Westminster Hall

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 15 April 2026

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan in the Chair]

Cost of Heating Oil

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the cost of heating oil.

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

It would be fair to say that North Norfolk is quite rural. We are proud of that, and we enjoy the beauty and tranquillity that it affords those of us lucky enough to live there, but in the decades I have lived there and all the time I have been campaigning and working for the people of North Norfolk, I have seen too many ways in which we seem to be punished or penalised for rurality.

Much of the North sea gas that is used across the country passes through the North Norfolk countryside, deep underground and at high pressure. A vast amount of gas is onshored at the Bacton gas terminal, one of my constituency’s largest employers, and then sent out across the country. Despite our being the custodians of that vital resource, around half of my constituency is not connected to the gas grid. Of those who are not connected, more than half rely on heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat their home and provide hot water. These homes, and the families in them, vary widely. The homes range from listed buildings that cannot be retrofitted to run-of-the-mill family homes that happen to be somewhere with no gas connection and were built long before the advent of heat pumps and other green energy solutions.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Steff Aquarone]

Gladly. [Laughter.]

[Vikki Slade]

I am so glad that he made it to the Chamber in time. Will he comment on the fact that families who live in very old properties—I have properties on Charborough Park and in Shapwick that are National Trust properties or belong to old estates—are already facing much higher costs to run their homes because they are solid-wall and thatched?

[Steff Aquarone]

I completely agree. As I said, these homes vary widely, as do the families that live in them, but what connects all these places and people is a unique and worrying exposure to oil price shocks impacting their daily lives.

Running a home on heating oil means buying energy in advance, in bulk and irregularly throughout the year. Households know that even half-filling an oil tank will cost them hundreds of pounds. They expect and budget for that. But since the outbreak of Donald Trump’s war in Iran, they have seen the price of heating oil skyrocket far beyond the changes in the price of crude oil.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Many of my rural constituents are also paying the price of President Trump’s latest exploration into market manipulation. Given that heating oil customers are not protected by the Ofgem price cap, will he join me in calling on the Government to take the Liberal Democrats’ line and implement such a price cap for heating oil customers?

[Steff Aquarone]

I surely will, and I will explain why very shortly.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Given that between 60% and 65% of households in Northern Ireland rely on home heating oil, whereas 80% of the rest of the UK relies on gas, does the hon. Member agree that there is a strong case for the Government to enhance existing support schemes to reflect Northern Ireland’s higher dependence on home heating oil?

[Steff Aquarone]

Again, I agree, for reasons I will come on to. I will just note that the ministerial meeting for Members early on in this crisis, which was very welcome, featured a really interesting profile of Members from across the House. Rural and coastal Members often find themselves together, and Northern Ireland Members such as the hon. Gentleman were well represented at the meeting.

As I said, since the outbreak of war, the price of heating oil for my constituents has skyrocketed far beyond the gradual increases they suffer due to the usual inflationary pressures. This was a near-overnight shock that saw people having to scramble to find hundreds of pounds in already stretched household budgets. I want to share just a few of the experiences I have heard from my constituents.

Roy in Roughton has paid £1,400 to fill his tank, which usually costs him £800. Eric in Salthouse paid 55p a litre in January, but was quoted £1.34 a litre in March. Wendy in Hindringham told me that she had been quoted £720 for 500 litres of oil—double what she paid in October. She says:

“We just don’t have that sort of money.”

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As the representative for North East Hampshire, I know all too well the premium that many rural households face when it comes to bills and expenses. Rural households already have a really heavy burden, as he has outlined, including higher rates of fuel poverty, lower energy efficiency and a fuel poverty gap of £987 against their urban counterparts. More than 5,000 households in my constituency rely on heating oil. Does he agree that the Government have a responsibility to act, probably through a price cap, which would ensure that rural households are not penalised simply for where they live?

[Steff Aquarone]

I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I was so glad to be granted this debate, and I am sure other Members share that view. There is a long-term discussion to be had about Government action on retrofitting and reducing the fuel poverty gap, but right now the urgent issue is the price today.

I was pleased to see progress on some of these concerns in North Norfolk. Local heating oil delivery company Goff agreed to honour the prices it had agreed before the global price increases, which meant that many of my constituents were protected. But as welcome as that is, we cannot just rely on the good will of companies to regulate their own market. It has been left as a wild west for too long, without any strong regulations or protections to keep my constituents safe from unaffordable price spikes. While we rightly discuss a great deal the rises in the cost of energy, many who rely on heating oil will look enviously at the energy price cap, which at least puts a strong ceiling on what will be paid. For them, there are no guarantees of where the price rises will stop.

Another key issue is the minimum order requirements for heating oil. It is not like filling up a car, where if the prices look bad, we might just stick in £20-worth and hope it gets us to the end of the week. For most, the minimum order of heating oil is 500 litres. If someone runs out during the peak of a price spike, that means a minimum outlay of more than £500, or no heating or hot water.

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

A constituent got in touch who had been in hospital over the winter and then in a care home while he convalesced. He finally got home and is now having to pay for carers twice a day. He is 70, and he has no spare money. His heating oil has run out, and he is being quoted twice the price he paid in September, before he went into hospital. He is totally trapped. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to protect the most vulnerable in our society from these shocks?

[Steff Aquarone]

I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent well in his recovery. This is just not something we had to think about 10 or 20 years ago. I am sure price-sensitive households were always thinking about every line on their household budget, but for somebody going from hospital to convalescence to home, continuing healthcare probably thinks about everything under the sun—except the cost of energy, because it has not been a thing for that long. We have to do more, because this issue is so urgent right now.

We finally have to say, “Enough is enough.” Heating oil customers need to stop being seen as an afterthought in energy policy. We need to reform properly how we support these people, so that they are never again forced to find vast sums of money just to keep their heating on because of global events that are totally out of their control.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank my fellow Member from East Anglia for securing this crucial debate. He is right to highlight the vulnerability in our energy system that this war has exposed and the particular impact on rural communities. Does he agree that older people in rural communities are particularly impacted? As he says, we have seen a doubling or even tripling of costs and a huge financial outlay, which is resulting in some of my constituents having to pay by credit card because they do not have the cash. According to Age UK, 28% of pensioners were already struggling before this crisis. Does he agree that this is further evidence that although the Government’s package is welcome, they need to go further and put in place a price cap to ensure that constituents, including older constituents, are supported?

[Steff Aquarone]

The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to upgrade his geographical reference to “fellow Member from Norfolk”, as a decent quarter of his constituency is in the same county as mine. He will know that a disproportionate percentage of the population in Norfolk is older. There is a tragic, understated reality. When I visit households in my constituency—I am sure he can relate to this—I can just tell whether they are suffering from fuel poverty, because they will be living in one room. That is all too common for older people, and we have to take it seriously. I do not want to indulge in cheap soundbites, but the reality of how the older, retired generation live is quite different from the perceptions that are often peddled. I am grateful for his reminder of that point.

On policy, let me turn first to the support the Government have announced during this crisis. The money is welcome, but I cannot help but wonder how they thought that £53 million was adequate for the millions of people who are affected. I accept that they sought to prioritise those in greatest need, who must receive support, but do the Minister and the Government recognise that even if someone is not on the lowest income or relying on benefits, a sudden extra bill in the hundreds of pounds just to keep the heating on can cause real problems?

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I have a case from Berkhamsted. Louise’s entire estate relies on heating oil, and the price for filling her tank went from £1,080 to £2,500—a more than £1,000 increase—over a weekend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £35 per household will not touch the sides?

[Steff Aquarone]

I do agree. That great example shows that even if the increase does not push a household over the edge into total poverty, it will cause people to have to make tough decisions about their money. Like my hon. Friend, I have inevitably received a range of messages on this issue. Unfortunately, I have had quite a few on social media over my calls for support with fuel costs. That is a shame, as I am an environmentalist, but we will not win the argument on renewable energy by making struggling rural households pay the price of Trump’s illegal war in Iran. This is part of a wider debate about retrofitting and rural renewables. We do not have time to explore it here, but the need is urgent.

I have found it incredibly frustrating to hear the repeated line from the Chancellor that these households will receive support anyway through the cut to electricity bills announced in the Budget. That is of course true, but their biggest outlay on energy by far is on heating oil. If a person does not use electricity to heat their home or their water, the impact of electricity prices is far, far smaller. The Government continue to demand that they be grateful for that small mercy, which sort of implies that they should stop asking for more, and that is starting to grate slightly on my constituents—and on me. I ask the Minister to acknowledge the profile of energy use in rural areas and perhaps reconsider that approach.

Local government, however, is stepping up on this crisis. It is dishing out the Government support, which is no mean feat, and finding its own ways to support communities. Liberal Democrat-run North Norfolk district council has allocated £50,000 to support households that have been plunged into fuel poverty due to these rising costs. That was set up within days of the crisis by Councillor Lucy Shires, our finance portfolio holder, and will be distributed to vulnerable households by North Norfolk Foodbank. They stepped up while the Government were still trying to work out their sums, and that has been hugely welcomed by my constituents.

Looking to the future, we must establish a cap on the cost of heating oil. As many hon. Members have said, the two-tier system of price protection for those using gas and electricity and for my constituents using heating oil is wrong and has gone unchecked for too long. We saw many prices surge well beyond the actual cost of oil on the global market, and there is a real risk that unfair margins are being made. People will say that it cannot be done. In fact, the Minister might do so, but I gently remind him that the same was said of the energy price cap, which is now accepted across the political spectrum. We can take tough decisions and develop tricky policies. That is what we were sent here to do. I offer the Minister my support—I am sure Members of other parties do too—in developing proposals that will support and work for rural residents everywhere. As Grahame from Thursford told me:

“The Government’s response in relation to this is simply not good enough. A price cap is the way forward.”

Further to that, I hope that the investigation that the Competition and Markets Authority is undertaking will allow the Government to introduce a better set of regulations for the industry. In fact, much of the industry would welcome that. There are many good businesses out there that behave in the best interests of their customers, and they do not want to be dragged down by bad actors. Ensuring that everyone is held to the same standards is good for the industry and consumers.

Although we are discussing heating oil today, I urge the Minister not to forget those who rely on LPG. They may be fewer in number, but their need is just as great. They often feel ignored in such conversations, and it is vital that we address their struggles too. They are often hit just as hard by price spikes, and they need protection.

Beyond that, we need to ensure that our homes are cheaper to heat. We should have been fixing the roof when the sun was shining—perhaps literally. It is time for an emergency programme of upgrades to make our homes fit for the future—well insulated, energy efficient and with renewable alternatives.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. More than 55% of households in Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe are off grid. I am grateful to him for mentioning LPG. As he knows, residents who rely on LPG did not get support from the Conservatives when this last happened back in 2022. Does he agree that we need to go further and provide support to people who rely on all fuel types?

[Steff Aquarone]

I totally agree. It is the same cash-flow problem, the same price peaking problem and the same issue of intermittent delivery—because people do not refill every week or every month—but it is a different slice of the petroleum refinement process, so it is volatile in a slightly different way. In some cases, it is even more problematically volatile, so I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing that point.

Well-insulated homes powered by renewable energy will prepare us for whatever volatile fossil fuel markets may do down the line and reduce my constituents’ exposure to the effects of the late-night proclamations of President Trump. I want to be clear with the Minister: residents in North Norfolk should not be poorer because they live in a rural area. We face unique challenges, and we accept that, but we should not be punished for them. The Government have a responsibility to step up and help where necessary, and that is what I am calling on them to do today. If we were in power, Liberal Democrats would be stepping up for Britain; the Government must do so, too.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

Order. Because so many Members wish to speak, you are likely to have two minutes each. If anyone intervenes, that limit will reduce or some of you will not be called, I am afraid.

09:45

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

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate.

I want to speak about the impact that the rising cost of heating oil is having on rural communities such as mine in Suffolk. Following events in the middle east, many residents who rely on heating oil contacted me—as I am sure happened to others—with understandable concerns about the sharp increase in prices. That matters because it is an immediate pressure on family budgets, one that many people feel powerless to avoid.

This issue is important because my constituency has one of the highest number of households relying on heating oil. About 40% of all properties in the villages are completely off the grid. That means that many residents are exposed to this sudden price shock. Those most affected are those least able to absorb the extra cost, especially residents in council homes and in lower-income rural communities that are disproportionately hit. For many of those households there is no short-term alternative and no flexibility.

As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, the Government have taken some important steps in response. The £53 million emergency support fund is welcome, as is the warm homes plan providing targeted support for low-income households in rural areas. It is right that the money is distributed through local councils, which are often best placed to identify where the support is most urgently needed.

I raised the matter locally with Goff, one of the principal suppliers of heating oil. I was pleased to be assured that it will honour the original prices quoted to customers who ordered on 28 February, 1 March and 2 March, at the start of hostilities. That provides immediate reassurance for those residents who acted promptly and should not be penalised.

That must be our approach: immediate support for those facing rising costs now; proper oversight of the market; and long-term action to reduce dependence on heating oil. For rural communities in my patch, that is a necessity, which we should all push for.

09:47

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important and timely debate.

The ongoing cost of oil is a symptom of Trump’s idiotic war in Iran. Volatility in global energy markets and the lack of consumer protections for off-grid fuels have left many rural residents exposed to sharp price increases. It is leaving rural communities reeling, with many wondering how to heat their homes. The longer the crisis drags on, the greater the impact will be.

A third of homes in rural communities such as Glastonbury and Somerton are reliant on heating oil. Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022 saw prices of heating oil spike up to almost 160p per litre. Last month, prices peaked at 134p per litre and still sit at around 120p, more than 100% higher than before the war. Despite the impact of this sharp price increase, no action was taken to shield rural communities from future price spikes, no price cap has been created like it has for on-grid homes, and there has been no protection from Ofgem. Instead, all we have is another temporary sticking plaster.

The Liberal Democrats were the first to call for action, demanding an immediate three-month zero-rating for VAT on heating of all residential homes and a price cap to protect them from sudden price increases. Although we welcome the additional £53 million of support announced last month, that equates to a meagre £35 per household. Organisations such as National Energy Action, the End Fuel Poverty Coalition and Age UK agree that this limited funding support must go further.

Rural homes already cope with higher rates of fuel poverty, worse levels of energy efficiency and a fuel poverty gap of £987 compared with urban homes. Given that Glastonbury and Somerton has more households living in fuel poverty than the national average, any jump in oil and gas prices will result in further financial pressure. My constituents simply cannot afford that additional burden.

In the long term, we must consider how to support rural properties to transition away from oil and LPG as heating sources, so I hope that the Minister will be able to address that today.

09:50

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about heating oil in my constituency. About 10% of its households are on heating oil and they have spoken directly to me, both by email and by filling in a survey—I am grateful to everyone who filled in that survey—telling me how much of an impact the issue is having. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of pounds being added to household bills.

One lady told me:

“We usually pay around £200-£250 per fill up of our small tank, which we need to fill up 2-3”

times

“a year. We’re now at nearly empty and our recent quote has been £750”

for a fill-up. She continues:

“I’m 9 months pregnant, about to go onto a reduced wage and will not be able to afford an additional £1500 this year for oil. Our oil covers both heating and water which are both necessary for looking after a newborn and the rest of our family.”

The challenge that constituents put to me and the challenge to the Government is about fairness, because at the same time as they are talking about further help for households, on all sorts of supplies, in a targeted manner, everyone is benefiting from the cap that is available to ordinary bill payers, and my constituents say to me, “We are not getting anything like that kind of help.”

Although the amount of money that the Government have announced is welcome, it is a drop in the ocean. Per heating oil household, it is something like £30 or £35. If it is targeted, as it will be in my constituency, it is a few hundred pounds for certain households. As I have just illustrated with one example, that will not touch the sides of the additional bills that people are having to pay. We are talking about a huge increase in bills and a lack of Government responsiveness, and this has already happened to people.

Future help is welcome, but already many people are forced to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds that they had not anticipated and budgeted for. That means vulnerable people, people on median incomes, are sitting with their heating turned off and worried about whether they can afford their bills for the rest of the year, so it is vital that the Government listen much more strongly to the thousands and thousands of people across the south-east and the many more across the country who simply cannot afford to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds in additional bills out of nowhere in the way they are having to.

09:52

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing today’s debate. Nearly 1,000 people across my constituency of Sherwood Forest rely solely on heating oil to heat their homes and provide hot water. The sharp increase in prices is having a particularly severe impact on rural communities—as we have discussed—such as Wellow in my constituency, where access to alternative forms of heating is often unavailable. I welcome the Government’s introduction of support schemes to assist the most vulnerable and the Government’s swift action on that. It is right that those most in need are supported first, but also we must recognise that many households risk slipping through the net and require more support. These people do not qualify for other financial support, such as universal credit, but are not in a financial position to absorb such a hit as this financial crisis is causing.

Let us face it: heating and water are not a luxury, but a necessity. I have been contacted by constituents in Blidworth who have been forced to turn off their heating and hot water to preserve their oil stock. They have told me of their worry about the risk that that will pose to their health, especially if they are unable to secure more oil. At a time when the duration of the conflict in the middle east remains uncertain with Trump’s reckless war, many people across Sherwood Forest who rely on heating oil are understandably anxious about the future, especially as heating oil prices continue to rise rapidly and individual stock levels are shrinking.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to extend the current support to all those who rely on heating oil, and ask the Government to do more specifically to help those in areas where they have no other source to rely on and to help the most vulnerable. In my constituency, it is mothers with babies who are really struggling at the moment.

09:54

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for initiating this very important debate.

South Cotswolds is one of the most rural, off-grid constituencies in England. About 20% of households rely on heating oil; that is about four times the national average. A young mother with two small children faced a sudden increase in the price to get her tank filled up from £305 to £800. Rural households already pay a premium on everyday goods that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has put at up to 20%, and face a fuel poverty gap of nearly £1,000 compared with urban households.

09:56

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. Let me say a big thank you to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for his passion in seeking help for our constituents throughout the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I want to speak about Northern Ireland in particular, and specifically the 68% of my constituents who do not have the luxury of turning on a gas boiler. They must instead watch the price of a drop of kerosene like a hawk—or like an Ulster Scot, as we are. On the Ards peninsula, where I live in Strangford, almost every household uses oil for heating.

