Westminster Hall

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 3 June 2026

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Small Towns: Transport Links

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As you can see, a significant number of Members wish to participate. After the opening speech there will be an immediate time limit of three minutes per person. To discourage added minutes through interventions, I am not going to allow an added minute for any intervention. That does not mean you cannot intervene—you can—but the person speaking needs to know that they are not getting extra time as a result. I hope that is clear. I call Andy MacNae to move the motion.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport links for small towns.

It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your firm chairship. I thank the Minister for attending today. He has been a keen advocate for small towns, and I am sure a lot of the issues we will talk about today will be familiar to him.

Connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It underpins economic growth, but it also shapes something far more immediate and personal: our health, our independence and a sense of belonging. For our small towns, the quality of connection sends a powerful message about whether we are seen, valued and included in our national story. It would be a mistake to think of this as a question simply of how towns connect to cities. It is about the everyday journeys that define people’s lives: how they get from their front door to work, to school, to the shop or to the doctor.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

To end the exemption for old buses that are not fully accessible under the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 will mean that kids from rural constituencies will not be able to get a place on a bus to sixth form anymore, due to the limited bus stock and funding. Will the hon. Member join me in urging the Government—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The next ground rule is that we do not read interventions. I hope that is clear. An intervention is an intervention. It is not a pre-prepared speech to read into the record for the benefit of the local press. I call Andy MacNae.

[Andy MacNae]

Thank you, Sir Roger. There will be an extensive section on buses—pages 75 to 300—so I am sure we will cover a lot of that sort of ground. Connectivity really matters for connecting communities. Ultimately, it is about how easily and affordably we can move through the place that we call home.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The biggest single issue holding back economic growth in my constituency is the poor transport connections. In a non-mayoral area, we have found it difficult to access development funding to solve that problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to find a way of getting money into non-mayoral areas so that we can punch above our weight and be on a level playing field?

[Andy MacNae]

That is a real inequity within regions now, and I will cover that in my conclusion. It is a fundamental that we have to address.

We must begin with empowering people to actively travel by walking, wheeling or cycling to work or school or to see friends. True connectivity is not just about how we get from one place to another; it is about having real choice in how we do so. At present, too many people in our small towns feel that they have to rely on a car even for the shortest journeys. For many, it is not that they are unwilling to walk or ride; it is just that they do not feel they have the option. What they need is not persuasion but safe, accessible, well-designed environments to make active travel the obvious and practical choice. That means getting the basics right, from ensuring our pavements are usable for everyone—including those with disabilities or parents with prams—to safer crossings, better lighting and dedicated routes that give people the confidence to walk, wheel or cycle as part of their daily routine.

Within this context I would like to focus on travel to school. We can all recognise the benefits of more children walking or riding to school on health and on reducing congestion. It is generally a more relaxed start to the day. Parents know that, but far too many concerns over safety are a key barrier: speeding heavy goods vehicles, narrow and blocked pavements and a lack of safe crossings present challenges. It is no surprise that in small towns and villages, only 30% of children walk or ride to school. For cities the figures are much higher at around 60%, showing how much room there is for improvement, and that inequity can be addressed. Living Streets, working with forward-thinking councils like Blackburn with Darwen, has shown a way forward: local authorities working proactively with schools to deliver evidence-based travel initiatives and infrastructure.

But this sort of best practice is still far too patchy. Last year in Lancashire, my 11-year-old constituent William Cartwright collected 1,400 signatures for a petition asking the county council to simply install a safe crossing, to allow him and his fellow pupils to walk safely to school. Despite this clear public support, Lancashire county council said no, citing the tired old excuse that not enough people have been killed or injured—yet—on the road in question. The idea of working with the school proactively to enable safe travel seemed entirely alien to it. We need to do better. I call on the county council to think again and work with me on this, and I call on the Government to clearly lay down best practice in their road safety and active travel guidance.

More broadly, active travel must be seen as integral to the wider transport system, not separate from it. Walking and cycling are what connect people to buses, trains and trams. When these modes work together, we create a system that is not only more efficient but healthier, more affordable and more sustainable for the communities it serves.

I turn to buses, which are a crucial part of the transport mix that we have to get right. They are vital for the more vulnerable in our society—the elderly, the young and the disabled—yet 56% of county and unitary council areas still lack adequate provision. For small towns, a lack of buses limits access to essential services.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that small towns and large villages share similar challenges? I think of Winterbourne in my community, where people are still unsure whether they will have a regular, reliable bus service once the M4 overbridge reopens soon.

[Andy MacNae]

Absolutely—there is rural isolation, and I will be talking about a large village in my constituency in a moment. When it comes to small towns and villages, it is a spectrum. These are communities that have been left behind for far too long, and they are the ones we now need to prioritise.

The lack of buses limits access to essential services such as healthcare, education and employment, exacerbates social isolation and forces people into higher-cost alternatives.

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

One of my constituents had a stroke last year. While he jumped through all the hoops required by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to get his driving licence restored, he was stranded in a rural village with no bus service, struggling to get to shops, medical appointments and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both DVLA delays and the lack of rural bus services need to be addressed by the Government?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. It is quite clear that a number of Members who are not on the speakers’ list are seeking to intervene. That is fine, but please understand that you are expected to remain in the Chamber to hear the winding-up speeches.

[Andy MacNae]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

The lack of buses disproportionately impacts people in small towns and villages, so it is crucial that we get this right. Fundamentally, we need to recognise that buses are a public service, not a commercial enterprise. I am pleased and proud that this Government have fully recognised that right from the start. The retention of the £3 bus fare cap and investment of £1 billion a year to support bus routes will benefit thousands of my constituents.

Looking forward, the Government’s commitment to empower local communities to take control of bus services, along with the requirement on local government to identify “socially necessary” routes, has the potential to deliver the joined-up services we need. But our reforms will only succeed if we address the practical barriers to delivering the day-to-day changes that our communities require. To give one example, in Edgworth near Darwen in my constituency, residents rely on healthcare, shops and schools in Bolton, yet over the years, bus services have been occasional and short-lived. This transport isolation is the single biggest issue raised with me by the community. When I spoke to a group of teenagers, they were clear that the best thing we could do to improve things for them would be simply to offer a bus into Bolton. Older residents say the same, so why have we not got one?

While there is a need for a subsidy, the fundamental issue seems to be that Bolton is in Greater Manchester, so the route would cross local authority boundaries. For years, no one seemed to want to take responsibility. Greater Manchester said it could not fund the route because residents of Blackburn with Darwen would be the beneficiaries, and Blackburn was unwilling to fund it because residents were going to spend their money in Greater Manchester—not exactly a joined-up system.

Things are changing, and I am pleased to say that a study commissioned by Blackburn with Darwen has finally recommended that the council get behind a new bus route. That is exactly the sort of thing that Government bus funding is supposed to enable; we just need to make it actually happen.

This cross-border issue is one that we face across Rossendale and Darwen. Its impact is compounded by the fact that so many of our crucial services are in other local authority areas, and that is true of so many other small towns. Solving this is a crucial test for the implementation of bus improvement policy, and I argue that it should be incumbent on existing mayoral authorities to work proactively with neighbouring councils to eliminate cross-border transport inequity.

Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on roads. Roads are an obvious and crucial connector. Many small towns are built around one or two key roads. Unlike in a city, where there are lots of options, when these roads are closed or disrupted by street works, the entire community feels it. For instance, in both Rossendale and Darwen, we have one main road that runs through the whole valley. When it is blocked or the traffic is severe, it is not just an inconvenience; it has serious impacts on local businesses and residents. Indeed, several well-established local businesses have told me they are considering leaving the area unless action is taken on congestion.

Unco-ordinated, overrunning roadworks are a constraint on small towns and must be treated as such. Councils need the powers to properly police contractors and incentivise quick completion. I welcome the Government’s support for continuing the roll-out of lane rental schemes, which are proven to reduce congestion on the busiest roads. I will call on all local authorities, including Lancashire county council, to work with the Government and act with urgency to tackle this blight on our towns.

Finally, we come to rail. For so many small towns this is a crucial connection, yet services are often patchy and unreliable—if they exist at all. There are still far too many towns without an accessible rail link, leaving them on the edges of opportunity, not through a lack of ambition but through a lack of connection.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent speech that he is making on a really important debate. My constituency, similar to his, has a range of small towns with different access to modes of transport. One of them is Swanscombe, home to the collapsed Galley Hill Road, which I have mentioned several times. Its train station is in a deep chalk cutting, and there is no accessibility. Does he agree that it is about not just having modes of transport, but making them accessible to all?

[Andy MacNae]

Absolutely, and I know that several colleagues here have been great champions of accessibility to rail links. It is absolutely fundamental.

On the lack of connection, Rossendale remains the only local authority in the north without a direct rail link, despite thousands of residents commuting into Manchester every week—it is only 15 miles away. The old railway line still exists; all we need to do is reinstate it as a commuter line. Rossendale borough council has fully explored the costs and benefits in its City Valley link proposal. It is not a speculative idea, but a credible, carefully developed proposal with a strong business case behind it.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we think about growth, we need to think about being strategic in how we connect all our railways, buses and so on? A new airport is going to be opening in Doncaster. We need to be thinking about the future and how we connect that to the rail network as we go forward.

[Andy MacNae]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point, and I will touch on this issue. Thinking of things as a whole, not as individual, isolated projects, is crucial for the transport systems that we actually need.

Rossendale has put forward its plan. Surveys show that the public overwhelming support it, because communities in Rossendale understand exactly what a rail link would mean. By opening up the valley, we could become a much more attractive destination for businesses looking to relocate to lower-cost areas. Existing businesses would have access to bigger skills pools and reduced supply costs. Jobs in central Manchester would become more viable, and footfall in our town centres would significantly grow. This is pretty much the definition of a growth no-brainer, yet like so many small-town infrastructure projects, the proposal has got nowhere. It has been consistently overlooked or rejected through a narrow use of old Green Book guidance, whereas just down the road we see multibillion-pound projects, which we cannot even connect to, being given the green light.

To add insult to injury, Lancashire combined county authority did not even include the City Valley link in its recent transport infrastructure plan, despite Rossendale being clearly identified as suffering from transport isolation. I hope that is just a simple mistake, and I call on the combined authority to ensure that this vital link is included in the final version of the plan. I hope the Minister will support me in this endeavour.

Similarly, I have been calling for the restoration of Lower Darwen station, which I am pleased to say is now in the implementation plan. This represents an opportunity to finally reconnect a community that has been cut off for too long. By providing easy access to the Manchester-Clitheroe line, the station would unlock new jobs and opportunities in the whole community. In both Rossendale and Lower Darwen, it is not just about a railway line; it is about finally giving our towns the infrastructure they need to thrive.

Outside the south-east, our small towns have felt left behind for far too long, and persistent poor connectivity is a stark indicator of this. We need to be honest: this has not just been an accident of fate; historical Government policy and practice have been key factors. The Green Book has been consistently misused, with assessors simply relying on benefit-cost ratios, which inevitably favour better-off urban areas. Alongside that, our economic policy has defaulted to the city-focused, trickle-down approach.

Although the 2024 Green Book review and Government initiatives have put us in a potentially better place, issues do remain. We need a clear focus from Ministers to ensure that civil servants are genuinely implementing the Green Book recommendations and that local authorities—particularly non-mayoral areas—have the capacity and capability to develop robust business cases. We also need to move beyond the city-centric economic model and towards one that values all places. In that regard, we have a long way to go. If we look at the list of investment programmes, infrastructure projects and policy pathfinders—

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the recent changes to the funding formulas for public transport. Does he agree that the recent review is very much weighted towards population and is therefore further detrimental to rural communities like mine? In Chippenham, it is not a case of when the bus comes; it is a case of if the bus comes. Does he agree that the Minister needs to relook at some of the funding formulas?

[Andy MacNae]

The hon. Lady raises a range of complex points, which the Minister will probably deal with in detail. I do not agree with her about buses, because there is plenty of local flexibility to allow that. When it comes to the Green Book, it is the misuse of the financial case—its prioritisation over the strategic case—that is the fundamental issue. The strategic case should always take priority.

The investment projects that the Government have brought forward—infrastructure projects and policy pathfinders—overwhelmingly focus on mayoral strategic authorities, which are big-city-focused. That needs to change. We need to recognise the moral, economic, social and political imperative of joined-up policy that enables all our towns to reach their potential, with connectivity at the heart of that ambition. That means not just one solution but a joined-up approach, with better rail links, bus services, roads that can be relied upon and safe, reliable access routes for cycling and walking.

It is not an either/or. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, we should not see the big transport infrastructure projects in the pipeline in isolation or just as city connectors; rather, they are enablers of connectivity and growth along the whole route. In the north, we have Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is a huge opportunity for our region, but if small town connectivity is not addressed, places such as Rossendale and Darwen will feel little benefit and the opportunity will be missed. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to meet me and colleagues to discuss how to make big infrastructure projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail a catalyst in delivering connectivity and opportunity to the small towns and communities that need it most.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call the Father of the House, who has three minutes.

09:46

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on stressing the importance of small towns and transport links. We have debated a lot the scandal of High Speed 2—£100 billion down the drain. I want to talk about a small town that for 15 years has been asking for a direct train to London, the cost of which would be less than £1 million: 0.001% of the cost of HS2. We have been promised a through train from Cleethorpes and Grimsby, down through Market Rasen and Lincoln, to London, and we have been fobbed off with excuses again and again.

Market Rasen may be a small town, but it connects up to Grimsby, which has been represented for virtually the whole of the last half-century by Labour MPs. I do not complain about that. It is a levelling-up town. It is one of the largest towns in England not to have a through train to London. We are spending £100 billion on HS2, but we are not prepared to spend less than £1 million on getting a train from Grimsby to London. That is an absurd way of running the country.

Every time we try to talk about this issue, we are fobbed off with excuses. We are told that the platform at Market Rasen is too short. Well, we have all been on trains when we are told to go to the front three or four carriages, and we can get off perfectly safely. We are told that the platform is not high enough. Well, there is matting that can be put down. We are told that there is no bridge. There has not been a bridge at Market Rasen for 100 years.

The point I am making is that, instead of having a can-do attitude in this country, we are ruled by faceless bureaucrats in train companies, nationalised industries, agencies and Ministries. The Minister is sitting there; why does he not intervene? My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have been to see him and the Rail Minister, who promised help—but still no train.

At the other end of my constituency, we have Gainsborough Central station, which connects up to Cleethorpes. People might think that it would be lovely to take the train on a beautiful summer’s day instead of driving all that way. It takes two hours to get there, and there is one train a day, so when the person gets to Cleethorpes after a two-hour journey, they have only an hour and a half there before they have to come back. There is barely time to dip their toes at the beautiful beaches of Cleethorpes—one of the finest resorts in England, which people want to go to. If people want to go in the other direction, to Sheffield or Meadowhall, they can get there from Gainsborough Central station, but there is no train back, unless they want to take a donkey.

Why is there so little concern for small towns? Why are we wasting so many resources on these prestige projects dreamed up by the likes of Ceauescu? It is a waste of money. Let us put the money and resources where it matters, in rural communities and small towns. That is why this debate, for which I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, is so important.

09:50

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

As always, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing such an important and timely debate.

As the MP for the largest constituency in England, I spend a lot of time speaking about local transport, whether that is rail, road, walking or cycling. Over the recess, I was lucky to cycle a part of the proposed Haydon Bridge to Hexham cycle way. I look forward to working with the community group that is trying to get funding for that.

I will spend a lot of my time focusing on a particular case: the ongoing campaign to bring rail back to the village of Gilsland, which sits half in my constituency and half in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). Gilsland sits on the Northumberland-Cumbria border, at the heart of the Hadrian’s wall world heritage site. The village is a central point for visitors to the incredible features of historical interest in the border country. There was a train station at Gilsland from 1836 to 1967, when it closed because of the Beeching report, along with thousands of other stations across the country.

There has been passionate community campaigning, spanning decades, by the Campaign to Open Gilsland Station and the Tyne Valley Community Rail Partnership, which are dedicated to the cause of reconnecting local people to their rail network. They have been challenging outdated assumptions, securing reports showing clear evidence of the credible economic and social case for reopening the station, and submitting multiple bids to multiple Government pots of money. Almost 60 years after closure, there is still no operating station, despite the fact that locals have to see trains passing the station on the Newcastle-Carlisle line every day. That is a living example of a rural community being left behind.

I am passionate about getting the station reopened. It would be fantastic not just for the economy of Gilsland, but for the economy of the whole of Northumberland. It would add to the county’s already magnificent tourism offer and would make it easier for people to come into my region and spend their money. Visit Northumberland, the tourism body, spends most of its time—as does the Conservative-run county council—promoting the coastal regions of the county, rather than promoting west Northumberland.

I want to comment briefly on a subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen touched on: road safety. There can be no good connectivity without road safety. On a summer tour last year, I held 80 surgeries in four weeks across my constituency; I will do it again this year. The No. 1 concern that comes up in almost every village is “Can we get a speed limit? Can we get a speed camera? Can we do something about road crossings?” It particularly affects those small villages where people have to cross the road to get the village hall or the shop. These are often communities where there is no available road crossing.

I would like to see the Government doing far more to push local authorities to address what are often ticking time bombs. Those cases are often acted on only after there has been a tragedy. We need far more proactive action from local authorities.

09:53

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing the debate. I agree with many of his comments.

Transport options for people across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe are dreadful. Whether for getting to work, accessing healthcare, visiting family, attending college or simply participating in community life, transport options are often the difference between a thriving town and one that has been left behind. In one of the largest and most rural constituencies in Wales and the whole UK, too many residents feel that transport decisions are being made “to” them rather than with them.

One of the biggest concerns recently raised with me is the changes made to the T4 bus service. What was once the only direct connection between mid-Wales and our capital, Cardiff, now requires passengers to change in Merthyr Tydfil. For many residents, particularly older or disabled passengers and those carrying heavy luggage, that additional change is not a minor inconvenience. It makes journeys longer, more complicated and less attractive. That is made worse by the fact that the T4 and X4 timetables are poorly integrated, leaving passengers facing lengthy waits and unreliable connections from Merthyr.

Cardiff is the major destination on the route. It is where people travel for specialist NHS appointments, university and college education, employment opportunities, access to national institutions or simply a day shopping. For many residents across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, a reliable public transport connection to the Welsh capital is essential. Those changes to the T4 service may look minor on a map but, for those who rely on public transport, it has made travelling to Cardiff significantly more difficult. Rural communities should not be expected to accept a worse service while being told by their Government that it represents progress. The direct service to Cardiff must be restored, because it is leaving many elderly pensioners in my constituency stuck at home.

The Swansea valley has similar challenges with bus services. People in Ystradgynlais, Ystalyfera and Pontardawe have repeatedly reported buses on the T6 and X6 routes running late, being cancelled at short notice or not turning up at all in recent months. That is why rural bus connections are so important. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen for giving us the opportunity to put these points on the record.

09:55

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate. I have spoken previously about train services in my community; I will not spend a huge amount of my limited time on them, but I want to flag that we have been in government for two years, and train strikes in my constituency have written off our Sunday services for the entirety of that time. We talk a lot about bringing train services into public ownership, but those train services in my area were in public ownership. My residents are furious that they have no Sunday service from Congleton station and have not had one for a long time now. I would be very grateful if the Minister took that back to the Rail Minister with the utmost urgency, because this really needs to move forward.

We also have a long-standing problem with accessibility at Sandbach station, which is frankly disastrous. It is a huge problem for anyone who cannot manage the extremely steep stairs. The service runs to a major city and an airport, so by definition people have luggage, buggies and so forth.

What I really want to talk about is buses. There are so many problems with buses in my area. The Government’s transport improvement funds for buses have helped, and so have section 106 contributions from developers. I would like to praise my local council, which has been able to put on some additional services with those two sources of funds.

None the less, there are so many problems. When I spoke to young people at Shipton Explorer Scouts, they spoke at length about the difficulty of buses that are just too full: there are too many students trying to get on them, so the buses stop letting them on. I have GCSE students who are terrified. One called my office recently because his bus simply had not shown up. We eventually got to the bottom of it: the app was not working, the bus had been diverted because of roadworks, and no one had informed the school or the pupils. These buses only run once an hour. When children and young people need to get to life-changing exams, the consequences of unreliability—buses that do not show up or that do not stop because they are too full—are potentially devastating.

Local employers I speak to in places like care homes and nurseries, some of which are not in the centre of town, have huge problems recruiting because people simply cannot get to them without car access. In rural and semi-rural areas, this is a huge, long-standing economic problem. It makes it difficult for parents to work, because they cannot reliably get their children to school on public transport. The economic and other impacts for people are absolutely massive. My constituents also talk to me about a sense of rural isolation—which I would go into further, but I have run out of time.

09:58

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing the debate. When listening to his remarks at the beginning, the need to fix, or at least start to seriously address, transport isolation really resonated with me.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am going to talk about Aldridge train station. Mine is one a handful of constituencies that has a railway line but still does not have a train station. If we are serious about improving connectivity and the life chances of young people, we could improve so many things by simply getting on and delivering the train station.

I think the Minister knows the history, but I will gently remind him of it. Perhaps he can pass this on to the Rail Minister in the other place, because I have suggestions on how we can fix things. To take a step back, we have a track in place. The council has secured the land for the car park and some exploratory work is ongoing, which I am grateful for. A business case was approved to reopen the line from Aldridge to Walsall, which would give us the connections we need into Walsall and beyond. I am not even pushing for the completion of the rail hub; I just want the link into Walsall, please. Andy Street made the business case and everything was going swimmingly until, sadly, we lost the mayoral election. I appreciate that that is democracy, but it is sad that Mayor Parker, the new Labour mayor, diverted the funds, meaning there was no money to deliver the project for Aldridge.

Alongside that, we are waiting for a decision from the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway about an open access line that would enable a direct train service from Wrexham to Euston, coming through Aldridge. I back that service, but it must stop at Aldridge. It is incomprehensible that that line could be approved without a stop at Aldridge—I will not be the only one protesting if that is the case.

Will the Minister urge the Rail Minister to work with me to deliver a railway station for Aldridge? It is not just about Aldridge; some people describe it as a village but it is actually a big village and a big community, and a station would serve a big area. I would like help in getting answers out of the mayor; the last time I wrote to him, he failed to respond. My ask to the Minister is simple: please work with me and let us get the train station delivered for the residents of Aldridge, as was promised a few years ago.

10:01

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate.

When it comes to transport links for small towns, few can boast the train to Hogsmeade station, where the Hogwarts Express ended its journey north from platform nine and three quarters. The real-life Goathland station, which starred in the Harry Potter films, is just one of the beautiful stations on the Esk Valley railway line from Whitby to Middlesbrough, which follows the route of the River Esk for much of its 24 miles, passing through verdant farmland, rolling moors and picturesque villages. Sadly, the scenery is far more beautiful than the train service. The villain of the piece is not Lord Voldemort, but Dr Beeching, the Minister who cut the Whitby to Scarborough line back in 1965, condemning Whitby to reliance on cars and buses.

That Whitby lost its train link to its coastal neighbour is bad enough, but to add insult to injury, the current service that connects Whitby to the nearest big town, Middlesbrough, is one of the worst in the country. That is not the fault of the not-for-profit Esk Valley Railway Development Company, a dedicated community rail partnership that runs the line with passion and flair. Indeed, the company fought hard to get a station opened at James Cook hospital in 2014. The whole point of that stop was to provide access to the hospital; instead, Whitby residents find themselves isolated from essential healthcare. There are only six trains a day, with four-hour gaps in the morning and afternoon. That makes it impossible to plan for a hospital appointment. Constituents have told me they have to stay over at Middlesbrough because they cannot get to and from the hospital in a day. It is not only hospital patients who are frustrated by the poor service, but constituents who want to work in Middlesbrough, where there are many more employment opportunities than in Whitby.

