welcome the Government’s recent funding announcement for coastal communities. It is a step in the right direction, but short-term funding is not the same as a long-term plan. There is no national strategy for what happens when people lose their homes; families are often left to navigate this alone, or have to rely on already-stretched local housing systems and are forced away from jobs, schools and support networks. We have seen pilots that show what can be achieved, such as the coastal transition accelerator programme; however, those programmes are time-limited. We cannot keep piloting solutions without ever embedding them. Our report calls for a long-term national strategy for relocation and financial support, one that builds on what we already know and gives communities certainty about their future.
We also need to stop creating future problems through the planning system. Shoreline management plans provide a long-term view of coastal change, but they are not consistently used in local planning decisions, meaning that development is still being approved in areas that we know may not be protected in the future. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair on future residents, so we are recommending that those plans be properly embedded into the planning system. Finally, we must address how we fund coastal protection and how we value our coastline. Too often, the system does not capture the true value of coastal communities—their economies, their heritage, their role in our national infrastructure, and the real human cost when things go wrong. In Suffolk Coastal, our coastline is our economic powerhouse, driving energy, tourism, and of course our port. However, we do not place economic capital on it, or value it sufficiently.
Underlying all of this is a simple question that people ask me time and again: “Why does support so often fail to reach us?” Our Committee’s report sets out practical, achievable steps to change that—to recognise the human cost, fix what is not working, and put in place a more joined-up, longer-term plan. Coastal communities deserve more than sympathy; they deserve action, support and long-term funding. The Committee has listened; we have pulled together our report, and we are now asking the Government to do the same. I commend this report to the House.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on her powerful contribution, and also congratulate the cross-party EFRA Committee on its thoughtful and thought-provoking report. Coastal communities are at the frontline of adverse weather events and the negative effects of climate change, and the report highlighted the human impact on those communities, and specifically their mental health. It echoed a lot of the findings of the previous EFRA Committee in the last Parliament—we produced a report on rural mental health that highlighted some of the impacts, including anxiety and trauma. Will the Select Committee put pressure on the Government to look at both this report and the previous report on rural mental health, so that the mental health of rural communities can be supported in the long term?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
The hon. Member is absolutely right that our report highlights the significant strain that coastal erosion places on communities, and the impact that has on their mental health. I will read with interest the report from the last Session and see what its recommendations are, because I have no doubt that there are a huge number of parallels between the two reports.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The hon. Member has given an impressive exposition of the report. I am curious about the mental health benefits of exposure to the coast, and in particular whether she and her Committee would recommend a particular type of coastal defences. In Sidmouth, there is talk of either breakwaters and recharging shingle on the beach or a splash wall, which the community is less keen on. Has her Committee looked into that question at all?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I am sure he will be aware that the shoreline management plans dictate what level of investment and defences are appropriate for an area, be it managed realignment or managed retreat, but we must always ensure that we look at better options within each of those categories and put the right adaptations in place. In my area, the reinvestment in shingle has been incredibly useful, but we can adapt technologies and options for future programmes as well.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member and her Committee for this excellent report. I have the start of the Jurassic coastline in my constituency, and I share a coastline with my neighbour and hon. Friend—I will call him a friend—the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). Based on the Committee’s report, is there enough focus on the planning process and planning houses in those areas? We are being asked to place a lot of houses in coastal areas, and I am not sure whether this issue is being given due regard.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
We explicitly talk about planning in our report. It is a key issue; when we are building new homes and new communities, we must take coastal erosion into account. Recommendation 37 makes that exact point. It is critical that people buying homes in the future in places where we know there is risk now should be protected, and we should not be building in those places.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
North Norfolk residents, researchers and council staff all contributed to this inquiry. I welcome this report—I think it is excellent, and I thank the hon. Member for presenting it today.
I wanted to ask her about two points. First, she has already touched on Flood Re; does she agree that the Government must work at pace to bring about the coastal equivalent? Secondly, on the wider social cost of coastal erosion, I will reference Happisburgh in my constituency, where recent discoveries redefined the Anthropocene. Does the hon. Member agree that a failure to protect coastal communities is not just measured in financial costs to homeowners?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
My district council, East Suffolk council, has worked incredibly closely with the hon. Member’s council on bringing forward measures and on cross-learnings. When we have talked about Thorpeness in my local area, we have discussed lots of learnings from his constituency. The impact of coastal erosion on those communities—the financial impact and the mental health impact—cannot be overstated. As our report makes clear, we do not value our coast enough; we do not understand the value it creates for our communities, financially and over the longer term.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady, the member of the Select Committee, for doing an excellent job this afternoon.
Palliative Care
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the second Select Committee statement, on behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee. Layla Moran will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of her statement, Members may be called to ask questions on the subject of the statement, and they must be questions, not speeches. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee, it is a pleasure to present to the House our sixth report, which is on the subject of palliative care. This is the second report we are presenting to the House in as many weeks, because the Committee is in a hurry to play our part in fixing the NHS and social care, and especially to shine a light on those areas that feel more intractable and that historically get less attention. This is clearly true for the area of palliative and end-of-life care. We welcome the more recent renewed focus on the very sensitive issue of death—it will happen to us all, yet too often as a nation, we leave it far too late to talk about it. That is perhaps why, despite the fact that it will be a universal experience, death does not often receive the political attention it deserves.
We began by asking our independent expert panel to look at the heart of this system. The panel is made up of health and care experts from a range of disciplines—clinicians, lawyers and health economists, as well as temporary members with expertise in palliative care—and is ably led by Dr Jane Dacre. I am grateful for their work. Their report drew on available evidence, the Government’s own standards and the lived experience of patients, their families and professionals. The panel found a sector in critical condition: fragmented, failing and forgotten. Our report took those findings and combined them with the session where we quizzed the Minister for Care—I thank him for being in his place today—and his officials.
Our 22 conclusions and recommendations span six main areas: the modern service framework, commissioning, data, workforce, bereavement, and hospices. Nowhere is the failure of this sector more acute than in the care of babies, children and young people. The expert panel identified serious inadequacies for this vulnerable and under-served group. One clinician told us that children are “just an add on”, and another said:
“There is a severe lack of 24/7 cover for community children’s nursing, and no investment into it either.”
We are concerned that the Minister was unable to commit to providing clear and specific standards and guidance for babies, children and young people, and we strongly recommend that standards for that group and for the transition between child and adult services are made a priority. We also need pan-integrated care board guidance on commissioning services for babies, children and young people. There are too few of these services, so we need to pool resourcing.
The expert panel’s report also revealed a distressing and deep-seated postcode lottery for all in palliative care. A lived experience witness said:
“I went there, and he was screaming—clearly dying, in absolute agony and very, very distressed. And it took for me to ring so many different people to get someone to actually listen to me say, ‘I don’t care if he had pain relief two hours ago, he needs some more now and he needs something different.’
He died early the next morning. I know this would not have happened in my local area—so that made it an even more distressing experience”.
That heart-wrenching story—there are many others—is so common in these reports. We found that many ICBs lack sufficient understanding of their local needs to commission effectively. Competing financial pressures mean that palliative care is so often pushed to the bottom of the pile, and the culture of understanding needs to come right from the top. Structural and geographic inequalities persist, and deprived and marginalised communities face significant unmet need. To fix that will require high standards and accountability across the country, which is why the forthcoming modern service framework is so important, and we welcome it.
The Minister told the Committee that making palliative and end-of-life care one of the first five modern service frameworks was a “bat signal” to the system. We welcome that, if not the mental image of him as the caped crusader, but we approach the MSF with a healthy dose of scepticism. What is fundamentally different this time? There have been frameworks before, most notably the palliative and end-of-life ambitions framework and the NHS national standards for palliative and end-of-life care. This time, we need more than well-intentioned ambition; we need action, accountability and assurance. The Committee recommends that ICBs and the Department are held accountable, with clear consequences for failing to meet standards. We must ensure that ICBs have the support, tools and resources required to implement these high standards. We cannot allow this to be another framework that gathers dust on a shelf.
The thing is, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not meeting the guidance that already exists. Let us take 24/7 advice lines, which could offer guidance, reassurance and support for care at home, potentially reducing A&E admissions. At present, just 43% of ICBs offer them properly. That is despite the fact that 24/7 telephone advice lines have been recommended as a minimum service requirement by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Department for more than two decades. The role of pharmacies is also critical, but they too need support to deliver. The Minister has committed to 100% coverage of telephone lines by 2027, but we push him further: the MSF must mandate ICBs to deliver not just telephone lines, but access to all services, including symptomatic medication and in-person care. Unfortunately, death does not wait until 8 am on a Monday morning.
A further concern was the effects of the shift to the community. We worry that funding restraints and workforce and skill shortages will make that transition difficult. In the same breath as saying that they want this shift, the Government’s forthcoming NHS reorganisation Bill is proposing to remove local authority representation from ICBs. Local authorities are responsible for social care, and social care workers are the backbone of end-of-life care, with 22% of deaths occurring in care homes. If we want to strategically commission end-of-life and palliative care, it is nonsensical to remove local authority voices from the top table and that strategic role right from the off. We therefore urge the Government to reconsider their position.
We also urge the Government to fix data sharing. One clinician told us:
“If there was more willingness to link data and allow ICBs to have a better view of it and work with partners”—
hospices and the third sector—
“they could better understand the need and actively address health inequalities.”
Of the 1% of our population who die each year, only around half end up on the palliative care register, and that is despite financial incentives for GPs to put them there.
The Government have a welcome stretch target of 90%, but they have also removed the financial incentives for GPs to maintain the registers. We are concerned that that will result in a decrease, not an increase, in those who are registered. We recommend that the Department reports progress on the 90% target annually, and we welcome the single patient record to drive integration, but we want to understand better how that data will be shared not just with the NHS, but across all partners involved in end-of-life care.
We cannot deliver this change without our workforce—the people. Vacant posts in this area are mounting, and only 30 to 40 new consultants qualify each year. We await the 10-year workforce plan with bated breath, but we hope that it also includes specific measures to address children’s palliative care staffing. It is not just the specialists but the generalists who should get better training in this area. At the moment, too many nurses in the community might send a patient to acute care because they cannot adequately manage risk with confidence. If they knew what to do in that moment, they may decide not to call 999 and instead have better care where the patient is. That is clearly better for everyone involved and is far less distressing.
Finally, I come to hospices. So many are recipients of fundraising from marathon runs and bake sales. It strikes the Committee as nonsensical that this important part of the sector is funded primarily through charity. We welcome the multi-year settlements made more recently and the money into capital, but we make the point that if hospices are to help lead the way out of this crisis, they need much better and more long-term support.
The Government’s modern service framework must be more than just a press release. It must be a pledge to every citizen that when their time comes, they will be supported, not stranded. We owe it to the thousands of people facing their final days today, and to the families who will remember their care forever, to finally get it right this time.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I congratulate the hon. Lady on an excellent statement about what sounds to be a fascinating and detailed report? I was particularly impressed with the amount of time she dedicated to considering children’s palliative care. She may recall the debate in Westminster Hall earlier this month, when I mentioned that the charity Together for Short Lives had a particular idea about how to combat what she rightly emphasised—namely, the wide variation from place to place in the availability of palliative care services, particularly specialised ones for children. Did her investigation consider the recommendation that the NHS ought to organise the existing children’s palliative care services into palliative care operational delivery networks, similar to those used in neonatal care service provision?
Layla Moran
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his campaigning on this issue over many years. Together for Short Lives was indeed a contributor to the two reports. Its specific recommendation on babies, children and young people’s care was that we need better specialist pan-ICB commissioning that is modelled on other services. They are a tiny proportion of an already tiny population, and they are so often forgotten. As I mentioned in my speech, they are considered an add-on at the end of a commissioning process, but we need to start with them. They deserve so much more thought than they currently get.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Health and Social Care Committee’s statement and thank the hon. Member for all her work in leading the Committee. We all know that we have an ageing population. It is an issue that is going to increase, and we know that the pressures on our palliative care system will also increase. The assisted dying Bill has been going through Parliament, and I know that it elicits strong feelings—both for and against—on both sides of the House. Does her Committee feel that the light that has been shone on assisted dying has taken away from the discussion we need to have about palliative care?
Layla Moran
If the hon. Gentleman reads the introduction, he will see that we put the report in the context of the discussions on the assisted dying Bill. Like this House, the Committee has a range of views on the issue—for and against, and in between—but the point we make is that we all share a desire for palliative care to improve. My own take on it is that the conversations we have been having about death—not just us as a House, but as a nation—as a result of that Bill have urged action. We have had the standards on palliative care for 20 years, and they have not been met. I think this is an opportunity. Regardless of where one stands on the matter of assisted dying, let us grasp the nettle and take the opportunity to finally get this right this time.
Backbench Business
Transport Accessibility for Disabled People
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of transport accessibility for disabled people; notes the recommendations of the Transport Committee in its First Report of Session 2024-25, Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport, HC 770, and the Government’s response to that report, HC 931; and agrees with the Committee that there is an urgent need for review of the legislative framework and the enforcement regime to ensure that the gap between rights and obligations and the daily experience of disabled travellers is closed.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling today’s debate. The Transport Committee’s report, “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, was published a year ago. It was reported to the House on 10 June, and the Government response was published on 1 July. The timing of this debate enables me to provide a timely update on the work achieved by the Government and transport sectors over the past year, and to cover areas where more needs to be done. I am going to cover strategy, infrastructure and enforcement, and I will conclude with a few questions for the Minister.
Our report follows an in-depth inquiry that started in 2023 under the leadership of my predecessor as Chair, Iain Stewart. We travelled with people with disabilities to understand their experiences and the challenges they face, and we heard from a wide variety of people and organisations, whose knowledge was invaluable. The report has also informed much of the Committee’s other work over the last year or so, on buses, taxis and the street environment—areas where poor design and maintenance, and a lack of priority, continue to inhibit transport access unnecessarily.
In the year since the report was published, several important steps have been taken, and I thank the Government and others for these. The accessible railways road map was published alongside the Railways Bill in November last year and includes actions ahead of the formation of Great British Railways, such as a minor works budget and improved lift information. GBR will later set out its own plans through the long-term rail investment strategy. The Bus Services Act 2025 requires accessible network plans, streamlines disability awareness training and supports more accessible bus stop design. The aviation accessibility implementation group was established to deliver improvements in air travel for disabled passengers following the earlier task and finish group recommendations.
On railcards, eligibility has been extended to Blue Badge holders and will soon expand further to cover a wider range of visible and non-visible disabilities. On pavement parking, after five years of waiting—most of that was under the last Government—the Government have finally announced their next steps, and we await legislation. On taxi licensing standards, we welcome the amendments to the devolution Bill, including new national minimum standards that will include robust accessibility requirements. The Railways Bill introduces a duty on the Secretary of State and GBR to consider disabled passengers’ needs, and ensures that GBR is covered by the public sector equality duty. We welcome the publication of the equality impact assessment, and we will scrutinise it closely.
Let me now cover three strands that are essential if we are to embed and deliver lasting change. First, there needs to be a practical, ambitious and integrated transport strategy. The last Government’s 2018 inclusive transport strategy aimed for equal access for disabled people by 2030, but when we gathered evidence for our report, it was clear that that ambition was not being met. Much of the strategy focused on “considering”, “exploring” or “consulting”, rather than on delivering substantive change. Our report called for a new inclusive transport strategy; instead, the Department said that accessibility would be embedded as a “golden thread” in the forthcoming integrated national transport strategy.
That may be positive, but we still have not seen the strategy, which was originally expected by the end of 2025. We cannot judge whether accessibility will truly be prioritised until it is published. The Department says that the strategy will include clear actions and milestones for accessibility, so I hope that Ministers will ensure that those actions are ambitious, properly funded and capable of delivering inclusive transport—not just in principle, but in practice. After a decade of best-practice sharing and awareness raising, disabled people do not need warm words; they need a practical pathway to full accessibility.
On infrastructure, we need to avoid embedded barriers. When people think about accessibility, they usually picture lifts, ramps, level boarding, tactile surfaces, accessible bus stops, hearing loops, and reliable audible and visible announcements—and rightly so, as these are basic enablers. Inaccessible infrastructure is one of the most stubborn barriers to people with disabilities accessing our transport system. Transport assets are long-term investments, so mistakes become embedded for generations. The built environment can be enabling or deeply disabling. As many disabled people tell us, people are not disabled; too often it is the environment that disables them.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her opening speech. Does she agree that society’s disabling barriers prevent disabled people from being able to have accessible transport, and that the Government and others need to understand that we have to change the infrastructure? That is how we are going to create an inclusive and fully accessible transport network.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is entirely right. She is a passionate advocate—not just in transport, but across the piece—on the needs and rights of disabled people. To a large extent, this issue in transport is a subset of the societal challenge that she rightly raises.
The barriers that I have described prevent access to employment, education and services, and prevent people from having social lives. Following long delays, eight Access for All station upgrades have been confirmed, with 23 more moving to detailed design, and another round may be funded in the next spending review. These upgrades are welcome, but they feel like a drop in the ocean. At current investment rates, the rail network will not be fully step-free for a century, according to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s estimate in 2022. As Emma Vogelmann, formerly of Transport for All, has said:
“Accessibility must be delivered as standard across the whole network, not rationed station by station over generations.”
Judging by Transport questions this morning, as well as every previous one I have sat through, Members who have been waiting for station improvements in their constituencies clearly feel the same way.
We also await the Government’s new rolling stock strategy, which must set out a clear approach to level boarding. On holiday in France and Italy last summer, I saw clear ambition for that, as demonstrated by the lift access being built, if not already installed, across a number of rural stations. I hope GBR will inject that missing ambition into the UK rail system.
On electric vehicles, Transport Focus recently found that not a single charger on the strategic road network met voluntary accessibility standards, so we risk building new barriers into our future infrastructure, and those barriers will be expensive to fix later.