While this House debates the energy price cap, we must remember that, in the vast majority of Northern Ireland, a cap is a myth. When the price of oil spikes, our people do not just see a higher bill at the end of the month; they see an empty tank and a cold home. They are at the mercy of a volatile global market, with no safety net. I do not want to be churlish, Minister—I never am—and I thank the Government for what they have done, but let us be honest: the £17 million package is a start, but it is a drop in the ocean.

A payment of £35 per household does not even fill a jerry can, let alone a tank to last a cold Ulster winter. We are part of the United Kingdom and need to be considered accordingly. The fact is that people should not be penalised simply because of our geography or our lack of a gas grid. No one is asking for a handout, but we are asking for a fair deal. There must be an increase in targeted support to reflect the actual cost of a 500-litre delivery.

I also believe that the Government need to review the winter fuel payment and restore the universal nature of that payment for our pensioners—that is my first ask. My second ask is that there needs to be infrastructure investment to fund long-term energy security, so that we are never this vulnerable again. Minister, on behalf of my constituents and others throughout the United Kingdom, the time for “monitoring the situation” is long over. The time for delivery is now.

09:58

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In my constituency, 2,281 homes rely on heating oil as their only source of warmth. Those are not households with alternatives; they are off the gas grid entirely and, unlike the rest of us, they face a market that is completely uncapped and unregulated.

As we all know, the ongoing conflict in the middle east and the strait of Hormuz is driving oil prices unpredictably higher. Families relying on heating oil are being squeezed the hardest. Those in the worst affected areas, such as Wrington, Felton and Dundry, cannot switch supplier instantaneously. They buy in bulk, have no negotiating power and, when prices surge, go cold.

I therefore welcome the steps this Government have taken: the energy bill cap extended until June, saving the average household £170; the £150 warm homes discount for the most vulnerable; and, crucially, the swift announcement of a £53 million support package targeted at low-income and vulnerable households who depend on heating oil. The funding allocation reflects census data on need, demonstrating that this is not a scattergun approach. It is targeted, proportionate and urgent.

Support alone, however, is not enough. I welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce a strengthened code of practice to improve price transparency, and to explore a new regulator or ombudsman for the market. Those households deserve the same consumer protections as everyone else.

I urge the Minister to move quickly to ensure that local authorities have the guidance and resources to get this funding to those who need it before the cold takes hold. No one in this country should have to choose between heating their home and feeding their family. This package is a welcome start, but it must be the beginning not the limit of this Government’s ambition.

09:59

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing the debate. Around 15% of households in West Dorset rely on heating oil as their sole source of heating, and in some villages, including Yetminster, Bradford Abbas and Longburton, the proportion is almost half of all households.

In the last couple of weeks, one constituent was quoted £1.40 per litre—more than double the previous week’s price of 60p—resulting in a £735 bill for 500 litres. Another constituent, a pensioner, had a confirmed order cancelled and was then asked to pay more than £1,000 for the same delivery. Others have reported being unable to secure deliveries at all or being quoted up to two and a half times the previous price, leaving them without heating or water. One company tried to offer my constituent a refund instead of delivering the oil, so that they would have to reorder at a higher price. These are not isolated incidents: they point to a wider issue of instability and a lack of transparency in the market.

This is a challenge not just for those on the lowest incomes. Middle-income families who receive no targeted support are also being hit hard, as are farmers, who already face increasing input costs. Although I welcome the Government’s recognition that some oil-heated households are particularly vulnerable, the current level of support does not match the scale of the problem. As has been highlighted elsewhere, £35 per household is simply not sufficient in the face of the prices we are seeing.

A temporary zero-rating of VAT on heating oil would provide immediate relief, and we should implement a price cap similar to the other price caps in the marketplace for consumers such as electricity users. At the very least, the Government must assess whether the current level of support is adequate in rural areas with high levels of oil dependence and ensure that funding is targeted accordingly.

10:01

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this timely debate, and I thank the Minister for visiting the Western Isles last month to hear directly from my constituents in Na h-Eileanan an Iar how the spike in prices has affected them. As he heard from consumers, prices have doubled since the conflict broke out. There is huge demand, limited competition and, of course, an island premium on deliveries.

People appreciate the emergency heating oil fund announced by the Government, which will send £4.6 million of support to Scotland for consumers in need. This being Scotland, of course the SNP wants to do things differently. The Scottish Government have doubled the sum to £10 million, which is welcome, but announced that instead of funds being distributed through local authorities, which know their area and their constituents, the fund is operated through Advice Direct Scotland, a Scottish charity that gives free, impartial advice to people across Scotland.

As soon as the scheme was announced, my constituents reported a glitch in the system. People applying from the Western Isles found their online applications bouncing back. When they called the helpline, they heard a recorded message instructing them to apply without supporting evidence, informing them that they would then receive an email to which they could attach receipts of eligibility and evidence of supply. This kind of ping-pong shambles benefits no one, and I fear it will lead to a lack of uptake of support.

In talks with Advice Direct Scotland, officials assured me that the scheme is operating, that nearly 5,000 people have applied and that 16,000 applicants are expected across the six months the scheme is open. By rough calculation, 16,000 times £300 is £4.8 million, which is only half the amount the SNP Government claim to have allocated to the scheme. I do not want heating oil support by stunt, whereby only half the fund is distributed.

I urge my constituents to apply early for support as soon as they have receipt of their oil delivery, and I call on the Scottish Government, the UK Government and Advice Direct Scotland to be fully transparent about the distribution of funding both during and after the scheme, and in terms of amounts and geographical distribution.

10:04

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate.

South Shropshire is a very rural, remote area, and its beauty is unrivalled, as many Members will agree. With 53% of my constituents off grid, this is a major issue. When the war in Iran increased the heating oil prices literally overnight, many constituents got in touch with me to raise their concerns. Paul from Eardington saw his heating oil quote go up from 53p to £1.39 per litre—an increase of about 150%—in almost 24 hours. That is a huge impact, and his story resonates across my constituency. Many of my constituents have not been able to fill up because of the 500-litre minimum. A big shout out to Cambers of Harley: when I was buying my wheelbarrow at the weekend, I saw 25-litre containers, which provide fuel for people who cannot afford 500 litres.

Despite many having praised it, the Government’s £53 million of energy support has penalised my constituency. Shropshire council has more than 53,000 off-grid households, of which more than half are in my constituency, yet it has been allocated only £750,000. That equates to £14.29 per house, whereas the average across the country is £35. Why is South Shropshire missing out? My constituents need support. I want the minimum order level to be addressed, and I want future provision to ensure that my constituents, particularly the hardest hit, can have heating oil without having to choose between that and food.

10:06

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate.

In his statement to Parliament yesterday, the Prime Minister said that energy bills had gone down on 1 April, yet for literally tens of thousands of my constituents, that is simply not true. It is estimated that in my constituency alone, 22,500 households—approaching 50,000 constituents—are not connected to the gas grid. Thousands of those homes are reliant on oil and LPG tank gas to heat their homes.

Let us delve a bit deeper. One low-income house in Newtonmore, which is in the Cairngorms national park, an arctic-alpine mountain environment, went from paying £640 to £1,220. The supplier told them there was a minimum order of 1,000 litres. A constituent in Forres went from paying £307 plus VAT in December, to £827 in March for 500 litres. That constituent is disabled, with multiple health conditions.

This inequity is not new. When it comes to their electricity bills, people in Moray, the highlands and across Scotland are paying among the highest energy prices in Europe, and substantially more than most of the rest of the UK, despite vast amounts of that energy being produced right beside them.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Like the hon. Member’s constituency, many businesses in my constituency, including distilleries, rely on kerosene heating oil for manufacturing processes. Would he urge the UK Government and the Scottish Government to devise a loan scheme to help these businesses to get over this Trump spike?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I will come on to the energy powers that should be devolved, but it is currently the UK Government’s responsibility.

Over the years, Scotland has sent over £350 billion to the Treasury from oil and gas activity, yet when it comes to the crunch, all the Treasury can come up with is the equivalent of £35 per household for oil. Yet again, the Scottish Government have had to step in and boost support by more than doubling the fund, for an issue that the UK Government have failed to address properly in the first place.

Rural homes and communities in Scotland are being overlooked and ignored. Is the Minister really happy that he is presiding over discrimination that is putting so much financial stress on vulnerable households? Will the Government take urgent measures to increase significantly the support funding? Will they provide support to those reliant on LPG gas for their heating? Will they properly regulate heating oil with a price cap, which I fully support?

If the Government are unwilling to take those actions, will they devolve energy powers and budgets to the people of Scotland, so that they can make their own decisions in their own Parliament on these vital and urgent issues?

10:08

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this essential debate.

The escalation of conflict arising from Donald Trump’s war on Iran and the consequential disruption to the strait of Hormuz has sent shockwaves through international fossil fuel markets. This has left many households across the country, including a significant number of my constituents, facing sudden and severe increases to their energy bills.

I have been contacted by people who are switching off their heating entirely or worried about preserving what supply they have. This is particularly concerning for elderly people or those with health conditions who need to stay warm. The average price of UK heating oil increased by 100% in just three days, and prices have remained over 120p per litre ever since.

Across the UK, around 1.5 million homes rely on heating oil systems, with a particularly high concentration in rural areas. Around a quarter of households in my constituency use oil central heating, compared with 5% nationally. Households that are dependent on oil-heated systems are not protected by Ofgem regulation or the energy price cap, and are therefore more exposed to immediate energy price increases.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

This crisis shows that we cannot rely on emergency payments to resolve geopolitical shocks; we need the electrification of heat in rural areas, and heat pumps play a significant part in that. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government taking steps to roll out renewables and heat pump technology across rural areas would go a long way to help to protect and preserve rural areas from these sorts of shocks in the future?

[Steve Witherden]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I agree wholeheartedly.

With heating oil prices reaching levels similar to those in 2022 following the Ukraine war, our Government have been far quicker to react than the previous Conservative Government were. Less than two weeks after the price surge, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero announced a £53 million support package aimed at protecting the most vulnerable households that rely on heating oil—particularly low-income households in rural communities.

Wales was allocated £3.8 million, which the Welsh Government delivered through one-off £200 payments to eligible households on the council tax reduction scheme that use heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas. They also made enhancements to the value and frequency of the discretionary assistance fund for those in severe financial hardship. This response to protect households’ immediate needs in the face of crisis was very welcome.

However, if high prices persist, support will need to evolve. What plans do the Government have to ensure continued and expanded support for vulnerable households should this crisis continue? Diolch yn fawr.

10:12

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. We have all received casework on this issue from so many residents who are so worried and have been impacted by what has happened as a result of Trump’s war in Iran.

The cost of heating oil doubled in just one week at the beginning of March, and that has had a huge impact on so many people. A constituent in her 70s wrote to me whose husband is in palliative care. The cost of filling her tank has gone from £320 to £750 and she just does not know what to do. She has asked what help the Government have given, and has received no help so far. Another constituent wrote to say that he had agreed a price back in February, but the company repeatedly delayed and ultimately cancelled his order, telling him he would have to reorder at the new price, which had more than doubled in the meantime.

The Government have announced the £53 million package but, as so many Members have said, that is clearly insufficient to support the scale of affected households: more than 3.5 million people across the country depend on heating oil. So far, the Government have refused to cap the cost of heating oil, when we have caps on other energy sectors such as gas and electricity. That feels completely inconsistent and unjust. We would really like to see that changed.

I echo the calls of my Liberal Democrat colleagues for the Government to act now to protect constituents who rely on heating oil by enacting a three-month zero-rating of VAT on heating oil for all residential homes, and by developing a price cap to shield them from sudden increases in the price of heating oil. I would also welcome an update and more details from the Minister about the progress on the promised new consumer protections in the heating oil market.

10:14

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate.

Across our rural communities and in villages such mine, including Inkberrow and Cookhill, many households are not connected to the mains gas grid and have no choice but to rely on heating oil. In recent weeks, my office has been inundated with emails from constituents facing what can only be described as outright price gauging: sharp, sudden increases in heating oil costs, often with little warning and no meaningful protection. The figures are not abstract; families are being asked to find hundreds of pounds up front just to heat their homes. That is the fundamental unfairness at the heart of the issue. Where someone lives should not determine whether they are protected.

I welcome the Government’s swift action in providing additional support through the crisis and resilience fund, enabling local councils to step in and support households facing immediate hardship. That will make a real difference in the short term, and I thank Ministers for listening. For some families that support will mean the difference between staying warm and going without heat. But we must be clear: emergency support, however welcome, is not a substitute for structural reform. That means a properly regulated off-grid energy market, greater transparency from suppliers—including real-time price publication—and serious consideration of a price cap on domestic heating oil and LPG.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of extending regulation to this market would be to introduce a requirement on the companies to maintain a priority service register, as is the case with the gas market, which would ensure that those companies could more easily identify which customers are vulnerable?

[Chris Bloore]

I wholeheartedly agree and so would my constituents.

A price cap would ensure that households are not left exposed to sudden and excessive increases that they simply cannot plan for. The Competition and Markets Authority has previously raised concerns about weak competition and poor transparency in this market. Those concerns have not gone away; they have intensified for our constituents and rural businesses. I hope the Minister will consider taking comprehensive action.

10:16

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this timely debate. Nearly 13,000 households in Stratford-on-Avon, including mine, are off the gas grid and rely on heating oil and LPG. That is a huge number of people left exposed in a way most households in Britain are not. There is no price cap; when prices rise, they rise fast, and people are expected to find hundreds of pounds up front just to heat their homes. There is no buffer, no protection—just the full impact landing at once.

Once again, it is constituents such as mine who are left picking up the bill for a reckless and illegal war driven by President Trump. I am hearing from constituents worried about how they will afford their next heating oil or LPG delivery. For some, even the minimum order is out of reach.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Those who are obliged to use heating oil are isolated by definition, and they are further disadvantaged if they happen to be old, or infirm, or disabled or poor. Surely the Government recognise that the mechanisms already exist to cut prices, as has been said. There is no need for delay. We need to help people in my constituency, the hon. Lady’s constituency and many others who are suffering from the kind of exploitation set out in this debate.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Local heating companies have also stopped delivering for consortia, which provided a way for villagers to work together and pay less for their oil by buying in bulk. That has now stopped.

The Government support does not match the reality that people are facing. It works out at around £35 per household, and that is simply not enough. The Liberal Democrats have put forward a clear proposal that would provide meaningful support to households. A three-month zero VAT on heating oil would give immediate relief; it is simple, it is affordable and it would make a real difference to people right now. Big businesses are making immense profits from the middle east conflict and the surge in energy prices. The Government should implement a windfall tax on those mega-profits being made at the expense of families struggling to heat their homes. Can the Minister say whether the Government are considering that?

We have also called for a price cap on heating oil, because it cannot be right that households off the gas grid are left completely exposed, while others have some protection. However, if we carry on relying on expensive fossil fuels, that will keep happening and people will keep getting hit every time there is an oil price shock. That is why we need far more ambitious action to insulate homes and to roll out cheap, clean energy produced here in Britain that stays in Britain, rather than being shipped off to the highest bidder. Yes, we need to protect people now with measures such as a VAT cut, but that must be backed up by real investment in making homes warmer and cheaper to heat, especially in rural communities such as Stratford-on-Avon.

10:19

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this really important debate.

According to House of Commons Library data, Yeovil has a higher percentage of households using only oil for heating than the UK average. Because they are not protected by the Ofgem energy price cap, families across my area are suffering from rising costs due to a war they never wanted. One constituent told me that they suffered a 60% week-on-week increase in prices; on top of that, they struggled to find suppliers delivering to their area. Another constituent pointed out to me that they were able only to purchase a minimum amount of oil, which suggests that suppliers may be profiting from the situation.

The £53 million announced by the Government is welcome, but amounts to only about £35 per household. That is not good enough. Rural communities deserve a bit better than that, for sure, so the Government must enact a three-month zero rating for VAT on heating oil for all residential homes and develop a price cap to protect rural households from sudden increases in the price of heating oil.

I also urge the Minister to investigate the impact of rising oil prices on the spending and value of rural households, something I have heard real concern about. We also need proper long-term investment in rural home upgrades. We are proposing a 10-year energy home upgrade programme to make houses cheaper to heat. That has to start with free insulation for those on low incomes and ensuring that all new homes are zero carbon, to improve savings through energy efficiency. I would welcome the Minister to Somerset to discuss that further and to see how the crisis is affecting my constituents in Yeovil.

10:21

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate.

I do not know whether to take comfort from the number of MPs present for this debate, or to be troubled that we are here again to press the Government to take stronger action to get to grips with the costs facing rural households because of Trump’s war. As Members have said, many households in rural areas simply have no alternatives to heating oil, and that is particularly true in Caerfyrddin and across Wales, where reliance on heating oil is significantly higher than the UK average. Some 57% of my constituents, representing more than 25,000 households, are off grid.

Just over a month ago, heating oil was retailing at around 65p a litre; today, if I wanted to buy oil for my home, it would be 130.98p—an increase of more than 100% in a matter of weeks. I recognise that the Government have announced a package of support for low-income households who heat their homes with oil, and of course I welcome any help that is available. However, because heating oil is bought in large lump-sum deliveries to cover several months—usually about four months—a 100% increase is a huge hit for households, whatever their income bracket. People who are already squeezed from every side are expected to find extra money that they do not have.

I simply ask the Government to cast the net wider, so that households who are not defined as low income can still receive the help that they need. That includes constituents who do not claim benefits, those whose income is just above the pension credit threshold and pensioners who now pay tax because of the freeze on taxable earnings—they are not well off. Every day that passes is a missed opportunity for the Government to address the needs of households in the UK and across Caerfyrddin.

10:24

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), on securing the debate.

In North West Norfolk, more than 20,000 households are off the gas grid. When people are struggling, urgent support is needed, so I welcome the crisis fund that Norfolk county council has established and the fact that the Conservative-led administration chose to double the funding to £6 million. Although that support is focused on people in need, I reiterate that that is not limited solely to people on benefits. Local authorities have discretion, and I have been told by the council that households earning around £35,000 would qualify, so I encourage anyone who is in need to apply to the council. Clearly, there is concern about the adequacy of those funds, which I raised with the Energy Secretary. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that his Department is monitoring in real time the payments that are going out.

Like other Members, I have been helping constituents who have had orders cancelled or who have had to accept higher prices for existing orders. I am glad that Goff Petroleum, one of the main providers in Norfolk, agreed to honour their prices, even taking a loss to do so. We should recognise that the just-in-time model that many firms in the industry use exposes them, and thus customers too, to shocks.