The lack of ambition and investment in this essential transport link for Whitby is laid bare when it is compared with another seaside town, in the south. Newquay in Cornwall is not unlike Whitby in size, and it is also at the end of a branch line. Office of Rail and Road figures show that in 2023-24 the Newquay line carried 146,000 passengers, which was down 2%, while the Whitby line carried 257,000, which was up 6.3%. Until recently, both lines suffered from poor train services, but Newquay now has 15 trains on weekdays, 14 on Saturdays and eight on Sundays, thanks to a £57 million investment. According to a press release, there is also a through-train to London, while on the same day Whitby has just six trains.

I would love to hear from the Minister how Great British Railways can improve transport links to small towns like Whitby, and open up a world of possibilities for its residents.

10:04

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this debate on one of my favourite topics.

I represent the market towns of Frome, Midsomer Norton and Radstock, as well as many larger villages, such as Evercreech and Peasedown St John. On 18 May, five services failed to run on the 172 and 171 bus routes that serve Midsomer Norton, which meant that for nearly three hours during the morning rush hour, between half-past 6 and half-past 9, there was no bus service at all. I have had emails from constituents for whom it meant missing a shift at work or missing medical appointments. I raise this incident not to criticise one operator on one morning—in fairness, the operator has apologised—but because it illustrates something systemic, which is that when the margin for error is zero because there is no back-up or redundancy, any failure becomes a crisis. That is the reality for communities whose transport links are threadbare to begin with.

I have constituents who cannot take a job in the next town because the bus does not run early enough to get them there. I represent many young people, including those in my own family, who cannot get a job or see friends because there is no suitable public transport. My constituency is a radiotherapy desert—without a car, there is not one place in my constituency where you could reach radiotherapy treatment within the recommended timescales. Such stories represent the lived experience of a significant portion of my constituency.

The Government’s briefing on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill speaks of bringing power closer to communities, but devolution delivered through metro mayors in large urban centres offers little comfort to places like Frome and East Somerset. We have seen millions for buses being poured into the West of England combined authority, which is welcome, only to find that the focus is on getting people in and out of Bristol even more effectively than they currently are. Devolution that does not reach rural communities is not devolution: it is a redistribution of power to a slightly different tier of city.

We need a funding model for bus services that does not treat rural routes as commercially unviable afterthoughts. We need the franchising powers in the Bus Services Act 2025 to be accessible to county councils, not just combined authorities with mayoral structures. We need a duty on operators to provide genuine contingency when services fail and guarantees that, when new housing developments are approved, transport infrastructure is not an optional extra or included in section 106 agreement only to be quietly watered down later.

I have spoken in this place before about the link between transport and safety, and in particular about women in my constituency who have told me that they gave up running, cycling or going out after dark in the winter because waiting at isolated bus stops on unlit country lanes did not feel safe. Transport is not just a technical issue, but a question of who gets to participate fully in public life and who is excluded from it, which is why I will continue to campaign for the Government to include mention of women and girls’ safety in the national planning policy framework.

I welcome much of the Government’s rhetoric about the importance of improved public transport and the fact they are making spending commitments to support it, but I urge them not to forget places like Frome and East Somerset, where the potential for economic growth is huge if only people could get where they need to go.

10:07

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate.

Too many towns, such as Mansfield in my constituency, have been left behind when it comes to transport infrastructure. We have seen bus routes cut back, unreliable services become the norm and communities increasingly isolated, and it has real economic and social consequences. I believe the action already taken by the Labour Government is beginning to turn things around. The Government’s £3 billion investment in buses, alongside the Bus Services Act, represents the biggest reform for buses in a generation.

Although buses are vital, rail connectivity is equally important to the future prosperity of towns like Mansfield. My constituency is rightly proud of its railway heritage—we have already heard about the importance of strong local rail services—and I want to speak in support of two rail schemes. First, the Robin Hood line extension running from Shirebrook to Ollerton would reopen former stations, including at Warsop in my constituency, and directly link my residents back into the national rail network, with connections to Mansfield, Nottingham, Worksop and beyond. Secondly, the Maid Marian line would provide an alternative route into Nottingham, easing pressure on existing lines while allowing for expanded services that would better serve Mansfield and Ashfield, including through improved access to Derby.

The case for those projects is not simply about transport for transport’s sake; it is about economic growth, regeneration and opportunities for communities that have been overlooked for too long. I hope the Minister will begin to work with regional leaders, local authorities and MPs across the east midlands to help to move both those schemes forward. Let us get Mansfield and neighbouring towns fully back on the map—let us reopen the Maid Marian line and extend the Robin Hood line.

10:10

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for giving us a chance to debate this issue. He can fairly draw a crowd—well done. The issue is important to us all.

As the MP for Strangford, I am frequently contacted about transport issues. There is a significant and growing disparity between urban and rural areas when it comes to transport provision. This affects access to key services such as health care, education and work, as well as access to social activities. There has been a wrongful assumption that focusing transport investment on urban areas will eventually lead to improvements in rural regions through a trickle-down effect. It just does not happen.

Research from 2025 demonstrated that almost a fifth of all rural bus routes in England alone had disappeared over the previous five years. As a result, many people have become reliant on their cars and it has left us in a so-called transport desert.

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

I met the Friends of Denton Station, who have spent two decades campaigning; despite that, we still have only two trains a week that stop at the station. The passengers and the infrastructure are there, but we remain cut off from Manchester and beyond in terms of rail access. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that towns like Denton deserve the same ambition for connectivity as communities in the south of the country?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I commend the hon. Lady for her election and for bringing forward important issues that she has heard on the doorstep, and for taking the chance to come to Westminster Hall and put them forward.

The evidence from my Strangford constituency and across the UK indicates that social exclusion further compounds mental health issues and decreases the general wellbeing of citizens, with reports of reduced access to employment, education and healthcare. Many people are forced to rely on taxis, which is highly unsustainable, with people losing almost as much as they earn in a day’s work. Employment should be encouraged and not hindered by lack of access to public transport.

As the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen clearly indicated, the consequences have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children and lower-income households. Given that rural areas often have an older population, access to transport is even more essential. Without support for public transport systems in small towns, a cycle of decline will continue, with reduced public transport usage due to its unreliableness or inefficiency. That will be used as justification for further service cuts, reinforce dependency on cars and weaken the entire transport system.

As the MP for Strangford, I am frequently contacted by constituents concerned about the lack of accessible transport in small towns. There is no rail network and there is a heavy reliance on what bus service there is. Buses can be infrequent and the connections between smaller towns are poor. We have the Strangford ferry, but if the weather is bad, it does not sail. That means that many people, including those taking children to school and those commuting for work, are forced to drive the 50-mile road alternative, putting pressure on the A20.

I believe these issues are really important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know he does not have responsibility for my constituency, but the issues that I have put forward are similar elsewhere. We need to ensure a lifeline and it must be strengthened.

10:13

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your distinguished chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on their cracking speeches.

It has been a bumper nearly two years for me in driving to improve the connectivity of the towns and villages in my constituency. I was lucky enough to bring back the No. 15 bus route that connects Woodthorpe and Bishopthorpe on Sundays. However, when I raised the issue in the Chamber, Quentin Letts said people should just get an Uber. We know that that is not an affordable option in towns across the country. The right-wing media bubble just does not get it.

With the Minister’s help, I was lucky enough to secure over £5 million for park-and-ride services in my constituency. I might be the park-and-ride MP, with the highest number of services anywhere. I was also lucky enough to work with First Bus on fare caps for young people and on improving the fare arrangements for young parents who live in the University of York area. Of course, the big one has been bringing in a new station at Haxby, thereby improving connectivity for a town of more than 8,000 people. There is more to do, though, including in respect of the 412 bus, the No. 5 bus and the No. 6 service, and on capping prices for students on the No. 6 bus.

We have not heard too much about the need for active travel, including cycling and getting people on to fantastic bike lanes; I call on developers across York to invest in infrastructure. But I would like to raise a bigger idea that could improve connectivity across small towns. Earlier this year, I was taken over to look at the connectivity in Switzerland—I refer Members to my declaration of interests. What did I see there? Cable cars, buses, trains, trams and boats—all synchronised, end to end. It just works. Why cannot someone in York connect seamlessly on to Leeds, from bus to train, with a timetable that joins up?

I have also suggested a northern Oyster card. Why do we all bang on about London being so productive? The reason is connectivity—the Oyster card. Let’s have it in the north: tap on, tap off, truly integrated transport and fares, not just for our great cities in the north but for the towns between them. Manchester’s Bee Network shows that it can be done, and we also have the Weaver Network in Leeds and the People’s Network in Sheffield. The question is whether we are truly ambitious enough to extend our thinking beyond the M25 to the 15 million great people of the north who would love to see that connectivity.

Small towns should never settle. Connectivity is what determines young people’s futures, so we must do all we can, at all levels, to drive connectivity across our communities.

10:16

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate.

My constituency has 11 railway stations, the largest port in the country and an international airport, so people might think that it would be of major interest to the Department of Transport, with the focus entirely on the Brigg and Immingham constituency. Sadly, it is not as easy to get around the constituency as people might imagine. In addition, five railway stations in the Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency also serve my constituents. Nevertheless, getting around my area is not as easy as it should be.

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), has outlined our long-running campaign—it has been running for 15 years now—to secure a direct service from Cleethorpes, through my constituency, to London. There are five trains a day from King’s Cross to Lincoln, and it would take a small amount of money to run those Azumas through my constituency before they finish their journey in Cleethorpes. However, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Department for Transport has made endless objections and said that such a service cannot be delivered.

The Father of the House also mentioned the service from Gainsborough to Cleethorpes, which passes through Brigg. Brigg, a town of 5,500 people, should have better rail connectivity than it does. It has a railway station, and there used to be a roof over all of it. It was a fantastic station—very much like Gainsborough Central used to be—but sadly it is a pale shadow of its former self and now has only one platform, although, unlike Market Rasen station, it has a bridge to allow people to get over to the other platform, even if that other platform is out of use. Improving rail connections through to Cleethorpes is important. It would help the leisure sector considerably.

The service from Cleethorpes through my constituency to Barton-upon-Humber is a two-hourly service. The Barton Cleethorpes community rail partnership, which is very active and takes a close interest in the operation of the service, has been campaigning to increase that to one service every hour. I urge the Minister to consider that proposal if he can.

Let me return to the Brigg service. We hear much about the creation of Great British Rail, but Northern Rail, which runs the service from Gainsborough to Cleethorpes, has been in public ownership since 2020, so the Minister could have delivered on this. I acknowledge that previous Ministers could also have done so, but it is his job now. I challenge him to say, when he responds to the debate, that he will consider and deliver the proposal.

10:19

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this debate.

When I was campaigning for election in Amber Valley, people told me time and again that improving public transport was a priority, and it is now one of my local pledges. I am pleased that, after many years of hard work and campaigning by Labour town councillors, a lift has finally been installed at Alfreton station. It has been truly transformational for many of my constituents. In a similar vein, I am now working to improve accessibility at Langley Mill station. The dream is to reinstate the direct train from Alfreton to London, which was sadly cancelled in 2021, despite much protest.

In my remarks, I will concentrate on something raised by my constituent Paul Wright at one of the coffee mornings that I hold monthly so that people in Amber Valley can raise things with me. Ambergate in my constituency is about three miles from the neighbouring town of Belper, and I could get a five-minute train between the two towns for £3.60 today. However, if I take the train from Ambergate to London, it costs me £80.80, whereas if my friend gets on the train one stop later at Belper—and sits right next to me for the entire journey—she pays only £35.50. I love my friend very much, but why should she pay so much less for a near-identical journey?

That example illustrates the absurd situation that my constituents face. It is often cheaper to split their journeys and book them in two parts: from Ambergate to Belper, then from Belper to their end destination—it is not just journeys to London that are affected. That is unfair on multiple levels. Most obviously, it disadvantages those who are unaware of those loopholes, which people such as Paul have had to uncover for themselves. Unless that situation changes, many of my constituents will continue to pay an excessive amount, while their friends down the road pay a lot less.

The system also disproportionately affects those who might not be as confident in navigating split ticketing. The process is not intuitive, and it will alienate those who are already vulnerable or are less digitally literate. Those are exactly the people who depend on the system being simple, accessible, transparent and fair. Why should my constituents have to jump through hoops just to secure a fair price?

I know that the Railways Bill contains measures to bring greater transparency to fare structures, including through the establishment of Great British Railways. Will the Minister outline how those upcoming reforms will ensure that fairness and consistency are built into the system? Will he also outline what can be done in the meantime to resolve those price anomalies for my constituents?

10:22

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate. This is a broad subject, but I will focus on bus services, because in my Dewsbury and Batley constituency and others like it, buses are quite simply the backbone of everyday life. For many constituents, especially those on lower incomes, buses are not optional but essential. They are how people get to work, to places of education, to hospital appointments and to see family and friends. When those services decline, the opportunity to live a full, happy and healthy life declines with them.

Bus services in Dewsbury and Batley, and across wider West Yorkshire, have undergone a sustained 20-year decline, driven by operator withdrawals, rising costs, driver shortages and reduced post-covid numbers. The pattern is one of progressive route cuts, increased reliance on emergency subsidies and shrinking commercial viability. Nothing illustrates the fragility of the system more clearly than the ongoing instability among local operators. The significant cuts by Arriva across West Yorkshire, rightly described by Mayor Brabin as “appalling”, are the result of a failing business model managed by overseas owners who appear to have little regard for the needs of our communities. Cuts to Arriva bus services between Dewsbury in my constituency and Wakefield in the Minister’s constituency have had a huge impact. The 205 between Dewsbury, Morley and Pudsey has been cut, as has the 117 from Ossett to Leeds—the list is endless.

Another failure is that of Yorkshire Buses, which operated services across West Yorkshire but has ceased trading entirely, citing a “continued rise in costs” that made the business “no longer sustainable”. The consequences are immediate and real. Services across the region have been affected, including bus routes across my constituency. The system needs long-term stability, not constant crisis management. I thank the West Yorkshire Mayor and the West Yorkshire combined authority for stepping in to provide emergency transport when companies go under, but this is not sustainable.

I will conclude my remarks by asking the Minister three questions. What steps will the Government take to ensure that small towns such as Dewsbury and Batley are prioritised in national transport policy, rather than left behind? Will the Government commit to providing sustained, reliable revenue funding for bus services so that routes can operate frequently and dependably, rather than closing constantly? What specific action will be taken to reverse the long-term decline in bus use, particularly among elderly and disabled passengers?

10:25

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for bringing forward this important debate.

It is a pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall to speak about the No. 1 subject in my inbox. Coalville and Ashby are the seventh and eighth largest towns in Leicestershire, so they are not small, but we still struggle with bus services. As the Minister knows, I rarely miss an opportunity to highlight that I do not have a single passenger rail service anywhere in my constituency. The campaign to reopen the Ivanhoe line is still ongoing.

Those are just the headlines from my constituency; the reality for our towns runs far deeper. Other rural MPs will know that improving transport links is a never-ending discussion. If a bus service is cancelled in North West Leicestershire, there is nothing else—no back-up, no alternative. People are simply stranded; hospital appointments are missed and shift patterns lost. My constituent went to watch Leicester City play football on a Saturday and caught the last bus back to Ashby at 5.30 pm, just a few minutes after the end of the game. However, when the bus terminated halfway in Coalville, the seventh largest town in Leicestershire, they could not get back to Ashby, the eighth largest, after 6 pm on a Saturday. This is not just about getting to work; it is about our night-time economy and the impact on the growth of our towns.

Even when services do exist, they do not always serve people well. New housing estates, which are often just beyond the edges of our town centres, are left disconnected, meaning that residents cannot easily reach the high street, and the high street cannot benefit from the people who live just a few minutes away by bus. When we talk about transport in small towns, we are not talking about getting from A to B; we are talking about whether our town centres survive and thrive. We need to go much further.

I was proud to serve on the Bus Services Bill Committee, and of the work that our Government have done so far—I welcome their commitment to getting more funding to local authorities—but I have three questions for the Minister. First, HS2 was supposed to have gone through my constituency without stopping. Despite writing several letters, I still do not have any resolution for the 74 homes stuck in HS2 Ltd ownership. I want to use that money for the benefit of my constituency. Secondly, there needs to be a better path for concessionary fares, as the situation across the country is uneven. I represent an old population, who use concessionary fares more, so that is a problem for my local authority. Finally, I will say that bus services are for leisure as well as for work.

10:28

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important and timely debate. As MPs, we become champions of many local issues, and I know that for so many of us here today, public transport will be at the top of the list.

I have been banging on for months about improving the quality of the Weymouth to London Waterloo service. Passengers have faced unacceptable problems, including frequent delays, often at the weekend; patchy wi-fi; no on-board food trolley service; and, for many years, no accessible toilet at Weymouth station. Over the last few months, I have been working with South Western Railway to resolve some of those issues, and I am pleased to say that finally, after many years, we have reopened an accessible toilet at Weymouth station.

Although of course that is positive news, it is clear that much more must be done to improve the quality of the train service on the Weymouth to Waterloo line. Only this week, I received a complaint from a constituent describing her appalling trip on the late May bank holiday—one of the hottest days of the year, when passengers were unable to access water, and faced totally unusable toilets and bins overflowing with rubbish and used nappies. Last month I experienced all that for myself with a three-hour delay on my regular commute home to Weymouth. Since when did arriving late, dishevelled, hot and dehydrated become fashionable again? We must have work to improve the quality, reliability and speed of the service on the Weymouth to Waterloo line.

Buses are of course an essential way of getting around in a rural community like mine in South Dorset. They help people get to vital health services at Dorset County hospital and Poole hospital, and they ensure that people can get into the town centre and that pupils from rural villages can attend school. Yet, as we have heard repeatedly in today’s debate, too often bus services have been undermined by worsening reliability, fewer buses and the steady loss of routes. For example, in Bovington in my constituency there is no regular all-year-round bus service, which leaves the community—particularly the armed forces families based at Bovington camp—effectively isolated. A similar situation exists in Harman’s Cross, where the No. 40 bus service does not stop, despite serving neighbouring villages. I have met the council and bus operators to push for improvements, but we should not have to deal with a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing good-quality bus services in South Dorset.

I am pleased with the progress that the Government have made in bringing our railways back into public hands and bringing forward landmark new legislation for bus services, but I ask the Minister: what can we do to go further and deliver better buses in rural areas and improve the quality of the London Waterloo to Weymouth train line?

10:31

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important and timely debate. It is particularly pertinent to me as West Dorset is nothing but small towns and villages, and 60% of the population live outside of the towns.

For me, this is about opportunity and fairness. Transport determines whether a young person can get to college, an apprentice can reach a workplace, an older resident can attend a hospital appointment, and a business can recruit the staff it needs. Some 57% of the working-age population in England live in areas with low public transport access to jobs, and 66% of elderly people are unable to reach a hospital within 30 minutes by public transport.

In the recent Milburn review, transport repeatedly emerged as the hidden driver of youth detachment from education, employment and training. If a young person cannot physically reach a college apprenticeship, interview or job opportunity, every other policy intervention becomes irrelevant. The review found that in rural, deprived and coastal communities, transport is a significant practical barrier for those without access to a car or a driving licence. This matters because young people are far less likely to drive than previous generations; the proportion of 17 to 20-year-olds holding a full driving licence has fallen to just 29%.

At the same time, local bus services have disappeared. In the last 15 years bus journeys outside London have fallen by 21%, and bus frequency in West Dorset has fallen by 62%. Some local authorities are experiencing reductions of up to 80%. Entire small towns and villages have lost evening and weekend services. A young person offered a hospitality shift that finishes at night in a neighbouring town without a return bus service has not really been offered a job at all.

That is why transport connectivity must be central to any serious effort to reduce the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. It is why the Liberal Democrats have argued consistently that we need a fundamentally different approach to public transport in small towns and rural areas. We need properly funded local bus services, and we would replace the current patchwork of funding streams with a single integrated transport fund that gives local authorities the flexibility to deliver the service their communities actually need.

The move towards multi-year funding settlements and the increase in funding for local transport are both welcome. They provide the degree of certainty that councils have been calling for over many years and are a significant improvement on the short-term, stop-start approach of the past. However, they are not enough on their own to reverse the years of decline. Areas outside urban hubs have seen some of the deepest service reductions. They need targeted investment if we are to rebuild sustainable networks, rather than simply to continue managing the decline. We would restore the £2 bus fare cap and ensure that local authorities have resources to expand services where demand exists.

We must also recognise the role that community transport can play. The CB3 community bus service in Beaminster demonstrates what is possible when local communities work together to maintain essential connections. Such models can help bridge gaps where traditional commercial routes are no longer viable, but parish councils and volunteers cannot be expected to carry this burden alone. Community transport needs secure, long-term grant funding from central Government. We would also support pilot programmes and new technologies such as on-demand transport services. Those schemes have proven particularly effective for young people travelling between villages and market towns.

We must also rebuild confidence in our railways. For too long, investment has focused overwhelmingly on cities and flagship projects, while small towns have been left behind. The Liberal Democrats would establish a railway fund, allowing local authorities to bid for funding to improve stations, restore local rail connections and strengthen links between neighbouring towns. We would implement long-term rail fare freezes in line with inflation, introduce a “rail miles” loyalty scheme and create a passenger charter to improve reliability, accessibility and service quality. That would improve things like wi-fi, seating and toilets and put customers at the heart of our railways. We would also reform ticketing by introducing a national tap in, tap out system, bringing the convenience enjoyed by passengers in London and Manchester to the rest of the country.

Local authorities must have greater influence over transport planning, so that rail and bus services work together, rather than operating in isolation. Transport is not just about buses and trains; it is also about giving people safe alternatives to cars. The Liberal Democrats want a nationwide active travel strategy that creates safe walking and cycling networks, linking homes, schools, town centres and transport hubs. For small towns, active travel presents a huge opportunity. Distances are often short enough for cycling to be quicker than driving or public transport, yet frequently the infrastructure is absent. That is why we must support investment in dedicated cycle routes, safer road infrastructure and the conversion of disused railway lines into walking and cycling corridors.

If we are serious about tackling regional inequality, reducing the number of young people who are not working or in education, and delivering genuine economic growth, small towns cannot continue to be an afterthought.

09:38

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The importance of connecting our small towns, villages and wider urban areas is evident from the number of Members who have taken part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing it.

What unites the vast majority of travel needs across our small towns and villages is the importance of personal vehicles and—not instead of—affordable, reliable and useful public transport. Those two elements are critical to connecting small towns. The 2024 national travel survey showed the dominance of the car and other private vehicles, particularly in rural areas. That was alongside buses, which are paramount to supporting local travel. However, I am afraid that under the current Government, there is a mentality that, despite some worthy funding promises and powers to local authorities, risks damaging links to our small towns.

The 2024 travel survey showed that car trips made up 76% of distance travelled. The 2022 survey paints an even stronger picture for those in small towns. Those in rural towns and fringes used their car to travel twice the distance of those in urban conurbations. People in even more isolated areas used their car to travel nearly three times the distance of those in most urban areas. It is critical that the Government’s policies reflect this fact and support drivers in going about their everyday lives. Any other approach would impose self-inflicted damage on our small towns by disrupting the mode of transport most widely used, which in turn contributes to economic growth.