This is not just about hardware; we must embed accessibility into decision making. Witnesses to our recent inquiry into the Railways Bill expressed concern that, under the Bill, GBR must balance the interests of disabled people with cost. Of course, cost is always relevant, but we have repeatedly seen accessibility lose out. So we have recommended that GBR be required not just to consider but to deliver tangible improvements to accessibility.
On enforcement, we must ensure that rights are real. One of the most striking findings of our inquiry was that disabled people often have rights on paper that do not translate into real experiences. The reason is simple: enforcement is too weak.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I apologise for not being able to contribute substantively to this debate, owing to a commitment to lead another debate in Westminster Hall shortly.
Bus passes are hugely valued by the disabled community, but there is a frustration along the lines that the hon. Lady has hinted at, which is that some people cannot make use of their bus passes without a companion, yet the inclusion of a companion bus pass in the entitlement to have a bus pass is discretionary, not mandatory. Would she agree with me that it is not much good giving a bus pass to a disabled person if that does not cover the companion they need with them to make use of it?
Ruth Cadbury
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and that is a good example of a systemic policy issue that could well be addressed.
Enforcement currently relies on individual passengers pursuing complaints or court cases, which is unrealistic, expensive and often ineffective. Many people do not know who to complain to, court processes are costly and unpredictable, and even successful judgments do not always lead to improved practice. As a result, many people just give up travelling, because what is the point? For example, earlier this month the Office of Rail and Road secured commitments from Northern Trains to improve disability training and passenger assistance, which is welcome, but the ORR’s concerns dated back to 2019, with formal action emerging only years later. Such delays mean that disabled passengers continue to be failed daily, and a system that relies on individuals is unfair.
On the enforcement gap, we concluded that regulators need more powers, more resources, a clearer mandate to intervene earlier and a cross-modal approach. The Government did not, unfortunately, accept these recommendations, and there is still no clear plan to close the enforcement gap. We appreciate the Department’s commitment to explore collective action on accountability, but we would ask the Minister for an update. When we raised enforcement with the Secretary of State in correspondence—it is listed on the Order Paper—and when she last appeared before us in November, she told us that she wanted operators simply to comply with the law rather than relying on enforcement. We agree that compliance is ideal, but robust enforcement is a necessary part of achieving that compliance, and disabled people should not be expected to force the system to uphold their own rights.
We very much welcome one aspect of the Government response to our report, which is a commitment to review the overly complex and fragmented legal framework governing transport accessibility. The Department has agreed to take forward this work with the Law Commission, and I was delighted to see that the Law Commission has launched its review this week. That is long overdue, but it could bring long-term benefits.
We appreciate the Minister’s engagement on the planned accessibility charter, but it must be more than a restatement of existing duties. The areas it must tackle include the street environment, enforcement of the public sector equality duty and clearer expectation on transport operators, and it must be genuinely co-produced with disabled people. My question is: how will the charter be enforced? As new statutory duties are created under the Railways Bill, enforcement routes need to follow. The new passenger watchdog is intended to be powerful, but it currently lacks the enforcement powers that we believe are needed.
In conclusion, accessibility is not a “nice to have”; it is a fundamental right and a precondition for equality. From taxis to railways and from aviation to the street environment, enforcement should be at the heart of the strategy for accessibility. Do the Government agree that there is an enforcement gap, and if so, what steps will they take to deliver stronger, earlier and more effective enforcement across all modes of transport? How are disabled people directly shaping the integrated national transport strategy and the accessibility charter, and what measures will give the charter real teeth so that operators and local authorities are held accountable?
Finally, I thank all the disabled people and disabled people’s organisations that contributed to our inquiry, those who have shared their experience since and those who continue to advise us. We will keep drawing on their expertise as we scrutinise the Government’s progress on all modes of transport.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We will start with an immediate six-minute limit.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate. I am conscious that transport is devolved, but what I have already heard in the debate tells me that there are a lot of similar themes.
My constituency of North East Fife is quite a rural one, and in recent weeks I have spent a couple of days travelling around it on the bus with those who use wheelchairs to understand better the challenges they face. One reason why they use public transport is that other options are limited. There is a distinct lack of accessible taxis in North East Fife and beyond—that is a licensing and economic issue—and we find that a lot of the taxis are used for school contracts, which means that members of the public wanting to use them cannot access them. That is a real challenge.
As the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth pointed out, getting to the bus stop in the first place is a challenge, because of the pavements, dropped kerbs and street furniture. When I was out with a constituent the other week, we actually had to move road signs from the interminable roadworks in Guardbridge for her to get to the bus stop in the first instance. There is also the fact that, in most cases, there is space on the bus for only one wheelchair, so if a wheelchair user is friends with somebody else who uses a wheelchair, they cannot go to things together. There is already a real impact on people’s lives in that regard.
There are different types of buses, and we experienced them all during our days out in North East Fife. For some services, people have to give two hours’ notice that they have a wheelchair and want to use the bus, so that the provider can ensure that it provides a bus they can use. I just find it bizarre that we are in such a situation. Also, in some cases, a wheelchair user can have people leaning across them to pay their fare, which is such an invasion of their privacy.
Another challenge in a rural constituency where we have had ongoing changes and reductions in bus services is that multiple buses are sometimes required to get between population centres. I have a constituent who lives in Guardbridge and works in Cupar, but now has to go to St Andrews and then to Cupar to get to her place of employment. That does not feel like a real choice for wheelchair users.
Finally—I am sure we are all aware of this through our casework—for wheelchair users, in particular, to use public transport, the access allowing them to get on to the bus needs to work. I was with a constituent last week when the ramp did not work. The bus was therefore put out of order, everybody on the bus had to get off, and nobody who was looking to get on the bus after my constituent could get on. That was highly embarrassing for that individual, because she felt responsible for inconveniencing the other passengers, and it is simply not good enough.
I want to talk about Access for All, which is reserved—the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth also highlighted it. Leuchars is the nearest railway station to St Andrews, which is hopefully known to all Members, because I have mentioned it here in the Chamber a lot; if they like golf, they will know St Andrews well. There is no lift at the station, and we have been trying to get funding for a new bridge for six years—my Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues on Fife council have been trying for even longer. The gradient of the ramp up to the bridge is 1:12, or just over 8%. For a ramp of over 10 metres, the British Standards Institution recommends a gradient of no more than 1:20, or 5%.
That is simply not the case at Leuchars, where the ramp is not short; it is many metres. It is a real challenge for those using wheelchairs and prams, and the first thing that visitors to St Andrews have to do, rather than being able to access a lift, is humph their cases up the ramp and down again. It is completely unfair on local people, because they are often excluded from using public transport, and they tell me that they do not use the train as a result. Last year, ScotRail hosted a roundtable on the future of train services in Fife, and it listed Leuchars as being lower priority. I cannot get my head around that classification and, accordingly, I am waiting for a meeting.
Access for All is an example of where devolved and reserved do not work together very well. Much like the infamous Spiderman meme, the answers to my queries five years ago involved the UK Government pointing to the Scottish Government, who pointed right back at them. I know I am not the only Member of this House to be extremely frustrated by the scheme effectively slowing to a halt.
In a written statement in January, the Government downgraded, and indeed halted, some proposed work on projects under Access for All. I would be interested in the Minister’s explanation of how that squares with reporting by Disability Rights UK in 2024 that Access for All had actually been underspending prior to that. The statement went on to say that there might be some funding available in the next spending review, but that means we are not expecting any announcements for another three years, at which point we will be heading into a general election. Are we seriously saying that there will be no Access for All spending rounds in the whole remainder of this Parliament?
Finally—this is less about funding, but directly relevant to what our constituents can expect—I would like to hear whether the Government will be publishing any outcomes from the review of design standards for accessible railway stations. Using public transport should not be a luxury; it is something we should be trying to encourage our constituents to do at every opportunity. Putting disability considerations to one side, if we are talking about economic inactivity and how we enable access for people to get to work, and indeed for those with disabilities into work, this should be an absolute priority for our public services.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on her sterling work as Chair of the Transport Committee, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for us to debate what I think is a very important issue.
It is no secret that I have been a lifelong campaigner for the rights, inclusion and equality of disabled people, not least due to my own lived experience. I have been calling for and pushing for all modes of transport to be fully accessible and inclusive. It is essential that disabled people should have equal participation in society at all times. I genuinely believe that having access to transport is a human right, and we really should look at it in that context, yet all too often we hear stories of the many barriers disabled people face when they travel. We have all heard the stories of disabled people being left on planes for hours on end, or turning up at a train station and their assistance not being there for them. When I travel and have booked assistance, I worry about whether that assistance will be there. That should never be somebody’s experience in daily life.
We know the issues around pavement parking. I introduced my own Bill to ban pavement parking 18 months ago. Having obstacles on the road, especially those awful e-scooters—everyone knows my views on those—creates many problems, not just for disabled people but for families with young children pushing a buggy and so on. And then there are buses. We all know that buses are one of the best forms of inclusive transport for disabled people. However, there are times when the ramps are not working or the allocated space on the bus is not available. We must ensure that we tackle that issue. It would be wrong of me not to mention floating bus stops, because I hate them too. They are huge problem, so I might as well tie them into this transport debate. Floating bus stops should be banned from all new infrastructure, because they prevent disabled people from being able to travel freely.
I am really proud of the work we have done in my constituency, in the nearly nine years I have been campaigning, to ensure that all the modes of transport that go through Battersea are inclusive. Clapham Junction, one of the busiest interchange stations in Europe, is partially accessible. I was proud that we secured funding for Wandsworth Town railway station to be made step-free. It is a shame that it no longer sits in my constituency after the boundary review, but I will claim that win, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think I should.
We all remember the fight we all had to go through to ensure that we kept ticket offices open, when the previous Government wanted to close them. That was a battle worth fighting. I cannot use ticket machines, and there are many others who cannot use them either. They are vital pieces of infrastructure.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I am trying to represent my constituents in four debates today. There was a Spanish Catholic priest called Padre Pio, who was made a saint because of the miracle of appearing in two places at once. I have not mastered that yet.
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my chairing of the RMT parliamentary group. One of the key issues my hon. Friend has campaigned on—we campaigned on it together—is ensuring adequate staffing levels, not just in ticket offices, where we succeeded, but on the platform and on the trains themselves, for safety and security reasons. Does she agree that, under GBR, we need a very strong plan for the workforce, so that we have adequate staffing at all levels in all facilities?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is absolutely spot on. We can have all the infrastructure in the world, but if we do not have the workforce to manage it then it will not work. We have to value the workforce, because I rely on that workforce when I travel and I know that many others do, too. We successfully kept our ticket offices open, which is a good thing.
I am really proud of the changes we have made in my constituency, but that brings me back to this point. Why is it that, in 2026, disabled people are still fighting for an inclusive and accessible transport network? That cannot be right. Many people cannot engage in travel. The Select Committee’s brilliant report a year ago highlighted that 67% of disabled people experience problems when they are travelling—that is just staggering—from not enough priority seating to the poor quality of pavements for active travel, a lack of step-free access and so on. Talking of step-free access, in my constituency—I am sorry to keep referring back to it—we have Battersea Power Station tube station, which is an underground station but is step-free. That is so important, because we should be able to use all modes of transport; we should not be restricted to taxis, private hire or just buses.
Inaccessible travel can be the factor that locks disabled people out of so many things: going to work or study, attending health appointments, or just participating in life. Those are the effects that an inaccessible infrastructure and travel network have on disabled people. We must do better to move things forward. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not want to hear “We are going to work towards” or “We are going to look into”. I genuinely believe that we need to see proper action on creating an inclusive and accessible transport network. Frankly, as I said earlier, it is a crying shame that in 2026 disabled people still cannot travel independently. We need a strategy, and we are going to have one.
Marsha De Cordova
Thank you. This place is not accessible either, because I need someone to tell me when my time is running out, but we will work on that, too.
We need solid infrastructure, backed up by the right investment, and the workforce to deliver it. We need to tighten up enforcement, because without enforcement, the onus is on disabled people, which it should not be. There must be enforcement. We should focus on the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, and having an inclusive transport network is a key pillar of that. As disabled people say, there should be nothing about us without us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a five-minute time limit.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which is linked, of course, to the Transport Committee’s report on disabled people’s access to public transport.
I am a passionate advocate for public transport. Over my years of campaigning, I have pushed for more buses and trains, in order to make people’s lives easier and more affordable; and I have pushed to get more people riding them, so that we can take action on climate change and boost our local economy. Increasing ridership, though, has to mean increasing it among all groups. Our Committee found that too many people face accessibility barriers, meaning that they either have a far worse experience when using public transport or simply cannot use it at all.
Disabled people use public transport 28% less than people without disabilities; public transport is a more affordable mode of travel than private car or taxi, so poor accessibility is another financial burden placed on a group who already have significant premiums due to their disabilities. In many rural areas like North Norfolk and North East Fife, the taxi service can be patchy at best, due to the nature of rurality. If a disabled person cannot or does not drive and cannot access a taxi, they will be isolated from employment opportunities, and cannot visit family and friends as easily as others. A two-tier system in rural North Norfolk is unacceptable; that is why it is so important for the Government and local councils to take steps to deliver greater accessibility in the transport system.
For many dealing with accessibility barriers in their area, the fight to get them removed can be long and drawn out. I ask Members to cast their mind back to the 2019 general election. I was a candidate in Mid Norfolk, and visited Wymondham station with a group of local campaigners to see the issue that they face with the station having no southbound step-free access. Since then, the campaigners have seen four Prime Ministers come and go, as well as five Transport Secretaries, ten junior Transport Ministers and seven Norwich City managers, and there is still no step-free access. I am very glad that. following years of campaigning from local Liberal Democrat councillors like Suzanne Nuri-Nixon—now well supported, I am assured by Suzanne and others, by my constituency colleague, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough)—the Government have recently announced that they will be bringing forward plans for these improvements by the autumn. It will, however, have been a long seven years since I got involved, and even longer for many local residents, who have been without equitable access to their town’s railway station. In a country that demands equality for our citizens, making disabled people feel like they are second-class, and forcing them to wait so long for improvements, really is shameful.
I am glad that much of North Norfolk’s rail infrastructure is step-free and accessible, but the same cannot be said of our rural bus network. In rural areas, many bus stops are little more than a sign placed on a verge; in other cases, there is simply a local understanding that the bus might stop in a certain place. That might be good enough for some, but for those with access needs, it is far from a usable service. People need higher-quality, accessible bus infrastructure to allow them to utilise public transport. With that in mind, I hope that the Government might learn lessons from the “Buses connecting communities” report about new models for rural public. Transport hubs that create quality bus infrastructure that is linked into a strong network across rural areas can benefit all of us in many ways. For disabled people and those with access needs, it can give them the reassurance that they can be picked up and dropped off from an accessible stop.
When it comes to many of the reforms to public transport that we need, a more holistic view, in which we assess the issues that we face in the round, can deliver for groups across society. After all, better transport accessibility does not just benefit the people for whom it is essential; it makes choosing public transport easier and more convenient for everyone. The assessment that needs to be made of the experiences of disabled transport users, for instance, could flush out opportunities to improve the user experience for all current and would-be public transport patrons.
Whether it is clearer signage or better bus shelters, ramps or real-time information, it is in all our interests for the barriers to accessibility in public transport to be reduced and removed. I remain hopeful that the Government will take up what our Committee has found, and I know that Members from across the House look forward to working with them to make the recommendations a reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With a five-minute time limit, I call Elsie Blundell.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank the chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this crucial issue, and for securing this debate on the important matter of transport accessibility for disabled people. Since being elected to this place, I have reiterated that transport is one of the most crucial drivers of opportunity. Reliable, suitable and adaptable public transport for all should be a right, not a privilege.
I will begin by touching on the precarious landscape facing disabled users of public transport. In a report published by Transport for All, 56% of disabled people reported being
“unhappy or extremely unhappy making journeys”.
The Transport Committee’s report reinforced this; more than a third of disabled respondents asserted that they avoided making journeys more than once a week because they believed it would be too complicated. When things go wrong on journeys, it can feel as though disabled passengers and transport users stand entirely alone, without recourse or representation, and they are left with the burden of taking action against operators and transport authorities that fail in their duties.
Looking at the rail network, we have all been on a train where it is apparent that there is no available space for wheelchair users in any of the carriages, and some operators are doing absolutely nothing to make the necessary improvements. We have also seen the appalling media reports of disabled passengers being left to alight from carriages with no support whatsoever. We need to seize every legislative opportunity to improve this dire landscape.
Indeed, one of the crucial elements of the Railways Bill is the introduction of a passengers’ council. However, as the Bill stands after Committee, clause 36, on the general duties of the council, stipulates only that the council
“must have particular regard to the interests and needs”
of disabled passengers. The Bill needs to go further by enshrining the voices of disabled passengers on the council, and by giving the council a role as an enforcer, not just an adviser. This passenger watchdog will have a tangible impact on the experiences of disabled passengers only if we codify in legislation what we need to achieve. The Railways Bill represents a significant moment of reform for the rail system, and we must not miss the opportunity to embed strong, enforceable, long-term protections for disabled passengers. To achieve this, duties should be explicit and binding. I hope that the Minister can speak to this issue specifically when concluding the debate.
As the Committee’s report highlights, and as my hon. Friend the Transport Committee Chair mentioned, pavement parking is another widespread problem, especially for people with mobility or visual restrictions. Constituents rightly tell me that this is an issue of safety. When people park their car in a way that leaves no space on the pavement, there is no way that the wellbeing of those who use wheelchairs, walking frames, guide dogs or canes can be assured. This selfish behaviour makes things difficult for disabled individuals and people pushing buggies alike.
I understand that the Government, rather than imposing a blanket ban on pavement parking, as there is in London, first intend to introduce secondary legislation to ensure that local authorities can act against serious cases of obstruction caused by pavement parking. How does the Minister envisage this legislation being meaningfully enforced by local authorities? Will additional funding be provided to enable local authorities to act? I would welcome answers to those points from the Minister.