We need to see reform in the market: greater pricing transparency and formalised priority support for vulnerable people. We should also recognise that this is an issue for businesses, not just for households. Rural areas do not only face higher costs for heating oil. Prices at the pump have leapt—and in the Budget the Chancellor committed to increase fuel duty by 5p from September, after 14 years of freezes under the previous Conservative Government. That is the wrong choice and puts higher costs on to drivers and businesses. While international factors are largely at play, the Government can choose to act to ease the burden of tax and levy. That is what they should be doing. The plans that we have set out would do that and would save people £200.

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

I thank everyone for keeping to time. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches.

10:26

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. As many have done, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this hugely subscribed and important debate and for representing rural constituencies across the country.

As we have heard, people in rural areas already face higher living costs, higher levels of fuel poverty and poorer energy efficiency compared to urban homes, and those areas also have many vulnerable elderly people. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that, once again, we are debating urgent support to rural, off-grid households facing immediate and unaffordable cost increases who are uniquely exposed to volatile global fossil fuel markets.

Clearly, we have not learnt the lessons from the very recent past. In the current energy crisis resulting from Trump’s dangerous, reckless and illegal war in Iran, heating oil is not covered by Ofgem’s price cap, just as during Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022 it was not covered by the energy price guarantee. We must not allow rural households to be left behind again. As the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association points out, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that the price of imported jet fuel is the largest component in the retail price of a litre of heating oil, and it is far more volatile than Brent crude oil. The association has reported prices jumping from 44p per litre in January to 100p litre this week and, as we have heard, the final price landing on consumers is way above that.

In my constituency, 2,954 households—35%—are reliant on heating oil. That is much higher than any other Cambridgeshire constituency. As soon as the conflict began, I heard directly from constituents in the villages of Fowlmere, Barrington, Litlington, Weston Colville, the Abingtons and Heydon, who, despite having agreed a price, were being told that neither that price, nor even the date of delivery, could any longer be guaranteed. One vulnerable elderly resident had only two days of heating oil left in their home. Some bought heating oil from a different provider at double the price because they could not wait.

It is questionable that the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association justifies that kind of action as acceptable and appropriate because it is approved by the Competition and Markets Authority. I was the first to demand directly of the Chancellor, when I talked to her in the Chamber, that she not leave households exposed once again, as they were in 2022. Her response was that public money would not be spent and that she would focus exclusively on price gouging and complaints to the Competition and Markets Authority.

As Liberal Democrats, while we welcomed the Government’s U-turn to channel £53 million of funding through the newly launched crisis and resilience fund through county councils—Cambridgeshire county council was one of the first councils to get that up and running—we have heard that it is not enough. As other Members have said, it is averaging around £30 to £35 per household, and I have already been told that many struggling households are now complaining that they do not meet the criteria from the fund. As I have mentioned repeatedly to Ministers—and as highlighted by research from Energy UK—improved data sharing from Government Departments—that goes beyond the Department for Work and Pensions—is critical for the funds to be fair and effectively target and reach those who really need them. We need to look closely at price gouging and at whether this unregulated market for heating oil is fit for purpose in serving and protecting rural households.

Will the Minister respond to our Liberal Democrat proposal for a three-month zero rating of VAT on heating oil; for a better regulated sector, with a proper price cap that shields households not only on heating oil but on LPG; and for improved consumer protection? Will he also look at the regulation we probably need on improved data sharing, so we can ensure that this help reaches those who need it most?

As many have said today, the long-term solution is not to leave rural households on the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels. We need to increase the transition to home-grown clean energy, insulate homes and ensure that the warm homes plan works for rural and off-grid homes.

10:30

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. I must start by declaring an interest: my home is off the gas grid, and we use heating oil. When constituents have raised this issue with me—many have—I therefore understand it not just as their Member of Parliament, but as a fellow purchaser of heating oil.

When prices doubled—or, as we heard, sometimes tripled—overnight following the outbreak of war in the middle east, it was a genuine financial shock that was even greater than when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. According to evidence from Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert, customers who had paid around £300 to £350 for 500 litres of heating oil in February were being quoted between £600 and £1,000 just weeks later, and that price continues to go up. That is not a marginal increase. For families on fixed or modest incomes—not just the poorest households—that is the kind of bill that forces a choice between heating, eating and other necessities.

So far, the Government have allocated £53 million in very targeted financial support across the United Kingdom, as we have heard. They have announced intentions to introduce consumer protections, including dispute resolution, greater price transparency and enhanced protections for vulnerable groups. To be fair, they have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to examine the market, and have signalled that an energy independence Bill will include powers to establish an ombudsman or appoint a regulator.

I acknowledge all those steps—they are not nothing—but let us be honest about what they amount to in practice. As we have heard, in Northern Ireland, where almost two thirds of households rely on heating oil, the allocation amounts to roughly £35 per household. The First Minister of Northern Ireland described it as a “slap in the face”; the Finance Minister said it was “significantly below par”. In Scotland, eligible households can apply for £300 in support. In England, the money flows through local authority crisis and resilience funds—I particularly note the example given from Norfolk.

Are Ministers confident that funding is actually reaching people in every part of our country at the pace and scale required? The evidence from many places suggests that the answer is not a straightforward yes. Also, why has LPG—this has come up in the debate—not been more consistently included in the scope of support? LPG users are in much the same position as heating oil customers—off grid, without alternatives and facing the same challenges—yet they have too often been an afterthought in support announcements. That needs to be addressed.

The problem is not confined to households. I have heard from businesses, some in my constituency, that are dependent on oil and LPG, including a pub that has had to completely close its kitchen and food offering because the cost of running it has become prohibitive. Thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises across rural Britain are in the same position, and the Government have not even attempted to support those businesses. That needs to change.

That is the structural failure at the heart of this debate. Unlike gas or electricity, the heating oil market is not regulated by Ofgem. There is no ombudsman or binding transparency requirement. The Competition and Markets Authority is now examining the market, which I welcome, but the CMA’s own chief executive has acknowledged troubling reports of cancelled orders and sudden price increases. That is precisely the kind of sharp practice that exploits the absence of regulation, examples of which Members have raised in this debate.

We should end the practice of accepting orders without stating a clear, binding price up front, only for consumers to receive a bill on delivery significantly higher than anticipated. That is not a complex regulatory ask; it is basic consumer protection. When someone agrees to take delivery of heating oil, they should know what price they are paying before the tanker arrives, not after. The Government’s promise of an ombudsman and stronger consumer protection signals the right direction of travel, but it is a promise of future action, not present support. Rural households and businesses cannot wait for primary legislation to wend its way through Parliament before they receive the most basic of protections.

I say to the Minister: adequate support means three things. It means emergency financial assistance that is genuinely proportionate to the scale of the crisis, not the equivalent of £35 per household, when those households are facing hundreds if not thousands of pounds in additional bills. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservative colleagues, including myself, were the first to write to the CMA to investigate failings in the sector. I urge the Minister to continue to examine that “at pace”, which I think is the fashionable term, to get this right in future.

We are also urging for LPG users to be treated with equal importance to heating oil consumers. That means immediate binding price transparency requirements, so that consumers know what they are paying before they commit. Around 1.5 million households across the UK rely on heating oil. They are disproportionately older, rural and without alternatives. They deserve better than warm words and a timetable that seems to stretch endlessly into the future.

[Dr Mullan]

On a point of order, Dr Allin-Khan. I should have declared an interest as a heating oil user and someone directly involved.

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

Thank you.

[Stuart Anderson]

Further to that point of order, Dr Allin-Khan. I would also like to declare that I use heating oil.

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

I do not mind if any of you use heating oil. That is fine; do not feel the need to let me know, although I appreciate it.

10:37

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

I thought we were about to end up in an “I am Spartacus” moment. [Laughter.] It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for raising this vital issue and giving us the opportunity to discuss it at length, since it is an important area that is dominating much thinking among Members and in my Department.

It is important at the outset to put this in the wider context of what is happening in the middle east. It is clear from what we have heard over the past few weeks that the conflict in the middle east is not Britain’s war. The Prime Minister made the right judgment in not taking the country into offensive action, but how we emerge from this crisis will define us for a generation in how we respond. It is clear that we need to de-escalate the situation in the middle east. We need a negotiated settlement that allows the free passage of traffic through the strait of Hormuz. That will ultimately determine the fate of energy prices and our constituents’ cost of living.

Let me do three things. First, I want to respond to issues raised around the immediate support the Government have offered. Secondly, I will talk a little more about market reform and regulation, and the process going on with the CMA. Finally, I will talk about some of the wider structural issues discussed this morning.

As hon. Members have mentioned, 1.5 million households in the UK use heating oil to keep their homes warm. We know from what has been said this morning, and also from looking at what has been happening in the market, that the price of a litre of heating oil has increased significantly—doubled, in fact—since the war in the middle east began. Even before the situation in the middle east developed, the cost of living crisis was a priority for the Government. Hon. Members know that we have till the end of June. This does not apply to those on heating oil, as we will discuss, but energy prices have been reduced under the price cap by 7% until the end of June, and the Government were taking other measures to alleviate the cost of living even before the middle east situation started.

I want to be candid with people about the choices that we had to make. Under the last Government, it took around 200 days for support to come to heating oil customers. We have rolled out support within two and a half weeks, but there is a trade-off when we make such decisions, and the decision that we made was to prioritise speed at this point, which meant deploying funding through local authorities in England and through devolved Governments elsewhere in the UK. That does, however, limit our ability to stipulate what the criteria are, but that is the trade-off we had to make. Listening to hon. Members this morning, I think we have made the right choice in prioritising speed because the need is clearly great right now. Had we been sitting here saying that the Government were coming up with a far more extensive scheme that might take months to deliver, I think we would have had a very different sort of debate this morning.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister has made the point about wanting a simple scheme that he could get into place rapidly, but he did not put enough money into it, and there was no reason in terms of speed why he could not do that.

[Martin McCluskey]

No one has said that this is the extent of all the support that will be on offer: I have been very clear about that, both in the Chamber and whenever I have been asked the question. The point of immediate support now was to provide people with relief from an immediate crisis. We have been very clear—the Chancellor was and the Secretary of State was—that it was never intended to provide discretionary support for every single heating oil user to fill up their tank. It was to provide immediate relief quickly from a pressing crisis that we were facing across the country. We are keeping everything under review. Were we in a situation later in the year where we need to look at providing further support, we will make decisions then, but right now that support is on offer to people.

Different local authorities are taking different approaches. That is in the nature of the trade-off that we had to make. North Norfolk is taking an approach that looks at means-tested benefits, but North Northamptonshire is not taking an approach that relies on means-tested benefits. It is asking for evidence that people are not able to afford a payment, which involves, for example, giving over bank statements to enable people to make an assessment based on income rather than on means-testing. So different authorities are taking different approaches. That is what we have to accept if we are deploying this through the crisis and resilience fund and not having a centralised scheme as we did before. But as I said, this is about doing things at speed to make sure that people have the support they need.

On the situation in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted that almost two thirds of homes rely on heating oil. We have allocated £17 million to support them. Again, we will keep that under review. We have heard complaints from the Northern Ireland Executive, as we have heard from others this morning, that it is not enough. But as I understand it—the hon. Member might want to correct me—there is not currently a scheme through the Northern Ireland Executive to deploy that money, so we do not yet know what the demand actually is in Northern Ireland for the take-up of that funding.

[Jim Shannon]

I do not want to be churlish—when we get something that is helpful, we accept it—but our indications are that those moneys will be disbursed across Northern Ireland shortly and that it will be £35 per household. As I asked in my contribution about pensioners, who are really feeling the pinch, what can be done for them specifically?

[Martin McCluskey]

As I said, once the funds are disbursed in Northern Ireland, just as across the whole of the United Kingdom, we will make an assessment as to what further work might need to take place. I will have further discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive. We are obviously keeping every option under review, especially as we start to think about later in the year and into the winter. In Northern Ireland, we are still to see what happens when the funds are disbursed.

In Scotland, we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about how Advice Direct Scotland is disbursing those funds. However, we cannot know at the moment how much is being given out, because the Scottish Government will not let Advice Direct Scotland provide us with that data, so there is no way for us to know what the situation in Scotland looks like.

In England, we are having weekly stocktakes with the DWP, which is the Department responsible for the crisis and resilience fund. It is providing us with assurance on the disbursal of those funds, and we hope to have a dataset available in May that looks at how many applications and payments have been made, and what those payments look like across the country.

[Torcuil Crichton]

If officials from Advice Direct Scotland can tell me, as a constituency MP, the number of applicants they have, and the estimated number they will have—16,000, with 5,000 applications already last week—surely they can provide that information to the UK Government as well.

[Martin McCluskey]

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government are not allowing the data to be shared because of the pre-election period. I would argue that that is not what the pre-election period is meant for, and I will continue to have those discussions with the Scottish Government. I know that other hon. Members in Scottish constituencies have faced a similar problem in getting any data about their constituencies from Advice Direct Scotland because of this prohibition from the Scottish Government.

I am conscious of time, so I turn to the issue of wider market reform. There is obviously evidence that the market as it exists at the moment is not working. I find it difficult to listen to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who was a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade under the last Government—

[Greg Smith]

Was I? I was never a Minister.

[Martin McCluskey]

Well, the hon. Member was a Member of the party that was last in government, let me say that, and I find it difficult to listen to him tell us about the lessons that we should have learned. We should never have been in this position, and we should not be in a position again where we are facing higher energy prices because of an international situation, and where we are having to deal with an unregulated market in heating oil. I argue that the then Government should have looked at this in 2022 and determined what action needed to be taken.

I will explain what we have done so far. The CMA is conducting an investigation at speed. These investigations normally take around a year, but it is going to conduct this one within 12 weeks. It has already completed the evidence-gathering stage, and it is now in the process of examining that evidence. I hope that it will come forward with the report in June. The Prime Minister has been clear that we will look at what comes forward from the CMA and examine the case for regulation.

Hon. Members across the Chamber have spoken about a price cap, but I do not want to prejudge the work of the CMA. There have also been suggestions about minimum orders and price guarantees—there a number of different proposals on the table—but we have to ensure that we make the right decision, and do not end up with unintended consequences that could make the situation worse. In a market with a large number of players, many of which are quite small rural businesses, it is especially important that we do not make the situation any worse. We are looking at a range of options.

The Chancellor has written to the CMA to ask that it remains vigilant across heating oil prices and tackles any unjustified increases that it might find. The Government are also in daily contact with industry to understand the drivers of recent price movements. We have reminded heating oil distributors of their commitments under the trade association code of practice.

[Pippa Heylings]

Does the Minister have a timescale for when he expects the review of the market and any recommendations to come back from the CMA? When will the Government enact them? Will they be part of the energy independence Bill, or is there another way in which they could come into effect quite quickly?

[Martin McCluskey]

I hope the report will come back to us some time in June, and then we will examine it to determine what may be required in terms of further action. I want us to move as quickly as possible. I have another meeting with the chief executive of the CMA tomorrow to discuss progress on the market investigation and ensure that work is carrying on at the pace that we want. We are not moving slowly. We have already accelerated this process—it was a year, and it is now 12 weeks. That is significant, but we obviously want it to move as quickly as possible.

Let me turn to the wider structural issues that we face in the energy sector. We recognise that the heating oil sector is under-regulated. Unlike gas and electricity, heating oil is not regulated by Ofgem, and we will put that right by exploring what regulations are needed to protect consumers and get them a better deal.

Taking a step back, ongoing events provide us with yet another clear reminder that we must get off the rollercoaster of global fossil fuel markets and on to the path of clean, home-grown energy that we control. We will learn the correct lessons from the crisis, unlike the previous Government, who went through the situation in 2022 and did not. In our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, we have already brought in £90 billion of investment in clean British energy. In the light of spiking oil and gas prices, we intend to go further and faster in the pursuit of national energy security.

We are bringing forward the next renewables auction, just months after the most successful auction that we have ever had, which secured enough power for the equivalent of 16 million homes. We are making plug-in solar available for the first time in Britain so that families can buy a low-cost panel straight from a supermarket and set it up on their balcony or in their garden.

We are speeding up delivery of the £15 billion warm homes plan. I heard what many Members said about the fabric of housing. There is obviously support within the £5 billion that we have set aside for low-income schemes, but there is also work going on about low interest and no interest consumer loans. I am trying to accelerate that work so that we can get that to people as soon as possible.

[Pippa Heylings]

We welcome the publication of the warm homes plan, but we have not received details of what will replace the energy company obligation 4 programme, which was run through local authorities. Can the Minister tell us when he expects that detail to be available? Will it be published ahead of the winter so that it can be applied and homes can be upgraded?

[Martin McCluskey]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Department runs a range of programmes. We took the decision to abolish ECO4 because it was not working effectively. In some cases, it was costing more to find people who needed the measures than it was to deploy the measures. The Department has been provided with an additional £1.5 billion, which took the total up to £15 billion for this financial year. That money is being deployed through the local government schemes—the warm homes social housing fund and the warm homes local grant. That is enhancing what has already been provided to low-income households through the Department.

As I say, £2.7 billion of capital is being deployed to provide low interest or no interest consumer loans. We need to accelerate that. At the moment, we are probably looking at early next year, but I would like to see that come forward so that we can use those consumer loans as a response to the current situation. We know that there is significant demand for home upgrades, including solar, battery and heat pumps, but we have to give people the support they need to take up those options.

We will speed up the delivery of the £15 billion warm homes plan—the largest home upgrade programme in British history—and we are reforming nuclear regulations following the Fingleton review so that we can fast-track new nuclear power stations.

[Greg Smith]

The Minister seems to have pivoted towards electricity and away from heating oil, which this debate is about. On the wind auctions, I am not sure consumers will thank him for the price that has just been paid. However, we are talking predominantly about the many rural homes that are off the gas grid. Many are built out of stone—I declare an interest, as mine is built out of witchert, which is a form of cob—and heat pumps do not touch the sides. Will he at least acknowledge that for those rural homes, we need to look at things such as alternative fuels? Boilers can be converted to run on hydrotreated vegetable oil and, in the future, synthetic fuels. We must not just keep talking about electricity.