Although I recognise that the classifications are different, as it uses the more traditional rural urban classification system, some of the proposals in the Government’s integrated transport plan, published this April, highlight a complete misunderstanding of the public’s transport needs. The plan says:

“we will consider how we set clear expectations that local authorities and developers should maximise sustainable transport interventions before considering any increase in road capacity.”

That is accompanied by comments in the section on rural and suburban areas that give the impression that cars should only be used as a last resort—a statement devoid of real life. It is the state telling people what it thinks they should want, not listening to what they actually want. Talking about them being relied on in this way completely misses why many people choose to use vehicles—they are making a choice.

Supporting public transport and improving it to enhance links between our small towns is clearly also important—no argument there. In my constituency, I am a supporter of delivering the Haddenham to Thame greenway. However, we cannot do so by sacrificing or denigrating motor vehicle usage. That is indicative of why the Government struggle so much with economic growth. Rather than considering what they can do to improve one form of transport, their integrated transport strategy appears more comfortable trying to encumber drivers either by not increasing capacity or by putting in place policies such as bus priority routes, which in larger areas have done a great deal to restrict the ability to enter towns and some cities.

It is easy to talk about this issue broadly and for it to sound like hyperbole, but we can all reference local examples of our failure to take a balanced and practical approach to transport spending. In Buckinghamshire, the Aylesbury spur of the East West Rail project was originally viewed as an integral part of the scheme. It was removed from the plans during a major cost-cutting exercise about eight or nine years ago, yet the case for restoring it remains as strong as ever. It would vastly improve connectivity between Winslow and Aylesbury, both of which are expected to grow significantly in the coming years, while strengthening onward links to London and the north. Importantly, it would do so in a way that supports economic growth, which the Government repeatedly tell us is their overriding priority. Better connectivity means greater access to jobs and opportunity.

That example, along with the excellent examples from my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), demonstrates the wider point. The challenge facing small towns is not that people have too many transport options; it is that in too many places they do not have enough. The answer is not to make driving harder in the hope that people will choose another mode of transport; it is to improve all forms of connectivity, whether road, bus or rail.

[Andrew Cooper]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that what makes road transport more difficult is the massive pothole backlog that built up under his Government through the systematic underfunding of local government? Does he accept that this Government have put significant resources into fixing that?

[Greg Smith]

I agree with the fundamental point that the state of the roads in this country is getting worse and worse. The Government crow about the amount of money they have given to Buckinghamshire, my local authority, for pothole repairs, but it is absolutely and completely inadequate to fix the problems. Conservative-run Buckinghamshire council is spending £120 million—tenfold what the Government have given in a grant—to get the roads fixed. Anyway, let me get back to my point—it was a good try.

We need to allow people to make the choices that best suit their circumstances. Indeed, the condition of our roads is why the Conservatives have proposed targeted measures to repair potholes and limit damaging policies such as 20 mph by default, which have cropped up in authorities both in urban areas and where small towns are situated.

Furthermore, the bus fare increases that we have seen under this Government pose significant challenges to increasing demand. Although the Government have been reticent to admit it, the fare cap increased on their watch by 50%, and in many areas there have been further increases in the price of buses. That is simply factual. Those decisions impact bus users in our small towns, and it is this Labour Government who are putting the price of buses up. It is inevitable that increasing costs disincentivises travel between these areas. Some authorities are taking on the cost of bus services, and it remains to be seen whether a balance can be struck and services can be improved in a way that persuades people to use bus routes.

This is occurring at the same time that the Government are taking on their project of rail nationalisation, after a period of significant passenger growth over the past three decades. We can debate the challenges around rail and whether the solution could ever be nationalisation, but that increase in numbers is irrefutably beneficial when we consider connections between small towns. I therefore hope the Government consider the measures put forward by the shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which highlight the importance of passenger growth in the Government’s proposals.

Small towns do not need transport policies that pit one mode of travel against another. They need practical solutions that improve mobility across the board.

10:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing the debate, and thank all Members for their insightful contributions. If I do not manage to get to all the individual points, I will follow them up with hon. Members.

My hon. Friend has spoken consistently about the importance of reliable and affordable transport connections for communities across Rossendale and Darwen. For too long, small towns have been held back by poor connectivity, whether because of limited bus services, unreliable rail links or the day-to-day frustrations of deteriorating local roads. We are determined to change that.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) talked about connectivity. Transport in this country has been fragmented for too long. Through the Better Connected strategy, we are changing that. We are setting out a national vision for an integrated, accessible and safe transport network that people can rely on to make the journeys they need to make easily, wherever they live across England. By taking a holistic approach to transport, we can make a real difference for communities through improved connectivity, integrated ticketing and improved cross-modal connections, so that even those without direct rail links are connected to the wider network. Transport should feel like a single joined-up system, not a series of disconnected parts.

Local leaders are key to delivering this vision. They know the transport challenges their areas face and are best placed to decide how to improve transport in their areas. We are backing local leaders in every local transport authority to make improvements by providing £21 billion of local transport funding through simplified multi-year funding settlements.

[Wendy Morton]

Picking up on the point I raised in my contribution, if the Government are working with mayors and local authorities to deliver transport, will the Minister commit to working with me to get some answers from Mayor Parker to deliver Aldridge train station? Yes or no?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure that the right hon. Lady is quite capable of representing her constituents directly with the Mayor of the West Midlands, and I gently remind her that she was Transport Secretary at one point, and could have done some of this work herself during that time.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not—I have to make progress.

The majority of local transport funding is allocated by formula to give a fair share of funding for all areas. For example, our formulas take into account the length of roads, population size and rurality, so that funding reflects an area’s circumstances and need.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I have a lot to get through, so I am going to push on.

The multi-year settlements will give areas the certainty they need to plan ahead, so that they are more flexible and local leaders can invest in the transport priorities that are right for their areas. Places with an elected mayor will benefit from either integrated settlements or a single mayoral transport fund, giving them more flexibility over how they use their funding. That reflects the fact that mayors are recognisable figures in their areas and accountable to their citizens, with mandates to represent them on the national stage. However, local transport authorities without a mayor will also benefit from simplified funding and will receive transformative multi-year flexible integrated transport funds and bus services funding. To support local leaders further, we published updated local transport plan guidance earlier this year, setting out what we expect local transport authorities to deliver in their areas and how to make the most of their transport funding.

Improvements to buses are vital, particularly for communities in small towns, communities in rural areas and—I say this before my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) gives me the look—coastal communities. Buses are the only transport option in some places, but through the Bus Services Act 2025 we have given local leaders the tools they need to ensure that local bus services meet the needs of local people. These tools are accessible not only to mayoral authorities, but to all local transport authorities across England, with the Department for Transport providing support through the franchising support fund and franchising pilots programme. This work includes funding to develop pilot programmes that test different models of franchising through a small number of rural LTAs.

DFT is also funding a franchising expert group, which will provide expert support and advice on bus franchising to authorities and could be engaged to aid with troubleshooting and challenges such as cross-border services, which we addressed in the Bus Services Act but are important for local areas to consider when drawing up their bus service improvement plans. As well as targeted franchising support, we are providing meaningful funding to support and improve bus networks—a total of £3 billion over the next three years.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The Minister mentions the new pilots, and I place on the record my thanks for the fact that Cumberland is one of those areas. Is he aware that Cumberland council is already using the money that the Government have given it? It has introduced a series of bus links, including the HW1 bus route, which offers visitors the opportunity to visit our historic, wonderful Hadrian’s Wall. May I invite the Minister to join me on that bus? Roman togas are optional.

[Simon Lightwood]

I am afraid my Roman toga is at the dry cleaners, but I would like to take up my hon. Friend’s offer at some point soon.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about the challenges in West Yorkshire, which I absolutely understand. I am sure that he will welcome the move by Mayor Tracy Brabin to introduce the Weaver network, and that he is as excited as I am to see the difference that it will make.

To ensure that rural areas are not disadvantaged, the individual allocations were determined using a revised formula that considered the needs of each local transport authority, taking into account population size, levels of deprivation, bus service provision and, for the first time, rurality.

The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) asked about ensuring that all areas can take advantage of bus franchising. Back in September 2024, I laid a statutory instrument that opened up bus franchising to all local transport authorities—one of the first things I did on coming into government. Lancashire combined county authority’s funding settlement includes £56 million for buses, which can be used to enhance local bus services in rural areas.

Active travel has a really important role to play, particularly in making shorter journeys to shops, GP practices and leisure facilities in our towns. Funding for high-quality active travel infrastructure is critical, and this Government are providing significant investment. In December, we announced £626 million for local authorities between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to deliver walking, wheeling and cycling schemes—enough for 500 miles of new walking and cycling routes. That is in addition to almost £300 million of funding announced in February 2025 and a further £108 million in March 2026.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned pavement parking. The Government are taking action to ensure that pavements are for people, including parents with young children, people using wheelchairs and those with sight loss—everyone. We will legislate to allow local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking. They will also have powers to exempt locations where pavement parking would still be necessary to ensure traffic flow, such as narrow streets, and we will monitor the effectiveness of these measures through baselining and evaluation of research.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), has some cheek to talk about potholes! For many constituents, the most visible sign of under-investment is the condition of highways. We are taking action to support local authorities in tackling the pothole plague inherited from the previous Government, including by providing a record £7.3 billion of multi-year funding for highways—it will have almost doubled by the end of this Parliament. We are clear that local authorities should focus on long-term preventive maintenance, as well as long-lasting repairs.

However, I recognise that smaller and more rural communities are particularly vulnerable to disruption caused by street works. Lane rental can play an important role in tackling such disruption by allowing highway authorities to charge those carrying out works up to £2,500 per day when they occupy the busiest roads at the busiest times. That creates a clear incentive to plan works more effectively, shift activity outside peak periods and complete works more quickly. The Government strongly support the continued roll-out of lane rental, and we are currently finalising our assessment of 13 further applications. At the same time, we are developing approval powers for mayors of strategic authorities. That will support faster, more responsive delivery of schemes while reducing congestion, improving journey reliability and improving disruption.

Rail has a critical role to play and was mentioned numerous times by Members. I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard about all the individual schemes mentioned today, so I will not go into them, but connecting small towns is critical for the wider economy. Reliable commuter rail services can transform opportunities, making it easier for people to access jobs in nearby cities while continuing to live in the communities that they value. We are working with industry partners to improve the reliability and performance of commuter routes and ensure that smaller stations are not overlooked. That includes looking at how timetables, capacity and infrastructure can better support passengers travelling to and from smaller towns, including those in Lancashire.

My hon. Friend is a great champion for the people of Rossendale and Darwen. He will be aware that the Department is not currently funding any development work on either of the proposals that he mentioned, but my officials are very happy to support Lancashire county combined authority should any local funding be prioritised on either the City Valley rail link or the new station at Lower Darwen.

The Government are also committed to ensuring that non-mayoral authorities are fully engaged in GBR’s work and not disadvantaged as the new rail system is implemented. All tiers of local government will benefit from an empowered local GBR business unit that is outward-facing and engages local authorities on their priorities and their local transport plans. That structure will provide a single point of accountability for local authorities, rather than baking in the fragmented structure that we have today.

That engagement will ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities to collaborate with GBR on their priorities and consider their proposals. That approach is designed to ensure that GBR is as close as possible to local communities so that it can understand and respond to their needs, while being clear that they are part of a national system that needs to work coherently as a whole.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) rightly raised rail fares, which are a real concern for many passengers, especially when services are unreliable. The current fare system is complex and confusing, and passengers do not always trust that they are getting the right ticket. We are simplifying fares and ticketing so that passengers can easily find the best fare for their journey and get more consistent offers across the network under Great British Railways. Alongside reform, we have also frozen regulated fares for the first time in 30 years, which will help with the cost of living while improving reliability and service quality.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for securing this debate and to all Members for their contributions today. Improving transport in small towns is central to this Government’s mission to drive growth and opportunity across the whole country. We know there is more to do, but we are already taking meaningful steps to ensure that wherever possible, wherever people live, whether that be in a city, a rural area, a small town or a coastal town, they have access to the reliable, affordable and integrated transport that they deserve.

10:54

[Andy MacNae]

I thank everyone who has contributed. I was pleased that so many colleagues were able to cover areas that I was not able to address in my speech. I will not deal with every aspect, but it made me reflect that when we talk about growth, we sometimes default to the idea that it is just about a GDP number, but good growth has to matter and be felt in every single community. Transport is a crucial part of that. I was pleased that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) mentioned youth detachment, which is a fundamental indicator of how transport connectivity connects to growth opportunities and the good society we want to create where everyone feels a sense of opportunity.

Although I thank the Minister for all he said and all the positive moves that are being made, I respectfully say that there is still a disconnection between what we are doing in mayoral strategic authorities and non-mayoral areas, where so much is left to whether a given non-mayoral authority has the capacity and capability to bring forward these schemes. The Government may be doing great things and bringing forward great opportunities, but if a local authority does not have the capacity, capability, or indeed desire, to grasp these opportunities on behalf of their communities, we are left behind, as in Lancashire, Shropshire, Cheshire and so many other places.

We need to do more to make that connection and finally recognise that the big infrastructure projects have to impact our small towns. That requires proactivity in the project design and spending envelopes. We have £46 billion allocated for Northern Powerhouse Rail—surely some of that needs to go to connecting our small towns.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered transport links for small towns.

Youth Mental Health Support

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members can participate only if they have had prior permission from both the Member in charge and the Minister. I know one or two other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Interventions, if they are taken, are permitted, but speeches are not, unless they have been cleared in advance.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered youth mental health support.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. There is no doubt that we have a mental health crisis among our children and young people. The statistics are shocking. At the turn of the century, just over 2% of 14 to 24-year-olds had presented to primary care with a mental health problem; by 2023, that figure had risen to around 8%. Similarly, referrals to children and adolescent mental health services have trebled since 2016. Sadly, that is part of a wider decline in children’s happiness. The Children’s Society estimates that five children in a class of 30 are likely to have a mental health problem.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

This is a very important subject. I have disability issues, and I tried to take my life when I was at school. My youth club saved my life. We really need more youth clubs, but in Somerset we now have none. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need better youth provision in our rural communities?

[Anna Dixon]

I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s experience as a young person. I am very glad that he is with us, and that that support made a life-changing difference. I will come on to say more about the importance of youth services.

Behind the statistics are children and young people who are struggling, families who are stressed and teachers and doctors who are overwhelmed. Many of us will have a personal story of someone we know. My niece suffered with anxiety as a teenager and struggled with the transition to secondary school. She refused to go to school, and her absence was treated as truancy. After years of trying to get support from CAMHS, it was only when she was at a crisis point that she was seen. It took a further two years and several therapists before she was assessed and diagnosed with autism. That was a turning point, and the understanding it gave to both her and the family enabled her to recover and manage her mental health, but those lost years while she was waiting for support are impossible to get back.

Although neurodiversity is not a mental health issue, it can cause mental health issues if undiagnosed and unsupported. One of the top issues raised with me across the Shipley constituency is concern about children and young people’s mental health and the lack of support. As an MP, I am frequently contacted by desperate parents looking for help, particularly parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Poor mental health impacts not just the lives of children and their families but wider society. I was shocked by the recent interim report by Alan Milburn on young people and work. It found that nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training—equivalent to one in eight. Long-term sickness was the primary driver of the increase in youth economic inactivity, and mental health conditions were the most common cause.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Amber Valley has been selected for one of the new youth hubs that will be rolled out soon, and I am delighted about that. The hub will not only help people in my constituency into work, but provide them with access to mental health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that a holistic approach such as that is essential to ensuring that our young people, who have it harder at this time than ever, have the opportunity of a bright and fulfilling future?

[Anna Dixon]

I agree that youth hubs bringing everything together for young people are key to tackling these issues. Poor mental health harms young people’s life chances, and the long-term scarring effects are a major issue. That is why we owe it to our children to stop the harm and heal the wounds.

I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but a number of factors seem to be at play: covid causing children to miss out on school and play, more intense pressure at school with testing and exams, living in a more insecure global environment, levels of abuse, discrimination and bullying, exposure to trauma due to family breakdown, insecure housing and homelessness, poverty and, of course, the role of social media and the online world—a very topical issue that I will return to. While the Government cannot address all those factors directly, we can shape a healthier environment for our children to grow up in and ensure that the support is there when they need it.

The previous Government’s crippling austerity hit our schools and the NHS. They failed to address the crisis in SEND, narrowly focused school performance on academic achievement and refused to fund the covid recovery recommended by Sir Kevan Collins. Their actions did nothing to help the mental health of our young people. In fact, they did the opposite, and it is noticeable that nobody from the Conservative party is here for this debate.

This Labour Government are already doing so much more—an ambitious and comprehensive set of reforms to SEND, an inclusive curriculum, additional funding for youth services, tackling homelessness and ending the use of B&Bs as temporary accommodation for families and children—but there is more to do.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

On youth provision, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important that we have sport provision and mentorship, which can play a key role in tackling the youth mental health crisis? Will she join me in thanking my local charity, BEST, for the work that it does?

[Anna Dixon]

I would love to join my hon. Friend in thanking his local organisation, and I thank him for being such a great champion for sport in this place.

I will focus specifically on three areas: the NHS and access to CAMHS—to which I hope the Minister will reply—and youth services and action to tackle online harm. As of late 2025, more than 550,000 children and young people were on NHS mental health waiting lists in England, and more than half had waited for over a year. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned about how harmful that is, recently declaring that a lack of prioritisation to treat children with mental illness in England is turning treatable conditions into lifelong recurring illnesses, and that as many as 75% of children and young people who experience mental health problems are not getting the help they need.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech about the state of child and adolescent mental health support in England. I will just make the point about what is happening in Scotland, which is also very poor. In January to March this year, almost 40% of referrals to CAMHS support were rejected by the NHS in Scotland. I think that is ultimately a way of managing waiting lists so that they seem like they are meeting their target, even though young people are being failed. Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting young people in Scotland is critical, and will she join me in calling on the Scottish Government to get a grip of that?

[Anna Dixon]

I happily join my hon. Friend in calling on the Scottish Government to address this issue. I believe that waiting lists are too long UK-wide, and that too much rationing is happening. My constituent Joseph, a young man due to start secondary school in September, is an example of that. He has been unable to get assessments for ADHD and autism for 18 months, and his mum is incredibly worried about his ability to cope if he does not have the assessments and appropriate support. I will speak some of her words:

“This delay is already having a significant impact on Joseph”,

his emotional wellbeing has deteriorated,

“he has started to pull out his hair and eyelashes, his ability to sleep, educational functioning, peer relationships, and ability to…interface with healthcare providers has been extremely challenging and traumatic to the point where he has refused treatment.”

It is not just about the waiting list to get an assessment; after a diagnosis has been received, children may still need to wait for long periods to get medication and other support. GPs are severely overstretched. One of the GPs at Grange Park surgery in Burley in Wharfedale in my constituency shared their concerns with me about the pressures they face. Again, I will read a short extract from her letter to me:

“The mental health services are not working. They are massively under capacity. It’s easy to say we can’t afford more staff but these children are waiting throughout most of their secondary education to be assessed and then helped. It is not acceptable.

I no longer can make a difference. I write to everyone I can think of. I complain. I personally find it distressing. I have decided that the only people who can institute a change is the government. There needs to be urgent money put into children’s mental health services. A wait of 2 years for a teenager to see someone is just unacceptable. Think about the effect on the family and on the whole life outcome of the child themselves. We cannot give up on these children.”

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

In Greater Manchester, we have the BeeWell programme, which tracks young people’s wellbeing and is critical in helping local areas identify needs, and designs more targeted, preventive approaches. More young people are now reporting good levels of wellbeing through this programme, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to invest in locally driven, data-informed approaches to prevention, working in partnership with integrated care systems and local authorities?

[Anna Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising such a great example of wellbeing and prevention. It is vital that, alongside the specialist services that are needed, we do more on prevention and early intervention.

Before I move on to youth services and prevention, I want to make a final point about the health service. In West Yorkshire, the integrated care boards introduced a cap on appointments for ADHD and autism spectrum disorder assessments. When they reached the cap, they simply stopped seeing patients, which meant that more patients had to wait longer. I urge the Minister to look into this ICB practice and implement funding and workforce plans to tackle the waiting times in mental health with the same gusto with which Ministers have successfully addressed elective waiting times for surgery and cancer diagnostics.

I will briefly move on to youth services, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friends and colleagues. Early intervention and prevention are key. Schools and families play a role, but for many young people the opportunity to play, be physically active and participate in activities with other young people can boost their mental health. That is why youth services in our community and voluntary sector are so vital.

The previous Government crippled our youth services, funding for which declined by 73% in England between 2010 and 2023. Despite that, the previously Labour-led Bradford council fought to protect our local youth services. Reform is now in charge in Bradford, and I hope it follow the leadership shown by Labour and ensure that youth services remain available for young people across my constituency.

I have had the pleasure of visiting some of the fantastic provision for young people in my constituency. I would like to shout out Bingley Youth Café, Bolton Woods Community Centre, Denholme Youth Café and Health Action Local Engagement in Bradford, which all provide a safe space for young people to meet; outdoor facilities such as the skate park in Myrtle park and the fantastic new pump track in Burley in Wharfedale, which opened at the weekend—I thank Bradford Community Trust and parish council for all their work to support that project.

I want to shout out the brilliant sports clubs, such as Harden cricket club and Crossflatts cricket club, which both have very popular youth sections, as well as many football, rugby and running clubs. Many uniformed organisations, including Scouts, Guides and Cadets meeting across the villages and towns of my Shipley constituency, provide young people with a huge variety of opportunities to learn skills and develop; and finally, churches and mosques also provide vital support to children and families.

I am excited to soon visit the Slice of Life project run by the Methodist church in Burley in Wharfedale, which runs a pizza van to engage young people on the street. These amazing organisations rely on volunteers giving up time to work with young people. I would like to give a huge thank you to everyone involved. However, they also need money, which is why funding and grants for grassroot sport and youth organisations is so vital.

It is also essential that we have professional youth workers, police and other formal services available to support these voluntary community groups. That is why this Friday I am bringing together youth organisations, community groups, and other key local stakeholders to see how we can strengthen the youth offer in Shipley. I would be grateful if the Minister could work with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure funding for this sort of provision is prioritised, given the positive contribution it makes to supporting young people’s mental health.

As I mentioned, before I finish, I want to talk about social media, which is clearly a crucial factor in the rise of young people’s mental health problems. As part of Mental Health Awareness Week this year, I asked constituents to share their personal experiences with me. I would like to thank the almost 700 constituents who have been in touch. My constituent Michael is a parent of three. He wrote about the nightly battle with his children when they were between the ages of 14 and 16, over their desperation to have their phones in their rooms with them overnight so that they could check social media and not miss out on contact with friends.

Despite the exhaustion of the continued struggle and the resulting strain on family life, Michael persisted, because he knew how damaging social media can be to sleep health. By the age of 16, his children had given up the fight. Michael had protected their sleep through crucial years of development and study. This is a battle that parents should not be fighting alone, and they are in desperate need of stronger regulation of social media access and function.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share the concern I have from conversations in Plymouth about the deep harm caused to mental health by some social media? Is she aware that the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has warned of an epidemic of harm to children

“continuously exposed to hateful, addictive and grossly distressing content”?

[Anna Dixon]

I have great respect for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and my hon. Friend’s work to highlight the harms of social media and its addictive nature. I agree with him, and we must do all we can to protect children from these impacts and to hold tech companies to account when they continue to exploit young people through addictive algorithms and expose them to harm and abuse. I therefore fully support the measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 and the Government’s consultation to go further to protect our children from online harms.

I urge the Minister to call this out as a public health emergency, and to work closely with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and urge them to act boldly and decisively to put the wellbeing of children and young people above the financial interests of tech companies.