I reiterate my thanks to the Chair of the Transport Committee, our Clerks and my colleagues for their work in producing this crucial report, and for their advocacy on this important issue. I wholly welcome the steps that are being taken to advance the rights and protections of disabled passengers, which include the Law Commission’s review of transport accessibility law—a direct result of one of our Committee’s recommendations —the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s publication of guiding principles for accessible transport, and an equalities impact assessment for the Railways Bill, which is something else the Committee has called for.
That being said, I conclude by saying that however significant these reviews, principles and assessments are, we must ultimately ensure that they lead to effective enforcement, accountability and the empowerment of regulators to challenge the operational orthodoxy that has left disabled passengers denied the access that they deserve. With landmark changes coming to national and regional transport policy in the coming years, we must finally ensure that everyone is part of the journey, and that, in legislation and in practice, no one is left behind.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important debate. Many of my constituents have raised the challenges faced by disabled people in accessing tube services. Last May, I conducted a survey on the Metropolitan line, and only 6% of respondents thought that Transport for London was doing enough to improve reliability and accessibility. It is evident that people who rely on that essential service feel let down, which is simply not good enough.
I have written to TfL and the Mayor of London regarding this issue. While I have been informed of the mayor’s target of making 50% of tube stations step-free by 2030, none of the stations for which works are proposed are in my constituency, so understandably residents of South West Hertfordshire feel left behind. TfL has stated that, through the step-free access programme, it aims to promote a more accessible and inclusive transport network, but that will not happen if the benefits are not extended to all service users. Take the case of one of my constituents in Rickmansworth, who uses a wheelchair due to a spinal cord injury that he sustained just over a year ago. Despite having used Rickmansworth station for the last 17 years as a local resident, he is now unable to do so, as stairs offer the only route out of the station. Consequently, he can no longer travel into London as frequently as he did. That places significant limitations on his independence—an issue that could be fixed with the simple installation of an exit ramp.
The 2021 census shows that 30% of Rickmansworth residents are retired, compared to the national average of 21.7%. Areas with an ageing population, like Rickmansworth, would particularly benefit from step-free access. Many other constituencies are also impacted by this especially problematic issue. Over two thirds of the London underground network is still without step-free access, which prevents thousands of disabled people from accessing a vital transport network.
Another hurdle restricting accessibility to transport services in my constituency, which I have repeatedly highlighted in the Chamber, is the lack of concessions available to residents of South West Hertfordshire. TfL also stated that through concessions, it aims to promote a more accessible and inclusive transport network. Again, that is not possible if concessions are not extended to people who frequently use those services. Those concessions include Oyster cards for students under 18, the 60-plus Oyster card, and discounts available for veterans and disabled users of TfL services. Disabled people who live inside the Greater London boundary are eligible for a freedom pass, which enables use of TfL services free of charge, but that is not extended to my constituents.
An overwhelming 96% of respondents to my Met line survey agreed that residents in my constituency should have the same concession fares as Londoners. That highlights a failure to create an inclusive and accessible transport system for everyone. How is it fair that, despite relying on these essential services to commute every day, my constituents are not eligible for the same concessionary fares as some who live only hundreds of metres away?
Inaccessibility of transport services is not simply about not being able to get to the tube; hon. Members have spoken about the bus system, the state of pavements, pavement parking and street furniture. Inaccessibility of transport services means that disabled people are restricted in their independence and ability to participate in life. That is important. The Department for Transport must equip transport authorities to increase accessibility for everyone.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing the debate. I place on record that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, and the parent of a child who has a Motability vehicle, which I drive on her behalf, with a blue badge. I will refer to those issues.
I welcome the Transport Committee’s report and the Government’s response. There are some access issues that I will talk about from first-hand experience. I was the cabinet member for transport in my borough of Bexley 20 years ago, and was latterly on the board of London Travelwatch, so I have had a long interest in these issues, but it was only when I became the parent of somebody who has a complex set of disabilities—a wheelchair user who needs constant care and support—that I understood some of the complexities of travel.
I turn first to toilets. The Select Committee report and the Government’s response look at changing places. There has been a sea change in the availability of changing places toilets, both in motorway service stations and at railway stations, in the last 10 years or so, which is warmly welcomed. If I am driving on the motorway, we have to plan for that. I also hope to see one more at Charing Cross in the very near future. I accept that this is a cross-departmental responsibility, but there is a great deal more to do. We need to push for more funding for changing places.
We have seen the outcome of the report by the aviation accessibility task and finish group—my private Member’s Bill on this is sitting in a long queue—whose first anniversary will be this summer. On that first anniversary, I would welcome the Government bringing forward findings on how we may move forward, and setting out whether issues remain that will require legislation. At the moment, the Civil Aviation Authority probably does not have enough powers, in particular with regard to the compensation level, which I think is around £1,500. Many people’s wheelchairs are worth far more than that, and if they are damaged, they cannot receive the compensation required to replace them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, I welcome the consideration of the inclusive transport strategy; I would like to see the Government develop that. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said about floating bus stops and experiences on the bus. In my constituency, a passenger banged their shopping trolley against my leg for an entire journey because she was so angry that my daughter’s wheelchair had taken up the space she wanted to use for her shopping trolley. There remains a great deal to do on education.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman speaks with a great deal of experience. Marilyn is a blind lady in my constituency who has faced the issues of floating bus stops. During the design and implementation processes, her voice really was not listened to, and the views of blind people were not incorporated into the process. What more could be done to educate, and to ensure that those people are at the table when these processes are happening?
Daniel Francis
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, I will continue to press the Government. I could take hon. Members to bus stops close to here that I think are a risk for blind passengers as well as for wheelchair passengers. We need to do more on this.
I will not object to the measures on Motability in the Finance Bill, but there is ignorance in this place from some Members—many are not here today—on Motability, the issues around the scheme and how it continues to need to be supported, particularly for wheelchair users. On regulation and enforcement, there is training and a lot of great practice; I see some great practice of support for disabled people on my own Southeastern passenger service, but that needs to be expanded.
I have two horror stories involving toilets at central London stations, where staff refused access to the changing places toilet, telling me my daughter could not use it—she needs a changing bench—and needed to go into the standard disabled toilet. That is the level of training still required.
I completely support Great British Railways, but there will be issues in areas where it shares services with TfL. For example, Abbey Wood is very close to my constituency—TfL will manage that station even though both services operate from it. Denmark Hill will be a GBR station. We will have to see how those two services integrate.
I welcome the consultation on micromobility. The issue remains whereby, if someone’s wheelchair is over 200 kg, they have to ride it in the road, as they are not allowed on the pavement. That is hugely discriminatory. It means that a child cannot use their wheelchair if it is over 200kg. It means that if someone who has lost their driving licence for medical reasons, such as epilepsy, cannot use their wheelchair. I hope that we can resolve such issues following the consultation. I have also been involved in complaints processes through TravelWatch, and I hope the watchdog has the necessary powers to deal with the problems. We need to look again, as I have said, at the Civil Aviation Authority.
In my mind, TfL leads the way on accessibility information. The TfL Go app shows the availability of level access, station accessibility, and where a lift may be out of order. GBR needs to follow that lead. We need a national transport accessibility app shows that information, as well as showing the locations of disabled toilets and changing places toilets. Of all the places that I have travelled to with my daughter across Europe, TfL leads the way in supplying that information, and I hope that can be considered as we go forward.
My final point is on ticketing. Clearly, more needs to be done in this area. Problems remain with the level of information that is available for blind passengers and wheelchair users. It is a great scheme, but more needs to be done to highlight those issues.
I welcome this debate and look forward to the Minister’s comments later.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the Select Committtee Chair sincerely for the “Access denied” report, which painted a bleak picture of legislative loopholes and lacklustre political will from consecutive Governments when it comes to addressing the huge list of barriers faced by disabled people when accessing public transport.
When it comes to step-free access on the railways—on which my speech will focus—it is not just the barriers faced by disabled people that we need to talk about; these barriers also apply to older people, people travelling with children, people with luggage and work equipment, and many other travellers too. We must never ever forget that improving and enabling access for disabled people—or fixing the environment, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) called it—actually fixes access for all in an inclusive, socially just way.
Sixteen years on from the Equality Act 2010 coming into force, one issue repeatedly coming up in my Brighton Pavilion constituency remains the long-term problem of step-free station access. Multiple community train stations in Brighton, including Moulsecoomb and London Road, have compromised access. The problem is most keenly felt at Preston Park station, which is used by a very large number of passengers. It is a station rooted in the heart of the community, which sees thousands of people use it to access direct trains to London, Gatwick, Bedford and Cambridge, as well as west along the coast towards Littlehampton.
For visitors travelling to fabulous events hosted at the nearby park—like the Foodies festival in May and the concert due to be held in July by adopted local rock god Nick Cave, and the Bad Seeds—Preston Park station should be the obvious get-off point, yet for decades it has been overlooked when it comes to funding bids to address accessibility issues. It is a category C station with no step-free access and is simply inaccessible currently. There is no lift, with stairs to every platform, and, as the railway is a barrier for travel across the constituency, this lack also impedes active travel more generally.
Without step-free access, my local residents are required to travel 2 miles to Brighton mainline station to board trains there, and this can be in addition to calling ahead to pre-book the use of a ramp at that station. This is all an unreasonable adjustment. Yet, despite all these problems and the potential benefits of fixing them, in May 2024, in the dying days of the last Government, Preston Park station did not make the 50-station shortlist for Access for All funding.
In January, when making an announcement to cull the Conservatives’ 50 station list to eight definites and 19 maybes, Lord Hendy in the other place accused the previous Government of “raising significant stakeholder expectations” about the station accessibility funding, and said:
“This Government is committed to a rigorous approach and only making commitments we believe are affordable and would represent value for money to passengers and taxpayers.”
This example, which is so frustrating for my constituents, shows that positive aspirations for the railways are not enough on their own; they need to be backed up with concrete funding and real commitment.
Step-free access is not a convenient thing to have in an ideal world. Step-free access to platforms is a necessity and an equalities issues. It enables participation in work, education, healthcare and social life. I am not filled with confidence that the Government are committed to the funding needed, or the urgency with which it is needed, but there are huge opportunities for the Government to reform their approach through Great British Railways—I really hope to hear something from the Minister on this later.
What has been communicated to date by Ministers does fall short. They must take steps to commit to the funding and resource needed to rapidly remove barriers, and end the discrimination that disabled people face when trying to navigate public transport networks.
Finally, I invite the Minister to visit Preston Park station to meet my dedicated local campaigners, and to see the multiple issues faced not just by disabled passengers and those with access needs, but by the general public as well. I invite him to see these problems at first hand.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate and for her fantastic leadership of the Transport Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) is no longer in her seat, but I commend her on her campaign on pavement parking, which is the bane of many of my constituents’ lives. I am pleased that the Government are giving powers to Bradford council and other councils across the country to look at introducing selective pavement parking bans.
I have dedicated much of my career to campaigning to improve things for disabled people and older people in particular. Part of my work at the Centre for Ageing Better was on age-friendly communities, and we saw accessible transport as a key part of an age-friendly community. Transport is an essential part of everyday life; it allows us to get to vital appointments and to work, and to see friends and family. It is a bridge that connects us to different aspects of our lives and keeps us from feeling isolated. Yet as we have heard in this debate, and as we know from our own experiences and those of our constituents, for many with disabilities public transport is not a bridge but a barrier.
In my constituency, the lack of accessibility as Menston station has been a persistent issue. However, thanks to the combined efforts of a very doughty councillor—Chris Steele—West Yorkshire combined authority, Network Rail and funding from the Department for Transport, we have just completed a £7.8 million modernisation programme. I was delighted to cut the ribbon and ride in the new lifts just last month. I pay tribute to Chris Steele in particular for his ongoing campaign, because it is all very well having an accessible station, but at the moment the actual train is not accessible and he is campaigning to get what is called a Harrington hump. If colleagues have not heard of a Harrington hump, I suggest they look it up, but it basically makes a section of the platform raised so that disabled people can access the train without the need for a ramp. The progress at Menston station is just one example. I would be keen to hear from the Minister about plans to ensure that councils and combined authorities have the support they need further to increase accessibility at stations.
It is vital that the Government take steps to ensure that buses, too, are accessible. I am really proud of what the Government are doing to make it easier for local authorities and mayors to bring buses back into public ownership, and I was delighted to hear—as I am sure you were, Madam Deputy Speaker—that Bradford has just been awarded over £14 million to help with the roll-out of electric buses across our district. Special thanks go to council leader Susan Hinchcliffe, who has lobbied hard on this particular issue. These buses must be designed with accessibility in mind. That means visual and audio displays, a step that drops to the kerb and, as we have heard about in the debate, drivers receiving the necessary training and awareness so that they know how to accommodate disabled passengers. I would like reassurance from the Minister that any new transport infrastructure, including buses, will meet high design standards for accessibility.
Finally, I want to touch on affordability. Not only must disabled people be able to physically access transport; they must be able to afford it. Tracy Brabin, our fantastic Mayor of West Yorkshire, only a couple of weeks ago announced that once the Weaver Network—the franchised bus network—rolls out across West Yorkshire, disabled people will be entitled to use their bus pass before 9.30 am. This will help disabled workers get to work. I urge other places to look at what we are doing in West Yorkshire, and I encourage the Minister to work with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to support people who are not in education, employment or training, and others who may face additional barriers to getting into work. We need to make sure that public transport is accessible to all citizens.
The Government are doing lots of really positive things, but I am keen to make sure that they take further action to improve the lives of disabled people. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is more to be done if we are to guarantee access to public transport, which most of us take for granted, as a right for all.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I am always pleased to speak in debates about transport. I want to paint a picture for the Minister of Leighton Buzzard station—he is, of course, welcome to visit too. There are two lifts, which is fantastic, and I do not knock those lifts at all, because I know that many people want them. At the moment, a person can walk in from the ticket entrance side, get into one of the lifts, go up, go across and go down again, but then they hit a slight problem. They then have to walk all the way along the platform, passed the locked gate, whereupon there are a few steps to go up and a few steps to go down to get out of the station on to the other side, where many people want to go—it is a place called Linslade. As I said, there is a locked gate on that route. Were that gate to be opened, they would have entirely step-free access to get to the outside world.
I know that it is not that simple, because I have had a lot of conversations with people about it—there is some greenery in the way, some cables and there are issues with public rights of way—but it really does not seem impossible. My last discussions were with Network Rail and it said that it was talking to London Northwestern. Given that they are both now in public hands, it does not seem that there are many people to pass the buck between. Will the Minister suggest how we can make best progress on that local issue?
Moving on, I will talk briefly about a couple of points in the Transport Committee’s “Access denied” report. The first is the recommendation in paragraph 105 on a unified complaints system. I am in favour of unification and standardisation, and I think that Great British Railways offers a real chance to do that in many ways, not least on lost property, which I spoke about on Second Reading of the Railways Bill. I also think that as we establish more and more regional transport brands—the example of the Weaver brand has been discussed—that will be what customers think of as the portal gateway to many different types of transport. Indeed, that may well be the place where people ought to be pointed towards if they want to make a complaint—or, actually, if they are going to give somebody a compliment, because it is not always bad news.
I also highlight paragraph 25 of the report, which focuses on neurodiversity. It mentions various issues, including ambiguous signage, which nobody wants. I personally find the Thameslink boards at Blackfriars to be particularly confusing, and I never know which side the train is coming in on. Great British Railways offers us perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create familiarity and consistency right across the network. There are reports from Tokyo that on its metro, the Ginza line, colour-zoned boarding areas have been introduced and that has been cited as an example of neurodiverse-friendly design. It is also a design that has improved passenger circulation overall and meant far fewer last-minute dashes by everybody to the platform. Because this is, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) mentioned, the good thing about accessible design: improved signage can help tourists or commuters rushing to make a connection and banishing steps also helps anybody with a suitcase or a pram.
For society to thrive, we need to make use of the talents of everybody. If we do this right, we do not just remove barriers; we raise the standard of travel for everyone.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her efforts in securing this debate, and indeed the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
At Long Eaton train station in my constituency, the two platforms are well above ground level. They are both accessed by narrow ramps and on both sides of the train line there is a steep upward incline. The ramps are guarded at each end by rails that prevent people from cycling up and down them, but the sharpness of that gradient means that if a traveller has any kind of mobility issues, their journey up to the platform might be rather difficult. The barriers make it effectively impossible for anybody who requires a wheelchair to make it up, and some old tarmac on the ramp often sees people with no mobility issues at all hit the deck every time there is a freeze. From personal experience on my parliamentary commute, I can confirm: not fun.
Thankfully, two lifts were installed at Long Eaton train station in 2012, as part of Network Rail’s Access for All programme, which was launched by the last Labour Government in 2006 and continues to this day. The installation was great progress towards improving disabled access to the platforms, but the operation of the lifts leaves quite a lot to be desired. Travellers can use the lifts only when somebody is on duty at the ticket office, which is during normal hours of nine-to-five. Thankfully, despite the previous Conservative Government’s best efforts in 2023, the ticket office remains open, but travellers are still severely limited. The office is not staffed all the time, meaning that of an evening or weekend, the lifts cannot be used and disabled members of my community cannot access the platforms.
I pay tribute to my local councillor, Dave Doyle—a very good friend of mine—and to Sawley parish council chair, Alan Chewings. Dave and Alan have done great work for many years in raising the alarm on accessibility failures at Long Eaton train station. Indeed, when Dave, Alan and I campaigned against the proposed ticket office closure a few years ago, disabled people’s access was very much what we focused on. Great thanks are therefore due to Dave and Alan for their efforts over the years.
I have previously met Midlands Connect and Network Rail and spoken about persistent issues at Long Eaton station. Struggles with accessibility result from its relative lack of modernisation, but the problems do not stop there. The platform is also unusually short—there is a special announcement every time I get on my train back home. It means that long inter-city trains cannot open all their doors because they cannot be accessed from the whole platform. It leads to missed connections and confusion for travellers across the board.
Additionally, the railway bridge right next to the station across Tamworth Road is 200 years old. It is so low and narrow that it chokes all traffic going under what is an important thoroughfare between Long Eaton and the M1. The road under the bridge also regularly floods, which means that people have to take a 15-minute diversion. The infrastructure we need is just not there.