[Martin McCluskey]

Fifty per cent of grants provided through the boiler upgrade scheme, which is our primary vehicle for providing people with grants for heat pumps to replace—

[Greg Smith]

rose—

[Martin McCluskey]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish the point, I was going to say that 50% of those are to rural homes. I am not trying to dismiss the fact that there are some properties where it would not be appropriate to fit a heat pump because of the fabric, although adaptations can be made. However, we are seeing from consumer behaviour that most boiler upgrade scheme grants are going to rural homes, so there is clearly demand within rural areas for heat pumps, whether the traditional air-to-air or air-to-water heat pumps or ground source heat pumps, which are increasingly popular in rural homes.

I go back to the point about learning the lessons. We are in a situation where this country is significantly exposed to fossil fuels, whether through gas or oil. The long-term solution—to remove that risk and exposure—is to move to electrification, because we would not be having this debate if homes were electrified. We need to find solutions for rural homes, and we need to move to technology that means people have more control over their energy and the system.

Behind every decision this Government take is a simple principle: whatever the challenges, we will support working people. We will always fight their corner through this crisis. That is why we are directly helping those affected by the spike in heating oil costs, cracking down on energy suppliers who are cancelling orders or jacking up prices, and working at pace to ensure the sector is properly regulated. That is why we are doing everything we can to end our reliance on unstable fossil fuel markets and take back control of our energy.

That will mean an era of economic growth, good new jobs and unprecedented investment—an era of real energy security. That is how we will ensure that ordinary working British people, including those in rural areas, never again pay the price for foreign conflicts and our overdependence on fossil fuels.

10:56

[Steff Aquarone]

A couple of years ago, I recall a senior former Secretary of State from the Conservative party, who shall remain nameless for the purpose of this anecdote, saying how annoying it was that the Liberal Democrats had gained 72 seats. Previously, they knew we would work out the right answer to these complicated challenges and they could steal the ideas with pleasure without anybody knowing, because we did not have a platform—so how inconvenient it was now that we had one! If individual Members want to know, I will tell them who said that to me.

The speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) reminded me that these problems are solvable and that the Liberal Democrats have plans to solve them. In particular, we have the longer-term vision for bringing about a future where energy is produced and used in Great Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) said.

I do not have time to reflect on all the valuable contributions from Members across the House, of which there were a great many, and it would be discourteous to suggest that only my party has added to this debate. We have been enriched by contributions from all corners of the country and almost all corners of the House. I note the absence of any contributions from Reform Members, which is regrettable; I believe that 2,000 houses in Clacton and 6,000 in Newark rely on heating oil. As they cheered the war in Iran, it is frankly embarrassing that they are not here to defend some of the consequences.

On a note of consensus and optimism, I do think that the Liberal Democrats have offers and ideas to bring to the table, whether it is about a closer relationship with the European Union or tackling the water companies. We are not ashamed to have our ideas taken forward in somebody else’s name. There are many things we want to contribute to this, and I am sure my colleagues will be just as willing as I am to do so.

I thank the Minister for his response. I am optimistic about the progress that he has indicated—it just cannot come soon enough.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the cost of heating oil.

Rail Prices: Contactless Payments

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of contactless roll out at railway stations on ticket prices.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I appreciate the Minister’s attendance, and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is important to my constituents who rely on the rail network.

I welcome the move to contactless payments at railway stations. It is a transformational innovation that makes travel much quicker and easier. It allows those of us who like to cut it fine to just tap in without having to queue for a ticket or hurriedly navigate the ticket machine. The Government’s case for the roll-out is that it should make rail travel more convenient, accessible and flexible, and I agree that those are the right ambitions.

Reigate station was one of the stations brought into the latest expansion of contactless in December 2025. This was part of a wider scheme to roll out contactless ticketing across the south-east of England. Stations in neighbouring constituencies, such as Dorking, Leatherhead and Ashtead, were also included. The concern I want to put to the Minister is that, for my constituents, this roll-out has introduced not simply a new way for people to pay but a change in what they pay, when they can travel, which discounts they can access and whether long-established local arrangements still apply.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate on an incredibly important issue. Does she not agree that contactless roll-out may be beneficial for some, but for others, the higher prices, restricted off-peak hours and complex new ticketing structures will be incredible off-putting, and that there must be a return to the customer-first policy across our public rail network throughout the United Kingdom?

[Rebecca Paul]

It is like the hon. Gentleman has read my mind—or even my speech. I completely agree with his point, and I will go into a number of those issues in some detail.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

This is such an important debate. My constituency is the single biggest contributor to the Exchequer of any constituency outside London, yet we were completely missed out from the tap in, tap out roll-out. I wrote to the Minister to ask why, and he did not tell me when we would be included. On behalf of my constituents who are working really hard for that elusive growth, I ask the Minister when that might happen.

[Rebecca Paul]

I hope the hon. Lady gets an answer to her question.

On paper, contactless was presented to my constituents as a simple upgrade to how they pay. In practice, it is much more than that. I am not at all suggesting that operators have actively set out to conceal their price rises, but it is fair to say that they were not as clear, prominent or energetic as they should or could have been in explaining the full practical implications for passengers. Indeed, the changes were snuck through without any proper consultation or targeted communication. That is particularly galling since the Government are freezing rail fares across the country to ease cost of living pressures. Why do my constituents who rely on Reigate station not deserve the same?

Contactless was presented to people simply as a way of making payments easier, so many passengers, understandably, assumed that they would not have to pay more or change the time they travelled. Clearly, that has not happened at stations like Reigate. One very brief example will illustrate the point: the first off-peak train of the day is now nearly an hour later than before. That is a ticket price hike by stealth. For many years, Reigate passengers had a settled and well-understood expectation about which morning train to London marked the start of off-peak travel. That was an important part of how they planned their day, especially those travelling into London for leisure, appointments or family trips rather than for the traditional commuting pattern.

Under the new structure, because peak now runs until 9.30 am, and because Reigate’s train pattern does not line up neatly with that cut-off, the practical effect has been to push the first off-peak option later. In other words, a journey that many local passengers had long understood to be available on an off-peak basis is no longer available on the same terms. Some must now travel later, otherwise they must pay more. In that case, the roll-out of contactless has had a measurable negative impact on how some of my constituents travel by rail.

Of course, it is important to acknowledge that not every fare has increased and not every passenger has found themselves losing out. Southern notes that for many people, the contactless fare will be the same as that of a ticket bought on the day, and the whole premise of the system is that, for many passengers making simple journeys, contactless will be convenient and, in some cases, better value.

That, however, is only one part of the picture. The people who are most exposed to the downsides of this transition are the people least placed to absorb them. Currently, existing discounts cannot be applied to pay-as-you-go contactless, and if someone has a railcard or is eligible for other discounts, including a child discount, it may be cheaper to buy a conventional ticket rather than use the contactless system. That means that often the most affected passengers are families, older people, veterans and others whose journeys may amount to something more than the default model of a full-fare adult simply tapping in and tapping out.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. There are issues with people who rely on super off-peak tickets, particularly at the weekends. Contactless has been introduced to Harlington in Mid Bedfordshire. It is valuable for commuters, but there are families who rely on the super off-peak fares, particularly at the weekends, who are now paying more for their travel at a time when they are hearing from the Government that rail fares are being frozen. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful for the Government to reconsider the technology that they are using to allow more flexibility in ticketing through the contactless system?

[Rebecca Paul]

I agree, and I will come on to that, but I am concerned that there is some rigidity in the roll-out. I expect that part of the challenge will be making adjustments to reflect what is required locally but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the super off-peak impact is detrimental to many constituents, so I thank him for raising that.

One of the strongest examples that has been raised with me several times is the family day out. A family in Reigate taking children into London for museums, sightseeing or simply a day in the capital may now find that the day is squeezed at both ends. Outward travel on the old familiar basis is no longer available at the same time in the morning, while return travel is also shaped by the new peak restrictions in the evening. Ministers often speak, rightly, about encouraging leisure travel, public transport use and access to our capital’s cultural institutions, but if a system makes that kind of family journey harder to plan, less flexible or more expensive, something has gone wrong.

There is also a fairness issue between neighbouring stations. My constituents look at nearby stations where these issues have not arisen and ask a simple question: “Why are we being treated differently?”

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I agree that we need to avoid extra charges and make train fares cheaper. The hon. Lady talked about neighbouring constituencies. Despite Woking being the busiest station in Surrey, we do not have tap in, tap out, which means that hundreds of people a year tap in at Waterloo and, unreasonably, are not able to tap out at Woking, resulting in extra charges. Does she agree that the Government should introduce tap in, tap out fairly to Woking and other areas of Surrey?

[Rebecca Paul]

I agree that we should look to roll out contactless to stations that do not have it, but I hope that the issues I am raising about pricing are taken into account. I hope it is useful for the hon. Gentleman to see the impact that the roll-out is having in Reigate. It would be good if we could iron out the difficulties before it is further expanded. We very much welcomed contactless and were excited to get it, but we did not anticipate the stealth price hikes and their impact. It was something that I really wanted to celebrate locally, but all of a sudden there were these downsides that we had not planned for because they had not been communicated properly. I hope it is helpful for the hon. Gentleman to learn from what has happened in Reigate, and hopefully the Minister will take that on board before rolling out contactless to other stations in Surrey.

Sitting on top of all this, there is an unfortunate layer of confusion. I agree with the Government in their diagnosis that rail fares are too complex and that simplification is necessary. On one level, that is plainly true, so surely they did not intend that the contactless roll-out would leave informed local rail users having to spend time and energy working through the interplay between contactless singles, paper returns, travelcards, caps, discounts, peak times and station-specific exceptions. We have to ask ourselves whether the new system is actually simpler from the passenger’s point of view. Contactless undeniably offers much convenience, but I am concerned that it is not offering clarity or value for money for all.

I gently say to the Minister that this roll-out appears to have been a rigid programme. The correspondence I have seen suggests that operators had only limited room to preserve sensible local arrangements, even where a clear passenger need has been identified. If that is correct, the Department should reflect on whether the roll-out has been too inflexible. National consistency has its place, but so does common sense. We were just discussing the broader roll-out in Surrey, which I hope we will see; there is lots that can be learned and improved on so that other areas in Surrey do not suffer the same surprise and detrimental impact as we have in Reigate.

I would like to ask the Minister four things. First, what can be done for specific cases like Reigate where contactless has caused unexpected problems? Will he step in to help work towards restoring the long-standing off-peak position for the first morning journey, so that passengers are not simply forced on to a later train or a higher fare? Secondly, will the Minister review the impact of the contactless roll-out on passengers who depend on discounts, particularly railcard users and families travelling with children? It is difficult to argue that a system is fully fit for purpose when important categories of passenger are told that the purported benefit does not properly work for them.

Thirdly, can the Department for Transport look into anomalies between geographically neighbouring stations and whether these are forcing passengers to alter their behaviour, including using cars to drive to a further away station to secure a better deal? We are seeing people drive to Redhill rather than get the train from Reigate, which they live closer to.

Finally, will the Minister ensure that when these changes are rolled out in future, passengers get genuinely clear, station-specific guidance explaining what has changed, who benefits from contactless, who may be better off sticking with conventional tickets and how any new restrictions operate in practice? My constituents have very much regretted not having access to that information.

As I hope I have made clear, I support simpler ticketing, modernisation and making rail travel more attractive. Contactless is a gateway to all that, but it must work for all passengers. Regrettably, at the moment we have a system that is leaving a sizeable minority disadvantaged and paying more for less flexibility than they enjoyed before. I hope the Minister will engage with these points in the practical and constructive spirit in which I have made them, and I would be delighted to work with him on finding workable solutions and taking the learnings for roll-out to other stations. Overall, it is a great thing: I very much welcome contactless coming to Reigate, but it would be really good if we could iron out some of the difficulties with ticket pricing.

11:09

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing it, and I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their important contributions as we consider contactless payment roll-out at railway stations and its impact on ticket prices.

I want to start by reassuring the hon. Member for Reigate that I listened carefully to the concerns she raised. I also want to thank her for the spirit of practicality and openness with which she has approached the implementation of contactless roll-out. Of course, the Department for Transport needs to take on board the concerns of constituents in Reigate and the other areas where contactless ticketing has been rolled out, to ensure that it does what the scheme is intended to do: provide a more seamless, integrated and easy-to-use ticketing experience for passengers. I have taken on board some of her specific points, especially on what can be done for her constituents in Reigate, and the concerns she raised about off-peak and the types of people who take those services, whether they are families visiting London or people relying on the social connections that the railway can bring.

The DFT keeps implementation continuously under review. I will ensure that anomalies in the system such as those that the hon. Lady raised are passed through to the Rail Minister. Her point about guidance and communication is especially important. We want people to benefit from contactless roll-out, which means that they need to be fully informed about the implications of these changes. I thank her for raising those points in a spirit of practicality and openness.

More broadly, I know that the hon. Lady is a determined advocate for her constituents. Like the Department for Transport, she understands that our railways are catalysts for cultural connection and economic growth, and I believe that her constituents in Reigate should be able to benefit from them to the same extent as those in every other part of the United Kingdom. She has mentioned the challenges people face due to limited transport connectivity, and I welcome the opportunity to respond in more detail to those concerns today.

On the matter of expanding pay-as-you-go with contactless ticketing at Reigate station specifically, I appreciate how important flexible ticketing and payment options are for passengers and want to provide some information on the progress being made on the points that the hon. Lady raised. On 7 December last year, we introduced changes to paper fare pricing at 50 stations across the south-east in preparation for the launch of the pay-as-you-go ticketing system. A week later, on 14 December, pay-as-you-go was launched at 30 stations, including Reigate, enabling passengers to benefit from simpler, easier and more flexible ticketing.

The introduction of new, simplified single-leg priced fares, like those already successfully implemented in London, means there is now just one peak and off-peak fare, with consistent restrictions across those services. Prices were adjusted so that a single ticket is around half the price of a return ticket, although I am cognisant of the anomalies that that has created, which the hon. Lady pointed out.

The move to single-leg pricing unfortunately means that some passengers may pay more, and that is something that I will reflect to the Rail Minister, but it is important to note that, in return, it unlocks more flexibility, and other passengers may see a reduction in their ticket price. These changes apply not only to pay-as-you-go, but to paper ticket prices.

We are already seeking to roll out this improved flexibility in pricing and ticketing beyond London and the south-east; we are now firmly in the delivery phase of launching pay-as-you-go to more than 90 stations in Greater Manchester and the west midlands. However, I take the point made by the hon. Members for Reigate and for Woking about the need to ensure that we learn the lessons of the roll-out as we bring it to more places, so that we can fully secure the benefits of a contactless system.

Greater Manchester is already benefiting from new, simpler fares in advance of pay-as-you-go ticketing, and the west midlands will have full, integrated multimodal fares and ticketing from day one. Alongside that, we are testing other ticketing innovations through digital pay-as-you-go trials, three of which have gone live across the north and the midlands since September last year. They will help us to understand how best to deliver this new, innovative ticketing option, to meet the needs of passengers.

The hon. Member for Reigate made a point about consistency of communications and a seamless experience for passengers. As we move towards delivering Great British Railways, our priority is to strike the right balance between affordability for passengers and taxpayers, to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal but also to run the railway in a more holistic way so that passengers get a consistent experience wherever they travel. GBR will enable more consistent ticketing practice across the network, ensuring that wherever people travel they can be confident that they are buying the right ticket and getting the best fare for their journey.

We must also acknowledge the very real cost of living pressures that are facing many households, including in Reigate. Transport costs form a significant part of that mix, and we must balance the need to fund the railway through passenger revenue with the need to reduce the burden on taxpayers. For too long, passengers have endured relentless fare increases. Between 2010 and 2024, fares rose by around 60%, placing real pressure on hard-working families and commuters. This Government are committed to turning the page and in March we took the significant step of freezing regulated fares for the first time in 30 years. We are taking immediate action to ease the burden on passengers and to begin building, longer-term, a more affordable railway.

[Monica Harding]

Of course it is really important that we bring fares down, but we also need to make sure that the trains actually work. In February, 5.82% of all South West Railway services were cancelled on the main line that runs through my constituency. I wonder whether the Minister thinks those figures are accurate, but they are very poor figures for a commuter line, where anything over 3% is considered poor. Will he comment on that?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise disruption of commuter services on behalf of her constituents. It links back to the point that our railways are meant to be catalysts for economic growth, which should be the case in Esher and Walton, as in any other part of the United Kingdom.

I will make two separate points. First, if the hon. Lady writes to me specifically about the disruption being experienced in her constituency, I will ensure that she receives a full response about what the Department for Transport intends to do, working with the operator, to achieve changes. Secondly, if she feels that the ministerial correspondence that she received on ticketing, which she mentioned in her intervention on the hon. Member for Reigate, did not go quite far enough in giving her the information she needs, I will ensure that she receives a fuller response to that point, too. I thank her for raising that important point.

Thanks to this Government, the price of travelcards will be frozen until March 2027, meaning that weekly and daily caps will remain unchanged from 2026. That will make a real difference for people who rely on pay-as-you-go travel in places such as Reigate, allowing them to reach their caps sooner and ensuring that the cost of their journeys does not rise significantly throughout the year. These decisions will put more money back into the pockets of working people and form part of our wider plans to bring the railway into public ownership, in order to create a simpler and more reliable network that delivers for passengers.

The hon. Member for Reigate also highlighted the challenges that constituents face with transport connectivity more broadly. On securing reliable rail and bus connectivity, we recognise the concerns that exist and have a clear plan to address them by equipping major city regions with the tools they need to roll out locally ticketing that reflects local travel patterns. This will include a shared technology solution allowing for integrated pay-as-you-go with contactless across different transport modes. We will set out further details in due course, while of course taking into account the specific challenges that the hon. Lady raised.

I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are firmly committed to improving the travel experience for her constituents and for passengers across the network. That means simplifying fares, making them more flexible to meet the needs of passengers, and delivering innovative solutions that fully realise the benefits of a truly modern transport network. I assure her that I have taken on board her specific points about the roll-out and will ensure that they are reflected through to the Rail Minister. I thank her for her contribution on this incredibly important topic.

Question put and agreed to.

11:23

Sitting suspended.

Single Status of Worker

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

14:30

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of creating a single status of worker.

Good afternoon, Mr Efford; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to an issue that has the potential to transform the world of work for millions of people up and down the country.