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

My hon. Friend is making a great speech. I would like to raise awareness of paediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome and paediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcus, conditions caused by an abnormal immune response that results in brain inflammation and leads to obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, children feeling pressures that they have never felt before and unbelievable overnight behaviour changes.

There is little awareness about these conditions, but they lead to poor mental health. Some of the children from the PANS PANDAS UK board came to Westminster not too long ago. They talked to us about the conditions, and one of those young lads made a heartfelt plea for us to get behind him, as he had considered taking his life because of PANS/PANDAS, and the conditions are not recognised or diagnosed. Would my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to think about PANS/PANDAS in any conversations she has around mental health?

[Anna Dixon]

I am sure that the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s remarks and will take on board the information and testimony that he has provided.

Our young people deserve to be given the best chance to grow up healthy and happy. Sadly, too many are not given that chance. That requires action across Government to ensure timely access to NHS services, a thriving youth sector in every community and a safer online environment so that kids can spend more time enjoying life in the real world rather than the virtual one. The Tories tore down the social infrastructure that supported young people in dealing with mental health issues. The safety net was cut and our children fell through the gaps. It falls to Labour to repair it and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

11:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate. This is an issue I care deeply about, and I thank her for sharing such a personal story about her niece and the lost years that she faced.

I also thank hon. Members for their contributions, including the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who shared how his youth club saved him at a time of very clear mental health distress, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), who talked about celebrating youth hubs in her area, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone), who talked about the powerful example of sports provision to support mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who talked about the issues with CAMHS in Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), who talked about his concerns about the impact of social media, and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who talked about PANS/PANDAS.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned Joseph and the delays in the SEND assessment. I am keen to work with the Minister for School Standards on the Health response to SEND reforms. The ICB is responsible for ADHD assessment and treatment services, and I hope that the NHS’s medium-term planning framework is clear that a system should use existing and new guidance to reduce long waits and improve the quality of assessments.

The message I want to give today is clear: the country is right to expect a children and young people’s mental health system that is simple, faster and stronger at every stage, from early support in the community through to specialist CAMHS support where needs are most severe. We have to be honest about the pressure on that system, which includes long waits and uneven access, but equally clear in our determination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, to improve it and build a system that delivers for every child and young person. For parents, as my hon. Friend shared, that means knowing where to turn when they are worried about their child. For young people, it means getting help through schools, their GP, community services—many Members mentioned them and the power they have to engage young people today—mental health support hubs or specialist NHS care, depending on the level of need. For families, it means a clear local offer, more joined-up care and fewer children becoming more unwell before help arrives.

To improve services, we have to be honest about how families experience them, and my hon. Friend shared some really powerful examples. Needs may first be identified at school, then raised with a GP and addressed through a community service, or they may come to attention only when there is a crisis, as my hon. Friend says. Support should become more intensive as need grows, but families too often do not experience a clear pathway and instead describe a search for help that is confusing, fragmented and exhausting.

The pressure points are well understood: confusing local offers, different referral thresholds and delays that allow problems to escalate until a child presents in crisis. More children and young people are starting treatment, but too many are still waiting. At the end of March 2026, nearly 40,000 children and young people had already been waiting more than 1,000 days for a first contact.

The pressures are visible nationally and matter locally too, including in Shipley. In Bradford district and Craven, young people can access support through schools and colleges, primary care, specialist CAMHS across Bradford and Keighley, and innovative community provision such as the Shipley Wellbeing Hub on Westgate, which offers walk-in support and links to wider services. Those are strong foundations, but we also know that in West Yorkshire ICB, where Shipley sits, almost 23,000 children and young people are still waiting for support, with median waiting times longer on average for England.

Let me be clear about CAMHS, because a number of Members have raised it. CAMHS is central to our current system of support and treatment. It is not one service, but a specialist pathway that covers community teams, crisis support and in-patient care. It is where children and young people are assessed and treated when needs are more serious and complex. However, CAMHS is under sustained pressure: referral volumes have risen, waiting times vary too much between areas and too many children are waiting too long for an assessment or treatment. Delay is not neutral; anxiety can become absence from school and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley described, low mood can deepen into self-harm and eating difficulties can become much more entrenched.

At the earliest stage, support should be available where young people already are, through mental health support teams in schools and colleges, open-access hubs, GPs and primary care, and community and voluntary services. For emerging needs, that should mean advice, brief intervention and practical help before problems escalate. For more severe or complex needs, it should mean timely referral into specialist CAMHS. For those in acute distress, it should mean a responsive crisis pathway. What good looks like is clear: visible local entry points, no wrong front door, support while families are waiting, stronger links between schools, GPs and community services, and better outcomes for children.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for describing what good looks like. Does she agree that we are very far from that in most parts of the country, and that it is now a matter of great urgency that the Government act to ensure that the good she describes is available to all children in all places?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I will now set out what the Government are going to do to address the fragmented system that we all find. We will strengthen the whole pathway, not just one part of it—I think that is really important, from listening to my hon. Friend today. I also want to thank her for raising the subject of the NEET population—those not in education, employment or training—because none of this can be done in isolation; we have to work across Government if we want to truly address the fragmented system.

First, we are expanding earlier intervention. We are accelerating access to NHS-funded mental health support teams in schools and colleges so that, by 2029, all pupils and learners will have access to that early support. Alongside that, the Government have provided more than £20 million of funding to early support hubs over the last three years. That will deliver more than 30,000 additional mental health interventions for children and young people. These hubs offer open-access, community-based help without requiring a clinical referral. I think that is very important.

This year, the Government have also launched young futures hubs. The first eight early adopter hubs are now operating in Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, County Durham, Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham and Tower Hamlets, with a further 42 hubs to follow across England over the coming years. Together, they will help young people get to the right support sooner.

Secondly, we are improving consistency in navigation. A modern service framework for children and young people up to the age of 18—up to 25 for those with mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions—will set clear expectations about what services should provide and for whom, and how those services should work together across the pathway to improve outcomes.

Thirdly, we are increasing capacity in specialist services. We have already delivered on our commitment to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers for children and adults, three years ahead of schedule. Almost one in five are working directly in children and young people’s services, including within mental health support teams in schools and colleges—more than 10,000, actually—and in community CAMHS teams. Those staff are helping children and young people access support more quickly and closer to home.

Fourthly, we are acting on the drivers of the crisis as well as the consequences. Children’s mental health is shaped by what happens at home, in school, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley powerfully said—online and in their communities, which is why this cannot sit in the NHS alone. We are working across Government to tackle root causes, including taking action on social media and screen use, expanding perinatal mental health support and tackling inequalities and child poverty.

As my hon. Friend has already stated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has undertaken a consultation on children’s online safety, which received more than 70,000 responses. That is a national conversation we need to have. Guidance has been issued for nought to five, and I think it is important that we have a statutory footing on phones in schools. The measures are all there to assist parents and professionals in navigating what I know, with the Online Safety Act, lots of young people are evidencing: the impact of online harms on mental health.

To bring this all together, we are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England. The call for evidence is now live until 10 July. I urge hon. Members to please feed in and share that with their constituents, so that frontline services, experts and people with lived experience can help shape the next phase of reform. Alongside that, we have commissioned an independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism to inform the longer-term changes needed for a more coherent and effective offer. Again, that report is due to be published at the end of July.

The message to the country is this: we understand where the system is under pressure; we are being honest about the challenge; and we are acting where it matters most, which is on earlier help, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has raised, clearer routes into CAMHS, more capacity in specialist care, and better support in the community. Every child deserves the chance to be well, stay in school, build relationships and look to the future with confidence. That is what this Government want for children, young people and families in Shipley and across the country, and that is the system we are determined to build.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Improving the UK Visa System

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

14:30

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Immigration is one of the defining policy challenges of our time. It determines who our neighbours are and with whom we share our country, our culture, our values, our communities and our public services. Britain is operating an immigration system based on a high level of trust that the gangs who ruthlessly tear through our borders in the English channel will stop before thinking to exploit loopholes in our visa system. As a consequence, Britain is now an outlier in the world of self-interest, and our immigration system must reflect that. It must be robust enough to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, who can enrich our communities and boost our economy, but it must slam shut the back door to migrants who do not benefit our country and who burden our public services.

The simple truth is that immigration has been unsustainable for a long time. In a little under two years, more than 1.3 million people have come to live, work and study in the UK. That is more than the total population of Birmingham, leading to strain on our public services, competition for jobs and increasing pressure in our housing market. Although some migrants will have brought talent and experience, far too many have not. This has been facilitated by a visa system that is too generous and too vulnerable to exploitation. It cannot continue.

Last year I began researching the UK’s visa system, and what my team and I found was shocking. Glaring loopholes in compliance must be closed—for example, by requiring visa holders to provide an up-to-date home address during the visa period and not just at renewal or settlement, and by matching national insurance records with visa status so that illegal working can be identified and enforced in near to real time. This is legal compliance 101, and there is no excuse to keep the back doors to Britain open.

Around 140,000 organisations are eligible to sponsor work visas. The vast majority are small and medium-sized enterprises, and some of them are tiny. Nearly 17,000 have five or fewer employees. More than 3,000 have just one employee, with so-called skilled workers sponsored to work in vape shops, convenience stores and takeaways. To those looking to exploit the UK visa system, Britain is sending an open invitation to set up a bogus company and sell pretend jobs that give people the right to live in the UK.

None of this is hypothetical. During my research, I read an investigative report by The Times that uncovered visa agents selling fake jobs with companies that hold Home Office sponsorship licences. It is a lucrative business model for fraudsters who cheat our visa system, and for migrants who are desperate enough to do the same. Back in January, I asked the Minister on the Floor of the House how we could be sure that tiny companies sponsoring visas were not bogus. He promised to look at it and come back to me. He responded to me only yesterday, presumably as he was preparing for today’s debate. That is not good enough, because these are serious and urgent issues for all our constituents.

We must draw a line at the smallest of organisations being able to sponsor visas, and we must set clear limits on the proportion of an organisation’s workforce that can be made up of people on work visas. For that to be possible, the Home Office must publish the relevant data, rather than fobbing off MPs by saying that it can only be collected at a disproportionate cost. The real cost is in turning a blind eye to loopholes in our visa system. Inspections need to be regular and transparent, so that the British public can see the system working for them.

The Home Office has claimed that it regularly reviews the organisations eligible to sponsor visas, but just a cursory check finds organisations that are long defunct. The former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy remains on the list, despite being abolished in February 2023. If Government are not joined up enough to remove historical Departments, how can there be any faith in the adequacy of checks on tens of thousands of smaller organisations across the country?

Employees who break the rules get a slap on the wrist, and repeat offenders are allowed to get back their licence to sponsor visas in as little as two years. We must be tougher. Bans on sponsoring visas should be incurred after one failed action plan following a B rating. Those bans should be permanent, with penalties for directors to stop them moving on to sponsor visas at their next rogue outfit.

In addition, too many public bodies have come to rely on immigration to fill job roles. That is ludicrous at a time when 1.1 million young British people are not in employment, education or training. The public sector should lead from the front and only sponsor visas in cases where candidates bring genuinely world-class expertise.

Astonishingly, thousands of visas are also being issued for religious and charity work to those who meet pathetically low financial requirements. Would you believe that £2,270 in the bank is enough for a religious minister to bring in a family of five for three years? A robust visa system would scrap those routes entirely. The hard truth is that they are being used to take advantage of Britain’s good will, and that must stop.

Work is not the only area where there is a problem. If someone has a high-paid, skilled job in the UK and their passport is from all but one country, they can bring their non-British spouse to the UK on a five-year dependent visa for around £1,500 in application fees. However, if a British citizen is bringing their non-British spouse to the UK for five years, that will set them back over £3,200 in fees and require two family visas. That is madness. What possible justification can there be for it to be more expensive and more difficult for British citizens to bring a non-British spouse to the UK? Even the family visa is not exclusive to citizens. Settled individuals have the same right to sponsor family visas that British citizens do. That is not fair to British citizens.

On student visas, our universities have a commercial incentive to fill lecture halls with international students, and the UK’s visa policy hands international student graduates the right to live and work in any job they like through the graduate visa. As a result, the UK takes the second largest number of international students of any country in the world—750,000 in the past couple of years. Far from attracting the best and the brightest, the visa system fails to distinguish between the quality of students.

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

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. International students have always come to the UK and it is not because of the visa system; it is because we have fantastic universities. The hon. Gentleman will know that our very best universities do not actually rely on the graduate visa scheme.

[Blake Stephenson]

I agree that we have a thriving university sector, and we must maintain it. However, the reality is that many students arriving in the UK are doing so to attend poorly performing universities, and not just the best ones. That is doing long-term harm to our country and our economy. We must close down that route by establishing a minimum academic standard for incoming students and setting a cap on institutions, based on the quality of educational provision.

Eligibility for graduate visas should also be linked to academic performance, to keep the best and the brightest while slamming closed this back-door route for low-skilled migrants. Universities should be stripped of their power to assess English language skills for incoming students, which allows them to bypass the official secure English language testing system. Those with a commercial incentive to bring in as many students as possible should not be allowed to mark their own homework. That has created an unacceptable loophole, one that trashes rules designed to ensure that the most basic of requirements is satisfied—that those who come to the UK can speak our language.

On English language testing, the Government are acting without sense and rationale. The Home Office is pressing ahead with plans to move official English language testing to a fully remote model, despite serious security concerns. Having initially ruled out remote testing, the Government U-turned after being lobbied by Peter Manderson’s firm, Global Counsel, on behalf of Duolingo. That US tech firm is now expected to win the £816 million contract, after a consortium of leading British firms withdrew from the application process, warning that the proposal exposes the UK’s immigration system to weaker security. Remote tests are extremely vulnerable to organised criminal gangs and cheats who, as I have seen at first hand, can easily overcome safeguards with technological workarounds, some of which use cheap equipment readily available on Amazon.

The Government have repeatedly promised to smash the gangs, yet they are opening a new back door to Britain for organised criminals to exploit. In a further insult to the British public, the Government initially denied meeting with Duolingo, yet a recent response to a freedom of information request shows that the Minister for Investment met Duolingo in September 2025 to discuss its offer on English language testing. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that and apologise to the British public.

All that raises serious questions about the Government’s seriousness on UK border security. There are also questions to answer about whether the £816 million contract is good value for money. The Department will have received a letter from the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, inviting officials to brief the Committee, and I hope the offer will be taken up. It is clear from a YouGov poll that the majority of adults from across every political party, gender and socioeconomic group oppose a move to remote-only testing for an English visa application, so why on earth would the Home Office pursue that course?

In answer to my written parliamentary questions, the Minister alluded to the changes delivering a “net positive” financial benefit for the Department. In plain English, that means that the Home Office are looking to trade the security of high-stakes English language testing for cash for the Department. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that point. What other reason could there be for the Government’s diverging from our Australian and Canadian allies, who have both recently rejected proposals to move testing online?

We do not permit remote-only testing for driving theory tests, “Life in the UK” tests or GCSEs, so how can we, with a clear conscience, permit it for the test that decides who makes the UK their home? Has the Home Office consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote testing? The reality is clear for all to see: a fully remote model cannot match the security of in-person supervised testing. Are Ministers so naive that they cannot see the disaster coming down the tracks?

I hope that much of my speech will not come as a surprise to the Minister—I have asked him enough questions on this topic, and I have been told that my “Backdoors to Britain” report, which I published in March, has been read. I am grateful for the responses to it that I received from the Department. However, given the inadequacy of the Government’s response so far, I am not satisfied that they have listened to my concerns and those of many in the country.

I hope that the Minister’s response will reflect on the seriousness of these issues and demonstrate that the Government understand the problem. The British people do not want a blame game; this problem is too important for point scoring. I recognise that the responsibility for the problems in our visa system lies with both the current and with previous Governments, but the responsibility to act now lies with current Ministers. They need to be ambitious and brave but also thorough and serious.

It is crucial that we improve the visa rules and the compliance and enforcement system. More than almost any other system, it defines who we are as a nation and what it means to be part of our community. The conversation about how we get our visa system to work in the national interest must involve all of us, regardless of our politics. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues from right across the political divide.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. A Member has come in rather late and did not apply to speak in the debate, so I suggest that he does not speak. I call Daniel Zeichner.

14:43

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on introducing this important debate. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with everything that he said. The city I represent, Cambridge, has fantastic universities that rely strongly on international students, who we are very proud of. We rely on a functioning visa system to make the city prosper, but my constituency office deals daily with a steady flow of immigration and nationality cases from across a range of routes, including skilled worker visas, dependant visas, and family reunification, settlement and naturalisation applications. I suspect we will hear the same story from other Members.

A city like Cambridge probably has a disproportionate number of such cases. A consistent theme across them is delays in the system and, I have to say, sometimes limited communication with the Home Office. It is hardly a new problem. I have been an MP for 11 years and it has always been the case. In many ways it may be improving, but it is still not good enough.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way so early in his speech. He hits on the issue that communication with the Home Office is challenging. I would go so far as to say that there is a cultural problem in the Home Office, whether for visa applications or naturalisation applications. A family in my constituency applied for citizenship in 2022, and after months—years—of me and them chasing, and being pushed back and told by the Home Office, “These things take a long time; please be patient,” it transpired that there was an administrative error in the Home Office. It was noticed after three years, and four years later the family finally got naturalisation. Does the hon. Member agree that the culture at the Home Office needs to change?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I remember notorious problems with the system based in Croydon from when I was a teenager living there, so the issue goes back 50 or 60 years.

The issue is important because it creates such uncertainty for so many people, with knock-on effects for employment, housing and family life. We are seeing cases where constituents are seeking to reunite with family members through refugee family reunion routes, including applications made, exactly as has been suggested, prior to recent changes in the immigration rules. That includes cases where people are trying to be with seriously ill relatives, but still facing delays even when urgent expedition routes exist. Importantly, those routes prioritise only case consideration; they do not guarantee that a faster decision will be made.

Frankly, in many cases, I have found constituents unable to take up confirmed job offers or proceed with planned family relocations because applications remain unresolved or there is insufficient clarity around timelines. Alongside the delays themselves, a recurring concern is the difficulty that constituents face in obtaining any information—again, exactly as has been pointed out—which leaves them unable to plan with confidence or understand their position within the system. I think that point will be repeated throughout the debate.

My second point refers to a time when I was fisheries Minister. Last summer, late in my occupation of that post, I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I was alerted to problems in the Northern Ireland fishing industry, where a relatively small number of visas are essential to its continuation. I wrote to the Minister with some suggestions for working with the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. I gently say that that offer stands if he wishes to take it up.

My final issue refers to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire about language testing. The Cambridge University Press & Assessment, a major employer in Cambridge, is one of the players that bid and then withdrew its bid because of concerns about the changes to online testing. It asked me a number of questions that I will put to the Minister today, echoing the points that have already been made. Is he really satisfied that a fully remote model can match the security of in-person, supervised testing? These are high-stakes tests because the number of people coming to our country depends on their accuracy. I echo the point calling for an explanation of why are we diverging from Australia and Canada, which have rejected this approach, and I ask whether the Home Office will publish the risk assessment underpinning the move to remote-by-default testing, including its assessment of fraud, impersonation, AI-enabled cheating, hidden devices and organised malpractice.

Could the Minister also tell us whether the Home Office has consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote English language testing, including AI-enabled cheating, impersonation, organised fraud and cross-border cyber-risks? Perhaps he could explain why the Government are moving towards remote-by-default testing when other high-stakes assessment bodies are moving in the opposite direction. For example, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is ending remote invigilation, and the Law School Admission Council, which runs the law school admission test for US schools, is returning to in-person testing to protect security and integrity. Could he tell us whether the Home Office English language testing system will be independently regulated to the same standard as the current secure English language tests, and whether Ofqual will have a formal role? What fall-back arrangements are in place if security, reliability or integrity problems emerge after the contract is awarded, including whether the Home Office could realistically switch provider or return to higher-assurance in-person provision?

I appreciate that the Minister and his colleagues inherited a system that was buckling under the strain, and I also appreciate the hard work of the many civil servants trying to make it work, but I would appreciate any answers that the Minister can give.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Given the number of speakers here, it is going to work out at about four and a half minutes each. I am not going to bring that in strictly for now, but if everybody is considerate of that, we will be able to get through.

14:50

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate.

This debate is about more than simply improving the UK visa system; it is about creating an economy that delivers for families, workers and employers alike. It is crucial that we get this issue right. If we are serious about economic growth, supporting public services and helping British businesses succeed, we must be honest: the current direction of travel is deeply damaging. What is worse is that many people are either celebrating it or complaining that we are not moving quickly enough. Now is not the time to accelerate; it is time to slam on the brakes before we drive our economy off a cliff.

The visa system is becoming too harsh on workers, too costly for employers and it is bringing too much uncertainty for families who came to this country in good faith. They followed the rules, paid the fees and contributed to our economy and our communities. The proposal to double the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 is particularly concerning. Roughly 2.2 million people with temporary visas that ended in 2024 were on a path to settlement and all of them have had the rug pulled from beneath them by this Government.

People came to the United Kingdom under one set of expectations. They built careers, enrolled children in schools, rented or bought homes and made long-term plans. Now, after years of working, paying tax and contributing to our country, they are being told that they must do more to earn their future here.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the worst aspects of the new system is how it treats husbands and wives separately? If a husband has gained five years of work experience but the wife has stayed at home to look after their children, she will be treated separately under the new rules such that her path to indefinite leave to remain will become much longer than his. That is having a damaging impact on families.

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course, it creates further uncertainty and, I suspect, further costs because families are having to pay lawyers thousands of pounds. I absolutely agree that the level of uncertainty should be resolved.

The system is not cheap for those who use it. For workers and families, the costs are extraordinary, with the total cost from entry to citizenship ranging from about £12,000 for a lone skilled worker visa holder to more than £40,000 for a parent and child. The immigration health surcharge alone is about £1,000 per person for each year of leave, which is paid up front. A family with one adult dependent and one child on a five-year skilled worker visa will be charged nearly £15,000 to access the NHS. When we take income tax into account, they are paying twice over for the public services that many of them help sustain. They paid their duties in full and then some, and now they are being told that is not enough.

The system is also not cheap for employers. When visa fees, health surcharge payments and compliance costs are included, the five-year sponsorship cost for a single skilled worker can reach £14,000—and that is assuming that everything goes smoothly. The idea that businesses casually choose to sponsor overseas workers instead of hiring locally is simply not credible. If employers could easily recruit British workers with the skills they need, they would do so. The truth is that successive Governments have left this country with serious skill gaps. Now, instead of fixing those gaps, the Government are punishing the employers and migrant workers who have stepped in to fill them.

The consequences are already being felt. Skilled worker visa applications in 2025 were 59% lower than in 2023 when work migration peaked. Construction companies, health trusts and care homes are facing chronic staff shortages. Universities are also under pressure, as tougher restrictions on international students reduce applications and cut vital tuition income. Migrant workers are at the heart of the systems that care for our sick and elderly, build our homes, grow our food and drive innovation.

Public opinion recognises this, more than Ministers often admit. British Future’s latest immigration tracker survey has shown that more than 60% of the public support increasing or maintaining numbers of nurses, doctors, care home workers, engineers, seasonal agricultural workers, academics, teachers and IT experts, while more than half support increasing or maintaining numbers of construction workers, catering staff and lorry drivers.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be winding his speech up soon.

[Ayoub Khan]

In conclusion, Britain should be a country that attracts talent, rewards contribution, and keeps its promises. The current approach does the opposite: it prices people out, damages competitiveness, and leaves families with great uncertainty.