In summary, we need proper investment to ensure that the station is accessible every day at all times. Long Eaton is a commuter town, ultimately. It is at the heart of the east midlands, with regular trains running to Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, and it is less than two hours door to door to the House of Commons—which is convenient. But it needs to be modernised, and any project that does that needs to recognise disabled people’s rights to accessibility, so that everyone can use the station to get where they need to go.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is appropriate to take part in this debate on what is National Epilepsy Day. I am grateful to the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing the debate and for her expertise in this area, and I congratulate her on doing so. I thank all colleagues across the House who have spoken, including my hon. Friends the Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who are admirably increasing the pressure for accessibility improvements in their constituencies.
The debate has shown what disabled people have known for a long time: accessibility is still too often treated as a box to tick late in the process, rather than being built in from the start, with the result that people are left trying to navigate a system that may function on paper but too often breaks down in practice. That is why the issue cannot be approached piecemeal—with one part of the system considered in isolation, each body concerned only with its own narrow responsibilities —because what matters in real life is whether the whole journey works from beginning to end. The proper test for the Government is therefore a practical one: can someone get from home to work, to college, to hospital or to the high street, or to see their friends or family, safely and reliably with the same basic confidence as anyone else? For too many disabled people, the answer is still no.
The wider picture makes that clear. Only 31% of British stations had full step-free access as of November 2025, 57% of the working-age population in England live in areas with low public transport access to jobs, and bus journeys have fallen by more than a billion since 2015. Those are not separate problems; they are a sign of a transport system in which accessibility has not been given the place it should have in decisions about infrastructure, service levels, procurement and oversight.
Access to healthcare is also harder where public transport is lacking. Some 66% of elderly people are unable to reach hospital by public transport within 30 minutes. Waits for driving tests remain stubbornly high, which of course is particularly concerning for people who are disabled and rely on driving as their only means of getting around.
The issue is not simply whether there are accessibility duties in law; it is whether accessibility is shaping decisions early enough to prevent exclusion from being built in from the beginning. Failure to get the design right at the outset puts more costs and inconvenience on people and means they have less independence later down the line.
Constituents of mine have raised the situation at the bus stop by the former Three Cups pub in Wellington, where parked cars prevent buses from pulling in so disabled passengers and others cannot board safely and ramps cannot be put out. Street design, parking enforcement, vehicle operation and passenger assistance all need to work together to solve those problems.
I have also heard from residents of Creech Heathfield, who have spent months trying to get a response from bus companies about wheelchair accessibility, but have received no meaningful reply. That, too, is part of accessibility. A system that does not respond when disabled people raise barriers is a system that is failing them. The same pattern can apply to taxi provision: with a shortage or scarcity of accessible cabs, bookings often fall through or unsuitable vehicles arrive instead. If policymakers treat accessibility as a marginal issue, or something that can be covered by special arrangements later on, what develops instead is a patchwork of uncertainty in which disabled people are expected to plan around failure—that is not good enough.
For disabled people, rail matters, buses matter, taxis matter and driving support matters, as do the links between them all. The Liberal Democrats have played their part. I am pleased to have played my part in the campaign to ensure that ticket offices in my constituency were retained, which the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) mentioned. We have also proposed amendments to Bills on accessible information and representation for passengers with access requirements, on bus accessibility and reporting, on extending support for disabled people, and on the rail passenger’s charter. How will the Government embed transport planning from the outset in future projects so that key decisions are made at the right stage, and how will they bring rail, buses, taxis and driving support together into a more coherent strategy for disabled people.
If I may, I will end on a positive note, which I know is unusual in this place. In looking back on my experience, I have a confession: I was a pusher from my childhood to later in life, as my mum was a wheelchair user before the days of electric wheelchairs. I identify with the experience of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) of accompanying people on public transport. In those days, we relied on my mum being an indomitable character who would pressgang any available member of the public—family, porters, taxi drivers—to get her across the country. Before public transport accessibility, that involved planks of wood to ramp across the steps from our house into the taxi, or lifting her into the goods van, where she would rattle around with the mailbags from one end of the railway line to the other. On some of those journeys, it was less like being a helper and more like being an extra in “Around the World in 80 Days”.
Those days have passed, however. Things have improved, and as the voices of disabled people have been heard more, there have been improvements in public transport accessibility. That accessibility should not depend on luck, persistence or whether somebody remembered accessibility late in the process; it must be part of the plan from the start.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Over the past few decades there has been a consensus in politics that disability should not prevent people from living fulfilling and successful lives. However, I recognise that, despite strong standards and the implementation of new measures by Governments of all stripes over previous decades, the aims set out by Governments of both main parties in order to improve accessibility for disabled people have not always met the standards that disabled people understandably expect. Governments should always strive to ensure that our transport system works for disabled people. As the Transport Committee report on accessibility recognised last year, this is not a simple issue. Disabled people use very different methods of transport. The report rightly points out that:
“The support that people need to make journeys successfully and confidently varies greatly”.
It has been great to hear from Members from across the House, particularly those with personal experience. In recent years I lived with one of my grandmothers for quite a long time, and I remember taking her around when she was much less mobile in later years. Hearing from hon. Members about the variety of challenges is important, because those experiences can inform our debate. It was particularly great to hear from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about changing places facilities. I have been campaigning for some in Basildon, and they have just been put in. They are important because they give people the confidence to get out and about and access our town centres, which benefits high streets as well as disabled people themselves.
It was fantastic to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) about how looking at design issues from the start can make an important difference. It was also good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) about floating bus stops—an issue that I shall return to.
The variation in types of transport used by disabled people shows that we need to view the issue of accessibility in the wider sense. Accessibility for disabled people is not as simple as ensuring that technical specifications are up to standard and that there are enough staff. Although those things are obviously critical to the experience of disabled people travelling, we must consider the broader question of how Government policies can impact them as well.
That is why I want to focus on one thing that is critical to travel for disabled people but is often overlooked in discussions on accessibility: the importance of cars. We know that cars are integral to the lives of disabled people. In 2024, the national travel survey showed that 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people were travelled in private cars, either as a passenger or as the driver. That is higher than the figure for non-disabled people. As the Select Committee noted, people with disabilities also travel in taxis far more often than non-disabled people.
It is also important to recognise that, among disabled people, a far greater proportion of journeys are made for shopping, personal business and visiting friends. Those journeys are a clear indicator that accessible transport is not some abstract quality, but integral to people’s lives. Without them, people would be cut off, yes, from work, but importantly also from the essential activities and social engagements that are the indicators of a fulfilling life for anyone.
Anna Dixon
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many disabled people simply do not have a choice, because public transport is either not available, if they live in a rural area, or not accessible? Much of the reason why they have to resort to relying on cars and taxis is the failure to invest in an accessible public transport system.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will add, though, that disabled people often choose to use a car, if one is available, because it is the most convenient means of getting around; it means that they can travel at times that suit them. I totally agree that we want to ensure that all our public transport is as accessible as possible, but I do not want a system that restricts the ability of disabled people to move around by car.
As such, I implore the Minister and his colleagues to speak to the Treasury about the fuel duty issue. With 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people travelled by car, increases in the price at the pump will inevitably deter people from making journeys and harm both the personal and professional lives of those who rely on cars more than anybody else. We all know that it is a tax on transport at a time when people across the country are worried about the cost of getting around. It is a further tax imposed by this Government, who I feel often treat drivers and passengers as a cash cow to fund their other decisions.
I hope that this debate sharpens the Minister’s focus and reminds Treasury Ministers, who rather shamefully dismissed our concerns on this issue last week, that vehicles are not merely a means to extract money and taxation from the public, but a lifeline for everyone—particularly those with mobility issues, given that they are so much more dependent on vehicles than the population as a whole.
Daniel Francis
I thank the right hon. Member for his remarks about what I said. However, all the statistics show that the people who need Motability vehicles the most are the poorest and those who live in rural areas. The Conversative party policy on this matter will damage those people the most, quite frankly, by taking away those vehicles. Will he commit to go away to his colleagues and look at that policy, which will damage disabled people who live in rural communities more than anybody else?
Mr Holden
I think the hon. Member should reflect on the fact that he voted last week for a policy that hammers those rural transport users more than anyone else, not at some theoretical time in the future but from September this year, increasing in December and again in March next year. These are not policies that may or may not happen in the future, but policies he has voted for that are hurting disabled people from this year. He should reflect on the impacts that policy will have and speak to Ministers about how those impacts will play out right across the system.
Unfortunately, the ability of disabled people to travel is constrained not only by the cost of driving but by prohibitive motoring policies. We acknowledge that the Government have made some progress—for example, by creating a more accessible railway network, including through the railway road map—and I welcome some of the announcements made by Ministers in recent months, which have rightly focused on policies that Members across the House support. It is also great to see that some Access for All projects are being progressed. However, it is disappointing that many disabled people will remain worried about their ability to access stations, given that some of the projects set out by the last Government have been paused and have a question mark over them, or are not being pursued.
I do not doubt that the Minister believes strongly in improving access for disabled people. My concern is that the Government are comfortable using the language of accessibility but, when faced with decisions that directly impact disabled people—whether that is making stations more accessible or making driving a car more expensive—they are not on the right side.
Time and again, Ministers have been made aware of the physical impediments to disabled people in our towns and cities, in particular floating bus stops. During the passage of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Government said that they intended that the guidance for floating bus stops
“will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 3 July 2025; c. 183.]
The acceptance of Lord Blunkett’s amendments in the House of peers gave the impression that we might see real improvements to floating bus stops that would allow blind people to access bus stops without fear of being struck by bikes while crossing bike paths. It has been great to see floating bus stops removed from scheme designs in some parts of the country; I had an exchange recently with my county council in Essex, which is removing floating bus stops from a large new property development.
However, despite the promises to this House and to those representing blind and partially sighted people, the Government’s proposals in January were pitiful. You do not need to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: a spokesperson for the Royal National Institute of Blind People said that the new guidance simply does not address the problem. Meanwhile, the street access campaign co-ordinator at the National Federation of the Blind of the UK said:
“It does not address the concerns that blind and visually impaired people have and it’s totally insulting to think that we’ll accept this.”
Those concerns are clearly reflected in the data. According to the RNIB, nearly 40% of blind and partially sighted people avoid using these bus stop bypasses and instead go to other bus stops, increasing their journey time, or do not make the journey at all. The Mayor of London has supported the floating bus stop policy using all sorts of strange figures, which he has had to row back on. I was recently down on Chiswick High Road in Hounslow with Councillors Joanna Biddolph and Gabriella Giles, looking at some of the most egregious examples of floating bus stops.
The next decade will offer opportunities for advances in accessibility. New technologies such as autonomous vehicles could transform opportunities for disabled people. Demand-responsive transport could also provide additional services that are not currently available. If the Government use the powers available to them, such as those in the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 passed by the last Government, we could see really significant improvements in accessibility options for disabled people.
As I noted at the start of my speech, there are no simple solutions to the challenges faced by the disabled. This is a multimodal problem crossing both public and private forms of transport, with disabled people facing specific challenges in addition to those faced by everyone else. Where people are unable to travel by train or plane, they understandably feel ostracised from the travelling experience of non-disabled people. This cannot be solved overnight. As Members have suggested, it requires an approach that is applied to all forms of transport. To achieve that, we need to listen to the experiences of disabled people, and when we do promise change, as the Government have done on floating bus stops, we have to deliver it. Excluding disabled people by increasing their costs is also not acceptable. Transport should be there to improve people’s lives, not to raise revenue or increase the cost of living.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I begin by thanking the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing this incredibly important debate on transport accessibility. I thank everyone who has spoken for their thoughtful and powerful contributions, often informed by personal lived experience. Although it does not fall to me to sum up the debate, a couple of specific questions were raised that I would like to address.
The Chair of the Transport Committee asked how the accessible travel charter will be enforced, as well as about the benchmark principles contained in the charter to target improvement. I believe that it would be beneficial for my hon. Friend to see this piece of work happening and informing the Law Commission’s view to see where enforcement gaps exist. She also asked how disabled people have taken part in development of the integrated national transport strategy and the accessible travel charter. I am pleased to confirm that disabled people and organisations have been at the heart of that process. They have participated in our regional roadshows and people’s panels events, and we have worked closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has been fundamental to the development of the strategies.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) asked when design standards for accessible rail stations will be published. I can confirm that that will be done ahead of the stand-up of Great British Railways, so that the organisation can begin to rationalise stations under the same core principles of accessibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) asked about rail services and how the Railways Bill will ensure that the rights of disabled people are enshrined. Not only will the public sector equality duty apply to GBR across its public-facing functions, but the Bill will set out an explicit passenger and accessibility duty in legislation. The passenger watchdog will have the power to set consumer standards relating to accessibility that all passenger service operators must follow as part of their licence conditions. The watchdog will ensure operators’ compliance through regular monitoring, requesting improvement plans where necessary and, importantly, escalating serious and persistent issues to the ORR for enforcement when necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who made many powerful points on this matter in the Railways Bill Committee, once again shared his testimony. He also spoke about the importance of the aviation accessibility implementation group and its recommendations. I am pleased to say that I met the group on Tuesday to reaffirm that air passenger rights remain a priority for the Department. We will continue to consider opportunities to ensure that air passengers have the highest levels of protection possible. The group reaffirmed to me that it believes there are many industry-led proposals that could lead to tangible improvements for passengers with disabilities, and I will stand by it and offer support as that work continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) raised the case of the locked gate at the train station—it sounds like a Sherlock Holmes novel, but it is in fact very serious. I am afraid I do not know the exact details of the case she raised, but I will be sure to take the pertinent details away and raise them with the Rail Minister.
Transport accessibility determines whether people can get to work, education, healthcare and family, and, importantly, whether they can access community life. Access to transport determines whether people can participate fully and equally in our society. That is why it is important that we reflect on progress, acknowledge the challenges that remain and consider what more we must do to create a transport system that works for everyone.
I do not believe that accessibility is a destination that can simply be reached or completed; it is an ongoing journey that requires constant focus, particularly in a world where transport technology and patterns of travel are evolving rapidly. But let me be clear from the outset that it is unacceptable for anyone to be prevented from travelling, or to find it difficult to do so, because of accessibility barriers across our transport system.
Too often, disabled people have been expected to plan, negotiate, explain and adapt, rather than the system doing that work for them, as any other passenger would expect. Too often, accessibility has been an afterthought, rather than being designed into transport strategy from the start. This Government are taking action to correct that, with a firm commitment to improving transport so that disabled people can travel safely, confidently and with dignity.
The Government welcomed the findings in the Transport Committee report, and accepted its conclusion that more must be done to ensure that transport is truly accessible to all. That is why the Government are delivering a comprehensive programme of reform to improve the accessibility of our transport system. In the time that I have, I will set out how that work is progressing, and how it will deliver lasting change.
I will begin with rail, where we know that change has been urgently needed and is firmly under way. Our Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways, is our opportunity to fix what is not working for passengers on our railways. That will ensure that the interests of all passengers, particularly those facing barriers to access, will be at the heart of decision making. The Bill will also establish a passenger watchdog, which will protect the rights of disabled passengers by monitoring service delivery, investigating issues, setting minimum consumer standards, including on accessibility, and advocating for improvements.
However, we are not sitting back and waiting for the passage of the Bill; we are acting. In November, we published alongside the Bill the Department’s road map to an accessible railway, setting out what we are doing to improve the day-to-day travelling experience for disabled passengers ahead of the creation of GBR. We also continue to implement the Access for All programme, which has already transformed access at many stations and will continue to do so. Step-free access, intuitive layouts and accessible facilities must all be part of the everyday experience of the railway.
Let me move on to local transport, which is at the heart of an inclusive and accessible transport system. Journeys by bus, taxi and private hire vehicle are central to disabled people’s daily travel. Our Bus Services Act 2025 marks a major step forward, and introduces a package of measures to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of local transport. Through the Act, we are helping local authorities to design safer, more accessible bus stations and stops. That measure complements existing requirements relating to the physical accessibility of vehicles, the conduct of drivers and passengers, and the information provided on board, which ensure that people can board the bus, receive the support they need, and travel to their destination with dignity. We are also mandating streamlined disability awareness and assistance training requirements for bus drivers and frontline staff. For the first time, every local transport authority will be required to regularly review the accessibility of its bus networks and publish a bus network accessibility plan.
The accessible information regulations are being implemented, improving buses’ audible and visible information, and the Department has recently published statutory guidance on floating bus stops. These bus stops were often introduced with good intentions, particularly the intention of improving safety for cyclists in congested urban environments. However, as has been highlighted many times, they have in some cases created new barriers, and we know that more needs to be done to make them accessible to all. Our guidance will enable designers to provide safer cycling facilities that meet the needs of bus passengers as well as people walking, wheeling or using mobility aids.
On taxis and private hire vehicles, we are seeking a new power to set national standards in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. That will allow us to set standards, including robust standards that prioritise and focus on passenger safety, and accessibility standards. We intend to use the standards to mandate disability equality training for drivers. As we consider wider reform of the overall sector, increasing the provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will be a key priority and an area of focus for our planned engagement this spring. We are also ensuring that local transport planning considers accessibility holistically by developing new guidance on the production of local transport plans, which will set clear expectations that accessible and inclusive transport should be at their core.
I turn to integration, a matter that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), spoke about very powerfully. Accessibility depends on integration and planning. Too often, decisions on transport infrastructure have been made in silos, with accessibility considered too late or not at all. Journeys must be joined up, and people should be able to leave their front door and reach their destination without facing barriers along the way.
Our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy will set out this Government’s people-focused vision for domestic transport across England. It sets out how we will create a transport network that works well for people, and is safe, affordable and accessible, so that everyone can get on in life and make the journeys that they need to easily. Accessibility will be a core priority in the strategy, and I look forward to talking more about our ambitions and the policy covered in the strategy once it has been published.