The Government’s plan to make work pay was one of our central policy commitments at the last general election. I was proud to play an important part in shaping the package and begin delivering on it in government. As a result of changes that this Government have made, the lives of working people are already improving. Minimum wage rates now take account of the cost of living, which is massively important to people on low incomes in this time of rising energy and fuel costs. Fathers are now entitled to paternity leave from day one; they no longer have to wait months to accrue that important right. Statutory sick pay is also now an entitlement from day one, and the lower earnings limit and the waiting period have been removed. This transformation of the world of work will continue as measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 come into force over the coming months and years.

However, noticeably absent from that list is the promise that we made to the electorate to move towards a single status of worker, on which we committed at the election to launch a consultation in the first year of government. We are approaching the end of the second year with no further indication of when there will be a consultation or, indeed, whether there will be one at all. I understand that the focus of most of our time in office has been the mammoth process of passing and implementing the Employment Rights Act. I know only too well how significant an undertaking that has been and I commend the work of officials in the Department for Business and Trade to pass that transformative Act within less than 18 months of our entering office.

Although the Act has been implemented, we must not forget that a number of commitments in the plan to make work pay fall outside its scope. They include changes to the parental leave system and carer’s leave, reform of TUPE, the review of health and safety guidance, changes to allow collective grievances, and what we are debating today—the commitment to move towards a single status of worker. I know that steps have been taken to implement change in some of those areas, and I would welcome a substantive update from my hon. Friend the Minister on the progress being made to deliver on all the commitments in the plan to make work pay.

The need to deal with worker status has been an issue since long before we entered office. It is almost nine years since the publication of “Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices”, which made some proposals on status, and more than seven years since the then Conservative Government accepted that changes needed to be made. It is a matter of record that nothing has been done since then to implement those proposals. It has therefore long been recognised that employment status is overly complicated, outdated and no longer reflective of the complexities of the modern labour market. We will see whether we can reach consensus on the solution, but we should at least begin to try to address it.

It might be helpful if I set out the current legal framework. I hope that that will demonstrate the need for reform and why this is a complicated area that requires careful consideration. First, there are those who are classed as employees, who receive almost all working protections, depending on service length. Then there are workers, or limb (b) workers—under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—who have access to some working protections, such as the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the minimum wage, but not others. And then there are the self-employed, who have no rights to working protections.

In practice, differentiating each status can be tricky, and reliance has been placed on court cases to establish the boundaries between them. It can therefore be a significant challenge for an individual to understand under which status their employment falls. If they do not readily know the answer, it can be difficult to enforce their rights without legal support. Matthew Taylor noted pithily in his report that

“without an encyclopaedic knowledge of case law, understanding how this might apply to your situation is almost impossible.”

People’s status and their rights under it should not be subject to their willingness to fight, sometimes for years, through an employment tribunal.

It might be said that people’s status and rights ought to be obvious from day one of their employment. For many that is true, but it does not recognise the explosion in what might be described as gig economy-type work in the past 15 years or so. By the end of the previous Administration, the number of people classed as being in insecure work stood at about 4 million, according to a TUC analysis. That represented a growth of about 1 million during the Tories’ time in office. Job growth in that period was driven largely by a rise in insecure work, which increased three times faster than secure forms of employment. Of the 4 million in insecure work, the TUC found that about half were low-paid self-employed, and many of them were unlikely to be genuinely self-employed at all.

During that period, the emergence of platform work saw the size of the gig economy explode. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that there were 1.6 million people working in the gig economy by 2022. Advances in technology, combined with ageing status laws, have allowed employers to avoid their responsibilities by advertising for positions that are described as for a “worker” or for the “self-employed” but, in reality, have all the hallmarks of direct employment.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for giving way. We have sat in a number of hearings where different industries have expressed to us the competitive disadvantage that they experience because people in the industry use the gig economy or platform work to avoid responsibilities. We heard evidence from Royal Mail about the disadvantage in the parcel delivery network, and from the British Hairdressing Association about the end of direct employment in hairdressing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to think about the competitive disadvantage for employers who do the right thing in considering these issues?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the arguments put forward by not only those who represent workers, but those who represent businesses about the need for a level playing field. I will draw on some of the examples and evidence that the Select Committee has heard of the imbalances that are created.

Those who might be classed as being in bogus self-employment may perform work under the direction of a manager, and be told where to be and when; they may wear a uniform and follow policies; and they may not, in practice, have the opportunity to substitute their work to someone else. To all intents and purposes, they are acting as employees, yet they do not have the associated rights, such as sick pay, parental leave, protection from unfair dismissal or any sort of redundancy process. While that might be sold as flexibility to the worker, it is clear that the employer retains most of the flexibility.

I saw this at first hand a few years ago when I accompanied a self-employed delivery driver working for one of the large parcel companies. I saw the time pressure he faced each and every day just to make an hourly rate equivalent to the minimum wage, which, once overheads such as his van and fuel were taken into account, was not actually reached. If he was an employee, he would have the right to a minimum wage for each hour worked and the right to rest breaks, and he would not be forced to rush on a very tight delivery schedule just to scrape by.

It is important to note that the abuse of employment status has a knock-on effect on the competitiveness of businesses that choose to do the right thing by their workforce, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) referred to. The Select Committee has seen the impact of the race to the bottom on standards and on responsible employers, such as Royal Mail, that meet the full costs of employment and maintain good, unionised jobs, but are not able to compete with companies that choose to treat their couriers as self-employed or limb (b) workers. They may be doing so lawfully, but it means that they can undercut the likes of Royal Mail by not having to worry about the minimum wage, sick pay or holiday pay. It also means that they can, and do, treat their workforce as ultra-disposable commodities. I do not believe that is fair competition, nor do I believe that it is the direction that we should be going in as a country.

Recently, the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail gave evidence to the Select Committee, and they argued for reform in this area. When unions and management speak with one voice, they send a powerful message that should be heard. The sad reality is that large multinationals have been able to exploit the UK’s ageing status laws to completely undercut and undermine one of our oldest institutions. That is bad for workers in the sector, bad for competition and bad for the Exchequer, which loses out on their national insurance contributions and may incur additional costs of supporting low-paid workers in the welfare system.

These practices are on the march. Over the past 15 to 20 years, they have expanded from their traditional home in the construction sector into food and parcel delivery, services and, most recently, hospitality and retail. When I was a Minister, I was concerned to learn that digital platforms, which laughingly called themselves “talent platforms”, were moving into these sectors to match companies with individuals to work shifts, not as agency workers but as self-employed contractors. It is reported that big high street names such as Uniqlo, Gymshark and Lush have used those platforms to advertise work, but, to their credit, they stopped when concerns were raised. However, the TUC found that as late as last year, Urban Outfitters, Claridge’s hotel and Colicci cafés all continued to advertise on the platforms.

These digital platforms mean that, increasingly, the shop assistant helping us bag our clothes or the barista serving us coffee no longer receives the working protections that we all believe they should have. What happens when the coffee shop across the road finds that it can no longer compete with the prices of its competitor because the competitor has everyone bogusly self-employed? It puts those who want to do the right thing in an invidious position.

This has already happened in other sectors, including delivery driving and the hair and beauty sector. The massive drop-off in apprenticeships in the hair and beauty sector is blamed, at least in part, on the rise in the chair model, which of course is another form of bogus self-employment, forcing other salons to make difficult and unpalatable decisions. It is clear that bogus self-employment is driving the race to the bottom.

Bogus self-employment is also facilitating illegal working by those who do not have the right to work in this country. There have been repeated reports that platforms in the gig economy were failing to check people’s right-to-work status. Measures have now been introduced to legally require gig-economy companies to carry out checks to confirm that anyone working in their name is eligible to work in the UK. This is the first time that such checks have been extended to these casualised sectors, making employers liable to fines of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. However, that is only one approach to tackle illegal working, which requires stronger labour market enforcement across the board. The introduction of a single worker status would mean that the stringent checks that employers are already required to carry out on those who want to work for them directly are also applied to those who work through an app.

There is no time to waste on tackling bogus self-employment. It is already unlawful, but the law must be enforced properly. It is happening at scale in this country, and the Government should take stronger action now. There is no need to wait until single worker status policies have been finalised.

Steps that could be taken now, ahead of a consultation, include introducing a presumption of worker status, which would require an operator to prove that individuals it engages are not workers or employees, rather than putting the onus on an individual to test their rights and try to enforce them via the legal lottery. That presumption is already standard practice in relation to the minimum wage. We could also empower the Fair Work Agency to conduct investigations when status is in question.

We must move away from the piecemeal approach whereby workers fight tooth and nail in a clogged-up employment tribunal system, possibly waiting years to establish their working status. Too often, even when a worker succeeds, the business tweaks its terms of business so that it can avoid the consequences of the tribunal judgment and move people back into bogus self-employment. How is that gaming of the system in the interests of working people in this country?

We can also quickly reform the law on substitution clauses, which are used widely to provide a façade of self-employment, no matter how someone typically works. They allow companies to disavow employee and worker status, on the basis that someone no longer owes any contractual obligations to perform a service personally. Downgrading the importance of that when determining worker status could help to reduce the number of times that it is used to avoid obligations. These things could all be introduced as interim measures to help improve the situation while the consultation and subsequent legislation are pursued.

Governing is all about making choices and intervening to solve problems, no matter their complexity. Doing so might not be popular with everyone, and it might not be easy, but effective Governments are guided by their principles on what is right and what is wrong. I think that most Members would agree that the current employment status system does not treat working people fairly. It is unnecessarily complex, it is no longer appropriate for our modern labour market, and it facilitates rampant bogus self-employment and exploitation. The Labour party decided that it was no longer fit for purpose, and we fought the last election pledging to “move towards” a single status of worker to simplify the system.

I will be the first to admit that that commitment was not as strong as I or others on the Labour Benches would have liked, but moving towards a single status of worker would at least be a step in the right direction. However, it is a step that we have yet to take, and that needs fixing. The Government must not forget about this important strand of the Make Work Pay agenda. I understand the challenges of doing this alongside implementing the provisions of the 2025 Act, but we entered government to deliver transformative change for workers, and that takes hard work and determination. We should not take our eye off the ball.

I have sympathy for the Minister; she is wholeheartedly committed to the Make Work Pay agenda and, indeed, was closely involved in its development while we were in opposition. I know that she will advocate for the package in internal discussions among Departments and push tirelessly for its implementation in full. Sadly, as I know from my own experience, she will also be facing scepticism and belligerence from other parts of the Government that are against bringing forward a consultation on worker status.

The Minister has my support, and no doubt the support of a large number of the Back Benchers here today, to continue pushing in internal discussions. She should remind those she has discussions with of not just what was in the plan to make work pay but the commitment at the Dispatch Box in the other place by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who I pay tribute to for all her work on the Act. On 23 July 2025, she said:

“I am pleased to be able to confirm to your Lordships’ House that we will publish our consultation on employment status by the end of this year.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 358.]

The Minister will not need it pointing out that we are already well into the next year.

I am concerned that some may have the view that the Make Work Pay agenda was completed as soon as the Employment Rights Bill received Royal Assent, but the job is not done. We cannot let this opportunity to transform the world of work slip through our fingers. We owe it to working people in this country to deliver on the change that we promised. The Government need to demonstrate their commitment to moving towards a single status of worker by opening the consultation this spring and setting out a timeline for delivering change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. We are likely to start voting between 3 pm and 3.30 pm, and there could be up to 16 votes. At that stage, I will suspend the sitting and we will have to return. I cannot see us finishing all the speeches and the Front-Bench speeches in the time we have available—although if that happens, it is all good news.

14:47

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for highlighting this matter. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place; I wish her well in her new role. I think this is her second or third Westminster Hall debate, and she has done a fair bit in the Chamber.

Although I agree with the principle of what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough said, I want to highlight the issue for businesses back home. They are not against the principle or object of a single status of worker, but we need a balance. With respect to other Members, I would like to tease that out.

The issue is incredibly complex and must be teased out from all angles. While I agree with the backdrop of ensuring fairness, I will highlight the risks of casting a long and perhaps damaging shadow over the small businesses and entrepreneurs who are the very lifeblood of the Northern Ireland economy. In my constituency, small and medium businesses create the most jobs, so it is for them that I am here today. I wish to be their voice in Westminster Hall.

No one in this House, and certainly no one in my party, supports the exploitation of workers. We have always stood for the right of every individual to be treated with dignity and to receive the pay that they have earned by the sweat of their brow. Where bogus self-employment exists to undercut the law, it must be met with firm and decisive action.

By the same token, we must not allow a desire for simplicity to lead us into a harsh overhaul that sometimes ignores the economic reality on the ground. For many, the current limb (b) worker status is not a trap but a choice that offers a vital compromise of flexibility that a rigid, one-size-fits-all employment contract simply cannot provide. I ask that the Minister takes my thoughts, and probably those of others, on board to ensure that we can provide protection for workers while at the same time not disadvantaging the small businesses in my constituency.

Our primary concern is for the small business owner—for example, the shopkeeper in Newtownards, the start-up in Ballynahinch and the family firm down in the Ards peninsula, all in my Strangford constituency. These employers are not faceless corporations. They are people who take risks to provide jobs for their neighbours. We have to be aware that in attempting to prevent abuse, we could be preventing job creation or retention by burdening them with the same administrative and financial burdens as multinational giants. Will the Minister ensure that small businesses—the lifeblood of my constituency—are protected? Rather than necessarily protecting workers, the Government may be jeopardising the very jobs that they rely on.

We must remember that jobs are not abstract concepts; they are costs. In the early stages of any business, every new hire is an investment that takes time to repay. We want to encourage businesses to continue hiring and rehiring, but they also have to have the prospect of a future, and a sense of where that leads. If we put our thumb on the scale against employers by removing the space they need to make vital judgments, we will potentially choke opportunity and harden the barriers for those who are currently on the margins of the workforce.

Let us focus on economic delivery and transparency. Let us empower businesses to grow, rather than stifling them with red tape. We need common sense, not ideological rigidity. We should be building a dynamic labour market that respects the need for flexibility, rather than one that forces every worker and business into a single, restrictive box. That is why the conversation—this debate—must be fulsome, taking into account the effect on small businesses, which account for 90% of all the workers in Northern Ireland. That is how massive this issue is, and shows the impact it could have on us. Those 90% of workers in Northern Ireland businesses do not have a human resources department to keep them right.

I am pleased to be part of this conversation, and I hope that all Members will take my views on board in a positive and respectful way. I am keen to achieve what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough wants to achieve, but I am also conscious of ensuring that we can bring businesses along too. If we can do that, it is a win-win for everyone.

14:52

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Mr Efford. I refer to my declaration of interests on my trade union membership and trade union support in the general election.

The Conservative ethos of unhindered market determination meant that historical antagonism to the trade unions, which are seen as an unholy impediment to the favoured goal of a flexible labour market, intensified as the Tories continued to try to curtail their power. It became the common theme of Governments here and elsewhere—up until, of course, the election of the Labour Government in 2024. The market had to be what determined the wages and conditions of ordinary working individuals, not collective bargaining or negotiations with unions. Management would be totally free to pay what the individual worker is worth. That is worth recognising at the outset.

They reckon that Thatcher’s greatest achievement was not Tony Blair, as she once declared; her most profound legacy was the gig economy. The widespread acceptance of insecure, casual employment is one of the cornerstones of the UK economy. What an absolute disaster. The gig economy was given legal underpinning by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, which defined the two levels of employment status: the employee, with full legal and contractual rights, and the worker, who enjoyed only minimal legal protections. The exploitative use of casual labour was basically given legal legitimacy. That was a crime against ordinary working people.

Under those Acts, a worker is said to have a more casual, less structured work pattern—for example, zero-hours contracts. They are usually required to do the work themselves, and cannot ask somebody else to cover for them. They technically do not have to make themselves available to work, but in reality the fear of no further hours being offered if they turn down a request that they work has made this a legal fiction in many cases.

Look at the economic effects of the widespread employment of those legally characterised as workers. It is blatantly obvious that good, long-term jobs have been replaced by low-paid, minimum wage jobs. Many of those who have been forced to work in the large casual work sector require benefits to survive. Employers’ profits are being subsidised by everybody in this room—by the taxpayer. Cheap labour has been a major cause of a lack of investment in capital and in research and development, resulting in poor productivity growth. It is hard for workers to achieve union recognition as they are without unfair dismissal protection, leading to even weaker union density in key industries—again, a key goal of the Conservatives throughout their history.

I would like to share some of the difficulties suffered by individuals employed as workers. Many have been on zero-hours contracts and do not know what money they will earn each month. We understand the problems that brings: they have no job security and can be dismissed without notice, they are not entitled to redundancy pay, and some employers employ a pool of workers who work besides those with employee status, so that there can be mass redundancies and avoid statutory consultations and legal obligations to discuss alternative employment with those affected—they can freely choose those with worker status.

Workers can be wrongly classified as being self-employed—the well-known bogus self-employed—a tactic used to avoid national insurance contributions, stakeholder pension contributions and so on. It is sometimes hard to spot because of legal complexities. If, on paper, somebody hired to work can choose somebody else to do that work for them, the so-called substitution clause means that that individual will legally be given self-employed status and have no employment rights whatsoever. It is often hard to prove the false nature of the written clause, but in reality, it is well known that no one in the firm would dare to rely on these clauses for, say, an extra day off.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the exploitation of workers with very little legal protection. Does he agree that it must be incumbent on all employees to have union recognition, whereby the voices of employees, no matter how small the organisation, are heard and can be part of any action that can be taken against rogue employers? There are some very good employers that recognise unions and work with them to achieve the best, but many do not recognise unions and would rather have working conditions that take us back more than 100 years, before the work of trade unions had even started.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with the sentiments outlined by my hon. Friend.

I will move on to a summary of the legal rights denied to people classified as workers under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996: protection against unfair dismissal after six months; the right to guaranteed hours; the right to maternity pay; the right to paternity leave; protection against unfair redundancy selection; the right to redundancy pay; access to statutory union recognition procedures; and the ability to request family-friendly flexible hours. Those are the rights that are being denied to workers at this moment in time.

What are we really asking for? There must be a renewed push for the full implementation of Labour’s manifesto commitment to merge the employed and worker tiers into one single legal category of employee with full legal employment rights. We need an end to the bogus self-employment tactics that unscrupulous employers deploy. The law should not recognise the legitimacy of any substitution clause.