14:55

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

I want to start by welcoming the Home Secretary’s measures to get a grip on the visa system and rebuild the public’s trust in it. This is a debate that, if I am frank, my party too often shies away from. I want to be honest: I have been on the doorsteps in Makerfield and in industrial towns right across Yorkshire, and I have to admit, I often hear the same thing, even from those I speak to who are hesitant about illegal immigration. Most people have got absolutely nothing against legal migration, managed well.

I want to come to this debate with some thoughts on how we can build a visa system that is based on contribution, is more place-based and has devolution at its heart, maximising British values around fairness. Let me start by saying that legal migration is a positive thing that is felt across most households in Britain, left or right. Take the NHS. The statistics tell us that, when my youngest boy, Louis, was born a year ago, on average, one of the NHS workers in that delivery room was born overseas. That is a wonderful thing and a story I will tell him in the years to come: that someone born overseas chose Britain to be their home, to deliver him into this world. We must never forget that, under Reform’s policies on ILR, the NHS would crumble overnight.

Let me frame things, though, in a different way. The world cup is coming shortly, and we have a squad of incredibly talented players from right across the country—even if we can debate whether Tuchel’s final 26 was the right choice. I have no doubt that we will see Reform politicians putting on three-lion shirts, singing the national anthem and cosplaying as the football fans they never seem to be throughout the rest of the year. But many of those players’ parents were born overseas and came to the UK. Many of their family members would never have been allowed here in the first place if it were down to Reform. Just remember that when we see them wearing England shirts, and let us not forget that some of them have even boycotted games before. Patriots? Yeah, right.

Moving on, one of the most heartbreaking things I have heard about from my constituents in York Outer was the case of some asylum seekers who were trying to get to a maternity appointment—unfortunately, they do need taxis to get to some appointments. I recently wrote to the Minister for Border Security and Asylum about this.

We have to recognise that there are unique circumstances and take things on a case-by-case basis. If asylum seekers need urgent support to get to critical medical appointments, for example a 20-week scan, then I think a compassionate Britain says that we should support them.

Around 12 years ago, the Institute for Public Policy Research published a report—one that stands the test of time—calling for a greater sense of people’s contribution in the visa system. Under what I would call something like ILR contribution-plus, community champions such as carers or nurses saving lives in the NHS should maybe, just maybe, have a faster route towards ILR. We should seriously look at that.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is apposite that I should intervene at this point, because I believe I might have been the author of that IPPR report from 12 years ago. One of the things about contribution is that it needs to be managed. We need to be able to check whether people are contributing, obeying the rules and interacting with the labour market correctly. Only two months ago, the Government created the Fair Work Agency, under the Employment Rights Act 2025. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be critical in ensuring that we can measure the contribution to the labour market of those in the immigration system?

[Mr Charters]

I can assure my hon. Friend that he does not look old enough to have written that report 12 years ago. Regarding the Fair Work Agency, there is an important deterrent effect that gangs exploiting people overseas should recognise that it is not worth their time to proceed with illegal activity.

I want to touch on—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Briefly.

[Mr Charters]

I briefly want to mention a very tough bloke at one of my surgeries, who was in tears over his wife’s visa situation. I do have concerns about applying changes to ILR from five to 10 years retrospectively. I am not convinced that is the best way forward. We should move to an ILR and visa model based on the contribution that people make to their place and communities, linking it to the devolved power of regional mayors.

15:00

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this timely debate.

We are here to talk about improving the UK visa system. That has to start with addressing one of the most cynical flaws in our system, which is the domestic abuse loophole. That loophole involves migrants falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in this country. That is a national issue, and a local one for me in West Yorkshire.

Before I continue, let me be clear that those who are genuine victims of domestic abuse must be afforded the utmost protection by society and lawmakers, no matter their gender, the colour of their skin, the language they speak or where they come from. We cannot, however, allow that obligation to be used to allow people to con their way into this country and ultimately claim citizenship, falsely accusing those they relied on to get here of heinous crimes, potentially causing lifelong impacts for the innocent people with whom they entered a relationship. Under UK law, migrants who claim to be the victims of domestic abuse and who are on temporary visas as the partners of British citizens, can apply for permission to settle permanently if the relationship has broken down because of domestic abuse or violence.

Permission to settle gives them the right to live, work and study here for as long as they like, and to apply for benefits if they are eligible. They can use that to apply for British citizenship. That rule, known as the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, was brought in to help genuine victims of abuse to secure permanent residence more quickly than through other routes, such as asylum. There is stark evidence, however, that that it is being used by male and female migrants to dupe British partners into relationships and marriage.

[Ayoub Khan]

It is not just the scenario that the hon. Member highlights. There is evidence of false domestic violence cases, where partners get indefinite leave to remain and British nationality, and then bring over their true partner, which is a further exacerbation. Is the hon. Member aware of that?

[Robbie Moore]

I am aware of that, as it resonates with some of the casework I get in my constituency in Keighley. I am also aware of people being encouraged to fabricate false allegations by so-called online legal advisers. The scale of the problem has been amplified through a freedom of information request from the BBC. It found that a total of 5,596 migrants made applications for indefinite leave to remain as victims of domestic abuse in the 12 months up to September 2025, the most recent period for which the data was available.

The BBC reported one case where a British mother, who had left her male partner after reporting him for rape, was subsequently accused by him of domestic abuse. She said that was a false allegation, made so that he could stay in the country. The allegations were never proven, but the partner was able to use them to avoid having to return to Pakistan. I know from the correspondence I get through casework in my constituency that there is a noticeable increase in the issue.

There was one mother whose son and spouse came to reside with her family after a marriage had been entered into. A complaint of domestic abuse was made, not only against the son but the wider family, which resulted in the mother losing her job in a local school. The police explored it, which resulted in them taking no further action, but because the claim had been made, it caused huge stress for the family. The individual who made the claim was protected by the state, through the money they were being paid to reside in a different place and by being able to claim benefits. That is wrong, and I hope the Government will look at that loophole.

Let me reassure Members across the House that it is, of course, right and proper that we offer the utmost protection to victims of domestic abuse. Immigration authorities will not get it right every time, but the numbers I cited earlier and my experience from constituency casework prove that this loophole is getting traction, and is being promoted for others to utilise. What reassurance can the Minister offer me that the Government are aware of this issue, are taking it seriously and have a plan to stop it escalating further?

15:05

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate, but I say to him, as gently as I possibly can, that he could barely be more wrong about the emerging situation concerning immigration and what we must do to equip ourselves for the future. What he, in fact, described was a situation that is quickly vanishing and proposed solutions that can do only more harm than good. The UK is actually experiencing one of the steepest declines in net migration in recent history, which is at one of its lowest points since 2012. All we hear, from what can only be described as a Westminster consensus, is that there is a crisis around immigration and a perception that it is out of control and must be curbed.

Let us have a look at what is actually going on. The latest figures from the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics show that net migration has dramatically fallen to 171,000 in the last year. That is almost half the figure for the previous year. It is more than three quarters below the post-pandemic peak of more than 900,000 in 2023, which was achieved under the Conservatives, who did not quite understand their own asylum policy. Far from migration continuing to spiral upwards, it is dramatically decreasing. Whether for work visas, study visas or family routes, it is all down.

Those real figures do not seem to matter a jot to a Government and Opposition still trying to convince us, for what I can perceive only as political reasons and purposes, that immigration is out of control. British Future has done us a great favour by describing this disconnect between what is actually happening—decreasing migration—and the public’s perception of what is happening. Politicians have been so successful at garnering their arguments about immigration that the public still believe that immigration is out of control and is rising.

The Home Office is happy to continue to paint a picture of escalating migration, and therefore tackling immigration is the core mission for all its activities. Again, it has been spectacularly successful. Just look at some of the figures for visas. In the year ending March 2026, work visas were down 17%, family visas were down 17%, refugee family reunion visas were down by 17%, and asylum claims were down by 12%. The sharpest and most invidious decline is in the number of visas issued to care workers, which, in effect, has collapsed after restrictions introduced by the previous Government and taken up with aplomb by the current Labour Government.

Visas issued to workers in caring personal service occupations have fallen from 108,00 at their peak to just 1,400 last year. There are real-life consequences to that. Public services have been impacted. The general economy is starting to suffer. Such is the situation that in the next couple of years we might have negative net migration. Who knows, it might actually be coming this year. If they think immigration is bad, just wait until they see the consequences of immigration and population decline.

Just look at one country—Japan. Ten years ago, it was No. 2 in the GDP leagues. It has been resistant to immigration for nearly all its history, and it is now going to collapse to No. 6, such are the demography issues and constraints.

There are also issues across southern Europe. In Italy, houses are being sold for €1 to try to get people to come to those communities. Countries are now looking at their immigration systems to see whether they are fit for purpose. Spain is attracting immigration to try to resist some of these problems. That is the agenda that we have to get into. If Members think immigration is bad, just wait until they see what is going to happen with emigration.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I am going to call the first Opposition spokesman at 3.28 pm, so the remaining speakers have less than four minutes each—more like three and a half minutes—if I am to get everyone in.

15:10

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I want to bring a case of injustice in the visa system to the attention of the Minister. It concerns two residents in my constituency, Mary and Geoff—not their real names. My office has tried every means of finding a solution through the Home Office, but without success. We now face a very pressing time constraint. That is why, in desperation, I have taken the opportunity of this debate to raise the matter.

Mary is British. Her husband, Geoff, was born in Zimbabwe but later became an Australian citizen. They now live together in Horsham. Mary relies on her British citizenship, and Geoff on a spousal visa. When Geoff’s spousal visa was approaching renewal, Mary tried to contact the Home Office for advice. It took her a month to get any kind of answer, and after she finally got through, she followed that advice and submitted what she reasonably believed was a correct visa renewal application. Unfortunately, it was not. She had been incorrectly told to apply for an e-visa, rather than a spousal renewal. That was invalid, so Geoff passed his renewal date unaware and was informed that he had overstayed. That was not a matter of carelessness or neglect; they tried to follow the rules, but the Home Office is a very difficult organisation to get to talk to, even for MPs.

To resolve the issue, Mary and Geoff instructed a lawyer and submitted a fresh application, along with supporting evidence. The Home Office has since accepted that Geoff meets all the substantive conditions required for him to stay, but it again refused him on the single ground that he was declared to have overstayed—the very problem that it created itself in the first place by giving them the wrong form. This is going round in circles.

It took more than six months to get that decision, and the nine-page refusal gave no recognition of their circumstances, their good faith or their deep family ties to the UK. They have been forced to appeal again, but have been told that it could take up to 12 months for a tribunal hearing. They simply cannot last that long, because they now have no income. This whole time, Geoff has been unable to work. He is a skilled mechanical engineer and a key worker in a local industry, but he is not permitted to work. His employer, very considerably, has kept his place open, but that cannot go on forever.

The couple face the real prospect of losing their home, and have spent £7,000 on legal fees, but the view of the Home Office is that they should simply go back to Australia, where they have no ties and no income. Mary is not sure whether she would be able to face that, so frankly their marriage is also at stake.

Members across the House agree that we need a robust immigration system with clear rules, but when well-intentioned people who have done everything in their power to comply fall foul of those rules, that cannot be a fair outcome. In all likelihood, the Home Office will find in Mary and Geoff’s favour at the appeal 12 months from now, but by that time they will not be in the country anymore. It will be too late, but there is nothing in the system that allows us to expedite the case. I hope the Minister will agree to work with me and meet me to ensure that Mary and Geoff can remain in their home, contribute to their community and continue supporting their family here in the UK.

15:13

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for highlighting this vital thread in the UK fabric.

I will speak about fishing visas. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for bringing the issue forward and for his suggestions. We had a very good meeting with the Minister six weeks ago—we thank him for that—and I hope he can tell today us what progress has been made since then.

I make no apologies for again speaking on behalf of the proud, resilient fishing communities of Strangford and, indeed, the whole of the Northern Ireland coastal fishing industry. For generations, men and boys from places such as Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel have braved the cold, dark waters of the Irish sea to put food on our tables. They are the lifeblood of our coastal villages, yet right at this moment their very livelihoods are anchored by a clunky, inflexible UK visa system that simply does not fit the realities of life at sea.

Let me be absolutely clear about the foundation of this issue. We must never conflate the safe, legal, hard-working migrant fishermen on which our industry depends with those who illegally enter the UK. Our fishermen are the first to say that they rely on skilled, legitimate foreign workers to keep the nets down and their boats moving. What are the Government offering them? That is the big question. The skilled worker visas are proving entirely unavailable to the fishing industry post 2026. We are looking at a potential loss of up to 70% of crew members on Northern Ireland vessels, which would tie up almost 100% of the local nephrops fleet within just a few years.

Just to explain the issues back home, I recently heard that a local agency put out a trawl for job vacancies, advertising across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Europe. However, out of hundreds of expressions of interest, only a handful were suitable, and a mere five people actually took up the jobs. Why? Fishing is cold, wet and demanding work. Our local boys and men do not begrudge paying a fair wage, but the workforce is simply not there on our shores. The foreign crews are seafaring folk with invaluable skills and form a vital and vibrant part of our fishing culture.

Just recently, we have seen restrictions such as the visa changes by the Isle of Man authorities, which directly impact Northern Ireland trawlers that have legitimately purchased permits to fish and negotiate neighbouring waters. Our fleet has been squeezed from every angle. We are not asking for a lowering of standards, and nor are we asking to open the floodgates; we are asking for common sense and flexibility. The industry has long called for an immigration route modelled on the seasonal worker visa or a dedicated, bespoke visa for fishing crews. That would protect British businesses while allowing long-term recruitment drives to bear fruit.

Let us be clear: food security is national security. If we want to maintain an affordable, sustainable food supply, we must give our fishermen the tools and crew they need to get out to sea. I have repeatedly pressed the Home Office and the relevant Minister for a solution. With the greatest respect, I say to the Minister today that perhaps now is the time to give us that. The Government need to step up and listen to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation. We need flexibility, and we need a bespoke visa. Give our fishing communities the helping hand they deserve, and let our boats get back to work.

15:17

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate, although the sentiment of my speech is not quite aligned with his. I was first elected in 2024, which marked 50 years since my mother came here from Malaysia, and I absolutely believe in the rich tapestry and diversity of this country. Just as we can see from my mum, who built great businesses and employed lots of people, and just as we can see from the doctor and oncologist who have helped my mum and dad through very difficult times, there is absolutely a value to the tapestry of the United Kingdom.

The Liberal Democrats have always been clear that we need fair, controlled immigration. However, for Hongkongers with a British national overseas visa in my constituency, that has not been the case. I have constituents in Harpenden and Berkhamsted who moved to this country based on clear promises from the Government, including five years’ residency, B1 English and no income threshold. They have built their lives here, found employment, bought homes and contributed to our communities, just like my mum, only to be told that the goalposts have now moved.

The Government’s proposed retrospective changes to the qualifying criteria for indefinite leave to remain undermine the fundamentally British values of fairness and respect, leaving those people in limbo and uncertain of their rights to be here while they invest in this country. Does the Minister agree that changing those residency requirements in this way risks damaging not only the economy but trust in the commitments this country makes to those who come here in good faith?

Such changes to the UK’s visa system also risk harming businesses and economic growth. At a time when many businesses already face pressure from national insurance increases and energy prices, which keep the cost of running a business high, further uncertainty around visas can make it harder to retain skilled workers and talent. And that is not to mention the frontline staff I alluded to, whom many Members have highlighted today.

From my perspective as a technology spokesperson, that talent particularly matters to this Government’s ambition on AI and quantum technology. As techUK has argued, if the UK is to remain world leading in this field, it must “remain open and attractive” to international innovators and the talent that supports them. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to reform the visa process to make Britain the obvious destination for AI companies. What is the Minister doing on these policies to support those ambitions, while also investing in home-grown skills?

The previous Conservative Government got immigration badly wrong. After Brexit, they presided over a series of chaotic immigration policies that failed to deliver control, failed to meet the needs of the economy and contributed to a sharp rise in net migration. What Britain needs is a controlled, fair and responsive visa system that works for businesses, supports our public services, attracts the skills our economies need and commands public confidence. It is that balanced and compassionate approach to immigration that the Liberal Democrats believe in, and it is that approach that this country deserves.

15:24

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

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing it. In doing so, I acknowledge the complexity of the issue and the dynamics, which many Members may agree with, or be susceptible or exposed to, in their constituencies. I do so also as the MP for Belfast South, which is a diverse and integrated constituency—it is certainly the most mixed population of people on the island of Ireland—and home to Queen’s University, one of the UK’s finest, welcoming students from all over the world.

The context I am speaking within is the dynamic of an island economy, with a relatively more flexible immigration system in the Republic, and some of the challenges that that creates, particularly for businesses around the border, which experience competitiveness issues. I am also aware of the experience of centuries of the Irish people feeling it necessary to travel to other places for reasons of poverty or marginalisation in Ireland. That is our national story, but the national story of this country is welcoming people, and of people being able to find opportunity and acceptance. That is part of the national story of Britain and the UK; many people have had to flee and have come to contribute, including not least my parents, early in their married life.

I will reflect on a few specific dimensions. My good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) well covered the issues around seasonal visas and visas in agriculture and fishing—issues we have both worked on over many years. Those visas sustain coastal and rural communities in Northern Ireland and are under pressure that cannot be solved in other ways—we have both tried.

I also want to address, as others have, the proposed changes, the most egregious of which is the moving of the goalposts on leave to remain and the breach of good faith that that will represent to so many people who came in good faith. The tiered aspect of earned settlement will not only disadvantage many people in lower-paid sections of the economy—I do not know about here, but we certainly could not do without those workers, not least in health and social care—but expose some groups to the risk of exploitation. I credit Unison and the Law Centre Northern Ireland, which are campaigning broadly on this issue.

I have spoken before in Westminster Hall about the lack of access for some of the most vulnerable people in Gaza. Nobody is suggesting that everybody in that beleaguered place would or should come here, or would wish to, but people are facing entirely irrational barriers in not being able to access biometrics, with those who are bombing them effectively having the say over who can leave to access those. I think of my constituents Omar and Dalal, whom I have been supporting. They are facing daily terrible news while they work in our health system and education system, but the visa system will not facilitate them.

My third point relates to the ETA—electronic travel authorisation—and the impact of electronic visas in Northern Ireland. Protecting the UK’s border is a perfectly fair and rational thing to do. It does not work for the island of Ireland, for many reasons. We have an integrated island economy. An Estonian software engineer cannot come to the Belfast office. An Italian backpacker cannot pick up work in Derry. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned sport: 50,000 Indian citizens living and working in Dublin, sustaining the tech sector, cannot come up to see Ireland playing India at cricket—there is an all-Ireland team playing in Belfast. Those are irrational outworkings. The visa system does not work for the region I represent.

15:24

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. The UK needs a humane, efficient, fair, secure and just immigration system. I will raise two issues drawn directly from cases in my Dewsbury and Batley constituency, but before I do, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate.

The first issue is e-visas. The Government’s move towards a digitally based system has the potential to modernise immigration status and make it easier to improve one’s rights. That is welcome, but the transition must be managed competently and compassionately, and the evidence suggests that far too often it is failing on both counts.

In my constituency, one resident holds indefinite leave to remain through the older, physical sticker or stamp placed in someone’s passport that proves they have settled status. As we transition to an e-system, my constituent has done exactly what was asked of him: he has applied, reapplied, uploaded documentation and followed all due process. Yet despite repeated attempts, he has been unable to access the e-visa route, due to unresolved technical issues with photograph verification. This is not a minor inconvenience; without secure, accessible proof of immigration status, he faces the very real risk of being unable to travel abroad or to re-enter the UK. That example highlights a fundamental problem: the system is being digitised faster than it is being made error-proof.

Moreover, there is a communication failure. Many people with legacy documents—whether physical stickers or physical biometric residence permits—should have received clear, proactive communication from the Home Office explaining the transition to e-visas and what steps they must take. What contingencies are in place for individuals who are struggling to access their e-visa due to technical faults, and why were all affected individuals not directly notified in writing of the need to transition to digital status?

Secondly, I turn to the skilled worker visa programme. This route is meant to attract talent and fill genuine labour shortages, but in practice it is being manipulated by sham companies to exploit migrants. A second constituent’s case illustrates this deeply troubling reality. He arrived in the UK in good faith on a valid skilled worker visa, but upon arrival his sponsor did not provide him with work. My constituent turned up to the registered address of business, only to find that nobody was there and that the business did not exist. He was then extorted by his sponsor and asked to pay thousands of pounds to maintain his immigration status. He refused to pay the extorters, and as a result his sponsor withdrew their sponsorship and lied to the Home Office, saying my constituent had failed to start work. Consequently, his visa was cancelled.

My constituent was not given a meaningful opportunity to find an alternative sponsor or to make his case as a victim of fraud. He was placed on immigration bail. In his own words, his life has been placed on hold. He cannot work, he cannot repay his debts, and his future is in jeopardy through no fault of his own. That case exposes a critical weakness in the system: when sponsors act improperly, it is too often the worker who bears the consequence.

In both the cases I have raised, people followed the rules and engaged in good faith, yet the system failed them. I go back to my initial point: the system must be fair, functional, humane, secure and just.

15:27

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate and introducing it in the way he did. It will not surprise him to know that I do not agree with all of what he said, but he did raise valid concerns about the abuse of our visa system and the loopholes in it. The Liberal Democrats are willing to work cross-party with the Conservatives and the Labour Government to tackle those issues.

The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair and controlled immigration system that works for our economy and our public services. It must function effectively, command public confidence and bring benefits to the United Kingdom and its people. We want a controlled immigration system, with a visa system that meets the demands of our economy and public services, but that must go hand in hand with a credible plan to boost domestic skills. However, this country’s visa rules can hurt our economy, damage families and fail to fully support refugees fleeing conflict, and that is what I will use my time today to talk about.

The Lib Dems wholeheartedly oppose the Government’s plans to retrospectively change the rights to seek indefinite leave to remain, and I know that many Labour MPs do as well. Moving the goalposts in this way violates the fundamental British value of fairness. I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on Hongkongers, who are fundamentally British. Many now reside in my constituency of Woking, and they are really concerned about the unreasonable financial and language requirements being put on them. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that, and particularly any reassurance he can give Hongkongers in my community and across the country.

As well as being unfair to the individuals involved, visa requirements can damage our economy. Thousands already contributing to our society and economy have made an investment in this country, and their firms have made investments in this country and offered them jobs knowing what ILR means. The lack of certainty from moving those goalposts is massively damaging—I have heard that from businesses in Woking, the Law Society and many others. It is not right or fair to change those rules.

The immigration system also damages our economy through the visa costs charged. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000— 20 times higher than in competitor countries. Cancer Research UK has said that several pieces of its research have been affected by soaring immigration costs, which have risen by 126% since 2019 and are up to 17 times higher than comparable countries such as Australia, France or the United States. The amount that the charity has had to pay the Government in visa fees or other immigration surcharges has nearly doubled since 2022-23, rising from less than £500,000 to almost £900,000 this year. That money could have been enough to train 40 PhD students, and I know where I would prefer the money to go.

A report from Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has found that there is very little evidence to support the Government’s belief that employers will train or rely on domestic staff because of hiking charges. It just does not agree with the Government. That is why I urge the Government to rule out retrospective changes to ILR and agree transitional arrangements, and to review visa charges based on genuine benchmarking against other similar countries.