I have heard the concerns from across the Chamber about enforcement and the burden of responsibility. I am clear that the burden of securing accessibility should not rest disproportionately on disabled people themselves. For too long, disabled passengers have been expected to research, plan, explain and challenge, simply to exercise rights that already exist. That is why we are developing a new accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local authorities.
I hope that I have demonstrated that this Government are taking clear, concrete and co-ordinated steps to realise our shared ambition for a truly accessible and inclusive transport system. I am grateful to Members across the House for their continued engagement and challenge, and I look forward to working with them, disabled people and the transport sector to ensure that this progress continues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Ruth Cadbury to wind up very quickly.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, and the Committee team for the contribution they have made to our work in this important area. I welcome the Minister’s commitment and ambition, and his list of Government initiatives in this area, and I am glad that the Law Commission will be involved in giving teeth to the charter. I just hope that in due course, Ministers will clarify whether disabled people will be involved in shaping the integrated national transport strategy, and will address my questions on the enforcement gap. A fully accessible transport system benefits us all, but we have to remember that—as others have said—disabled people often do not have the choice that many of us have about which mode of travel is available and accessible to them, given their specific needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of transport accessibility for disabled people; notes the recommendations of the Transport Committee in its First Report of Session 2024-25, Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport, HC 770, and the Government’s response to that report, HC 931; and agrees with the Committee that there is an urgent need for review of the legislative framework and the enforcement regime to ensure that the gap between rights and obligations and the daily experience of disabled travellers is closed.
Gurkha Veterans
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Cameron Thomas, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.
I rise to speak on the subject of support for Gurkha veterans and their dependants. As I speak, Ghanendra Limbu is in hospital, where for two weeks, he has helped me put together this story in a manner that I hope will be befitting. I hope the House will join me in wishing him a swift and full recovery.
Nepal is a country smaller than the UK, bordered by global giants China to its north and India to its south. Its highest point is Mount Everest, and it is from Nepal that for over 200 years, the UK has drawn some of its most resilient, courageous and loyal soldiers. Ghanendra was born in the mountainous village of Khamalung, which has a population of 900, on 27 January 1960. Like many across Nepal, he grew up in poverty, despite both parents working long hours as farmers. His ambition was to one day join the Gurkhas and serve alongside the British Army, as some of his uncles and cousins did—it would be a route out of poverty and into a life of expedition—but it was an ambition shared by hundreds of thousands of young Nepalese.
At school, Ghanendra excelled in football and basketball, but his English was also exceptional, which would soon prove pivotal to his future. In 1977, he travelled to the recruiting centre near Kathmandu and applied to join the Gurkhas. The recruitment process was robust and highly contested; there were tens of thousands of applicants to join a brigade only 8,000 strong. Ghanendra was the only person from his village to pass selection. His parents were immensely proud of their son, but his success meant that he would soon leave his family behind to travel to Hong Kong and begin 11 months of training. In Hong Kong, Ghanendra—with his rural background—learned how to survive in conflict and operate various weapon systems; that included learning how to wield the Nepali kukri in hand-to-hand combat. His field engineer training then took him to Kitchener barracks in Kent, where he trained as a driver and a field engineer.
Throughout this period of training, Ghanendra and his fellow Gurkhas were vaguely aware of the increasing tensions between Argentina and the UK over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. On completion of his training, he was assigned to the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers, which provided the British Army with builders, plumbers and electricians. Ghanendra was selected to train as an electrician, but before he could begin his specialist training, on 2 April 1982, Argentina seized the Falkland Islands, 10,000 miles from Nepal. As Ghanendra recalls, he could barely identify the islands on a map. Britain declared war, and Ghanendra’s platoon commander immediately reassigned him to pre-deployment training.
On 12 May 1982, eight days after HMS Sheffield was sunk with the loss of 20 personnel, the British ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2 embarked for the south Atlantic, carrying Gurkhas, Scots Guards and Welsh Guards. Later, at Ascension Island, 21162121 Sapper Limbu and his fellow engineers boarded, and he recalls being ordered to prepare to fight immediately on arrival into theatre. Most of them had never travelled by sea, and were constantly sick over the next 11 days. Until 14 June, over the course of the war, during which Britain lost six ships, Ghanendra and his engineers remained aboard the QE2, knowing day and night that they too could be attacked. They remained aboard long after the war ended, to clear ordnance, which littered battlefields across the islands, but Ghanendra states that he was never trained in minefield clearance.
On 1 December 1982, Ghanendra was attached to 49 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron, Royal Engineers, and was deployed by helicopter to Two Sisters hill. Members of 49 EOD located an unexploded Russian anti-aircraft rocket and began to initiate a cordon. Ghanendra was closest to that rocket when it detonated. He regained consciousness at Port Stanley hospital, several hours after evacuation, where he was told by a doctor that he would lose his eye, and that his hands and legs were badly injured. He was told, before he passed out, that he would be returned to the UK for treatment.
Ghanendra was first moved to Ascension Island on 4 December, where he received further treatment, and he remembers being unable to pass urine. He remembers being given another injection, before regaining consciousness at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich. He was blind in both eyes for two weeks, during which he was operated on by Colonel Youngson, who told him he was lucky to have survived at all. Following six months of treatment, Ghanendra lost one of his eyes, but retained sight in the other, and he kept limited use of his hands and legs.
Throughout those six months, Ghanendra cried day and night. His hopes of a long Army career as an electrician were over at 22. “The Magician”, as he was described by his team-mates on the battalion basketball team, would never play basketball again, and his days on the right wing of a football pitch were over, too. After his discharge from hospital, Ghanendra returned to Kitchener barracks, wanting to seek legal advice, but he was ordered not to leave camp. In 1983, he was told he was no longer fit for the Army and was flown back to Hong Kong. He was physically and psychologically broken, and would have nothing to offer back in Nepal. He was offered a partial pension by the UK Government, amounting to 40%. It was worth 500 rupees—less than £2.50 in today’s money. The UK sent this man, who travelled 10,000 miles to serve the UK in the Falkland Islands, back to Nepal with one eye, a walking stick and £2.50 a month. Shame on us.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. and gallant Member is making an excellent speech, and the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans must never be understated or sidelined. The treatment of Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans in regard to their pensions has been deplorable. The UK Government have rightly recognised veterans’ bravery and their achievements, but that must be translated into respect for their pensions. Does he agree that the UK Government must work at pace and collaboratively with the new Prime Minister of Nepal to resolve these long-standing issues of long-suffering veterans?
Cameron Thomas
I thank the hon. Member for his well-timed contribution. I fully agree, and I will further state that Gurkha veterans, as well as all veterans and members of our armed forces, are lucky to have him as the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. and gallant Member on bringing forward this debate. In the time he has been in this House, he has made a significant contribution on Army, Navy and RAF matters, and we thank him for that.
When I was a wee boy—that was not yesterday—I used to read about the exploits of the Gurkhas in magazines or newspapers. I was always moved by their bravery. I never met a Gurkha until I was on an exercise with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. They were not that big, but my goodness, they were strong and courageous. The Gurkhas have given their all for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often at great personal cost, as the hon. and gallant Member has outlined. Does he agree that it is only right that we ensure that every veteran, regardless of when they served, receives the dignity, the pension equality and the welfare support that they earned on the battlefield? Does he not agree that words of thanks are just not enough? What they need is practical support, and the Government must demonstrate that in this debate. Today is the first stage in the battle to make that happen.
Cameron Thomas
As always, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his meaningful contribution, and I fully agree with him. It gives me an opportunity to recognise that the Gurkhas’ service boosts the morale of all our armed forces. My prevailing memory of serving with the Gurkhas is that they were constantly smiling, which always lifted the morale of everybody they worked with.
In 2004, Ghanendra’s first application to return to the UK was rejected because he had retired prior to 1997, but the Gurkha Justice Campaign continued to fight for equal settlement rights for all Gurkha soldiers. On 29 April 2009, a Liberal Democrat motion to deliver equal rights to settle for all Gurkha veterans delivered Gordon Brown’s Government a shock defeat. Within one month, the then Home Secretary announced that all Gurkhas who had served for at least four years could settle, but it should never have taken such a prolonged and public campaign, with the backing of Opposition MPs and Labour rebels and only one year out from a general election, to deliver this piece of justice for our veterans.
Ghanendra was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2012, and he moved to Aldershot. He is now 66 years old, totally disabled and clearly unable to work. He survives through food bank donations and the support of Farnborough church members. Notwithstanding the fact that but for a parliamentary anomaly, this country would have kept him hidden away in Nepal, this is a shameful injustice. Ghanendra is tired, desperate and ill. He told me that he wishes he could have his time back—that he could be 22 again, with the use of both of his eyes and his body. I cannot give him that, but I am honoured to be able to speak for him today.
This week I met several other Gurkha veterans in Portcullis House, and all feel a continuing sense of injustice, which I share. A retired warrant officer class 2 of the 10th Royal Gurkha Rifles, 21154152 Phurba Sherpa, told me that he served this country for 20 years and 119 days, yet the years that he served in Asia prior to 1997 were not factored into his accrued pension. A retired infantryman in the 2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles, 21167476 Bhimraj Tumbahangphe, told me that 18 years of his national insurance contributions, collected by the Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas, are not recognised by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. His pension does not factor into those contributions, and his fellow veterans report the same anomaly. It was further reported to me that the Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas sidestepped pension contributions by paying Gurkhas through local overseas allowance while they were based in Brunei and Belize.
Since 2006, Gurkha pensions have been aligned with their comparative armed forces pension schemes—AFPS 05 and AFPS 15—as they always should have been, but service prior to 2005 returned a paltry figure. Bhimraj retired after 18 years in 2003, before the alignment, and the lump sum that his pension accrued amounted to only £3,000. He receives less than £400 a month. The lump sum issued to those on armed forces pension scheme 75 for comparative service, which included Bhim’s brother, a retired staff sergeant, was £78,000. He receives £1,200 as a monthly pension payment.
My Gurkha friends recounted this week that, at the conclusion of the Borneo confrontation in 1966, thousands of Gurkhas who had fought for and served the UK’s interests found themselves superfluous and were discharged from the Brigade of Gurkhas. They were left ineligible for a pension. Those who had served over nine years at discharge were issued a single payment of £360, and those who had served for less than nine years were given £250. Today, thousands of the descendants of these warriors live in the rural regions of Nepal, because they cannot afford to live in Nepalese cities—the dependants and descendants of our veterans, who have been left with barely even a historical footnote.
I was told by my Gurkha friends that the Home Office, under this Government, almost exclusively refuses visitor visas for relatives of Gurkha veterans living in the UK. I was told that, since 2019, Department for Work and Pensions rules state that those receiving benefits may leave the UK for a maximum of only 28 days continuously. This timeline is especially prohibitive for Gurkha veterans wanting to visit their families in rural Nepal; it can take over a week to reach these regions as, having transited the airbridge to a major settlement, doing so demands journeys of hundreds of miles over mountainous terrain by road and foot.
I have some questions for the Minister, but I will put them forward at a later point, because I am conscious of time. In closing, I want to recognise the dedication of the Gurkhas, as I have observed, on behalf of the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nepal, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker). She apologises that she cannot be here this afternoon, otherwise she would, I know, have contributed with a genuine and heartfelt speech.
I thank the hon. Member for organising a marking of remembrance at the memorial to the Brigade of Gurkhas in November 2025. She offered me the honour of laying the wreath at that service, which I proudly accepted. When I placed the wreath, I took a moment to read the inscription beneath the feet of the Gurkha Soldier. It reads:
“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”
I want to believe that comment is genuine, and that the reasons for the injustices are that they are so numerous, so complex and so historical that they persist not through lack of will, but through lack of understanding. I want to believe that the relationship between the UK and the Gurkhas is one of friendship, not one of exploitation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit to start with, I call Lauren Edwards.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this really important debate.
My constituency of Rochester and Strood has a long and proud history and association with the Gurkha community and Nepal. There are over 100 Gurkhas living in the Medway towns, representing a sizeable community of former military personnel who have served this country, along with a significant wider community of Nepalese heritage. Along with many Members here today, I have written to the Minister for Veterans and People, particularly on behalf of the Gurkha Nepalese community in Medway and Kent, and I thank her for her responses and engagement.
Given the time constraints, I will not repeat the points about the case that Gurkha veterans who retired before 1997 have for justice in their pension arrangements, which I think are generally well known in this House. I understand the Government’s position, shared by previous Governments, that they are unable to make retrospective changes to such pension arrangements for this cohort of veterans. While the legal position is clear, the reality is that it was not anticipated that so many who are in receipt of pre-1997 pension arrangements would be living in this country.
It is widely understood that the pensions of those whose service ended before 1 July 1997 are not adequate to sustain a decent standard of living in the UK. Many veterans living in this country receive about one third of the pension paid to a British soldier of equivalent rank. As my constituent Sumendra Rai has told me:
“This division is profoundly unjust. It institutionalises inequality among soldiers who wore the same uniform, followed the same orders, and risked their lives in the same conflicts”.
If it is not possible to provide an uplift for their pensions, I strongly urge the Minister to work with Treasury Ministers to consider the introduction of a fund from which this relatively small cohort of veterans experiencing hardship can access additional financial support. The cost to the Government would likely not be significant, given the numbers, but the impact of such a fund on the quality of life of these veterans would be huge.
This would also be very beneficial to bilateral relations between the UK and Nepal. Although I appreciate the steps being taken to work with the Government of Nepal to increase support for the veterans living there, it is right for the Government to look to alleviate the poverty and hardship of those who have served this country and now live here in the UK. I would of course appreciate an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss this further, as I am sure other Members would.
To conclude, supporting our Gurkha veterans who are currently experiencing hardship is about preserving a partnership that has been built over centuries. It is a relationship founded on trust, mutual respect and shared sacrifice, and it is important that we acknowledge the loyalty that the Gurkhas have shown to this country, and do our best to ensure that they do not experience poverty and hardship in their well-earned retirement.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing forward the debate, and for his wonderful and kind introduction to so many of his Gurkha friends.
It would be easy for my remarks to simply be an ode to the Gurkhas and to shower them with honeyed words, because that is what they deserve, but this debate is really about burning injustices—injustices faced by those who have served our nation with distinction. I have had the privilege to meet Gurkha soldiers on many occasions. They are a wonderful people: tough, brave and humble—qualities, I am sure, shaped by the stunning but harsh Himalayan environment. After all, they do hail from the roof of the world.
For over 200 years, Gurkha soldiers have served this country with honour in conflict theatres in all corners of the globe, through the world wars—perhaps most famously in the campaign against imperial Japan—the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. Wherever a British flag has been raised, you will so often find loyal Gurkhas there too. And every time, they have demonstrated themselves to be among the finest soldiers to don a British uniform—indeed, a reputation that truly precedes them.
Yet despite this long and storied connection, we now facing a moment where the Nepalese Government have made overtures suggesting that Gurkha recruitment could be halted if the issue of these injustices is not addressed. I say to the Government and to the Minister—for whom I have a lot of time and respect, because he is a good Minister, if not a Secretary of State—that the noble principle of reciprocity, which has come to characterise this most special relationship over two centuries, must not be allowed to fall into disrepute. It would be a stain on our nation. This is an old and legendary bond, forged in blood and sacrifice, and in the fires of war, and it requires a renewal fit for 21st-century Britain.
The pre-1997 settlement, based on Indian army rates, does not reflect the financial reality of living in Britain in 2026, with much higher associated costs and diminished purchasing power. Frankly, the tripartite agreement of 1947, the year of India’s independence, is now an outmoded covenant. British and Indian regiments are now separate, so for India to remain under this arrangement is otiose. The fact is that we have Gurkha veterans today who are victims of the legacy of a system that is no longer fit for purpose. How can it be that men who served our country in uniform are still not entitled to the same pension settlement because of a technicality rooted in the date—1997—that their service concluded?
Finally, an ode to the Gurkhas is richly desired and deserved, but justice for the Gurkhas is required—now.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber.
For over two centuries, Gurkha soldiers have stood shoulder to shoulder with British troops in conflicts across the globe. Their bravery, loyalty and sacrifice has been unwavering. They have fought in wars, upheld our values and in many cases laid down their lives in service to this country. I am proud, as the Member for Doncaster Central, to represent a large Gurkha population. I am proud not only because of the service they have given this country, but because of the contribution they make to our city today. They are valued members of the Doncaster community and we are richer for their contribution. That is why I am here today to ensure their voice is heard.
As the Minister will already be aware from speeches by other hon. Members, there are many in the Gurkha community who feel that their pension provision has not been fairly applied. Some are living in real hardship as a result.
This relates particularly to those who enlisted before ’93 and the loss of the pre-1997 service value. Let me illustrate a personal example of this: a Gurkha veteran in my constituency served 28 and a half years, yet for pension purposes only 16 years of that service is recognised. That represents a loss of around £10,000 a year simply due to excluded service. While I understand the position of this Government—and previous Governments—on this, I ask on behalf of my constituent, and many more like him, that there is continued dialogue with Government to try to remedy what feels like an injustice to them.
I therefore ask the Minister to continue working with Gurkhas on the areas they feel are outstanding, not least because my constituents have told me that they feel that the Gurkha offer to transfer failed to clearly explain the loss of the pre-1997 service value and the option to split pre and post-1997 service for pension purposes. Furthermore, will the Minister consider working with the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that Gurkhas who served this country—particularly for a long time, like 28 and a half years—are entitled to the full state pension? That only matches the level of service they have given this country.
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury once again and look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer. This is an important debate to have in the House today, not just to highlight the issues that Gurkhas are facing across this country, but as a chance to celebrate their contribution, both to my city and to the nation.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) prompted me to start reminiscing about 29 April 2009. I do not want to be patronising, but there is a moral message and lesson here for hon. Members in my party: on that day, there was a majority of 21 in favour of a settlement being given to the Gurkhas, with twenty-seven Labour Members voting in favour of it. We were called rebels for that. Sometimes, though, we have to make a moral judgment and say to the Whips: “I believe this is the right thing to do.”