The best means of achieving a clear distinction between a new employee with single status and those who are actually self-employed is to use the formula proposed in Lord Hendy’s single status Bill of 2023-24, which was introduced in the Lords. That would not only merge employees and workers into a single status of employee; legal employment rights would also end the bogus self-employment tactics that employers use to deny people the higher employee status. Under Lord Hendy’s Bill, a person would be deemed to be self-employed only if there was clear evidence that he or she was genuinely operating a business on his or her own account. Evidence such as business accounts, advertising and the number of clients or customers would be needed to prove true engagement for services by a self-employed person.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for bringing this timely debate to the House. I also thank the Minister for her sterling work on the employment Bill. It was an excellent Bill. It could be a lot better; it could be a lot stronger—to be honest, we need an employment Bill 2.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the arguments against single worker status is that of flexibility, particularly for young people who want to work seasonally, as happens in my constituency in Cornwall? I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that that option still remains open if a person remains an employee under our new Employment Rights Act. There is misunderstanding about that, and it is really important that people realise that there is the option under the Act to retain flexibility without the need for self-employment status.

[Ian Lavery]

I am sure the Minister will respond to that question.

I want to say a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for the sterling work that he has done. A lot more work needs to be done, but working people in this country are a lot better off now since the election of the Labour Government in 2024 than they ever were before. The Employment Rights Act transforms the lives of ordinary working people, but we must work at it and it must go a lot further. This debate is about the differences between an employee and a worker, and we must change that as rapidly as possible.

15:03

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for securing this debate and for his sterling work in ensuring the Employment Rights Bill became the Employment Rights Act. He was doughty in his prosecution of it. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I too received support from trade unions in the run-up to the general election.

I have taken a long-standing interest in these issues, not least by leading, in opposition, on Labour’s new deal for working people. The Minister herself contributed to that in no small part, for which I am eternally grateful. It was a joy to work with her on it. We published it in September 2021, in consultation with affiliated and non-affiliated unions. I entirely support the Government’s direction of travel but, now that the Employment Rights Act has passed, the task is clear: we must implement it properly, deliver the remaining new deal commitments in full and ensure robust enforcement so that rights mean something in practice. I urge Ministers to go further and faster on one central commitment: a single status of worker. That was never peripheral. It was at the heart of the new deal. The principle is straightforward: if you work for someone else, you should enjoy the full range of employment rights. Without that clarity, bogus self-employment will continue to deny millions the basic protections of sick pay and holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal.

One person’s flexibility is another person’s insecurity. There are ways and means of accommodating seasonal work, and nobody would deny that, but we must also look at it from the perspective of small businesses, which work hard to employ people. Let us think through how they are undermined by those who seek to rely upon alternative ways of engaging people. They are undercutting their competitors in Newtownards, down the street, and elsewhere. That is not how it should be. We should be playing by the same rules.

There is also a wider public interest. Artificial self-employment does not just erode rights; it undermines the Exchequer through lost national insurance, income tax and pensions contributions. The TUC’s research on this some years ago showed that it probably accounted for lost revenues in the order of £10 billion per annum. A single status would restore fairness in both the labour market and the tax system.

This reform is not new, and I pay tribute to Lord John Hendy KC, who introduced the Status of Workers Bill in the House of Lords in May 2021. It passed on Third Reading in January 2022 before I brought it to the House of Commons in early 2022. That work demonstrated both the strength of the argument and the breadth of support, yet, as a recent briefing makes clear, the current patchwork of employment statuses has created a legal battleground, with employers able to exploit complexity and avoid responsibility. That is why many of us believe that the Employment Rights Act 2025 should have centred on single status. Instead, we have a commitment to consult, but the case has already been repeatedly and convincingly made. That is why I reintroduced the Status of Workers Bill as an amendment on Report.

We should also heed Margaret Beels, the director of labour market enforcement, who told the Business and Trade Committee that this issue must be addressed and that it is time to act, not simply to consult further. Delay carries consequences. As new rights apply primarily to employees, the incentive for employers to downgrade status will only grow. That is the tragedy: we may be inadvertently promoting a regression and pushing people towards bogus self-employment. Without reform, those rights risk being avoided in practice.

Could the Minister say what work the Government are doing to assess the tax revenue benefits of introducing a single status of worker, as previously advocated by the TUC? Can the Minister say whether and how the Fair Work Agency will respond to the concerns raised by the director of labour market enforcement and ensure that consultation on single status is expedited? Ultimately, this is about the kind of labour market we build: one that is fair, clear and enforceable, rewarding good employers and guaranteeing every worker the dignity and security in the rights they deserve. When people go to work, they should be safe in the knowledge that they have a wage and terms and conditions that will protect them, enable them to put food on the table and let them build a future. At the moment, too many people are entering the job market without any thought about the solid future that we should be promising them.

We must bear in mind the problems that we build up for future generations if we do not provide our workers with security as they head into their middle and old age. If they have not been able to make provision, we are storing up an enormous problem for our successors. I will leave it there, but I trust that the Minister will address some of those points when she winds up.

15:10

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on securing this debate. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my union support and membership of the trade union group of Labour MPs.

In my constituency, I hear from postal workers, delivery drivers, care workers and many others who feel that the current system simply does not reflect the reality of the work they do. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: does our system of employment status match the modern day labour market? At the moment the answer is clearly no. We have a three-tier system that is overly complex, often unclear and too easily exploited. This is not a marginal issue. The TUC estimates that approximately 4 million people in the UK are in insecure work, including those on zero-hours contracts or in forms of precarious self-employment.

In my community, insecure work shows up in very real ways: the delivery driver working regular hours who is told that they are self-employed, with no sick pay or job security; the worker who wants to speak up about unsafe practices, but fears that they have no protection if they do; and the families trying to make ends meet without the certainty of stable hours or fair conditions. In sectors such as distribution and logistics, which are so important to the economy, the problem is particularly acute.

The TUC has also highlighted that up to one in eight workers are now in some form of insecure work. Where a parcel is delivered in my constituency, the person carrying it is often classified as self-employed, without basic protections. That is not genuine flexibility; it is insecurity dressed up as choice, and it is costing working people in my constituency real security and dignity, and ultimately real income.

We can also see the wider consequences. Companies that rely on insecure models are able to undercut those that provide decent pay and conditions. That creates a race to the bottom, one that often harms workers, undermines responsible employers, and weakens our economy. We see that tension clearly in the postal sector. Royal Mail, which directly employs its workforce and provides a universal service, is competing with firms that can erode basic obligations by classifying workers as self-employed. As evidence to the Business and Trade Committee has shown, it is not a level playing field: decent employers are penalised for doing the right thing, while the Treasury loses out on revenue that should be contributing to our public services.

There is, therefore, a strong case for moving towards the single status of worker, with a robust test to distinguish genuine self-employment. This is not about removing flexibility where it works; it is about ensuring that flexibility does not become a loophole for rights to then be stripped away. It is also about ensuring that the gains we have made through measures such as the Employment Rights Act actually reach the people they are designed to protect. Rights such as protection from unfair dismissal, guaranteed hours and access to union representation mean little if they can be avoided through reclassification.

There is also a wider public interest in the single worker status. At present, too many people fall outside whistleblowing protections simply because of their employment status. That cannot be right. If we want safer workplaces and higher standards, we need a system that gives people the confidence to speak up without fear of losing their livelihood. On the day that we mark the 37th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, candour and truth in public and private life have never been more important.

Fundamentally, this is a cost-of-living issue. The TUC has found that insecure workers are significantly more likely to struggle to pay their household bills. When people lack basic protections, when their hours fluctuate unpredictably, when they have no sick pay and when they can be dismissed without notice, that instability feeds directly into financial insecurity. A fair labour market is essential to a fair standard of living. As a former chief executive who worked with a progressive Government overseas to improve employment rights, I believe in an economy built on fair rules, strong rights and shared prosperity, one that rewards good employers and protects working people.

I know the Minister has a long track record of supporting working people, so I have every faith that she will conduct this process well. I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on a simpler framework to create a system that reflects the reality of modern work, closes loopholes and ensures that every worker has access to dignity, security and fairness at work. Ultimately, this issue comes down to a simple principle: people who work should have rights that they can rely on. For the people I represent, that principle cannot come quickly enough.

15:14

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), with whom I sit on the Business and Trade Committee, for securing this debate.

The world of work has changed beyond recognition in the past several decades, but our employment laws have been severely left behind. We still sort people in work into three rigid categories—employees, workers and the self-employed. The framework for that was built in a different era, when people had one job, one employer and the reasonable expectation that the law would protect them if things went wrong.

That is obviously not the reality for millions of people today. It is not the reality for the delivery drivers who log into apps and spend hours under the management of an algorithm; they cannot set their prices and they are disciplined if their ratings drop, yet when they fall ill or are injured on the job, they are told, “Sorry, you are self-employed—you are on your own.” It is also not the reality for the agency care worker who has been looking after the same vulnerable residents for years without ever accruing a single day of redundancy protection, and it is not the reality for the freelance designer who depends entirely on one client but has no holiday pay, parental leave or pension contributions.

These people are trapped in a gap in the law. They are doing essential work, but they are being denied the essential rights that go along with that. The legal case that created those gaps was rooted in case law going back to 1968 and relied on concepts designed for the factory floor, not for the platform economy. It means that the rights of many workers depend not on the work they do or the hours they put in but on how cleverly designed their contract is. Let us be completely honest about who benefits from those contracts and that complexity: it is most certainly not the worker.

The problem has not gone unexamined. The Taylor review reported in July 2017 and recommended significant reforms. The Government of the day responded with the “Good Work Plan” in December 2018 and committed to legislate. Although the previous Government identified the problem and promised to fix it, they never did, and that has left people waiting for far too long. The current Government have taken important steps in the Employment Rights Act 2025: guaranteed hours for workers if they want them, a day one right to make flexible working requests and the establishment of the Fair Work Agency. Those steps are all welcome, but the Act did not address the fundamental structural problem that the categories themselves are broken. The Government can strengthen the rights attached to the “worker” category, but if people cannot tell which category they fall into, those rights remain words on the page. The Government’s next steps document commits to consulting on a simpler two-part framework for employment status, but we have been here before, and consultation commitments alone are not enough.

The Liberal Democrats believe that reform in this area should be built on clear principles. First, we need a dependent contractor status that sits between those who are fully employed and those who are genuinely self-employed. If someone works personally for another party and is not guaranteed business on their own account, they should have access to minimum levels of earnings, sick pay and holiday entitlement. The idea that someone can work full time for a single company and have fewer rights than a Saturday shop assistant is an indictment of our current system.

Secondly, the tax and national insurance treatment for employers in different categories must be aligned, because the current framework creates fiscal incentives for businesses to push people out of the protections they deserve. When it is cheaper to classify someone as self-employed, that is exactly what happens, and the cost is borne by the worker, and ultimately the Government.

The third principle concerns the burden of proof in disputes, which should shift from the individual to the employer, because asking someone on low or irregular pay with no savings and no legal protection to take on that legal risk against the company that controls their livelihood is not a fair fight. If an employer has classified someone as self-employed, it should be for the employer to justify that decision.

Fourthly, the Liberal Democrats believe that pension provision for those in non-standard work must be addressed urgently. Far too many people in the gig economy sector are building no retirement security whatever. They are invisible to the auto-enrolment system, and when they reach retirement with nothing, that cost will fall on us. In the Commons, we are currently going through the Lords amendments to the Pensions Schemes Bill. The Government should be acting on the issue in the Bill.

Finally, where zero-hours contracts remain, there is a strong case for a higher minimum wage at times of normal demand to begin rebalancing the risk that currently falls entirely on the shoulders of those people who are least able to bear it. I urge the Minister to confirm when the promised consultation on employment status reform will come forward and to commit to a timetable for legislation that does not repeat the sorry patterns of promises and retreats that we have seen from Government time and again, because the people caught in the gap have been patient for a long time. They have been told time and again that reform is coming and they deserve more than warm words; they deserve the law to be on their side.

15:19

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on securing this important debate. I regret that he himself was a victim of unemployment, cut down in his prime by a capricious boss, although I have greatly enjoyed working with the current Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to try to do what we all seek to do: improve the employment lot of our fellow citizens.

Single worker status is not a minor legal tidy-up; it would be a fundamental restructuring of the labour market—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough mentioned that in his opening remarks. For that reason, the Conservatives believe that we should proceed cautiously. We cannot have it both ways. This Government cannot deliver a once-in-a-generation change to workers’ rights—330 pages of new legislation that has caused a degree of indigestion in the employment market as it passes through it like an egg through a snake—and then immediately come back and say that we need to unleash even more uncertainty. The law that we pass most often in this House is the law of unintended consequences. Although we are well-meaning, it behoves us all to have regard to the ever-increasing proportion of our young people who are unemployed and unable to find work, in part no doubt due to the additional regulatory burden.

Although the Conservative party does not, of course, oppose a consultation on this subject—if that was a commitment given by the Government it is in the interests of good faith and democracy that they proceed to have such a consultation—we would nevertheless be extremely cautious about rushing too quickly to legislate. In the interests of time and productivity, I will leave my remarks there.

15:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on securing this debate and on his impassioned contributions throughout it. I know that, as my predecessor, he knows this agenda well. It has been a privilege to continue that work in my role. I was going to talk a lot about our Employment Rights Act and our wider plans to make work pay but in the interests of time I will not; my hon. Friends have covered those subjects exceptionally well and I thank them for that.

The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. As we have heard in this debate, it is no longer the norm to stay employed in the same company or even the same sector for a whole lifetime. New technology continues to transform the way that we work, and where and when we work. As the way we work changes, our employment rights legislation, which protects people, has had to be updated. That is what this Government are doing. I thank my hon. Friends for the many excellent points they have made in this debate about how we are working at pace to make sure that the environment for working people is much better than when we found it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough put exceptionally well how working people are already benefiting and seeing the impact that the Employment Rights Act and the other legislation that we have been working on are making.

I agree that to continue to progress in this area it is necessary to change the employment status framework for rights. The growth of the gig economy and growth in insecure work mean that some people are working without the certainty and stability that typical employment provides. The genuinely self-employed play an essential role in driving innovation, creativity and economic growth, and high-quality self-employment is a crucial part of our UK economy. However, vulnerable workers who work day in, day out, often in challenging conditions and for low pay, are not receiving the protections that they should. Their working conditions can be highly controlled by the people or organisations they work for, but they are nevertheless designated as self-employed, with no access to the national minimum wage, paid holidays, a workplace pension or protections from unlawful wage deductions.

The existing employment status framework can also be particularly difficult to understand and enforce. For someone to determine whether they are an employee, a limb (b) worker or genuinely self-employed can require the ability to understand both statute and a significant amount of complex case law. That presents challenges in a system where the onus is on the individual to bring a case to an employment tribunal to establish their employment status. It enables some employers to undercut their competitors—in this debate we heard many examples of that from different sectors—by misleadingly designating their workforce as self-employed when legally they are not, denying people the rights to which they are entitled, and exploiting the financial advantages associated with self-employment.

I thank hon. Members for mentioning the role of the Fair Work Agency on enforcement, and I am happy to continue the discussion outside the Chamber. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the fact that the Government have set up a dedicated hidden economy team within the Fair Work Agency. From April, it will take action in sectors known to have egregious breaches of employment rights legislation, and act on illegal working and tax status.

We are committed to publishing a consultation on our plans to tackle employment status problems. It is important to look at whether the current test for employment status places the line between being a worker and being self-employed in the right place, and to consider how to improve compliance with the law so that everyone gets the rights to which they are entitled. Employment status is inherently complex, as we have heard in contributions to this debate.

I thank hon. Members for their time and consideration. We are doing lots of other work in this area, including for the self-employed, which I would like to talk about in further detail. However, in the interests of time I will not—I see you gesturing at the time with your pen, Mr Efford. I thank all hon. Members for contributing and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough for securing the debate.

15:25

[Justin Madders]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it was my oversight to not mention that earlier.

Technically, the problem for a lot of the people who we are discussing is that they are not employees, so they have no recognition process. The debate has been interesting. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who made some very important points, particularly on the tax take. That is something that we absolutely need to address, but this issue is fundamentally about fairness. Our Make Work Pay agenda has to be bolstered by action to address this problem. I hope the Minister gets the message that we need to do that soon.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Congratulations to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) for keeping the debate in the main Chamber going long enough for us to finish this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of creating a single status of worker.

15:25

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

Access to Work Scheme

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

17:10

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. The debate will end by 5.40 pm.

17:11

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Access to Work scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. A disability can happen to any one of us at any time. That was a lesson that I learned the hard way, when I became fully paralysed by Guillain-Barré syndrome aged 22. I was unable to walk for five months, and it took me more than two years to walk steadily on my feet again. I remember feeling utterly exhausted and I worried about how I would ever work again. I am grateful to have made a near full recovery, but not everyone does. For many disabled people, the greatest barrier to work is whether the right support will be in place to make work possible and sustainable for them.

The Access to Work scheme should enable disabled people to enter work, to stay in work and to contribute fully to their communities and to our economy. Disabled people can have complex needs, but achieve remarkable things despite them. The scheme enables more than 74,000 disabled people to work by providing support such as specialist equipment, support workers and specialist job coaches. A study commissioned by the Royal National Institute of Blind People found a £1.48 return for every £1 spent on the Access to Work scheme, so it is excellent value for money.

I have mentioned previously in the House that some of my constituents have been waiting more than nine months just for an assessment of their needs. Since then, the situation has deteriorated further. The waiting list has grown to 66,000 people, an increase of 4,000, and 32,000 payments are now outstanding. Applicants are being told that they may wait up to 37 weeks just for a decision, and some, in particular the self-employed, for more than a year. Let us be clear what that means. It means that someone offered a job cannot take it, that someone already in work cannot do the job properly and, in too many cases, that jobs are being lost unnecessarily.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Megan was offered 15 hours of employment through an internship with Silver Lining in Ilminster, which was fully funded by Access to Work, but the scheme only offered funding for three hours. Megan now has to claim universal credit as she cannot find accessible employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that such funding decisions are totally senseless and are keeping disabled people out of work and from contributing to our economy?

[David Chadwick]

I agree wholeheartedly that that is a great waste of the undoubted talent that Megan has and should be able to bring to the table.