Visa rules are not helping us grow our economy, and they are also undermining the right to family life. British citizens who wish to return to the UK with a foreign-born spouse encounter complex and costly application requirements. The application fee varies depending on whether someone applies in or out of the UK, but it can be more than £2,000. UK citizens should have the right to have their family come to the UK, provided that there are proper checks to verify their relationships. The Liberal Democrats think that minimum income and asset requirements for those with visas should be structured to ensure that there is no recourse to public funds, rather than being tied to arbitrary earning levels.

Last year, British citizens were required for the first time to present British passports at the UK border or present a certificate of entitlement attached to a non-UK passport. Dual nationals were really hurt last year by this Government. The current fee for that certificate of entitlement is £589. At the time, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I called on the Government to implement a grace period to allow British dual nationals to travel home without being caught out. There were families with children, children trying to take exams and families with sick relatives who were caught out, not only by the Government’s rules but by their refusal to compromise and adapt based on a poor information campaign. The Home Office did not listen to us, and I hope that it starts to listen to us again.

Finally, I worry that this country’s approach to visas can undermine our very humanity. We should welcome those fleeing war and support them when they are here. I am proud that my constituency of Woking has welcomed over 500 Ukrainians who have fled their homeland following Vladimir Putin’s appalling illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hear from Ukrainians that, as well as being anxious about their homeland and what is happening to their friends and family back in Ukraine, they are also anxious about their immigration status here in the UK. The Liberal Democrats think that the Government should automatically extend visas for Ukrainians who are already granted the right to be here to stay in the UK. It is vital that we remove the uncertainty that hangs over those families and children.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed these issues about Hongkongers and Ukrainians before. We often talk about the Boris wave and the large numbers of immigrants who came to this country. But within those numbers, there were a good half a million people who we wanted to come to this country—who we invited—including Hongkongers, Ukrainians, Afghans and others on humanitarian visas. Does he agree that the language we use and the numbers that we talk about need complete reframing so that we recognise those humanitarian visas, which the vast majority of the British population support?

[Mr Forster]

I completely agree, but I suggest that the hon. Member takes it up with his Government, who seem to be more focused on the hatred from the Reform party than on agreeing with our quite welcoming rhetoric. He should take that up with his Ministers rather than with me as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—he might risk crossing the Floor, if he is not careful.

The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian visa scheme that does not have the pathway to permanent settlement. I hope that the Minister will start to correct that injustice. Everything about this country—apart from its weather—should be fair. But our visa system is not fair, and it is not working for this country and the people in it. My hon. Friends the Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), for Horsham (John Milne), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have shown real-life examples of that unfairness and failure. I urge the Minister to start correcting it.

15:36

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Stuart, for chairing today’s debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate. As he has highlighted, his thoughtful and comprehensive report sets out a series of practical proposals to close loopholes and strengthen our legal migration system. At a time when immigration remains one of the most important issues facing the country, any serious attempt to examine the system as a whole and identify where improvements can be made deserves careful consideration. Whatever view one takes of his recommendations, nobody could accuse my hon. Friend of lacking ambition. His 30 proposals provide a clear direction of travel, including tightening loopholes, strengthening incentives and ensuring that our immigration system works in the interests of the British people.

Policy decisions matter. The Oxford Migration Observatory noted that the recent decline in net migration was driven largely by policy changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Those measures included restrictions on dependants, higher salary thresholds and tighter work visa requirements. They showed that when Governments are prepared to take difficult decisions and close obvious loopholes, migration can be brought down without compromising the principle of attracting talent.

Those measures addressed mistakes that had been made, and it is notable that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), acknowledged those mistakes early in her leadership and accepted the need for change. She also rightly recognised that, since the change in leadership at the Home Office, the Government have taken some steps in the right direction. While many Labour MPs appear reluctant to support tougher measures, we have consistently said that where the Government bring forward sensible proposals to strengthen the immigration system, we will support them. I hope that the Government move quickly to implement their proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain and to increase the qualifying period for settlement. Such reforms are long overdue.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is not simply unfair but un-British to change the rules for people who were told that they could qualify for settlement if they stayed in this country for five years, by moving the goalposts to 10 years?

[Matt Vickers]

There are real challenges in our immigration system, with real costs and pressures on our public services. We have to do something about it. What might be halfway for somebody at this point in time is day one for somebody else. We back the Government. We will look at what they bring forward and take it from there, but we are determined to support them where sensible measures are brought forward.

As today’s debate has demonstrated, immigration policy cannot be reduced to a single issue. Settlement matters, but so do work visas, family routes, student migration and enforcement. The system must operate as a coherent whole. Focusing on one area while weakening another risks undermining the overall objective.

That brings me to one of the recommendations highlighted in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. This is an issue on which I would welcome clarification from the Minister: the proposal to make remote English-language testing the default method of assessment. It raises a broader question about the future direction of the immigration system: in seeking efficiency and convenience, are we risking the robustness and integrity of existing safeguards? For many years, the Home Office has relied on a small number of trusted providers delivering secure English language tests in controlled environments, but the Government now intend to move increasingly towards remote assessments.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On those tests, does the shadow Minister agree that the historical role played by the British Council in various countries across the world to support a more rigorous assessment should be reconsidered to play a role in this?

[Matt Vickers]

There is a role for the British Council, but when it comes to remote testing, we have had a standard that the public has confidence in, and although this might be more efficient, it might undermine public confidence in the process. As has been said, organisations such as the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants are moving back to in-person examinations in order to protect test security and integrity. Is the Minister confident that the safeguards proposed will be sufficient?

Although it may seem to be a technical issue, it illustrates a wider concern. Every change to the immigration system should strengthen and not weaken public confidence. Those of us who spent many hours serving on the Public Bill Committee for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 debated numerous proposals to strengthen the Government’s response to both legal and illegal migration. Unfortunately, many of those measures were rejected.

One proposal that continues to warrant serious consideration is the introduction of an annual migration cap approved by Parliament. The Government have repeatedly opposed such a measure, but they are quick to celebrate any fall in migration figures. If migration levels matter—and clearly, they do—Parliament should have a greater role in scrutinising and setting expectations around them. Such a system would provide greater transparency and accountability. Parliament would have oversight of visa numbers across different routes and Ministers would be required to justify the choices they make.

[Shockat Adam]

Is there not a real threat of politicising immigration at a time in which universities in my constituency are really struggling because there is a lack of international students, who are no longer willing to come to this country? The amount of money they bring to our economy is phenomenal. Pursuing this type of policy will disrupt the foundations of our universities.

[Matt Vickers]

The idea that we, as a Parliament, have the right to scrutinise the decision-making process, to decide how many people should come and by what means, is a real positive. It is a real positive for public confidence and it improves transparency, so I support the idea of a cap for that very reason. It would be for us to debate and decide in this very House who should and should not come to this country.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the shadow Minister explain why his party did not introduce such a cap during the 14 years that they ran the country?

[Matt Vickers]

That is a very good question. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, a lot of mistakes were made along the way. We have looked at what worked well. In fact, much of the reduction in those legal migration numbers is, as we have said, a result of the moves made by the last Government. We are looking at this afresh. We have talked about leaving the European convention on human rights and we have come forward with a real plan that would allow us to control our borders.

Alongside greater accountability, we must continue to close temporary visa loopholes and move towards a system focused firmly on attracting high-skilled talent. That requires robust salary thresholds, clear eligibility criteria and, crucially, a determination to equip people already living in this country with the skills that employers need.

At present, we find ourselves in an absurd situation where vape shops on our high streets have been able to sponsor visas on the basis that they require skilled migrant labour. At the same time, the National Farmers’ Union is forced to lobby the Home Office for greater flexibility on seasonal agricultural workers. Whatever view one takes of individual visa routes, that cannot represent a coherent approach to immigration policy.

I recognise the challenges associated with relaxing restrictions in any area of the system, but there must be consistency. If the objective is to prioritise highly skilled migration, the system should reflect that objective in practice. The fact that some of the businesses currently able to sponsor visas appear far removed from that aim suggests that further reform is needed.

For too long, Governments of different colours have relied on immigration to fill shortages that should also be addressed through training, apprenticeships and investment in the domestic workforce. The answer is not simply to import labour indefinitely; it is to build skills at home while ensuring that, where genuine shortages exist, our visa system can respond effectively and competitively.

On that front, the Government’s record is disappointing. Rising unemployment, particularly among younger people, demonstrates the need for a more serious focus on training and workforce development. This improvement needs to be reflected in the numbers. The recent immigration data, while a step in the right direction, still shows significant non-EU migration, higher than in the equivalent period in the 2010s. That is accompanied by still large numbers of people, including British nationals, leaving. We need a visa system designed to support a high-skill, high-wage economy, not one that allows people to game the system.

I recognise that the Government remain sceptical of many of the proposals put forward. Nevertheless, I hope Ministers will give serious consideration to the recommendations outlined in the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Reducing migration numbers matters, but so too does restoring confidence that the system is fair, controlled and working in the interests of the British people.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, let me say that I will look to call the Member in charge of the debate to make a winding-up speech at 3.58 pm.

15:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important, wide-ranging and interesting debate.

We inherited a difficult system from the previous Government. At its peak, net migration hit nearly 1 million in one year. We saw around 600,000 individuals enter the country to fill just 40,000 vacancies in health and social care. One in 30 people currently in the country arrived in just four years. In our time in government, we have seen net migration fall by 82% from its peak and by 48% in the last year, and emigration, despite what it says on X, has remained flat.

I will do my very best to respond to each of the many specific points that were raised during the debate, but Members should feel free to intervene near the end of my speech if they feel that I have missed one. I will start by setting out this Government’s overarching approach to legal migration, of which our visa system is an integral part.

For generations, people have come here from around the world to visit, work and contribute to our society, and that will continue to be the case. Of course, this topic excites very strong views, but I continue to believe that this is, at heart, an open and tolerant country. At the same time, the public rightly expect their Government to have a firm grip on who can come here and who must leave. They expect the rules to be enforced and the numbers to be controlled. We can debate the intricacies of different policies, but the fact remains that on all those counts, the system this Government inherited was failing. Since taking office, we have acted decisively to put that right.

We have placed new controls on legal migration routes, the impact of which was laid bare recently with official figures, and we have moved to crack down on abuse of our immigration system. In under two years, we have tackled abuse to a level that surpasses action taken by the previous Government over the preceding decade. Illegal work and enforcement visits are at the highest level in years. In 2025, we carried out nearly 13,000 visits, resulting in more than 90,000 arrests. Since the Government came to power, more than 5,800 work-related sponsor licences have been revoked, meaning that more employers have been stripped of their sponsorship privileges in just two years than in over a decade under the previous Government.

Allegations of visa abuse are taken incredibly seriously and will always be investigated. We are removing and deporting more illegal migrants and foreign criminals, and, for the first time, deploying a visa brake on certain routes for nationals from four countries following a surge in visa-linked asylum claims. We are doing all that and more because we recognise that without order and control, public trust is impossible. The people of this country rightly expect an immigration system that is fair but firm, and that is what this Government are determined to deliver.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On deporting illegal migrants, people who do not have a right to be in our country should not be allowed to stay and should be removed, but will the Minister reflect on the way in which deportations have been publicised—the videos that go on X, which he mentioned, and the dehumanisation? Whether legal or illegal, human beings are human beings. Could he explain the thinking behind the Government’s publicity around deportations?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. It is right that we keep the public informed of what we are doing. In the current atmosphere, there is a lot of misinformation. When we tell the public that there are deportations and removals going on, we are simply not believed—that is the climate that we currently operate in. There have been some representations of illegal migrants boarding planes, but the faces are always blurred and it is not possible to tell who they are, because I completely agree that it is important to respect an individual’s dignity.

I will move on to compliance and enforcement. In under two years, we have tackled abuse to a level that surpasses action taken by the previous Government. Since the Government came to power, more than 5,800 work-related sponsor licences have been revoked, meaning that more employers have been stripped of their privileges in just two years than in over a decade under the previous Government. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act, the Government have introduced tough new laws to clamp down on illegal working. That means that, for the first time, right-to-work checks and associated sanctions for non-compliance will be extended to cover businesses hiring gig economy and zero-hours workers in sectors such as construction, food delivery, beauty salons, courier services and warehousing. Those changes will restrict rogue employers’ ability to take advantage of illegal workers and encourage businesses to provide work opportunities for those permitted to work in the UK. They will provide parity across industries and set a level playing field for businesses to uphold their responsibilities.

A number of Members mentioned work visa sponsorship. The ability to sponsor overseas workers is a privilege and not a right. That privilege must be earned by meeting strict criteria, which establish that the organisation is lawfully trading or operating in the UK, is suitable and trustworthy, and is capable of offering roles that meet the requirements of the immigration rules that we set. That comes with specific duties and responsibilities through which sponsors are held to account. The Home Office will not hesitate to act when organisations fail to meet those standards, and licences can and will be refused or revoked as a result. Arrests involving illegal workers are up by around 60%. I take the point that there are defunct employers on the list, and I will ensure that officials look at that.

I will turn briefly, because I am strapped for time, to data. I agree with the sentiment that the Home Office data falls down in many places; that has been a problem for decades. We are looking to combat it, and I will ensure that we work hard to improve it. I always find it unacceptable when I have to respond to written questions and we do not have the data.

I will talk briefly about the religious routes, which were also mentioned. The immigration system maintains two dedicated immigration routes for religious workers—the religious worker and minister of religion routes—in acknowledgment of the valuable contribution that faith groups, including religious institutions from overseas, make to our society. All visas are kept under regular review to ensure that they are operating as intended and remain properly controlled, and there are no plans at this point to close those routes.

Turning to student and graduate visas, the Government continue to welcome and value the contribution made to our society, economy and higher education institutions by those overseas students who choose to come to our great country. We have the best universities in the world, and we want the best minds in every country to aspire to complete their education here. International students can apply for a student visa if they demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the route, including a sufficient level of English, the ability to support themselves financially throughout their stay and an offer from an approved institution, and pay the immigration health surcharge. We are looking at basic compliance, and there will be more information on that coming—tomorrow, I believe. I was with a number of university stakeholders on Monday. It is important that we work together with the universities to ensure compliance, but that we still attract the greatest minds to the country. Abuse on that route is down by 30% since we came into government, but last year we still saw 11,000 individuals enter on the student route and go on to claim asylum.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me for pressing him on the issue of fishing and seasonal visas, but we really need an answer, please.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am conscious that I only have two minutes before having to hand back—

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Tapp]

Let me just make a little progress. I will touch on fisheries. I have had important meetings with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and we are working to ensure that we come to the right conclusion on that. We have provided whaleboat fishermen —and sheep shearers—with concessions, but I think the agricultural sector needs a more holistic approach, and we are absolutely looking at that and working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Before my time comes to an end—my apologies if I have not been able to get through all the many points that were made—I will talk about earned settlement, which is vital. Someone who is looking to settle has to contribute to and integrate into the country. We saw unprecedented numbers arrive, as I have already detailed—I will not go through that again. We have had a massive consultation—the 200,000 responses are being analysed—and I and the Home Secretary will make it our personal mission to ensure that we provide a system that is firm but also fair and that absolutely rewards contribution, because that is what makes this country great.

A number of hon. Members raised specific cases with me. Please can we talk about those afterwards rather than trying to address them in this debate?

[Robbie Moore]

I appreciate that the Minister is short for time. Will he write to me in response to my question about the loophole associated with domestic abuse claims?

[Mike Tapp]

I will touch on it very quickly. I think “loophole” is a misrepresentation; I think it is an abuse of the system. We have new guidance, which came out in March, but there are other abuses—for example, those who say that they are gay when they are not—and we are ensuring that we deal with that.

I will conclude now, with apologies to Members that I could not get through all their many points, but we can of course talk outside the Chamber.

15:58

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank everyone who has contributed to this wide-ranging and interesting debate. I am afraid that I do not have time to reflect on each contribution, but I thoroughly appreciate Members coming and providing their thoughts on this important subject.

I thank the Minister for answering my many written parliamentary questions as I was doing my research, and for considering thoughtfully the recommendations in my report and writing to me with his thoughts. I know that he had limited time, but I was disappointed that he did not pick up on the move to remote-only English language testing, which is a very important topic to both me and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I want to emphasise that it is important that there is confidence in the system before the Home Office goes ahead, and I encourage the Minister to encourage his officials to accept the invitation to brief the Public Accounts Committee on that.

Fixing our visa system, closing the loopholes and putting the British people and their Government back in control of who our neighbours are should not be controversial. It is the norm throughout the world, and we need to make it the norm here in Great Britain.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system.

Rail Freight

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call Lisa Smart to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If that has not been secured, you should not speak. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of rail freight in the transport network.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Compared with many other aspects of the transport network, rail freight rarely gets the attention I feel it deserves, yet it can help us to achieve so much of what so many of us say we want for our communities, our economy and our planet. From cleaner air and less congested roads to building new homes and a more resilient economy, rail freight is not a niche industry concern but a national infrastructure priority.

The Tarmac site at Bredbury in my Hazel Grove constituency receives daily freight trains carrying construction materials from the Peak district, North Yorkshire and south Wales. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit last year and don my hi-vis. What struck me was how tangible the benefits were. I was joined by Huw Merriman from the Rail Freight Group and Chris Swan, among others, from the great team at the Tarmac facility. A single train delivery to that site can provide enough materials to build up to 30 new homes and, in doing so, removes around 60 HGV movements from the A6 and the surrounding residential streets. That is 60 fewer lorries on roads that my constituents use every day to get to work, school or the shops.

The north-west is one of the busiest regions in the country for rail freight. Aggregates move daily from Peak district quarries through my constituency and beyond. Container trains run on the west coast main line bound for Scotland, Trafford Park and Seaforth in Merseyside. Those flows matter not just to the industries that depend on them, but to every driver who would otherwise be sharing a road with the lorries that would replace them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I envy her region’s constructive approach. We unfortunately do not have any rail freight in Northern Ireland, and it is very disappointing, but there is a need to emphasise and build on the east-west relationship. We are all part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is really important. Does she agree that, when it comes to looking at rail transport links, maybe the Minister should cast an eye towards Northern Ireland? Maybe—just maybe—she might be able to encourage the Minister there to do something.

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman has, in his customary way, championed the needs of his constituents and the whole of Northern Ireland. I agree that rail freight is a very good thing of which there should be more. I am very keen to hear what the Minister has to say.

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

We had a rail freight line going down to the docks in Falmouth, but it was closed about 20 years ago. I am trying to reopen it, and we are working with the docks and potential customers to do so. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is something that the Government and Great British Railways, when it is set up, should be looking to support?

[Lisa Smart]

I agree on the importance of rail freight infrastructure. It really matters that the lines are in place and able to be used. I will talk about capacity and the importance of having dedicated rail paths for freight. I do not know the line the hon. Lady mentions, but perhaps I can visit her beautiful part of the world on my summer holidays.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. In Reading, which is in the same rail region as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), there is an excellent example of where co-ordination between track and train is already emerging in freight. It is offering great benefits to passengers and taking vehicles off the road, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned is happening in the north-west.

[Lisa Smart]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the positive impact that good rail freight infrastructure can have on passengers. We should not look at the two as separate entities; they work together and use some of the same infrastructure. More rail freight means fewer wagons on the road, so it is better for all passengers, whether in cars, wagons or on the railway.

As has been shown, this goes beyond my local area. Rail freight prevents 7 million HGV journeys every year across our nation, according to the Rail Freight Group. That means less wear on our roads, because HGVs cause disproportionately more damage to road surfaces than any other vehicle. The cost of that falls on all of us as taxpayers. It also means less congestion on already overstretched routes, resulting in cleaner air in the towns and villages that lorries would otherwise have passed through.

Rail freight can deliver real benefits to real communities, and we are still not using it nearly enough. According to independent research by Deloitte, rail freight currently contributes £2.5 billion in economic and social value to the country each year. Yet, according to the Rail Freight Group, the UK moves only about 7% of its freight by rail, which is less than half of the European average of 19%.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

On continental freight, the hon. Member mentioned volumes coming from the European Union. In my constituency, we have so much traffic coming in and out of Eurotunnel that there is not the gauge capacity for trains to come all the way through, so they have to offload and reload. Does she agree that the Government should support the enhancement of that gauge capacity, so that trucks can come all the way through, increasing demand and capacity for the whole system?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the hon. and learned Member’s insight based on his local understanding, and I strongly agree. For the Government to look at the whole of our rail infrastructure, not just that sitting on these islands, would be good for our economy, our environment and how we relate to our European neighbours and partners. We are moving more goods than ever across the country but the share going by rail is barely shifting, and we are falling further behind our European neighbours.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

My constituency has one of the busiest rail aggregate goods yards in the country, with about 300 trains delivering construction material each year. That replaces 14,000 long-distance lorries, which is 2.5 million HGV miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to do much more to support the rail freight industry to improve our environment, to reduce congestion and, above all, to build the homes we need?

[Lisa Smart]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The way he lays out the scale of the impact of rail freight on his constituency and the neighbouring area shows its importance. I will come on to a couple of suggestions for the Government that I hope will address some of his point.

Rail freight provides clear environmental benefits compared with the alternatives. Even when diesel-hauled, a freight train produces around 76% lower carbon emissions per tonne-kilometre than a lorry on the road. That figure improves dramatically with electrification, as electrically hauled freight cuts emissions further still, while also consuming far less track capacity because electric locomotives accelerate significantly better than diesel ones.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I have been supporting a project called Kernow Connect alongside Cornwall council, and it looks to advance freight capacity to Cornwall significantly. We have Falmouth, one of the deepest ports in the world, and fantastic resources such as critical minerals, but we do not have the infrastructure to take the freight to the rest of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister could start thinking about such projects, which are potentially ready to go, and get some feasibility study money to see if they are viable so that we can have the freight revolution the country needs?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend gives yet another tourist advert for the beautiful area he represents. He is right that long-term thinking about investing in our infrastructure for our environment, our communities and our economy is good and sensible. That work with Kernow Connect sounds interesting and worth further exploration.

As we continue to push towards net zero, as we must, that gap matters enormously. Moving freight off the roads and on to rail should be a core part of our decarbonisation programme, but we face several barriers to improving our rail freight network, and I am keen to hear from the Minister about the Government’s plans to address them.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Rail freight moves everything from Tesco containers to Cornish clay on its way to Stoke through my constituency. I would like to raise the issue of the rail freight workforce, because drivers’ wages and employment conditions can be very variable in the sector. Will the hon. Lady join me in recognising the value of ASLEF’s “Rail Freight Future” campaign? It backs many of her calls and emphasises the need for proper sanitary, welfare and rest facilities for freight drivers.

[Lisa Smart]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises the question of those working in the rail freight industry. It is vital to all of us that those employed in the industry have safe and sanitary working conditions. We should applaud the work they do to keep the industry going.

In the UK, we have consistently prioritised passenger services, and freight is often squeezed around and between them. The fundamental problem is the speed differential. A freight train typically runs at 60 to 75 mph, a limit set in the 1960s and barely reviewed since, while inter-city passenger trains run at 100 to 125 mph. That gap consumes enormous amounts of capacity. The Netherlands recognised that problem and built the Betuweroute, a dedicated freight-only railway completed this century, running directly from the ports of Rotterdam into Germany and relieving pressure on the existing network. We have no equivalent.

The second barrier is electrification. Nearly all rail freight in the UK is diesel-hauled. That is partly because our electrification coverage is derisory but also because electricity costs have perversely led some freight operators to switch back from electric to diesel traction. The west coast main line north of Warrington has inadequate power supplies for the current level of traffic. That is another reason why a lot of freight, and indeed the new London-to-Stirling Lumo open-access passenger service, is diesel rather than electric. In relative terms, even though the costs are not that high, agreement from the Treasury would be needed, and as far as I understand has not yet been obtained. It makes no sense for diesel trains to run on electrified railways because of power supply constraints.