It was a huge success and a fantastic campaign, with much publicity secured by Joanna Lumley, who ran a terrific campaign. The lawyers behind it were Martin Howe and his team, with Mark Collins and others. Momentum built up behind that campaign because people were outraged about the discrimination that the Gurkhas were suffering—it was as simple as that. I have to say that the points that hon. Members have raised today demonstrate that that discrimination continues today.
On the issue of pensions, the argument always put by Government is that they cannot legislate or operate retrospectively, but they can—successive Governments have done that. We should not allow the discriminatory way that Gurkha pensioners have been treated, with all their service not being taken into account and the mythical date of 1997 being used against them; as a result, there are Gurkhas living in poverty here and Gurkhas living in poverty back in Nepal—despite all their service, which we have congratulated them on today. In addition, there are issues in our own community with Gurkhas suffering homelessness and financial distress.
I would welcome the Government standing back and producing a strategy for the Gurkhas who have served this country, looking comprehensively at their current situation and at the measures that could be used to address that poverty. In my opinion, what that means is a fair pension settlement once and for all, so that we can get this issue resolved.
There are issues with regard to housing, as I have said, but also with regard to health. We have always extolled the Gurkhas for their bravery, and different surveys have demonstrated that they may suffer less post-traumatic stress disorder than other service people, but I think that is a bit of a myth. I think there are issues with regard to their experiences and the impact that has had on them, and that as they get older, because of this myth, they may not be getting the support and treatment that they should rightfully access. So we need a Gurkha strategy—that is what I would like to see coming from this Government.
In my community, 25 or 30 years ago there must have been only about five Gurkha families, but we now have a sizeable community of at least 500 or 600 families. We have set up a local Gurkha association. One thing we have been successful in is that it wanted a part of the local cemetery dedicated to the Gurkhas. It now has part of that cemetery and we have commemoration services there every year. The Gurkhas contribute widely to the community. Just as they served in the military so well, they serve so well within our community. We therefore owe them a debt of honour to resolve some of these issues, particularly on pensions.
As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned, yes, we have established the Gurkhas’ right of settlement, but there are issues with regard to visas and other matters that fly in the face of the practice of their family life and cultural life. Those need resolving. I would welcome the Government standing back, looking at whether we can develop a comprehensive strategy and reporting back to the House so that we can have a checklist of actions that we can all support on a cross-party basis to address the concerns of these people we have all admired so much.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a privilege to be able to speak in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for his excellent work in securing it. Many of my remarks will echo comments made by colleagues across the House. I will pay my own tribute to the Gurkhas and their incredible service to this country, mention some local residents in Reading—I would like to get on the record their contribution to our country—and point out some of the severe issues they face as a result of the cost of living crisis. I hope that the Minister will respond to those in his speech.
To be clear, we as a country owe a debt of honour to our Gurkhas. For 200 years, they have served this country. They have played some part in every war that Britain has been involved in, and they have been involved in some of the most difficult and demanding engagements in British military history, including in particular the defence of India in world war two, when in 1944 Gurkha soldiers were involved in hand-to-hand fighting to stop the Japanese advance on India. They were also involved in the Falklands war and in Afghanistan. I read Kailash Limbu’s book about his service in Afghanistan, which is incredibly powerful and moving; I recommend it to colleagues across the House.
The Gurkhas are the bravest of the brave, as has been said. In my community, they make an enormous contribution. We have several thousand Gurkhas and Nepalese residents living in Reading, which is a common experience for communities across Berkshire and outer London. If I may, I will briefly pay tribute to one or two individuals before touching on the importance of dealing with the cost of living crisis, particularly for pre-1997 pensioners.
Chandra Budhathoki has played an incredible role in developing the Forgotten British Gurkha charity in Reading, which provides support across a whole range of areas to veterans and their families. It is worth considering that often many family members and older Gurkhas—particularly their wives, as well as some other relatives—do not have a very high level of English. When serving in the Army, orders and instructions were often conveyed in Nepali. It is important to remember that there are some practical barriers to life in Britain; Chandra was instrumental in developing that important charity for our community.
I would like to mention briefly some other notable Gurkhas or Nepalese residents I know. Community worker Ram Galami, a former Gurkha, is a notable member of our community. Pratikshya Gurung is a nurse whose father was a Gurkha in the Indian Army, not the British Army. Most of all, Gyanraj Rai, who many hon. Members may have heard of, is a notable campaigner who has raised the issue of Gurkha pensions for many years.
It is worth briefly touching on the significant practical issues that our residents face. My experience of the pre-1997 Gurkhas, who I have campaigned for since 2013, is that many live in poor-quality housing on very small incomes in the south-east of England or outer London—as well as many other high-cost parts of the country—and they are really struggling because of tight finances. To give the House an idea, the pensions we are talking about can be as little as £300 a month, which, when added to pension credit, may bring the income for a couple to £1,600, but to rent a terraced house in Reading would take that entire income.
These are people who are really struggling. They have given us incredible service but are often living in poor-quality accommodation. They are incredibly proud and incredibly hard-working, and they make an enormous contribution to Britain and to local communities across the country. I hope that the Minister, who is a great supporter of our armed forces families and has done a huge amount to support them, will listen to the debate carefully and think about the issues facing this group of veterans and their families.
I will, if I may, add some other practical points and make a request to the Minister to work with the Department for Transport. There are other issues that need to be addressed in relation to benefits and travel back and forth between the UK and Nepal. One that has been mentioned to me today is the lack of a direct flight from Britain to Nepal, which means that elderly veterans and their wives are often in transit in the Gulf—in normal times, I should say. This dramatically extends travel times, which is extremely difficult for residents who do not have any English. I have heard stories of cousins, nephews and other relatives having to accompany elderly pensioners to try to get them through practicalities at airports—things such as customs, finding the right gate and so on.
It would be much appreciated if the Minister had a word with the Transport Department about the need for a direct flight and to pick up on other issues that have been raised by colleagues. I look forward to hearing his response.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am privileged to have seen the service and sacrifice of the Gurkhas to the British Army at first hand during my visit to Brunei last year, where I had the honour of being hosted by the First Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—a scheme that I know the Minister is a firm supporter of.
The Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas is also located at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, which I am proud to represent, though I should clarify that the headquarters itself falls just outside the constituency. Bracknell Forest is also home to a thriving Nepalese community, focused mostly around Sandhurst. In fact, Nepalese is the second most commonly spoken language in our borough after English.
Every time I meet a Gurkha, or visit our armed forces and see how integral the Gurkhas are to our global reputation and our capabilities, I am reminded of the words inscribed on the Gurkha soldier memorial, not 500 yards from this Chamber. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for reminding us of these important words.
“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”
As today’s debate has already demonstrated, there is rightly deep respect for Gurkhas across this House. Today is an important opportunity to recognise all that Gurkha veterans have done to defend this country’s interests and security, and to pay tribute to them for that. That is why it is only right that we respect their sacrifice and contributions in kind.
I was proud recently to put my name, alongside a number of colleagues, to a letter to the Veterans Minister from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who is an ardent champion for the Gurkhas. Her work on this has already been rightly highlighted today in this debate. The letter welcomed the election of a new Government in Nepal and recognised the importance of continued constructive engagement on Gurkha welfare with Nepal. I know that the Government are committed to putting the delays of previous Governments behind us and making progress where others have failed to do so. I look forward to supporting their work to achieve a fairer deal for Gurkha veterans.
One area that I would particularly like to highlight, as the Government pick up our conversations with the new Government in Nepal, is the recruitment of women into the Gurkhas. I know that this is an issue that the Government have raised previously, so can I take this opportunity to ask for the Minister’s assurances that they will continue to pursue this with the new Nepalese Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I emphasise the will that I know exists in this place to work collaboratively with Nepal on this issue? I welcome the opportunity to continue the dialogue with the new Government and reinstate my support for efforts to find a resolution that properly recognises the enormous contribution made by Gurkhas to our country. Only then can we ever hope to begin to repay the huge debt of gratitude that we owe to our Gurkha veterans; and to be as faithful friends to them as they have been, and continue to be, to us.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. I would also like to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker). I know that hon. Friend would be here today, were it not for other duties.
As the MP for Nuneaton, I am incredibly fortunate and proud to represent a large Gurkha population. Their contribution to our town is valued and woven into the fabric of Nuneaton, from the Gurkha Corner Bar to the Crossed Khukris and its amazing curries, which I highly recommend to every Member of the House—I am sure that we can arrange a wonderful visit.
Support and advocacy are provided through the British Gurkha Veterans Association, and the Gurkha monument —the first of its kind—is in Riversley Park in the centre of Nuneaton. Nuneaton is deeply proud of its long-standing connections with Gurkha veterans and serving soldiers, with the Queen’s Gurkha Signals based in Gamecock barracks in neighbouring Rugby.
The British Gurkha Veterans Association provides so much support in our community. It offers English language classes and support for families to better engage with their neighbours and community. It arranges for health checks and organises visits around the country—including one to Parliament, where I had the honour of hosting over 50 Gurkha families for a tour. I know that it is excited by the opportunities presented by Op Valour, which is greatly welcomed in our community, to build on that work.
The recent elections in Nepal provide an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between Nepal and the UK. My community recognises the importance of that relationship and has faith that the UK Government will be able to engage in talks to end the historical injustices against the Gurkha population. I thank the Minister for the work he has done in this area to support our Gurkha communities and strengthen that partnership. I urge him to engage positively with the talks as they progress, and with the Nepal APPG, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot.
We have heard many accounts of how Gurkha soldiers have served our nation for generations. They have fought alongside British troops with their renowned ferocity and bravery, and they have paid a heavy cost. We owe them, and all our service personnel, a great debt, and yet long-standing concerns about pensions and access to services for veterans, their wives and widows have failed to be resolved for too long. While I understand the challenge of retroactively addressing pension issues, much more needs to be done to ensure that those who have served—especially those who have paid in national insurance contributions and not seen the returns—have access to healthcare and financial support. I also echo what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said about pre-1997 veterans who were injured in service and do not qualify for a medical pension or compensation.
I had the pleasure of meeting Andrew Limbu, and the absolute privilege of hosting him in Nuneaton. Like many of the veterans, he is quite a character. His passion, enthusiasm and dedication to the fight were a pleasure to see. His visit was only made more memorable by his party trick of popping out his eye at inappropriate moments. As is the case for so many, his life has changed irreversibly as a consequence of his bravery and service in the Falklands. Decisions on a resolution have been deferred for too long. This is a debt that needs to be settled with more than just platitudes.
Through my involvement with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have heard about the wider impact of Gurkha soldiers. It is very welcome that, while we struggle to recruit in other areas, Gurkha regiments are already oversubscribed. I wish to pay homage to a few of the veterans in my community, including Om Gurung and Padam Bahadur Gurung, who are freemen of my borough, and our mayor, Bhim Saru, who still serves our community.
It is practically impossible to find a support service in Nuneaton that has not in one way or another been touched by the work and generosity of our Gurkha veterans, who continue to serve after their duties are done. It is more important than ever for the Government to continue to work at pace to show respect for and truly honour the Gurkha veterans who have made such a sacrifice for our country.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is crucial that we continue to recognise the invaluable contributions of the Gurkhas, both militarily and in our communities, and I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this debate and explaining eloquently the issues that the Gurkha community faces. We need to continue the conversation about the important role they play in our society.
The Gurkhas in my constituency of Ashford and Hawkinge have been a model of dedication and contribution to the wider community, and I could not be prouder to have a thriving Gurkha community in my constituency. Many members of that community are veterans and their families, and many own businesses that contribute to local growth on our high streets, enhance our local culture through Nepalese food, festivals and celebrations, and organise charity events such as litter-picks and walks around the parks in my constituency. Often, veterans take the lead to provide help to the rest of their community through organisations that bind us closer together at a time when we risk becoming more fractured than ever before.
Our shared history with the Gurkhas is demonstrated most clearly by their 200 years of distinguished service as part of the British Army, including their bravery and sacrifices in both world wars, most notably during the north African and Burmese campaigns in the second world war, where they earned 12 Victoria Crosses, and their service against the Ottomans in the first world war, among many other campaigns. The Gurkhas have continued to serve in modern peacekeeping operations, such as in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and still serve bravely to this day. I saw that at first hand when I participated in various visits as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which my colleagues have mentioned.
I know that the Gurkhas’ dedication to service is recognised by all Members across this House and by this Labour Government. Part of that recognition involves ensuring the dignity of Gurkha veterans. That is why I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People to ask what measures would be taken to explore the welfare needs and long-standing pension issues of Gurkha veterans. I was pleased that, in her response, the Minister outlined the Government’s commitment to explore measures to address the welfare needs of Gurkha veterans, in both the UK and Nepal, and that Ministry of Defence officials have been instructed to continue discussions with the Gurkha veterans’ representatives. I urge the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who is on the Front Bench today, to update us on how that is progressing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
One of the most favoured spots in my constituency on a Friday evening is The Ferry in Thames Ditton, a wonderful Nepalese restaurant run by Cepe, who served with the Royal Gurkhas for 19 years. Around the restaurant are pictures of VCs, a proud reminder of the many Gurkhas who have served our country loyally and bravely, without hesitation, in some of the most dangerous theatres of war.
With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, I want to speak today about something that I think cuts to the heart of what we stand for as a country: fairness, honour and how we treat those who have served under our flag. For more than two centuries, the Gurkhas have stood shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers. From the trenches of the first world war to the jungles of the second and the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fought with a courage and loyalty that should inspire us all. The Gurkhas are not a peripheral force; they are an integral part of the British Army. Yet, despite that sacrifice, we have not treated them as equals. That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate.
Let me be clear about the scale of the problem. Around 25,000 Gurkha vets who retired before 1997 remain on the Gurkha pension scheme, a system designed not for life in the UK but for retirement in rural Nepal. As a result, they receive pensions that are significantly lower than those of their British counterparts, despite having done the same job, worn the same uniform and faced the same dangers. These are not marginal differences; they are life-defining disparities. Many Gurkha veterans living in this country are surviving on incomes that would be considered unacceptable for any veteran of our armed forces. Some are living in poverty, some are struggling to heat their homes and some are making impossible choices between basic necessities.
The argument has long been that the Gurkha pension scheme was designed with a different purpose and that retrospective changes to pension arrangements are uniquely difficult, but that no longer holds, and here is why. In 2009, after a sustained and powerful campaign supported by Members across this House, Gurkha veterans secured the right to settle in the UK. That was a landmark moment, but it created a new reality—one that our pension system has simply failed to catch up with. We cannot invite people to live in one of the most expensive countries in the world and then continue to pay them as if they were living in Nepal. It is not sustainable or defensible.
This is not a new complaint; it has been raised repeatedly by campaigners, vets themselves and Members on all sides. We have seen hunger strikes, protests outside this building and legal challenges, but the fundamental injustice persists, and that should trouble every one of us. When people who once risked their lives for Britain feel that their only remaining tool to be heard is protest or starvation, something has gone very badly wrong.
The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in this fight. In 2009, we used an Opposition day to force the House to confront the issue of settlement rights. That vote sent a clear message, and the Government of the day were forced into a U-turn. That showed what this House can achieve when it acts with conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has written to the Minister for Veterans and People demanding action. We are not raising this issue for the first time; we are raising it because it remains unresolved.
There are wider pressures bearing down on this community. Many ageing veterans face language barriers that make it genuinely difficult for them to navigate the system. Many are unaware of entitlements that they should be receiving, and many struggle to access NHS services or social care. Mental health provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. Families face high visa fees and significant financial strain when trying to reunite with loved ones. This is not only about pensions; it is about a broader failure to support a community that has given so much.
We must confront the deeper issue here: the current system is rooted in a colonial-era arrangement, the 1947 tripartite agreement between the UK, Nepal and India. That agreement may have reflected the geopolitical realities of the moment, but nearly eight decades later, those realities have changed. The Nepalese Supreme Court itself recently called for a review of the arrangement, highlighting the unequal power dynamics under which it was created and questioning its continued relevance. It has made it clear that the current system does not adequately protect the rights and welfare of Gurkha soldiers, and we should take that seriously.
The armed forces covenant promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect—it is a promise of no disadvantage—and yet, for Gurkha veterans, that promise has not been fulfilled. They are, in effect, excluded from the full application of that principle. That is not right, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. Fairness before the state should depend not on where someone was born, but on what they have given.
Where do we go from here? The answer is not overly complicated, but we require political will. First, we need a comprehensive pension justice review that seriously examines how we can move towards parity for Gurkha veterans who served before 1997. Secondly, we need to address the financial barriers that continue to affect Gurkha families through reductions in visa fees and, where appropriate, waivers. Thirdly, we need a targeted support package for ageing veterans to ensure that they can access healthcare, social care and mental health services without unnecessary obstacles. These are not radical demands; they are reasonable steps towards fairness.
At the end of the day, this comes down to a simple question: do we believe that equal service deserves equal treatment? If the answer is yes—and it must be—the current situation cannot continue. The Gurkhas have served this country with extraordinary courage. They have done so without hesitation and with a loyalty that has become the stuff of legend. But loyalty is a two-way street, and for too long we have not upheld our side of that bargain.
Let us act. Let us match their service with fairness, match their sacrifice with justice, and ensure that the values we so often speak about—honour, duty and equality—are reflected not just in our words but in our actions. If we cannot do right by those who have fought for us, the claim that we are a fair and honourable nation begins to ring hollow, and that is something this House should never accept.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As former Officer Cadet Francois 24663730, and latterly Lieutenant Francois, 5th Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment (Volunteers), I am proud to be asked to sum up for His Majesty’s official Opposition in this important debate about Gurkhas and their welfare. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), not just on securing this important debate, but on introducing it so very ably. As some Members of the House may know, I am something of a military history buff, so I have at least some appreciation of the noble and valiant service that the Gurkhas have provided to the British Crown for over 200 years.
We have heard a number of important Back-Bench speeches this afternoon, including from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made the point that, in an important debate on this subject, 27 Back-Bench rebels made the difference on the day. He cited that as an example of how Back Benchers can affect the future. I remember how 28 Tory MPs changed the future on meaningful vote three in 2019—although, for our trouble, we were nicknamed “the Spartans” by the media, and not “the Gurkhas”.