Demand for the scheme has risen sharply. That should be welcomed, because it shows that people want to work and want to get back into work, but the system has not kept up with their demands. Backlogs are growing, processing times are getting longer and confidence in the scheme is falling away.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I met the Disability Poverty Campaign Group, which points to the fact that in recent years average support has fallen sharply and, as a result, job retention has dropped from 88% to 43%. That is fewer people in work as a result of the broken system the hon. Gentleman describes. That is counterintuitive when we want to strengthen our economy and ensure that people are in work.

[David Chadwick]

The hon. Member is right to focus on retention, which is an equally important part of the scheme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. He is right to underline the issues for people who are disabled and want to get into work. Many employers wish to ensure that those people have the opportunity, but they are unable to expedite the system, through no fault of theirs. They want to employ people, but they cannot because the Government are falling short. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be a better arrangement and better co-operation in relation to not just those who want to work, but those who want to give them jobs?

[David Chadwick]

Yes. The hon. Member is right to mention how everyone can benefit from people getting back into work—both employers and disabled people looking for work can benefit—but the system is not enabling that to happen. Self-employed individuals, in particular, are losing their businesses, and employers—in particular smaller employers—are being left with costs and uncertainty. A scheme designed to support work is, in its current state, preventing it.

Alongside the delays, there are growing concerns about how the scheme operates in practice. My constituents report being forced to reapply from scratch at renewal, even when nothing has changed. We know that we have the technology to deal with that problem. They face long reconsideration processes, struggle to contact caseworkers and in some instances cannot even access the system properly, because of their needs. This does not sound like a system working with people; it feels like one that they are having to fight to get through.

There are also serious concerns about funding decisions. I have been made aware of cases in which support has been cut significantly, not because needs have changed, but because funding is benchmarked against generic regional job market rates, which will punish people living longer, particularly in Wales, where we have lower than average salaries. That misunderstands the entire purpose of the scheme.

We are seeing a convergence of problems: delays getting into the system, barriers to navigating it and reductions in support once people are in it. The result is clear: people are being kept out of work because the Government’s system is not working for them. That creates a fundamental contradiction: the Government want more disabled people in work, and disabled people have plenty to offer, but encouragement without support does not represent opportunity.

When Access to Work fails, people fall out of employment, businesses miss out on talent, and more people are pushed into economic inactivity. At a time when we must indeed focus on growth, we should be strengthening the system, not allowing it to fall behind. We need urgent steps to tackle the backlog. We need a system that is faster, clearer and accessible. We need funding decisions that reflect the reality of specialist support.

Ultimately, this is about whether disabled people can participate equally in working life. Many disabled people are desperate to work, but they are being let down by this scheme, which has helped so many people over the years. I urge the Minister to recognise the urgency of the issue and set out how the Government will act.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I am very keen to call the Minister by 5.30 pm, so may I ask Members to keep their comments short?

17:18

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I wholeheartedly commend the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing today’s debate, for his eloquent description of the problems facing the Access to Work scheme and for allowing me a few minutes to contribute—in support of the views that he expressed.

I wanted to contribute to today’s debate as I am another example of an MP who has personally benefited from the Access to Work programme. My story has remarkable similarities to the hon. Member’s. In 2009, I was hit by a sudden-onset neurological illness. In my case, it was one called POEMS syndrome—POEMS stands for polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal gammopathy, and skin changes—but I am very familiar with GBS, the syndrome that the hon. Member experienced, as I was on the same hospital ward as patients with that condition.

My illness affected my mobility. I was in hospital—the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery on Queen Square—for five months. I was unable to stand, let alone walk, and spent a year using a wheelchair. It was during my five-month stay in hospital that I first learned about the Access to Work scheme. Without my physiotherapists and occupational therapists, I would not even have known that it existed. I worry that patients in other hospitals might not necessarily receive the guidance that I did at the National.

The Access to Work team worked closely with my then employer, making adjustments to my office environment to make it wheelchair friendly and helping to access funding to pay for taxis to and from work and to meetings outside the office. That support was crucial in allowing me to go back to work after my illness. Without it, I do not know what I would be doing now or whether I would have managed to achieve elected office. Recent reports, however, suggest that I was lucky then and even luckier compared with people now trying to join the Access to Work scheme. Stories and personal testimony mount of a scheme increasingly letting customers down, with more than 66,000 applications remaining unprocessed.

Last month, I was proud to write the foreword, alongside the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), to a report by the Disability Policy Centre, the UK’s only disability think-tank, about the Access to Work scheme. The research showed that, without the scheme, up to 50,000 disabled people across the country could find themselves out of work. At a time when the number of people out of work due to long-term illness is at a record high, I want to join hon. Members in urging the Government to give Access to Work significantly more funding, so that it can achieve faster processing and much greater visibility for its potential users.

17:20

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this debate and allowing me time to speak in it.

The National Audit Office report published earlier this year tells a story of a scheme under serious strain. Applications have more than doubled, the number of applications waiting for a decision has almost trebled, and outstanding payment requests have more than quadrupled. The NAO is clear that the backlog will not fall significantly without policy change, yet the scheme has not been substantially updated since 1994.

I want to give two examples from my constituency. The first is a self-employed artist—a young autistic person with selective mutism. She has been awarded support at £15.33 an hour, but the specialist support she needs costs between £25 and £40 an hour. Nobody will provide it at the awarded rate, so her family is stepping in unpaid. Her father can no longer work full time as a result. Not only does that have a knock-on effect on the family finances, but, if translated across the country, it would have a knock-effect on the economy.

The second example is a local business that supports autistic and ADHD adults into work. Many of them are professionals, academics and business owners—people who are very capable and want to work, but who need nuanced, skilled support with communication, executive function and workplace relationships. This business is regulated, VAT-registered, employs staff and maintains proper safeguarding, but it cannot provide services at £15 an hour, so it has had to stop taking on new Access to Work clients. The worry is that when reputable, safeguarded providers that are working with very vulnerable people withdraw from the market, the gap will be filled by those without those protections.

Those cases point to the same conclusion that the NAO reached: without real reform, this scheme will continue to fail the people it exists to serve. Rates must reflect the real cost of support. The comprehensive update the scheme has needed since 1994 cannot wait any longer.

17:23

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate and thank him for sharing his personal experience, which is so valuable and helpful when we discuss this type of issue. I know it is not the first time he has raised this matter, and he is right to focus on it.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for sharing his personal experience. I am delighted that both hon. Members are in the House and were able to use Access to Work to help them in their rehabilitation and return to employment. The Department is looking very carefully at the report my hon. Friend referred to, and we will come back to that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for their contributions, and, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who brings an interesting perspective to every debate he speaks in.

To be very clear, we want to build on our welfare state. We want it to be a working state, so that everyone has a platform of opportunity as well as a safety net. That is because everybody, regardless of disability or health condition, deserves the chance to make the most of their life. We want to remove unnecessary barriers that hold far too many people back—barriers to accessing, staying in and progressing in work—and of course, we need to reduce the disability employment gap, which at 29.5% remains far too high.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention the experience of one of my constituents, who has given me permission to provide this information. She is profoundly deaf—that is how she describes herself—and has relied on Access to Work for 25 years. Despite this, she was recently told, via a no-reply email, to telephone or risk losing support, even though email communication had already been agreed as a reasonable adjustment. She applied within the six-week priority window, yet is facing delays of more than 30 weeks. She has received repeated emails incorrectly claiming that she has not responded, and has no clear information or timescales or the support she will receive. Does the Minister agree that a scheme designed to support disabled people into work must itself be accessible, and will she ensure that agreed adjustments are followed, communications improved and priority cases are genuinely prioritised?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. The Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), has responsibility for Access to Work. He sadly cannot be with us this afternoon, but I have heard that particular case, and if my hon. Friend supplies me with the details, I will certainly raise it with the Minister.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In the light of the previous intervention, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the case just mentioned is not unique. Many such cases are happening in my constituency. People are not getting into work, and firms have gone out of business because work coaches are not being paid. Will the Minister stress upon on the Minister for Social Security and Disability the need to get this sorted?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I fully appreciate that the case is not unique, and that far too many people are not getting the service we want them to have through Access to Work. I will say a little about what we are already doing and what we plan to do next.

Access to Work is key to delivering this Government’s objectives. It removes the barriers to work for disabled people and people with health impairments, and provides essential support that people need beyond the reasonable adjustments that employers are already required to make under the Equality Act 2010. As well as being important for individuals, Access to Work is important for businesses because it helps employers to recruit disabled people confidently and, very importantly, to retain them.

The National Audit Office report has been referred to a number of times. It announced its investigation into Access to Work on 1 September, and published its report, which I warmly welcomed, on 6 February. The report highlights that Access to Work is supporting more people than ever—particularly those with mental health conditions and learning disabilities—but it also documents the pressures of administrative backlogs, delays and rising costs, and the impact on people and their employers.

The report also recognises the Department’s efforts to improve decision making and productivity within existing operational, budgetary and policy constraints, including our intention to make improvements following the consultation on last year’s Pathways to Work Green Paper. The NAO’s findings and recommendations are important, and we are reviewing them very carefully. They are a key contribution to ensuring that the scheme meets the needs of those who depend on it, while also delivering value for money.

The NAO is right to point out that “data systems hamper productivity” and do not provide officials with “an integrated view” of all customer information. There have been some improvements, for example, to allow customers to view their claims history—a response to customer feedback. Improvements are also being made to the case management system, but there is much more to do. A new standard operating procedure has been introduced to improve consistency and quality in application processing. That needs to be fully bedded in before the new work study called for by the National Audit Office is carried out, so that it can reflect the environment in which caseworkers will be operating in the future.

I want to talk about the growing demand for the scheme. As we all agree, Access to Work does a really important job, but it has come under serious strain from a major surge in demand since the pre-pandemic period. In 2024-25, although they were down somewhat that year, approval volumes were 59% higher than they had been in 2019-20. Spending on Access to Work in 2024-25 of £321 million was, in real terms, twice what it was in 2018-19 before the pandemic. The number of people receiving a grant—74,190—was almost double, and the number of applications in 2024-25—157,000—was more than double the number in 2018-19. Many more people are seeking support, particularly for mental health impairments, and that is now the largest group approved for payment, at 31%.

Funding for support workers represents the largest share of expenditure, at 71%. The job aide support worker category replaced British Sign Language interpreters in 2024-25 as the category with the highest expenditure, at £63.9 million. Spending on BSL interpreter support workers was £62.8 million. Some of the increased demand has arisen from better public awareness of Access to Work. I know that hon. Members were concerned about people knowing about the scheme.

[Caroline Voaden]

Are the Government evaluating the difference between the cost of paying Access to Work at a higher rate, so that people can actually get the support they need, and the cost of them being on universal credit if they are unable to work?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Department for Work and Pensions will always be looking at and evaluating the schemes we have, and what the cost is if a scheme is not available to people, so that work will be underway.

I want to go back to the issue of people being aware of the Access to Work scheme. Some will remember that Access to Work was once talked about as the Government’s best-kept secret, but the figures I have just read out show that it is not anymore. That is a positive thing; we want more disabled people being supported to move into and stay in employment. However, managing that surge in demand has damaged customer service. It has caused a substantial backlog in applications, which many service users have been inconvenienced by. In response, we have substantially increased the number of staff working on Access to Work, from 500 in March 2024 to 648 this March. We have streamlined the process by removing some routine requests for information, but I agree that serious problems remain.

To protect employment opportunities, case managers prioritise applications where the customer is due to start a job within four weeks. In 2025, staff allocated 96% of those applications within 28 days. We have also heard of cases where someone who previously received Access to Work is denied it, or where awards have been reduced even though the circumstances have not changed. To be clear, the policy has not changed. There has been some misunderstanding about that, so it is important that I make it very clear: there has not been a change in the policy. There will be policy changes, but they have not happened yet. What is true is that, over the past year, officials have worked to apply the existing guidance more consistently. That means that some awards have changed at the point of renewal, but the policy itself has not changed. It is just that the existing policy has been applied more consistently.

Another issue that has caused concern is the withdrawal of routine email access. The reason for that was concern about the security of the often very sensitive data being sent in relation to Access to Work, and the risk to data privacy. We are working on a new digital capability for Access to Work, which will allow documents to be uploaded online. Email correspondence is still available for those who need it as a reasonable adjustment.

On the reform of Access to Work, as I have said, there is no doubt that serious problems remain with the programme. Since it was first designed over 30 years ago, the style, scope and cost of the support that people require has changed significantly, yet Access to Work has stayed largely the same. As a result, there is a strong case for reform. In last year’s Pathways to Work Green Paper last year, we consulted on the future of Access to Work and how to improve it to help more disabled people into work. Reform needs to be informed by the views and experiences of those who use or could use the service. We recently concluded the Access to Work collaboration committees, with disabled people’s organisations and lived-experience users, to inform and to challenge the design of the future Access to Work scheme.

We will work closely with the Department’s recently formed independent disability advisory panel on the next phase. The panel, under the chairwomanship of the disability activist Zara Todd, will connect the expertise of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions with the design and delivery of our policies, particularly around employment support. The panel has made clear its interest in Access to Work, and has already had its first meeting specifically on the topic. Once we have a reform proposal, we will look at the timescale and work closely with stakeholders to make the transition from the current arrangements to the new ones as painless as possible. We are taking some time over the changes, but I think the House will agree that it is important to get them right.

In conclusion, Access to Work is vital to our mission to break down the barriers to the workplace for disabled people and those with health conditions. We need to continue improvements to the NHS so that people can access the treatment and support that they need earlier and more consistently. Reductions, at last, in NHS waiting lists are really good news. We need Sir Charlie Mayfield’s “Keep Britain Working” review, working closely with employers, to shape future workplace environments where disabled people can thrive. We have also set up the Pathways to Work service, and we need Connect to Work and WorkWell to deliver personalised employment and health support. Through the Timms review, we need personal independence payments to support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment.

Our goal is that everyone who can work gets the support, confidence and opportunities that they need to realise their full potential. Those who have spoken in this debate have been absolutely right to highlight the importance of Access to Work in achieving that goal.

Question put and agreed to.

Police Federation

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

17:38

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Police Federation.

I am pleased to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will start by briefly sharing some of my experiences as a police officer, so brace yourselves because some of it is not very nice. In my time in policing, I was the first to arrive at a triple homicide scene. It was a mother who had killed her own three children. I saw people take their last breaths on Earth at road accidents; I pulled a suicidal man down from a road bridge; I knocked on people’s doors to tell them that their loved ones had passed away; and I was called to mentally ill people self-harming down to the bone with a razor. I was spat at by the people I was arresting and, of course, subject to the most disgusting verbal abuse from the people I was looking after in custody inside the police station. That is the reality of policing. If only it were just about catching criminals, but it never has been and it never will be.

I mention those incidents not because my experience was particularly notable; it was precisely the opposite. That is the reality of being a frontline police officer. They see all of that; in one minute they have to be physically tough in the face of aggression, and in the next they have to be emotionally sensitive with a victim of serious crime. That is what our police officers do day in, day out, working earlies, lates and nights on the public’s behalf. We owe them so much for doing the essential work that most people would not have the guts to even consider.

Being a police officer is mostly a thankless job. They get to the end of a long shift doing their bit for society and they feel that the politicians, the media and the courts do not back them up. Perhaps that is an issue for another day, but in the meantime, we have to ask who is looking out for the interests of our police officers. That brings me to the Police Federation.

The Police Act 1919 stated that, given their unique role in society, police officers could not join an ordinary trade union or take strike action. To be clear, I am not seeking to question that today. However, in recognising the need for representation, that legislation established one staff association to represent police officers: the Police Federation. That was reaffirmed in the Police Act 1996. I want to pay tribute to the many hard-working federation representatives over the decades, including those serving in forces across the country today, for the work they have done representing their local members. I do not diminish their work in supporting individual police officers in their time of need, but I am afraid that the national leadership of the Police Federation is rotten. It is not right that 140,000 frontline officers have to pay their subscriptions and put up with that because it is the only staff association that they are legally allowed to join.

Over the last two years, the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation has paid himself £1.4 million in salary and bonuses. That is paid through the monthly subscriptions from police officers’ wages. That fact alone is shocking, but it is the culmination of years of failure. Most recently, senior members of the federation who asked questions about its governance were purged from the organisation. Elected representatives who reflected the legitimate concerns of frontline police officers on policing issues were also purged. How can there ever be reform if those who ask questions and could have helped build a better federation are seen as the problem?

This issue goes back even further. There was the disastrous handling of the changes to police pensions, where it was found that the federation misled its own members, failed to communicate with them, and victimised officers who were forced to take action on their own. Cultural change was promised after the scathing Normington review of 2014, but a decade later things were still so bad that another report, the Bousted review, which was completed just last year, described

“an arrogant and inward-looking culture born of a centralist mindset and”—

crucially—

“a feeling that the interests and views of rank-and-file members do not matter.”

If so, what is the federation really for?

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am very interested in hearing the hon. Member’s evident experience. I would like to put on record that I am the chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. It is extremely important that police officers have representation. In only the last three years, we have heard about tragic cases of suicides and hundreds of attempted suicides. It is also evident that the governance of the Police Federation has to be adapted and improved immensely.

[Jonathan Hinder]

I would not dispute that one jot. The present national leadership say that

“a transformed Federation is the best way to deliver effective representation”

but I am afraid that officers have heard it all before. I dare say they will hear it again unless radical action is taken. It is because of this repeated systemic and cultural failure that I have come to the conclusion that only if police officers are given the freedom to establish and join an alternative will they get the representation they need and deserve.

The Police Federation has very few advocates within policing. I thank the many officers who have contacted me to say how pleased they are to see this campaign getting attention, with many confirming that only the monopoly and fear of being without representation when they really need it keeps them subscribing.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Member says that policing is often a thankless task. On behalf of the House, I pay tribute to and thank him and the many other fantastic police officers, including in Dorset police, for their work. The hon. Member talks about the fairness of representation. I had a constituent whose daughter, a police officer, was sexually assaulted by a fellow police officer. She was dismissed from the service as a result of a misconduct process that failed to recognise her trauma. Both officers were represented by the Police Federation, and the other officer got more senior representation based on his rank. That cannot be right.

[Jonathan Hinder]

I am not discussing that today, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Having diversity of options for officers could be useful in instances such as that.

I thank the National Police Association, formed of former federation reps and staff, for campaigning on this issue before me, in their own time. I thank the Metropolitan police’s network of women for sharing their concerns. The network’s leadership told me:

“Officers are effectively being asked to fund campaigns that they fundamentally do not support, without transparency, consultation or accountability.”