The third barrier is signalling. Modern digital in-cab signalling, also known as the European train control system, makes far better use of existing infrastructure by creating uniformity in how trains brake and accelerate. It is planned as part of the TransPennine route upgrade, but there is no clear roll-out plan more widely. Would the Minister confirm whether there are any additional plans to use that form of signalling in other parts of the train network?

Rail freight supports our supply chain resilience, as it reduces road damage by replacing HGVs that cause disproportionately more wear on road surfaces than any other vehicle, but it also reduces congestion and supports key industries such as house building, which receives key supply chain components through rail freight. The materials needed to deliver the homes this country needs can move by rail at scale in a way that road haulage simply cannot replicate without adding to the gridlock on roads running through my constituency like the A6, Bents Lane or Stockport Road.

The Lib Dems are committed to a national freight strategy. We want planning law to be changed so that new developments provide freight access to manufacturing and distribution facilities, building the infrastructure for a modal shift in the economy rather than trying to retrofit it later. For that strategy to work effectively, we also need a network that can accommodate rail freight. Freight operators need guaranteed access to train paths. They need capacity on the network to be actively planned and protected, not squeezed out incrementally as passenger demand grows.

The Railways Bill creates Great British Railways, providing it with a duty to reserve capacity for its own services. Without explicit protections for freight, there is a real risk that freight corridors will be eroded over time. As currently drafted, the Bill could dilute the regulatory oversight of network capacity allocation in ways that could entrench the prioritisation of GBR’s own passenger services over private sector freight operators. The Government should be setting ambitious freight growth targets within GBR’s remit and outline plans on how to achieve them. That is why I urge the Minister to ensure the creation and protection of strategic freight corridors.

There are also opportunities for improvement in my constituency. Enabling infrastructure works at Ashburys and Ardwick via Northern Powerhouse Rail would enable the much-needed tram train services to Marple. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of how the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme can support freight and passenger ambitions in the north-west.

Rail freight is already quietly doing a great amount of work every day in communities across the country. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the Government intend to match that ambition with action.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this debate, and I thank her for providing this welcome opportunity to discuss the critical role that rail freight plays in strengthening supply chain resilience and supporting our economic and decarbonisation goals. Many hon. Members have taken part in the debate to highlight the important role that rail freight plays in their constituencies and the potential for its greater use, and to acknowledge the role of rail freight workers, on whom the industry depends.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out clearly, rail freight is at the heart of our transport and logistics networks. It moves materials to build our homes, food to stock our shelves and fuel to keep our lights on, and it does that with significant environmental and social benefits. It emits far less carbon than road freight. It takes lorries off congested roads, leading to less wear and tear on our local roads. Many communities recognise that it is valuable to shift heavy goods from road to rail, and that they would benefit from it.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Teesport is one of the country’s most important freight gateways, yet freight from the east coast main line, which is very congested, still has to travel via Darlington because the Northallerton to Eaglescliffe line lacks full W12 gauge clearance. Will the Minister commit to meeting me to discuss that issue and see what we can do to get those upgrades in place?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern in his part of England. I will ensure that the Rail Minister writes to him about that matter, or arranges a meeting if that is more appropriate.

In a world of increasing uncertainty and geopolitical volatility, it is vital that we have secure, resilient supply chains. Rail freight, which is a fuel-efficient way of transporting goods, is a core node in those supply chains. That is why the Government have been absolutely clear about our ambition to encourage the growth of the sector and to strengthen its role in our transport network. To that end, we have committed to the target of increasing rail freight by at least 75% by 2050.

Rail reform is a significant opportunity to realise that ambition. Members have been closely scrutinising the Railways Bill over the past few months, and it will of course return to this House for further debate shortly. Members know that the current system has failed to unlock fully the potential of rail freight, and lacks the incentives and the structural framework to drive growth. Nor do we have a single entity with strategic overview of the railway deciding what network capacity should be made available for freight.

The current model for network access is an application-led first come, first served market model with no whole-system oversight. The concept of strategic freight capacity, designed to reserve space on the railway for new freight, is broken. Train paths labelled as strategic freight are not actually strategically planned—often, they do not even join up to form useful routes—and even those limited paths are nigh-on impossible to safeguard because they are given the very lowest priority in the timetable rules. That has meant that, over time, the capacity earmarked for future freight has been eroded.

Great British Railways can and will deliver better outcomes for freight. It will have two freight-specific statutory duties: first, to promote the use of rail freight and, secondly, to have regard to the freight growth target set by the Secretary of State for Transport. Taken together, those duties will ensure that freight is embedded at the heart of GBR’s decision making.

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

It was great to welcome the Minister to my constituency to visit the east midlands rail freight terminal, which has huge potential to take vehicles off the road and on to rail.

Bardon has a quarry, and a private spur of the Ivanhoe line is used. In the conversation about reopening the Ivanhoe line, only a passenger assessment has been undertaken. Will the Minister consider both freight and passenger rail in future conversations about bringing rail lines back into use?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. She is a great champion for the freight industry more broadly, and I know how important it is to her constituency. I will certainly ensure that the Rail Minister, my noble Friend Lord Hendy, considers the issues that she raises.

A representative on GBR’s board will have responsibility for freight, and a central freight team will provide customers with a single point of contact for promoting freight across the organisation. Taken together, those measures will ensure strong leadership at the top and advocacy at the heart of the organisation.

The sector will also benefit from a new capacity allocation framework. That framework will support a more strategic and proactive approach to allocating capacity. It will have one single directing mind—Great British Railways—taking a whole-system approach to make best use of the available capacity. The access-and-use policy required by the framework and by the Railways Bill is being developed and will be consulted on in September.

We know that we alone cannot achieve our ambitions for the sector. That is why we are setting up GBR as an astute commercial entity. It will be equipped with the right incentives and mechanisms to engage with private investors and offer them commitments that secure a return on investment. That will encourage third parties to invest in rail, helping to drive modal shift and grow rail freight, which many Members, including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, have called for.

The hon. Lady raised a number of questions, a few of which I will attempt to pick up on. She asked about the expansion of more modern signalling, which will be helpful. The east coast digital programme is fitting signalling in a number of locomotives. That will be the first part of the network to have the signalling that she described, which can then be rolled out further. I recognise the importance of modernising our rail network to ensure that we take advantage of the new technologies available to enable trains to run closer together, for example, and therefore to create more capacity.

The hon. Lady also asked about the freight growth target. Under the duty set out in the Bill, GBR must have regard to the freight targets set by Ministers. It is expected to demonstrate how it has considered those targets and how its activities align with the goals set out by Ministers. Additionally, GBR’s business plan will be expected to demonstrate how it plans to work towards achieving the freight growth target. The Secretary of State will sign off that plan only once they have received expert advice from the Office of Rail and Road and are satisfied that the plans set out meet the Government’s expectations and priorities for the railways, including on rail freight.

Of course, the ORR has powers of appeal where freight operators are not happy about the way in which GBR has carried out its duties or feel that it has not taken decisions that are consistent with its policies. GBR is obviously bound by the Competition Act 1998, and will not be able to prioritise its own services. Its decision making must be fair, transparent and subject to challenge in the ways that I have set out.

I also want to take this opportunity to touch on the ongoing crisis in the middle east and the impact that it might have on the rail freight sector. The effects of the crisis have highlighted the importance of having a strong rail freight sector as a node in our resilient, diverse supply chains. Last month, the Chancellor cut fuel duty for red diesel users, such as rail freight operators, by more than a third until the end of the year. That means that rates are at their lowest level in more than 20 years. That will help to keep costs down and protect those vital businesses. As I think we all recognise, the economics of freight transport have sometimes disadvantaged rail freight. My officials will continue to work closely with rail freight operating companies on routine resilience planning as a sensible precaution to protect supply chains.

Finally, I emphasise again that rail freight will continue to be an integral part of our transport network as we transition to a new operating model for the railway. Our ambitious programme of reform will mean that rail freight can continue to prosper under a transformed rail sector. That will bring benefits for all our constituencies, including that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I recognise the importance of aggregates, not just in her constituency, with the example of tarmac, but across that whole part of the country, stretching into the east midlands—I have been and seen that for myself. That is why we want rail freight to thrive and prosper, and why, in setting up Great British Railways in the way that we have—with important duties in relation to rail freight—we are confident that we can grow this sector for the future, delivering the many benefits that she and other hon. Members have set out.

Question put and agreed to.

16:27

Sitting suspended.

Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for seasonal hospitality businesses in coastal areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. This debate concerns a set of issues that affect about one third of UK constituencies directly—constituencies with a coastline, including estuaries. It is therefore not a niche set of issues that affect only my constituency on the Isle of Wight, although they are vital for my constituency. It is a set of issues that go to the heart of so many constituencies in our island nation and so many out-of-the-way communities with long-standing structural challenges. I am grateful to cross-party colleagues who are attending this debate.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour knows that the last Conservative Government created the coastal communities fund, which supported Hayling Island in my Havant constituency. Under the current Administration, there is not a specific equivalent fund to support employment, hospitality or the business community. Will he join me in calling on the Government to create a specific fund to make sure places like Hayling Island are properly supported?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I will join him in that call. Indeed, he has dealt with an element of my speech nice and early, so I thank him for doing so.

According to UKHospitality, the sector accounts for around 10% of all UK jobs nationally. In tourism-led coastal communities it provides as much as 50% of local employment. On the Isle of Wight, tourism accounts for 38% of economic activity and is the biggest employment sector locally. When the sector suffers, coastal communities suffer in a way that is greater than elsewhere.

Coastal areas have faced challenges for decades, with cheap competition from holidays abroad, changing holiday preferences, an increase in the relative cost of travel, older population demographics, fewer job opportunities, and a lack of investment in infrastructure. High streets have suffered from dereliction and neglect, with all the societal challenges that follow.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point and an excellent speech. In west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, the situation is just as troubling. Indeed, it is an existential crisis. Does he agree that unless we address the current rate of VAT and/or the business rates that burden our hospitality businesses, many of them, including in my constituency, will not see the end of this year?

[Joe Robertson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is ahead of me: I will address the issue of business rates and VAT presently.

There are plenty of green shoots, however, in many of the communities, and brilliant local leaders trying to drive change, such as Lawrence Bates at the Wildheart Animal Sanctuary in Sandown, and Ian Boyd, founder of the Common Space. Start-ups and small businesses in hospitality are a major driver of regeneration and innovation, for example the Point in Bembridge, Braai in Brading, and the Sandown Boulevard street food market. But the Government have a role in creating an environment for hospitality to thrive.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

The hon. Member talks about the hospitality sector thriving. Does he share my concern that if the Government introduced a tourism tax, our areas could really suffer?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is also ahead of me: I will address the tourism tax in my speech.

As I say, the Government have a role in creating an environment for seasonal hospitality to thrive, but in my view this Government have done the opposite. I do not accuse the Government of setting out to make life harder for tourism and hospitality in coastal areas, but I do hold them responsible for being careless about how their policies, in particular taxation, have fallen on communities such as mine. It is time for the Government to recognise that and make amends.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I have heard from countless hospitality business in my constituency, be it the Bullers Arms in Bude, which has seen astronomical business rates, or Stir café in Wadebridge, where VAT is a huge struggle. National insurance contributions, wage costs and energy costs are going up. Does the hon. Member agree that the sector needs long-term support from the Government, such as the 5% VAT cut that the Liberal Democrats have proposed?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Member that there needs to be long-term support, but also immediate relief. Again, he pre-empts some of the points I am going to make—I realise that my introduction was perhaps a bit longer than it should have been, considering that other Members are making all the excellent points that I am about to.

Since the 2024 Budget, the hospitality industry has lost more than 100,000 jobs. Between January and March of this year alone, the equivalent of three hospitality businesses closed every single day. The sector was hit with a £3.4 billion annual cost increase from that Budget. The 2025 Budget added more through business rate changes and wage increases. It is therefore hardly a surprise that we have seen job losses on this scale.

The Government are refusing to take responsibility. How can they do the right thing now if they do not recognise the harm that is being caused and felt from their own tax policies? Some of the most significant damage done by the Government is to the employment opportunities for young people. Youth unemployment is up; indeed, it is now higher than in the period coming out of covid. The Government’s hike in national insurance, extending it to more part-time work, and changes to the minimum wage that reduce the competitive advantage of employing young people are also major drivers of that unemployment. It is not just theory; we are seeing the real-world consequences in the data and in our communities.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. On support for young people, I will be talking to the Skills Minister soon about what the youth guarantee scheme could do in hospitality. Does the hon. Member agree that the two would be a perfect match?

[Joe Robertson]

I would urge the hon. Member to do all that she can to encourage her ministerial colleagues to improve the lot for young people. The fact remains that youth unemployment is going up and coastal communities are suffering. I would welcome any intervention that the hon. Member can bring about through her powers of persuasion.

In coastal communities, hospitality provides flexible, accessible, seasonal work that simply does not exist in the same volume anywhere else in the local economy. More than half the sector’s workforce is part time. For many young people—students, carers, people managing health conditions—that flexibility is what makes work possible. Job postings for temporary hospitality work were down by 25% in 2025, year on year. For many people, summer jobs are their first job. They are jobs that give a young person in Ryde, Shanklin or Ventnor their first pay slip and their first employer reference.

There are 67 pubs in Isle of Wight East, four breweries, and 1,200 jobs in the sector, generating £40 million for the local economy. Nationally, the pub and brewing sector contributes £34 billion and generates £17 billion in tax. Those are not small numbers. Of course, pubs are about more than just pints. A third of drinks sold in hospitality are spirits, such as Mermaid Gin on the Isle of Wight. When distillers suffer, pubs suffer and vice versa.

The Bugle Inn in Brading sadly closed its doors for the final time just four days ago. Jasmine and Daniel were clear about the reasons why:

“We have become another victim of the current pub crisis. In the past 2 years, many of the taxes we pay to the Government have increased drastically, our gas and electricity has increased by almost double, the cost of ingredients has increased, some by as much as quadruple, wages have risen rapidly and business rates have increased.”

They go on to say:

“We have made the decision to leave the industry that we love and close the Bugle down.”

The Pointer Inn, in Newchurch, has taken aim at the Chancellor herself:

“The absolute legend Rachel Reeves”.

It also took aim at her “nice pub tax”, adding an AI image of what the pub might look like shortly. Then there is the Hare and Hounds, which is located just outside Newport and dates back to the 1730s, but has now been shut.

I turn to the holiday tax, or the visitor levy, which has already been referred to. This is an overnight visitor levy, which is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Coastal tourism visits have already fallen by 10% since April last year. Analysis by Oxford Economics suggests that if a 5% levy of the kind operating in Edinburgh was fully introduced by 2030, we would see a £1.8 billion reduction in tourism spending, 33,000 jobs being lost and 9 million fewer nights being spent in accommodation. These are not small margins. In coastal communities, where summer trading keeps businesses viable through the winter, the damage would be concentrated and severe.

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

The visitor levy is the wrong policy at the wrong time, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, and I have discussed it with UKHospitality. Does he agree that we need to stop this tax, at the same time as cutting VAT? If we do not, we will end up with an effective VAT rate on hospitality and tourism businesses of 27%, which, compared with the rates in Ireland and Germany, for example, at 9% and 7% respectively, is just not competitive.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is right, we need both. Our tourism and hospitality sector is one of the most highly taxed tourism and hospitality sectors, compared with our European neighbours, who already have a cost-competitive advantage.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is talking about holidays. Our Chancellor has just announced the great British summer savings, which will see VAT slashed from 20% to 5% on activities, children’s meals and attractions. Does he welcome that move?

[Joe Robertson]

I understand that the hon. Lady is trying to sell her own Chancellor’s policies, but this support is pretty thin—a short, indeed temporary, VAT tax giveaway, set against the severe damage done by two successive Budgets, which runs into the tens of billions of pounds.

On business rates, the hospitality sector pays 10% of all eligible business rates but accounts for only 2% of relevant economic activity. That equates to an overpayment of £1.8 billion. The Government legislated for a 20% discount; what they have delivered is a 5% discount. Without a sector-wide solution, 963 restaurants and 574 hotels could face closure this year, and we are already seeing closures.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. We are talking about the importance of hospitality in our coastal communities. Given that hospitality is such a cornerstone activity in our coastal communities, providing many young people with their first jobs and providing jobs for the entire supply chain throughout our coastal communities, does he agree that the Government should consider hospitality as a cornerstone profession in these areas? Instead of hammering it with national insurance contributions, high VAT and now a visitor levy, the Government should do everything they can to boost hospitality, to put a rocket underneath employment in these communities?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with all those comments. The Government should do all they can to support this sector. I say again that coastal communities face some of the biggest structural challenges, in terms of both demographics and geography, of any of our communities. That is why the Government should have a particular focus on these areas.

I will finish by speaking briefly about transport. A House of Lords Select Committee identified in 2019 and again in 2023 that poor transport connectivity is holding coastal communities back. The Isle of Wight knows that better than most places. The Government have made no specific investment plans for transport in coastal communities. Instead, for the Isle of Wight, the Government have increased the already rip-off costs of crossing the Solent by car—of course, the Isle of Wight is completely reliant on ferries for transport to and from the island—and have done that by introducing a new emissions trading scheme tax, which they have not applied to Scottish islands with smaller populations and have not applied in full to Northern Ireland with a bigger population. It is insulting and inexcusable.

The Government say that they want coastal communities to succeed, but a whole string of policies and tax-and-spend decisions do not support that aim. Indeed, many directly undermine it. I therefore call on the Government to support seasonal hospitality in coastal areas by scrapping their plans for the overnight visitor levy, introducing a national insurance holiday for businesses employing young people and those not in employment, education or training, and scrapping business rates for thousands of hospitality businesses up and down the country permanently. The Government should stop trying to convince businesses, whose rates are going up, that they are going down—businesses know what their rates are. They should urgently publish the promised visitor economy growth strategy and disapply the ETS tax on car ferry travel to the Isle of Wight, bringing it in line with every other UK island that will pay nothing.

Our hospitality businesses are resilient and have survived a great deal, but resilience has limits. I hope that the Minister can offer the House and my constituents some genuine reassurance this afternoon.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

We have a lot of wannabe speakers in this very short and time-constrained debate. I will set and stick to a speaking limit of three minutes, which might mean that we do not get everybody in, so if anybody feels like being shorter and punchier, that would be great.

16:46

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

Coastal hospitality businesses are central to communities such as mine in South East Cornwall. It is not a niche sector for us; accommodation and food services count for around 16.7% of our employment, which is more than double the UK average and shows how crucial they are for my community. It is important to recognise that they face very different challenges. They generate a majority of their annual income in a very short trading window, and a few weeks of poor weather, transport disruption, energy costs, labour shortages or antisocial behaviour during the peak season in Cornwall can really impact their year ahead.

One of the greatest challenges is workforce retention and recruitment, and businesses cannot function without their staff. Our communities are not sustainable if we do not have local people who can afford to live and work locally. I therefore want us to move away from the view that coastal communities’ economies function only in these short windows of time, and one way to do that is to invest in local people for year-round employment. Greater support for skills through apprenticeships and training can help to create opportunities, and I welcome the work of the youth hub in Liskeard, which was developed through a partnership between Cornwall council and the Department for Work and Pensions. Early results show encouraging improvement in retention and young people accessing work and training, including in hospitality businesses.

I also want to highlight that transport infrastructure is crucial for allowing people to get to work and continue a thriving community such as mine. The value of our local identity and heritage, with Cornish culture, language and food, adds an extra impetus to visit us and work with us in our local community, and we can strengthen that further by securing procurement opportunities with local providers wherever possible, which I know many of my pubs do.

The challenges are very real for hospitality businesses in South East Cornwall. I welcome the temporary reduction in VAT on children’s meals and family activities to 5% throughout the summer. As I have discussed, free bus travel for young people will really help them get to work. The extension of the 5p fuel duty cut, reductions in red diesel duty and increases to tax-free mileage allowances will help families, workers and businesses, and I encourage the Minister to visit us in Cornwall to see that in action.

However, businesses tell me about the pressures of VAT. This month, we will see the loss of valued venues. I held a meeting recently with local pubs and heard their concerns at first hand. Those concerns affect my community and are a part of a much-needed wider conversation about VAT rates and the campaign led by Tom Kerridge. Given that we want thriving coastal communities—I know the Minister does—will the Government set out how they are ensuring that policy on licensing, staffing, apprenticeships and business support reflects the realities of communities like mine? I look forward to working with her and the Government to deliver just that.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Admirably done. I call Richard Foord.

16:54

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

It an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. This debate on coastal hospitality has come just at the right time—just before the summer holidays. While many might be thinking about relaxing, the prospect of a visitor levy or tourist tax represents real concern for the hospitality industry, not least in my east Devon constituency. It is sobering news for many in the industry who depend on the summer months to turn a decent profit for the whole year round.

Before I dwell on the tourist tax, I will talk for a moment about two of my constituents, Martin and Shelley from Seaton. In 2016, they purchased a small chalet park in east Devon, which is open for seven and a half months of the year. Despite investing their life savings in the park and working full time, they are concerned that their future livelihood will be wiped out by the unintended consequence of leasehold legislation. We all know that leasehold legislation is rightly required to crack down on rogue landlords and rogue property management companies, and to prevent them from exploiting relationships with tenants, but it is not designed to capture chalet parks. However, my constituents find that under the legislation their chalets may be classed as long leases, subject to the ground rent cap. They fear being caught in the lease extension problem: when the leases expire in about 40 years, they will have to issue an extension, but then they will be able to charge only a peppercorn rate. They are concerned that the very modest park fees they charge, which the current lessees are very happy with, will not be sufficient to sustain the business. The Government should recognise that their leasehold legislation is catching people who were not intended to be caught by it.

Let me turn to the tourist tax. Many young or part-time workers at holiday parks and hotels depend on seasonal work opportunities in our local coastal hospitality industry. Local businesses such as Forest Glade holiday park in Kentisbeare support local jobs, local suppliers and the wider rural economy. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who talked about the visitor levy as the wrong policy at the worst possible time; he has done us a favour by securing this debate. I, too, implore the Government to engage with coastal communities and hospitality, understand their opposition to the measure and abandon the tourist tax before the inevitable economic harm hits our areas.

16:54

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate.

For too long, coastal towns such as Blackpool were overlooked by previous Governments in Westminster, so I am proud to stand here and represent my home town as its MP. In Blackpool, local partners have worked together to build, as much as possible, a year-round visitor economy. Blackpool Tourism Ltd, Blackpool council, Blackpool Business Improvement Districts and many others have helped to diversify our calendar of events and extend the traditional tourist season. Events such as Lightpool, Christmas By the Sea and Blackpool Restaurant Week are bringing more people into the town throughout the year and helping local businesses benefit from increased footfall beyond our summer months. Blackpool is also longlisted to become the UK city of culture in 2029—even though we are a proud seaside town—which is welcome recognition of the creativity, ambition and culture that exists in our coastal town.

We are now calling on the Government to match our ambition with investment and support. That is why I continue to make the case for a world-class arena in Blackpool, including by taking my plan to the Prime Minister just three weeks ago. Three thousand residents have already signed my petition, because they recognise what an arena could mean for our town. We have incredible attractions, a growing independent creative scene and world-class historic venues, but we are still missing a major indoor arena capable of attracting large-scale concerts, conferences and sporting events throughout the year. An arena would strengthen our visitor economy, support hospitality businesses, create jobs and bring more people into Blackpool during the traditionally quieter periods, cementing our position as a year-round resort. We want to unlock private investment, but Government support will give us the confidence needed to make that vision a reality.