The Gurkhas celebrated their 200th anniversary in British service in 2015, when a very striking memorial was unveiled on Horse Guards Avenue, just across the road from the Ministry of Defence. As a number of hon. Members have mentioned today, the inscription on that memorial bears repetition in this context:
“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”
The Gurkhas entered British service in 1815, when a battalion of Gurkha troops was formed under the auspices of the East India Company. They continued in British service, and during the Indian rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side, and they became part of the British Indian Army on its formation. They remained in the British Indian Army, and fought valiantly in both the first and second world wars.
In his brilliant book “Defeat into Victory”, which was written after the end of the second world war, and is arguably one of the greatest works ever written on the subject of generalship, one of the Gurkhas’ most famous officers, Field Marshal Viscount the Lord Slim, fondly recalled his association with the Gurkhas in the following terms:
“I was able to visit my old Battalion, the 1st/6th Gurkha Rifles, in which I had served for many happy years. It was good to see them again, and to be told by the divisional commander that they had done well in the Bridgehead fighting. I spoke to Gurkha officers who I had first known 20-odd years before, when I was adjutant, and they were chubby recruits straight from the from the Nepal hills. Now they were subadars, commanding companies and platoons on a hard-fought field. Real soldiers and real leaders.”
What a marvellous tribute to the Gurkhas from Bill Slim, an absolutely exceptional leader.
The Gurkhas continued to fight valiantly in British service, including in the Malayan emergency and during the Falklands war, when a battalion of Gurkhas were part of the British taskforce that liberated the Falkland Islands from Argentinian occupation in 1982. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury rightly paid tribute to Ghanendra Limbu, who was part of that successful campaign. We thank all those who have served proudly in the Gurkhas for their service.
The Gurkhas still form a fundamental part of the British Army today, serving in what is now known as the Brigade of Gurkhas, a collective term that refers to all serving Gurkha units. It includes three infantry battalions, one of which is based in Brunei. The second is in the United Kingdom, and there is now a third, smaller, specialist infantry battalion at Aldershot, as part of what is known as the Specialised Infantry Group. In addition, the Gurkhas have a number of other units, including signals, engineer and logistics regiments, and, interestingly, from 2025 onwards, there has been the new King’s Gurkha Artillery, which was based at Larkhill.
Despite some disputes over welfare issues, which I will come to in a moment, recruitment from the Gurkhas’ ancestral homeland of Nepal is still very healthy. To this day, we recruit several hundred Gurkhas every year, and those places are massively oversubscribed. Many young men from Nepal still strive to emulate their forebears and join one Gurkha regiment or another to serve the Crown, and long may that continue.
However, in the post-war period, the basis of the Gurkhas’ service was the 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, the United Kingdom and India, which established terms and conditions of service for Gurkhas in the British armed forces. Under the arrangement, Gurkhas served in the British Army on distinct terms and conditions. They also had access to a Gurkha pension scheme, first introduced in 1948, which, in essence, followed the Indian army model. It provided Gurkha soldiers with an immediate pension after 15 years’ service, but, as has been pointed out, at equivalent Indian army rates.
In 2007, the Labour Government introduced the Gurkha offer to transfer—or GOTT, as it was sometimes referred to—offering Gurkhas who served after July 1997 the option to transfer their eligible service into the United Kingdom’s armed forces pension scheme, or AFPS. I remember much debate about the AFPS when I was a Minister, and about the different benefits provided by the different generations of the scheme, whether it was AFPS 1975, 2005 or 2015—I see the Minister nodding in acknowledgement.
Significantly in this context, following the handing back of Hong Kong in 1997, the Gurkhas transferred their main base from that former colony back to the United Kingdom, where they are mainly deployed today. After 2009 and a sustained campaign led by, among others, Joanna Lumley—the daughter of a former Gurkha officer—the then Government amended the immigration rules, in essence to allow those who had served in the Brigade of Gurkhas for four years or more to settle themselves and their immediate families in the United Kingdom. That effectively remains the position today. As a result, there are now clusters of Gurkhas and their families living in the UK, mainly in current or former garrison areas, but some are dispersed further afield.
For some time, there has been a campaign to amend the pensions of Gurkha veterans who served many years ago and still draw a pension, so that they are at the equivalent AFPS rate, rather than based on the comparable Indian army rate. The traditional argument is that because most Gurkhas returned to Nepal on the conclusion of their service, where costs were lower, it was appropriate to pay them under the old arrangements. However, after the end of their basing in Hong Kong and the switch of the brigade to the United Kingdom—and, indeed, given that many Gurkhas now avail themselves of the option of settling in the UK with their immediate family following their period of service—the question arises of whether the pension arrangements should be altered, including for older Gurkha veterans. I commend the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for advancing their arguments in the way he has done this afternoon. He has been a strong advocate of their case. I am afraid that I cannot, standing at the Dispatch Box, make an immediate spending commitment on behalf of my party to satisfy the hon. Member—
Mr Francois
—although I hear calls from senior Members behind me to do so. Nevertheless, I can perhaps provide at least some additional context to this debate. Let me set out what I mean by that. For many years, all western armies—be they American, Canadian, Australian, German or otherwise—have struggled to recruit and retain sufficient regular and reserve personnel. I would argue that there have been particular problems in Britain, because of an extremely poor recruitment contract with Capita, or —forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—Crapita, as it was nicknamed by Private Eye. I proved spectacularly unsuccessful at persuading Conservative Ministers to take away the contract, despite my best efforts.
At a time when all western armies have struggled to recruit and retain, the Gurkhas have provided a constant source of willing soldiers for the British Army—and as I intimated earlier, each year, the recruitments slots are still very healthily oversubscribed. That is no doubt one reason why the new Labour Government decided to form an entirely new artillery regiment, the King’s Gurkha Artillery, last year. In addition, there are still large numbers of Gurkhas who have left regular service but are living in the United Kingdom under the immigration changes I referred to, who might perhaps be persuaded to form reserve battalions of what is now the Army Reserve. I believe that such units would have as strong an ethos as their regular counterparts, and there should hopefully be a ready pool of already trained ex-regular troops to sign up, if this idea were pursued.
I mention all this because of the Conservative party’s recent announcement that, due to the worsening international situation, an incoming Conservative Government would add back to the Army; we would create a Regular Army of a minimum of 80,000 troops, and the Army Reserve would be expanded from some 26,000 soldiers at present to at least 40,000, making for an Army on mobilisation of 120,000—and there would be potential further augmentation from the strategic reserve by another nearly 100,000. That is excepting a situation in which there was full conscription. We hope to debate this matter in more detail in the Armed Forces Bill Committee after the Easter recess.
If we were to expand the British Army, both regular and reserve, there might well be merit in seeking to use that willing pool of additional Gurkha recruits to achieve at least part, if not all, of the desired expansion. If we were to ask the Gurkhas to form a proportionally slightly larger element of the British Army in the future, that might make for a stronger case for improving their terms of service, including the terms of service of those who served many years ago. I hope the House can follow my argument. I table that suggestion for discussion, and I hope that it is a positive contribution to the debate.
To finish, I pay tribute to the extremely loyal and valiant service to the Crown that the Gurkhas have provided for over two centuries, during which 26 Victoria Crosses and many hundreds—indeed, thousands—of other gallantry medals have been awarded to those serving in Gurkha regiments. The Gurkhas have been great friends to Britain over many decades—indeed, centuries—and we thank them most heartily for that record. As they have a fearsome reputation on the battlefield, we should be wary of upsetting them, and avoid doing so if at all possible. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and to hearing whether he can provide any comfort to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, or to the House more broadly, on this admittedly rather complicated subject, which affects some of the bravest and most dedicated soldiers the British Army has ever seen.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for the way he introduced this debate. In particular, I think the whole House is grateful for the detailed description he gave of the very gallant service of Ghanendra Limbu and his experiences serving in the Falklands. The contribution of the Gurkhas to the Falklands is a story not told as frequently or as loudly as it should be, and I am grateful to him for putting that on the record.
I am standing in today for my colleagues the Minister for Veterans and People, who leads on Gurkha issues in the Ministry of Defence, and the Minister for the Armed Forces, who looks after the composition of the United Kingdom’s armed forces. I will pass on a number of the requests for meetings made by my hon. Friends to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is very happy to continue her discussions with Members of Parliament and, indeed, representatives of the Gurkha community. I know the hon. Member for Tewkesbury did not have time to ask his questions—luckily, his office sent me a copy of his questions in advance—so I am pleased to confirm that the Minister for Veterans and People would be happy to meet him to talk in detail through the issues he wanted to raise.
I join Members across the House in honouring the extraordinary service of Gurkhas and their families, who, for more than 200 years, have stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain, serving the Crown with unwavering dedication and courage. The Gurkhas’ legacy is woven into the very fabric of our armed forces, and successive Governments have recognised not only their unique history and contribution, but the responsibilities that the UK Government share as a result.
In that spirit, we have in place a range of measures to support Gurkha veterans and families, implemented by this Government and previous ones. As we would expect, eligible Gurkha veterans in the UK are entitled to the same welfare support as all UK veterans, in terms of access to Ministry of Defence-funded services and to the vital work of third sector organisations. We have collaborated closely with Gurkha veteran representatives, and continue to listen to their priorities and concerns. The Minister for Veterans and People met the Gurkha G10 representatives last week, and will do so again shortly.
As a result of this engagement, a range of cross-Government opportunities have been identified, and work is being done between a number of Departments to take those opportunities forwards, shaped by what Gurkha veteran representatives have told us matters most to them. This includes clearer immigration guidance, targeted outreach to improve access to benefits, and stronger support for health and social care, which was raised by a number of colleagues.
For those who have returned home to Nepal, our commitment does not end at the border. Welfare provision in Nepal is shaped to local needs, with the Gurkha Welfare Trust providing tailored support and delivering essential welfare and medical care with community programmes in Nepal, as it has in the United Kingdom. UK Government funding of nearly £10 million a year helps to sustain that work, recognising that many Gurkha veterans choose to return to Nepal and continue their lives there. In addition to the £40 million committed by the previous Government in 2019, we have provided a £24 million uplift to the medical and healthcare grant in aid already in place. The UK Government have agreed in principle to extend that support beyond 2029, and in addition we have committed to uplift support for the Gurkha welfare advice centres.
Gurkha veterans also benefit equally from the provisions of the armed forces covenant, which we are seeking to extend into law in the Armed Forces Bill, as mentioned by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I would like to recognise the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs in leading the charge through our new veterans’ support service, Valour, which brings Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector together, so that every veteran, including those who have served in the Gurkhas, can access the healthcare, employment, housing and mental health support that they deserve. It is about ensuring that no one falls through the cracks, and that the support is joined up across government.
I recognise that a number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have Gurkha communities in their constituencies, and I join the praise for those communities. Although the Gurkha community in my Plymouth constituency is much smaller than those of some of my colleagues, it is none the less strongly supported across Plymouth.
Before I turn to pensions, I want to respond to two points that were raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) mentioned direct flights; I recommend that he speaks to the Aviation Minister about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) asked about the recruitment of women into the Gurkhas. He will know that that decision sits with the Government of Nepal rather than with the Government of the United Kingdom.
I cannot let the opportunity go by without echoing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) that Gurkha curries are absolutely delicious. The kindness and generosity that I have received from serving Gurkhas when visiting our deployed troops underlines what an important contribution they make to our military service and, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, to morale as well.
Peter Swallow
I thank the Minister for all that he has said so far. We have had an incredibly harmonious debate, with views shared by Members from across the House on this important issue. I note that a Member of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has now entered the Chamber, but does the Minister share my concern that Reform Members did not contribute to the debate? This is not the first time that we have had an important debate on defence from which Reform Members have been absent. Does he agree that if that party wants to present itself as being serious about defence, perhaps it should involve itself when we are debating important issues such as this?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend makes a strong point and has placed it on the record.
The matter of pensions was raised by a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. As has been discussed, this is a challenging area. We have honoured the historical terms under which each Gurkha served. At the time of the 1948 GPS, Gurkhas were eligible for an immediate pension after 15 years’ service, typically at a much younger age than their British counterparts. Indeed, they were eligible from the age of 33. That resulted in pensions being paid for a significantly longer period than would have been available to UK service personnel at the time. I entirely understand the calls for parity, but it is important to compare like with like at the time, and I will come to what that would mean in due course.
Although the monthly pension payments under the Gurkha pension scheme may be smaller than those of their British counterparts, the Gurkha pension scheme was paid for a significantly longer period. Indeed, based on the Government Actuary’s Department report, this longer payment period means that the vast majority of Gurkha pension scheme recipients receive pensions at least as good as—and, in many cases, better than—the comparable pension for a British soldier.
It is worth noting that until 1975, British personnel who left at the point of 15 years’ service had no right to a pension at all, not even a deferred one. After the introduction of preserved pensions, soldiers who left before 22 years of service and officers who left before 16 years of service were entitled to receive their pension only from the age of 60. The Gurkha pension scheme also makes generous provision for dependants, reflecting the fact that members were expected at that time to retire to Nepal after service. Over time, that changed, and since 2006 all new Gurkha recruits have joined the armed forces pension scheme alongside their British colleagues.
Gurkhas serving between July 1997 and 2007 were given an opportunity to transfer to the AFPS. Those Gurkhas who left before 1997 receive the GPS pension. These arrangements have been tested and upheld through two judicial reviews and a case that went to the European Court of Human Rights. The courts have confirmed that the existence of different pension arrangements was not unlawful discrimination, but justified and reasonable at the time.
We have taken important steps to address immigration and settlement issues. Back in 2009, the Labour Government supported Gurkha veterans to settle in the UK alongside their families—that has been spoken about by colleagues on both sides of the House—and introduced reforms that ensured Gurkha veterans settled here and had the same access to public services as any other resident. Some 15 years later, in our manifesto, the Labour party promised to scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years and their dependants, and that includes many Gurkhas. We are working closely with the Home Office to deliver on that commitment.
Ministers and officials maintain an ongoing dialogue with Gurkha representatives, the Government of Nepal and other partners. Last year, the then Minister for Veterans and People met the ambassador for Nepal, and his successor has met a number of the G10 Gurkha veteran groups, underscoring the determination to find solutions together. A number of points were raised in the debate, and I will ask the Minister for Veterans and People to respond in detail; I recognise the very serious, heartfelt and important contributions from colleagues across the House, and I know that she will be happy to meet them to discuss this issue further.
It is important that we have clarity on these issues and understand what is possible. Governments of all flavours—the Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats when they were in government, and the Labour Government—have maintained similar positions or the same position on pensions. However, there is still more support that can be provided to Gurkha veterans and we are happy to explore that with anyone who has an interest in these brilliant people, who have served our nation very well.
Cameron Thomas
I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. We have seen very well-mannered contributions from Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and DUP Members, including the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), with her ode to the Gurkhas. We heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—history will remember him as a man who stood on his principles—and from the hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Ashford (Sojan Joseph).
We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who is also a fan of Gurkha cuisine. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), is a student of military history, and he always expresses himself with such character. I always enjoy my conversations with the Minister, and I am thankful to him for turning up today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was perfectly short and sweet.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will agree that the disclosure of the Mandelson files is of national importance and in the public interest, so can you please confirm that all the Mandelson files—including those restricted by the police—will be released to the Intelligence and Security Committee by 29 April, the date that I believe will be the Prorogation of Parliament? If not, can you confirm that the Humble Address will be rolled over into the next Session, or that a new motion will be tabled to ensure that those important documents are released?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As you know, Mr Rosindell, I was not given any prior notice of your point of order. As you may or may not be aware, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, you have most definitely got your point on the record, and those on the Treasury Bench are no doubt busy scribbling away and will make sure that the appropriate Ministers have heard your remarks.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank you for your indulgence this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to start the Easter recess. Traditionally in this House, we have always had an Easter Adjournment debate. Last year, the Easter Adjournment debate was renamed to “Adjournment of general debate of the House”. Can I ask you why there has been no Easter Adjournment debate this year? We are still a Christian country, and Easter is an important festival that we have always recognised by having that Adjournment debate at the end of the Session.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Once again, Mr Rosindell, that is not a matter for the Chair. Today’s debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee; the hon. Member may wish to make an application to the Committee, or ask the Leader of the House at the next business questions. I do wish him a very happy Easter.
Lucy Letby Case: Conduct of Cheshire Police
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we come to the Adjournment debate, I should inform the House that there are live inquests into the deaths of six babies, so those cases are technically sub judice under the rules of the House. However, Mr Speaker has issued a waiver for today’s debate to allow the cases to be referred to, given that the inquests have been adjourned for a number of months.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
In 1998, Cheshire police arrested Sally Clark and charged her with the murder of her two baby sons. In 1999, she was convicted of their murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. That conviction and sentence was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2003 and recognised as a gross miscarriage of justice, and Sally Clark was set free, albeit after three years in prison. However, her life had been destroyed, and just four years later she died from alcohol poisoning—the grief had driven her to drink, and it killed her. The destruction of an innocent person’s life was caused by the police, the prosecution and the court swallowing bogus statistical assertions by an alleged expert in her trial. That expert eventually resigned in disgrace, although that did not save Sally Clark.
One would think that after that case, Cheshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service would have been very careful to avoid this happening again, and to abide by all the rules and guidelines designed precisely to prevent further terrible miscarriages of justice. Let us test exactly that premise. We are uniquely assisted in the process by the fact that the behaviour of the police and prosecution has been reviewed by two separate police officers, both extremely experienced in precisely this sort of case. The first is Dr Steve Watts, a former assistant chief constable who wrote the national police guidelines on the investigation of deaths in healthcare settings, and the second is former detective superintendent Stuart Clifton—the officer in charge of the investigation that led to the conviction of Beverley Allitt, one of the most prolific child murderers in healthcare history—who was actually commissioned by The Sun newspaper to confirm Letby’s guilt. Indeed, both policemen believed that Letby was guilty—that is, until they examined the hard facts, and both now believe that the Letby case is a serious miscarriage of justice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman beforehand. He has a forensic, investigative mind for these subjects, on behalf of the House, and—with your agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker—we should put on record our thanks to him for that. We in the House and this nation owe him a debt when it comes to justice.