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s experience and advocacy of police officers throughout the country. In my constituency, local officers from the federation have been supporting police officers. This debate is not about them, but how can we support them by giving them more choice?

[Jonathan Hinder]

I am so pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned that, as I briefly did earlier, because I do not mean to diminish the work of many federation representatives. There are many brilliant federation representatives and leaders in some parts of the country. This debate is very much about the national organisation and whether it can reform itself.

The federation says that officers having choice of representation

“would weaken, not strengthen, the voices of police officers”

but it is hard to believe that it could be weaker than it has been in recent years. To reiterate, this would not require Government funds. It is not about striking or unionisation. The federation can remain a staff association for police officers to join if they so wish, but allowing officers to choose a staff association that truly represents their interests would send a powerful message to our police officers that their interests and voices matter.

I will finish with something mildly amusing. The Police Federation has been running a campaign called “Copped Enough: What the Police Take Home is Criminal”, which is about how police officer’s wages since 2010 have seen cuts in real terms. That is a worthy cause. Would anyone do the things I described at the start of my speech for a starting salary of £30,000? During the time of running that campaign, however, the federation has been led by someone paying themselves £700,000 a year from police officers’ subscriptions, and he was recently arrested on suspicion of corruption. To remind Members, the campaign that his organisation has been running is called “What the Police Take Home is Criminal”. It is hard not to laugh, but in truth, it is a massive slap in the face for the police officers effectively paying those ridiculous wages, whose interests the federation should be serving.

I am grateful for the Government’s engagement with the issue so far, and the Minister’s response to my letter, which was signed by colleagues across parties three weeks ago. I note that her response states that

“the Government stands ready to bring forward reforms to ensure that the interests of rank-and-file officers are properly, effectively and robustly represented.”

I hope that, having heard the case set out today, the Government will seriously consider simply giving police officers the freedom to form and join an alternative body, so that their interests are effectively represented.

17:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for highlighting the good work done by the federation, and for sharing his personal stories and experiences. Some of the things he referred to would have been incredibly harrowing; I am not sure I could deal with any of them.

I will take a slightly different point of view. I have a very good working relationship with the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, which is well respected by police officers on the ground. I will not refer to the same things as the hon. Gentleman, because I do not have any personal experiences of them happening—as far as I am aware, they are not happening now. Maybe someone will come to me later and say, “Well, actually, this is not right”, but while the federation is not perfect, I am not perfect, nor is the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in this Chamber, and that is how we are in this world.

It is also nice to see the Minister in her place; there is no doubt that she is earning her money. She was in the Chamber all yesterday afternoon and is now back to take on another role in Westminster Hall, but she is still smiling. She has done well, and I wish her well.

The Police Federation plays a tremendous role in supporting individual members, from not only the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary before them, but the corporate body of policing. Now more than ever, we need people in the know advocating for police personnel and the service in general. For years, I have taken the advice of the police and the federation, and have asked for greater resources for them as an elected representative. We advocated for them in the Assembly, of which I was a Member for 12 years before coming here, and in this place, where we have warned of a gathering storm.

We also warned about the issue of wages, which the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted. He referred to pensions, which police officers back home are having problems with as well. We warned that if our police service is starved of the financial muscle that it needs, we will lose not just numbers on a spreadsheet but safety on the streets. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland, and, indeed, each federation, has delivered a wake-up call that should ring in the ears of every Minister in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—that our police service has been reduced to a skeleton.

The hon. Gentleman referred to wages, and the men and women of the PSNI are not just employees but the glue holding society together. I put on record my thanks to each and every one of them for all they do, yet what is their reward? They face a £23 million deficit while waiting months for the pay rises that they earned in the line of fire, which was literal, not just a matter words, for many officers in Northern Ireland.

I know that this issue is devolved and that the Minister does not have a specific role in relation to this, but she has had numerous visits to Northern Ireland, so I am sure that she has had the opportunity to talk to the police service, and particularly the chief constable, who also comes over here on occasion. However, the funding is centrally allocated, and this issue is replicated throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need a UK-wide uplift in funding to support officers to do their jobs.

In his introduction, the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe referred to some of the things that happen to police officers, and I will give a couple of examples. Their vehicles are rammed in the car chases we see on TV programmes. In Belfast and across Northern Ireland, such chases happen all the time and are just as aggressive, nasty and criminal as they are on TV. Police officers are spat on and verbally abused. They are assaulted nine times a day, on average—for a police officer, man or woman, every day is a difficult day of challenge—only to see the perpetrators walk away with measly fines and suspended sentences, when they should clearly have more. Little wonder that the Police Federation highlights low morale. Enough is enough. We need deterrent sentencing that sends a no-nonsense message: “If you touch a police officer, you will feel the full weight of the law.” The time must fit the crime.

The effectiveness of the Police Federation can be measured only in our response to its reports, to its advocacy and to its recent pleas on behalf of its personnel, who need greater support from this place. I know that the Minister, like all hon. Members here, will want to thank the federation for performing its thankless task, and to thank police officers individually and collectively for all they do. More than that, we need the Minister to act on the federation’s words and to support those who do a vital job at great personal cost.

I know that the Minister visits Northern Ireland on a semi-regular basis. I would be interested to hear what discussions she has had with Chief Constable Jon Boutcher and his personnel. I am personally indebted to them for their protection and for all they do for my constituents and people across Northern Ireland. We would not have a society without the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and without the Police Federation for Northern Ireland to look after the PSNI.

17:56

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Although the Police Federation serves a purpose by taking an active role in raising issues affecting frontline officers, particularly on pay and workforce issues, I am not sure that it is still fit for purpose as the sole representative body of 140,000 police officers across England and Wales.

In the last few months we have seen significant failings across the structure, with ongoing investigations into corruption and the accountability of internal processes. Taken together, those issues risk further undermining the federation’s credibility as a representative body. I feel that there has never been a better opportunity to open a discussion about ending the statutory monopoly on police representation. I believe that, so long as operational independence, integrity and safeguards are robust and protected, as a workforce the police deserve the greatest choice in who represents their interests. It really matters to me that the police in Dagenham and Rainham get the very best there is.

Having spoken to police officers in Dagenham and Rainham, I know how much pressure they are under and how they often find themselves in terrible and complex situations. I and the people of Dagenham and Rainham appreciate them greatly. With that in mind, I welcome this debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for his work. I support the “Breaking the Monopoly” campaign, and I hope this debate encourages greater parliamentary scrutiny of section 64 of the Police Act 1996.

17:58

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing this important debate.

I was contacted by my constituent Dan, who is a serving police officer. He tells me that the current level of support from the Police Federation is, at times, woeful, and that the best alternative support available is often found in informal peer support networks run by volunteers. Dan wants to be represented by an effective body that better serves the interests of its members and provides meaningful support on the issues that affect officers. He has serious reservations about whether the federation is delivering on its core purpose. Dan wants fundamental change to ensure fairness, choice and genuine wellbeing for those who serve.

As we have heard, the Police Federation currently holds a de facto monopoly on representation, leaving officers with little real choice and limited accountability. That situation has been made worse by recent scandals. Dan tells me that those controversies have seriously undermined confidence in the federation. As acknowledged in the policing White Paper, it is vital that police officers have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them. Officers deserve robust support.

I reiterate that the mental health and wellbeing of officers are also major concerns. Police work long, demanding shifts, often with insufficient recovery time. That is not sustainable either for the individuals concerned or for the effectiveness of the service as a whole. There is a clear need for greater support to ensure that officers are able to rest adequately between shifts and for sufficient funding, so that local services can offer proactive mental health and wellbeing check-ups, for example, every six months. Prevention and early intervention are key to maintaining a healthy and resilient workforce.

Police officers are stretched, and they are having to do so much for so little, so I urge the Minister to consider the views of hard-working police officers when considering any reforms. I am sure she will agree that it is imperative that they have an organisation that truly speaks for them, and one in which they can have the utmost confidence.

I conclude by taking this opportunity to thank the police officers and support staff in Eastleigh for their dedication and commitment to our local communities. I am so pleased that, after several years of campaigning, our officers and support staff are going to get a centrally located police station at last. We must ensure that our police are properly resourced, fairly represented and fully supported to carry out their vital work.

18:01

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, even though it was slightly unexpected for me to be speaking today. I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for securing this important debate.

The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the overwhelming majority of honest, hard-working members of the police. We recognise the immense value of their commitment and service, while at the same time continuing to hold forces to account to ensure that communities are kept safe. In my Chelmsford constituency, it has been a real privilege to join Essex police on patrol and to see at first hand the brilliant work they do to keep our community safe.

It is crucial that police officers are properly supported and have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them: the Police Federation of England and Wales. With police officers having no choice in their representation or where their union dues go, the federation must be effective and supportive to all officers. That is vital for retaining existing officers and increasing officer numbers, as the Government have pledged. The reforms recently announced in the policing White Paper must be implemented in the right way, and they must not come at the cost of officer welfare. The Police Federation has an important role in ensuring that.

Sadly, the ongoing police investigation into senior office holders within the Police Federation has naturally shaken confidence in the organisation. That is unfortunately the tip of the iceberg in a longer period of faltering confidence in the organisation. Accounts of poor culture identified in independent reports, particularly towards women, must be dealt with. I have heard from senior female police officers who have argued that allowing them to choose their representative body would be welcome due to these repeated failings. They have shared troubling accounts of where, irrespective of their senior police positions, they have experienced marginalisation, isolation and ridicule after raising issues within the Police Federation.

In response, the Police Federation has committed to an ongoing transformation programme. However, women in the police have also expressed concern that some of the proposed measures to improve the federation are inappropriate from the outset. For example, the federation has spoken of developing a service for victims and witnesses who are federation members, with a particular focus on women victims. That is, of course, welcome, but women have noted the inherent conflict that the current system means a victim or witness can only be supported by the same staff association that also represents the officer who may be the subject of the allegation or criminal investigation. As one officer put it:

“for many women, that does not feel safe, fair, or credible”.

Consequently, the absence of alternative representation can lead to some officers feeling trapped at exactly the time when they should feel most supported and protected.

Like the rest of us, police officers have the right to freedom of association, guaranteed by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. That has formed the basis of the National Police Association’s campaign and legal challenge to allow officers to choose their representative body. In the light of that, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I would encourage the Minister to review the effectiveness of police officer representation, including the potential benefits of reforming the legislation in this area to allow officers the option to choose a different organisation to represent them. Our police officers deserve to be listened to and supported by their representative body, and the Government should now listen and support them.

18:04

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank you, Mrs Harris, for chairing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for sharing his experiences and for securing this important debate. I also acknowledge the passionate and detailed contributions from Members who have offered their insight into the current and recent issues facing the Police Federation and its members. I take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to hard-working police officers across the country. The work they do, day in and day out, to keep our communities safe is second to none. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, for which they deserve all our thanks and admiration.

Let us be honest: having a debate on the effectiveness of the Police Federation right now is probably not the toughest call. I will be careful not to stray into matters that are still subject to legal proceedings, but it is obvious why rank-and-file officers are deeply concerned. The arrests we have seen are extremely serious, and it is right that they are fully and properly investigated, but these issues do not sit in isolation. They add to wider concerns raised by the federation’s members, whether on governance, the handling of pension discussions or employment tribunal cases. Furthermore, legal cases involving the federation, which have been dropped, highlight concerns about free speech in the organisation, with officials seemingly being censored.

Every police officer deserves strong and effective representation. They do the toughest and most demanding of jobs, often under significant pressure and with clear restrictions to ensure political neutrality. The least they should expect is a federation that backs them properly. The federation does important work, and I am sure it supports officers well in many individual cases, but there are clearly bigger structural concerns that need to be addressed. Colleagues will remember that, at the start of the last decade, action was taken by a previous Government to push for reform of the federation. The Normington review set out a number of serious issues, while also highlighting the importance of the federation having the confidence of members, something that has come through strongly again in this debate.

At that time, the Government were clear that change was needed. As the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, said,

“if the Federation does not start to turn itself around, you must not be under the impression that the government will let things remain as they are.”

That warning was not issued lightly. It reflected a determination to ensure that the federation did not lapse into the kinds of practices identified in the Normington review, and it was underpinned by a broader conviction that the federation must be an authentic, credible and outward-looking voice for policing in this country. It cannot afford to become insular. Rather, it must reflect, with honesty and integrity, the experience of many thousands of officers who serve with dedication and courage.

I appreciate that the federation has recently conducted reviews and embarked on a journey of improvement, but events continue to raise significant questions about its performance. As such, I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure the organisation is performing in the interests of all its members. The Police Federation was rightly created by an Act of Parliament over a century ago, which places a responsibility on all of us to ensure that it works for all of its members. Has the Department made an assessment of the organisation’s leadership and the structure of its current governance, and is it planning to do so after the legal matters have concluded?

Although I recognise the challenges within the federation, it is critical to maintain the political neutrality of the police. Any measure that weakens the independence of officers would be disadvantageous to the excellent work carried out by officers working across the country. I want to see a federation that supports police officers and helps them to do their jobs effectively. We ask officers to do challenging work. As such, it is right that they are supported by a federation that works effectively and properly for them.

18:04

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on his career in policing, on everything he shared with us and on securing this debate. The start of his speech was incredibly powerful, and reflected what I hear often from our police both in my incredibly privileged position as Policing Minister and in my constituency role in Croydon.

I have heard of many cases, such as that of a police officer in Croydon who had to hold the wound of someone who had been stabbed while they waited for the ambulance. The trauma of that side of the role is there loud and clear for everyone to see, but there is also cumulative trauma from all the other things that have to be done, from how the police are sometimes treated and from how they feel that they do not necessarily have the support of Government or the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe described that well, and I cannot do it better.

Tomorrow, I will spend the day trying to be as incognito as possible while going around with a neighbourhood police officer. I will spend the whole day on a shift and hear as much as I can about the lived experience of being a police officer. I am sad not to have done that before this debate, but I am looking forward to it very much. However, my hon. Friend made a powerful speech and, as I think all other Members in the debate have said, the police do a brilliant job and we should not underestimate what they do. We should thank them, never forget what we ask of them and always do right by them.

Within that context, the Government are trying to reform policing to enable the police to do the job that they came into the service to do, whether that means ripping away the bureaucracy of a lot of the tasks that the police are given—historically, we have not invested in new technology and pieces of kit—or putting police back into our neighbourhoods, so that we can do the things that the public want us to do without public frustration at the lack of response. Of course, the biggest police reform in 200 years is looking at the whole structure within policing. In that context, police officers still have to get on with their job; they not only have a difficult job, but have quite a lot of change heading their way. We need to respect that.

In the middle of all that is the Police Federation, which has an interesting role. A lot of Members have said the same thing: on the one hand, the police do a brilliant job, and a lot of the fed reps do a brilliant job, but on the other hand, something is clearly wrong with how the federation has been functioning. We have talked about this before, but since I became the Minister in September I have seen the fed every two weeks and we have a catch-up. Most of the conversations are about what we are doing on the transformation journey, what has happened and what is coming down the line. I think that it is fair to say there has been frustration, such as about the 33 recommendations for changes needed in the federation made by Baroness Bousted in her review. The change is not coming in the way that people expect, as fast as people want, or in a way that we would expect.

Government have a role, but we do not have quite the same relationship with any other organisation; we have a statutory responsibility. The legislation states:

“There shall continue to be a Police Federation for England and Wales for the purpose of representing members of the police forces in England and Wales, and special constables”,

and that in fulfilling that purpose, the federation

“must…protect the public interest…maintain high standards of conduct, and…maintain high standards of transparency.”

Our obligation as a Government to ensure that those things are happening is set in law. Clearly, therefore, we take the question of whether those functions are fulfilled in the way that they should be very seriously.

It is no secret that we have been frustrated, as have many others, at the pace and scale of change. Of course, we saw arrests that came in the middle of this conversation as well, which have made things very difficult. We were very explicit about this in the White Paper on police reform. We said:

“We expect to see clear plans and…demonstrable improvement”

in the fed’s operation. We also said:

“In the absence of such improvements, this Government stands ready to bring forward reforms to ensure that the interests of rank-and-file officers are properly, effectively and robustly represented.”

Given the arrests since the publication of the White Paper, it is very hard for the federation to give us the reassurance that we need, because of everything that has happened. We are continuing the conversations with the federation. There is a lot of interaction between officials in my Department and the fed, and we are sharing data and information, and talking these things through.

I do not think that anyone can pretend that the status quo is an option. It is not. This Government stand ready to do the right thing. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), asked what we are considering. I am not in a position to say what the next steps look like, but clearly matters have moved on and we need to ensure that there is proper representation for rank and file. The judicial review, as well as the criminal investigation, means that there is a limit to what I can say.

I very much welcome this debate and the contributions to it. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind remarks and I will see the Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland soon. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) talked about what she and the police in her community need, and she said that she is supporting the campaign. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) talked about the importance of mental health.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), talked about the challenges for women members of the fed in particular, which is something that is very live to me as well. I have attended several meetings in which I have talked about the issues that arise if a police officer is, for example, in a relationship with another police officer and there is domestic abuse in that relationship. What we do in that space is very difficult; there are lots of challenges there.

I thank everybody who has attended this debate, including the shadow Minister, for their thoughtful comments. I think that we all know that there is a problem and I recognise the frustration felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe, because he wants to see movement. We are looking at this issue very carefully. We are very mindful of the arrests that have happened, very mindful that we have not seen the pace of change that we want, and very mindful of our legal obligation to make sure that the rank and file have representation.

18:17

[Jonathan Hinder]

I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for their support for police officers. I know that the effectiveness of the Police Federation is not necessarily a debate that most MPs are engaged with, so I really appreciate their coming here today and advocating on behalf of police officers in their patches.

I also thank other colleagues for sharing the experiences of police officers, and for talking about Northern Ireland. The debate is not really focused on Northern Ireland—it is about the Police Federation of England and Wales—but it was interesting to hear about the situation there.

I thank everyone for the collegiate nature of the whole debate, which was evident from all sides. I really appreciate people attending and paying attention to the issues, and I hope that we can continue to work on a cross-party basis to reach a much better state of police representation in the very near future.

Finally, and most importantly of all, I thank all the police officers across the whole United Kingdom for what they do for us. I am proud to have been one of them and I am honoured to have a small role to play now in speaking up for them as an MP.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Police Federation.

18:18

Sitting adjourned.