I welcome the Government’s summer savings scheme, which will reduce VAT on summer attractions. That is good news for families and businesses that rely on a stronger visitor economy. It is an important step and begins a vital conversation about the potential merits of reducing VAT across the whole hospitality and tourism sector, bringing us closer in line with our European competitors—something I have been calling for as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism.

Hospitality can be a thriving, driving force for job creation and economic growth, but the Government, industry and local communities must work together. We need targeted investment in the sector, we need to help businesses grow and we need to back coastal communities, which have been overlooked for far too long. Blackpool has shown what can be achieved through local ambition, partnership and determination. With the right support, we can build on that momentum. We can create more opportunities for young people, strengthen our local economy and unlock our full potential.

16:55

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. People are drawn to North Norfolk’s beautiful coastal communities and they stay for our fantastic hospitality sector. The sector is the backbone of our tourist economy and creates hundreds of jobs, contributing millions to our economy. It is a crucial part of our local identity, but it is also an industry, like so many, that faces challenges. It could deliver huge growth in areas that desperately need it, but unless the Government face up to the challenges, there is an existential threat to many coastal businesses.

The elephant in the room is the soaring costs that businesses face, driven partially by international affairs, but also massively by the Government’s avoidable jobs tax. Many of the cost increases the Government have caused could be absorbed by a huge business with a sizeable bottom line, but they can push a small shop in Wells-next-the-Sea or a hotel on the Norfolk broads into a really difficult position, making it unviable to bring in more staff and grow the business.

A further staffing challenge concerns training and skills for our hospitality industry, which could provide a skilled profession to many, particularly young people. A coastal community such as North Norfolk is a hotbed of opportunity.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

The data suggests that vacancy levels in hospitality remain very high. One element of the difficulties facing hospitality businesses is, in fact, skills shortages. Would the hon. Member agree that the anticipated youth mobility scheme for EU youths and the Government’s youth guarantee scheme, which will be supported by youth hubs such as the one coming to my constituency, will be an important part of addressing those skills shortages?

[Steff Aquarone]

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I thank him for his intervention. Those things are all great, but I gently say that in rural and coastal communities such as mine they will be useless without the public transport accessibility options that will get young people to those opportunities. So it is a “Yes, and”.

The availability of training, the funding for it and the challenges of accessing it are all blocking young people and employers from benefiting. The Government need to see the opportunity to tackle unemployment and deliver growth by backing businesses and young people.

Finally, transport challenges are a choke point for growth in our communities. I want to see better connected, more affordable public transport in our coastal communities, such as between Wells and Norwich, to make it easier for people across the county, the country and the world to come and see North Norfolk and our world-class hospitality businesses and to support our communities.

16:58

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate, which matters enormously to communities like Hartlepool. For far too long, politics in this country has been obsessed with helping the wrong people. Big business gets bigger, shareholders get richer and large cities grow. Meanwhile, the people who keep our towns alive are fighting for survival: the family businesses, the independent hotels, the cafés, pubs and restaurants, and the people who get up before dawn and work seven days a week and take all the risks.

Take Lee and Claire Dexter, who run the Marine Hotel on Seaton Crew seafront in my constituency. Their family-run business has been there for more than 30 years, yet thanks to rising costs, higher business rates and changes to employer national insurance, they face almost £30,000 in additional costs. For Westminster, that might seem like a line on a spreadsheet, but for family businesses, it can mean the difference between investing or standing still, hiring staff or cutting hours, and staying open or closing the doors. Hospitality is not some niche sector in Hartlepool; it is one of our major industries. Restaurants and catering generate more than £95 million in turnover, support 3,400 jobs and contribute more than £47 million in economic value—that is before we even count our hotels, pubs and visitor attractions. Hospitality is not a side issue for Hartlepool; it is jobs, livelihoods and local pride—and it is a huge part of our future.

I ask the Minister: can we be bolder? First, will the Government ensure that business rates reform properly reflects the pressures facing seasonal coastal businesses, including hotels and restaurants as well as pubs? I welcome the action taken on pubs by the Government. Secondly, will Ministers look again at the impact of employer national insurance increases on family-run hospitality businesses? Thirdly, will the Government consider regional variations in jobs taxes to drive investment into left-behind communities? Fourthly, will Ministers recognise that visitor levies are often inappropriate in coastal towns that are still trying to grow their visitor economies? Finally, will the Government bring forward a joined-up plan for coastal hospitality covering taxation, staffing, transport, skills and visitor attractions?

Hartlepool has everything it needs to succeed, and our hospitality businesses have done their bit. They have shown resilience through covid, rising costs and economic uncertainty. Those businesses deserve a fair deal. It is time that Westminster finally gave them one.

17:01

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. West Dorset is home to the world famous Jurassic coast, a UNESCO world heritage site. Tourism contributes more than £320 million annually to the West Dorset economy and supports over 5,000 jobs—all thanks to the 4 million day visitors and 2 million people who stay overnight annually. However, behind the postcard image, many of the businesses that support our economy are under immense pressure.

I have been contacted by countless constituents who run pubs, hotels, restaurants, cafés, campsites and holiday parks. They tell me that they are now operating on margins so thin that a single, unexpected cost increase can put their future at risk. Business rates remain one of their biggest concerns. The George in West Bay told me that its business rates bill increased from £8,000 to £27,000 in a year. That is not a sustainable increase for a local hospitality business trying to serve its community and employ local people.

The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the business rates system is fundamentally broken. We would replace it with a commercial landowner levy based on land values rather than the capital value of buildings. We would also maintain the existing 75% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses until that reform is delivered, while freezing the small business multiplier. Hospitality businesses should be rewarded for investing in their premises and communities, not punished for it.

National insurance increases have also added pressure. The hospitality sector relies heavily on part-time and seasonal workers. Many businesses in West Dorset have told me that the recent hikes have significantly increased their staffing costs. The Liberal Democrats oppose those changes and continue to call for their reversal. Businesses are job creators.

Then there is the ongoing cost of living crisis. Businesses across West Dorset tell me that visitor numbers remain relatively strong, but spending behaviour has changed dramatically. At a hospitality and tourism roundtable that I hosted, West Dorset Leisure Holidays explained that visitors are increasingly making decisions based solely on price rather than quality. Understandably, when households are facing rising costs, eating out becomes a luxury and is often one of the first things that they cut back on.

I welcome the Chancellor’s recent decision to implement the summer savings scheme, but that alone is not enough. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a reduction in VAT for hospitality, accommodation and leisure businesses until April 2027. That would help businesses, support jobs and encourage consumers back into the local economy. Hospitality businesses in West Dorset are doing everything that they can and doing everything right. They create jobs, support communities and welcome visitors to our part of the country from around the world. They deserve a Government who recognise their value.

17:04

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I represent Exmoor, the northern edge of which runs along west Somerset to the coast. There, the visitor economy supports about two thirds of all employment: there are 8.4 million visitor days a year and economic activity of upwards of £700 million. However, my constituent Cathy Britton, who runs Eduardo’s pizzeria and café in Porlock, tells me that her turnover is down by 50% from last year. Rising business costs and falling footfall have left her feeling squeezed. Napoleon called England a “nation of shopkeepers”—disparagingly, as it happens. But Cathy says that European visitors, who frequently come to walk in the steps of Ada Lovelace along the South West Coast Path, are bemused by how quiet the high street is and by how few shops are open.

The ripple effects of dwindling visitor numbers are felt beyond the seafront, too. My friend Paul Hardy, an antique dealer in Dulverton—some 10 miles away from the coast—tells me that business is down 70% on last year. He relies significantly on passing custom from the tourist trail: visitors who come for the coast and the moor, and who spend along the way. He now fears the additional impact of an overnight visitor levy, a measure that risks compressing the season on which businesses such as his depend. It is worth making the obvious point that coastal seasonal hospitality is not a self-contained economy; it is the engine that drives commercial activity across a much wider hinterland.

No economy functions without movement, and in west Somerset, movement is precisely what is missing. Take the B3191 at Cleeve Hill between Watchet and Blue Anchor, which has now been closed for two years. Both towns are coastal, with some 6,000 people and over 100 businesses. They are effectively dependent on a single vehicular route. Should that remaining route fail, the towns could be cut off entirely, with access gone—and with it, the tourism trade on which that coastal economy depends. I ask the Government directly: will they draw on the Department for Transport structures fund, a £1 billion pot established precisely for situations such as this one, to fix it?

Butlin’s in Minehead is a major employer for my constituents. It hosts some 6,000 holidaymakers a week during the peak season. But west Somerset is in many respects a cul-de-sac—difficult to reach and navigate after arrival. That is bad for visitors, and for the businesses and workers who depend on that footfall. Supporting seasonal hospitality in coastal areas is a question of business rates, business rates relief and tourism, but it is also a matter of sustained investment in our roads, bus routes and rail connections—the transport infrastructure that makes these coastal places accessible in the first place.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. With apologies to Mr Shannon, I now call Seamus Logan as the final speaker and give the Liberal Democrat spokesman three minutes’ notice.

17:07

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate.

Report after report has complained about the impact of the Labour Government’s national insurance hikes, which are felt in my constituency no less than in others. Aberdeenshire North and Moray East is the very definition of a coastal community, from Cruden bay to the Spey. Businesses are coping with the hikes by cutting back on hiring or cancelling increases in their workforces, by adding the extra cost to prices and by reducing employee benefits and compensation packages. That is not how to grow an economy; it is the opposite.

We were promised that the coastal growth fund would be the antidote to the effect of the Labour Government’s deal with the European Union. In Scotland, we got less than 8%, despite the industry there representing more than 50% of the entire industry of the UK—another insult.

I could go on about the Scottish Government, but in the interests of time I will touch on two other issues. My party has been clear for quite some time about the need to create a bespoke Scottish visa for Scottish businesses, but we have been met by deaf ears from this Government and particularly the Home Secretary. Labour’s Muscatelli report recommended that the Scottish Government push for a bespoke immigration system that tackles the unique issues faced across the Scottish economy, including in my constituency. In her response, can the Minister undertake to make representations to the Home Secretary on this point?

Farming, fishing, the NHS, social care, hospitality and tourism are all suffering in my constituency because of this Government’s policies. We need an immediate and lasting reduction in VAT until we have passed the current cost of living crisis. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that.

17:09

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on obtaining this important and illuminating debate. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I was heartened that a number of Members said that transport was significant for our coastal communities. That is a massive pinch point for me and colleagues in Devon and Cornwall.

At least in Torbay, my part of Devon, our audience is mostly the west midlands and south Wales. The route down is sometimes a bit of a car park on the M5 in high season, so making sure that we enhance the offer of our railways is extremely important. We have an unfinished job at Dawlish—section 5 of the scheme is yet to be done. Significant upgrades to our railways across Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset are extremely important to enhance the offer of travelling by rail and get more people off the roads into more sustainable transport. At the moment, Lumo is looking at running additional trains via Bristol to Paddington from Paignton. If people could take advantage of those, it would provide an opportunity to get more vehicles off the roads.

Let me move on to what Torbay has to offer when people arrive. Rock Garden is one of my favourite pub restaurants. David, the manager, told me that his business rates are crippling him; it is a great pity that we saw only tinkering around the edges of business rates from the Government rather than the wholesale reform that we were promised. As a colleague has already mentioned, Liberal Democrats want to see a commercial landowner levy, which is a lot more sustainable and would encourage growth, rather than people being punished for investing in their businesses.

As for the cost of running a business, David is paying £3,000 a month for heating and running the kitchens. The Liberal Democrats called on the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate that last autumn, but sadly it chose not to. The Liberal Democrats ask the Minister to see what she can do to support small and medium-sized businesses with their rocketing energy bills, which they are often locked into. As colleagues have already mentioned, we have a plan to cut VAT by 5% for hospitality until next spring, which would drive positive change and footfall up and down our high streets, and not just in our coastal communities.

Beverley holiday park is an incredible, multi-award-winning family-run business, but it has been crippled by the double whammy of the national insurance hike, with the challenges around the number of people it can employ, and the lowering of the threshold to £5,000—particularly for seasonal workers. That is significant for the park. It has crippled its ability to offer the jobs it has traditionally been able to. The park also faces the challenge of taking on seasonal workers for the short peak of the season and training them up. That is a challenge for younger people, who are not in quite the same place as people may have been 40 years ago and need a bit more support, as the Alan Milburn report highlighted. There is progress to be made there.

Finally, I would like to reflect on something really special to a lot of our seaside resorts: the amusement arcade. Earlier this week, I was speaking to the people who run Golden Palms in Torquay. They have exactly the same challenges with national insurance hikes and energy costs. Before the general election, they were assured that there would be changes to regulations in that world, and it was lost in the wash-up. Minister, can we please look at that?

17:14

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and to be responding today on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I begin by sincerely congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate, and I thank all Members who have spoken so passionately about their constituencies.

As my hon. Friend is well aware, hospitality is far from just another part of the economic picture in coastal Britain; in many coastal towns, it is the local economy. Whether the café on the seafront, the family-run hotel, the pub overlooking the harbour, the fish and chip shop or the restaurant by the beach, these are businesses that come to life when the sun comes out and, more often than not in this country, even when it does not.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I can testify that, for Northern Ireland, cost increases have forced almost 90% of hospitality businesses, many of which are found on our coastlines, to operate at below 90% of the required capacity. Tax rises have forced 50% of hospitality businesses to cut their workforces, and 68% have had to increase their prices, limiting the growth of this sector. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must step in? Wherever we are in the United Kingdom, we are all under pressure.

[Rebecca Paul]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I often do. Hospitality businesses are valued employers, community anchors and, for many young people, the first step on the career ladder. I think we all agree that such businesses should be supported right across the country—a point that the hon. Gentleman just eloquently made—but that support especially matters in coastal areas, as has been highlighted so clearly.

The first point I want to make is that seasonal hospitality is, by definition, seasonal. That may sound obvious, but from studying the Government’s approach to employment regulation, one sometimes wonders whether Ministers have grasped it. A seaside café does not have the same staffing needs on a wet Tuesday in January as it does on an August bank holiday. A hotel in a resort town cannot pretend that February occupancy and summer occupancy are the same thing. This sector hinges on the weather, the school holidays, domestic tourism and the reality that coastal footfall rises and falls sharply across the year.

When Ministers push forward employment laws that make flexible and seasonal working harder, they are striking at the operating model that has sustained the coastal hospitality sector for generations. The Employment Rights Act 2025’s approach to guaranteed hours puts seasonal employers in an impossible position. The Opposition have warned the Government of this, which is why a future Conservative Government would repeal every job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth measure in the Act as a matter of urgency.

Additionally, the Government’s national insurance rise has made it more expensive to employ people. The threshold has fallen, the rate has risen and labour-intensive businesses, especially hospitality, have been hit particularly hard. At the same time, business rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure was cut from 75% to 40%, and it is next set to end entirely. For seasonal businesses of all types, that is a brutal combination. Tragically, and infuriatingly, I know that many will not survive it.

The truth is simple: this Government are hammering hospitality left, right and centre, with higher employer national insurance, higher business rates, more regulation, more risk and more costs piled on to the very businesses they claim to support. Ministers say they want growth, but their policies are doing the opposite. Businesses are closing. Pubs that have stood at the heart of their communities for generations are wondering how much longer they can last. Cafés and restaurants are looking at the bills landing on their doormats and asking whether they can afford to open their doors at all.

However, there is a better way. This Government could adopt our policy of taking 250,000 high street businesses, including pubs and hospitality businesses, out of business rates entirely. That would make an immediate difference—for many, it would be the difference between thriving or closing up for good. We would also repeal the family business tax, because family firms should be able to last across generations, rather than being bled dry by the Government when one generation tries to pass a business on to the next.

I will be visiting the Isle of Wight myself later in the summer for my friend’s wedding at Osborne House, which I know will be the wedding of the year. My friend has deep ties to the communities there, and she has told me much about the brilliant local businesses—from the Gossips Café in Yarmouth to traditional rural pubs such as the Horse and Groom and the Chequers Inn, whose owner, Mark Holmes, has been commendably vocal in calling for more support so that pubs can survive. These are exactly the sorts of unique places that give coastal and island communities their character.

17:19

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate on Government support for seasonal hospitality and leisure businesses in coastal areas. I thank all hon. Members for talking about businesses in their communities and constituencies. I could really hear their passion as they championed their local areas and businesses.

The debate is important because the sectors are important. They provide accessible jobs, drive tourism and generate significant economic activity. They support local economies, particularly in coastal and seaside communities, where tourism, hospitality and leisure form the backbone of economic activity. They support wider social objectives, creating vibrant places where people want to visit, work, live and invest.

Creating the economic and social environment that hospitality and leisure businesses need to thrive cuts right across Government. Members have raised so many issues that cut across the responsibilities of many Departments, and I thank them for that. Co-ordinated action from the Department for Businesses and Trade and myself, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Treasury is required to ensure that the great British seaside has a secure and prosperous future.

That is especially important when many coastal communities are entirely dependent on hospitality and leisure businesses to provide the vast majority of employment and opportunity for local people. They prop up the vital local government services that residents rely on, too. These businesses are not simply part of the local economy; they are the local economy.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Last year, I worked with some of the businesses in my coastal community to develop a local economic growth plan. Would the Minister meet me to discuss that plan and some of the policies that we would like to see?

[Kate Dearden]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and his brilliant local businesses. I thank him for his intervention.

I regularly meet local businesses from across the hospitality sector, and I hear at first hand about the pressures that seasonal and coastal operators face. I recognise the importance of hospitality businesses in our coastal communities. I have been delighted to meet many hon. Friends representing coastal towns and cities to understand the challenges that hospitality and leisure businesses in their constituencies and across the UK face.

I recently spent the day visiting Blackpool with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) to meet business owners, workers and residents who have come together to extend their peak season and reduce the structural issues of operating seasonally. Visiting in April came with a breeze, but that was never going to stop the magic of going up Blackpool tower, having delicious fish and chips and talking all things hospitality. I thank my hon. Friend for his hospitality on that day. It was particularly useful to meet those leading Blackpool’s tourism sector who are using hospitality as a launch pad for social mobility, high-quality employment and local regeneration.

It is clear, both in Blackpool and across the UK, that future-proofing our coastal communities is only possible by developing those strong partnerships between public, private and third sector organisations. I have taken the learnings from meetings with colleagues and from contributions to the debate, and I will continue to do so with my colleagues across Government. I assure hon. Members that I will work with them and their communities to continue to deliver for coastal towns and communities.

I thank hon. Members for raising the issue of business rates with me on numerous occasions on behalf of businesses in their constituencies. Members will know that we have introduced permanently lower business rates multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. I know that the Conservative party put temporary relief in place, so it is right that we give businesses permanent relief. We did not think that was right, which is why we stepped in and made our announcements. In addition, we have provided support to pubs and live music venues.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her replies to all our questions. We need to encourage more people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take home holidays. Looking at all the problems across the world, we should encourage our own people to have their holidays at home. Does the Minister think that that is a good idea?

[Kate Dearden]

I am always happy to hear suggestions of how we can do things better and raise awareness of the support that is available. I am really happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s points on board, and I thank him for them.

We will ensure that the business rates system better reflects the realities faced by businesses in the visitor economy. As part of that, the Government are committed to reviewing the methodologies used to value pubs and hotels and will, if necessary, make changes at the next revaluation to ensure valuations accurately reflect the rental market for these properties. Unfortunately, the Conservative party did not take that approach, but we will. We have worked with businesses since we came into government, and will do so in the coming years, to get that right.

On labour costs and workforce models, I recognise the concerns about the potential impact of changes to employment rights on businesses that rely on seasonal and flexible staffing. We have talked about that topic at length, and I thank the shadow Minister for raising it today. It is important that we get the balance right to support workers while ensuring that businesses can continue to operate and create opportunities, which is why we will consult closely with businesses, trade unions and workers over the coming months to understand the impacts in full.

I recognise the strength of feeling a number of hon. Members expressed on such proposals as the overnight visitor levy. As they will know, those powers have been devolved to local metro mayors, and although many have already clarified how they plan to use them, all measures that may be introduced will be subject to consultation with local stakeholders, including hospitality and leisure business owners and advocacy groups.

Members will know about the wider support measures the Government are taking, from our small business strategy to make sure that we create the conditions for short-term resilience and long-term growth, to raising the employment allowance, replacing the apprenticeship levy with the new growth and skills levy, tackling late payments and reviewing the licensing system, alongside our upcoming high street strategy.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I extend to the Minister a warm invitation to visit the wonderful Ceredigion Preseli coastline in the summer. We have heard much mention this afternoon of a possible reduction to the rate of VAT for hospitality and tourism businesses. Would the Government consider that? It would give many hospitality businesses not only a hope of survival but confidence that they might be able to invest in their businesses.

[Kate Dearden]

I would have a busy diary if I said yes to everyone in the room, but I will take the hon Gentleman’s kind invitation away with me. He will know about our recent announcements on boosting summer demand, delivering temporary and targeted VAT cuts for family-focused hospitality and leisure businesses, alongside our wider cost-of-living support measures. Those are really important, because when money is back in people’s pockets, they can spend and support our local high streets and brilliant hospitality businesses. As he will know, the Government keep all taxes under review as part of the policy-making process, and the Chancellor will announce any changes to the tax system at fiscal events, in the usual way.

I will finish on the high street strategy before moving on to further points that were raised by Members. We are delivering more than £150 million to turn the tide on the challenges and pressures facing our high streets, including those in the coastal communities that need it most. Getting those back to being the proud economic hubs of towns and villages is really important; once again we want to see thriving businesses and communities, and a true sense of pride in place. The Government will shortly publish our visitor economy growth strategy, which will establish an ambitious, long-term plan to increase visitor flows, boost value and deliver sustainable growth for the entire UK, including our coastal and rural communities.

Supporting growth in hospitality and leisure sectors through both tourism and skills is absolutely essential to the Government’s approach. This debate has reinforced the importance of tourism as a driver of economic activity in coastal communities. Visitor spending support jobs, sustains local businesses and underpins the vitality of many seaside towns. That is essential, and will maintain the UK’s position as a competitive and attractive destination, while ensuring that local areas have the tools that they need to support sustainable growth.

As has been mentioned, hospitality and tourism sectors also play a crucial role in providing accessible employment, particularly for young people and those entering the labour market. As colleagues may know, my first job was in hospitality—that was the route that I started on, as it was for many Members here today and across the House. It gives skills for life. That sector is valuable for young people: it is the third largest employer in the UK, with 3.6 million people working in the sector, and plays a crucial role in providing those jobs. Given that nearly 40% of the wider visitor economy workforce is aged 16 to 24, the sector will play a key role in the Government’s plan to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training. If I had more time, I would talk to hon. Members about the youth guarantee, national insurance relief for those under 21 and those under 25 in apprenticeships, and so much more that we are working on through Skills England and the apprenticeship levy.

Only two minutes of the debate are left and I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East will want to wind-up shortly, so to conclude, we recognise where we can further support different communities all across our economy. That is why we have, for example, significantly increased the hospitality fund. That will provide lots of opportunities to help rural areas in particular, and I am keen to work closely with colleagues on that. It will be £10 million over the next three years, which is significant funding. I assure Members and industry that this Labour Government recognise the importance of hospitality and leisure businesses, and we will work closely with them and colleagues across Government to do so. As the proud Minister with that responsibility, I assure them that I will work tirelessly in the time ahead to represent sector interests, including those of businesses at the heart of our coastal communities.

17:29

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister for her response. Obviously, it falls short of what we are calling for, but I thank her for her consideration. I urge her to continue to consider providing more support and better relief for those living in coastal communities.

15:04

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