David Davis
You rescued me from embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us forensically analyse the prosecution of this case, using as a reference proper police procedure, prosecutorial standards, medical murder investigation guidelines, CPS guidance, the evidence from the Thirlwall inquiry and the considered critiques from these two experienced police officers.
The neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester hospital was failing. Its medical management was at best inadequate and at worst appalling. Indeed, a week after Letby was suspended, the unit was downgraded and prevented from taking any more very seriously ill babies. Before the police investigation, numerous reviews looked at the Countess of Chester and found no evidence of criminal activity. The most salient was by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which found no criminal events, but did identify numerous shortcomings in medical care at the hospital. Cheshire police ignored that, and the jury was never informed of it. Dr Watts notes, as did the assistant chief constable, that the royal college report
“raised significant concerns about systemic failings…Its exclusion from court…meant alternative explanations were suppressed.”
Let us also remember that this was a neonatal unit with no neonatal specialist consultants, only general paediatricians. Furthermore, the trust had dismissed all the experienced advanced neonatal nurse practitioners to save money. There was a 20% staffing shortfall. Doctors did ward rounds twice a week, rather than twice a day. We can think of the fragility of these children, yet they only got seen twice a week. There were outbreaks of multiple antibiotic-resistant infections. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, MRSA and C. difficile bacteria were all detected in the hospital. Sewage was dripping from the ceilings. Doctors followed poor counter-infection processes. The mother of triplets who moved to Liverpool women’s hospital
“noticed a different level of cleanliness compared to the Countess of Chester…There were clear hygiene protocols…we were told to wash our hands before entering the Unit and then again before entering the room”,
which was not the case at the Countess of Chester. It is also notable that there were 12 stillbirths in hospital at the same time as the spike in neonatal deaths—stillbirths that Lucy Letby was nowhere near. That was also ignored by Cheshire police.
Why did Cheshire police decide Letby was responsible? Initially, there was no intention to launch any criminal investigation, but on 15 May 2017, that all changed. After a single meeting with two consultants—Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram—from the Countess of Chester, Letby was explicitly identified as the focus of suspicion. Dr Watts states that
“in this meeting, the language of this very experienced, very senior detective”
from the Cheshire police force
“moved from a measured, rational professional tone to…inappropriately emotional.”
He cites the senior Cheshire police detective as saying:
“I can’t describe how powerful it was…I just felt for those professionals there….I think we all owe them.”
Dr Watts observes that “within 24 hours” of that meeting, Operation Hummingbird—the name of the Letby operation—was “up and running”. Within three days, news of the investigation into a potential murder at the Countess of Chester was in the national press. This investigation was initiated by a single meeting with consultants who had themselves been involved in seriously inadequate care of babies.
The consultants who pointed the finger at Letby were Dr Stephen Brearey, Dr John Gibbs, Dr Ravi Jayaram and another doctor, who was anonymised for the court’s own reasons. They had all demonstrated poor care. One had wrongly punctured a baby’s liver. That baby later died. One was found by a coroner to be responsible for the death of a child after a breathing tube was inserted into the oesophagus, rather than the trachea—in other words, into the gullet, rather than the windpipe. One pushed an endotracheal tube into a baby’s lung, leaving the other collapsed. That baby later died. One clearly misled the jury by claiming that he had “virtually caught” Letby doing nothing as a baby collapsed in front of her—evidence that his own emails disproved. Those doctors could very well have contributed to the spikes in deaths attributed to Letby.
Dr Watts poses an important question:
“Where was the decision not to treat the doctors as suspects, or the other nurses, or the cleaners?”
Justice demands that the police look at everyone. It does not permit them to fixate on one individual and build a case solely around them. Dr Watts makes it plain that that is not just a moral requirement; it is the law. Section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 requires
“that where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps are taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular, all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued”.
Paragraph 3.5 of the code of practice under that Act states:
“In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect.”
The Cheshire police did not follow the letter of the law or best professional practice.
Dr Watts states that CPS guidelines and police guidance on the investigation of death in healthcare settings
“require that decisions in ‘Sensitive, Serious and Complex’ cases are referred to the CPS Serious Crime and Counter Terrorism Division.”
Remember that Dr Watts is the country’s expert in this area. He says:
“It appears self-evident that this case falls into all the relevant categories of Sensitivity, Seriousness and Complexity”,
but the regional CPS unit, Merseyside and Cheshire,
“made the charging decisions in this case.”
The requirement is made plain in the current version of the CPS referrals, approvals and notifications guidance, which states in terms that
“homicide allegations involving…four or more victims and…medical authorities”
should be passed on to the special crime and counter-terrorism division, which is a unit in London that specialises in complicated cases.
Plainly, the Cheshire police believed that there were a lot more than four victims, so this case should have automatically gone to the special crime and counter-terrorism division. The failure to refer the case meant that proper safeguards and specialist scrutiny by independent lawyers, who had not been closely associated with the investigating team, were never implemented. That is very important. It is notable that when officers in the special crime and counter-terrorism division were involved earlier this year after the Cheshire police had put 11 additional charges to them, they turned them down flat. The special crime and counter-terrorism division stated that
“the evidential test was not met in any of those cases.”
After failing to refer the case to the correct CPS unit, Cheshire police then failed to listen to explicit guidance from the National Crime Agency. Again, Dr Watts points out:
“On 26 May 2017, an email record indicates that the NCA…advised”
Cheshire police
“to appoint a panel of relevant experts; they clearly defined the disciplines and provided a comprehensive list. They were: Forensic & Neonatal Pathologists, Forensic Toxicologist and/or Clinical Pharmacologist, a Nurse with experience of special baby units, a medical expert with experience of the working practices on a special unit for neonates, an Obstetrician, and experts to review the medical statistics.”
The advice was national best practice, but Cheshire police ignored it. On 28 June 2017, the NCA advisers followed up with a list of potential experts who could fill those posts. Cheshire police blatantly ignored that, too. Instead of drawing up a multidisciplinary panel, Dr Watts states,
“Operation Hummingbird…built its entire medical case around one expert.”
That so-called expert was Dr Dewi Evans.
The warning signs were there before the trial started. Dr Watts believes that
“Cheshire police were clutching at straws to find an expert, then very quickly and uncritically took a lifeline offered by Evans”.
Evans ran a business providing “expert medical advice” in court cases for a high fee. We can identify at least £80,000 paid to him for the Letby case, but the rest is concealed, and the true total is likely many times higher. Evans stated:
“This was my extra money, which helped keep my daughter in horses and my son in cars.”
That was his motivation. He approached the NCA after reading about the case and called it “my kind of case”. Dr Watts points out that the
“‘back door’ approach by an alleged expert who is clearly looking for work…should have sounded warning bells for the”
senior investigating officer
“and the investigating team”.
Having practised as an expert witness for decades, Evans boasted he had “never lost” a case. That is not the mindset of a neutral expert; it is the language of someone who tailors his evidence to suit the prosecution’s case. This was clearly demonstrated when another very senior judge took the extraordinary step of writing to the presiding judge in the Letby case, alerting him to Evans’s failings in a previous case. I think the House should understand quite how unusual it is for a judge to take that step. Lord Justice Jackson described Evans’s evidence as “worthless”, stating that he
“makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”,
and his
“approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct”.
I think that, later on, he also called it tendentious—terrifying when a single opinion will condemn a young woman to life in prison. When Cheshire police asked Evans if it should follow NCA guidance and seek other expert witnesses, he said:
“I do not think it’s necessary to consider additional expert opinion at this stage.”
He wouldn’t, of course.
Evans was appointed as both the police adviser and the expert witness in the trial. Stuart Clifton states:
“It was illogical to allow Evans to both advise and be the principal prosecution witness as there is a clear conflict of interest.”
If this was not warning enough to Cheshire police, it should have set alarm bells ringing when Evans declared, after just 10 minutes of reviewing the case notes, that he suspected there was “foul play”. Dr Watts states:
“Evans was not independently selected but came forward himself”
and
“validators used to assess his opinions were themselves selected without adequate independence…by Evans himself”.
What is more, Stuart Clifton said that it was
“completely illogical to allow other experts…to view the findings of Evans, since experts are expected to give evidence of their”
findings
“and not be corrupted by others”.
Another prosecution expert, Professor Hindmarsh, was dismissed from his post as an honorary consultant at Great Ormond Street hospital before—just before—he gave evidence at the trial. During the trial, while he was giving evidence, he faced a General Medical Council investigation for failures of expertise and posing a risk to his patients: an expert witness chastised for a failure of expertise. The jury knew nothing of that.
Another prosecution expert, Dr Bohin, reviewed Evans’s work. She faced numerous complaints from her patients’ families and was later criticised for ignoring a key symptom in one of her patients. These are the supposed experts that Cheshire police and the CPS chose, rather than a panel of independent experts from all relevant disciplines, as the NCA had advised. Three times Cheshire police’s due diligence failed—if, indeed, they attempted it at all.
Crucial to the case against Letby was the infamous shift table presented as evidence that she was on duty for all the incidents when babies collapsed or died. Over a period of 13 months, there were 17 deaths—far more than the “normal” expected three or four deaths. Stuart Clifton states:
“Missing from the chart used at trial are deaths which occurred whilst Letby was not on duty or those where adverse events took place whilst off duty”.
Cheshire police, which compiled the table, chose to highlight only the shifts during which Letby was present, disregarding similar events when she was not. The seven deaths charged as murders were, in effect, selected because she happened to be on duty. As Stuart Clifton bluntly puts it:
“Evans cherry picked the cases to match Letby’s shifts and Police used this in their chart to reflect her presence at those events highlighted by Evans. One has to wonder just how he settled on those children where Letby was present.”
Any qualified statistician could have pointed that out to Cheshire police. In fact, one did. In April 2018, a police officer approached one of the country’s leading statisticians, Professor Jane Hutton, asking her to put a figure on the likelihood of a nurse being on duty during “all the deaths/collapses” in the unit. It is almost a rerun of the Sally Clark argument. Cheshire police had signed a consultancy agreement with Professor Hutton. Professor Hutton warned them that its whole approach was wrong. The police then told her:
“The prosecutor...has instructed us not to pursue this avenue any further.”
She challenges them and the prosecutor tells them to sack it. That falls in direct contravention of part 3.3 of the “Code for Crown Prosecutors”, which states:
“Prosecutors cannot direct the police or other investigators.”
Dr Watts added:
“This occurrence is particularly egregious...it is...not appropriate for the CPS to deter the police from acquiring evidence that may be relevant and available.”
Dr Watts goes on to say that the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
“is binding upon the CPS to the same extent as the police, for the CPS to Instruct the police to ignore potentially relevant evidence would clearly be a breach of the CPIA”.
But neither the defence nor the jury were told of Professor Hutton’s explicit warnings to the police. That is unsurprising really, because it obliterated the prosecution’s statistical argument—the foundation of their entire case. Professor Hutton believes the statistical errors are
“similar to those in the Sally Clark case but worse.”
I wrote to the chief constable about how those bogus statistics had been compiled. He refused to answer any of the questions I had raised and said he would
“not be providing any further detail or engaging in ongoing correspondence”.
So much for transparency and welcoming challenge. That refusal to answer questions from a Member of Parliament sits uneasily alongside his department’s extraordinary public relations campaign, which at the very least invaded the privacy rights of Letby’s parents.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Notwithstanding the points that my right hon. Friend is making, would he accept that the investigation included a range of independent, nationally recognised medical experts, including consultants and senior academics across a whole host of disciplines; and, knowing as I do that he is an enthusiastic advocate of our judicial system, that the Lucy Letby case was the longest-running murder trial in British criminal history, with a jury that considered the evidence for more than 100 hours? Lucy Letby appealed to the Court of Appeal but was refused. There was a retrial and a further appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was refused. Would he not accept the robustness of that process?
David Davis
I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. However, in many ways the reason the Lucy Letby case is so important—over and above the fact that it is a miscarriage of justice—is that it highlights weaknesses in the appeal procedure and the procedure for selecting and managing experts. I am afraid that it also demonstrates that the regulations put in place by the CPIA and other Acts of Parliament were not followed in this case, and that is one of the fundamental problems today. I will come back to some of the solutions in a moment, but that is the central difficulty.
Finally, there is the question of how a police force should properly handle such complex cases, which comes back to the issue of checking that my right hon. Friend quite rightly raises. Dr Watts is clear:
“Significant investigations such as Op Hummingbird should be subject to rigorous review by independent detectives, typically from an independent police force, and best practice indicates that the officers conducting the review should be unknown to members of the investigation team.”
If such a review had been in place, it is unlikely that any of the breaches I have talked about so far would actually have happened.
I do not have time in this debate—I have had 20 minutes already—to list every egregious failure by Cheshire police, but given the Netflix documentary broadcast a little while ago, I want to pick up on the way the police treated Letby herself. They arrested Lucy Letby three times, claiming it was necessary for questioning, despite her freely volunteering to come in for questioning. Dr Watts—an assistant chief constable, let us remember—said: “That is completely wrong”. It is extraordinary that this unthreatening young girl was marched in in handcuffs, mirroring the way American authorities try to influence public opinion against suspects when they are perp walked to court. As Dr Watts said:
“The intelligence they had about Lucy was that she was nonviolent. There was absolutely no justification…for her to be handcuffed”
on those occasions.
Letby was also accused in court of lying about being arrested in her pyjamas, but the recent Netflix documentary proves that she was telling the truth. It is astonishing that the police officers in the court, who knew how she was dressed when she was arrested, did not intervene with the prosecutors to tell them that they had got it wrong, and instead left the jury to believe that Lucy was lying about something when she was plainly telling the truth. Frankly, it is astounding the lengths that Cheshire police was willing to go to in order to manage its own public relations—sometimes, I think, at the cost of achieving justice.
So there we have it. Despite the warning signs of the Sally Clark case, we see that Cheshire police has either ignored or broken the rules, disregarding relevant safeguards time and again. It failed to pursue alternative lines of inquiry; failed to refer the case to the appropriate specialist authorities; failed to conduct proper due diligence on the appointment of key expert witnesses; failed to engage with real experts about complex statistical evidence, and failed to correctly inform the jury of that fact; and failed on several occasions to disclose critical material to the defence.
On the evidence before us, there have been clear and serious departures from statutory guidance and multiple deviations from best professional practice. Because of the way the case was handled, I recommend that the police should provide Letby’s defence team with a whole series of documentation. Because of time, I will publish the full list online, but it should include: the senior investigating officer’s policy books and decision books; the records of identified lines of inquiry; logs kept by functional managers; and minutes of all meetings held, from the team meetings right up to the gold co-ordination meetings. That would at least start to demonstrate what went wrong here.
I should tell the Minister that irrespective of how Cheshire police responds, I shall be writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions about these issues and asking him to review the behaviour of both the CPS and the police.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this debate and on being a formidable campaigner for the causes that he cherishes in this place. Given the time available, I do not have long to cover the range of issues.
These are serious criminal cases. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is currently undertaking a review. In that context, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the outcome of those processes; we must let them take their course.
A meticulous and lengthy investigation led to Lucy Letby being identified as a suspect and arrested in July 2018 in respect of the significant rise of neonatal deaths and acute, life-threatening collapses of newborn infants. I am sure we all think of the parents of those children. As I have had children in neonatal units and born into special care baby units, I can only imagine their suffering in what they have been through.
In November 2020, the Crown Prosecution Service authorised multiple charges of murder and attempted murder against Letby. The CPS deemed that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest for the cases to proceed to trial. Lucy Letby stood trial from October 2022 to August 2023. She faced 22 charges related to 17 babies, and she was convicted of seven counts of murder and seven of attempted murder. Letby was also found not guilty of two counts of attempted murder, and the jury was unable to reach verdicts on two other counts of attempted murder.
In September 2023, Letby submitted an application to the Court of Appeal against her convictions. The application was heard by three senior justices in April 2024. The justices refused the appeal. From June to July 2024, Letby was retried in respect of one of the previous attempted murder charges. Letby was found guilty, for which she received an additional whole-life order. Following that conviction, Letby submitted an application to appeal to the Court of Appeal. During October 2024, a new bench of three senior justices heard the appeal, which was again refused.
I set that out to make clear that there has been a proper process, involving independent assessment by the Crown Prosecution Service, trial by a jury and two appeal processes, which has resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of Lucy Letby.
David Davis
I am conscious that I have denied the Minister much time to respond—that was because I do not think she has much scope for a response—but I want to place one thought with her. One reason why we are having the debate is because Members of Parliament cannot make applications to the IOPC; only victims can do so. I think that is a flaw in the law. My argument today is that we have not followed the guidelines, and the best way to deal with that is through an expert mechanism such as the IOPC. When she goes away today, will she take with her the thought that we might fine-tune the law on that point?
Sarah Jones
I will of course take that away. We are always looking at ways to improve the IOPC system. I was with the IOPC earlier today talking about its transformation programme and the work we are trying to do.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of remarks about Cheshire constabulary—he can have his view. His Majesty’s inspector, through his Peel inspections, has in fact given it some of the highest ratings in the country, with two “outstanding” ratings and four “good” ratings, as well as two graded “adequate”. I put that on the record in the context of this conversation. In that context, it is important that we as Members of Parliament should not undermine public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system. We need to be careful to avoid implying impropriety where none has been established.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he will write to the DPP. He will take that through its course. I end by reminding the House that this country uses due process, and due process has been followed in the convictions of Lucy Letby, with a trial by jury, upheld on appeal. I remain confident of that and of the effectiveness of Cheshire constabulary. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I also wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone else here a happy Easter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I, too, wish everybody, and especially my constituents in Sussex Weald, a very happy Easter.
Question put and agreed to.